1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 10, Number 11

[ Page 8365 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. C. Evans: Hon. Speaker, I would like to make a generic recognition of all the producers, farmers and processors of B.C. that are here for B.C. Agriculture Day. Members may wish to introduce the individuals from their constituency, but I want to say welcome to the 100 or more people here in the precincts who feed all of us.

Hon. D. Miller: Visiting us today in the House is the new Ambassador of Mexico to Canada, His Excellency Ezequiel Pabilla Couttollenc. Accompanying the ambassador is the consul general for Mexico in Vancouver, well known to many members of this House: Gabriel Rosales Vega. I would ask the House to make them most welcome.

B. Barisoff: This side of the House would also like to welcome the people from the agricultural community who are here today. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Nebbeling: In the gallery we have three very courageous people. They are parents of children with autism. They're here today to present, via me, a petition to the Legislature. They are Beverly Sharpe, Dr. Sabrina Freeman and Mr. Avery Raskin. I hope the House will make them welcome.

W. Hartley: Hon. Speaker, as part of the agricultural delegation here today, I'd like to, on your behalf, welcome Marg Crowley from Victoria, Kevin Davison from Maple Ridge and Albert Van Marrewyck from Pitt Meadows. Please make them welcome.

R. Kasper: Visiting us in the gallery today are representatives from the Cowichan Valley 4-H Goat and Fodder Club: Ali Frederick, Geraldine Smith, Lindsey Kusche, Bruce Frederick and Sharon Kusche. There is also a representative from the agricultural industry visiting us: Claude Bilodeau. Would you all please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I'm delighted today to welcome to the gallery, to the precincts of this building, Mr. Steve Wallace, who is the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I think we would all agree that he's a unique individual, and I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: I too would like to join the member opposite in welcoming this person with whom I've only worked a short time. Despite all the rumours I hear about him, we are working with extreme cooperation. That person is Mayor Steve Wallace of Quesnel, the president of UBCM. Along with him are Richard Taylor, the executive director of UBCM, and Doug Ruttan, the city administrator of Quesnel. They join us today, as I will be introducing the Municipal Act amendments bill later this afternoon. I ask the House to please make them feel welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: It is my pleasure to introduce three folks that are touring the precincts today; they're very important to my office. They are Angela, James and Faye Burgess -- the mother, father and sister of my special assistant Chloe Burgess. I bid the House make them welcome.

F. Gingell: I would like to welcome to the Legislature a farmer from Ladner, Val Roddick, who is an active volunteer and a contributor to our community. I ask all members to make her most welcome.

M. de Jong: Two very special friends are here, travelling with the agricultural contingent; Fred Kraun and Parm Baines are from the Abbotsford area. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to introduce three people from my riding who are here as part of the agriculture delegation: Ben Cuthbert from Ladysmith, Wally Smith from Chemainus and David Wiebe from Duncan. They are all visiting today. I ask the House to make them welcome.

E. Gillespie: I have two introductions to make as part of the agriculture delegation today. George Hamilton is visiting from the Comox Valley, and Andrew Rycroft is visiting from Parksville. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

G. Abbott: It is my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Lorne Hunter, who is with the B.C. dairymen's association. Mr. Hunter has been generous enough to educate me about some of the issues facing their industry during flights down to Victoria on Shuswap Air. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

B. Penner: I too have the privilege today of meeting with a number of people from the agricultural community. Joining me at lunch were Ms. Myrna Hunt, Mr. Dan Wiebe, Corry Spitters and Lorne Hunter. In addition, I was joined by my colleague the member for Abbotsford and by Mr. Henry Wiens, who at one time was my boss when I worked at the East Chilliwack co-op. He is now the president of the Promontory Ratepayers Association, which represents the neighbourhood in which I live. Would the House please make these people welcome.

J. Sawicki: I think it's absolutely tremendous to have all the representatives of the agricultural community introduced today. My only regret is that I don't have any food producers left in Burnaby-Willingdon to introduce. But on behalf of the sustainable economic development committee of the NDP caucus, I do have three guests to introduce today. They are representing the Office and Professional Employees International Union. We have the president, Ron Tuckwood; the vice-president, Jerri New; and the executive director, Joe Smeets. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Walsh: I am pleased today to introduce to the House Thalbinder Poonian, who is also here from the agricultural industry of B.C. Thal is from Kelowna, and he's involved in the tree fruit -- or is it the fruit tree? -- industry here in B.C. I would ask the House to please make him welcome.

T. Stevenson: I know that Vancouver-Burrard isn't automatically thought of as an agricultural community; however, we do have an individual living in the riding who is with the agricultural community. That's Jim Ranta, and I'm very pleased to have him here today. I hope the House will make him welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: In the precincts today are students from Panorama Park Elementary School in my riding with their

[ Page 8366 ]

teacher, Mrs. Bennett, and a number of family members who have come along. This is a school that excels in intramural sports and in theatre productions, and I would ask the House to make them welcome.

J. van Dongen: I am pleased to welcome to the Legislature 14 grade 5 students from Ten Broeck Elementary School. They are accompanied by Nancy Barkman and Bonnie Goosney. I'd also like to welcome all of our friends from the agricultural industry here today. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, as you may be aware, for some time now the government has been endeavouring to increase its trade relationships with India. Visiting us from India today are a number of senior government officials: Mr. S.K. Tuteja, who is the principal secretary in the department of finance in the government of Punjab; Mr. R.K. Bhandari, who is with the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation; Mr. S.S. Brar, who is with PSIDC; and Mr. J.M. Uppal, who is with the consul general of India. Would all the members please make them welcome.

[2:15]

Hon. H. Lali: I have two sets of introductions to make. The first one of course is that I'd like to join the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin in welcoming the Punjabi delegation that is here. They are here to discuss, amongst other things, hot-in-place asphalt recycling. They saw a video today and some literature as well. Tomorrow they'll be going up into the Mission area to actually see in person how our recycling works. I would like the House to please welcome the Punjabi delegation.

The Speaker: The minister continues.

Hon. H. Lali: I see the member for Matsqui is laughing. I could have had him come and take a look in your riding, but . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, this is introduction time, not debate time.

Hon. H. Lali: Following the other members who have introduced the agricultural delegation, Ernie Willis of Princeton is here from my riding. I also want to join the previous member in welcoming Thal Poonian from Kelowna. Would the House please make all of these people from the agricultural delegation welcome.

F. Randall: In the gallery today there are also two people from the constituency of Burnaby-Edmonds who are with the agriculture group: Dawood Alibhai and Dan Wong. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

Hon. J. Kwan presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998.

Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I am pleased to present the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1998. With Bill 31 we are enshrining in the British Columbia provincial Legislature, for the first time ever, recognition of local government as an independent, responsible and accountable order of government within its jurisdiction. This legislation will empower local governments with broader corporate powers than they currently enjoy and will provide greater autonomy for decision-making at the local levels in many areas.

Local governments will have more flexibility to undertake public-private partnerships, and under this legislation they will have the authority to engage in these public-private partnerships without intervention by the provincial government.

This will support local economic development, but of course we also recognize that we have to build in safeguards to balance this new authority with accountability measures to encourage openness around these agreements. Bill 31 is a significant phase in the multi-year Municipal Act reform initiative that will establish a new legislative foundation for local governments.

I want to thank Mayor Steve Wallace, the president of UBCM and other local government representatives -- some of whom are with us today in the gallery and were introduced earlier -- who have worked with us to develop these proposals over the last years. I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the current Minister of Employment and Investment. He was a strong advocate within the government for Municipal Act reform and worked very hard to bring about the legislation that I'm introducing today. This legislation, as part of the broader Municipal Act . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, your two minutes are up. Would you like to move the motion, please.

Hon. J. Kwan: Thank you, hon. Speaker. This legislation would move the Municipal Act into the twenty-first century, and . . . .

The Speaker: Minister, we need the motion.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move that Bill 31 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31 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.

PREVENTION OF

CHILD SEXUAL EXPLOITATION ACT

L. Stephens presented a bill intituled Prevention of Child Sexual Exploitation Act.

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

Motion approved.

L. Stephens: Over the past two years a number of factors have developed regarding children and youth in British Columbia. There's been a substantial increase in the number

[ Page 8367 ]

of young juvenile prostitutes working the streets of Vancouver and other urban centres. These young boys and girls are being recruited from school grounds, shopping malls and teen drop-in centres. The pimps take away their IDs, force them to give false names and dates of birth to the police so that they cannot be properly identified, and move the girls around the province to avoid detection and apprehension. Desperate parents who have had their daughters recruited into prostitution have nowhere to turn, and in many cases parents' rights are being usurped by the system.

I believe that children involved in prostitution are victims of sexual abuse and that prevention, early intervention and treatment programs are critical in supporting children to leave the streets. The safety and security of children should be of paramount importance, and communities need to take a proactive approach to strengthening their families.

This bill is modelled on the Alberta legislation that provides for a police office or director, if they believe on reasonable or probable grounds that a person is a child under the age of 16 and in need of protection . . . .

The police office or director may apply to a judge of the court or to a justice of the peace for an order to apprehend the child and return them to their guardian or a responsible adult who has the care and control of the child; apprehend and convey to a safe house for up to 72 hours to ensure the child's safety and to assess the child's needs; and to enter, by force if necessary, that place or premises in search of the child and apprehend the child if the court or justice of the peace is satisfied that the child may be found there.

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 M208 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.

Oral Questions

FUNDING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS

DAY CARE IN SURREY

C. Clark: On April 21, 30 parents of special needs children came to Victoria to demand that this Minister for Children and Families stop her cuts to special needs day cares. She sat in this House, looked up in the gallery and promised them that there would be no cuts for this school year. We have now found out that despite her promises, she is cutting at least $100,000 from one of these special needs day cares in Surrey, and 20 children will be left with nowhere to go as a result.

In the words of one of these parents: "A promise is a promise, and these children have a right to expect that elected officials will keep their word." When will this minister keep her word to those families, keep her promise and restore the funding for that day care?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, as you will remember, the hon. member across the way is talking about supported child care, and actually she demanded that I stop supported child care and the move to that. I said at that time that I would in fact review the whole issue around supported child care, that we would make sure that those areas that had concerns about supported child care would receive existing funding for the remainder of the year and that we would put in place some review to look at the supported child care efforts and see how we can move towards that while keeping in place the necessary services to the children.

I'm not aware of the situation that the member talks about, but if she would like to get me the information, I'd be happy to look into it.

The Speaker: For her first supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: I believe the minister does have the information. The letter I have was copied to her office. But you know, I don't think she needs to have a letter to remind her that she made a promise, and her promise was that there would be "no interruption of current preschool and day care services to children with special needs." Now 20 children are left with nowhere to go. When those parents are standing here in this gallery, she'll look them in the eye and tell them she's not going to cut services, but when they're across the water in Vancouver, that's when the cuts begin.

Will she do what's right: stand behind her promise, keep her commitment and restore the funding to this program today?

Hon. L. Boone: There have been no cuts to any of the programs for child care. There has been no cut at all. As I said, if she would like to give me the information with regards to this particular case, I'll look into it, but I think she'll find that there has been no cut in that particular case.

B. McKinnon: Well, I think the minister should read her mail.

I'd like to read to the minister a letter we received from Heather Leech, a parent of a special needs child, who came all the way to Victoria in April: "I am truly appalled that the hon. Minister for Children and Families has the audacity to stand before me in the House and guarantee that there will be funding . . . and then, behind the backs of our parents, break that promise . . . . How can she do this to our children?" Will the minister stand up now and tell Heather Leech why she broke the promise she made to her only six weeks ago?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, there have been no cuts to any of these programs. The programs that were to be moved into . . . . As the member well knows, there was a move towards supported child care. In many parts of this province they have in fact moved towards supported child care and have done so in a manner that is very supportive in their communities. Those areas are proceeding.

In those particular areas where there was a difficulty, I have given the assurance that we would keep their funding in place until the end of the year and that we would continue to work with them to move towards supported child care. That is the commitment that I gave to them, and that is the commitment that I believe my staff are still working towards.

If you have a particular case in mind, where you know this is not happening . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . I'd appreciate it if you'd get that information to me, so I can . . .

The Speaker: Minister, through the Chair. Would you wind up your remarks, please.

Hon. L. Boone: . . . deal with it.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale.

[ Page 8368 ]

B. McKinnon: No matter the shell game, she broke her promise. On April 21 the minister made an irrevocable promise to these special needs children and their parents that there would be no interruption of preschool and day care services. How can the minister look these parents and children in the eye and promise them that their school's funding will be maintained and at the same time -- six weeks later -- betray them?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll repeat again. I have assured those people that in those areas where there was difficulty in terms of moving towards supported child care, the funding would remain in place for those areas. We would work with them to move towards supported child care, which is what the child care committee wants and what those areas are looking for. In those areas where there are difficulties, we worked with them and we may find some alternatives. But the funding remains in place until the end of this year.

If you know of a particular case -- through you, hon. Speaker -- where this is not happening, then would you please contact me. I will ask the region why that is not happening, but my directions have been quite clear to the regions.

MINISTER'S ROLE IN

RATIFICATION OF EDUCATION AGREEMENT

G. Wilson: In an

article that appeared in the Vancouver Sun on June 2, written by Kim Bolan, the Minister of Education denied that he had summoned superintendents to his office to try and influence the question of the contract. In fact, he said that they were summoned there to discuss a number of educational initiatives. However, when we look at the summons itself, it says specifically: "I am asking that you meet me in my office for one hour next week to discuss the importance of the ratification of this proposed agreement."

Hon. Speaker, on the same day the minister sent a letter to the school board chairs, which had enclosed an attached

summary of major elements and financial consequences of the agreement, stating that only if the agreement is ratified will it mean approximately $200 million of additional funding, above and beyond core grants, that will be added to the school district grants to support improved services.

The Speaker: And your question?

[2:30]

G. Wilson: He goes on to say: "It is for this reason . . .

The Speaker: Member . . . .

G. Wilson: . . . that I requested your superintendents to meet with me in Victoria."

The Speaker: . . . you're stretching it.

G. Wilson: So will the minister now tell us that he summoned the superintendents to Victoria to increase the intimidation on duly elected school board representatives to ratify an agreement that was cut in the back rooms between this government and the president of the BCTF?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I'm very pleased to hear this . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Minister -- just half a minute, please. I'd like to restore some order so we can hear the answer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member opposite for outlining this government's commitment to a truly groundbreaking agreement with the teachers of this province.

Yes, hon. Speaker, the member is quite accurate. We are committed to spending $200 million -- $150 million to improve services to make sure that class size in kindergarten-to-grade-3 is reduced in school districts across our province. And yes, we are committed to spending $307 million to build 1,000 new classrooms to accommodate those smaller classes. And yes, I have both spoken and written to school trustees to inform them of this agreement and why I believe it is a good agreement for children in our schools.

And yes, I spent yesterday and today and the day before meeting with superintendents to talk to them about how we move forward on implementing these exciting initiatives for our children.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: What is groundbreaking is this labour government's complete violation of the principles of free collective bargaining. That's what is groundbreaking. Will the minister confirm that in discussions with the superintendents he discussed measures for implementing this agreement by a legislative settlement, given that the trustees vote it down . . . ? Will the minister confirm that he discussed with the superintendents implementation through legislation?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No.

THREAT OF COMMERCIAL FISHING PROTEST

TO TOURISM INDUSTRY

G. Plant: Last summer's illegal blockade in Prince Rupert harbour crippled the tourism economy in northwest British Columbia and sent shock waves throughout the tourism industry in British Columbia. Now faced with the threat of an illegal blockade that might upset and interfere with the $200 million-a-year cruise ship industry, the Minister of Fisheries says: "Well, whatever happens, happens." How on earth can the Minister of Fisheries respond to the threat of illegal action by telling the people of British Columbia that he really doesn't care?

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't recall discussing this issue with the member for Richmond-Steveston in the past. You know, it's a pleasure to stand in this House and address some legitimate fisheries issues. The members opposite don't understand the desperate situation that exists in British Columbia. British Columbia has been absolutely abandoned by the federal government in the area of the need to get a Pacific Salmon Treaty and the need to represent British Columbia's interests. The shipyard workers have been abandoned, and the fishermen on the coast have been abandoned. We won't accept that. We would like support from the members opposite, not criticism.

G. Plant: Well, what the Minister of Fisheries doesn't seem to get is that there is an $8.3 billion-a-year tourism industry that is the present and the future of this province.

[ Page 8369 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

G. Plant: It is the only sector of the economy of British Columbia that hasn't been strangled to death by the NDP.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please, so we can hear the question.

G. Plant: When there is a threat of illegal action that could cripple that industry, the only response of the Minister of Fisheries, a minister of the Crown, is to say: "Well, I don't really care. Whatever happens, happens." How dare he say that! How dare he tell the people of British Columbia that he has no respect for the rule of law!

Hon. D. Streifel: Again, I don't recall discussing this in the past with any of the members opposite. What's important here is that the issue in front of us is the need to get a fair and equitable Pacific Salmon Treaty and the need to conserve the coho that are in desperate straits in the Skeena system and the Thompson system. But what's been left out of the equation so far is the workers and their families. I have asked Minister Anderson and the federal government to step forward with a comprehensive and inclusive plan that will support the coast, the fishermen and the shipyard workers -- that will get beyond all of this political sniping and support British Columbians and their families.

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

Hon. D. Streifel: I suppose the rumour of the split in the federal and provincial Liberals doesn't exist with this individual.

G. Farrell-Collins: What the Minister of Fisheries fails to remember is that the cruise ship industry in British Columbia injects over $200 million worth of revenue. There are literally hundreds and thousands of people -- single mothers, I might add -- in the restaurant and hotel industry who rely on the income generated by that industry.

The Minister of Fisheries, when confronted with an illegal blockade that could very well gut that industry not just this year but next year and the year after, says: "Whatever happens, happens. Que sera, sera ." He's the Doris Day of B.C. politics, hon. Speaker. How can a minister of the Crown stand up and say, "Whatever happens, happens," when a $200 million industry is at stake in the province of British Columbia today?

Hon. D. Streifel: What a bizarre circumstance . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, I haven't once heard in this House from the members opposite a concern for coastal communities -- some 20,000 fishermen who are facing a bleak future. I haven't once heard . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members.

Hon. D. Streifel: It's really their question period. If they don't want an answer . . . . But hon. Speaker, what we're asking of the members opposite is to stand up for the coast of British Columbia, to help support the workers and their families who are facing a bleak future. There is no . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: I don't know what blockade they're referencing; there isn't one. But what there is, is desperation -- families out of work, families without food, families without support to pay their mortgages. That's what the issue is here; that's who I stand in this House to support. The members opposite stand in this House to support an incompetent Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

LOG THEFT AND FOREST REVENUE FRAUD

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I rise to respond to a question I took on notice earlier this week. The member for Shuswap asked for a dollar figure on the amount of log theft from B.C. forests and what the government is doing about the theft.

While I cannot quantify a figure for the member, I can assure this House that the anecdotal evidence presented by the member is not a true reflection of the level of this problem. I can, however, tell this House that my ministry has 440 compliance and enforcement officers, in addition to 1,000 field staff who are in the woods every working day. In addition, there are nine environmental Crown counsel who work closely with the Forest Service to deal with forest crime, including unauthorized timber harvesting. In the last year, 266 investigations of unauthorized harvesting were undertaken. This is in addition to the 47 involved in the RCMP's forest crimes unit.

Just to put the allegations of the member opposite into some perspective, if the anecdotal evidence presented in the reported cited were true, that would mean 100,000 truckloads of logs were moved illegally. It would mean the equivalent of 335-hectare clearcuts going unnoticed in the province. I would suggest to the House that theft of this magnitude could not go unnoticed.

Last year the auditor general made 11 recommendations to my ministry to improve control over revenues, including the risks of theft. My ministry has acted on those recommendations and continues to take all the necessary steps to reduce the level of theft in the forests. The Forest Service intends to build upon its effective working relationships with the RCMP -- the local detachments and the forest crimes unit. To this end, I am able to tell the House that on Tuesday of this week an MOU was entered into with the RCMP to have one of their staff members working . . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The report was dated . . . . The MOU was there for the signing of the deputy, and he signed it that day. It had to have been there to be signed that day. On a full-time basis, we will now put . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister, are you nearly finished?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Clearly they don't want to hear the answer, hon. Speaker.

[ Page 8370 ]

The MOU involved putting one of their staff members working on a full-time basis in the compliance and enforcement headquarters in Victoria to further the effectiveness of anti-forest-crimes efforts.

Petitions

T. Nebbeling: This petition, with over 8,000 signatures, has been collected by an organization called FEAT. It is an organization that fights for early treatment of autism in children in British Columbia. I would like to present it to the Legislature.

The Speaker: The member tables a petition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, order, please. I have a ministerial statement from the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Okay?

The Speaker: Hon. minister, I think we can proceed. I think we have order, and you may now proceed.

Ministerial Statement

AGRICULTURE DAY

Hon. C. Evans: We are joined in the precincts today by farmers who have come to hold meeting with caucuses, ministers, MLAs and staff. We're also joined on the lawn by members of 4-H, along with their advisers, parents and even their animals. Essentially, all these people have come to Victoria today to reveal a secret: quite literally, the secret of their existence as the third-largest resource industry in the province.

More than 30,000 people work on farms in B.C. producing food. By the time that food gets to you in a store or restaurant, a quarter of a million people will have been employed in its production, processing, distribution, preparation and sale. If 30,000 people worked for any single private employer, that company would be the biggest economic engine in the province. The CEO of that company would be a regular visitor to our chambers, and legions of his or her advisers would constantly be monitoring our every move and deliberation to protect their interests. In other provinces or countries, such companies actually exist and are called Cargill or McCain or Green Giant or Maple Leaf Foods.

No such vertically integrated giant predominates in B.C. The nature of our geography and our market has mitigated against the concentration of our production into corporate control. We are the only province in Canada where the number of family farms and the number of commodities produced by those small businesses has continued to increase throughout the buyout and merger phenomena of the 1980s and nineties. We pay a price, though, for that diversity. The family farm in the 1990s is invisible. Rather than one giant company that gets our attention, farming in B.C. is made up of 21,000 small businesses.

The industry that we are discussing here today cannot continue to exist in its present form -- full stop. Urbanization has shifted our population away from the land and our political focus away from the people of the land. Now we need to initiate an agriculture day at the Legislature to perceive the secret that exists in plain sight all around us every day. No longer do agrarian politics drive political life in this building as it once did in both the CCF and Social Credit parties. No longer do MLAs go home in the fall to participate in the harvest.

No part of our economy has been so stressed by global changes to the economy as has the food business: stress by freer trade, increasing competition, higher costs and changing consumer demands; stress by cheaper labour and land costs, bigger parcels of land, more readily available and cheaper water in other countries, and less restrictive environmental regulations in Alberta, Washington, Mexico and Chile; stress by the changing rules of the global economy in terms of both opportunities and challenges; stress by the ending of the tariffs that used to allow us to define the borders of our country; and stress, too, because we don't have a migrant labour system in B.C., because we have tough environmental protection and on and on.

The challenges are many. The rate of change is tremendous, and the world targets our market for the dumping of their subsidized products.

There is stress by the ending of feed-freight assistance that had made Canadian agriculture work since 1941 and is now dead. That radically alters the operating environment for turkey, hog, chicken, dairy and egg producers, where the cost of grain can be as much as 60 percent of the input cost of the business.

Stress, too, comes by the fact that while our primary producers continue to diversify at the level of the family farm, the retail sector of the food business is heading in exactly the opposite direction: towards consolidation and concentration of ownership, purchasing and distribution in centres like Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Calgary and Oakland, California, in order to capture economies of scale.

[2:45]

But we can deal with all of these changes, both the good and the bad -- and even the ugly. Our producers have the land and the climate and the soils and the skills and the creativity and the markets to meet the demands of change -- even a change of crisis proportions at exponential speed. Indeed, members, as quiet as it's kept, agriculture is the only primary industry in this province where year-over-year employment figures and gross sales figures grow every year and are unconstrained by the availability of land and of markets. We have the most diverse ecosystem on this continent.

We produce as many commodities as all the other provinces in Canada combined. That ability to find the microclimate and the land suitable for producing specific crops is unique to B.C. That's why we can grow cherries in Creston and greenhouse tomatoes in Delta and apples in Kelowna and grapevines in the Okanagan and on Vancouver Island -- and on and on. It is our only real operating advantage over other countries.

We also have the oldest and the best farmland protection system in Canada, the agricultural land reserve: the model for some and the envy of most American states and Canadian provinces. We essentially farm half the land in the ALR, and we produce the equivalent of 50 percent of the total food purchases of our population. That means that we have a 100 percent growth potential in both land availability and domestic market potential.

Imagine the huge optimism and the investment climate that would exist if the forest industry had a 100 percent increase available in their annual allowable cut. Imagine how coal or hydro or high-tech sectors would grow if they were

[ Page 8371 ]

able to increase by 100 percent just to fill domestic needs with import replacement. In fact, there are so many opportunities that we, at least in the Ministry of Agriculture, are sometimes hard pressed to keep up with the boundless creativity of the producers in this room and in these precincts.

Producers have responded to globalization by proliferating their diversity into commodities we never would have thought of a generation ago: from the hothouse products in Delta and Surrey for market in Boston and San Francisco to ginseng in the dry belt for market in the Far East; flowers and cranberries and mushrooms for the world; and the seed industry in the Peace, which built the lawns and the playing fields of this continent.

Of course, it isn't simple. The challenges are many, the rate of change is tremendous, and the world targets our markets for the dumping of their products. But there is no denying that the potential exists.

We have two jobs immediately to meet that potential. One is to tell your story and end the secret. The old pastoral myth of the days of subsidized agriculture is dead. It is over; it is gone. This industry is a big-time employer with a farm-gate value of $1.6 billion and subsidies of zero. It deserves the respect and exposure and political will that it has come to ask for exerted in this room on its behalf. Second, we need a long-term plan, a vision, a post-GATT strategy of agriculture and food in the global marketplace.

You can tell just by looking at the public gallery today that the first of these jobs has started. Industry is here today telling their stories to MLAs and ministers and caucuses on all sides of the House. They are being invisible no longer. They will keep getting their word out about what they face and what they need and why they deserve our interest. The second job, however -- determining the post-GATT strategy for agriculture -- is less clear.

For some time now the farm, the food-processing and retail sectors and their unions have embarked on the creation of an agrifood policy here in British Columbia that will provide direction and clarity for both the industry and the government. Over the next few months we will hold six regional consultations and then a provincial meeting to hammer out this direction precisely. The first is in Nanaimo this weekend, and I invite members who live there to go.

At our first meeting in Richmond there were more than 40 farmers, processors, distributors and retail sectors and unions from across the province. The basic issue was: how do we compete and thrive in a world where everyone else has higher subsidies, cheaper labour and transportation, and lower standards? At that meeting we recognized that if we engage in a race to the bottom, where will it end, and who will buy the product that it produces? If we don't engage in that race, how do we compete, what do we produce, who will buy it and how much will they pay?

I'll be done in a second, you guys.

Every MLA in this room will be affected by the answer to those questions. Every ministry in government needs to help us answer them and then help us implement our vision. Nothing is sustainable in isolation any more -- not jobs, not the economy, not the family farm. It will take all of us.

I want to say thanks to those of you who organized this day to begin to tell the story and end the secret.

I want to invite members of this House to join me in a commitment to build a vibrant future for agriculture and the food industry -- one that is seen to grow and to contribute to the provincial economy; one that meets the food choices of the consumers out there in our communities; and one that's strong enough, ultimately, to contribute to the broad social and community development of every town in this province, to continue to compete successfully with every state and every other country in the world in terms of the safety and the quality of the food we have for sale, and to make sure that British Columbia's food and beverage industry never again becomes invisible.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. That was a bit long, but on the other hand . . . . I recognize now the hon. member for Okanagan-Boundary, in response.

B. Barisoff: Even though we think of farming as much on this side of the House as they do on that side of the House, my speech won't be quite as long as the minister's.

The Speaker: That's to be appreciated.

B. Barisoff: Agriculture in B.C. is the third largest primary industry, behind forestry and mining. Agriculture contributes $2.2 billion to the economy and directly employs 62,000 people. The B.C. food industry employs 277,000 people, both directly and indirectly. This figure surpasses mining in B.C.

Recent polls have shown that 90 percent of British Columbians agree that the provincial government should limit urban development to protect farmers and farmland. Eighty percent believe that agriculture and the food industry are important as a way of life for rural B.C. Sixty-six percent believe that the best way to keep food prices affordable is to make sure B.C. has a thriving agriculture industry. British Columbia farmers receive the lowest government financial support compared to every other province in Canada.

Excessive taxation, overregulation and failed agriculture policies have resulted in B.C. turning in the poorest performance, in terms of food exports, in Canada between 1993 and 1996.

Agriculture is facing many critical issues. There is a great deal of pressure on the agricultural land reserve, as we've seen in this House in the last month or so. Farmers need a stable land resource to operate on. Farmers need good drainage for that agricultural land. They need government's help to ensure sensible ditch cleaning rules. Farmers have a historic right to water for irrigation purposes. In the face of increased demands from fishing interests, those rights to water for agriculture need to be protected. They need labour standards that are reasonable and competitive in a global market. They need Workers Compensation Board rules and costs that are competitive and realistic.

The minister is doing a review of marketing systems right now. Farmers want the government's assurance that there is no hidden agenda to further undermine the authority of boards to achieve fair prices for farmers. Farmers need to have sensible environmental standards so that agriculture is not choked by a hopeless bureaucracy of rules and regulations written by people who know nothing about the industry.

A critical component is the food processing sector. On this side of the House we have repeatedly called for a comprehensive study of why B.C. food processors are leaving the province. I listed a page full of them in estimates, of how many agrifood processors are leaving the province. When they leave, there is nothing for the farmers.

Hon. Speaker, farmers are here every day producing food for British Columbia -- seven days a week, 52 weeks of the year. Farming is the backbone of rural British Columbia. Agriculture needs strong advocates on both sides of the House to allow it to grow and prosper in the face of the many serious

[ Page 8372 ]

challenges. The members on this side of the House have a strong commitment to agriculture, and we'll continue to work aggressively on its behalf.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: My remarks will be brief and hopefully direct. Having been elected and having sat in this Legislative Assembly for over seven years, I want to say that I think that not only is agriculture an important aspect of our economy, it has had no better champion than the current Minister of Agriculture. I say that with some trepidation, because I know that when one compliments a member of the opposite side in this game, you are often misinterpreted.

But I think this minister does have at his heart the well-being of this industry, and without taking anything away from the member for Okanagan-Boundary, I would say that the member for Abbotsford has been one of the most outstanding critics of Agriculture and Food that I've witnessed in my time in this House. Having said that, it strikes me as passing strange -- when you have had such a strong advocate on the government side and such a competent critic on the opposition side -- that agriculture still continues to fail to get the attention it needs.

I would offer three issues that we might want to pursue. First and foremost is the development of product development moneys. I see that in Alberta their commitment to this well exceeds British Columbia's. Even as a proportion of agricultural farm receipts, they're looking at about 4.8 percent return -- almost 5 percent -- to our 3 percent; I think that that in itself speaks volumes.

Secondly, I think we now have to take one step beyond the agricultural land reserve to establish an agricultural land bank, so that we do not financially punish farmers and so that we allow farmers to be able to get equity out of property that is now caught up in the agricultural land reserve.

Thirdly, I think it's time that this government used its purchasing power to assist B.C. producers. We can set up a Purchasing Commission that will put B.C. product into institutions the government runs: our hospitals, schools and institutes of incarceration. All of these are ideas that would give direct benefit to farmers; they're doable. I would hope that all sides of the House might cooperate to make agriculture what it should be: the number one industry earner in British Columbia.

J. Weisgerber: Madam Speaker, I too seek leave to respond to the minister's statement.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Agriculture, for my constituency, my part of the world, is a big, important industry. It's something that I spend a lot of my time involved with. I think it's tragic that it took the Minister of Agriculture as long as it did to lay out all of the problems facing the industry. And that was really what the ministerial statement did: it simply catalogued all of the difficulties, all of the problems, all of the roadblocks that agriculture and agribusiness face in this province. Tragically, there were very few solutions and very few resolutions.

I too believe we need to raise the profile of agriculture. We need to capitalize on events -- everything from agricultural fairs to research, product development and marketing assistance. The minister noted that processing industries are leaving British Columbia, and he recognized cheaper labour, land costs and environmental concerns as being some of the problems faced by industry in this province. I want to take just a minute or two to provide an example.

In Dawson Creek a number of investors, many of them seed producers, got together and formed a company with the idea of using straw products -- fescue straw -- to produce wallboard as a replacement for medium-density board or oriented strand board. They got some assistance locally for research money. They did the research and were prepared to go ahead with the construction of a plant. Having decided that they could use this agricultural waste to manufacture a wood replacement product, they found that there was a market, an opportunity to make a profit and an opportunity for farm investors to be involved.

They also found that in British Columbia they couldn't get a straight answer on environmental issues. They found labour costs and workers compensation costs to be higher. They examined taxation and compared it with Alberta. The net effect was that this idea, hatched in British Columbia by British Columbian farmer-investors, is now operating very effectively, profitably and efficiently. Tragically, it's operating in Alberta instead of in British Columbia. It seems to me, in a nutshell, that those are the problems that face us here in British Columbia.

[3:00]

I would have been much happier to hear from the minister a commitment to attack those very problems and to deal with unreasonable environmental demands. If one is unwilling to provide specific targets with respect to environmental concerns -- smokestack emissions or other kinds of air emissions or water quality -- but rather rely on the best available technology . . . . If you are unwilling to attack the increasing costs of labour, and if you are unwilling to attack taxation, Mr. Minister, we will then hear these great, kind statements once a year, and we will continue to see the erosion of agriculture and agrifood processing industries in this province. And that's a tragedy, Madam Speaker.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture and then the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole to debate Bill 21.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 21; P. Calendino in the chair.

section 12,

section 31 (continued).

F. Gingell: Mr. Chairman, you will remember that immediately before we broke for lunch, we'd had a long, long discussion on the issues surrounding the appointment of the review panel. We made some suggestions to the minister. I would just like, if I may, to take this opportunity to try and express to the minister the concerns we're hearing.

It is interesting, to use that term, because for all that the minister and her officials tell us -- that this bill has a lot of

[ Page 8373 ]

housekeeping and is a reformation of process rather than a reformation of policy -- I spent virtually all of the break hearing from two different people who, interestingly enough, both happened to discover Bill 21 while cruising the Web last night. I'm not sure if cruising is the right word. They are both people who are professionally involved in the process. They were well aware of the inquiries that had been made by the Saddlemyer report, but they did suggest to me that this bill goes further than was contemplated by them in that discussion.

So just in the process of ending the discussion on

section 31 -- I don't see that anyone else will want to raise issues -- it is critically important for the process to be seen as independent and seen to be a fair shake. Anything that the minister can do to ensure that the process of the appointment of review panel members -- and I agree with the changes that you're making -- is as open as possible . . . . We made the suggestion that you could use local media to advertise -- in lots of time. I was thinking that the other thing the minister might consider doing is that when you make a press release -- and the government is very fond of press releases -- you could give a short CV of each member of the review panel that you intend to appoint.

I think that gets rid of the issue. I don't want to leave the impression that I believe that all the appointments to the review panel are not good ones. I appeared in front of the review panel, and I won my case, so they were obviously fair-minded, sensible and thoughtful. But it's important that people do see it in that form. Anything the minister can do to open up the process and make it as public as is reasonable, I think, will pay dividends. I strongly urge the minister to take whatever action is possible.

Hon. J. Kwan: I appreciate the comments of the member for Delta South; we certainly will keep his comments in mind. Perhaps I can encourage the member to share his experiences with his colleague the member for Richmond East to perhaps alleviate some of the concerns she had, which we discussed earlier today.

F. Gingell: If you're going to call

section 12, we've got a lot of discussion. But I have no further debate on

section 31 of the amended act. I don't know how you want to handle this. Do we just move along?

Section 12,

section 31 approved.

Hon. H. Lali: Hon. Chair, I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. H. Lali: I have the pleasure to introduce 74 grade 7 students from Hope. They are from C. E. Barry Intermediate School in Hope. They are here with their teacher, Mrs. Warner. There are also a number of parents here. I want to ask the House to please make all of these students welcome.

section 12,

section 32.

The Chair: Shall

section 32 pass?

An Hon. Member: Aye.

The Chair: Carried and so ordered.

Interjection.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. I see the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast. On

section 32.

G. Wilson: Thank you, hon. Chair. I know it's tough to see this far down . . . . I am inconspicuous from time to time, and it gets a lot of work done that way. The member opposite might take a page out of that book.

Let me come down to

section 32. With respect to subsection (1) in the existing act, we notice that there is a sub-subsection (f). In sub-subsection (f), it includes farmland. This has been deleted from this act. Under the existing act, sub-subsection (

f) says: " . . . the assessor has failed to approve an application for classification of land as a farm under

section 23(1), or has revoked a classification of land as a farm under the regulations." Now, if you look at

section 23(1), the question of farm classification is not discretionary on the assessor. You've effectively removed the opportunity for this avenue of appeal, essentially, if the farm is removed from the rolls in this section. If the minister is shaking her head, maybe she could explain why she didn't do that.

Hon. J. Kwan: For clarification for the member opposite, sub-subsection (f), in terms of the authorities or rights that are granted from within, is essentially covered off by sub-subsection (d). Where there is farmland -- or any other land, for that matter -- land is simply land. So the right that is afforded under sub-subsection (

f) is already enshrined in sub-subsection (d), and to eliminate sub-subsection (

f) is simply to eliminate a duplication.

G. Wilson: With great respect to the minister, I don't think that's true for two reasons. Firstly, the language that the minister has just read is exactly as it is written in the existing act. Secondly, sub-subsection (

f) in the existing act makes specific reference to

section 23(1) and the rules that apply to the assessor under

section 23(1). By simply allowing the language to sit as "land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified," which already exists in the act . . . . That language exists as read. What you've done is delete sub-subsection (f), which makes very specific reference to

section 23(1) of the act. In

section 23(1) there are obligations provided which will no longer be covered in this act.

Hon. J. Kwan:

Section 23(1) really just refers to the classification of farmlands to be referenced under

section 32(1)(f). But the point really is that whether it's farmland or any other classification, the rights that are afforded to an individual are really encompassed by the referenced land in general. You don't necessarily have to specify farmland, or otherwise. So by eliminating sub-subsection (f), it does not exclude farmland owners from having the same rights that are afforded to other land owners, because it is really covered off in

section 32(1)(d), and this

interpretation has also been offered by legal counsel.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: I'll tell you the problem. For every legal counsel there are a couple of legal opinions. The difficulty with the language as it's written now -- and I've certainly done my own set of investigations on this -- is that if you remove the direct reference to

section 23(1) . . . . What

section 23(1) talks about is classification of land as a farm. What is interesting about

section 23(1) is that it says that an owner of land who wants all or part of the land classified as a farm

[ Page 8374 ]

must apply to the assessor using the application form in the following procedure prescribed by the commissioner. That is set out. This talks about a process of appeal, essentially, because there's a protection here under sub-subsection (f). Because under sub-subsection (f), it says . . . .

Remember what we're doing here. Maybe for those who are trying to follow this discussion, it might even help us to go back and remind ourselves. These are appeals to courts of revision. This says: "If a person is of the opinion that an error or omission exists in the completed assessment roll in that . . . . " Then it lists a whole bunch . . . . One of them would read: " . . . in that (

f) the assessor has failed to approve an application for classification of land as a farm under

section 23(1)" -- and this is the important part -- "or has revoked a classification of land as a farm under the regulations . . . . "

Now, we know that in this province there are assessors who believe that there are people who are using the farm land classification inappropriately. They see it as a loophole. We also know that there have been many challenges to farmland on the basis of portions of land being used for processing and other kinds of activities.

What this does -- and I'm told by people who are more knowledgable in the legal language than I am . . . . If you remove that direct reference with respect to an opportunity or avenue of appeal, you will open the door for an assessor to deny a farm that is agricultural land where portions of that land are used for processing or other kinds of commercial activity -- something that they've been trying to do for a long time.

I fail to understand why we would have that protection in the existing act,

whereas in this amendment we would remove that protection -- if indeed the minister believes that there is no substantive change. If there's no substantive change, let's put

section 32(1)(

f) back in, and my objection would be taken away.

Hon. J. Kwan: I want to assure the member opposite that eliminating

section 32(1)(

f) does not in any way eliminate the rights that would be afforded to farm owners. As an example, if farmland has been improperly classified or the parcel of farmland has been improperly revoked, they still have the same authorities to appeal under sub-subsection (d). So you don't need to specify kinds of classification of land in order to exercise the right to appeal. Everybody who owns land and feels that their classification has been improperly applied or revoked in this reverse manner would have the same rights that are afforded to them to appeal those decisions.

G. Wilson: There is a distinction with respect to assessment on land that is classified as agricultural land within the agricultural land reserve and therefore is agricultural land, be it classified category 1, 2, 3 or whatever it may be -- rural land that an owner is running as a farm but that would ordinarily be classified as farm, rural, undeveloped or whatever -- because it does not fit the criteria by which we would ordinarily assign it as farmland. They may be small hobby farms, or they may be larger enterprises.

The people who run these farms run them in a manner that allows them the opportunity to be able to demonstrate revenue and, through the demonstration of revenue, get an exemption on taxes because they are classified as a farm.

Now, what I am told, from people who are far more knowledgable in this assessment law than I am . . . . It says that if you take and try to capture that under

section 32(1)(d) -- "land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified . . . . " That refers specifically to the nature of land classification,

whereas

section 32(1)(f), because it talks about

section 23(1) of the act, which talks about an owner who wants all or part of the land classified as a farm -- right? -- using the application form . . . . Within the application form, they talk about revenue and income. What I'm told is that the reason this bill was written initially to include both sub-subsections 32(1)(

d) and (

f) was to provide protection for those people who believe that an assessor has unjustly, improperly or unwisely denied them the right to classify what they're doing on their land as farming and therefore to have the exemption, as opposed to classifying their land as farmland. There is a distinction.

So with all due respect to the minister, when the minister says this is simply duplication, it is not. There are rural assessors who would like nothing more than to knock out every hobby farmer from land classification. There are others who would like to see that gone, so that they can increase the taxes levied against people who currently have some modicum of protection because they're actually trying to farm it.

Hon. J. Kwan: Let me try this one more time.

Section 32(1)(

f) stipulates: " . . . the assessor has failed to approve an application for classification of land as a farm under

section 23(1), or has revoked a classification of land as a farm under the regulations." The key operative word here is "classification." So when we turn to

section 23(1), it is headlined "Classification of land as a farm."

Section 23(1) clearly stipulates: "An owner of land who wants all or part of the land classified as a farm must apply to the assessor using the application form, and following the procedure, prescribed by the commissioner."

If in the instance, with respect to classification of farmland, the issue of classification is being appealed, they have every authority to do so under

section 32(1)(d), which states: " . . . land or improvements, or both land and improvements, have been improperly classified." So whether it's farmland or industrial land that has been improperly classified, or any other classification, the authority to appeal is still there. The right is still there, protected for those individual owners. So from that perspective, we have received clear legal advice that

section 32(1)(

f) is simply a redundant clause or

section and that any of those rights that are afforded within

section 32(1)(

f) are also protected under

section (d).

G. Wilson: It would appear as though we're quickly coming to a difference of opinion. I mean, I'm assuming that the legal advice the minister was given is founded in some law -- as is the advice that I'm given and that I have to seek when I go through these bills to try and get an opinion. The difficulty is . . . . Perhaps the minister might once again try to clarify, because this is what I am told, and that certainly is my reading of this.

There is a distinction between general land classification through the B.C. Assessment Authority on how lands are assessed -- and how people may go in and may, by application under sections 23(1) and 23(2), which says, "Subject to this Act, the assessor must classify as a farm any land, or any part of a parcel of land, that meets the standards prescribed under subsection (3)," which talks about the commissioner prescribing "standards for classification of land as a farm . . . . " All of that is protected in the current act as it stands now, because under

section 32(1)(

f) it is clearly stipulated by cross-referencing that protection to

section 23. It does not do that. If it was redundant, why would it have been put in in the first place?

[ Page 8375 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: We ourselves asked that question as well. Part of the job here is to clean up the act a little bit and to ensure that the rights that the member speaks of are intact. If we can do that by cleaning up the act, by eliminating the redundant clauses . . . . That's what we're attempting to do.

But for the moment, if you follow the logic or the concerns that the member opposite raised in terms of the different kinds of classification -- his sense, really, that we need to highlight or identify them specifically within

section 32(1) -- then one could also say that the same principle ought to apply to railway properties, forest lands, etc. The fact is that we don't list them all. It is as perplexing to me as it is to the member opposite why

section 32(1)(

f) was there to begin with. When staff looked at this act, they found that

section 32(1)(

f) was indeed redundant, as the rights within 32(1)(

f) are protected under

section 32(1)(d). Therefore our legal advisers feel very comfortable that we can eliminate

section 32(1)(

f) without impairing any of the rights that would otherwise be prescribed under that section.

G. Wilson: I take it, hon. Chair, that we're not likely to get the minister to agree that we should just leave

section 32(1)(

f) in this bill. Even though, as the minister said, it's a bit of a redundancy, everybody thinks that by cleaning it up they're getting rid of it. It reminds me of tinkering with a rather complex computer program and you come across a file and you think: "Jeez, I don't know what this file is; it's kind of redundant, so let's just delete it." You delete it, and the next thing you know is that you can't run your computer, because it was one of those critical files: "Oh no, I wish I'd known . . . . "

It's the same kind of thing. It's getting more and more difficult in this province to get clarification with respect to application for farmland that is not a commercially acknowledged farm. Mostly, people are involved in farming as a part-time enterprise, because a whole lot of farmers can't make a living running a full-time farm. They have to do other things, and they frequently will use a portion of their land for other things.

I'm thinking specifically of those people who are truckers, who will use part of their land as a repair shop or who are involved in mechanical repair or whatever, and then they have a portion that's set aside as farm. What this is going to do is make it much more difficult for those people to continue to have that portion of land assigned and designated as farm, because there is no specific reference now allowed to the very

section of the act that protects it.

The minister says it's the same as railway land or forest land or industrial land. That's just not true. It's a far more complicated issue of assessment, because often you will find that the product coming off that farm is seasonal or rotational. Many times it's out of a production that can be done on land that would otherwise be deemed to be non-farmland. If it's hothouse and greenhouse, you don't have to have arable soils -- and yet you're farming. I'm telling you that if we delete this, it's like deleting that little, crucial program.

The first instance you delete it, you might think: "This cleans it up; we've now cleaned up our little computer." The next time you try to fire it up, you're going to find that that was a critical file.

If the minister thinks it's redundant and has no value, then I think we're safer to leave it in, because there's a whole bunch of people who do think it has value. I would ask the minister -- if the minister believes it is strictly a question of redundancy -- to leave in

section 32(1)(f). If she'll entertain that, I'll write up the amendment, and we can pass it and move on.

[3:30]

Hon. J. Kwan: Part of the exercise of bringing in the new act and going through the exercise of looking at what's in it, how to streamline it, is to clean up the act itself. We actually went through a very lengthy process with respect to the Municipal Act, and we've gone through a great deal of process around that. The principle, of course, with government is to streamline government policies and get rid of red tape -- to clarify and get rid of confusion. I'm advised by our legal advisers that

section 32(1)(

f) is a redundant component within the act. As for the issue of classification, whether it's farmland or otherwise, if a person deems that their classification has been wrongly applied, they have every right within the amended act to appeal that. None of those rights have been taken away.

Section 32(1)(f), because it is a redundant component of the act . . . . For the purposes of clarifying and illuminating confusion,

section 32(1)(

f) should be eliminated.

G. Wilson: Let me just take one more kick at this. I guess we have a difference of approach to what we're doing in legislation. It's nice to clean up legislation to make it read easily and to meet the test of those legal minds that love this kind of stuff where they go through and pick out the words and . . . . But my approach to legislation is that we're attempting to enact laws that are fair and that protect British Columbians in an appropriate way.

If it means that we have to write a somewhat complex and possibly even redundant clause to make sure that there is protection for British Columbians who wish to have a farm other than a commercial farm -- a hobby farm or some other kind of farm operation -- which is a portion of their income . . . . If we have to be just somewhat redundant in the language to make sure that that protection is there, then we should err on the side of the people, not on the side of lawyers -- with all due respect to the lawyers, who might think it reads a whole lot better if we can just sweep this one out.

There are people who have read this and who believe, as I believe, that this is going to further erode the opportunity for rural landowners to be able to get farm classification and use farm classification as a means of making sure that their property taxes are affordable. If the minister is not prepared to move on it, then in the first instance that this is the case -- and it will happen -- it will land on this minister's doorstep. Then let her defend to that landowner what this government has just done through the implementation of that: once again eroding the opportunity for rural landowners to be able to afford to live on the land that they own.

So I ask the minister one more time: if it's redundant, if it has no value, if it has no meaning -- which makes it passing strange to understand why it was in the act in the first place . . . . But if that's true, then there is no harm in leaving it in there. Let's leave it in there, and let's err on the side of caution. If the minister would allow us to do that, we could move on.

Hon. J. Kwan: I will once again assure the member opposite that eliminating

section 32(1)(

f) does not in any way erode the rights that are afforded to an individual with a parcel of farmland, because those rights are protected within the amended act as it is prescribed. It would be useful, actually, if the member opposite wishes, to work with the ministry on behalf of those farmland owners who may fear that their rights have somehow been eliminated because

section 32(1)(

f) has been deleted from this act. We can work together to ensure

[ Page 8376 ]

that those individuals understand the newly amended act and understand that their rights have not been eroded in any way, shape or form.

The Chair: Member, I believe the minister has clearly responded. Unless you have something to bring up . . . .

G. Wilson: I do, actually. I thought that what I heard the minister offering was a chance to stand this

section down so we could have some consultation with rural landowners to decide whether or not they have a comfort level. If that's the case, I'd be delighted to stand the

section down, and we will go out and consult with rural British Columbians. If I'm wrong or if the minister can assure them, then we can proceed. That sounds to me like a very intelligent way to proceed. So if that was the offer the minister was making -- let's stand it down and let's go talk to British Columbians -- I'm 100 percent in favour.

Hon. J. Kwan: Nice try, member opposite. Let me say this very slowly for you, and maybe you'll understand what I'm saying this time. I'm advised by our legal advisers that the elimination of

section 32(1)(

f) does not in any way, shape or form erode the rights of the individuals that fall under that category: namely, farmland classification. Given that that is the case and that eliminating that clause does not erode anybody's rights, then it is wise for government to streamline and to clear away the confusion that simply doing away with that

section has now caused the member opposite.

The Chair: I'll put the question on

section 12,

section 32. Shall

section 32 pass?

G. Wilson: Hon. Chair, we've only just done

section 32(1)(f). There's a bunch more sections under

section 32 that we should look at.

The Chair: Okay. The member continues, in that case.

G. Wilson: Let's move on to

section 32(2). In terms of the amendments, the existing act talks about how the council and municipality -- by its clerk, solicitor, agent, etc. -- or the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations or the commissioner or the assessor may make a complaint against the assessment roll or any individual entry in the assessment roll on any ground whatever, and the court of revision must deal with the complaint and either confirm or alter the assessment. That's what the existing act talks about.

What we've done is we've changed that, and once again we've changed that to essentially tie it into

section 33. Again, I have real difficulty with the process of doing this, because we're being asked to accept a

section of

an act that hasn't yet been debated. So it gets to be tricky, except that we are getting to it right away, so perhaps we'll let that go. What it does is change fairly substantially the prospect by which local government may make an appeal of an assessment. So I wonder if the minister might explain why we want to go this route, as opposed to the existing route, with respect to the role of the municipality.

Hon. J. Kwan: It is an issue of fairness. No matter who is making the appeal, they have to undergo the same process.

G. Wilson: Well, I appreciate that. But one assumes that the existing act is fair, in that it is simply more specific with respect to the provisions of how a complaint against the assessment roll may be made. What we've done is change that in terms of notice of complaint, and part of that

section is under

section 33, which we're going to get to in just a moment. My question is: what prompted the ministry to do this -- for example, to take the current language out of subsection (2) and to change it with respect to the provisions of local government in terms of its challenge of the rolls? Why did we do this? It's working perfectly well now, so what prompted the change?

Hon. J. Kwan: The reason why we've done it this way is for fairness. As I stated earlier, no matter who they are, when they're making an appeal, they have to undergo the same procedures. As well, for the member's information, we have also brought this before the UBCM. Through discussions with them, the UBCM are satisfied with the changes that are being proposed here today.

G. Wilson: I don't doubt the UBCM are satisfied. Because municipalities are beneficiaries of the money they get from the assessment roll, that doesn't surprise me.

Subsection (4) of

section 32 talks about how the assessor may make a complaint against all or any part of the assessment roll completed by the assessor, "based on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1) of this section," which was the controversial

section we just went through that we've just now removed. One of the compelling requirements of an assessor is to make sure that applications for farmland are classified. So I'd like to have some satisfaction that if the assessor is going to make a complaint against any or part of the assessment roll completed by that assessor, and if we're now limited to the text of subsection (1), that will also include the statutory requirements that are now removed now from this section, which would be under

section 23(1).

Hon. J. Kwan: The assessor always had the ability to make a complaint, and according to the current act that is under

section 32(2).

G. Wilson: But we're repealing

section 32(2) of the current act, so that's not the issue. We're not repealing

part 3 of the existing act. In

part 3 of the existing act, under

section 23(1), where the requirements of the assessor with respect to the application for farmland, which we just went through a long discussion of . . . . I've clearly lost that debate, because the minister refuses to acknowledge that that's an issue.

Now what I'm saying is that under subsection (4), where it says, "an assessor may make a complaint against all or any part of the assessment roll completed by the assessor, based on any of the grounds specified in subsection (1) of this

section . . . . " Well, subsection (1) is the

section that deals with (

a) through (e), from which you've just deleted (f). Because there is no longer any specific reference to

section 23(1) in this act, my question is: will that assessor be able to use, as an item of their appeal, whether or not they won or lost on the grounds of what they constitute agricultural land to be? Can they then say: "Well, this is classified as agricultural land. It seems to have passed the board on that, but I'm not going to bring in evidence and information to say that you shouldn't be agricultural land, under

section 23(1) or 23(2)"?

[3:45]

Hon. J. Kwan: The assessor has the authority to appeal any classification, whether it be farmland or industrial land or any land, for that matter. I know that the member opposite

[ Page 8377 ]

wants to go back and harp on

section 23(1) as it relates to 32(f), despite my repeated assurances that those rights afforded to farmland classification will not be eroded in any way, shape or form. Under these different sections this same theory applies, in that the assessor still has the authority to deal with these different classifications, whether it be farmland or otherwise.

G. Wilson: I'm cut to the quick -- to think that I'm going back to harp on this issue. I'm shocked that the minister would think that. Perhaps if the minister represented a rural riding, as I do -- as opposed to an urban riding, as she does -- she might understand how difficult it is to maintain protection of agricultural farmland under the Assessment Act now, let alone under this new bill. Having said that, I think the answer was no, there is no specific reference to 23(1). That further underscores my commentary before.

Let me then ask the minister this. Under

section 32(5), it says: "Without limiting subsections (2) to (4)" -- which is the proposition with respect to challenging the assessment roll -- complaints under those subsections may be in respect of" -- and then there are a number of items set out -- "a class, category or type of property or interest in land . . . . " What is interesting is that, as I've gone through the act as it currently exists, I find it difficult to match this up. I wonder if the minister might tell us precisely what she understands "class" of land to be, what she understands "category" of land to be, what she understands "type of property" to be, and what she means when she refers to "interest in land."

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, I don't live in a rural riding; I live in urban Vancouver. But at the same time, I know people who run farmland. In fact, my sister and her husband own a farm out in Burnaby, so issues relating to farmland are something of a topic within our family, because it's the very livelihood in which my niece, my nephews, my sister and my brother-in-law engage in for their day-to-day living.

With respect to these specific terminologies, on the issue around "class" and what it means, "class" is simply a term that has been chosen because it's broad in scope. To perhaps avoid disagreements around the term "class" versus "type" versus "category," the word "class" is the broadest term one could apply, and for that reason it has been chosen for the purposes of this

section of the act.

In terms of the phrase "interest in land," it simply means ownership.

G. Wilson: I still don't understand what the difference is. If you're writing

an act which says that "complaints under those subsections may be in respect of . . . " and then you list a bunch of things . . . . So each of them must have a definition, a meaning, and they must have some context within which we can understand their distinction and their difference. Otherwise, they are, by nature, redundant. Therefore we should ask ourselves: what is the difference between class . . . ? What does it mean? It's the broadest definition of what -- a type of land as a classification? If so, is it residential? Are we talking about commercial, industrial? If that's the case, how is that different than a category of land or a "type" of property? What do those three words mean?

Hon. J. Kwan: Essentially, those three words really mean one and the same thing. One could say a class could refer to the classification of farmland. The category of farmlands could include -- I don't know -- the tree fruit category. Types of property could include the type in which all kinds of different farmlands . . . . As an example, seeing as "farmland" is such a choice topic here today, you could say that the type of property could be the type that grows rose bushes. All of this is essentially one and the same, in that the intent here is to put in terminology that would broadly encompass the large scope that one could apply with respect to classification, category or type.

G. Wilson: I just took a lesson from the minister in how we should be trying to clean up the language and make much more expeditious our use of terminology. I'm not certain why they're in here if they all mean the same thing. I don't think they do mean the same thing. The minister might want to think about this answer again. I think this is an important question.

There are complaints under those sections, maybe, in respect of . . . . If they're saying "any kind of land," then why not say that? However, if they are saying that there will be different complaints under those sections with respect to classes and categories of land, or types of properties -- given the fact that some of these may fall within municipal jurisdictions -- then we're starting to talk about something quite different.

What we are talking about, then, are categories of land which are in fact statutorily defined -- not necessarily in the Assessment Act, but possibly within the Municipal Act or within the bylaws of municipalities. We are talking about something quite different when we talk about types of property, because then we're looking at a definition that has a monetary value with respect to whether or not that property has as its primary value commercial, residential or industrial land uses. Those are very different things.

We can't, on the one hand, throw out

section 33(3)(

f) just because we're trying to clean house, and on the other hand, leave in this clumsy language that all means the same thing, but we just want to put it in there because it makes it looks better. Surely there is a difference.

Hon. J. Kwan: The three terms that are being looked at -- class, category or type -- for different individuals . . . . They may use those terminologies differently. For the purpose of this act, what we're trying to do, as recommended by legislative counsel, is to use a method that broadly defines and assists our ability to differentiate the property types. Therefore the three types have been identified, which would be class, category or type of property.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

G. Wilson: I've heard the minister. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but if the minister is content that legislative counsel thinks it's a sensible thing to do, then I'll take it at face value that it is. Although my guess is that class, category and type clearly have some meaning; otherwise, I don't think they'd be there. We'll get to that a little later on in the act, anyway.

I have one or two more questions on this section. The other one that deals with subsection (32)(5), which deals with . . . . It talks about an "interest in land or improvements, or both land and improvements." This is: " . . . complaints under those subsections may be in respect of . . . . " They're talking about improvements on land. I'm assuming that here we're talking about capital improvements -- construction and those sorts of things.

One of the concerns that we have under the existing act is the really poor -- in fact almost nonexistent -- definition of what constitutes improvements and how one evaluates those

[ Page 8378 ]

improvements, unless the improvements are tied to the overall resale value of the property. The minister will appreciate that if you're talking about an addition to a home, you can't tie a particular net value to an improvement without looking at the overall value of the home. Clearly that has to be tied also to the overall value of the land, unless you're going to sell the home in the absence of the land. So to try and make those distinctions with respect to what constitutes the net worth or net value of improvement is pretty tricky -- yet I understand what the intent of the act is. I wonder if the minister might comment on that.

There have been a number of instances where people who have made improvements find themselves now facing a situation where there is an assessed value or assessed worth on that improvement that in fact has little or no reflection of the actual cost incurred to make that improvement possible. In other words, you spend $60,000 doing a major renovation to your home, and the assessor comes along and says that a home that's worth $130,000 is now worth $250,000. There's no net connection. So if the minister could talk to me a little bit about that, that would be useful. I would like to know exactly what the minister means when the minister refers to making a complaint with respect to improvement.

Hon. J. Kwan: The term "improvements" is defined in the act. If the member likes, I suppose I could quote the entire definition into the record, or the member could read for himself the definition of improvements as prescribed under the act.

G. Wilson: I acknowledged in the opening comment, hon. Chair, that I was aware that improvements had definition in the act. What I said was that it is not a particularly useful definition when one comes to try to isolate what the net worth or net value of that improvement is to the overall assessment. We're dealing here with an appeal with respect to the rolls in terms of values of property and the assessment on that roll. So what I'm asking the minister is not to get into a little debate around whether I have or haven't read the definition of improvement -- because I have.

I'm asking the minister to make a more precise description of what the minister interprets that term improvements to mean in this amended act.

Hon. J. Kwan: Perhaps I can give the member opposite this example. Mr. A owns a parcel of land. On that parcel of land, Mr. B has a mobile home. They're owned by separate and different owners. So for the purposes of interpreting improvements, Mr. B, who owns the mobile home on that land . . . . That mobile home would be determined or classified as improvements for its separate owner, so you're able to distinguish between the owner of the land versus the owner of the improvements on that parcel of land.

[4:00]

G. Wilson: We could get into a whole bunch of complicated hypothetical examples, and I'm not sure that's particularly valuable. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, hon. Chair. Although I might appear to be being argumentative, I'm really not trying to be. What I'm trying to establish is: with respect to complaints under subsections (2) through (4) . . . . What we're really talking about here are requirements that would be subject to

section 33 under this new act by the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, and we're talking about a completed assessment roll. What I'm trying to do is find what the minister's

interpretation is with respect to an improvement that is separate from and not joined to the land.

How can you do this? The assessment roll is based upon the land. How can you take the improvements and not have them enjoined in some way to the overall value of the property? If you do that, you're going to greatly inflate the assessment on that improvement. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

Hon. J. Kwan: One example where improvements in land would be deemed to be separate would be in the case of industrial properties. The valuing of industrial properties oftentimes is separate from the land base itself versus the improvements.

G. Wilson: That makes sense, and that's what I suspected. So for the purposes of this act, then, under the amendment, if we're looking at industrial land -- particularly if we're looking at a large industrial complex that does capital improvement, through building retaining ponds or whatever they're doing in whatever their particular industry may be -- what we're saying here is that an appeal can be made directly with respect to the improvement without appealing the overall assessment itself. Is that correct?

A corporation, a company or an industry may be able to take issue with their invested capital on that one issue without having to appeal the overall assessment. They can now pull it out and deal with that as an independent appeal. Is that right?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes.

G. Wilson: That's an important distinction and may be in fact a good thing.

Unless somebody else has any other questions on

section 32, I only have one more, and it has to do with . . . . If I could just quickly go back to 32(3), it talks about "the completed assessment roll relating to property in the municipality or regional district, as the case may be, based on any of the grounds specified under subsection (1) . . . . " What we're suggesting is that local government has the provision for the assessment rolls within their own jurisdiction. It's not implied that the municipality may apply for an appeal within the regional district. Or is it implied that those rolls are now going to be subject to appeal by either jurisdiction?

The Chair: The member wishes to continue?

G. Wilson: I'd like to clarify, hon. Chair, because I get a sense from the puzzled looks over there that I wasn't very clear. Under

section 32(3), does the term "as the case may be" isolate the local government to the municipality or the regional district with respect to the complaint? Can one make a complaint against the other, essentially, with respect to the rolls? That's what I'm talking about. In other words, is one jurisdiction able now to formalize its complaint within the broader context of the regional district?

Hon. J. Kwan: The basis of the complaint can only be applied within its own jurisdiction.

G. Wilson: That's the clarification I needed, and so unless anybody else has something on

section 32, I'm done.

R. Coleman: Hon. Chair, I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[ Page 8379 ]

R. Coleman: Visiting the precincts today from Peterson Road Elementary School are a group of grade 6 and 7 students -- 58 of them, to be exact, who I spoke to earlier on the front steps of the Legislature. It's a good group of young people from my riding, along with their teacher, Ms. Rempel, and a number of parents. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Section 12,

section 32 approved on division.

section 12,

section 33.

F. Gingell:

Section 33 brings in a new series of compulsory requirements that a complaint must contain as it is filed. It's a little more detailed and a little more onerous, as I understand it, than previously. This may surprise the minister, but there have been cases known where the assessor or counsel for the B.C. Assessment Authority has attempted, sometimes with success, to have an appeal thrown out because of a technicality in the completion of the information about the complaint.

This is not an inclusive list. Subsection 33(3) deals with (a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) and (f), and then (

g) says: " . . . include any other prescribed information." Now, this is for an appeal to the review panel. When we get to the next stage of appeal in front of the assessment board, under the proposed

section 50(5) there is the ability for the board, in that case, to allow the appellant to perfect their notice. That ability isn't being given here. It just seems to me that it is in the process for the appeal board; I don't see it in

section 33 for the review panel. I'm wondering if that has been omitted by mistake or whether there is some other location within the amendments that will cover this.

C. Clark: While we're waiting for the minister, I wonder if I could seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

C. Clark: We have visiting us today, from my community, Mr. Kore and 30 students from Seaview Elementary School, grades 5 and 6, who assure me they are finding the debate on the Assessment Amendment Act, 1998, scintillating and are looking forward to us continuing the committee stage. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. J. Kwan: The first place in which a complaint is made . . . . It goes to the assessor. The assessor does not have the authority to not accept a complaint. Where that first authority to reject applies is with the review panel. Under those circumstances, the authority that rests with the appeal procedure to reject a complaint or to

schedule a hearing or determine what is the most appropriate course of action does not fall in the first instance -- where the assessor is provided or notified of a complaint.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, I don't think that I made my position plain. I'm not talking about the complaint being handed to the assessor. It has now gone to the review panel. The assessor is sitting on one side, and the complainant is sitting on the other side. It has been known for the assessor, in front of the review panel or the court of revision, as it was previously called, to try to get the complaint disallowed on the technicality that the complaint was not complete.

When we get to the appeal board, under

section 50(5), there's the ability to perfect the notice the court made. When we get to

section 50(5), I'm going to make the suggestion to the minister that the court must . . . . But we will deal with that then. It seems to me at the moment that the requirement to allow the complainants to perfect their notice isn't automatically there. It just seems to me that that's a reasonable protection. Perhaps it is there, but in this complicated piece of legislation I haven't been able to find it.

L. Reid: Forgive the interruption. May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

L. Reid: In the precincts at the moment -- I was just speaking with them -- is a lovely group of students from William Bridge Elementary in the riding of Richmond East. They are accompanied by their teacher Ms. I. Rantanen. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

[4:15]

Hon. J. Kwan: The mandate that has been given to the review panel has broader powers, if you will, than the appeal boards. In other words, the review panel has the authority given to it to investigate, even though in an instance where something has been filed wrongly, they still have the authority to investigate once the matter has been brought to their attention. At the appeal level, their mandate is to look only at the appeals after they have been properly filed. So in an instance where an assessor may well appear to provide information for the consideration of the review panel, they have the authority to do that.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry. We're off on the wrong thing.

Just refer, if the minister will, please, to subsection (3): "The notice of appeal must . . . " (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (

f) and (g). If a complaint is filed and it doesn't have (a), (b), (c), (d), (

e) and (

f) in it, in the past it has been known that the assessor, now acting in front of the panel as a protagonist, if I may use that term, in this process, has called for the complaint to be dismissed on the technicality that the notice has not been filed in the correct manner.

All I'm asking for is to consider bringing in something similar to subsection 50(5), which allows the appellant to perfect their notice so that their appeal will not fail on the basis that they haven't put in the right legal description of the land or haven't used the right roll number. You know, for agents and lawyers this is all relatively simple. They are experienced and used to it. But for us regular property owners who have no skill in understanding of the law and the assessment process, we need help. You can do it wrong.

At the moment, your appeal could fail on the technicality that the notice is not complete. The notice can be not complete because you've put in sub-subsection 33(3)(g), which says: " . . . include any other prescribed information."

So, looking at the bill itself, this is the amendment. But the amended act will not be sufficient. You may have to go to the regulations as well. I think that just the protection of a

section 50(5)-type

section would give me the comfort of knowing that people who are not as skilled will not be unreasonably disadvantaged.

Hon. J. Kwan: Using the example that the member identified -- the instance where, for some technical reason, the person files an appeal and is wrong, and even if the instance where the assessor goes before the panel and advocates for the

[ Page 8380 ]

panel not to hear the case -- the power or mandate that's been given to the panel, even if improper notices have been filed, is that they can in fact deal with it. So they can evaluate all the evidence that's brought before them and make that determination.

Where it moves to the level within the board, if the notice is improperly filed to the board, the board cannot then deal with it, because at their higher level presumably you have gone through their screening process of dealing with these kinds of matters or issues.

F. Gingell: I was listening to some of the other exchanges and wondering why they go on for so long. Now I find myself doing the same thing.

Section 50(5) says: "If a notice of appeal is deficient . . . the chair of the board may in his or her discretion allow a reasonable period of time . . . the notice may be perfected or the fee is to be paid" -- roughly speaking. I don't see that same provision in

section 33, which deals with the first stage of an appeal.

I do see the word "must" but don't see the word "must" in

section 50(5): "The notice of complaint must (a) . . . (b) . . . (c) . . . (d) . . . (e) . . . (f) . . . (g) . . . . " If they haven't fulfilled all these conditions, then the appeal could fail on the technicality that it has not been filed properly. What I would like to . . . .

That's the question I've been asking. Is there someplace in here that says that the review panel must allow the appellant the opportunity to correct their notice? If a transposition of some number, an incorrect legal description or leaving off one of the items listed in (g), which we don't even know about . . . . There should be some provision to ensure that the review panel must let the appellant correct their notice or be advised of the fact that their notice is not complete before it comes in front of the panel.

Hon. J. Kwan: In this instance, where a person files an appeal to the panel improperly, if the question is whether the panel would tell the person that they have filed improperly . . . . Clearly the panel has the authority to do that. But I think the most important piece here is whether or not the panel has the mandate to look at the appeal, even though it has been filed improperly. The mandate that's been given to the panel allows them to deal with a case that has been filed improperly.

F. Gingell: The minister has hit the nub of the problem: it's permissive; it's not obligatory. It should be obligatory, or the appellant should be given 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours to perfect their notice. The minister has more faith in the review panel than I have. I think that the review panel has a responsibility to hear that appeal, and the appellant should not have their rights in any way endangered through not perfecting the notice of complaint. I understand that they can do it. I'm suggesting to the minister that they must do it.

Hon. J. Kwan: If in the instance where a person files an improper file because -- I don't know -- they've spelled their names backwards or something, and their appeal is denied, that person has every authority to go to the next level. It does not exempt them or take away their right to the opportunity to be heard. It is highly unlikely, I would suggest, that the panel would reject it on that basis -- because something has been improperly filed. On the contrary, I would suggest that the panel would probably go out of their way to make sure that even if something is improperly filed, they would hear the case.

F. Gingell: I would hope so too. I mean, that's just the way the world should be. But the reason I haven't filed an amendment to this is because it's one of the issues that was brought up in my lunchtime phone calls from someone who is a professional within this industry and deals with assessment issues. There were, I understand, specific instances where assessors went to the court of revision -- at the moment; it has yet to go through a name change -- and applied to the court to reject the appeal on the basis that it was improperly filed.

Now, I appreciate that the property owner can appeal that; they can go forward to the property assessment panel. But that costs money; that takes up more time. That makes this exercise more difficult. You and we on this side wanted to make this smoother and easier. So it would seem to me that to ensure that the appellant has the ability to perfect the notice, removing all danger of their appeal being disallowed on the basis of a technicality, would just make good common sense and would give the minister and this side of the House the comfort that we're looking for to ensure that the process is as fair and open as we wish it to be.

Hon. J. Kwan: At this first stage of the appeal, generally speaking, if a person files an improper notice, the review panel is given the mandate to look at and investigate all of those cases. I would suggest perhaps that in the unlikely eventuality that a person's case is rejected -- maybe the member opposite has a specific example where somebody has been rejected -- there is a safety provision, if you will, that is there to enable that individual to bring it to the next level of appeal. I don't think the member is really talking about an issue that requires legislation per se, but rather better training, better practices between the panel members and the assessors.

[4:30]

F. Gingell: That answer is exactly the same answer you gave me before.

I would like to suggest to you that the purpose of legislation is to ensure that citizens' rights are protected in every way. I think that putting in another subsection in

section 33 -- I'm sorry I haven't got it drafted -- to bring in the same words as are in

section 50(5), which you have in here . . . . I know that the minister doesn't like to accept that there may be occasions when this has happened: that appeals have been rejected on the basis of a technicality in the completion or the fullness of the notice of complaint. I agree with the minister. I wouldn't have thought that would happen either. But the phone call I got at lunchtime today indicated to me that it has happened, and I will follow that matter up and give the minister notice of the particular item, if I'm able to get that.

In the meantime, if I'm not able to set my own mind and the minister's mind at rest that this has happened in the past, can I get an understanding from the minister that she will consider bringing a

section into this act that would require -- not be permissive -- the review panel to give 24 or 48 hours' notice for an appellant to perfect their notice of complaint?

Hon. J. Kwan: Under the current system and procedures that we have, we have no compelling evidence that the need identified by the member opposite is required. But if the member brings forward other information that overwhelmingly compels and makes his case and is able to convince me otherwise, I would be happy to take a look at that.

L. Reid: My question, too, is on

section 33 (3)(d): " . . . if the complainant has an agent to act on the complainant's

[ Page 8381 ]

behalf in respect of the complaint, include the full name of the agent . . . . " My question specifically is: does this fall under the Legal Profession Act? Does it apply to this designation of "agent?"

Hon. J. Kwan: We don't think so -- at least, not that we're aware of.

Section 12, sections 33 and 34 approved.

section 12,

section 35.

F. Gingell: The issue that I want to raise at this point is not one in which I believe it is possible to change the proposed legislation to deal with the issue. But I understand, again secondhand, that there are a lot of problems related to the scheduling of hearings. They are all held in a relatively short period of time and all have to be heard by a specific date. That's understandable, because otherwise we'd never get these things finished.

But agents complain that when they represent multiple owners in different jurisdictions -- one appreciates that there are a hundred different panels scattered throughout the province -- there is not a very sympathetic understanding of the scheduling. They get scheduled to be in two places at the same time. It was even suggested to me that that has been done on an intentional basis. You can appreciate that I was talking to someone who wasn't very happy about the current operations.

I wonder if the ministry has in place, or is planning, any centralized, computerized scheduling program with some software that would allow the scheduling to be done in a manner that would facilitate having the hearings in a reasonable fashion. An agent who hasn't taken on more work than they can handle still has the ability to be in Coquitlam one day and have a Surrey hearing two or three days later, but he or she should not be scheduled for the same time in a different location.

Hon. J. Kwan: Generally speaking, with respect to the scheduling issue, we try to make provision to contact the appellant to

schedule a time that is mutually convenient. We try to accommodate that as best we can. From time to time, that is simply not possible or feasible. In order to ensure that everybody has the right to file their appeal and in order to expedite that process, we have a provision within the act to allow for a recipient to file a written submission, which would actually offset the issue of scheduling, should one not be able to resolve that.

F. Gingell: I was wondering if the ministry has given any consideration to computerizing it and having it on the Web, so that someone could check the Web and see when they are scheduled and see when there may be vacancies coming up. I'm sure a lot of the appeals that are filed are settled prior to appearing in front of the review panel, or they are pulled off and the spots are made vacant, so someone else could try to get theirs moved in. It just seems to me that this is really an opportunity for modern technology to be a very useful tool. If the ministry hasn't done that, I would just like to suggest it as a means that they might proceed on.

Hon. J. Kwan: We're always looking at ways of improving the system, whether it be scheduling or otherwise. But the example that the member cites -- utilizing a web site -- is problematic from the point of view of privacy issues. Earlier this morning we went at length through what needs to be done to protect various individuals in terms of privacy components. If we were to throw names and that kind of information onto the web site, we would have some concerns around privacy issues.

F. Gingell: I thought there was a place in the act that required the

schedule of hearings to be posted. They are already public.

Hon. J. Kwan: On the day in which the hearings are held, the list is posted in a single location, but it is not on a web site for people to look at anywhere or for them to do that kind of search. The distinction that the privacy commissioner has made is essentially the distinction between, let's say, a web site -- where access is far greater and broader -- and a list at a single location, on the day on which the hearings are to be held, of the folks who are scheduled to be heard.

L. Reid: I concur with my colleague from Delta South when he talks about technology around scheduling. A number of the documents I've read have said that that's a real need within the ministry -- to ensure that these individuals have upgraded computer systems. So I believe that that is a valid point, and I wonder if any progress has been made. My understanding is that at least one of the reports is two years old.

Hon. J. Kwan: We do have a systems review underway, and we're looking at ways to increase efficiency within this system. Of course, I would also ask the member to go easy on the Ministry of Finance when we're going through estimates, and perhaps when we go through the budget process, to ensure that we have loads of dollars to enhance our systems.

L. Reid: I've never been requested to go easy on a Minister of Finance. I'll take that under advisement.

In terms of

section 35(2) -- " . . . publication of notice of the hearing in 2 current issues of a newspaper circulating in the municipality or rural area in which the property that is the subject of the complaint is located" -- my question is around cost. I understand that's a new initiative and that it will be reflected somewhere in the estimates process, as the minister indicated. But I'm wondering what the parameters are. What is the likely amount of money that will be expended by that new requirement?

Hon. J. Kwan: Essentially, notice can be provided for in two ways: (1) through mailings; (2) through advertisements. In terms of the cost, it very much depends on which option is chosen. In the instance of ads, it depends on the cost of the ads that are required for that particular community or that particular local paper.

[4:45]

F. Gingell: Just to sort out the question of my outburst a moment ago, am I not correct that the whole of the B.C. Assessment Authority's costs are paid by a special assessment on all property owners throughout the province, and that they're not in any way funded by the Ministry of Finance? Or are these appeal processes -- the review panel, the court of revision, or whatever you want to call it, and the appeal board -- funded separately by the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. J. Kwan: The spending of the appeal board's budget is part of the ministry's budget, so we have to absorb the cost.

[ Page 8382 ]

Section 12, sections 35 to 37 inclusive approved.

section 12,

section 38.

L. Reid: I have a number of questions regarding 38(3), basically. Subsection 38(3)(

a) says: " . . . the review panel may (

a) refuse to adjudicate a matter set for its consideration if the notice of complaint was not filed in accordance with

section 33(2) . . . . "

My questions will pertain directly to the leaky-condo question in the province of British Columbia, because a number of these individuals will not have met the time lines that are in place for a reduction in property assessment. In fact, a number of these instances have come to light since those time lines have been exceeded. Certainly it is my view and, frankly, concern that the Dave Barrett commission has received an extension, because it further complicates the recommendations that will, hopefully, flow from this. We're now again having to debate prior to receiving any sense of how that commission might react.

In terms of putting in place some provisions that do not deny condominium homeowners who are suffering significant financial hardship today as a result of leaks in their properties, I'm asking for the opportunity to make appeals outside of those time lines and for some flexibility to be incorporated into the process. It is my contention that these individuals are now residing in properties that have been significantly devalued, and in some cases completely devalued. These properties are not habitable, and human beings have chosen not to reside in those places for health and safety concerns.

Indeed, in a month's time they will be asked to pay an assessment on the value of that property based on a decision that was reached some months back, may have been reached prior to those problems coming to light. So as a first question, I am wondering how much attention the minister has given to some flexibility around the question and some ability to return to the previous assessments, so that for properties that have been genuinely devalued, those individuals will have the option to pay a reduced property assessment in less than a month's time.

Hon. J. Kwan: The deadline for appeals is January 31. The extension of the Barrett commission really doesn't even come close to impacting the deadline in any way, shape or form. But with respect to leaky condos, I think the issue really . . . . Perhaps things will change with the Barrett commission. Once the recommendations are tabled and perhaps once action is taken by government, people may have a different perspective. But generally speaking, my understanding is that people who live in or own a leaky condo are particularly reluctant to go and ask for the assessed value of their property to be lower, for a number of different reasons.

L. Reid: The minister will also have on record -- I know because many of the letters have been copied to me -- individuals who have attempted to make contact to have their assessments reduced and, frankly, have been told that they've missed the deadline. So what I asked the minister originally was whether or not there would be some flexibility around that. The minister has resided in British Columbia and Vancouver long enough to know that February, March and April are very, very rainy months. Indeed, the fact that January 31 has come and gone . . . . Some of these problems certainly came to light in the rainiest months of our calendar year, if you will.

Will there be some flexibility for individuals to have those property assessments reduced, whether or not the Barrett commission makes that recommendation? My reference to the Barrett commission is that people are waiting for some guidance on those questions and as a result of the minister's deferral, they are indeed waiting longer. So today the minister can provide some guidance to these individuals. Will there be flexibility on the question? I appreciate the minister's comment that some people may not wish to exercise that option; I respect that. But the choice must be in place. The minister knows full well that the choice is currently not in place.

Hon. J. Kwan:

Section 12(4) actually allows for, I guess, unique circumstances in which a person may wish to appeal when the deadline has expired. Actually, that

section has always been there.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. However, she will know, as I know, that individuals have been turned down. The leaky-condo question has not qualified, in the eyes of the authorities, as a unique circumstance. So the minister needs to define "unique" and "circumstance." I believe that a leaking condominium would certainly qualify. But I have instances today, as the minister does, because she has also received the correspondence where they were told that they had no access at this time and perhaps they could come back next year.

Hon. J. Kwan: The act stipulates that if an assessment is wrong, based on misinformation or errors that have been presented, then there is provision within the act to allow for reconsideration. So if, in the instance of a leaky condo . . . . Let's say that prior to January 31, the condo didn't leak, and then, come March 1, lo and behold, you discover that there are mushrooms growing in your living room. Therefore, perhaps in that instance, it would be misinformation or lack of information at the time, and they can utilize that clause to bring forward the case and file for an appeal.

L. Reid: If I'm hearing this correctly, the minister herself would define "unique circumstance" as a leaking condominium.

Hon. J. Kwan: Really, in these instances it is not for me to define what is unique or what needs to be considered; rather, it is for the commissioner to consider under what circumstances or in what situations he might make a reassessment. The wording stipulated in the act is really . . . . The words that are used are . . . . The authority is given for the commissioner to "correct errors" that have been found. Because of the independent nature of the commissioner's role, it really is not for me to define for them what is unique and what is not, or what constitutes an error or otherwise.

The Chair: The Chair should caution members that perhaps the relevance of this line of questioning has been canvassed.

L. Reid: I thank the hon. Chair.

I think the minister can appreciate the predicament of taxpayers in the province who have been turned down because, frankly, there was no error. When their property was assessed, it has X value; the fact that their property has deteriorated was not an error in the initial assessment. So I think that this

section does not provide assistance -- the

section that the minister has put forward as a possible remedy. I think it probably does exclude them, which is why they have received the information they have.

[ Page 8383 ]

Back to the original question, which is: will the minister put in place some flexibility to ensure that those very individuals do have the opportunity to go forward and seek a reduced assessment? Three and a half weeks from now, many will be paying upwards of thousands of dollars and won't have the opportunity for a full calendar year to work on the 1999 assessment. The question is valid at this juncture, hon. Chair, because this is a cost issue, which is all this act is about. It's about taking dollars out of taxpayers' pockets -- and in my view, taking them erroneously -- and providing no appeal for individuals, because the deadline has passed.

Because this situation is unique to British Columbia, there has to be some flexibility allowed to remedy the situation. I know that the minister agrees with that context, because she crafted a commission to look at remedying the situation. This is another opportunity, I believe, for the minister to make a goodwill gesture that says that individuals who do wish to come forward and publicly disclose that their properties have been devalued have that opportunity.

My colleague from Delta South is very clear: once you put up a huge blue tarpaulin, you have publicly disclosed that your property has been devalued. The issue is whether or not this portion of this discussion reflects access. I'm not convinced that the minister's remedy responded to my question. I think it does truly exclude individuals, as opposed to including individuals.

Hon. J. Kwan: The issue of leaky condos is really not an issue that falls under the Assessment Amendment Act. If the member wishes to discuss leaky-condo issues . . . .

I'm advised that Committee A has just risen, and they're ready for me to go in there to do my estimates for Municipal Affairs. Perhaps we can discuss leaky-condo issues over in Committee A.

I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

[5:00]

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Speaker, I call committee stage on Bill 23.

PARK AMENDMENT ACT, 1998

The House in committee on Bill 23; W. Hartley in the chair.

section 1.

M. Coell: I am pleased to participate in committee stage of Bill 23. I wonder, first off, about the changes to the way of referencing maps. I wonder if the minister could outline the process changes for me.