Hansard -- Volume 20, Number 6 -- Wednesday, June 7, 2000

2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 2000

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 20, Number 6

[ Page 16297 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions

G. Abbott: It's my pleasure to introduce a gentleman in the gallery today who I think is probably well known by many in the House. He is Greg Jadrzyk, who is the president of the Northern Forest Products Association. Greg, of course, is the very strong and able advocate for the north and indeed for the forest industry in British Columbia. I think it's also notable, with Greg's presence here today, that this year the Northern Forest Products Association is celebrating its sixtieth anniversary. I'll ask the House to join me in congratulating the NFPA on their very important anniversary and also to welcome Greg to our chamber.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is my 13-year-old nephew Justin Sanderson. Justin is here in Canada for three weeks from Hobart, Tasmania. He has come to visit the House today, although this morning he and I and the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville went out for a game of golf. Being the competitive sort of person as my nephew is, he managed to win quite a number of holes. However, I have challenged him for a rematch in Vancouver in a week's time. I hope all members will make him welcome.

Hon. S. Hammell: Members, I'd like to take this moment to introduce to you some people who are visiting the House today. Dr. Tara Singh Sandhu is visiting from India. He is a distinguished writer, a freelance journalist, a political activist and a commentator on Punjabi politics. Amandeep Singh Punian, a guest, is here from Edmonton. Jagir Singh and Harpal Kaur Grewal are friends of mine from Surrey. Their relatives are here from India, and they are Dr. Ajaib Singh and Mrs. Bhupinder Kaur Bhatti. They are here to see us perform today in the House, so would everyone please make them welcome.

[1410]

L. Stephens: In the precincts today are 26 grade 7 students from Glenwood Elementary School in Langley. They're accompanied by a number of parents and their teacher, Mr. Knelsen. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Sawicki: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Darcy McNeill, who is visiting us from Toronto. Mr. McNeill is the executive director of the Aluminum Marketing Council, and he's here in support of Environment Week. I hope the hon. members noticed and took

part in the event that Mr. McNeill and the Aluminum Marketing Council hosted this morning on the legislative grounds, providing a fun and educational forum to learn about the environmental benefits of aluminum. I would ask all members of the House to make him welcome.

V. Roddick: I would like to share with the House my visit today with Mrs. Macham's grade 4 class from Cliff Drive Elementary School in Delta South. I think it is wonderful that children can come here and learn about this magnificent building -- the history and what we do here. I ask that the House would indulge me in recognizing the visit of this group and how good it is to have parents, teachers and their children investigate what actually goes on around here.

Introduction of Bills

COST OF CONSUMER CREDIT

DISCLOSURE ACT

Hon. A. Petter presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act.

Hon. A. Petter: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Petter: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act. The bill introduces rules for the disclosure of cost-of-credit information by credit guarantors to consumers. These rules are harmonized with provisions that are being introduced by each senior level of government -- federal, provincial and territorial -- across Canada. We're the third province to introduce these harmonized disclosure rules. The federal government and four additional provinces will introduce similar provisions by year's end, and the remaining jurisdictions will follow next year.

The bill will give British Columbia consumers clear and comparable cost-of-credit information, allowing more informed credit decisions. Comparable provisions by our partner jurisdictions will extend this right, regardless of federal or provincial jurisdiction or the geographical location of the credit grantor.

This harmonization not only benefits consumers; it also benefits businesses. Credit grantors operating across Canada will benefit from consistency in regulation, and those operating solely in B.C. will benefit from a level playing field as competition becomes subject to equivalent rules regardless of jurisdiction.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22 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

BCTV STORY ON

DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE

L. Reid: Last December this government filed a complaint with the CRTC alleging that BCTV had violated the rights of the Draayers children. This complaint was passed to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, and they say that the government was wrong -- that the reporting of the BCTV interview was unimpeachable.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council noted that the report accurately told the story of "the children and their clear desire to remain with their parents." Will the Premier tell

[ Page 16298 ]

us how he can justify launching a vendetta against BCTV for the sole purpose of attempting to stop a story that needed to be told?

[1415]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I learned about this particular action, as the opposition may have, from the newspapers. But I want to say this: I think it's important that the opposition recognizes and remembers -- as should the media and as should the government -- that in the Draayers case and in any case dealing with the children under the protection legislation, we are dealing with young people whose rights of privacy are constantly being violated on television screens, on the front page of newspapers and in this House.

So, hon. Speaker, I urge the opposition to ensure that all of us -- and I urge our side as well -- conduct ourselves in a way that enhances the confidentiality rights of the young people who can't protect themselves.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental question.

L. Reid: If this Premier learned about this issue from a newspaper, he simply wasn't doing his job, because in fact he authorized that approach -- no question. If BCTV hadn't done this story, these little girls would have been lost in the system.

Frankly, this government didn't like the BCTV response to this story. But instead of focusing on the girls, the Attorney General, now Premier, filed another complaint against BCTV. Will the Premier tell us why he approved of the complaint against BCTV, when it was nothing more than an attempt to muzzle the media?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I was just asking the minister responsible whether or not Mr. Dawson initiated this complaint. Ross Dawson is the superintendent with respect to these matters. He acts independently of ministers or Premiers, and it is his obligation -- independently of the opposition, if I might say, and of the government -- to protect the best interests of the children.

If he launched this complaint . . . . I don't judge him right or wrong for that; it is his obligation to protect the interests of the children. He may have felt -- and the opposition should ask him; he'd be happy to answer -- that the children's rights may have been violated.

The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a further supplemental question.

L. Reid: In fact, this complaint was filed through the provincial government's Ministry of Attorney General. So again, he probably wasn't doing his job if he learned about it through the newspaper.

Frankly, this government still owes an apology to the Draayers's family doctor, who simply tried to stand up for these little girls. Instead of listening to the doctor, which they were required to do under their own practice guidelines, the government filed a complaint against him. Will the Premier apologize today to Dr. Sank, and will the Premier tell us that indeed that complaint has been withdrawn?

Hon. G. Mann Brewin: Well, Mr. Speaker, in this situation the director, again in his capacity -- indeed with his authority protect the privacy of those children -- was very concerned about the issue that the doctor revealed information about that family. That was the nature of the complaint as he saw it. That is his job; that is his duty. Everyone in this House should be supporting him in doing that right, to protect those children -- all our children.

G. Plant: I've got the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council report into this matter in front of me. In reading it, I was interested to hear what the Premier said when he stood up and said, "I just learned about this particular action by Mr. Dawson today," because that clearly means that on some day in February, he wasn't doing his job.

[1420]

The Broadcast Standards Council says that since the complainant, probably Mr. Dawson, was dissatisfied with the response of BCTV's news director, he filed a ruling request through the provincial government's Ministry of Attorney General on February 7. So what is the Premier doing here? It was his decision to allow this complaint to proceed and his decision to lend the weight of his ministry to a vendetta against BCTV.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I am constantly amazed at the opposition's disregard of the due process in any issue that comes before this House. There are thousands of actions taken by particular ministries every day. All of those actions don't come to the minister's attention. If Ross Dawson, the superintendent whose duty it is to protect the interests of the children, felt that that merited an appeal, and he made a submission to the ministry, and the ministry approved it, so be it. Good for Ross Dawson for pursuing his . . . .

NOW COMMUNICATIONS CONTRACTS

G. Farrell-Collins: It's a little hard to take the sanctimonious comments of the Premier. When he was Attorney General, with the Carrier Lumber dispute and the words that came from the courts against this government for their actions in Carrier Lumber . . . . The Premier shrugs his shoulders. I guess he wasn't at that meeting either.

I have a question. Yesterday the Minister of Finance stood up in this House and told us that the reason the contract went to Now Communications, the friends of the Premier, was that it was going to save us money. Mr. Speaker, we have an e-mail from a Treasury Board analyst in the Minister of Finance's own ministry that questions the hourly rates that Now Communications has been charging over the years, repeatedly. It says: "I am also still concerned with some of the hourly rates they charge" -- X dollars per hour for a junior copywriter; X dollars per hour for a secretary. Those numbers are whited out.

"Some seem pretty outrageous, and I'm unclear why some of the basic stuff can't be done in-house."

Will the minister tell us why he's telling us that Now Communications has been saving us money, when his own Treasury Board officials have been telling us just the opposite?

Interjections.

[ Page 16299 ]

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I'm pleased that the member recognizes that Treasury Board staff do their duty and question lots of expenditures right across government. I would point out to the member that the contracts that Now Communications has as an agent of record for the Ministries of Health and Education were won through a fair tendered process. They met the test. And contrary to what the member may think, the fact that an ad agency may have done work for a political candidate does not disqualify them from bidding for government business.

The Speaker: The hon. Opposition House Leader with a supplemental question.

G. Farrell-Collins: I sometimes think that the Minister of Finance knows what my next question is before I even ask it. He talks about how wonderful it is that Now Communications contracts have been tendered. But another one of his Treasury Board officials -- actually, the same Treasury Board official -- expresses serious concern about the Ministry of Health's habit of extending Now's contract without going to tender. In fact, the analyst writes: "I will be recommending that this submission be . . . . " And then it's blanked out. Will the Minister of Finance tell us what the embarrassing sentence was that finished that line?

[1425]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Hon. Speaker, I stand by my comments. Now Communications won its contract as agents of record for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education in an open tendered process. This is the way that government seeks to get business; this is the way it tenders contracts; this is the way it evaluates bids; this is the way it awards them. And guess what. We allow all British Columbia firms to bid on those contracts and compete fairly for government business.

M. de Jong: The more you review these documents, the more you see the pattern that has developed over the years of how the NDP government goes out of its way to accommodate the Premier's friends at Now Communications. I've actually got an e-mail memo of February '99. It's a rather astounding document, because in it, Ministry of Health officials chronicle how upset Now Communications are. You see, a contract had come up for renewal, and you know what? They didn't want to have to bother with a re-tender, because that takes a lot of work, according to Now Communications. Imagine the indignity, Mr.

Speaker, of Now Communications having to submit a formal re-tender. Imagine them having to do that. And in fact, they didn't have to do that.

Will the Finance minister confirm that for some time now his government has been re-extending contracts with Now Communications without the need to re-tender -- because, after all, they're just friends of the Premier and the NDP?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I guess we're going to do the estimates of Health and Education yet again. I don't know why they didn't raise this at the time. Those are the ministries responsible for tendering those contracts, getting good value for the tax dollar, and I submit to the chamber that they have. These are good contracts. This firm has delivered for the province, as have other firms that we have contracts with.

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

M. de Jong: There's quite a paper trail, actually, with respect to this matter. There's an internal memo from the Ministry of Health from April of last year. This one talks about the numerous amendments for contracts requiring funding after the fact -- Now Communications, of course. It's rather astounding. The e-mail shows that there was insufficient information justifying the payment of almost $50,000 for advertising in support of last year's budget.

Will the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health -- hey, maybe even the Premier -- tell us why the Premier's friends at Now Communications get special treatment? According to the ministry's own document, they don't have to provide full disclosure. Why is that, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Again, I would ask the members opposite to look at the publicity campaign that Now Communications did for us around Budget 2000. It was a modest campaign, $190,000 in total. I believe the taxpayers got good value for the money on this campaign. Furthermore, hon. Speaker, what I think the people of the province got was good information about what this government is doing in Budget 2000. It revealed clearly the tax regime of this province compared to others, and it showed that we are the second-lowest tax regime in the country for most issues. It revealed our government's priorities: a 7 percent lift for Health, a 4.5 percent lift for Education.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. If the minister could wrap up.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

[1430]

C. Clark: I have another e-mail that shows exactly the kind of red carpet treatment that Now Communications gets from this government. After they overspent their contract by $50,000, they sent in an invoice to the government, but the invoice was added up wrong. It was too low. So the government wrote them back correcting it, and then they added to it: "Oh, by the way, you need an additional $1,269. Just round it out to $48,500."

Can the Minister of Finance tell us exactly how long it's been his ministry's practice, his government's practice, to round off the invoice as opposed to just paying what's in the invoice in the first place?

The Speaker: Members, the time for question period has expired, but I'll ask the minister to give a brief answer.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm very pleased to hear that members of staff are communicating clearly with contractors to ascertain precisely what is billed for and precisely what is owed.

The Speaker: The bell ends question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. We will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Education. In Committee B, I call committee stage on Bill 14.

[1435]

[ Page 16300 ]

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

The House in committee on Bill 14; T. Stevenson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

T. Nebbeling:

Section 9, I think, is an introduction of an element into the Municipal Act that is in reflection of what I believe happened on Galiano Island during the last municipal election, where lands were subdivided in very small portions, thereby adding to the voters' pot. Am I correct in assuming that that is the reason that this

section is there?

Hon. C. McGregor: The answer to that question is yes.

T. Nebbeling: So this applied to non-resident property owners and . . . . I can understand the motivation for having done this, and I do agree with this amendment. However, what I'm concerned about, and maybe the minister can clarify this for me . . . . Are there any other parties that are affected by this particular amendment, who would not necessarily have been in a position to do what happened on Galiano Island? I talk in particular about people who have a property where they are in a trust holding, where they are the only one who has the benefit of the trust. Would they also be disqualified now, as a non-resident property owner?

Hon. C. McGregor: It would not affect a trust that was held for an individual but would affect a trust that was being held for another trust or for a corporation.

T. Nebbeling: Another trust. That could be a trust that is for the benefit of one private individual. There are many people who have that situation, so they would fall under that number.

Hon. C. McGregor: If the nature of the trust is to protect the individual, then of course they would not be affected by this provision.

T. Nebbeling: But how is that assured? I mean, people should not have to fight and argue when they go to a municipal clerk or a returning officer during a municipal election, or come with all kinds of legal documentation to establish that they are the direct beneficiary of a trust, that the trust is there for their personal benefit. It's not very clear. I think this would disqualify a number of people who I know have properties within a trust form that is for the exclusive benefit of one individual. Is there any way that we can amend this

section to reflect what the minister just said?

[1440]

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the scenario the member paints is very unlikely to ever evolve. What he's describing is an individual creating a trust to create a trust to benefit an individual. We just are not aware of any trust that would be structured in that way. What we are trying to do, in fact, is make sure that you cannot form a trust in order to have a trust that delivers and provides a benefit to the corporation. Without closing the loophole, then a new loophole could be created.

T. Nebbeling: I understand the intent, and I agree with the intent. However, I can give you a number of names of people whose parents have created a trust for a child, for the exclusive benefit of that child. That is not the individual's direct creation of the trust, but it is a benefit that has been bestowed by the parents on the child. And that child then, by the way, has grown to be an adult and therefore qualifies to participate in local or provincial elections.

Hon. C. McGregor: The example that the member gives is correct, and it would be covered by this exemption. But that would not mean that the individual would not be able to vote, because they would be entitled through the amendment to have the one vote.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to go on with this one. But I disagree, then. The term in

section 9 says " . . . trust held by corporations or other trust." Other trust means any other trust. That must include the trust that I described to you. There is no clear definition that sets the particular scenario that I have painted for you aside from the other ones. For that reason, I think it is wrong. It should be addressed so people do not have to come with all kinds of lawyers to an election booth to have the right to vote for a municipal council in this particular case.

Anyhow, I don't think we will go much further on this one. But if the minister could give it some consideration, there are plenty of people in that situation that would be affected.

Sections 9 to 14 inclusive approved.

The Chair: Just to let the House know, in the Legislature this afternoon are a number of grade 6 to 8 students from Nova Middle School in Olympia, Washington. They are here to observe the House for a short period of time. Will all members please make them welcome.

[1445]

section 15.

The Chair: The Chair is under the understanding that the minister has an amendment to

section 15. Could the minister move that now, please.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to

section 15 standing in my name on the order paper.

[SECTION 15, in the proposed

section 172.6 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "be entitled to vote under

section 161" and substituting "meet the qualifications referred to in

section 161 (1) (a)".]

Amendment approved.

section 15 as amended.

T. Nebbeling: Sorry for the confusion, but last year we had the same problem. This time I really think we agreed that we would go by the sections 1 to

Section 15 of course relates to the counterpetition. We have spent a lot of time in previous years debating why this

[ Page 16301 ]

side of the House, the opposition, feels that the counterpetition provisions really do not empower local government but do empower special interest groups. I don't think the minister would accept an amendment from me at this stage, so I'm going to focus on some other elements that we have not dealt with in the past but which I still think have some relevance.

The first one is in paragraph 172.4. Minister, you have in subsection (3): "For the purpose of subsection (2) (g), the local government must make a fair estimate of the total number of electors of the area to which the counterpetition opportunity applies." What kind of directions has the government or the ministry given to clerks, administrators or returning officers to assure a representation -- a number -- that fairly and truly represents the voters that are within the group that can be considered for the counterpetition?

Hon. C. McGregor: As part of the implementation around changes to the Municipal Act, we will be preparing a variety of materials with local government, and we will be preparing a best-practices guide around the issue of counterpetitions. What we plan on including in that is the opportunity to actually have a list of considerations that local governments or other administrators should use when making a fair estimate of the total number of electors. That would include everything, of course, from voters lists for previous elections to looking at changes in demographics and population in regions -- being able to add or subtract those from the population estimates as based on the voters list.

[1450]

T. Nebbeling: Of course, this is going to take, again, a considerable amount of work. This whole counterpetition idea or initiative, the way it has been implemented by the government, is beginning to be more and more a make-work project than anything else. I do not think that is really in the interest of municipalities, nor is it in the interest of people working in the municipal or local government.

There have been a number of these counterpetitions. Or at least announcements have been made that counterpetition opportunities were available to citizens. Few have taken advantage of it. However, the few that did take advantage of this . . . . Considering that the percentage of support for a counterpetition is so low, how has the minister ensured that the number that has been established by Municipal Affairs staff, I take it, is indeed not a number that can be reason for an appeal? If a community needs 5 percent of votes and are representing 300 community members, that may well make the difference when it comes to the total voting population and the representation of that.

Can the minister give me some guidelines that have then been used in the previous counterpetitions, which have taken place to ensure that indeed the number that was used to establish the 5 percent was truly a reflection of what the voting population at the time was?

Hon. C. McGregor: The staff inform me that to their knowledge there have never been any questions from the public around the estimations that have been given to try and achieve the 5 percent of the counterpetition process.

But I am concerned that this is really a question that we canvassed well in estimates and not specifically related to the amendments that we're dealing with here today. We're not amending the 5 percent issue; that is remaining the same. So it isn't a matter of discussion here. I'm not trying to shut down the discussion for the member, but I'm just trying to be sure that we stick to the amendments that we actually have introduced into the act.

T. Nebbeling: It's funny, because in

section 15 it says, "The following Division is added in

Part 4," and then the

section that I just quoted to the minister is the third

section of paragraph 172.4. So it is there. I think that as this is an add-on to that section, it should be open for debate.

However, I wasn't going to go further on this one, because clearly the ministry does not have firm guidelines to ensure that indeed that process and the result of that process reflect the true number of people who are qualified to vote -- and the 5 percent number will be derived from that. So I'm okay with

section 15 now.

Section 15 as amended approved.

section 16.

T. Nebbeling: This particular

section is very confusing, because it is an amendment of an amendment of an amendment. That

section was dealt with in Bill 88, and it was also dealt with in Bill 31.

My concern, Madam Minister, is that the list of authorities that can act on behalf of the municipality, be it a commission or be it another forum, is so long and so extensive that by its character it's almost excluding any other group that could be involved in managing certain public facilities or providing certain public services -- that this group would be excluded.

[1455]

I give, as an example, community-owned playing fields. Often the communities, especially in rural areas, give the use of a playing field and almost the management of a playing field to a local ball club, for example. But it does not have legal status. It's not a commission; it is not an agent. They are not, as of today, with these new directions and the new specifications in this bill, part of the group that could, on behalf of the municipality, manage this playground, for example. Has the minister thought about that particular problem, which could create quite a few problems in smaller communities?

Hon. C. McGregor: This

section is designed to make description of the authority to establish commissions, which would have the authority to manage such matters as the member makes reference to -- for instance, playing fields. It does not mean that the local government doesn't establish the rules by which that is managed. Of course they would continue to do so. But the commission itself could manage on the basis of the rules that had been set by the local authority.

T. Nebbeling: That's the problem. It has to be a commission established by the municipality or by the village -- whatever. The coach of a football team who, once a week, manages that football field with his junior teams is not a commissioner. If he wants to be a commissioner, he would be subject to all kinds of other rules that are in other sections, and it would be pretty onerous. So I think the coach of a football team who would be responsible for managing that football field on the particular week or evening that is his or her turn, would be disqualified from participating there. That is my

[ Page 16302 ]

concern. I think the list is so extensive that it excludes people rather than leaving it open for other forms of management to be introduced as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, there certainly is no requirement on the part of the local government to set in place a commission through which to manage after regulations have been set. There's nothing to stop a local government from entering into an agreement with the football club or any other agency that they might see as being the appropriate one to manage it on the basis of their authority. So I'm not sure . . . . This

section should not be read as if they must set up a commission. It is a discretionary power.

T. Nebbeling: The regulations that apply to this

section make certain conditions for being responsible for a municipal facility or a municipal operation. And like the minister said, it is in the form of commissions.

If you look at

section 176, paragraphs 1 and 3, it's very clear what kind of authority is required to fulfil that municipal regulatory mandate. And that is the problem, Madam Minister, because I think smaller operations that do not have a formal legal status -- like I explained to you, a small football club -- would certainly not fit within that regulatory requirement. That, I think, is the problem; I think it is exclusive rather than inclusive.

[1500]

Hon. C. McGregor:

Section 176(1) is amended, and it makes reference to the local government's ability to enter into agreements. It gives a broad regulatory power in that

section --

section 176(1)(a)(i). It describes how the local government may enter into "agreements respecting the undertaking, provision and operation of its services." So that is a broad regulatory ability that the local government can have.

Establishing commissions is an entirely different

section of the act, and the two are not necessarily related. The first gives them an authority to enter into agreements, and it could be with a commission or some other agency. The second piece under

section 16, paragraph (b), adds an additional (

g) to the original

section 176(1), which makes reference to enabling them to use a commission as one of those tools.

Sections 16 to 20 inclusive approved.

section 21.

T. Nebbeling: Although I'm not going to argue with this particular

section being there, I do not understand why it is there. The thing is that mayors have always had the right to establish standing committees. I know that in

section 218 there has been reference to the ability of a mayor to create a standing committee, but I do not understand why this particular

section has been amended. It does in a sense erode the powers and duties set out in subsections 2(

d) and 3 of

section 218.

Hon. C. McGregor: There were two sections of the act that made reference to the duties or power of the mayor to establish committees. What this

section does is eliminate it as a duty of the mayor to establish standing committees, but in

section 239 the power to establish committees is maintained. It just eliminates the duplication.

Sections 21 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

T. Nebbeling: This

section relates to the power that can be given by adoption of a bylaw. What I do not understand is how the power to amend or appeal that is given by this

section is identical to the power that is given under

section 27(4) under the

Interpretation Act. What's the reason to take it out of the

Interpretation Act and put it in here?

[1505]

Hon. C. McGregor: This

section was added as a rewording of the identical provisions in the

Interpretation Act, putting it into the Local Government Act so that local governments would be aware of all of those sections of the act and how they applied to their duties.

The Chair: Just to inform the members, we have another group of students, grades 6 to 8, from Nova Middle School in Olympia, Washington. Would all members please make them welcome also.

T. Nebbeling: The reason, then, for taking this particular

section out of the

Interpretation Act and putting it into the Municipal Act . . . . Could the minister give me the reason for that? There are a number of other very municipal-specific sections in the

Interpretation Act that I have found as having not been moved into the Municipal Act. Is there a specific reason why this one was chosen?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it was a relatively common complaint of local governments to come and say: "Well, we don't have the ability to do this certain change to a bylaw, a sunset clause or the like." And as a result of that, we'd say: "Well, yes indeed, you do have those powers under the

Interpretation Act." As a result of that continued reference to, "Oh well, we need to have this ability and power," we decided to make explicit reference to it in the Municipal Act.

T. Nebbeling: There are some other sections, then, in the

Interpretation Act, like

section 14(2). I think we have been discussing that, but I think a lot of council members would like to know about it before they actually get into a situation where

section 14(2) will have impact on what the council does. The minister is well aware that 14(2) is, of course, the

section that allows Crown corporations and the government not to comply with local laws, bylaws and land planning issues. Nor will they have to pay property tax or other assessments. Very few council members are aware of that particular

section until they get hit, as a community, with a Crown corporation's action in the town. And when they find that they're powerless, the reaction is also: "It would have been nice if we'd known that." So maybe it would be an idea to put that in the act as well.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, we've engaged in this lengthy process with local governments, through which we've identified those areas of concern to them and to our own staff as a result of frequent questions and complaints and issues that have been raised around the definition of powers that are available to local governments. So that's the nature of the reason that this particular

section was added to the act. And if similar circumstances arise in the application of other portions, I'm sure we'll consider it in the future.

Sections 33 and 34 approved.

[ Page 16303 ]

section 35.

T. Nebbeling: Can the minister give me clarification: under this authority to establish commissions, does that include local heritage commissions?

[1510]

Hon. C. McGregor: The answer to that would be yes.

T. Nebbeling: I didn't check, but

section 953 of the Municipal Act actually gives the authority to establish local heritage commissions and gives certain protections to actions by these heritage commissions. Will the protection that comes with the appointment of a commission go in with this

section as well, then?

Hon. C. McGregor: This

section deals with personal liability and how it applies to the variety of commissions, which will include the heritage commissions the member makes reference to. We amended the previous section, 176, which we've already dealt with, to give it full authority to establish commissions, including heritage commissions. When we get to

section 953, the member will find that that has been repealed, because it has been included in

section 176 with the broad power to establish commissions.

Sections 35 to 45 inclusive approved.

section 46.

T. Nebbeling: A quick question on this one. The wording "Money borrowed or revenue raised" is now being changed to "Money held by a municipality," and it has to do with the management of these funds. Why are we broadening the control of government over funds that are within the control of a municipality which are not from borrowing or revenues held from traditional sources? I can see, in many instances, where funds are held for a period of time as a control mechanism to make sure that a job gets finished.

I can see that the municipality, in the parks and recreation department, holds funds for organizations that are having functions with the municipality and have a damage deposit. Is all this now going to be under this control, or . . . ? I am concerned that the broadening of where the control of the Municipal Act is applied is getting a little bit silly now.

[1515]

Hon. C. McGregor: First,

section 336 was introduced last year. All we're doing now is . . . . We're not changing the list in any way. It's meant to capture all of the list that existed under

section 336 in the last round of Municipal Act changes. The concern was that the wording might not cover some of the reserve funds that have been previously subject to these municipal authorities. So this wording is believed to be more correct and to appropriately capture all of those powers. It's not broadening it to funds additional to those it currently has authority to manage.

T. Nebbeling: Well, it clearly says that money borrowed or revenue raised, while subject to certain conditions, this money could be reinvested. Now it says that all money held by a municipality will have certain conditions under which it can be reinvested. So I think, the way it is read, that there are definitely . . . . It has a much broader impact on much broader sections of municipal income.

I'll give an example. We are having sections in here where people can pay . . . . Instead of giving parkland, a 5 percent parkland dedication, that subdivision . . . . If the land cannot be given, there is a way of paying cash in lieu of. Why would that money, for example, which is in a trust fund but is not borrowed -- but is not really revenue, because the municipality has to spend it again on park purchase -- not have been available to be invested for a period of time? Or is that still possible under these guidelines?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I'm confused by the member's comments, because this

section is meant to allow the type of investment he just described.

T. Nebbeling: Okay. I agree with you. I read it wrong so -- good move.

Sections 46 to 52 inclusive approved.

section 53.

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick question: if a person goes in a payment scheme with the municipality and changes his or her mind after, say, two or three years, is it difficult to go back to what traditionally was the form of payment? Or is this all . . . ?

Hon. C. McGregor: As I understand it, it's not difficult to change. It's an annual exercise. Municipalities would want the person to be able to indicate in writing. But that's not difficult to do.

T. Nebbeling: Is this also the

section that allows senior citizens to defer payment of property tax now?

Hon. C. McGregor: It's not.

T. Nebbeling: Okay.

Sections 53 to 65 inclusive approved.

[1520]

section 66.

T. Nebbeling: This is the first of a series of sections that have to do with the special areas that have the improvement status. It is no secret that there have been a number of very -- how would I say it? -- controversial improvement area situations that have arisen in the last couple of years. The one that comes to mind, of course, is the Naramata situation with the dispute over the water cost and who is going to carry that cost.

It is kind of telling that at a time when the dispute is coming to a head and the controversy is getting stronger and stronger, we see the minister, in a sense, taking more distance from this whole issue by basically delegating her powers to a local board and thereby giving them as their responsibility all the financial and legal headaches that come with an issue such as that.

When this

section gets enacted, are there, anywhere, provisions put in place that will save these special improve-

[ Page 16304 ]

ment districts from having to absorb the dispute and the financial consequences of the dispute? Or is the minister going to be responsible until these various disputes have been brought to a conclusion?

[P. Nettleton in the chair.]

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: Thank you, hon. Chair, and welcome to the chair.

In no instance should these provisions be considered a transfer of liability. There is no transfer of liability in any of these clauses. There is still the duty on the part of an improvement district to exercise their authority correctly, as is the case in similar organizations.

T. Nebbeling: In a sense, empowering these improvement districts, the way these sections between

section 66 and

section 85 deal with it, almost makes an improvement district equal to municipal status. Clearly, if you look at the authority given to these boards and how they have to operate it . . . . I'm not saying that it is municipal status, but it is almost like municipal status. It is a considerably heavier burden on the boards that run these improvement districts.

[1525]

Considering that there is so much going on in the improvement districts . . . . I just named Naramata, but the minister is certainly aware that there are many other improvement districts that have problems as well. How will these districts, in the future, still be able to -- lean on the government is not necessarily the right words -- have the advantage of the full cooperation of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs?

I'm just concerned that the government is taking distance from these people that are kind of in trouble in certain improvement districts and that one of the reasons we see the introduction of the changes to the status of special improvement districts is, in a sense, that it is a way of taking some distance for the minister and the ministry.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is, of course, the duty of every improvement district to take all of their responsibilities very seriously. Improvement districts have been around for some considerable time, and there are small and large improvement districts. It is true, as the member states, that they do have significant powers to govern. They provide important services; they have the power to tax. They also have the power to expropriate property in order to provide their services.

Despite having all those powers, there also needs to be the appropriate checks and balances so that there is effective accountability and more opportunity for the public and the members that are served through the improvement district structure to have the ability to ask questions, to examine decisions, to elect their appropriate representatives and to ensure that appropriate staff are hired. It is a duty that they have to make sure that the improvement district has the appropriate checks and balances and acts on behalf of the ratepayers that are a part of that improvement district.

The ministry's role has always been to provide advice and assistance to those improvement districts when it's requested. These changes -- the amendments to the act -- don't change that at all. In fact, the ministry continues to provide that advice to improvement districts.

T. Nebbeling: I come back to Naramata and this situation again, because it's getting a fair amount of publicity still. Some of the disputes that some people thought were behind us are being brought back again. Looking at the history and how the ministry, in the past, made the Okanagan water district responsible for that area, based on certain assumptions that the district board had that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would back them up . . . . That was the reason they accepted this Naramata responsibility.

Now that the case has developed over the last couple of years, the government has taken more and more steps away from it and has basically let the Okanagan water district deal with this issue.

I just fear that, with these sections, the distance that the government has taken from the Naramata issue over the last two years, in spite of promises that they would not . . . . These particular sections will just give the government more foundation for not being part of what this community is going through right now. This community is having to absorb this liability. And being an authority on its own, as this new direction is dictating, I can just see that more of the financial burden that comes with this particular case in this district will become part of the burden of the citizens there.

Recently they've all, as citizens, received additional tax notices of anything between $200 and $2,500 as payment towards a 20-year plan. Many of these people can't afford it.

It's all timing, I suppose, in life. And to see this portion of the bill introduced at a time when this Naramata issue is coming to a head is just not giving me much comfort. I just cannot see where the ministry is saying, through introducing these sections: "As we introduce these sections, we give more authority to the people that run the district, but we are there, and we will make sure that harm will not come to them." I don't see it in this section. I just see a distance taken by the ministry from the people of Naramata. That's the reason for my concern, and I hope the minister can give us some assurance that my concerns are unfounded.

[1530]

Hon. C. McGregor: I appreciate the member's comments around the concerns he has related to Naramata, and I'd be happy to offer to have a meeting with him to talk specifically about that issue.

I think it's fair to say that the concerns that we have in the ministry are broader in focus, and that is to ensure that there is an opportunity for citizens to be as proactive as they can in the management of the services that are provided for them. This is a theme that's repeated frequently throughout the Municipal Act, and from every corner of the province, citizens are demanding greater and greater roles in decision-making around important decisions which affect their lives.

Some of these improvement districts that exist in the province are particularly small. Certainly we are trying to encourage improvement districts, where it's possible, to consider linking with existing regional district services, because that gives a greater capacity, particularly on the support staff side, to ensure that the appropriate responsibilities and accountability measures are taken. But I think that what the member is making reference to is a concern that government needs to pay attention to improvement districts, to provide support and advice as is necessary, and I assure the member that we will continue that role.

T. Nebbeling: I appreciate that statement. Can the minister maybe tell me how many improvement districts are going

[ Page 16305 ]

to be affected by these sections? How many improvement districts are today going to be operating under these new guidelines? Is the minister aware of how many of these improvement districts actually have some legal problems they have to deal with right now? Well, I first want to know how many are impacted by this.

Hon. C. McGregor: There are 273 improvement districts across the province. The staff that are with me are not intimately aware of how many legal disputes might be ongoing in them. Our information is that it's probably relatively small numbers.

I would just remind the member that we're dealing with sections of this bill, and I don't believe this is a matter that is dealt with through the amendments.

Sections 66 to 80 inclusive approved.

section 81.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to

section 81, standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 81,

(

a) in the proposed

section 747.1 of the Municipal Act, by deleting the proposed subsection (2),

(

b) in the proposed

section 747.1 of the Municipal Act, by adding the following subsections:

(5) In addition to the authority under subsection (1), as a condition of

(

a) the approval of a subdivision, or

(

b) if an agreement under subsection (9) applies, the issuance of a building permit, a board of trustees may require that the owner of the land provide works and services, in accordance with the standards established in a bylaw under this section, on that portion of a highway immediately adjacent to the site being subdivided or developed, up to the centre line of the highway.

(6) In addition to the authority under subsection (1), if an agreement under subsection (9) applies, as a condition of the issuance of a building permit, a board of trustees may require that the owner of the land provide, on the site being developed, works and services in accordance with the standards established in a bylaw under this section.

(7) Requirements under subsections (5) and (6)

(

a) may only be made to the extent that they are directly attributable to the subdivision or development, and

(

b) must not include specific services that are included in the calculations used to determine the amount of a capital expenditure charge under

section 746 (1) (f), unless the owner agrees to provide the services.

(8) If the owner agrees to provide the services referred to in subsection (7) (b),

section 933 (8) (a) [deduction of amounts paid by owner] applies to the calculation of the capital expenditure charge.

(9) A board of trustees and a local government may enter into an agreement under which the local government may refuse to issue building permits in accordance with this section.

(10) The authority to require works and services under this

section is limited to works and services that are within the objects of the improvement district as described in its letters patent.

(

c) in the proposed

section 747.2 of the Municipal Act, by adding the following subsections:

(1.1) A board of trustees may require that the owner of land that is to be subdivided or developed provide excess or extended services.

(1.2) If a board of trustees makes a requirement under subsection (1.1), the cost of providing the excess or extended services must be paid for

(

a) by the improvement district, or

(

b) if the board of trustees considers its costs to provide all or part of these services to be excessive, by the owner of the land being subdivided or developed., and

(

d) in the proposed

section 747.2 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "If the board of trustees requires an owner of land that is to be subdivided or developed to provide excess or extended services and requires the owner to pay all or part of those services," and substituting "If the board of trustees imposes a requirement under subsection (1.2) (b),".]

Hon. C. McGregor: If it was necessary for the member to have a five-minute recess to review that amendment, I'd be amenable to that.

The committee recessed from 3:34 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.

[1540]

[P. Nettleton in the chair.]

The Chair: The committee will come to order. We've adopted sections 68 to 80 inclusive, and we are now on

section 81, considering the minister's amendment. Shall

section 81 as amended pass?

Section 81 as amended approved.

Sections 82 to 86 inclusive approved.

section 87.

T. Nebbeling: This is an important section. It reflects, in a sense, the first step in the new relationship between local governments. I am concerned about the complexity of some of the requirements including the bylaws and acts that have been enacted upon prior to the date that this

section comes into effect. They will stand. And I understand that it is difficult to do it differently.

However, if anybody in the future wants to check what

an act or a bylaw that has been enacted in a regional district amends, what it was supposed to do, it's going to be difficult to track all that -- maybe not difficult for the regional district of the lower mainland. But if I have to check a bylaw that was passed in 1996 in a regional district in the Okanagan, it may be pretty complicated, for me. It must be even more complicated for a person who truly is not into a local government but needs to know the situation.

Is there any provision that over time the existing bylaws that may not be compatible to what we are introducing here will be adjusted? Or is it just going to be there forever and ever and complicating things to check out forever and ever?

The Chair: For clarity, the Chair will go back to

section 81 and put the question on the minister's amendment. Shall the amendment pass?

[ Page 16306 ]

Amendment approved.

section 87.

Hon. C. McGregor: If the member could just repeat his question, because we have some confusion here as to what he is actually asking . . . .

T. Nebbeling: Four minutes and 12 seconds to figure out that she didn't understand the question.

My concern now is that there is going to be no legislation in place that will direct regional districts, empower regional districts, to do various things. Within these powers there are powers that will exceed what regional districts can do today.

What they have done up to the date that this act is being enacted . . . . The regional district has been working with a lot of bylaws. They have bylaws in place today. These bylaws will not be rescinded when the new bylaws come into play.

In the first year it may not be difficult to track bylaws, for example, with waste disposal or transportation bylaws that have been created in certain regional districts. But over time it will be difficult to track these kinds of bylaws.

My point is: now that we're going in a new direction, are we going to have a whole set of bylaws that are in place today within the regional districts throughout the province? Are they going to be hanging there forever and ever and ever? And the new form of regional empowerment will create new bylaws -- sometimes may be in conflict with what is already there. It's going to be very complicated to track all that.

[1545]

So my question is: is there going to be a period of time where the regional districts will be required to bring bylaws from prior to the new guidelines or the new empowerment of regional districts . . . ? Will these bylaws be brought into compliance with what the future bylaws will be used to empower local governments or regional governments?

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, what we're trying to avoid here is forcing regional districts to change every bylaw to match the new act unnecessarily. So of course, when a municipal or a regional government begins to use new powers that it has and has to adopt a new bylaw to do so, then they will either repeal or amend their pre-existing bylaw. We are not requiring a period of time under which they must bring those bylaws up to the new system. As long as they're continuing to use them and don't need to change them, we're not requiring them to do so.

Section 87 approved.

Sections 88 to 91 inclusive approved.

section 92.

T. Nebbeling: This

section has to do with the appointment of directors on the boards. The traditional way of appointing for a three-year period will be replaced with a one-year appointment. Actually, it goes further than that; a member can be replaced at any time, I believe. Has this been canvassed with the regional districts as a good way of dealing with board representation?

The reason I'm saying this is that in the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, they had some concern that there would be a potential constant change of directors not being fully aware of all the issues that had been going on. They felt that there was some security in the fact that indeed a director and an alternate were appointed for a three-year period. Did the consultation take place? If so, I suppose they all went, then, with this kind of suggestion. Maybe the minister can enlighten me on that one.

Hon. C. McGregor: It is an important point. It is sort of trying to find the balance between continuity -- which is incredibly important for people who serve on a regional district, so that they can continue to do their work -- and also the principle of the autonomy of the local government to appoint the individuals that they believe represent, and should represent, them on the regional district board. So we did take considerable time to canvass these options at the symposium we held with regional districts from across the province. In fact, this item was specifically canvassed, and 83 percent of those present at the symposium favoured the model that we have introduced here in the bill.

Sections 92 to 101 inclusive approved.

section 102.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to

section 102 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 102,

(

a) in the proposed

section 796.3 (3) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "that

section 803" and substituting "section 803",

(

b) in the proposed

section 800.1 (1) (e) (iii) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "paragraphs (

a) and (b)," and substituting "subparagraphs (

i) and (ii),", and

(

c) in the proposed

section 801.5 (1) (

a) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "petition" and substituting "sufficient petition".]

Amendment approved.

[1550]

section 102 as amended.

T. Nebbeling: This is a

section that is the empowerment of regional districts, and there are a couple of questions that I have in regards to the powers within this section, related to the counterpetition. There's a statement in

section 797(1), I think it is, which says that for counterpetition requirements that apply on issues related to municipal governments, the same requirements would apply to the regional district. Can the minister tell me if there are any situations where a municipality would be forced to go through a counterpetition process, but if the issue is dealt with on a regional level, the counterpetition requirement would not be there?

Hon. C. McGregor: The intention is that they always be parallel. Yes, they're meant to be parallel.

T. Nebbeling:

Section 796.2 is the

section where the regional districts can establish works or facilities outside the regional district for the purpose of a regional district service. The board, by bylaw, can regulate the use of work and facilities. Where would this apply? I have been trying to think of

[ Page 16307 ]

where a situation could arise where this could happen, and I just couldn't come up with an idea, so I thought I would ask the minister.

Hon. C. McGregor: There are a few examples of that in particular that we could think of. The case of the GVRD, where it operates a landfill outside of its boundaries, as well as parks -- those are two examples that we could think of.

T. Nebbeling:

Section 797 gives powers equivalent to municipalities in three divisions: fire protection, health, and waste and recycling. Is there a mandatory requirement that municipalities have to opt into these programs? Oh, I see the head of the assistant already saying no. So each municipality still has the right to run its own fire department, its own waste management program.

Hon. C. McGregor: Yes, the member is correct. If the members of the regional district wish to engage in shared services, they can, but there is no requirement to do so.

T. Nebbeling: In

section 797.1 we have a number of operations related to animals that could be handled by the regional district -- keeping animals, leashing and out-of-doors control, dog licences, compensation for injuries to livestock and animal pounds.

[1555]

Does that mean that you become part of the bylaw that controls animal control, or is this something where a jurisdiction can opt in or opt out? If the GVRD decides to have an animal control team established in Surrey, would that mean that everybody has to be part of it? Secondly, even if you don't want to be part of it, would there still be a fee charged to the other communities, although they may not take benefit from it?

Hon. C. McGregor: Such arrangements would always be subject to agreement between the parties. Municipalities would be able to opt in or opt out, and that would form a part of the bylaw used to establish the service and setting out who participates, how much they pay and so on.

Are these kinds of powers given to the GVRD to be involved in these kind of services based on a two-thirds majority of the board's decision to go along with this. Or can each and every community within the GVRD individually decide yes or no?

Hon. C. McGregor: With these services that are listed here, each municipality would have to opt in. The other option would be to take the issue to the voters.

T. Nebbeling: So the new power of the regional district . . . . When the minister says the issue can be taken to the voters if a municipality is not willing to opt in, is the referendum or whatever called by the municipality? Or is it actually

an act of the regional district to get the voice of the community heard, with the objective, obviously, of countering the municipal council's potential opinion?

Hon. C. McGregor: I just want to point out that this isn't a new authority. This has been in existence for more than ten years. In the example that the member just gave, the regional district would have the authority, but they would go to all of the voters in the entire region.

T. Nebbeling: I was not aware that the regional district had that authority, maybe because they have never used that authority for a referendum.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: They have had referendums? Has that particular right of the regional district been used in the last ten years to . . . ?

Hon. C. McGregor: The staff believe it has been used from time to time, but it is a much rarer form of using the authority. Generally, it is the municipal opting-in model that's chosen.

[1600]

T. Nebbeling: You're talking about

section 797.3, which gives the board the authority to have a referendum. What I'm trying to establish is if this can be over the head of a local council or if this is always done with the cooperation of a local council -- if the cooperation is needed. Can the GVRD have a referendum in West Vancouver and not North Vancouver, for example?

Hon. C. McGregor: I believe we are mixing up sections 797.1 and 797.3. When I was talking about 797.1 and the methodology that can be used for establishing a service, included is the referendum option -- and was described. That is generally not the option that regional districts choose. Generally when they're establishing a service, they choose the option where each municipality makes a decision to join or not.

Section 797.3 makes reference to, once a service is established, how referendums are held.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to quibble over wording. But it does say here to establish a service "that is or that may be operated." So maybe it means that it is not necessarily there.

Section 797.2 is a

section that gives the authority for fees and charges. I take it that includes taxation. What would be the process when

section 364, under that paragraph, comes into effect, where the regional district is being given the right to collect fees and charges that are in the form of liens? How would that apply? Would it be a direct action of a regional district, or would another body be involved? Would that be the local council?

Hon. C. McGregor: In

section 364, the regional district does have the authority to collect as a lien against the property. I'm told that generally, the regional district takes the view

[ Page 16308 ]

that they should wait until that lien becomes taxes owing. Then the municipal government would collect those taxes owing and remit it to the regional district.

[1605]

T. Nebbeling: I would like to go to

section 798. This is a

section that gives regional districts general powers that are equivalent to municipal powers. The first question -- and it applies to all these different areas where that general power would apply -- is: when there is a conflict between the local government and the regional board, how will that be settled when it comes to all these issues? When I look at some of the equivalent powers that are given to regional districts, I can see some potential conflicts. Is there a dispute provision in the act that would allow some dispute settlement between local government and the board? Or are either of these two powers, the local power or the regional power, superseding each one?

Hon. C. McGregor: We're not aware of any disputes between powers -- between regional and municipal governments. Perhaps the member can give us an example. We're not aware of any conflicts that exist between those two authorities.

T. Nebbeling: I could see a dispute arising between a local government and a board government on land issues, where local government has got certain ideas for the use of land, and the regional board would come in and say: "No no, we need that piece of land for a purpose." I'm not going to specify the purpose, but it could be a landfill, or it could be a park purpose. It could be anything. These kinds of disputes could arise. The expropriation powers . . . . I would hate to see another authority come in and expropriate portions of land in my community. I think that could be a conflict of interest. Expropriation powers are given to the regional board.

Now, I expect the minister to say that we expect a new consultation process to be part of going through these kinds of actions. Nevertheless, when I read that the regional board has the same power as a municipality when it comes to expropriation powers, I have concern about that.

I could come up with a couple of others. Compensation for non-expropriation action is another one where the opinion of a local elected council could very well be different than that of the board, which is made up of members that have only a small representation of the community where something could go wrong, and the rest would be from other communities. I think it would be seen as undue interference if these powers would be used contrary to local desire. And I'm not saying that the board would violate bylaws or anything. It is principles that are important to the local community being violated by a board that is made up of members from other communities that I'm talking about.

D. Zirnhelt: Leave to make an introduction, please.

Leave granted.

D. Zirnhelt: In the gallery we have the honour of being visited by 40 members of Kwaleen Elementary School, with their teacher, Kim Zalay, and other adults that have accompanied them. I would like the House to make them welcome and assure them that I told them the truth. They asked whether there would be any fights in here. I said there would certainly be no verbal fights. Occasionally there's verbal sparring, but the Chair would be totally in control and everybody would be on their best behaviour.

[1610]

Hon. C. McGregor: I guess, in theory, you want me to say that there could be some conflicts that would develop over time. I'm going to use the example that the member used, which is a landfill. Let's say that the local municipal government has an area of land that is vacant. The regional district has decided they would like to place a landfill there. The local municipal government has the authority to determine, through zoning, whether or not that is an appropriate use in that location. The regional district cannot overrule the power of the local government to make that decision.

We assume that local governments and regional governments can work together to achieve common outcomes. In the example of landfills, quite frequently there are disputes over where these things are sited. As a result of those disputes, a lot of work is done to try to find the locations where there is agreement between the local government that might be impacted on the placement of the landfill and the regional district that is offering a waste management service and clearly requires a location in which to place the solid waste. So I think the model . . . .

What we're trying to suggest here is that there's still . . . . Obviously there is potential for those conflicts, but our experience is that local governments and regional governments take the time to find the answers that work. Sometimes it involves compromise, but generally it does work.

T. Nebbeling: It's interesting that the minister says, "Well, you know, there's a municipal jurisdiction and if the regional district wants to do a landfill, as an example, outside that jurisdiction, then obviously it's not a municipal issue any longer." I'm talking about lands within the municipal jurisdiction where that conflict could happen.

Instead of using a landfill, I'll take the situation on Bowen Island, where for a long time the municipality has had a need to get a road realigned in order to accommodate the traffic coming off the ferry and going onto the ferry. The regional district owns a piece of land there. That land is under the control of the regional district. And the regional district, contrary to the community plan, is saying: "Sorry, we want to keep it as it is, and we're not going to accommodate you."

That is an equal power on that land versus the municipality. That is a serious conflict, and that conflict has been there now for two or three years. The Bowen Islanders have only had a municipality since last year, of course. Nevertheless, here is an example where the GVRD and the local community, or the local council, have a conflict. And because they have equal powers, there's no solution.

Maybe the minister remembers my first question: is there a conflict resolution associated with these empowerments so that we can get out of these kinds of situations? I could easily come up with a number of other examples of where it is just loggerheads.

Hon. C. McGregor: It's true; conflicts happen all the time between local governments and their neighbouring jurisdictions and sometimes their regional districts. No, we do not have a provision in the act that forces them to go through a

[ Page 16309 ]

conflict resolution exercise. We assume that that is what they will do in the nature of trying to work out their disputes, but we do not legislate them to do so.

T. Nebbeling: That's a fatal flaw. The reason I say this is that we are just going through a horrendous infight in the GVRD, because the GVRD decided, as a board -- not unanimously but as a board with a majority of two-thirds -- to go with the TransLink system. This system is creating more controversy and more anguish on the board, to the point that right now there are communities that are desperately seeking ways to get out of the GVRD. That is because there is no dispute resolution. So to introduce in a bill here today new elements that will actually empower the GVRD to go into many other areas where they are not there, where they will be constantly facing these kinds of conflicts . . . .

To sit, as the minister did and say, "Well, if there's a conflict, that's too bad; they have to figure it out . . . . " No, they shouldn't have to figure it out, because it really undermines the GVRD and its operations. There should be something in this bill to deal with these kinds of conflicts. Maybe it is not right at this point to make the powers equal, 50-50, because if that is the case, then obviously these conflicts will always be in a stalemate, in a status quo, and nobody's going to win at the end of the day. It is definitely remiss of this bill, and I hope that the minister will consider some changes to this in the very near future.

[1615]

Hon. C. McGregor: The member makes reference to the GVRD and TransLink. I just would remind the member that that's covered by the GVTA agreement and act. It's not covered by the powers and services that are listed here. It's separate legislation, and it is a different matter entirely than what is being introduced in this bill.

In terms of dispute resolution, however, the member knows -- and I spoke at some length in second reading -- about the nature of the dispute resolution process that we are putting in place around service agreements. So that is something that we will have the opportunity to discuss as we go through the bill.

T. Nebbeling: I think I made my point. I think the minister is splitting hairs when she starts to separate the transit organization of the GVRD from that body. It is the same board that is responsible for the decisions that then will be exercised or acted on by the TransLink board. I don't think you can separate them.

I think, as I said before, it is another shortfall in this bill that I think should not have been there, because too many conflicts are happening today throughout British Columbia between local governments and regional boards or the local authorities. So here was an opportunity, Madam Minister, to do something that would have helped, and we have missed the boat. I would like to go . . . .

Section 102 as amended approved.

Section 103 approved.

section 104.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to

section 104 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 104, in the proposed

section 802.3 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "If the inspector" and substituting "If a bylaw repealing an establishing bylaw is submitted to the inspector for approval and the inspector".]

On the amendment.

T. Nebbeling: This is actually the

section that then was mentioned by the minister that could be used in conflict situations, I believe. Or am I . . . ? Yes, it has to do with negotiations. So this is the forum.

How would this

section apply to some of the examples that I mentioned earlier and that the minister even brought in, with the landfill situation? If there is a conflict between the parties and if service should be there, or if it should be in a particular location because of the land use conflict that may arise -- I use Bowen Island as a situation -- would this be the tool that the minister believes would be able to solve the problem? The minister alluded earlier on that there was indeed a conflict resolution component in the bill. If this is it, I find it rather weak.

Hon. C. McGregor:

Section 104 is about a description of what happens when a regional district wants to wind up a service, and there is no agreement on how to wind up that service -- how to end it. Then the dispute resolution mechanisms will apply.

Amendment approved.

Section 104 as amended approved.

Section 105 approved.

section 106.

Hon. C. McGregor: Hon. Chair, I move an amendment to

section 106 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 106,

(

a) in the proposed

section 813 of the Municipal Act, in the definition of "service withdrawal" by deleting "to 813.18." and substituting "to 813.19.", and

(

b) in the proposed

section 813.13 (2) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "subsection 1)" and substituting "subsection (1)".]

Amendment approved.

section 106 as amended.

T. Nebbeling: This is a quick question. In the past the financials of regional districts were to be advertised, I believe, in local newspapers. Does this

section change the budget? Does this

section have any impact on the obligation for a regional district to advertise its budget and its financial statements in the local newspaper?

[1620]

Hon. C. McGregor:

Section 106 is a new

section created for dispute resolution, and it's

section 114 where we deal with, perhaps, the matter the member is raising.

T. Nebbeling: . . . that is because I think 816 is more applicable than to what I was asking about?

Section 816 -- is that more applicable? That's why I asked the question.

[ Page 16310 ]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Okay.

Section 106 as amended approved.

Sections 107 to 129 inclusive approved.

section 130.

T. Nebbeling: As we have discussed during estimates, the need for an official community plan is no longer required. So first of all, I'm surprised to see a referral to this official community plan statement here. What I still haven't figured out is: by eliminating the official community plan requirement, the five-year requirement, have we now actually authorized the regional districts' broader authority on community planning through the community growth strategy, which is a regional approach? Can the minister enlighten me on that one?

Hon. C. McGregor: We were just talking about OCPs. The member mentions a five-year period. In reference to OCPs, that five years would be planning for housing development, but that does not imply or require a local government to review it in a five-year period. In fact, there is no requirement to review it within a certain time frame. There is a practice that many local governments have to review their official community plans on a cycle, but it is not covered by these amendments.

[1625]

T. Nebbeling: Now I understand that the five-year cycle that has been practised -- a practice, I think, dictated by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in the past . . . . It's not affected by this amendment, but it is impacted by the statement that was already in the Municipal Act when it comes to official community plans.

Part of the plan, I believe, that the minister foresaw happening is that official community plans, with the five-year requirement, will no longer be a requirement under the new guidelines that communities can work under. Official community plans were a legal requirement, as far as I know. Municipal Affairs often did financially subsidize official community plans for communities to make it happen. So it's a bit of a mystery to me for me. On the one hand, I see a paper saying: "No longer is there a requirement for an official community plan." And then I see sections here that start talking about what the community plan must incorporate.

I had the idea that the whole process of community planning was no longer going to be just a community, but that it was going to be more on a growth strategy for the region. This would then include, of course, the requirement that a community, when they make changes to the official community plan, would consider impact on adjacent communities. It could even go as far as . . . . Consideration has to be given to contact adjacent regional districts to make sure that the regional growth plans fit within the plans of the neighbours. So which system are we going to follow in the future?

Are we going to go back to the official community plan, which is locally established, or are we looking at a plan that applies to the region?

Hon. C. McGregor: I don't think it's implied in any way that we're going to stop doing OCPs, nor does it say that we're only going to do regional growth strategies. In fact, we're going to continue to do both.

The regional growth strategy tools that we have make sure that there is consultation and consideration of official community plans as a part of that process. I'd certainly be happy to provide more information about how those two function together, if that's the member's concern. But there's no change here that's going to impact on the ability to plan on both a broad regional basis as well as on a more focused neighbourhood basis, through the official community plan.

T. Nebbeling: I'm not going to make much more of this particular one. I think it is no secret that the growth strategy has turned out to be a very problematic form of doing community planning, so I would have welcomed seeing a more locally concentrated planning effort again. But that is obviously not what the minister is intending to do with these amendments, so we'll leave it as it is.

Sections 130 to 136 inclusive approved.

section 137.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to

section 137 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 137, in the proposed

section 882 (2) (

b) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "affirmative vote of all directors" and substituting "affirmative vote of a majority of all directors".]

Amendment approved.

Section 137 as amended approved.

Sections 138 to 141 inclusive approved.

section 142.

T. Nebbeling: This is a

section that applies to the public hearing procedures, I believe. In the past there was a strict guideline given to mayors or the Chair during a public hearing on the wording that was to be used to show to the public what the intent of the public hearing was, what the procedures were during the public hearing and what the role of council was. I think this was a universal, almost common-law type of statement made to safeguard council members from potentially being sued for having said, "He did the wrong thing" during a public hearing or making statements afterwards.

I'm not surprised to see that the minister wants to change that statement by the Chair of a public hearing, but I find it very surprising that the minister now, with this amendment, allows the Chairs of these public hearings to just basically create their own little version of what they think is appropriate to say. And I think, in the future, we're going to have numbers and numbers of . . .

[1630]

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: It's 142 I'm talking about.

[ Page 16311 ]

. . . situations where people who have gone through the public hearing process and are not satisfied with the result of the public hearing process are going to try to hit on the statement by the Chair that it was not informative enough or that it was misinformation, in order to get the case back to the courts in the hope that the decisions will be reversed.

So I would really like to see the government, if they want to make a statement for public hearings, as a legal entity, at least incorporate it as a statement in the act, if it couldn't be left where it was. Somewhere, somehow, councils, in order to make sure that they don't get themselves on thin ice, should have those guidelines. It is very important. I hope that in the future the minister will consider what I am saying here, because otherwise I think we're going to have more and more decisions fought in the courts.

Hon. C. McGregor: Well, I think the important thing to note about this

section is that it's added to the act. In other words, it's requiring in the law that the Chair of public hearings establish procedural rules for the conduct of those hearings. In other words, it makes explicit that those rules have to be put in place. And this was actually asked for by local governments. Those rules have been understood in common law, but now we're enshrining them in the act.

T. Nebbeling: Could the minister then tell me what these rules are exactly? I can tell what the common-law rules are, but I don't know what the new rules are, because I don't see any description of these new rules.

Hon. C. McGregor: I think the member will be reasonably familiar with how most Chairs conduct a public hearing or a public meeting. They give reasonable opportunity for everyone to speak. They provide the same rules, in terms of how long an individual can speak, for every person that's there. They don't change the rules halfway through to allow one person to speak for 15 minutes and an additional person to speak only for five, and so on. There should be courtesy extended to the individuals as they are making their presentations, and so on.

Those are the kinds of rules that are established in common law, and we will be giving guidelines to local governments to make sure that all of those principles are adhered to through the application of this provision.

Sections 142 to 196 inclusive approved.

section 197.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to

section 197 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 197, by deleting "c. 11," and substituting "c. 111,".]

Amendment approved.

Section 197 as amended approved.

Sections 198 to 223 inclusive approved.

section 224.

[1635]

Hon. C. McGregor: I move the amendment to

section 224 standing in my name in Orders of the Day .

[SECTION 224, by deleting "274 repealed" and substituting "274 is repealed".]

Amendment approved.

Section 224 as amended approved.

Sections 225 to 265 inclusive approved.

section 266.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to

section 266 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 266, in subsection (2), by deleting "of that Act," and substituting "of that Act came into force,".]

Amendment approved.

Section 266 as amended approved.

Sections 267 to 277 inclusive approved.

section 278.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to

section 278 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 278, by deleting "under the

Part 13" and substituting "under

Part 13".]

Amendment approved.

Section 278 as amended approved.

Sections 279 to 281 inclusive approved.

section 282.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move an amendment to

section 282 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 282,

(

a) in subsection (1), by deleting "232 and 254" and substituting "231 and 253", and

(

b) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

(4) Sections 2 (a), (

b) and (

d) to (j), 3, 7, 10, 11, 15, 17 to 19, 27, 28, 31, 38 to 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 55 to 57, 60, 63, 64, 66, 68 to 73, 75, 76, 78, 79 (

a) and (b), 80, 83 to 91, 94, 96 to 98, 100, 102 to 114, 116 to 120, 122 to 179, 181 to 190, 192 to 219, 221, 224 to 226, 232 to 234, 236 to 238, 245 to 247, 249, 250, 261 and 262 come into force by regulation of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.]

Amendment approved.

Section 282 as amended approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the committee rise and report Bill 14 complete with amendments.

[ Page 16312 ]

Motion approved.

[1640]

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 14, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, reported complete with amendments.

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

Hon. C. McGregor: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

Bill 14, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, read a third time and passed.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 11.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000

(second reading)

Hon. J. Doyle: I move that Bill 11, the Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, be now read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, this government is committed to reducing costs for industry and government, while at the same time ensuring sustainable use of our forests. The amendments in Bill 11 are designed to further these goals. I would like to take some time to describe a few of the provisions of the bill that achieve the goals of sustainability and cost reduction for the industry and the province.

The bill includes an amendment which will ensure that all fines paid for contraventions of the Forest Practices Code will be put in a special account used to remedy environmental damage caused by contraventions of the code.

Another amendment extends the life of

part 13 of the Forest Act and makes it more usable.

Part 13 enables the government to set aside areas that are subject to land use disputes until the conflicts can be resolved. The amendments to

part 13 may be controversial for some people, but continuation of the

part is essential to ensure that the government has all the tools it needs to resolve land use issues.

The bill also moves

definitions that were in the woodlot forest management regulations into the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Those

definitions are important to ensure that soil disturbance and reforestation obligations are carried out. They had to be put into the act because they are time limited and have expired. This is largely a technical issue exercise.

We're moving to add holders of non-replaceable woodlot licences to transfer the silviculture obligations to government, after paying an appropriate amount of money to cover the cost of the ministry carrying out the silviculture work in the area of the woodlot. This is an important change for the few non-replaceable woodlot licences that are in existence, since it ensures reforestation will be done. In other words, it will eliminate the risk of default. From the licence holder's point of view, the transfer ensures certainty by freeing them up from any further silviculture obligations or liabilities.

Our cost-driver project is working to cut red tape and streamline administrative processes to cut costs for the forest industry and the government. One example is the small licence cut control measure. This gives holders of woodlot licences and small timber sale licences more flexibility in the amount of timber they must harvest over a five-year period. Legislation has required licensees to log 90 percent to 110 percent of their annual allowable cut, averaged over five years.

Many found the cut control limits difficult to meet, because on the average small licence, existing tolerance represents only a small volume of wood, and it would provide very little flexibility. We agree that the existing tolerance is unnecessarily restrictive, so we are widening the tolerance on limits from 80 percent to 120 percent. That will save these licensees money, as they will be better able to harvest according to current markets and avoid incurring penalties for failing to meet cut control limits.

Another measure in the bill eliminates the last few requirements for logging plans, a process we began in 1998 and found works well. Let me point out here that we are not losing anything other than some bureaucracy with this measure. All of the logging requirements that are in the logging plans can now be covered off by regulations.

[1645]

The bill also eliminates the requirement to comply with existing logging plans in cases where a plan and the regulations deal with the same subject matter, such as how streams are crossed. Plan holders will be required to comply with the regulation, since it allows a more performance-oriented approach, which often is much more cost-effective.

We plan to provide more ways to approve excavated and bladed trails. Those are temporary trails that are constructed during harvesting. This will reduce costs for the forest industry by reducing the administrative burden involved in approving the trails.

The bill will allow the district manager and local environmental official to relieve holders of silviculture prescriptions of their obligations in parks. This gives certainty to a small number of licensees who are currently in limbo with those prescriptions, since they cannot harvest in parks. It will also ensure that any activities under the prescriptions are compatible with park management goals.

As well, we are moving forward provisions that reduce red tape from the Forest Practices regulations into the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Those are the road regulations changes that we announced recently. They are already enforced, but this move reinforces government's commitment to those streamlining measures.

As with all the cost-driving measures, we insist that the natural environment of British Columbia's forests and the integrity of the Forest Practices Code are maintained. Actions taken as a result of the cost-driver initiative process are being closely monitored to ensure that this fundamental principle is always upheld.

I know that there are other members in this House who would like to speak on this act. I would encourage them to do so. I look forward to their comments.

J. Cashore: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Cashore: Seated in the gallery, where they can't see me . . . . I'll just say to the students from Cape Horn Elemen-

[ Page 16313 ]

tary School that they are looking at the opposition benches. This voice that they hear really is coming from the person who spoke to them a few minutes ago out on the steps. They're with Mr. Jiwa -- 47 students and some adults accompanying them. They're here from Cape Horn Elementary School learning about democracy and hopefully having a lot of fun on this visit to Victoria. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Abbott: I certainly would like to extend my welcome on behalf of the opposition to the students as well. They're very fortunate today to be able to look across and see the incoming government of British Columbia. I'm sure that it's something that they'll be able to file away for future reference.

I do want to make just a few comments with respect to Bill 11. The opposition is not going to be spending a lot of time on this bill, for reasons that I'll outline. Generally the character of this bill is beneficial. The minister, as I recall, when he introduced Bill 11at first reading, said a couple of times that the bill was modest in scope. I think that certainly is the case. As well, even the Ministry of Forests backgrounder with respect to Bill 11 says: "The amendments proposed in Bill 11 are of a minor and technical nature."

That again is certainly true of this bill. There are changes here which take us in the right direction, but they are of a modest, minor and technical nature. The bill, of course, as the minister has outlined, does propose some changes to the Forest Act, the Forest Practices Code Act and the Range Act. I'm certainly not going to discuss what those changes are. The minister has outlined them here, and I don't propose to talk about them all.

[1650]

There are a couple of the provisions that I should note. The provision which I welcome most in this bill is in

section 9. It does relate to the new flexibility that will be offered around cut control for small licensees; that is, woodlot licensees and holders of small business sales under 10,000 cubic metres. The minister has outlined the new flexibility that will now be provided on the five-year cut control. That will certainly be welcome by woodlot licensees particularly. It's a commonsense change, and certainly the opposition welcomes the change that is proposed.

The minister indicated the one area in this bill that might prove contentious or controversial with some. He described them as the

part 13 changes, which in fact are contained in

section 16 of Bill 11, but they're

part 13 of the Forest Act. Those are the issues around a designated area -- an area designated by the province -- because it is in dispute, for one reason or another.

Certainly there are some issues around whether the government has always properly used this power of designating an area, but I think that is a debate that's outside the scope of this bill. I don't think that there is dispute around the government needing to have that power, nor is there dispute around the modest changes to the specifying of a designated area that are contained in Bill 11. I'll just note that obviously there has been some debate in this area, but that debate is not going to be substantially affected by the contents of Bill 11.

Those are a couple of the areas. The minister has outlined other sections, which may have some modest beneficial effects in terms of controlling or reducing costs in the forest industry. I think it needs to be said, though, that the changes that are being proposed here in Bill 11 will, at best, produce pennies per cubic metre in savings for licensees in this province. It's certainly not going to be producing dollars in savings for licensees in this province. I think that needs to be said. But what's here will hopefully at least move us, in a very small way, in the right direction.

I want to note briefly, as well, before I conclude my remarks, that there continues to be a genuine and compelling need for further regulatory reform in this province. There need to be far more substantial regulatory reforms in British Columbia, well beyond the scope and character of the amendments proposed in Bill 11, for the forest industry in British Columbia to be truly globally competitive. We need far more substantial changes than what we have seen to date.

Everyone in British Columbia welcomes the revenue that flows from our forests into the coffers of British Columbia. One of the reasons why we can maintain the health and education systems that we have in British Columbia is the enormous contribution that is made from forest revenues for those purposes. Similarly, everyone welcomes the jobs that are produced through our forests in British Columbia. There are about 100,000 people directly employed in the forest industry, as we all know -- about 250,000 if we include indirect employment as well.

So again, the forests are a huge part of our economy. They are by far the greatest export out of the province of British Columbia, to the United States, Japan and elsewhere. We need to be constantly vigilant about keeping our cost structure in line in British Columbia.

At many points over the past eight or nine years of NDP government in British Columbia, we have lost the cost-competitiveness that we desperately need. We on the opposition side believe that far more substantial regulatory reform is required in British Columbia to ensure that we have a vibrant forest industry in 2000, 2001, 2010 and through the current century.

[1655]

The Forests minister and the government like to talk about the profits that the forest industry made in 1999. Certainly the turnaround in the fortunes of the industry, particularly during the first six months of 1999, were welcome. But to put the issue in context, it was the first year in four years that the industry had actually produced a return on investment. We are very concerned, on the opposition side, that as we see the softwood lumber prices that we enjoyed, particularly during the first six months of 1999, slip away . . . .

We are well down now in American softwood lumber prices from what we were in the first six months of 1999. As those prices continued to decline, B.C.'s ability to be competitive in that marketplace, and indeed in other marketplaces around the globe, is substantially reduced.

If we want to be a player in global forest markets in every cycle in every season, we have to make some very substantial changes to our tax and regulatory framework in British Columbia. Without that, we are going to see much more of what has already been indicated for the year 2000 -- that is, seasonal shutdowns of important milling facilities in

British Columbia, forest workers losing their employment, and their communities and their families suffering as a consequence.

When we talk about regulatory reform, it's not simply an issue for industry; it's an issue for forest workers, for their families and for their communities. For this reason the opposi-

[ Page 16314 ]

tion is going to be supporting Bill 11. We welcome the modest regulatory reforms contained in this bill. But again we want to underline that we believe that a much more substantial regulatory reform is needed if we are going to be a competitive force, a vibrant force, a continuing force, in the global forest markets into the twenty-first century.

The Speaker : Seeing no further speakers, I'll recognize the Minister of Forests to close debate.

Hon. J. Doyle: Thanks to the hon. member from Shuswap, the Forests critic, for his words and the general support that he gave to the bill. He had some questions about it, but I appreciated the ten or 12 items that he mentioned in the words that he gave. I acknowledge the concerns he raised. I acknowledge, also, the points of agreement that he has with the bill.

I look forward, hon. Speaker and members of the House, to committee stage, when we can deal with them all in the context of the bill. With that, I move second reading of Bill 11.

Motion approved.

Bill 11, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2000, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I call second reading of Bill 15.

The Speaker: We'll just take a few minutes, members, while we wait for the Minister of Health.

[1700]

TOBACCO DAMAGES AND

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT

(second reading)

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise in the chamber today on second reading of Bill 15, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to talk about the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, because this act is enabling legislation that allows the province to sue tobacco companies to recovery health care costs that have been or will be incurred by the government for the treatment of tobacco-related disease.

When the original Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was introduced in 1997, it was the first of its kind in Canada. No other province had attempted to take on big tobacco. B.C. dared, and we launched our lawsuit in November of 1998.

We believe that the tobacco industry targets children in its marketing. We believe the industry manufactures a product that kills people. We believe the industry should be held accountable for the costs of treating tobacco-related illnesses.

The tobacco industry immediately challenged B.C.'s lawsuit, saying it was unconstitutional. In its February 2000 decision on the industry's challenge, the Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that the underlying principles of B.C.'s legislation were constitutionally sound. This is important, because in terms of how this has been reported -- in terms of some of the discussions taken about this legislation -- this is a key aspect: the fundamental principles underlying this legislation are sound.

It's important to review what these principles are: the province's entitlement to claim health care costs from tobacco companies, the province's right to pursue claims on an aggregate basis, placing the onus of proof on the tobacco industry on issues of causation, apportioning liability among the tobacco companies on the basis of market share and establishing a mechanism for disclosure of health care information while ensuring privacy of individual insured persons.

However, on one issue and one issue only did the court take issue with the legislation. This was on the issue of extraterritoriality, where the judge ruled that the act exceeded the government's constitutional authority to hold foreign companies legally responsible, on the basis of corporate relationships, for the actions of subsidiaries which sold cigarettes in British Columbia. On the basis of that finding, the judge struck down the entire act.

In response to the Supreme Court's decision, the province has decided to request that the Legislature repeal the original Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act and re-enact the legislation with some modifications, to address the Supreme Court's concerns.

In particular, the enterprise liability provisions that would have permitted the government to sue foreign corporations on the basis of corporate relationship have been severed in this new legislation. However, it is important to note that there are new joint and several liability provisions which provide for joint liability where more than one manufacturer acted together to commit a breach of duty owed to people in British Columbia -- that is, smokers or those who might become smokers -- or where one manufacturer acted on behalf of another in committing a breach of duty.

In addition, the wording of several of the act's provisions has been changed to provide greater clarity. For example, there is a new definition of "cost of health care benefits," which among other things includes and confirms that recovery for expenditures will be calculated on a present-value basis for both past and future expenditures, and it includes the phrase "the risk of tobacco related disease" to clarify that health care benefits can be expended not only for the treatment of disease but also for treatments arising from the risk of disease.

The definition of "health care benefits" has also been expanded to ensure that all government's relevant expenditures are captured. Under the original act some benefits which were not included in the definition were to be designated by regulation. In the new act the language of this definition has been expanded to avoid the necessity of relying on regulations.

The definition of "tobacco related wrong" has been changed to make it clear that the government can only recover health care costs resulting from a breach of duty owed by tobacco companies to persons in British Columbia. This narrowing of the definition is needed to avoid an argument that the act is extraterritorial.

Our government remains firm in its resolve to seek compensation for tobacco-related health care costs, to expose the misconduct of the tobacco industry and to deter future misconduct. Tobacco addiction is one of the greatest threats facing young people today. B.C. has been a world leader in its effort to protect children from tobacco, and we intend to continue to do so.

[ Page 16315 ]

The legislation is an integral part of the province's broad tobacco strategy, a strategy that has earned B.C. worldwide recognition for its efforts in protecting children from this deadly addiction. Over the past several years B.C. has embarked on an aggressive public awareness campaign to inform young people about the health hazards of smoking -- whether it's through hard-hitting TV ads, magazines or school resources -- that has helped to give British Columbia one of the lowest rates of smoking in the entire country. I think that's something that we can all be proud of.

[1705]

Right here in Victoria we have a school, Stelly's Secondary School, that through an aggressive action targeted at young people has seen the reduction in the rate of smoking among school children from 28 percent of the school-age population down to 7 percent of the school-age population. That is a tremendous achievement, and it's something that I think we need to look at being emulated right across the province.

We have increased our enforcement of tobacco sales to reduce the opportunity for young people to purchase tobacco products, and we've seen the number of retailers willing to sell cigarettes to youth steadily decline. We've introduced legislation to force the tobacco industry to disclose the ingredients and additives in cigarettes. And finally, we're committed to continuing our legal action to hold the tobacco industry accountable for the damage that it's product inflicts on the health of thousands of British Columbians.

You know, it's sometimes an easy argument that's dismissed. But the simple fact is that the tobacco companies have to get new tobacco users to stay in business and to continue. We know that people who become addicted to tobacco die at a much greater rate than the general population. And as these smokers and tobacco users die, the pool of people the tobacco companies have to peddle their product to is shrinking.

We know that they deliberately target children. We know that they deliberately target young people. We know that their advertising is aimed at these groups. We know that they prey on the fact that young people are vulnerable to peer pressure. Yet they insist, time after time, that they didn't do this -- that that's not their way of doing business. Well, the evidence is clear: it is.

We must continue to be aggressive in our efforts. We must continue to be vigilant and to work to ensure that tobacco companies know that they will not get an easy ride, that they do not have free reign, that this province is serious in taking them on and that we'll continue to do so. We're going to build on our reputation as a world leader, and we're going to continue to pursue our goal of having the lowest smoking rate of any province in the country. Our strategy is very much geared towards that.

What's encouraging is that now we're seeing other provinces get on board and following British Columbia's approach. The province of Newfoundland has decided to follow B.C.'s lead and has recently announced its intent to launch its own lawsuit, using British Columbia's legislation as a model. So this legislation that we are dealing with today will be a model for other provinces, and Newfoundland is the latest province to indicate that they will be following our lead. They have recently adopted an aggressive tobacco-use strategy.

I don't think it's a coincidence that Newfoundland and British Columbia, the two provinces in Canada with the highest taxes on cigarettes, also have the lowest rates of cigarette consumption.

This piece of legislation is very much a key weapon in our campaign to reduce the rate of smoking amongst the population in general but also, in particular, to ensure that the message continues that we want to ensure that young people don't smoke -- don't take up tobacco addiction -- that we have the lowest tobacco-usage rate of any province in Canada, and that we will work cooperatively with other provinces and with the federal government in pursuing health care costs recovery litigation.

We hope that other provinces and territorial governments will join us and stand united against the tobacco industry. We've seen how legal actions in other jurisdictions have changed the way the tobacco industry operates, and we want to change how that industry operates in this province as well.

This legislation will allow the province to continue its legal action without delay. That will have important consequences for the lives of British Columbians today and the lives of future generations. This is an important piece of legislation, which I hope gets the support of the entire House. I look forward to hearing the comments from other members of the chamber and ask them to support this legislation without reservation.

[1710]

C. Hansen: The official opposition is not going to oppose this legislation. But at the same time I don't believe that this is a particular piece of legislation that the government should be proud of.

I want to take a quick look at what this legislation is all about. But before I do that, I want to set out what our approach to the government's tobacco strategy has been and say that we have consistently, over these last four years that the tobacco strategy has been brought before this particular parliament, looked at each and every piece of legislation with the question: "Does this legislation help, or potentially help, reduce the number of smokers in British Columbia, to reduce tobacco use in British Columbia?"

In each case where we see that there is at least some possibility that the government's tobacco strategy initiatives will have that outcome, we have supported the government in terms of that legislation. If you go back and look at the pieces of legislation that we opposed in the tobacco strategy, they were aspects of legislation -- or legislation itself -- that, really, we did not believe would have that desired effect and that we saw as some other agenda. But generally speaking, we have been supportive of the strategy where it has had the clear objective of reducing tobacco use in British Columbia, because that is one thing that I think every member of this House wants to see happen.

We see some quite alarming statistics in terms of . . . . While we may have the lowest tobacco use in British Columbia, we clearly do have a problem in terms of new teenage users and, in particular, young girls, who are increasing their use of tobacco quite considerably. It's an area that we should all be concerned about and find ways of reducing.

I would say that this particular piece of legislation is not about reducing the number of tobacco users in British Columbia. This piece of legislation is all about several things that

[ Page 16316 ]

happened in the United States, in various states. Probably the most notable is a decision in Minnesota, where the tobacco industry agreed to an out-of-court settlement with big tobacco to the tune of $6.8 billion to be spread over 25 years. That's what this legislation is all about. This legislation is all about a desire by this government to get a chunk of cash from big tobacco.

They first set down this road in 1997, when they brought in the original piece of legislation that was to change the rules in British Columbia to allow the government the ability to go after the tobacco companies with this lawsuit. A year later, before they even proclaimed that legislation, they realized that there were some problems with that bill, and they brought in a major rewrite. They brought in the Tobacco Damages Recovery Amendment Act, and it retitled it; it changed most of the legislation. Then last year we saw yet another amendment come in. That was the third amendment -- one each and every year.

It was brought in, in the context of a miscellaneous statute amendment act. Again, what it was doing was, each time, changing the rules to favour the government's position in taking this court case forward.

So we've had these four tries. This is now the fourth attempt that the government has made of rewriting the rules to favour the objective that they're trying to achieve. If you think about that in the broad context, that's really quite repugnant, in the sense that government would take that kind of action. What it is also is an admission of failure on the part of this government that they haven't been able to get it right each time.

[1715]

I want to go back and just quote a couple of things that took place in this House as those various pieces of legislation went through. I go back to 1998 when the first major amendment to the legislation was brought in. The then Minister of Health said these words:

"These changes are essential for the purposes of ensuring that the claim against the tobacco industry will be based on a full and fair examination of all the relevant facts. When this legislation was brought in last year, we made it clear that this litigation was to be fought on a level playing field. We remain committed to this principle, and we're satisfied that these changes will ensure that a hearing of the merits of this case will fully disclose the extent of responsibility of the tobacco industry for the suffering of so many smokers in this province."

And they were very confident in 1998 that they were making the changes necessary to level the playing field.

Then last year we brought amendments in again to try to level the playing field. At that time, when it was going through in that miscellaneous statutes amendment act, I put a question to the then Attorney General. This is what I asked him: "I'd like to ask the minister: given that every year this chamber is presented with a wholesale rewrite of this bill in order to get around the constitutional issues that this government is faced with, can the minister tell us whether or not we're going to be facing yet more amendments to this legislation next year in order to facilitate the government's court case?"

The Attorney General, who is now the Premier of the province, responded to me in these words: "I don't want to engage in the kind of debate the hon. member at the other end is beginning." Well, you know, we should have engaged in that debate, because what is clear now is that the amendments that were brought in last year did not facilitate what the government was trying to do in terms of positioning itself to go after big tobacco. It is with some skepticism that we stand here looking at this legislation and a decision not to oppose it.

At the same time I am not convinced today, nor are others who are watching this scene unfold convinced, that in fact the government truly knows what it's doing at this stage. There are those who are the cynics who may be right in the opinion that government is throwing good money after bad when it is trying to pursue the motherlode of this lawsuit against the tobacco industry.

Part of it is that if there is compensation forthcoming from the tobacco industry in terms of health costs, then British Columbia should certainly go after that, as other jurisdictions in North America have gone after it. I guess we stand here watching a government that is desperately trying to rewrite and amend legislation year after year in order to facilitate that court case. While we will not stand in the way of the government proceeding, it is not with a great deal of confidence.

G. Plant: One of the fundamental rules or principles in a democratic society, one of the small handful of truly fundamental principles of life in a democratic society, is the principle of equality. Oftentimes the idea of equality is expressed in terms of equality before the law. This phrase, which is much hallowed by usage and by history, is intended to connote the idea that all citizens in a democratic society come before the law as equals -- that we are all treated equally before the law.

Whether we be school children sitting in the visitor's gallery of this Legislative Assembly, citizens going about their daily business on the streets and in the neighbourhoods of British Columbia, or corporations doing business according to and subject to the laws of British Columbia, we are all, I think, entitled to the expectation that governments will respect the basic and fundamental principle of equality.

Included in that expectation is the expectation that the rules under which civil litigation or criminal litigation are conducted will be the same whatever the class of litigants. Indeed, we have rules of court in British Columbia that apply equally to the litigants of British Columbia.

Included in that expectation of equality, which is fundamental to our sense of what it means to live in a truly free and democratic society, is the expectation that the laws themselves, the rules of evidence, the rules that constitute the causes of action that allow citizens to sue one another, are themselves respectful of the basic idea of equality, so that all of us as citizens -- school child, housewife, worker, corporation -- are treated equally.

This bill and its three predecessors violate that basic principle. They do so by creating a distinct class of rules, a distinct class of laws for one particular class of citizens -- tobacco companies. They change the rules under which tobacco companies as one class of citizens, albeit corporate citizens in this society, have to conduct their business. They changed the rules according to which those companies can be expected to be subject to litigation by government or by whomever.

[1720]

I think it goes without saying that the idea of equality is neither universal nor inflexible. In fact, our constitution contains within it the express recognition of the possibility that the basic idea of formal equality can be compromised or altered in particular contexts, usually when government is legislating to enhance the rights of particular classes of citizens rather than to erode them or take away from them. Nonethe-

[ Page 16317 ]

less, the ideal of equality to which I've referred is not, and never really has been, perfectly realized in the laws of any jurisdiction.

I refer to that ideal, or that idea and that ideal, because I think it is importa