British Columbia Hansard — Tuesday, October 28, 2003 (37th Parliament, 4th Session) (H1028pm-11) (H1028pm 11)

H1028pm-11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 17, Number 11 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 28, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Tributes....................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7589 Legislative press gallery Webster Award winners and nominees J.

MacPhail Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 7589 Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7589 Youth Justice Act (Bill 63) Hon. G. Plant Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 79) Hon. R.

Neufeld Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 7590 Federal policy on gravel extraction from Fraser River R. Hawes Naturopathy J. MacPhail Economic development in Lumby T. Christensen Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7591 Loss of income assistance benefits J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell Crime rate in B.C. J. MacPhail Hon. R. Coleman Hon. G.

Campbell Development of aquaculture industry G. Trumper Hon. J. van Dongen Government aid for B.C. cattle industry P. Nettleton Hon. J. van Dongen Employment standards in agriculture industry K. Stewart Hon. G. Bruce Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 7594 P.

Nettleton Reports from Committees ........................................................................................................ ............................................... 7594 Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, second report B. Lekstrom

Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7595 Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78) T. Christensen Hon. G. Abbott L. Mayencourt B. Kerr I.

Chong Reporting of Bills............................................................................................................. ......................................................... 7599 Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78) Third Reading of Bills......................................................................................................... ..................................................... 7599 Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 78) Committee of the Whole House ................................................................................................... .......................................... 7600 Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77) J.

Kwan Hon. R. Coleman L. Mayencourt M. Hunter J. Bray R. Stewart Report and Third Reading of Bills .............................................................................................. ........................................... 7619 Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 77) Introduction and First Reading of Bills ........................................................................................ ......................................... 7619 Western Pentecostal Bible College Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill Pr409) B. Penner

7589 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Tributes LEGISLATIVE PRESS GALLERY WEBSTER AWARD WINNERS AND NOMINEES J. MacPhail: I want to ack no wle dge s ome impo r- tant achievements made last week by members of our very own press gallery. On Thursday night of last week, the annual Webster Awards for excellence in B.C. journalism were given out. While some may say that's a contradiction in terms here in British Colum- bia, I am, as you know, a passionate defender of and an advocate for our extremely professional press gal- lery.

Could the House please join me in congratulat- ing the Commentator of the Year, Paul Willcocks. Also, BCCTV's Ed Watson was awarded a Webster fellowship, and I understand Ed will take on the on- erous task of travelling to New Zealand to study elec- toral reform. I also want to acknowledge that Judith Lavoie, Les Leyne and Jeff Rud were nominated for best print reporting. Would all members please ac- knowledge, thank and honour our colleagues of the press gallery. [1405] Introductions by Members T. Christensen: I'm pleased to welcome to the House today one of my constituents, Dave Carroll from Lumby.

Dave's a past president of the Lumby Legion, and he's joined this afternoon by his daughter Lynn Radbourne, who resides here in Victoria. Would the House please make them both very welcome. R. Hawes: Today the naturopaths of British Co- lumbia are set up at the Grand Pacific Hotel, doing testing for anyone who wants to go over and have a little bit of a health checkup. Today in the House we are honoured with the presence of Dr. Garrett Swetlikoff, the president of the British Columbia Naturopathic Association; Dr. Chris Kind; Dr. Stephanie Trenciansky; Dr. Jim Chan; Dr.

Stefan Kuprowsky; Jim Hart, who is a public relations consultant for the naturopaths; and Glenn Cassie, the executive director of the BCNA. I urge anybody who has time to go over and get tested. Maybe, like me, you'll find out things you needed to know but really didn't want to know. Could the House please make them welcome. Hon. G. Bruce: There's a jewel of a little commu- nity on Vancouver Island — well, there are many jewels of little communities on Vancouver Island — Lake Cowichan. Today with me in the House are some friends of mine, Garth Sims and his grandson Bradley Vomacka.

Garth is actually a councillor for the community of Lake Cowichan, and with him is Georgina Taylor. Would the House make them wel- come. L. Mayencourt: We have three visitors in the gal- lery, and I'd like to introduce them. Visiting from Israel are Eyal Heldenberg and Idan Bobrov, and from France is Lucy Bourner. Would the House please make them welcome. Introduction and First Reading of Bills YOUTH JUSTICE ACT Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Hon- our the Administrator: a bill intituled Youth Justice Act. Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now. Motion approved.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 63, the Youth Justice Act. As members know, on April 1, 2003, the federal Young Offenders Act was repealed and replaced with the new federal Youth Criminal Justice Act. Bringing in a new federal act afforded us in British Columbia the opportunity to review and update our own provincial youth justice legislation.

The Youth Justice Act repeals the existing Young Offenders (British Columbia) Act, repeals the existing youth provisions in the Correction Act and consoli- dates the relevant provisions from those acts into one new Youth Justice Act, written specifically for young offenders. Three main objectives are fulfilled by this new act. First, it ensures that our provincial statutes are consis- tent with federal terminology and up to date with current practice.

Second, the act parallels the federal legislation by ensuring that serious consequences are available as a sentencing option for six serious pro- vincial statute offences that previously could only attract non-custodial dispositions. Third, the legisla- tion increases the maximum custody sentence avail- able for serious provincial statute offences where the maximum penalty for an adult is more than six months from a maximum of 30 days to a maximum of 90 days.

Finally, the Youth Justice Act supports the work being done by the Ministry of Children and Family Development to devolve youth justice programs and services to regional and aboriginal authorities. By focusing on the specific needs of youth in conflict with the law, while increasing the use of custody for the most serious provincial statute offences, this bill balances the need to focus on rehabilitation for young persons while providing increased consequences for those youth who pose a risk to public safety — an-

7590 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 other of the actions taken by this government to en- sure that we have safe streets and safe communities. [1410] I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. COLUMBIA BASIN TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 Hon. R. Neufeld presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Co- lumbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the bill be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. R. Neufeld: I am pleased to introduce Bill 79, the Columbia Basin Trust Amendment Act, 2003. These amendments implement decisions of the core services review for Columbia Basin Trust. Through the act the trust board will be restructured to modernize it, ena- bling it to more efficiently deliver the legislated man- date of the trust. A smaller, skill-based board will continue to be made up of Columbia basin residents who are guided by priorities set by the basin residents through the Co- lumbia basin management plan.

Importantly, the changes will also clarify issues of ownership and con- trol as they relate to new accounting standards to en- sure that auditors continue to include government's investments in the trust in government's

summary ac- counts. The government remains committed to supporting the work of the trust and to providing ongoing funding for local power projects that benefit the region. As well, a number of the amendments support government's deregulation initiative to reduce unnecessary red tape and regulation by one-third within three years. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 79 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) FEDERAL POLICY ON GRAVEL EXTRACTION FROM FRASER RIVER R. Hawes: Yesterday Dr. John Davis, regional direc- tor general for the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, stated in a letter to the Vancouver Sun that DFO policies on gravel removal from creeks and streams are not responsible for the recent flooding disasters. Last week Dale Patterson, regional manager, made the same claim. To the extent that heavy rains caused the floods, they are correct. However, flooding came much faster and with much more severity because of the DFO pol- icy, which makes gravel and silt removal all but impos- sible.

Property is more extensively damaged and lives are put at greater risk when the ability of creeks and streams to carry runoff is diminished. This has been confirmed with Mr. Merv Harrower, provincial direc- tor of the PEP program. He's extremely concerned with the dangers created by this policy. I've walked many of the creeks and streams in the Hatzic Prairie area of my riding, and I have numerous photographs taken both before and after the flooding. They make it abundantly clear that both Dr. Davis and Mr. Patterson are incorrect in their assessment.

This ill-conceived DFO gravel moratorium is in- tended to provide additional habitat for fish. Fair enough. But the reality is that the few fish that do spawn in these choked watercourses do so in high-water peri- ods. Their eggs hatch in low-water periods, and the silt prevents the hatchlings from escaping. They die in great numbers within these non-functioning systems. The people of Hatzic Prairie know this. My constituents feel that the DFO is unaware and uncaring of the damage their policy is doing to the people affected, to their property and to the fishery itself.

People who are struggling to protect their fami- lies and their property are regularly threatened with charges if they go anywhere near the creeks on their land. This is an unacceptable situation to the people I represent, where in their desperate effort to save roads, bridges and in some cases homes, they are being told to stay out of the streams. It's now past time for the DFO to revise its policies regarding the management of creeks and streams in order to make the safety of peo- ple and property truly paramount. [1415] NATUROPATHY J.

MacPhail: Today I want to celebrate the practice of naturopathy and urge all British Columbians to em- brace this wonderful science-based health care delivery system. Naturopathy, of course, is a practice of medi- cine that promotes health wellness and illness preven- tion, and that perhaps makes it apart from the other practices of medicine in this province. It's not to pit one practice of medicine against the other but to embrace all practices of medicine that are science-based and accessible so that British Columbians can continue on the path of increased health year after year.

Naturopaths, of course, are medically trained for years and years and often are MDs with a specialty in naturopathy. Many of us had the opportunity today to get tested by the naturopaths, and the results were in- teresting, to say the least. What we do know is that in our health care system, when there is so much pressure

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7591 on services and when access is an issue, it makes sense for British Columbia to embrace the practice of naturo- pathy so that people can have health care where they need it, when they need it. Naturopathy epitomizes that through all towns in British Columbia. They offer a wide range of medical services that are of benefit to all of us. I must say, though, that with the tests that were done on all of us today, there's probably some bad news for the B.C. Liberal government, and I'm sorry I have to bring that bad news to them.

It turns out that in all of my tests, I'm extremely healthy, and I'm going to be around for a long, long time. [Applause.] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN LUMBY T. Christensen: One of the privileges of being elected to represent Okanagan-Vernon has been the opportunity to learn more about the communities I represent outside of Vernon.

Today I'm going to speak about the village of Lumby, a community that is rightly proud of its roots in farming and forestry, a community that has experienced more than its fair share of disrup- tion and adjustment occasioned by the tragic decline in the forest industry in this province, but a community that epitomizes the value of small-town living and is working hard to provide the foundation for continued and future opportunity and success for its citizens. The legacy of the 1990s for Lumby was the closure of the three major mills that provided the bulk of em- ployment for people living in the community.

The vil- lage of Lumby has responded to the disruption of the 1990s with an aggressive plan to renew infrastructure, examine new economic opportunities and market the area as the gateway to the Monashees. Downtown revitalization is a cornerstone of the vil- lage's efforts to diversify its economy. Phase 1 of Lumby's downtown revitalization proceeded prior to the last elec- tion and was completed in 2001, totally funded by the village. Phase 2 will proceed next spring, thanks to the contribution of this government under the Canada– British Columbia Infrastructure Works program.

In addition to the revitalization of its downtown, the village of Lumby is proceeding with long-planned upgrades to its water system with a contribution of over $600,000 from the provincial government, and the village is currently developing a strategy to upgrade its sanitary sewer operations. Such infrastructure initia- tives are essential to the progress of any community, as we all know.

Over the last six months Lumby has hosted the Canadian hang-gliding and paragliding champion- ships and has also been the site of a week-long interna- tional Norton motorcycle rally, attracting over 1,200 motorcycle enthusiasts from around North America. What shines through in these events is the dedication and community spirit of the people of Lumby. The many volunteers ensure that all events are a great suc- cess and that visitors feel welcome and leave eager to return.

The village of Lumby has faced challenges, but it has met them head on, positioning itself to grow and continue to offer a quality of life that is described quite nicely by the village's slogan: "Simply the best." Mr. Speaker: That concludes member statements. Oral Questions LOSS OF INCOME ASSISTANCE BENEFITS J. Kwan: Yesterday the Premier told us how many people won't get kicked off welfare, but he would not say how many people will. Well, here's the FOI. The numbers are blanked out. Will the Premier finally tell us how many people will lose income assistance? Just fill in the blanks. [1420] Hon. M.

Coell: Every day in British Columbia, people on income assistance are finding employment through programs of this government. This govern- ment has helped tens of thousands of people on income assistance find employment, and we're going to con- tinue to do that. We're going to continue to do that. But I would say to the member — if she read the Vancouver Sun today about the great opportunities coming to Brit- ish Columbia, the great job opportunities that are com- ing — that people on income assistance will have an opportunity because of this government's training and employment programs to participate in….

Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. M. Coell: The members fail to realize that people on income assistance deserve to succeed in Brit- ish Columbia, and they will. J. Kwan: British Columbians who need help de- serve to get the help they need, irrespective of some arbitrary decision on a time limit where they will be kicked off of the only social safety net that's left. "The most open and accountable government in Canada" — that was the promise, but continued evasion and denial is the reality. The result is growing concern about what the government knows but refuses to acknowledge.

The leaked FOI says that roughly half of the people impacted… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. Kwan: …will be families with kids. I can see why the Liberal government might be embarrassed. We're talking about the health and well-being of children. To the Premier: put aside the spin. What were the numbers blanked out on the FOI? Fill in the blanks. Hon. M. Coell: There are 22 categories of people who are exempt from time limits with this govern-

7592 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 ment's policies. They are persons with disabilities, per- sons who temporarily have a medical condition, single parents with children under three, pregnant women, people participating in training-for-jobs programs. If someone wants… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. M. Coell: …to participate in a training em- ployment program, they're exempt. We're encouraging people to seek work. We're encouraging people to get the training they need to find success in British Colum- bia, and they will, despite the opposition's protests. J.

Kwan: Thousands of children in B.C. live below the poverty line — one in six. Many live in troubled homes. Now the Premier is cutting income assistance to those families, leaving very little for the children. Many British Columbians are wondering what possible purpose it serves to cut income assistance for poor children. Many also wonder why a government that promised openness and accountability is behaving so cowardly now. The question is to the Premier. It is very simple. Just fill in the blanks of how many people he is intend- ing to kick off of income assistance the next fiscal year. Hon. M.

Coell: Every day people on income assis- tance are finding employment in this province through programs developed by this government…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. We'll wait until there is quiet in the chamber. Please proceed. Hon. M. Coell: People leaving income assistance are leaving for jobs that pay three times what they were on income assistance. If the members were the least bit interested in child poverty, they would know that the best social safety net is a job and that the best thing we can do is help people find employment. And that's exactly what we're doing.

CRIME RATE IN B.C. J. MacPhail: Well, here's one that the Premier can answer. Yesterday the Premier said crime is on the decline in British Columbia, but I read the government report, and that's not true. Let me quote from the re- port. This is from the government report. In the first quarter of 2003 the crime rate increased by 4 percent over 2002. In the year 2000 property crime hit a low of 63.9 crimes per thousand people. In 2002 the figure is approaching 65 crimes per thousand peo- ple, and it's on the rise. In 1999 there were 35.5 non- violent Criminal Code offences per thousand British Columbians.

In 2002 that figure jumped to 38.8. Why did the Premier yesterday stand in this Legis- lature and suggest that crime is going down when in fact, according to his own report, it's going up? [1425] Hon. R. Coleman: The fact of the matter is that crime is always a challenge, and statistical reporting of crime is also a challenge. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. R.

Coleman: You can find statistics any- where and do whatever you want to do with them, but the fact of the matter is that we have improved the infrastructure of policing in British Columbia through our initiatives like PRIME-BC, which are ac- tually going to let us target enforcement to crime in this province and actually target it where it needs to be. We are making the improvements that are neces- sary so the police will be able to deal with the issues in and around crime in a five-year plan to make this province a better place. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J.

MacPhail: There seems to be quite a disconnect these days between the Solicitor General and the Pre- mier. Yesterday the Premier said crime was going down. We actually read his own government's report. Today the Solicitor General, who took great pride in saying that everything was fine, said: "Oh, you can do whatever you want with statistics." Well, here are some more statistics. It's a very sim- ple matter. From 1996 to 2000, property crimes in Brit- ish Columbia declined dramatically. Now this gov- ernment is reversing that trend.

According to the gov- ernment's own numbers, the crime rate is going back up for the first time since 1993. Can't tell the truth on the economy… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …can't tell the truth on income assis- tance… Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: …can't tell the truth on crime…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, let us remain parliamentary while we ask our questions. Please proceed.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7593 J. MacPhail: The Premier can't get the facts straight on the economy. He can't get the facts straight on in- come assistance. He can't get the facts straight on crime, even from his own reports. Can the Premier point to where, in the New Era, he promised to increase unemployment, increase homelessness, increase hun- ger and increase crime? Hon. G. Campbell: I welcome the opportunity to remind the member opposite that for the first time in the history of the province, over two million people are at work. I welcome the opportunity… Interjections. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. G. Campbell: …to point out that after that member's government's dismal decade, in the last two years we've created over 100,000 jobs in this province. I welcome the opportunity to say again today what I said yesterday. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. G. Campbell: The peak of property crime was in 1996. There were 86.7 offences per thousand people, and in 2002 it is 64.9 offences. That is a trend down, as I said yesterday.

I also pointed out yesterday that, in fact, as people find work, as they move off income assistance into the workplace, as they create a better quality of life for themselves and for their families, crime continues to go down. That's what we are going to continue to build on: a safer, secure society based on a strong economy in British Columbia. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY G. Trumper: My question is to the Minister of Ag- riculture, Food and Fisheries.

It has now been over a year since the moratorium on aquaculture was lifted, yet there are still no new fish farms. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. G. Trumper: This industry has untapped potential to create jobs and to stimulate the economies of coastal communities up and down the Island, particularly in the west coast communities such as Ucluelet and To- fino which are in my riding. Can the Minister of Agri- culture, Food and Fisheries tell us why, despite the enormous potential, we still have no new fish farms? Hon.

J. van Dongen: At the provincial level we have a very comprehensive application process for both relocations and new sites, and provincially those are processed through Land and Water British Colum- bia. They have a time frame in which to do the referrals and do the processing, and they have processed a great number of relocations and new sites. The real issue is the Canadian environmental assessment… [1430] Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Leader of the Opposition has had her turn in question period. Please extend the courtesy to others. Hon.

J. van Dongen: The real issue is the Canadian environmental assessment process, which is handled by DFO. That is a very complex process. It duplicates a lot of the requirements at the provincial level. It is a very serious holdup. We have applications that have taken over two and a half years and have not come through. We are work- ing very actively with the federal minister, federal deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers to break this logjam and get these applications processed. We're very acutely aware of the economic needs in the member's community and other coastal communities.

We will work hard to get this logjam broken. GOVERNMENT AID FOR B.C. CATTLE INDUSTRY P. Nettleton: Unfortunately, the B.C. beef pro- ducers are still in dire straits from the continued fall- out from the mad cow situation. Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are not waiting for the federal government to make the first move to bring the BSE aid up to a level that will better meet the needs of all suffering producers. They are proactively providing assistance from the provincial coffers and are press- ing the federal government to meet their obligations. Indeed, they are upping the ante in the name of com- passion.

Even though there are differences in operation be- tween B.C.'s beef industry and that of the prairie prov- inces, the B.C. government's $2.3 million assistance package is minuscule compared to Alberta's extended assistance of approximately $100 million, not including the federal contribution, and Saskatchewan's $20 mil- lion to extend the BSE recovery program, plus another $20 million in loans and cash advances. Manitoba's similar BSE extension package amounting to $110 mil- lion in assistance and incentives and loans…. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order. Order, please!

Would the member now please put his ques- tion.

7594 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 P. Nettleton: I certainly will. Granted that Alberta's ranching industry is…. Mr. Speaker: Now, please. P. Nettleton: Here's my question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. P.

Nettleton: I n l i g h t o f t h e m i n i s t e r ' s p r e v i o u s statement that he is looking into following Alberta's lead in offering further assistance to our cattle industry, can the Premier tell the cattlemen in B.C. what steps he is taking to extend and enlarge the BSE assistance in this province beyond the stringent limitations of the federal effort which is of little benefit to B.C. ranchers and producers? Mr. Premier? Hon. J. van Dongen: Our government has been very, very active on the BSE file, including prioritizing, getting the border open, which is the only lasting solution.

Start- ing with the Premier's conference in Kelowna, our Pre- mier, together with the three other western Premiers, was very instrumental in getting the $460 million BSE recovery program, which was really very, very instrumental in getting the Canadian beef industry on its feet. We have deferred lease payments for grazing. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. J. van Dongen: We have been flexible in terms of grazing arrangements. We have worked very actively with the federal government and other prov- inces to make money available on the CAIS program. There is an interim advance program that we have pushed.

We are actually issuing cheques to producers, and we are actively working with the federal govern- ment on a cull cow program. I say to those other provinces: if they had worked together with us and the federal government, we would have had the cull cow program a lot sooner than we have it. We will continue to push to have that pro- gram in place very shortly. EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS IN AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY K. Stewart: Last summer the Minister of Skills De- velopment and Labour and the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries announced a partnership agree- ment between the B.C.

Agriculture Council and its member organizations in an effort to improve em- ployment standard compliance to protect farmworkers. Since this announcement, there have been suggestions that changes to the employment standards regulations may negatively affect some farmworkers. Will the min- ister responsible for labour explain why these changes were made, and will vulnerable farmworkers be better off with these changes? [1435] Hon. G. Bruce: We take this part of the ministry very, very seriously in respect to protecting vulnerable workers.

Within the agriculture community, particu- larly the sector that we've been dealing with on the berry side, we've put together a very aggressive pro- gram. We did, as the member mentioned, have an MOU signed amongst the agriculture community. But with the berry side, to make sure that people were paid, we've brought in a program of direct deposits where all farm labour contractors have to have direct- deposit programs in place for their employees.

We've also made sure — for people that English is their second language — that we have the appropriate people in the field who can speak the language to ex- plain their rights. We've also made sure that farm la- bour contractors are bonded. Those that find them- selves in contravention of employment standards are now, today, faced with mandatory fines — of which some have already received fines in respect to not hav- ing direct-deposit systems in place. Those mandatory fines, as you remember, are $500, $2,500 and $10,000. [End of question period.] Petitions P.

Nettleton: I have with me here today 11,000 peti- tions, in addition to 12,000 petitions that were submit- ted earlier, requesting that government protect and enhance the scope of practice for naturopathic physi- cians. Reports from Committees B. Lekstrom: I have the honour today to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Or- ders and Private Bills. I move that the report be read and received. Motion approved.

Law Clerk: "October 28, 2003: "Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows: one, that the pre- amble to Bill Pr407 intituled Buron Construction Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 has been proved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; two, that the

preamble to Bill Pr408 intituled Buron Construction

(1986) Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003 has been proved, and the com- mittee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading; three, that the

preamble to Bill Pr406 intituled Ver-Tel Communications Ltd. (Corporate Restoration)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7595 Act, 2003 has been proved, and the committee recom- mends that the bill proceed to second reading. "All of which is respectfully submitted. B. Lekstrom, Chair." B. Lekstrom: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. B. Lekstrom: I move that the report be adopted. Motion approved. Bills Pr406, Pr407 and Pr408 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sit- ting of the House after today. Orders of the Day Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of the Whole House for consideration of Bill 78. [1440] Committee of the Whole House ACCOUNTANTS (CHARTERED) AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 78; K. Stewart in the chair. The committee met at 2:41 p.m. On

section 1. T. Christensen: I've just got a couple of general ques- tions which I'll ask under

section 1, because that seems to be where they'll best fit. I guess the most general ques- tion in respect of the bill as a whole is: why is the gov- ernment proceeding with this bill at this point in time? Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's ques- tion, the Ministry of Advanced Education is proceeding with this bill on the request of the chartered accountants association.

They've been looking at issues around their act for some time, and what's being put forward here in Bill 78 certainly represents the work they have done within their own body to modernize a piece of legisla- tion which has not been amended since 1987. Certainly, many of the features of this bill are ones which will modernize an important piece of legislation for one of the very important groups in our society. There are some additional benefits as well.

Among them, consumer pro- tection will be enhanced as a consequence of the bill, and further, the changes which are made in respect to the institution rebroaden the mandate and broaden the role of the public in relation to the institute. T. Christensen: My thanks to the minister. I guess even backing up one more step, in terms of this type of legislation, perhaps the minister can expand on what the role of the Institute of Chartered Accountants is vis- à-vis the public. Hon. G.

Abbott: In a broad sense, the role of the institute is to ensure that consumers are protected by having a standard of conduct which can be a reference point, I guess, on issues about whether accountants have fulfilled their moral, legal and other responsibili- ties in relation to their work. They also have a vital role in respect of an educational process for the chartered accountants themselves, with respect to their responsi- bilities in relation to the public. [1445] T.

Christensen: I understand that many of these amendments have been brought forward because of a desire on behalf of the Institute of Chartered Account- ants for some changes in terms of how they can regu- late the profession and be more modern in terms of some of their needs. Is there any sort of specific public concern that's being addressed here, or is this generally a modernization exercise based on what other insti- tutes are doing in other jurisdictions? Hon. G.

Abbott: I guess the short answer to the member's question is that, certainly, this was part of a move to modernize and update the legislation under which the chartered accountants operate. There were also, though, issues around, for example, the Enron collapse, which called into some question or called into focus some issues around the area of licensing and dis- ciplining in the area of accounting practices. Certainly, if there was a prompting or triggering event in terms of this legislation moving forward, perhaps that was it, but the general move to modernize was well underway in any event.

The ability to license professionals and firms, to discipline where codes of conduct were breached or not achieved are important issues not just for chartered accountants but for a whole range of professionals. This brings the chartered accountants into the modern view of how those things should be conducted. There's an increase in the scope of authority, all aimed at pro- viding enhanced consumer protection for British Co- lumbians as well as modernizing the act for chartered accountants. T. Christensen: As the minister is aware, there are a number of accounting designations. There are CAs, CGAs, CMAs.

I think there are CPAs, but not necessar- ily in Canada. There are probably others. Can the min- ister comment just briefly on whether there's general support among the wide range of accounting profes- sions for these types of changes? Is there any dis- agreement in terms of the need for these changes? Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that in the process of preparing this bill, broad consultations were under- taken, including with the CMA group and the CGA

7596 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 group as well as chartered accountants, and there is general support for proceeding with this bill. T. Christensen: In terms of the public as a whole, as a consumer of services that a chartered accountant firm or individual would provide, can a consumer expect this to have any sort of real impact in their day-to-day dealings with chartered accountants? Or is this more just along the lines of the institute? [1450] Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is, clearly, yes.

This will improve the relationship of con- sumer protection to the profession of accountancy. It will, I think, very much improve confidence because it broadens the scope and broadens the authority of the profession to regulate its members and regulate the activities of its members. It provides for opportunities to discipline where that is necessary. It provides for increased fines in relation to breaches of codes of con- duct and so on. Clearly, it is a step forward in terms of managing those issues, which happily only rarely come forward but, when they do, do require action by the professions themselves. T.

Christensen: I j u s t h a v e o n e m o r e q u e s t i o n i n terms of this particular section. This move forward in terms of the profession of chartered accountants in British Columbia — is it something other jurisdictions in Canada have already undertaken? Or are we doing something unique? Hon. G.

Abbott: In addition to the broad consulta- tion which was undertaken and which I pointed to earlier in response to an earlier question from the member, the staff in Advanced Education also looked very closely at the legislation and, certainly, the experi- ence of other provinces and jurisdictions in relation to regulation, discipline, and so on, within the accoun- tancy field.

Alberta and Ontario, for example, have recently undertaken changes in their respective acts in relation to the chartered accountants, and what you see before you in the current bill is reflective of the experi- ence there but also in other jurisdictions as well.

Section 1 approved. On

section 2. T. Christensen:

Section 2 of the bill references what will be a new

section 4 of the act. There's a change there in terms of how the council of the institute is put to- gether. Can the minister just clarify what the change is and the reasons for it? Hon. G. Abbott: There is a modest change that's contained within the new

section 2 from the past. It is certainly consistent with the goal that was referenced earlier of increasing public participation and public involvement in the regulation of the profession. That is that now the three lay members of the commission or institute will be lay members. They will not be ac- countants. They will be, generally speaking, from the public as opposed to members of the profession. T. Christensen: What qualifications can we expect those lay members to have in terms of their role in pro- tecting the public interest? [1455] Hon. G.

Abbott: The character of the lay members — and it's difficult to be too prescriptive about this, obviously…. When potential lay members of the insti- tute are being considered, the board resourcing devel- opment office would look, as they do with other ap- pointments, at a range of issues — for example, what educational qualifications the potential lay members possess; what their experience is in fields perhaps re- lated to accountancy, which might come into play here. Although again recognizing that we're not looking for accountants themselves, they will be represented in the other six members of the institute.

They would be look- ing at the experience, the objectivity and the interests the candidates might bring to bear and which might be used to enhance the skills package that goes into mak- ing any board successful.

Section 2 approved. On

section 3. L. Mayencourt:

Section 3 relates to the powers of the institute. I just wonder if the minister could give us a little bit of an overview of what the institute can do in order to protect consumers and the public. Hon. G. Abbott: The role of the institute is a vital one in relation to the conduct of its members. In the first instance, under the terms of the bill now being considered by the House, the institute will be able to set standards of competence and qualification and be able to measure up their members against that and, of course, against the code of conduct which is embraced by the profession.

Where there is evidence or an allegation of a breach of any of those things, obviously, the institute can in- vestigate and provide, where it's appropriate, disci- pline in accordance with the provisions applied in the bill. L. Mayencourt: I was reading that what this bill is really about is actually extending the liability from an individual accountant to also include a firm — in other words, an accounting firm. Can you explain the ration- ale for that? [1500] Hon. G.

Abbott: I appreciate the member raising the important issue of liability, which pops up in, it seems, just about every area of public policy these days. The member is correct. The provisions of Bill 78 will make firms accountable to the institute, not just the

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7597 individual members. Firms now will be accountable to the institute for their work as well. Almost invariably, audits are signed off by firms rather than by individual auditors, and so I think it's consistent with the approach that has been undertaken in virtually every other jurisdiction to extend this to firms. Again, not only was there a broad consultation with respect to the development of this bill but also a long look at what is being done elsewhere.

Certainly, what's being done here is consistent with the kind of approach to accountability which has been embraced in Alberta, Ontario and other jurisdictions. L. Mayencourt: I thank you for your answer. Cer- tainly, protecting consumers and the public is of very great importance to me and to all members of this Leg- islature. I wonder if the minister could please explain what kinds of penalties for non-compliance these firms might have to pay. Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, consistent with the con- sumer protection aspects of this bill, there is an increase in the level of fines or the discretion to impose fines — for members, from $10,000 to $25,000; for students, from $2,000 to $4,000; and because it's a new category, up to $100,000 for firms. Clearly, the public has every reason to expect that when they engage a professional accountant, they can expect competence and they can expect ethical conduct. Where on those rare instances the profession should fall short of that, this bill provides for increased penal- ties to ensure that kind of behaviour is not repeated.

L. Mayencourt: Those are pretty substantial penal- ties. I'm not sure if you could, as part of my next ques- tion, just let us know if that's consistent with other ju- risdictions. That's the first part of my question. Some- times there are real bad actors. Sometimes there are individuals who pay the fine and continue to breach the code of conduct and what have you. What kind of powers will the institute have with respect to those real bad guys who we really want out of the business in the interests of protecting the public? [1505] Hon. G.

Abbott: Again, I think that as the member noted, in rare instances we do have people occasionally breaching professional rules of conduct or breaching a law for that matter. In those instances and particularly when breaches are repeated…. That is a situation, ob- viously, that the profession wants to discourage be- cause the profession, in its own best interests, wants the public to be completely confident of the work of the professionals who are members of their institute and of their profession.

Among the steps the institute might take where they encounter a breach or repeated breaches of the rules is that they can certainly suspend a licence — with conditions or without conditions, as the institute chooses. They may completely remove the licence if the seriousness of the breach merits that, and they could bar an accountant from membership permanently, should they choose, where a serious breach has oc- curred. So there are real teeth in this bill in addition to the monetary penalties that were outlined earlier.

Again, this is all about having people feel entirely confident about the competency and the professionalism of the chartered accountants. L. Mayencourt: I wonder if the minister could speak for a moment about the increased powers to cre- ate bylaws here and to actually implement them a little bit more quickly. In debate earlier in second reading, we talked about the fact that the institute could, in fact, introduce bylaw changes and have those ratified at a future annual general meeting. Why do they need that power, and what safeguards are in there to protect members of the chartered accountant profession? Hon.

G. Abbott: I think the enabling provisions here in respect to making bylaws at a time between annual general meetings are really very much a part of the char- acter of modernizing this bylaw after no changes since 1987. Obviously, if we look back to '87, there's a whole realm of technology that has speeded up a lot of busi- ness processes since 1987. It's important that we em- power the institute to act quickly, because in today's modern world, with the speed at which business is con- ducted, it is necessary at times to be able to act quickly.

The previous legislation had the bylaw-making power attached only to annual general meetings. We believe it's important to modernize it in respect to by- laws relating to the appointment of committees, special general meetings, fees, voting procedures, appeal pro- cedures, standards of conduct and competency, and qualifications and procedures for admission to mem- bership and enrolment as a student.

These are all areas where again, recognizing that we're dealing with chartered accountants who are at- tempting to manage issues within their own profes- sion, it's certainly consistent with other accountability mechanisms in this legislation to provide that bylaw- making power for the institute in those areas. [1510] L. Mayencourt: Does government have a role in the bylaws? Specifically, we have a self-regulating industry here, and I think there needs to be some sort of safe- guards for the public with respect to those self- regulating bodies.

Most legislation we've brought for- ward has contained some provisions for government to reach in when something has kind of gone awry. Are there provisions in this bill for that? Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is a good one. There is a safeguard contained in the legislation which provides that the institute, where they under- take a bylaw outside of their annual general meetings, must file with the minister within 30 days a copy of the bylaw. Government is then given a time limit of 45 days to disallow, if that is the appropriate response.

7598 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 L. Mayencourt: There was one other question I had, and it had to do with…. I think we refer to them as associate members of the institute, people who may not have the CA designation. What's the rationale for that? Is that something the industry was asking for? Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes. This is the product of a request from the industry. L. Mayencourt: I'm wondering why they would want that. Hon. G. Abbott: I think I understand the member's question.

The bill is structured as it is so that people who are not chartered accountants, strictly speaking — CMAs, CGAs or people who just describe themselves as accountants…. It gives people the option of coming under the regulation of this bill.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4. B. Kerr: I've just got a question that you maybe could clear up for me on

section 4,

section 8(2). It says: "Without limiting subsection (1), the council may make bylaws respecting the following…." Then it goes on to say: "…the voting rights, if any, of members in a class…." But then we've given the council…. They make the rights relating to bylaw, and they have to then take it to the members to vote at some time, but it's in effect at the time they make the bylaw. I guess my question is: if they make a bylaw that's in effect relating to the voting rights and then they take it to the meeting to vote, what takes precedence — the old voting rights or the new voting rights? Hon. G.

Abbott: Staff and I would like you to re- peat the question, if you would. We just need a little additional clarification. B. Kerr: On

section 8(2)(a)(ii), it says the council may make bylaws respecting the voting rights, if any, of members in a class under

section 14. But once it's made the bylaw, that bylaw holds until the annual general meeting. So the bylaw comes into effect as soon as they've made it, because council is making that bylaw. [1515] My question is: if that's in effect, when notice goes out for the annual general meeting outlining the voting rights of the members and the members don't want those voting rights, what takes precedence? Hon. G. Abbott: I think we've captured the mem- ber's question, and we think the answer is that the by- law would have a force and effect until the AGM. It would have precedence.

Were it overturned, disal- lowed, at the AGM, then obviously it's struck. But until the issue was considered by the institute, we believe the bylaw would have effect under the provisions of the bill. B. Kerr: I guess my question is: what if the bylaw restricted the rights of some members? Would those members whose rights are restricted by the bylaws be allowed to vote at the AGM to protect themselves? Hon. G. Abbott: Again, further to the last answer, we believe the bylaw would have a force and effect in relation to its members.

Presumably if it was around an issue of, for example, voting rights, the bylaw would prevail until any one of a number of things happened: (

a) it may be sustained by the membership; (

b) it could be overturned by the membership, in which case the bylaw would no longer have force and effect. The third possibility would be the one that the member for Vancouver-Burrard's question referenced, which is what safeguards there are in relation to by- laws being passed outside of the AGM time period in a case where there was some controversy. Perhaps this could happen. Occasionally there may be controversy in the accountancy profession as well. I don't know.

In a case where the issue of voting rights came to the fore as a product of one of these interim bylaws, the m i n i s t e r w o u l d h a v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o l o o k a t t h a t bylaw. I think they have an opportunity, within that time limit of 45 days, to disallow the institute's bylaw. It's difficult to imagine a scenario where that might occur, but the provision does exist there for, presuma- bly, aggrieved or disaffected members of the profession bringing the issue to the minister. Theoretically, that could result in an overturn of an interim bylaw of the institute. B.

Kerr: Thank you very much, minister. That's a good answer. I think that would be the protection.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. [1520] I. Chong: A question on

section 5 amending

section 9 of the Accountants (Chartered) Act, dealing with students. I know it is rather subjective, but I'm wonder- ing if the minister is able to provide additional clarifi- cation where the council may determine one or more of the following: (

a) the requirements for enrolling — I don't have a difficulty with that — or (

b) the curricu- lum of studies, again, but 9(c) "the fitness and character required of a person applying to be examined or evalu- ated…." Would the minister be able to add further clarification on that kind of criterion? It is rather subjec- tive. Hon. G. Abbott: The reference to fitness and char- acter is not a new reference. This existed previously in the act guiding the profession. Nor is it, I think, that unusual in other statutes which regulate professions. Generally, fitness and character references are included into legislation to provide for those extraordinary cir- cumstances where, whether it's a product of behaviour or action or something else…. It does provide an op-

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7599 portunity for, essentially, the institute to question the fitness and character of a candidate. Sections 5 and 6 approved. On

section 7. I. Chong: On

section 7, dealing with the old sec- tions 12 to 14 in the original act, the appeals, which is being adjusted here. A person who has failed to pass an examination or an evaluation and feels aggrieved is able to appeal to the Supreme Court within three months. Can the minister clarify whether that three months is in any way extended in another part of the act? The reason why I ask is this. I should clarify that I'm not sure if this is the way it still is. Oftentimes ex- ams can be written at the end of a student year. It could be April, May or June.

Oftentimes people will go away and be on holidays as opposed to waiting around for their exam marks or evaluation to come out. Should that happen while someone's away — and they could be away on a work-study project — and the three months lapse, and they're not aware of that, there could be a problem. I'm wondering whether three months was put in more as a guide and whether that is firm or whether there is an opportunity for that appeal to be revisited. Can the minister just provide a little more clarification on that? Hon. G.

Abbott: The provision for reference to the Supreme Court within three months existed in the pre- vious act. It certainly is firm in that it's stated here and is, therefore, firm. It is consistent, again, with what one would find in other statutes of this character. I guess there has to be a guidepost in relation to the time frame in which one can appeal, and three months is the tried and true date for that. [1525] Sections 7 to 17 inclusive approved. On

section 18. Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to

section 18 that's in the possession of the Clerk. [SECTION 18, by deleting the proposed

section 18 and substituting the following: 18

Section 14 of the Accountants (Certified General) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 2, is repealed and the following substituted: Right to use name "C.G.A." 14

(1) A member of the association may use the designation "certified general accountant", and may use after the member's name the initials "C.G.A.", indicating that the member is a certified general accountant.

(2) A person must not (

a) use or display the designation "certified general accountant" or the initials "C.G.A.", alone or in combination with any other word, name, title, initial, letter or description, or (

b) imply, suggest or hold out that the person is a certified general accountant unless the person is a registered member in good standing of the association.

(3) A person must not imply, suggest or hold out that the person is an accredited public accountant or use or display the designation "accredited public accountant" or the initials "A.P.A." signifying that designation.

(4) A person must not imply, suggest or hold out that the person is a certified public accountant or a certified public auditor or use or display the designation "certified public accountant" or "certified public auditor" or the initials "C.P.A." signifying that designation unless (

a) the person is a member in good standing of the association, (

b) the designation or initials are used or displayed together with and follow the designation "Certified General Accountant" or the initials "C.G.A.", (

c) the use or display is accompanied by the name of the jurisdiction where the designation "certified public accountant" or "certified public auditor" or the initials "C.P.A." were granted, and (

d) the jurisdiction where the designation "certified public accountant" or "certified public auditor" or the initials "C.P.A." were granted authorizes the person to use and display them in that jurisdiction.

(5) This

section does not apply to the use or display of a designation or initials as provided for by

section 17 of the Accountants (Chartered) Act.] Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved. Sections 19 and 20 approved. Title approved. Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment. Motion approved. The committee rose at 3:26 p.m. The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair. Reporting of Bills Bill 78, Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete with amendment. Third Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read? Hon. G. Abbott: Now, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: With leave. Shall leave be granted? Leave granted. Bill 78, Accountants (Chartered) Amendment Act, 2003, read a third time and passed.

7600 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 Hon. G. Cheema: I call committee stage on Bill 77. Committee of the Whole House TENANCY STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 77; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:29 p.m. On

section 1. J. Kwan: I have some comments with respect to the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, but I think I'm going to save most of those for towards the end of the debate. In

section 1 we're dealing with, first of all, the manufactured home owners component of the Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. Many of the manufac- tured home owners had concerns about Bill 71. They're concerned that the government's legislation makes it easier for landlords to increase their rents or move them off land where they've lived for many years, even decades, to make way for townhouses. [1530] One of the specific concerns about Bill 71 was that it dictates one-year notice with the equivalent of one year's rent.

Homeowners were also concerned that landlords were only asked to give three months' notice of a rent increase rather than six months. Another con- cern is the rent increases of 5 or 6 percent that the min- ister said he plans to mandate by regulation. If the pad rents get increased every year, the very valid fear is that it will become too expensive for homeowners. Manufactured home owners are in a sense a captive audience, if you will, since finding a completely new park is not an easy task. Manufactured home owners requested a seat at the table in the drawing up of the regulations.

My question to the minister is: did homeowners get that seat at the table for the drafting of the regulations? Hon. R. Coleman: We consulted them during draft- ing. They're in draft form. They'll be consulted with prior to the regulations going forward. J. Kwan: Would the minister then agree that sev- eral of these concerns are not, in fact, addressed in the bill? If that's the case, would the minister then commit that those concerns will be addressed through regula- tion? Hon. R. Coleman: Some of the things will be cov- ered in regulation; some will be in policy.

They're not specific to this piece of legislation in front of us. This one is cleaning up some language and some other is- sues with regard to Bills 70 and 71 as they were de- bated last fall. Like I say, we've been consulting with them and will continue to do so. J. Kwan: Can the minister provide a list to the op- position, in terms of the concerns that have been raised by this constituency base, of which concerns are being addressed through regulation, which ones are being dealt with by policy, etc., — just so we have a clear idea that their concerns are in fact being addressed compre- hensively? Hon. R.

Coleman: The consultations are ongoing, and what's being addressed has really got nothing to do with the debate on this particular piece of legisla- tion. I did say we would consult as we drafted regula- tion, which we've done. They're in draft form now. They'll be consulted again before we put them in place. We've tried to address the issues and concerns of both sides of this discussion. I'm sure you'll hear from some of my colleagues, as we move through this legis- lation, that the owners are particularly unhappy with the ministry because of some changes that we've made to the legislation.

Actually, I guess that when both sides aren't particularly totally happy, maybe we've actually got some balance. J. Kwan: The interesting thing is that…. I'll just draw one example, because the opposition had sent out infor- mation to various people who were concerned with the original bill that was first tabled — Bill 71, the Manufac- tured Home Park Tenancy Act — and also the Residen- tial Tenancy Act. We have a litany of issues that people had raised. In fact, the concerns that people raise…. I know that many of those concerns were brought to the government members when we debated those bills last spring.

The problem was that the government members actually didn't raise any of the concerns. In fact, the member for Vancouver-Burrard said, "Well, gee, the member" — me — "for Vancouver– Mount Pleasant raised all those concerns already. Therefore, I don't have to do anything," he figured. Then he went on to say that because those concerns had been raised, everything is fine — with the excep- tion, of course, that he voted for the bill. L. Mayencourt: Point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair: Member for Vancouver-Burrard on a point of order. L.

Mayencourt: Actually, my comments are in Han- sard, and they are not as described by the member from Mount Pleasant. I would ask that she withdraw those statements because they are untrue. [1535] The Chair: Member, I don't believe that's a point of order, but you can certainly have an opportunity to make your comments at a later date. L. Mayencourt: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. J. Kwan: Yes, it would be useful to learn the rules of the House. The reality is this, with respect to what

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7601 the member for Vancouver-Burrard actually did say. In fact, I'll actually put it on record now. I was going to do that later, but let me just put it on record now.

When I rose to speak on this bill at second reading, I made the point that although the opposition thinks it's a good thing that the government is admitting an error and reversing itself, particularly on the issue around retroactive rent hikes, those were concerns that, in fact, many people had raised on the issues related to both the Residential Tenancy Act as well as the Manu- factured Home Park Tenancy Act.

At the time, there was less than 24 hours to engage in second reading debate, without warning, and I had suggested that for a proper debate to take place, for fulsome debate to take place, it might be better to actu- ally have more time between first and second reading. But that was not to be, and the government decided to call second reading with less than 24 hours' notice. The Chair: Member, would you take your seat for a second, please. I want to remind the member that al- though we give a lot of latitude on

section 1, let's get back to the actual content of

section 1. J. Kwan: T hank y o u , ho n. C h ai r, a nd l e t m e t i e i n the pieces for you. I'm talking about issues around con- sultation, issues around what the government is doing with respect to consultation. In the

definitions it really does lay out the whole notion around tenancy and the parameters related to it, and therefore it would be im- portant to understand the context in which my ques- tions arise, which is why I'm bringing up these points. With less than 24 hours of notice, without warning, second reading was called. The ink was barely dry, and with the introduction of the bill by the minister, Han- sard was only in draft form.

We had indicated that stakeholder groups had not been notified of the new legislation and were themselves, once we informed them, scrambling to discern what — besides the flip- flop on rent hikes — was in the bill. The response we got to these concerns merely proves, I think, the main point. The government back- benchers' ability to debate this bill was clearly com- promised. As a matter of fact, only two members of the government bench even bothered to try to raise the issues.

We had the member for Vancouver-Burrard s a y i n g h e d i d n ' t k n o w w h a t t h e o p p o s i t i o n w a s c o m - plaining about. He had plenty of time between 9 o'clock at night and 10 o'clock the following morning to read the bill in its entirety and decided it was okay by him. This, we can only assume, was the same approach to the bill research that led the member for Vancouver- Burrard to support the original flawed bill to begin with.

Despite that fact, as he freely admitted in second reading comments, he was "in constant communica- tion" with tenant representatives who were telling him that the bill was flawed. [1540] The member and indeed this minister like to make a big deal out of the consultations they did after they passed Bill 70, but they conveniently forget that they also boasted about all the consultations they did before bringing in the flawed bill, when they ignored the con- cerns of the tenants and decided to side with the land- lords.

Despite the valid concerns that the member for Vancouver-Burrard had admitted were raised by ten- ants with him, he chose not to bring them to the minis- ter's attention. He says he chose not to do this — and I take him at his word on this — because he felt it would be "redundant" of him to raise these issues as a gov- ernment backbencher after I had raised them as a member of the opposition. This member then voted wholeheartedly for the entire flawed Bill 70. So I take with a grain of salt the member's criticisms of concerns over having between the hours of 9 p.m. and 10 a.m. to examine a brand-new bill.

Perhaps it would be more convenient for the gov- ernment if the opposition took the approach of one of their colleagues who at second reading of the first resi- dential tenancy act said: "I don't have to go through the bill

section by section. I think it's a good piece of legis- lation." That was a statement of the member for Victoria- Hillside. That would certainly make the government's job easier, less embarrassing. They wouldn't have to deal with stories in the media like the ones about an- other bill, Bill 48, and how this government was giving guaranteed access to the aquaculture industry for po- tential farming sites. We in the opposition take very seriously the job of examining government legislation, and despite our limited resources, we will continue to do the work…. The Chair: Member, please. I've asked you to get back to

section 1, please. You're completely off topic here. We are talking on Bill 77 and

section 1. I'd ask you to please confine your debate to that section. J. Kwan: Well, I'm linking these issues, Mr. Chair. The Chair: Member, you are linking everything but the kitchen sink here. I'd ask you, please, to get back to

section 1. J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, we're talking about the issue, and I was asking the minister questions around consul- tation. The minister says: "Don't worry. We consulted extensively." In fact, the minister went on to say their members — this Liberal bench, the MLAs from the Liberal government — said that they will raise their concerns because they will bring them forward. The fact is that the history of these bills we're debating — Bill 70 and Bill 71, which are being amended through Bill 77 — was not brought up. Those concerns were not brought up by these members.

So when I ask the issues around consultation and its relationship to it, it is important that I put it in the context that when the minister says those issues would be raised by the members, in fact they were not. They were not under Bill 70, the Residential Tenancy Act, and they were not raised under Bill 71, the Manufac-

7602 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 tured Home Park Tenancy Act, and now we have Bill 77 amending those two pieces of legislation. So to the point, for the members: how it relates is the issue around consultation and the absolute silence from the government side in raising concerns. There had been no concerns raised that people brought to government MLAs' attention. They didn't raise them, and that's a reality.

Then they say: "Well, gee, I thought I didn't have to raise it because you did it already." Then they turned around and actually voted for the bill in its entirety, against the people and their constituents who raised the concerns with them. On the issue around consultation, I find it, well, not trustworthy to take the word of any of the government MLAs — including the ministers, I'm sorry to say — when they say, "Don't worry; trust us; everything is fine," because their practice has shown that they don't listen to people.

The minister says, on the issue around consultation, that everything is being addressed, so you needn't worry about it, when in fact I actually have a letter from the Active Manufactured Home Owners Associa- tion dated October 22, 2003, to the minister with the concerns around this bill. The minister says this bill will not be dealing with any of the concerns that people raise, when in fact that is not true. So let me just put on record the questions that the Active Manufactured Home Owners Association had put to the minister, and I'd like the minister's response to their questions.

The letter is dated October 22, 2003, and it's ad- dressed to the minister: "All manufactured homeowners are pleased and thankful that you're amending our legislation, Bill 71, the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, to remove the provision for three-year retroactive rent increases. However, we're still very concerned about the amount of your mandated, non-questionable rent increases. We're not sure which act you were referring to in the Legislature on October 21 when you stated: 'Exceptional circumstances could be defined in many ways, and I'm sure we'll discuss this in committee stage of this bill.

Obviously, higher taxes, higher utility costs — those types of things affect the ability of a landlord to run a building. In order for them to have an increase above what will be allowed in regulation, they would have to come forward with the rationale and the backup to get those done by the arbitrators.' [1545] "The act is not clear if we'll be able to attend and show the arbitrator that the increases in taxes or utility costs have already been covered by the mandated rent increase. Is this going to be another automatic increase given on the presentation of the bills to the arbitrator without knowledge or input?

On behalf of manufactured home owners in this province, we're requesting if automatic increases are mandated by law, rent control that they are, in our case, given only on the first $100 of rent, which represents a very generous operating allowance for the park. This can be verified by checking amounts paid for strata or co-op fees in those types of parks, or arbitration of rent increases is reinstated. "Please listen to the thousands of people who have sent in, on their own initiative, petitions requesting that the government listen and respond favourably to this position.

We have more to lose than the park owners if the park fails. That is why we are adamant that rent increases do not put people at risk of losing their homes because of government-mandated rent increase allowances that are excessive and unfair. "Sincerely, Joyce Klein, secretary-treasurer, on behalf of all district associations of the Active Manufactured Home Owners Association." On the question, as it relates to

section 1 and as it relates to the issues that have been raised by this group, hence the government consulted with them. Will they be at the table in terms of the drafting of the regulations, and will their concerns be addressed? How would it be addressed? Would it be by regulation or through some other government policy or some other legislation at a later date? L. Mayencourt: I wish to respond to some of the comments from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Is this the appropriate time to do that? The Chair: Proceed. L.

Mayencourt: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant made some comments about my comments in this Legislature, and I would like to make the point that she should perhaps look at Hansard to see what I did say. I did not say that my asking questions would be redundant. I said that it would be redundant for me to repeat the questions that she had copies of and that she had simply asked just a few moments ago. Another thing I did say in Hansard….

This deals with her comments about reading the bill, coming into this Legislature, us not giving her enough time to take stock of this bill and us not giving her enough oppor- tunity to look it over. I made comments in this House that I had received the bill at the same time as her. I received it at 9 o'clock on the night…. I received this bill at the same time as her, and I went to work that night because this bill means a whole lot. This is a very important bill for my riding. The Chair: Members. Member for Vancouver- Burrard, please take your seat. L. Mayencourt: Yes, sir.

The Chair: I think we've got completely off track here with this

section 1. I want to get back on track. I'm going to now ask the minister to stand up and give a response to the question, and let's get back on

section 1, Bill 77. Hon. R. Coleman:

Section 1. I'll deal with the member's question. I just want to make sure the House is understanding what

section 1 is about, so we know what we're actually debating. It revises the definition of terms for the periodic tenancy, which clarifies that a tenancy agreement must be ended in accordance with the requirements of the act.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7603 As currently worded, the definition allows for peri- odic tenancy to end by verbal notice or other steps a party might take to end a tenancy. Our advice from counsel was that that wasn't acceptable. It deals with the definition of "registered mail," and it corrects the reference to Canada Post. On the tenancy side, it clarifies that a tenancy is premised on a right to possession rather than actual possession, because in some cases the person actually occupying the rental unit is different than the person on the tenancy agreement.

With regard to the member's question on the con- sultation, that's how we actually got to what the mem- ber's being critical of. That is, when we went out and talked to these organizations, retroactivity was some- thing we discussed. We've made it clear all along that any extraordinary rent increases above what is set in regulation will have to go to arbitration, and that will continue to be the case. J.

Kwan: Specifically on the question around con- sultation with respect to the drafting of the regulations, the minister actually said that he is in consultation and that he will continue to be consulting with stakeholders on this. My specific question is: on the drafting of the regulations related to the rent increase component in terms of the amount — and that's what this letter that I read off referenced — will they be at the table in terms of the consultation, specifically with the drafting of the regulations related to that issue? Hon. R.

Coleman: They've been told all along that we're not consulting on the amount and that that is a d e c i s i o n t o b e m ad e b y g o v e rnm e nt whe n t he re g u l a- tions are done. That hasn't changed in our conversa- tions with them. [1550] J. Kwan: Well, that's a shame, because the minister would like you to believe that they are consulting far and wide. On the issues that stakeholders are particu- larly concerned with that actually deal with the amount of the rent increase and how it would impact them….

To a certain extent, it may actually impact them to become homeless — to actually lose the site, the park they have their home on — if the rent in- creases are too high and could not be sustained. The pertinent issues that impact people's lives…. The min- ister just admitted that he would not be consulting them on those issues. I think that is more than unfortunate, and it would make no sense to me.

If all those Liberal MLAs who are working hard on behalf of their constituents were, in fact, speaking to their ministers, they would actually be standing up right now, fighting to make sure they're at table on these critical questions and issues they've raised that are of concern to them. Yet they're not. They're happy that the stakeholder groups don't have a seat at the table on the matter most important to them — namely, the issue around the amount of the rent increase they might be faced with by regulation and legislation. Yet the government MLAs are proud of the work they do.

One wonders about this kind of repre- sentation for the people. Interjections. J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Burrard no doubt is proud of his record of not only not raising the concerns for his constituents but voting against his constituents, as he has demonstrated time and time again. The Chair: Member, I want to remind you again: please,

section 1. We're dealing with

section 1. J. Kwan: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. And he is very proud of that fact. The Chair: Member, I asked you to please confine your remarks to

section 1. We'll get back to the debate on

section 1 of Bill 77. J. Kwan: Absolutely, Mr. Chair, but from time to time I must admit I do get sidetracked. The member for Vancouver-Burrard is heckling me, so I get sidetracked, and I feel compelled to respond. I apologize, Mr. Chair. I do get distracted by the noise around me, and I feel compelled to respond from time to time. So I do apolo- gize, Mr. Chair. Interjections. The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant,

section 1. J. Kwan: No, it's not that I don't heckle. I heckle, but hey, when people heckle from time to time, people respond. That's what happens. I'm doing that. Then they get bothered and troubled because I respond as well. It is perplexing to me for government members to say, "Don't worry; everything will be fine; regulations will be in place; people will be consulted," when in fact for the most pertinent issue people need to be con- sulted on, they're not at the table. No government MLA, including the member for Vancouver-Burrard, is standing up to advocate to make sure they have a seat at the table.

Section 1 of the bill is the

definitions section. I know there's another bill concerning manufactured homes. It's a Finance bill, Bill 72, the Manufactured Home Act, which was introduced last week. I'd like to ask the minister if he could explain the interrelations of these two bills and whether any of the concerns raised by the manufactured home owners about Bill 71 from the year 2001 are addressed in this new Finance bill. Is there any relationship between these two bills, and if so, what is it? Hon. R. Coleman: Let's m ake it clear: we d id con- sult. We consulted with the very people the member is

7604 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 actually quoting from. We consulted on the amount, but we did not tell them what it would be because that hasn't been decided yet, because regulations haven't been brought forward. The fact of the matter is that there are, in the act, a couple of things. Obviously, if we consulted and we took out retroactivity, they were at the table having that conversation. The member wants to know with regard to how this bill affects each

section of Bill 71. Well, we can go through it

section by section. What we're dealing with right now is some

definitions. We seem to be off topic. I don't want to get off topic. I'm not here to redebate Bills 70 and 71; I'm here to debate the amendments to those bills that are before the House in legislation. [1555] I can tell the member that we have consulted, and we have said we would consult as we finalized the regulations. At the same time, maybe they don't like the answer they got during consultation, but to say they weren't consulted with is wrong. They were con- sulted, and that's why we're here today with some of these changes, particularly the retroactivity.

When we brought forward the retroactivity, we decided to clarify some issues in common law that were brought to our attention by legislative counsel and by legal advice, which we're doing in this act. We're moving forward. J. Kwan: Well, when the minister says that he's consulted with these groups, save and except…. One of the key issues that the groups want to be consulted on is the amount of the rent increase as the government will be bringing this in legislation, and he just admitted on record to say that they would not be consulted on that particular issue. It doesn't add up.

You say you've consulted, but on key issues that people want to be at the table to be consulted on, the minister admitted that he won't be consulting them. We can check Hansard on what he just s aid. We can che ck Hansard on that com- ment. The question I asked of the minister was around Bill 72 — whether or not there's any interrelatedness with the new bill that was introduced last week, the Manufactured Home Act, as it relates to Bill 77. Hon. R. Coleman: No direct relationship. J.

Kwan: Under the definition of tenancy — and I quote from the act — it reads: "'Tenancy' means a ten- ant's occupation of a manufactured home site under a tenancy agreement and the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant during that occupation." The definition here has changed about the tenant's right to possession of a manufactured home site under a ten- ancy agreement. Could the minister explain why the language about the rights and obligations has been removed? Hon. R.

Coleman: The previous definition read: "'Tenancy' means a tenant's occupation of a manufac- tured home site under a tenancy agreement and the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant dur- ing the occupation." Legislative counsel's advice was that the second part of that sentence was unnecessary because the rights and obligations of the landlord and tenant are contained in the tenancy agreement. J. Kwan: So is it safe to say that it's just a language issue and that it has no substantive impact in terms of the changes between — I shouldn't call it the old act — Bill 71 versus this amendment? Hon. R.

Coleman: Under "changing occupation," it does, because it can affect who's allowed to be on the site, and that's why it was done. On the others it has no impact whatsoever. J. Kwan: Would one read this change in definition with

section 5 in terms of the amendments that are being put forward in

section 5, or are they completely separate? Hon. R. Coleman: This bill? J. Kwan: Yes. [1600] Hon. R. Coleman: Our understanding is that there is no impact, but unless the member has a specific con- cern about the impact, it would….

Section 26 is land- lord and tenant obligations to repair and maintain, and it's basically some clarification that was asked for by the parties. J. Kwan: I'll ask some questions under

section 5, then — w h e n w e m o v e t o s e c t i o n 5 . I c a n v a s s e d t h a t question as it relates to

section 5 to see whether or not there's anything substantive that I'm missing. The peo- ple who wrote the legislation and the amendment, I would trust, might have more information than me in terms of reading that. That's why I ask that question. So on that, Mr. Chair, I'm ready to move on to

section 3. Sections 1 and 2 approved. On

section 3. J. Kwan:

Section 3 deals with the landlord's obliga- tions surrounding terminating or restricting services. How does this new language about "material term of the tenancy agreement" — and that's a quote from the act itself — change the obligations of the landlord? Or does it? Hon. R. Coleman: In the original drafting of the legislation, there was what we determined was a draft- ing error, which really said that they could basically restrict or terminate a service or facility that's essential to it. In this one, the material term of the tenancy or essential services, in most cases, are the same thing, but sometimes there is something that's so material to the

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 7605 tenancy agreement that you put it in as a term to the tenancy agreement. The drafting error was such that it could have been interpreted that the landlord could terminate, restrict services or essential services, and this is actually a drafting improvement so that they can't. M. Hunter: I want to ask a question about the same section. I recall during debate on the other bills, the original bills, that we were trying to seek some new balance in the rental housing legal situation. We were trying to encourage some investment in the rental housing market.

Thirdly, and I think importantly, it was to seek some plain language. So I guess my question to the Solicitor General is that I'm concerned that the rewording is, perhaps, less plain than the original language. I think I understood his explanation to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but there is some concern, as I'm sure the Solicitor General knows, that there are occasions where factors outside of the control of the landlord, such as garbage service, may change. The conditions of a gar- bage service provided by a municipality might change; water billing might change.

Even something almost as mundane these days as cable service provisions might change — b u l k s e r v i c e t o m a n u f a c t u r e d h o m e p a r k s and so on. I guess I would just like to hear again the explana- tion as to why this change was necessary and whether or not the change is suggesting that landlords need to deal with the issue of material changes for such items as service delivery in a tenancy agreement. Are we leaving the door open for that or not? [1605] Hon. R.

Coleman: The industry would like us to actually list all the things we would determine to be essential services to a tenancy — water, sewer, electric- ity, etc. When we do that, we actually cause ourselves some problems in common law. That's why they were- n't defined that way when the industry asked us to actually put that into the act. This is about the material change of a tenancy agreement or essential services, so things like cable arrangements are not material to the tenancy agree- ment.

Garbage pickup could be something that wasn't material to a tenancy agreement, because it could be in there that it was by contract, as determined by the landlord in the tenancy agreement. Certainly, things like water and sewer, for the es- sential services of what would be the requirements of life…. In most manufactured home parks, as we looked at it — and actually all that I could find — each person had their own separate meter for electricity, so it wasn't something that was part of the tenancy agreement or an essential service that would be in the tenancy.

It really comes down to municipal utilities that a tenancy may be affected by. I don't know of many municipali- ties that do the water for a manufactured home park on an individual basis, but they do it on a property basis. If there's a substantial increase in that from munici- palities, the ability is there to go before an arbitrator and say, "I've had a substantial increase," and cover your costs. We think that although it's not completely satisfactory to the industry, we have to do this within common law. Their biggest concern is that if we don't define it, then an arbitrator will decide it's otherwise.

That comes down to training and disciplining arbitra- tors. We've said we're going to do that and have meas- urements for arbitrators moving forward. Although it's not what the owners of manufactured home parks would ideally like to see, it is the balance we have to achieve within the common law and our advice from legislative counsel. M. Hunter: I appreciate that explanation from the Solicitor General.

I guess I would then ask the question that — we're not satisfying the landlords, and I don't know if we're satisfying the tenants — i n a c a s e o f a service provision such as garbage and the provisions of a garbage contract or a change to the significant disad- vantage of the landlord, is the landlord able under this section, in the Solicitor General's view, to protect him or herself against a large increase in costs that cannot be claimed back from the tenant by inserting language in the tenancy agreement that could cover him or her for that eventuality? Hon. R.

Coleman: The garbage is actually a pretty good example, because it could be in the tenancy agreement that the landlord, as part of the rent, pro- vides garbage removal. If the price of the garbage re- moval goes up and the tender changes and they wish to go with another contractor, there's nothing stopping them from doing that, because it's just a material part of the contract that there be garbage removal.

It doesn't say it has to be by a specific company or service pro- vider. [1610] If the landlord decides outside the tenancy agree- ment, however, that now he wants to make a material change to the contract because he no longer wants to include garbage removal within it, then at the end of the term of the tenancy agreement, he would have to negotiate that back or put it into the next tenancy agreement.

Certainly, during the term of the tenancy agree- ment, that material change is not something where you can just unilaterally say: "Tomorrow I'm going to charge you all, in addition to your rent, for your gar- bage removal, even though it's already in your tenancy agreement." That's what this

section deals with. If they wish to change the service and it's not a material change to an agreement, then they can do that, or if they need to tender it or change the costing to save themselves money but provide the same service, they can do that too.

Section 3 approved. On

section 4.

7606 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 J. Kwan:

Section 4 deals with the removal of the phrase: "Except in accordance with an arbitrator's or- der." The explanatory note says this change is to re- move the implication that arbitrators have the jurisdic- tion to issue restraining orders. Was that implication unintentional? Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it was. They don't have the jurisdiction.

Section 4 approved. On

section 5. J. Kwan:

Section 5 amends

section 26 of the Manu- factured Home Park Tenancy Act to read that the land- lord must provide and maintain the manufactured home park. The question is: is this the

section that replaces the rights and obligations language from the definition of the tenancy that we were discussing under

section 1? Hon. R. Coleman: The current act says a landlord must provide and maintain. If for some reason "provide" wasn't included…. So no — in answer to the member. J. Kwan: S e c t i o n 5 (

b) a d d s a s u b s e c t i o n t o s e c t i o n 26 that is numbered (6), but my version of

section 26 of the act has only four subsections now. My question is: is this a drafting error? Maybe I'm not reading the right version of Bill 71. Hon. R. Coleman: Our version of the bill does have five, and that's why it's 26(6). We'll gladly provide her with that copy, and maybe that would clarify it for her. J. Kwan: There's something amiss here, because the version I have of Bill 71 is dated October 22, 2003, off the government's website, and it only has four subsec- tions. I won't read into the record what they are.

I'm actually perplexed, because from the government's website, it seems that this Bill 71 is not the version I'm working off of. It's not the same version the minister is working off of — that is, the one that's posted on the government website that I pulled up. I'm not quite sure what's amiss here with regard to that. Hon. R. Coleman: We think that the subsection (5) was a House amendment during debates and may not have made it onto the copy on the website. J. Kwan: That's the work we're developing our questions from.

I hope there aren't substantive differ- ences in terms of what the real version is that one should work from versus what the government has put on the website for the public as well as the opposition to work off of. That's a bit of a problem. I hope that's not a recurring problem and that it will be corrected very quickly. [1615] The subsection (6) that is being added is said to correct an omission in Bill 71 concerning the landlord's obligation to comply with legal standards, regardless of whether the tenant has knowledge of a breach. Was this also an oversight, or did this result from consulta- tion?

Is this a brand-new thing that is added in Bill 77? Hon. R. Coleman: It's in

section 10(2) of the current Residential Tenancy Act, and it was inadvertently omitted in the Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act. Sections 5 and 6 approved. On

section 7. J. Kwan: In this

section from Bill 71 being amended,

section 1(

e) is repealed and replaced with the language: "the tenancy agreement is frustrated." Could the minis- ter please advise: why have the specific conditions been removed? Is there a definition of "frustrated" pro- vided in the act? What exactly does that mean? Hon. R. Coleman: The member remembers in the debate that we actually had some discussion — I think it was even with the member from Vernon — in and around the definition of "frustrated." Our advice com- ing back was that this was the common-law discussion and to try to codify the common-law

definitions always leaves something out. So you're better off just to deal with the term "frustrated" and let your arbitrators, based on training and judgments, come to the decision of what constitutes the frustration of the contract. J. Kwan: Well, then, where did this change come from?

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H1028pm-11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H1028pm 11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8e07604d67caef22c25f4f7148a76bffb1c90a7b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).