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

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 16, Number 24

[ Page 14339 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. S. Hammell: In the gallery, visiting our Legislature for the first time, is a friend of mine. She is a woman who believes in giving back to her community. Among other projects, at present she is chair of the SFU Foundation, chair of the fund development committee of the B.C.-Yukon

chapter of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, and chair of Absolute Travel Management Services. She is just a remarkable woman and one that I'm very proud to introduce you to today. Would you please make welcome Lis Welch.

J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to have in the House my sister and my brother-in-law from Bella Coola, Drs. Nancy and Alistair Anderson, and two of their daughters, Taisa and Marion. It's the first time that they've had the opportunity to be in the House, and I hope that they find question period to be enlightening. I'd ask the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. P. Priddy: I know that many of us rise in this House to make introductions of people who work with us. We say frequently, as I will say today, that without the support of the staff that work with us as part of the team, we would not be able to do the kind of job that we all want to do. So it's a pleasure for me today to introduce in the House Sameena Nahal, who's the executive assistant in my riding of Surrey-Newton. I'd ask the House to please make her welcome.

T. Stevenson: In the gallery today is Jim Brown, who is the general counsel and Washington director of the Council of State Governments. He is up for some meetings, including with yourself, Madam Speaker. I hope the House would make him welcome.

Oral Questions

FAST FERRY WAKE-AND-WASH DAMAGE

M. de Jong: Last night we saw on television the effects of the wake and wash of the fast ferry on the people who live along that route. The picture really said it all. The wake is dangerous to small boats, and more particularly, it's dangerous to people. Will the Minister Responsible for B.C. Ferries concede the obvious: that it's only a matter of time before someone gets hurt? And will he tell the people that have been put at risk what he intends to do about that fact?

[1410]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: The B.C. Ferry Corporation has instructed the masters on the fast cat that they will reduce the speed around Bowen and Passage islands, down to 25 knots. That is expected to reduce the wake risk. The problem with the wake off a catamaran is that it is a slightly longer and deeper wave, and therefore it has a greater impact when it hits the shore. It is generally believed that by reducing the speed to 25 knots, it will not be dangerous to boats and certainly will not be dangerous to people.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Let's just make sure we understand this. The NDP spends half a billion tax dollars on fast ferries, and now the minister admits that they can't go fast. I guess we'll wait and see what that means in terms of meeting performance objectives. But the question to the minister is: how much more evidence does he or the government need before he will finally admit that these are the wrong boats, for the wrong route, built at the wrong cost? Will he apologize to British Columbians for embarking on this colossal screwup of a venture that's costing them half a billion dollars?

Hon. G. Wilson: The only thing I have to apologize to British Columbians for was whatever role I had in electing that lot over there. Hon. Speaker, if the member opposite . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . has spent any time on the water at all, he will know that there are areas where speed is restricted and areas where speed is unrestricted. Around Bowen and Passage islands the speed is restricted to 25 knots. When it is crossing the strait, it is quite able to do its stated speed. We expect that over time, the fast cat . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . will prove to be a valuable addition to the B.C. Ferry Corporation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Second supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: Well, I heard a lot of rhetoric; what I didn't hear from the minister was an apology to the people . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

M. de Jong: . . . who have already been adversely affected. What I didn't hear from the minister was an acknowledgment that, at minimum, this is going to have an impact on meeting the performance objectives of these boats that have cost British Columbians half a billion dollars. What I didn't hear from the minister is an acknowledgment of the obvious: that it's the wrong boat for the wrong route, something that he said time and time again when he sat on this side of the House. Maybe it's time he showed a little honesty and integrity in admitting that now.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Peace River North, come to order. Members, come to order. The question has been asked.

[ Page 14340 ]

Hon. G. Wilson: The B.C. Ferry Corporation is working with the people who have been affected by ferry wake. We are, I think, doing what we can to make sure that that situation doesn't occur again.

Unlike the members opposite, who would like to stand up and simply pan everything that happens in British Columbia, making it very difficult for anybody who believes that they should invest in this province, driving the economy further down by constant negativity . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order!

Hon. G. Wilson: . . . I have chosen to stand to work with this government to make things work for British Columbia, so that we can turn things around and make this province the very best place it can be.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Chair would be happy to recognize the next person with a question, but order must be restored in the House, please.

D. Symons: I'd like to first say to those of us elected in '91 that we made the right choice when we changed leaders back then. I think the answer of that minister has obviously proved my point.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member?

[1415]

D. Symons: Today the residents of Bainbridge Island in Washington State are going to court because of the damage to their properties caused by Washington State's fast ferries. It's only a matter of time before we see residents of Bowen Island and Passage Island going before B.C. courts, seeking compensation for damages to their properties. Damages have already occurred. Can the minister tell us what the costs will be to B.C. taxpayers when this government is sued for the damage and potential injuries caused by the wake left by the fast ferries?

The Speaker: That's a totally hypothetical question, but if the minister wants to respond in some fashion, that's up to the minister.

Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, one wonders: if they made the right choice when they changed leader, why are they still on the opposition benches instead of in government?

I would point out to the member opposite . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. G. Wilson: Obviously I touched a nerve. I would say to the members opposite . . . . The member opposite should be aware that when the superferry came in there was a problem with wake from the superferry, and we mitigated that. When the C-class was first introduced, there was a problem with wake, particularly in the Bowen Island area but also in the entrance to Nanaimo. This is not uncommon. When you introduce a new technology, there will be adjustments with respect to speed and course, so that we can mitigate against the kind of damage that we've seen in the video the member refers to. This is not unusual.

B.C. Ferry Corporation is working with the residents, and I believe that we will have a successful resolution without expensive litigation.

The Speaker: I caution all members in terms of personal allusions. I would recommend that both sides of the House refrain from such things.

D. Symons: The Chair must have been anticipating my first comment. Anyway, I'll avoid that.

The minister knows -- and they knew -- that the first time that ferry went out on a trial its wake was nine times that of a C-class ferry. If you cut the speed down to 25 knots, it is still going to be considerably more than from the C-class ferries that operate on that route, and that's going to create problems along that route. So we've already had property damage done on Bowen and the other islands there. Really, we have to ask the minister . . . . We know that claim forms have already been requested from people in that area for damage caused. Can the minister tell us how much money B.C.

Ferries has budgeted for compensation due to probable claims for property damage? Have they set any money aside for that?

The Speaker: The question itself is out of order, but I recognize the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. G. Wilson: I agree. But just to give the citizens of British Columbia and the residents of Bowen Island -- but not so much the members of the opposite party here -- some comfort, British Columbia Ferry Corporation is well aware that there has been a problem with wake. We are mitigating against that by reducing speed. We have people who are now engaged in a wake study to make sure that there are not going to be further problems with wake. The damage occurs primarily in the summer months, when people have small boats anchored in the water. We are dealing with the matter, and I believe we can do so without expensive litigation.

EFFECT OF AQUACULTURE MORATORIUM ON COASTAL COMMUNITIES

J. Reid: Last fall both the Fisheries minister and the Premier stated that a decision on the salmon-farming moratorium would be made by the end of the year. By December, the Public Service minister had changed the decision date to February. We have been waiting and waiting, and no decision on a managed expansion of salmon farming has come. Can the Fisheries minister explain why this government is so incompetent that even after four years of looking at the issue, they continue to break their promises and cannot make a decision?

[1420]

Hon. D. Streifel: Interesting question; I thank the member for it. I think it's thoughtful. But it upsets me . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

[ Page 14341 ]

Hon. D. Streifel: . . . that the members of the opposition refuse to take into consideration the diverse interests in British Columbia -- environmental and business interests -- when it comes to making what has become a very difficult decision.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: I just ask the member to stay tuned, and we'll see in the near future.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

J. Reid: The fisheries sector in B.C. has an unemployment rate of over 30 percent. That affects coastal communities. Yet instead of taking action to help, this government lurches from crisis to crisis, paralyzed and unwilling to make a decision that would help thousands of British Columbians. Can the Minister of Fisheries provide coastal communities with a firm date when the salmon moratorium decision will be made?

Hon. D. Streifel: I know that the member is fairly new to the chamber. I'm not going to walk off this by saying the question is out of order. But I will recognize the member as an aquaculturist and employed in the aquaculture industry. It has had significant support from government agencies in the development of aquaculture policy, although it's the shellfish side.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. Interruptions are preventing the minister from . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Both sides of the House, please come to order.

Hon. D. Streifel: Since the release of the environmental assessment office's report, we have had some significant happenings on the coast that were not part of the environmental review of this industry. We have continuing high levels of escapes. We have the reality of atlantics spawning in the Tsitika River. I believe these circumstances to be serious and to require serious consideration before we move forward.

I would ask, on the other hand, for the official opposition to come forward with their policy on aquaculture -- whether they would relive the past, their roots, back to the Socred gold rush days of unrestricted aquaculture.

The Speaker: Minister . . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: Or would they in fact live up to the commitment that British Columbians would like to see -- towards our commitment to environmental initiatives?

MRI WAIT-LISTS

C. Hansen: In January the Minister of Health received a report that showed that B.C. is lagging behind not only Alberta and Ontario but in fact much of the industrialized world when it comes to providing access to MRI services in this province. She has made announcements of funding. But now what we have seen is that in many communities around this province, wait-lists for MRI have in fact got worse. If you look at Prince George, there are over 100 patients who have been waiting for over five months; in Kamloops, 220 people have been waiting for more than five months; in Kelowna, close to 500 people have been waiting for more than four months.

Why has this minister stood by for the last seven months since she got that report and failed to act in the interest of B.C. patients and to ensure that British Columbia patients have access to MRI technology that's at least as good as some of our counterparts around the industrialized world and certainly in other provinces in Canada?

Hon. P. Priddy: The $625 million increase in health care this year did indeed include increases for MRI. The member mentions Kamloops. Since we took the original initiative to put more money into MRIs, the wait time in Kamloops has dropped by five months; it's gone from nine months to four months. The wait time in the capital district, I believe, has decreased by half. So across the province, as those dollars are being put into places that have had extended MRI times, we are indeed seeing the reduction in wait times. We'll continue to monitor that. We are concerned about patients' health in this province.

People over there who vote against the budget and then want more money here, here and here should look at the recent statistics. It's dropped by up to five months in the city of Kamloops.

[1425]

Reports from Committees

R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the third session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Collection of Overdue Accounts Receivable." I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: I move the report be adopted. I'd like to thank all of the staff and members of the committee who have worked so diligently on putting this report together.

Motion approved.

Tabling Documents

Hon. H. Lali: I'm pleased to submit the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for the period April '97 to March '98.

Petitions

J. Weisbeck: I rise to present a petition on behalf of over 2,500 concerned parents in school district 23. They are request-

[ Page 14342 ]

ing that the Ministers of Education and Finance undertake a review of the criteria used to determine walk limits and that consideration be given to including the age of students, weather conditions, terrain and road traffic under the criteria used to determine walk limits.

G. Bowbrick: I'm rising to present a petition on behalf of 55 New Westminster residents regarding access to effective osteoporosis therapy.

Hon. A. Petter: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. A. Petter: In the gallery today are Kristen Durand-Hutchinson and Lindsay Zajaczkowski, who are both students in grade 7 at Craigflower Elementary School in my constituency. In fact, they're students of some academic accomplishment. Kristen, along with two others, was recently awarded the Academic Bell award. Lindsay received the Nathan Gillespie Memorial Plaque. They're with us today to see government and the Legislature in action. I'd ask the House to join me in making them very welcome and congratulating them on their academic achievements.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber I call second reading of Bill 78.

In Committee A, I call Committee of the Whole. By agreement we'll be debating Bill 74, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999; Bill 82, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 1999; and Bill 87, Education Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999.

[1430]

MOTOR VEHICLE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. H. Lali: I move second reading of Bill 78, Motor Vehicle Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

Bill 78 includes amendments to four statutes: the Highway (Industrial) Act, the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act, the Motor Carrier Act and the Motor Vehicle Act. It consists of 32 sections. Of those sections, 20 fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, ten fall within the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for ICBC, and two housekeeping sections fall within the responsibility of the Attorney General.

The sections under the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways amend legislation to provide for motor carrier deregulation, to clarify direction to drivers with respect to inoperative traffic signals and to authorize municipalities to set speed limits for highways within municipalities.

The sections under the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Minister Responsible for ICBC provide for National Safety Code requirements.

Other amendments allow ICBC to refuse, cancel or limit insurance if debt arises out of a conviction for a robbery; clarify requirements for a driver's licence applicant; remove provisions that would automatically void insurance for insureds who leave the province under certain circumstances; exempt out-of-province students attending specified educational institutions from vehicle licensing and registration, subject to financial responsibility filing; hold owners liable for contravening heavy vehicle emission standards; and provide for vehicle identification numbers instead of serial numbers.

The sections under the responsibility of the Attorney General are to correct errors arising from the 1996 statutes revision -- to correct a subsection's reference and to change "superintendent" to "corporation." The amendments allowing for the economic deregulation of all provincial freight carriers are in conjunction with an enhanced National Safety Code program. This is consistent with the federal government's plans to deregulate the operation of extraprovincial freight carriers on January 1, 2000.

Bill 78 will ensure the continued ability of all provincial freight carriers to compete on a level playing field with their extraprovincial counterparts. As economic deregulation decreases, the need for safety regulation increases. The provisions for an enhanced National Safety Code program will ensure a seamless transition of motor carrier safety requirements when provincial economic deregulation of general freight takes place on January 1, 2000. These amendments will result in a reduction in red tape.

That concludes my remarks.

D. Symons: I rise to speak on Bill 78, second reading. By and large, I go along with much of what the minister has said because, indeed, many of the sections of this bill are simply bringing B.C. into line with the federal deregulation of the trucking industry. Most of the things to do with the Motor Carrier Commission -- those particular sections -- are sections that may bring us into line with the rest of Canada. I have no problem with that.

There are, however, some sections in here I'd like to raise some concerns about so that the minister might know where we may be going when we move into committee stage. We do have some concerns about those. There is a

section of this act that raises the issue of what ICBC might be able to ask its clients -- that is, people who own motor vehicles and, particularly in this case, vehicles that are classified as carriers. There is a

section that basically says that ICBC can ask virtually anything that they want to and that the person who has that policy must really respond to them or take the chance of losing their insurance.

Section 29 says: "An operator must, in the manner prescribed, provide to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia all information it requires, including specific answers to all questions it submits."

[1435]

I would give the minister some warning that I would like to see something in there that relates to those questions asked that are related to either the products being carried or the insurance being carried by that vehicle and the safety of the vehicle. So if he could be a little more specific, it would certainly overcome my concerns about that

section -- just a heads-up on that, for when we get to that in committee stage.

I see that they have also brought in a paragraph here that basically says that a driver of a motor vehicle commits an offence if he or she operates the motor vehicle in contravention of an emission standard prescribed under this section. Basically it seems that AirCare now might be an offence under

[ Page 14343 ]

the Offence Act. I guess that maybe that's carrying it fairly far, but maybe it's necessary to get people to comply with emission standards. It will be interesting to see how the public responds to that one.

The main concern I have with this bill -- and I think that others will speak to it as well -- is the part where they bring in a new

section where they're going to add to the Motor Vehicle Act. It's in

part 6, "Carriers," and it's

section 31 of this particular act. In here they define something called a business vehicle. There is a part (

a) and a part (

b) to "business vehicle." Part (

a) sounds to me very much like what we would consider to be a business vehicle, and I suspect that it's what was covered under freight carriers in the old act. This is a vehicle which somebody is using to transport goods for somebody else for compensation -- a business vehicle.

In this act we find that they've brought in another category, a category that talks about people who are moving their own goods in their own vehicle from one area to another. I'm not too sure -- and I will certainly be listening during committee stage to hear the minister's explanations -- how wide a net this particular

section will be throwing over vehicles that are used by a person carrying their own goods and whether they will be captured under this and therefore be required to follow all of the regulations of the National Safety Code -- which, in some circumstances, could be quite onerous for a person who is using the vehicle infrequently for the transporting of his own goods.

I'm thinking, particularly, of the agricultural industry, which might may be caught under this. A farmer that is taking some goods to market and bringing those goods or materials back to the farm could be caught and treated essentially the same as a dumptruck or a freight carrier. I'm wondering if the intent of this bill is to do that. Again, we'll find out in committee stage whether that is the case. Will somebody who is operating their vehicle, a car, and carrying goods . . . ? They're a salesman of some sort, and they're carrying their goods and display products back and forth. Will they be caught? Again, the way it's worded here opens it to quite wide

interpretation, and I would like very much to have some clarification on those particular sections.

I guess the last portion I had concerns with when I first looked at it . . . . As I've thought it through, I have come to the realization that maybe it's not as bad as I first thought. It was the

section in here that will add the ability for a police officer -- or anybody given the job -- to basically search, without a warrant, a business vehicle on a highway to determine whether this act and regulations are being complied with. At first I had concerns about being able to search any business vehicle without a warrant, but I did read the after-part. When I read about it and thought about it more . . . . As long as it is limited to that bit of seeing that people are acting in compliance with the act, I guess I can buy the business of searching without a warrant if there's somehow cause for suspicion.

These are the areas, which I've tried to highlight to the minister, that we have some concerns about with this bill. Until I have some reassurance that the concerns I have raised are not correct -- that, indeed, agricultural vehicles or other vehicles used infrequently by a person carrying their own goods back and forth for their small business will not be caught in the net that

section (

b) of that part refers to . . . . If I can have assurance -- and more than assurance, a guarantee -- that indeed what is in here does not capture them and they can show me how this is not so . . . . Until that point, I don't believe that I will be able to support this bill.

[1440]

B. Barisoff: I just want to add a few comments to those of our Transportation critic on this side of the House. The fact is that I have some real concerns, as the Agriculture critic, about what this bill does and the effect that it has on the agricultural community, particularly their vehicles and the National Safety Code. I know that we have, in essence, deregulated the trucking industry, and from that standpoint, that's very positive. But I think that what it does is create a lot of burdensome rules and regulations for the farming industry.

We've been getting calls from all over that with the National Safety Code and other things, the minister must look at different areas of this bill, particularly how they affect the agricultural community of British Columbia, because a lot of vehicles that are used in agriculture aren't necessarily used for 12 months of the year. In fact, some of them are only used maybe a couple of weeks of the year, but they'll have to adhere to some of the rules and regulations that are being set out in the National Safety Code.

Until such time as there are some changes made to this portion of the bill, I don't feel, as Agriculture critic for this side of the House, that we could offer our support. We've got to look at ways of making agriculture more viable for all farmers. I know that we look at safety, and we're aware of that, but I think that the minister must look at ways of addressing these concerns in this bill.

J. Wilson: I too would like to address the

section in this bill that deals with the carrier portion, which will affect small business operators. We've heard an awful lot of talk around this House in the last month about how this government is reducing the regulatory burden for everyone that's involved in small business. If we could actually see something happen, it would be great news. But it doesn't happen. It's just rhetoric; that's all we hear. Here is a prime example. Here's another bill that's adding more red tape, more regulations, more burden on small business and agriculture. As if they didn't have enough to deal with now, this is just another unnecessary load to carry.

Should a small business operator, under this act -- if he's running a contracting outfit or a service truck, a welding truck or anything like that -- exceed his 160-kilometre radius that's set up . . . . He must keep a logbook for a week, detailing all his activities. The same thing applies to someone in agriculture. Should they wish to go to a sale and purchase a few cattle or buy a load of hay and they exceed that radius . . . . They're required to keep a logbook for a number of days -- a week. What on earth is wrong with this minister that he would put such an onerous regulation in place?

It would read something like this: "At 6 a.m. -- got up, stoked the fire, made coffee, had breakfast, went out, fed the cows; 12 noon -- had lunch, came back in, had coffee, went out, delivered a calf, went back out, fed the stock again." And this goes on and on for days, because he would have to be in compliance with the law and carry a logbook detailing every activity that he has done for a week. "At 7 p.m. -- went to visit the neighbour, had a cup of coffee." Probably went to bed at 9 o'clock and got up at 6.

[1445]

Can you imagine what this is going to do? The same thing applies to people in small business. The guy running a little contracting outfit gets in his vehicle and drives for some

[ Page 14344 ]

supplies. If he exceeds that, he's got to keep a logbook and carry on the same way. We need less of this. And what are we getting? We are getting more and more and more.

Another thing in this act is that if these operators decide to move anything, they have to go and get cargo insurance. For their own goods or products that they're hauling around, they need cargo insurance. How ridiculous can you get? I have to fill out a form and pay cargo insurance because I want to move a bale of hay somewhere? Give me a break. That's what these people think is the way to run small business, how to manage small business. It's just . . . .

An Hon. Member: Mind-boggling.

J. Wilson: Mind-boggling is the word. How they can even sit over there and say: "We are reducing the regulatory burden in this province. We are listening; we're dealing with it . . . . " You sure are dealing with it. That is the . . . .

An Hon. Member: Just adding more and more and more.

J. Wilson: More and more. Cargo insurance, logbooks . . . . You add it all up, and it's going to be another burden that no one needs. No one can operate -- especially when you may use a vehicle once a month or once every two months to move something around.

You know, everyone in agriculture today has a stock trailer or a horse trailer. That's how they move stuff. And you know the beauty of this? If I have a horse trailer and I can haul ten horses, I can throw it behind my pickup and roar down the road to the next rodeo. I don't have to worry one bit. But if I put my saddle horse in there and I go to check my cows, I need cargo insurance.

We really have done it this time.

Hon. H. Lali: I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 78 approved on division.

Hon. H. Lali: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

The Speaker: There's a phrase required in the motion: "by leave."

Hon. H. Lali: By leave.

The Speaker: On the question of leave, I heard a nay. On the other motion, I heard a nay, but it's not as important.

Leave not granted.

The Speaker: The motion is "next sitting after today." We put the question, and it got passed.

Government House Leader, the next item.

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yeah. I think that the hon. Speaker has already moved it to a Committee of the Whole for the next sitting after today -- right.

I call second reading of Bill 96.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS ACT

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be read a second time. On June 14, 1999, the Legislative Assembly voted to accept the final report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission as it was submitted. The commission has recommended changes that will affect over 90 percent of the electoral districts in British Columbia and will add four new ridings. This bill abolishes the current 75 electoral districts and establishes 79 new electoral districts in the province. The names and detailed boundary information are provided in the schedules to the bill.

[1450]

In addition to the abolishment of old ridings and the establishment of the new ones, technical amendments to the Election Act, Constitution Act, Electoral Boundaries Commission Act and Recall and Initiative Act are required. These amendments will remove unreasonable audit requirements on constituency associations that will be deregistered when the old boundaries are abolished.

Currently, under the Election Act, constituency associations must file financial reports once a year, after each general election. If that association is deregistered . . . . Deregistered associations must also have their financial reports audited. Since the approach to implement the Electoral Boundaries Commission's recommendations is to abolish all electoral districts and replace them with new districts, all constituency associations will be deregistered. This bill will remove the requirement to have their financial reports audited in the case of electoral redistribution.

However, the chief electoral officer would retain the authority to request an audit should he or she feel that it is warranted.

These amendments will allow the chief electoral officer to appoint district electoral officers and deputy district electoral officers in ridings that do not yet exist but will be established after the writs for a general election are issued. These early appointments will ensure adequate time for proper training and election planning. Further, the amendments will grant the chief electoral officer the authority to rescind the appointments of district electoral officers and deputy district electoral officers if their positions become redundant pursuant to the establishment of new electoral districts.

The amendments will add provisions that will nullify all standing nominations when an electoral district is abolished and provide authority to Elections B.C. to return the $100 nomination deposit and to accept standing nominations on electoral districts that do not yet exist but will be established after the writ is issued.

The amendments to the Constitution Act and to the Electoral Boundaries Commission Act will remove the reference to 75 MLAs and 75 electoral districts. The specified number of electoral districts will be determined by the Electoral Districts Act. The amendments will allow and enable the continuity of a legislative initiative petition that is underway when new boundaries take effect. This is to ensure that the initiative petition does not have to be cancelled and restarted due to changing electoral boundaries.

That concludes my remarks.

G. Plant: On June 14, 1999, just a day less than a month ago, the Legislative Assembly was asked to debate and vote

[ Page 14345 ]

on a resolution to approve the amended report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I spoke at that time on the motion. My remarks then are as applicable to the present motion as they were to the motion that was introduced back in June.

This bill has the additional feature of some provisions which might be described as transitional in the sense that they provide the mechanism for the coming into force of the new electoral districts. They provide for the timing and the sequence of how those districts will come into force. They deal with certain issues that could arise in the course of a transition between one set of electoral districts and another.

They also amend some of the statutes of British Columbia to ensure that if we have to come back at some time in the future to change the number of MLAs or something like that, we will really have to amend as few statutes as possible. So there's a little bit of, shall we say, legislative economy achieved here.

I'm appreciative of the Attorney General's explanation of those additional elements of this bill. I think that the explanation is a fair representation of these consequential amendments. That is the new feature of Bill 96 -- that is, that's what's different about Bill 96 in substance, compared with the resolution that we debated back on June 14. I might say that, for all the reasons that I spoke about back on June 14, 1999, I'm going to be supporting this bill. I expect that most of my colleagues will. I also expect, however, that a number of my colleagues who raised concerns back in June continue to have those concerns and that they may want the opportunity to speak to them now.

That concludes my remarks.

[1455]

B. Barisoff: I did raise a lot of concerns when it was brought forward on June 14. A lot of those concerns still hold true. I know that the mandate of the commission was to bring forward -- within its confines -- the direction that it took. I'm not questioning what happened there. What I am questioning, though, is the fact of what took place, particularly in the Okanagan-Boundary and Okanagan-Penticton areas.

The fact was that every elected body -- and if I might go from the regional director from Christina Lake to the Grand Forks city council, the city of Greenwood, the village of Midway, the regional district of the Boundary area, the town of Osoyoos, the town of Oliver, the city of Penticton, the town of Summerland and the village of Keremeos -- went against us. They felt very strongly that even though it's within the mandate that the commission brought forward . . . . They said: "That's fine, but we think what's taken place here is wrong."

I think that from that standpoint, it's incumbent upon the government to take into consideration an entire area, where every elected official has said something entirely different, before they move forward with a bill like this.

I see that even since then, we're getting letters to the editor, and the headline on the thing is: "Time for an Electoral Boundary 'Revolt.' " When I see things like that, I wonder why the government will not look at all these elected bodies and say that maybe there should be some further consideration given to this particular area -- whether it's sent off to a select standing committee of members of the House so that they feel that their voice is actually heard . . . . I'm not criticizing what took place within the mandate of the commission, because I feel that they worked within their mandate.

But I think that there should be something entirely different looked at here. Here is an entire elected area that has basically had a zero voice.

With that, I'd like to actually read this letter into the record. The headline, of course, is "Time for an Electoral Boundary 'Revolt,' " and it's to the editor of the Osoyoos Times . This was also sent to the Vancouver Sun , and it is going into all the local newspapers -- and I think as many newspapers as Mr. Hewitt can get it in:

"On June 3, 1999, the B.C. Electoral Boundaries Commission presented its final report to the B.C. Legislative Assembly. The commission was appointed in 1997 and after 18 months and several hundred written and oral submissions it reached a conclusion that, in my opinion, basically responded to the wishes of the NDP government which appointed it. They were not unduly influenced by the government, but unfortunately, they simply hid behind the legislation.

"The Electoral Boundaries Commission Act required a commission to make proposals regarding the area, boundaries, names and number of electoral districts in British Columbia. The area, boundaries and names are minor items which are driven by the number of electoral districts -- number of MLAs -- which the commission could recommend.

"By order-in-council, the NDP cabinet appointed the Electoral Boundaries Commission, headed by a retired judge, Josiah Wood. Their terms of reference were to consider setting the number of MLAs at not more than 81 and not less than 75. The current number of seats in the House is 75.

[1500]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

"In the commission's wisdom, their final report recommended an addition of four seats. One has to question why at this particular time in B.C.'s history. This province is in debt, and adding four more seats won't result in better government, just bigger and costlier government. Times have changed. Computers, cell phones, faxes, e-mail, increased constituency staff, the ombudsman's office have improved communications between the constituent and his or her government.

"I am disappointed with the commission's recommendation. At one of the commission hearings, I asked the chairman whether the commission could recommend a zero increase in MLAs. His response was: yes. Unfortunately, the commission responded to the NDP cabinet, rather than common sense. In my view, they missed a great opportunity to (

a) reduce the cost of government and (

b) help bring modern governance to British Columbia. To make my point, the province of Ontario reduced the number of seats in their Legislature from 130 to 103 at the last election, an approximate 20 percent reduction. One has to wonder whether the commission reflected at all on Ontario's reduction. They certainly would have known about it well before they wrote their report, which was tabled in the B.C. Legislature on June 3, 1999.

"Since the commission didn't recognize the need for change, as Ontario did, it is now left the voter to influence the B.C. lawmakers. It is, however, an opportunity to get directly involved and, hopefully, have government take no action on the commission's recommendations.

"If every voter in the province wrote the Premier and their own MLA, saying no to any increase in MLAs, those in Victoria would get the message that bigger government is not better government and if Ontario can reduce their number of seats, British Columbia could at least hold the line.

"So, folks, e-mail, fax, write or call the Premier and tell him enough is enough. Tell him to file the report and stay with 75 MLAs and get on with trying to get this government out of debt.

"Write that letter to be part of the electoral boundaries revolt!"

It's signed by James Hewitt. Mr. Hewitt is a former cabinet minister and MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, from 1975 to 1987. My concern is the fact that when these things happen and when they went to the Electoral Boundaries Commission, 37 out of 38 people spoke against it. I would think that as elected people, we would look at that and say that maybe we should table this or send it to a select standing committee so that we can look at it from a different perspective.

[ Page 14346 ]

The other flaw I see in this is that what took place here is that we got four more MLAs for the lower mainland -- no more for the north and the Peace River country, no more for the interior, no more for Vancouver Island. Nobody's saying that there should have been more, but what happens when you add four more MLAs to the lower mainland is that you take the rural voice away. To me, that becomes a great concern, when we start to lose the rural voice. We see it happening on all kinds of occasions. We see what's taking place in rural health care. We're losing the ability there.

I know that members in this House speak for everybody when they get elected, but it seems that when you get elected for a particular area, you speak more for that area. I think the rural voice is simply being lost in this entire exercise. I would be asking that the government reconsider bringing this bill forward and, if anything, send it to a select standing committee where we could have some urban and rural representation, where we could see whether the elected voices of the regional district, city, village, town or government are being listened to.

I know that in the southern Okanagan, this has not been the case. When you have every elected body saying one thing and going the other way -- and I'm not criticizing in any way, shape or form the commission, because I know that they work within the guidelines and confines of their mandate . . . . But we are elected people in this House, so I think that we should, from the perspective of looking at things, look at what the elected people have said in particular areas.

I know that in the Cache Creek area, in the Yale-Lillooet riding, there's some great concern there in a community that was actually, in the beginning part of it, put into Yale-Lillooet. Then, in the second go-around, it was taken out. So they actually never got any say. At least the elected bodies in Okanagan-Boundary had the say that they didn't want it. My concern is that the government must, I think, relook at this. I will of course bring this forward continuously throughout the whole time.

I will be voting against it, because I think that the decision on what the commission has recommended is not necessarily wrong, but that the decision in fair democracy is wrong in the fact that a big group of people have not been listened to.

[1505]

With that, I will be voting against this. If there are any government members that are listening, particularly in the rural areas, they should be looking at more rural representation. I know that the Attorney General considers democracy of utmost importance. With that consideration in mind, he should be thinking about when you get 38 applications and 37 go against it . . . . As I said before, when every elected body goes against something, I think there's got to be more consideration given to this entire bill.

R. Neufeld: I rise also to speak, as my colleague has just spoken, against the recommendations of Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act. I do that in respect of the commission and Mr. Wood, who I think did a remarkable job, considering the parameters that they had to deal with when they went into trying to redistribute the population in the province of British Columbia and create more ridings in some areas in the lower mainland and fewer out of the lower mainland.

I don't want to reiterate all of the things that my colleague just spoke about, because I think he did a very good job of relating the fact that people in rural B.C. are losing out on a constant basis as we continue this process of redeveloping constituencies based totally on population. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the population in the lower mainland is growing rapidly -- in fact, in the last ten years, by some 35 percent, as compared to areas that I represented over the same period of time, which grew by about 10 percent.

Some areas -- in fact, I think, most of them -- stayed constant, and some may have even dropped a bit. But what we see on a continual basis are more and more seats -- and more and more MLAs and more constituencies -- situated in the lower mainland. No disrespect to those folks in the lower mainland, but what happens is that more and more power is actually devoted to the city of Vancouver and that "golden triangle," as I call it, of Vancouver and Victoria. There's more and more power in the province and less and less is from the rural regions of the province.

Having lived in the north all my life, I can well understand how some of the people in my constituency feel about having more seats in the lower mainland and actually having less of a say in Victoria, coming from the north or rural B.C. I think that we have a serious situation that government must deal with, whether this government wants to or not. And when I look at the makeup of their caucus and see that it is mostly from the golden triangle, maybe that's why they're quite happy with the report; I don't know. But when you move yourself out . . . .

And it would be nice if the Attorney General, instead of just going to Fort St. John to go to a school and talk to some students there about issues, would come to Fort St. John and actually listen . . . .

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: The Attorney General says that he did; I know he did. If he would come to Fort St. John, and meet with people in Fort St. John and Baldonnel and Goodlow and Prespatou and actually ask those people if they agree with, if they accept, the way the boundaries were changed or whether we should have more MLAs in the province and whether all those MLAs should be out of what I call the golden triangle, I'm sure he would get quite a different story. In fact, if the Attorney General took the time to go to some of the rural seats that his party represents, I'm sure he would get much the same kind of story.

[1510]

It doesn't matter where you go in the rural part of the province; you're going to get that message big-time. I think our democracy is less for being able to have more seats in the populated area than in the not so populated area. We contribute greatly to this province through moneys generated, especially from the oil and gas industry. One of the most lucrative, one of the best-returning resource industries in the province, is the oil and gas industry. It costs very little to administer, and the money that the province gets is huge.

Yet those people where I live get less of a say in what really takes place in the province, because you're constantly having to deal with where the most population is and those issues -- buying fast ferries and maybe Vancouver Island Highway and those kinds of things.

So it is a serious situation. In fact, the city of Fort St. John wrote a letter to all the MLAs, specifically to the Attorney General, saying that they were unhappy and that the Attorney General did not listen not only to what the city said but to what every presenter said that came before the commission in

[ Page 14347 ]

Fort St. John twice and in Fort Nelson once. No one was in favour of changing the boundaries at all -- not one group, person or individual. Yet they got changed simply because we have a numbers game that we play -- not just in British Columbia but across Canada, other than some of the provinces that have actually adopted different standards for their northern parts. Two of them are Alberta and Saskatchewan, which have come to realize that continuing to put more MLAs in the heavily populated areas and actually taking MLAs out of the rural areas doesn't work. They have set in place deviations which are greater than the 25 percent that are acceptable -- in fact, up to 50 percent.

I think those are things that we have to seriously look at in British Columbia to try and level the playing field a little bit more, although we know it will never be totally level, because of the number of people living in the lower mainland. But at least, instead of seeing more and more MLAs or more and more constituencies in the lower mainland and fewer in the rural part of British Columbia, I think people would be pretty happy if the province reconsidered this bill, as the member for Okanagan-Boundary spoke about, and put it to a select standing committee -- not to redesign the boundaries but to look seriously at other options.

I'm not saying that the option I put forward would be the one, but at least look at other options across the province so that we don't continue to increase the number of MLAs that sit in here. It's going to be difficult to put another four MLAs in this room. And that's not the end of it. If we continue down this route, we'll soon have to move that wall further out. I'm just not sure what you're going to have to do to be able to put more MLAs in this Legislature. I'm not sure, actually, that the people in British Columbia, regardless of where they live, think that we need more MLAs in British Columbia to run the province.

I would like to suggest to the Attorney General again that he think seriously about putting this out to a select standing committee, which could come back with some other recommendations for redistribution of seats in the province of British Columbia.

Along with a few of the other members, I will be voting against Bill 96. This is the wish of my constituency. They are the people that elect me to come to this Legislature to speak for them. I don't vote in opposition to this bill to slight the chair or the people that were on the commission in any way, shape or form. What I am doing is exercising what I think is my right and my responsibility to the people that elected me to stand in this House, and voting against something that they find so wrong for what took place in my part of the province.

With those few words, I look forward to the other speakers.

[1515]

J. Reid: I rise today to address the concerns of my constituents with regard to this bill. It has been very difficult in my area because of the proposed changes and the implications that those changes have for my constituency. Parksville-Qualicum has worked for many years to become a community where two separate communities have merged into one, sharing their concerns, sharing their procedures, sharing their programs, sharing their resources. And they have worked together very, very effectively.

Unfortunately, it appears that when the commission started out on this task, they had a preconceived notion as to what would have to happen in this area. They came into the constituency believing that the town of Qualicum was separate and distinct from the city of Parksville, so they had already made a decision for a division that, right from the very beginning, once they came into the community, they heard great concern about. In fact, no one spoke supporting the direction that the commission proposed be endorsed by these communities.

Parksville-Qualicum indeed can and has supported an MLA, and the changes that come about put more emphasis on the larger communities that we're surrounded by -- Nanaimo to the south, Port Alberni to the west and Comox-Courtenay to the north. Those communities do stand alone; there are separations, there are divisions, because of geography, demographics and certainly lifestyle.

The result of this change that will move Qualicum Beach into the same constituency as Port Alberni and the west coast has not only upset the people of Qualicum Beach, who feel that they have concerns about their representation, about their similarities and their access to Port Alberni . . . . They are a community very much composed of retired people, and so they do have concerns about transportation and availability . . . . Parksville does not want to see its ties with Qualicum Beach -- for which it has worked so hard, so consistently and so successfully -- severed.

We find in this bill that all the recommendations of the community, unfortunately, were not able to be considered. I certainly understand -- and I know the communities understand -- the difficult job and the parameters that were set before the commission in trying to come up with a balance of numbers -- considering the populations of the area, where areas have grown, and also supposedly looking at future growth. I think it is beyond any of us to be able to predict how those patterns are going to actually take place.

With the number of things that go into making up a community, we have Parksville-Qualicum sharing the same school district, sharing the same telephone service -- so that there are no long-distance charges between the communities -- and again, sharing the geography and the demographics. There has been an effort on the part of the commission to consider community structure wherever possible.

Reading through the report, it reads: "We have been able to make these allowances in this community because of how important community structure is." In other communities, unfortunately, even though the community structure is different and is important, it has not been able to be retained; the desire to keep communities together has not been successful.

We did not see, as a community, that from the beginning the commission was looking at other possibilities on Vancouver Island and at whether there were other possibilities for changes, if the presuppositions had been different right from the very beginning. Again, we do understand the numbers and how the numbers certainly make sense, if that's all we're looking at.

[1520]

Because of the nature of the communities and the concern of the communities, this is my opportunity to express the dismay that this bill will go forward, the changes will be made and this division between Parksville and Qualicum will be established. Being consistent with the wishes of the community and with the constituents, I would like to follow my colleagues and suggest that there is an opportunity to be able

[ Page 14348 ]

to address some of these concerns with a select standing committee; it would be my request that that would be considered.

As the bill now stands, and as a representative of my constituents, I will be voting against this bill.

R. Thorpe: I rise today just to say a few words. I spoke on this at some length on June 14. I have a responsibility; I am privileged to be the MLA for Okanagan-Penticton, which consists of the communities of Naramata, Penticton, Summerland and Peachland. The uniqueness of representing this riding, with respect to the electoral boundaries, is that I actually have some constituents in Peachland who have had a natural flow to Kelowna and who requested that they be realigned with another riding to the north. I thought that my responsibility as the MLA was to listen to those folks and to work on their behalf.

Since the very beginning, I've worked with the council, other elected officials and citizens in Peachland to ensure that their voices were heard and that it moves to Okanagan-Westside, which is the proposed new riding.

With respect to the rest of the communities in my riding -- namely, Summerland, Penticton and Naramata -- Summerland and Penticton were very adversely affected by the original proposals. That has been tempered somewhat, but a very longstanding relationship that existed between Summerland and Penticton -- the natural flow of commerce, the natural flow of people, the amalgamation of school districts -- is now going to be torn apart by these proposals.

What's really troubling to me is that throughout the entire riding, there were a number of public meetings organized by councils, chambers of commerce and residents. They came out in the hundreds and wrote letters, because they care. They have been saying to me since I've been elected -- in fact, before I was elected -- that they were feeling more and more disconnected from Victoria. They wanted to be more a part of Victoria, more a part of British Columbia. They actually wanted their voices heard. In all of those presentations, they made a simple request to the commission.

I must say that the commission was very accommodating to the people in my riding by rescheduling meetings and by scheduling meetings when they originally were not scheduled. I do appreciate, as my constituents appreciate, the efforts by the commission under Mr. Wood and the other commissioners. They made an effort to be in our communities to listen to the voices. What they're concerned about now is that perhaps they didn't work hard enough to make their voices heard.

When my colleague from Okanagan-Boundary states that 37 out of 38 groups and individuals, or representative groups of individuals, made presentations on March 8 and 9, it included -- as my colleague said -- all of the elected officials and other groups from the southern Okanagan. But it also included the Okanagan-Similkameen regional district, the city of Penticton, the central Okanagan regional district, officials from the city of Kelowna, Peachland and Summerland.

[1525]

I just want to put on the record something that the mayor of Summerland had to say in a presentation on March 8: "At the outset let me say that I'm very concerned by your proposal that Summerland be removed from the Penticton-based riding and placed in a Westbank-based riding. For me and many of my constituents it makes no sense, other than, of course, to make the numbers fit." As some other colleagues have said, that is the most troubling thing for people in British Columbia -- that it's all about numbers and not about people. This House should be about people, not numbers.

Jim Hart, the federal member for Okanagan-Coquihalla, wrote in his letter of March 4: "Summerland, Sage Mesa and West Bench share common community and government service interest with Penticton as their focal point. The social, economic and educational ties are much closer to Penticton and Summerland than to Westbank to the north and should not be separated from the existing riding of Okanagan-Penticton." What other people have said, including . . . . I'm not going to repeat what a former cabinet minister and member of this House for 13 years, Jim Hewitt, had to say. What people are saying out there is: "Is anyone listening to us? Are our voices being heard?"

I, quite frankly, want to join with my other colleagues who are voting against this, not only to request but to challenge the Attorney General and his government to refer this bill to a select standing committee so that MLAs of this House can hear directly from the affected British Columbians. Let us work together to reconnect British Columbians with their government. It's their government; it's not somebody else's government.

Therefore I will vote against this bill on behalf of the constituents that I represent, the people of Okanagan-Penticton. I will vote against it for the people of Summerland, and I will vote against it for the people of Penticton and the southern Okanagan.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I don't really want to speak at length, but the hon. members have repeated some of the assertions that they made and the opinions that they expressed during the earlier discussion on this particular matter. What I want to do is remind the hon. members of the experience in British Columbia in the past, where gerrymandering was a real concern. This process is absolutely non-partisan, and any politician -- even a group of politicians by way of a select standing committee -- seen to be interfering in this independent process I don't believe would be welcomed by British Columbians.

I know that in Fort St. John, in particular, I was present, and members of my own political party spoke to me and were very unhappy about some of the proposals in this. But I want to say that we're not going to make those changes, for the reasons I just stated.

[1530]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Second reading of Bill 96 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 60

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

[ Page 14349 ]

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Weisgerber

Penner

Nettleton

Anderson

Jarvis

Sanders

Chong

Coell

L. Reid

Abbott

Plant

de Jong

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

C. Clark

Nebbeling

Hogg

Coleman

Stephens

Hansen

Krueger

Thorpe

Symons

van Dongen

McKinnon

NAYS -- 7

J. Wilson

J. Reid

Dalton

Barisoff

Hawkins

Weisbeck

Neufeld

[1535]

Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act, 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. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 100.

DEFINITION OF SPOUSE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: During the introduction of this bill I made some general and some specific comments, and I will not repeat those. As I indicated during my earlier remarks, the Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999, will modernize selected provincial legislation by expanding the definition of spouse to include any couple who are not married but have been living in marriage-like relationship for a period of not less than two years.

Amendments to the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act will give same-sex partners the same priority rank as opposite-sex spouses and place them only behind the personal representative of the deceased for the purposes of determining the disposition of the human remains of the deceased. The amendments will require the court to consider the feelings of the common-law or same-sex partner in the event of an application to the court with regard to the exhumation or disinterment of human remains.

The Coroners Act is amended to require a coroner to make information about a postmortem examination available to a common-law or same-sex partner in the same circumstances that a coroner would share information with a traditional spouse.

The Estate Administration Act is amended to include a person of the same sex in the definition of common-law spouse. In the event that a person dies intestate, the rights of next of kin given to the spouse will also extend to any couple living in a marriage-like relationship for a period of not less than two years.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

The Family Compensation Act is amended to include a man or a woman who had been living in a marriage-like relationship with the deceased for a period of at least two years prior to the death of the deceased, allowing that person to sue for wrongful death of their partner.

[1540]

The Wills Variation Act amendments will allow a man or a woman living in a marriage-like relationship with the testator to apply to the court to vary a will of a testator if adequate provision has not been made for family members.

With that, I conclude my remarks and move second reading.

G. Plant: With Bill 100, the Attorney General continues the government's project of implementing the constitutional obligation of equality across the legislation of British Columbia; the obligation to ensure that all persons are treated with dignity and respect before the law; the obligation, specifically as the courts have established, to ensure that the laws of British Columbia -- indeed, the laws of Canada -- do not discriminate against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Bill 100 takes this project that the government has been involved in on an ad hoc, statute-by-statute basis for some years now and continues that project into five new statutes -- that is, new for the purpose of this exercise of honouring the principle of equality.

I want to say at the outset, before I talk for a minute or two about the specific context of the five statutes that are before us, that I wholeheartedly support the project of the government to ensure that the laws of British Columbia do not discriminate.

I have said earlier in this session, when the issue arose, that I wish the government would bring forward a true omnibus bill in which all of the instances in all of the legislation of British Columbia where the law, as it is currently written, may offend against our respect for the idea of equality . . . that all of those cases be brought together into one bill so that we can right the wrong of inequality in the laws of British Columbia in one large swoop.

Having looked at Bill 100, and having looked at the way in which the five statutes that are the subject of Bill 100 are amended, I must say that I have a greater appreciation than I did before for the complexity of the task which the government has before it as it continues this project of amending the statutes of British Columbia to give effect to the principle of equality in same-sex relationships. It may actually be not a bad thing that we're doing this step by step.

I hope that the steps get larger, at least in the sense that at the rate of five or six statutes a year, it will be far too many years down the road before all of the statutes of British Columbia have been examined from this perspective.

The project, as I have said, is a little bit more complicated than I perhaps thought it was just a few short months ago. Let me give one example, in the context of this bill, of the complexity of the problem. The Estate Administration Act is one of the statutes that is the subject matter of this bill. In some cases, what we have been asked to consider in this legislation is an expansion of rights and responsibilities from a situation where the law, as it is written currently, accords a measure of equality to both persons in traditional marriages and persons in common-law, different-sex relationships.

So what we have been asked to do is take that status quo and expand it slightly by expanding our understanding of persons in common-law relationships to include persons of the same gender in common-law relationships.

[ Page 14350 ]

[1545]

In the case of the Estate Administration Act, we're faced with a slightly different situation. The Estate Administration Act deals, among other things, with the rights that members of a deceased person's family have to the estate of the deceased person on what is called an intestacy -- that is, a situation where a person dies without leaving a will. The Estate Administration Act deals with those rights in a way which differentiates, if not discriminates, between persons who are husbands or wives -- widows or widowers, in the traditional sense of those terms -- persons who were married in a traditional marriage, on the one hand, and persons who were in common-law relationships, on the other.

The Estate Administration Act actually has a

part in it,

part 8, which makes specific provision for the rights of partners in common-law relationships. I think that I am not misstating the effect of those provisions when I suggest that common-law spouses under the act, as it currently exists, have diminished rights in relation to the rights of husbands and wives in cases where there is a deceased person and someone is left as the widower or widow of the deceased.

When we look at the Estate Administration Act from the perspective of our desire to ensure that we achieve equality, what we're presented with in a way can be described as a two-step challenge. First of all, we have to look at the notion of common-law relationships and recognize that as currently defined in that act, they may well include or extend only to persons in different-sex relationships. We have to look at that arrangement from the perspective of equality.

Then we have to ask the additional question: whether it is right for the law to discriminate, in terms of the expectations and entitlements that members of a family have after death, between married relationships and common-law relationships.

I would say this. If we believe that the basic underlying principles that are really important here are not limited to the idea of respecting equality but include in an important way the idea of protecting dependency in relationships, which says that if I live with someone for a long period of time and we are mutually dependent on each other, then the fact that one of us dies gives rise to certain expectations of entitlements that should not depend upon whether or not we were married . . . .

Those other public policy considerations are, I think, considerations that argue in favour of doing away with the distinction which the Estate Administration Act currently draws between married spouses and common-law spouses and, if you will, in favour of bringing all partners in intimate relationships up to the same level of entitlement.

So the rules about who gets to share in an intestacy are the same whether you were married to that deceased person in the traditional way, whether you were the common-law wife of a deceased male or whether you are a partner of long standing in a same-sex relationship with a person who is deceased.

[1550]

From my perspective, it is important for an understanding of Bill 100 to recognize that this project of achieving equality not just in terms of the idea of status but also in terms of substantive rights and entitlements is not as simple as writing a red line through the word "spouse" everywhere it appears in the statutes of British Columbia and changing the definition. In fact, we're going to have to look at public policy issues in each of the statutes where the issue arises.

As I've endeavoured to do in using the Estate Administration Act as my example, I have indicated that while the project is a little bit more complex, when you step back from it and realize what the fundamental principles are that should operate here, taking those two steps in this particular case -- as opposed to perhaps just the one -- is a good thing to do. It's a commendable step, in my view.

I suppose the next point is to realize that I have given one example and that this bill proposes to amend five different statutes: the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, the Coroners Act, the Estate Administration Act, the Family Compensation Act and the Wills Variation Act. In each of them, the statute that exists on the books of the laws of British Columbia represents and embodies certain public policy objectives. In each of them, the situation of spouse is present for a variety of reasons in relation to achieving the purposes of those statutes.

When you're looking at improving those statutes to ensure that they don't violate the principles of equality and that they give full effect to the idea of dependency in relationships -- the idea that we should protect the expectation interests that flow from dependency in relationships -- you look at each of these statutes and see that there are slightly different things going on here.

For example, in the case of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act and in the case of the Coroners Act, we are, as much as anything, concerned with the obligations that lie on certain actors -- in some cases public officials -- to inform members of a deceased person's family of certain things. The question is: how wide should the net of information be? Should the net be arbitrarily confined to persons who happen to be the former husbands or wives or children of the deceased person?

Or should we ensure that the net is expanded to include all those who may reasonably have an interest in the issues that concern the public official? It seems to me to be absolutely wrong in principle to say that someone who is the married spouse of a deceased person has, at law, a particular right to be a participant in decision-making about the disposition of the human or cremated remains of the former loved one, but that someone who was in a common-law relationship -- whether that be same gender or different gender -- should not have the same rights.

Those are other examples of the way in which the project of achieving equality, of protecting reliance and dependency, is a bit more complicated than I first thought. There are also other examples that illustrate the variety of ways in which Bill 100 will achieve the purposes that it has in respect of the five statutes that are being amended by it.

The Family Compensation Act, the Wills Variation Act -- here again, the issue is: if we have a fatal accident, who should be entitled to advance a claim for compensation, after the fatal accident, for the losses that flow to a family in circumstances where an income earner has been killed in an accident? In the case of the Wills Variation Act, who should be entitled to claim that the provisions of the deceased person's will are inequitable -- or just and equitable?

We need to expand the categories of those sections of these statutes to ensure that, having regard to the principles I talked about earlier, all of those who have an interest in these issues, have standing, have a right to be informed, have an opportunity to engage the legal processes that were put in place to protect these principles.

[1555]

So from a kind of mechanical point of view, if you will, looking at the five statutes that Bill 100 proposes to amend, I think that these are good steps forward. They are, as it happens, steps which in this particular case will not, in my view,

[ Page 14351 ]

involve any significant demand upon the resources of the Crown. In large measure, we are talking about private rights of standing and rights of information. We are not engaged here in a wholesale reworking of a particularly large socioeconomic program of government.

Having spoken, then, about the fact that there is a continuing and urgent need to deal with the problem of statutes which violate the fundamental principle of equality by enshrining discrimination against persons in same-sex relationships and having spoken about these underlying basic principles around protecting expectations and dependency in relationships, I come back to a point where I've been before, when we've had legislation like this. It's one thing to do what we can to level the playing field, to enshrine and respect the principle of equality, to give effect to the other principles that I've talked to.

It's another thing to talk about the mechanical drafting technique that we choose to do that. I don't mean to underestimate the importance of words. Words can be enormously important, and in this case, words are important. In this case, words are important because the way in which the people who have written this bill, like others, choose to give effect to the substantive principles that I've talked about is to redefine the idea of spouse.

Interestingly enough, in this particular case, we're not redefining the term "spouse" as much as we are now redefining the specific term "common-law spouse." It's a slightly different thing than has been done in the past.

I don't want, for a moment, to discount the fact that for many British Columbians it is important to redefine the idea of spouse to give effect to same-sex relationships -- to bring homosexual relationships under that umbrella -- because there is a sense that to do otherwise would create perhaps a bit of a hierarchy of relationships. That is, it would leave us with the sense that persons who are married are somehow higher up the ladder in terms of relationships than persons who are partners in same-sex relationships.

One way to avoid that perception is to roll all of these categories of relationships into one category, and the term spouse is used to describe that category. Of course, there are many people who are in gay and lesbian relationships in British Columbia who think of themselves as being spouses, one to the other -- partners in their relationship -- as being in marriage-like relationships. There are, I know, others in the gay and lesbian community who do not have the same view.

But I want to pause there for a moment or two to say that when I say we're talking about a drafting issue, we're not talking about just a drafting issue. We're talking about an important issue of symbolism; we're talking about an important issue of the way in which we as legislators could send messages out to the community about what we think about things.

Having said that, though, it is also the case that for many British Columbians, using the term spouse and the term marriage-like to describe a relationship between gay and lesbian partners are terms that run up against their personal values -- in terms of what are often described as traditional family values -- in a way that causes them serious concern.

[1600]

On the one hand, they want to honour and respect the ideas of equality, to honour and respect the idea that we need to protect dependency and expectations in relationships. But they want to do so in a way that does not result in a redefinition of the term "spouse" or the idea of marriage-like in relationships, because there is something that they think is unique to those terms -- that is, that describes for them only one particular category of relationship, and that is the relationship of husband and wife in the formal institution of marriage.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

I have tried over the last couple of years, when these issues have come before the Legislature, to see if there is a way in which we can accommodate the principles of equality and the ideas of protecting dependency in relationships and to do so in a substantive, real, meaningful and effective way, but to do so without unnecessarily offending those for whom the terms spouse and marriage-like have a particular meaning which, for them, would be violated unreasonably and unnecessarily by expanding the term spouse to include partners in same-sex relationships.

I think that what is a way forward to achieve that goal of advancing public policy purposes, which is the central heart of this exercise, in a way that accommodates the diversity of views that exist in British Columbia to the greatest possible extent. A way to do that is to introduce the term "domestic partner" as a new term in the law -- a term which, incidentally, the B.C. Law Institute thinks could be of some use.

The idea of "domestic partner" is to create a term and give it a definition that ensures that it gives the fullest possible scope and meaning to persons in same-sex relationships -- gay and lesbian relationships. It may in fact, in some cases, apply to a larger category of relationships, but it does so in a way that I think fits very nicely within each of the five statutes that are currently before us in Bill 100. It does so in a way that looks at the principles underlying what those five statutes do in the laws of British Columbia -- what they're intending to do.

It says that we can advance the public policy purposes of those five statutes by, in some cases, expanding even further the category of persons who may be able to claim the rights and entitlements and who may be entitled to the same measure of equal concern and respect as are married people, common-law spouses and partners in same-sex relationships. That's why the term "domestic partner" has been defined and written in the way that it has.

When I have stood in this assembly on past occasions and talked about this issue, I have said that I claim no pride in ownership of the definition of domestic partner. It's something that I would welcome input on from anyone, in terms of how to improve the language and also how to implement the idea in the law in a way which would achieve the kinds of purposes and objectives that I've talked about here today. People are free to criticize -- or not, as they see fit -- this term and its content. But it's there; I put it on the order paper.

When we come to debate the bill in committee stage in the course of time, we'll have the opportunity to debate the proposal that I talked about in the context of a proposed amendment to the bill.

[1605]

The issue that I've talked about, which is the definition of "spouse" and the definition of the idea of being in a marriage-like relationship, is regarded by many British Columbians as an issue of conscience. Issues of conscience, in my view, pre-eminently lend themselves to free votes in a Legislative Assembly. We are not here debating the basic spending program of the government. We are not here debating the funda

[ Page 14352 ]

mental elements of its spending program. We are here debating a different kind of question -- a really important question, but a question that does, as I say, engage many British Columbians as a question of conscience.

Since it is, I think, the right kind of question to put to this assembly in the form of a free vote, that is how we in the B.C. Liberal caucus will deal with it. We have dealt with it that way in the past, when the issue has been presented. In fact, it was presented just a few weeks ago in one of the bills introduced in this session. And who knows? As this session continues, it may be presented again in yet more legislation. But for today, for now, this is a bill where we in the B.C.

Liberal caucus will do what we can to give the fullest possible effect to the principle of equality and the fullest possible recognition to the idea that dependency and expectation in relationships need to be honoured in the law. We will do so in a way that we think can accommodate the diversity of views of British Columbians on issues of conscience to the greatest possible extent.

In politics, you don't always get exactly everything you like. In politics, sometimes compromise is the only way you can move forward without alienating people who we really should struggle to avoid alienating.

We should always struggle, I think, in this chamber to find ways to bring people together rather than to divide them; to find things around which we can unite in common cause rather than search out those things which divide us into separate camps; to look for ways which we in this assembly can stand up and say, "We're on everyone's side," rather than, as we often seem to do, to look hard for the things that, if we work hard enough at them, will divide us without perhaps accomplishing much good except whatever pleasure there is in division.

Those are, I think, the remarks that I wanted to make about this bill. I wanted to say that in terms of the substantive project of continuing to advance the goal of rectifying the wrongs that exist in the laws of British Columbia on the issue of equality, the five statutes that are being amended here are statutes that need to be amended. I support the amendments that are proposed to them. We will deal with the issue of terminology -- with all of the important symbolism that flows from that -- again when we come to the committee stage debate and the amendment, which I'm sure the Attorney General looks forward to debating.

Those are my remarks.

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

[1610]

Second reading of Bill 100 approved on the following division:

YEAS -- 57

Evans

Zirnhelt

McGregor

G. Wilson

Hammell

Boone

Streifel

Pullinger

Lali

Orcherton

Stevenson

Calendino

Walsh

Randall

Gillespie

Robertson

Conroy

Priddy

Petter

Miller

Dosanjh

MacPhail

Sihota

Lovick

Ramsey

Farnworth

Waddell

Hartley

Smallwood

Sawicki

Bowbrick

Kasper

Doyle

Giesbrecht

Goodacre

Weisgerber

Jarvis

Sanders

Chong

Coell

Neufeld

L. Reid

Abbott

Plant

de Jong

Farrell-Collins

Campbell

C. Clark

Whittred

Weisbeck

Nebbeling

Hogg

Hawkins

Stephens

Hansen

Symons

McKinnon

NAYS -- 9

Penner

J. Wilson

J. Reid

Dalton

Barisoff

van Dongen

Thorpe

Krueger

Coleman

[1615]

Bill 100, Definition of Spouse Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 97.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1999

(second reading)

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1999, contains a large number of amendments to a variety of different statutes.

The Attorney General Act is amended to provide that a public body defined in the act and designated by the Attorney General must comply with all requirements made by the Attorney General respecting retaining, contracting with or employing persons to provide legal services.

[1620]

The amendments to the College and Institute Act, Institute of Technology Act, Open Learning Agency Act and University Act update and clarify guidelines for the collection and remittance of student society fees, require a referendum for any change in student society fees, allow institutions to cease collecting or remitting fees to a student society if the student society fails to make audited financial statements available to its members or if the student society is struck off the register, and allow student societies to require institutions to collect fees on behalf of the provincial or a national student organization.

The Coroners Act is amended to remove a requirement that every death in a community care facility be reported to the coroner service. With this amendment, only deaths that are sudden and unexpected will continue to be reported to a coroner. As well, the obligation to hold a public inquiry into every death that occurs in a custodial setting is removed. Expected deaths from natural causes in a correctional centre or penitentiary do not necessarily require a public inquiry.

In addition, amendments to the Coroners Act provide statutory authority for a coroner to order an exhumation or disinterment or permit the chief coroner to order that a completed investigation be reopened if new and substantially material evidence comes to light.

The Corporation Capital Tax Act is being amended to encourage growth and development of British Columbia-

[ Page 14353 ]

based financial institutions. The amendments allow financial institutions based in British Columbia to pay capital tax at a rate of 1 percent even if they grow to exceed $1 billion in capital. Currently all financial institutions with capital exceeding $1 billion are subject to a 3 percent capital tax rate.

The amendments to the Expropriation Act will clarify the intent of the act in determining compensation arising from expropriations of less than an entire parcel of land. The amendments will make express provision for the set-off of general benefits from a project against damage to the remaining land.

The Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 1998, is amended to clarify the timing of disclosure required to be provided by mortgage brokers or borrowers and investors. The amendments also improve the compatibility of the provisions with the business practices of mortgage brokers. In addition, the Mortgage Brokers Act is amended to clarify certain regulation powers and powers of the registrar of mortgage brokers.

The amendment to the Forest Renewal Act will reduce the $50 million holdback deducted from stumpage revenue before it flows to Forest Renewal B.C., to enable FRBC to take on additional workforce and community program responsibilities as part of the forest action plan.

Bill 97 amends

section 2 of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act, as well, in order to permit the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority to legally operate and carry on business under a name that is more consistent with its adopted trading name. As a result of the extensive focus group consultations prior to its startup, the GVTA board determined for marketing reasons that a new identity would be beneficial to the efficient operations of the corporation, in order for it to be readily recognizable to the public at large. The GVTA has requested to be given the authority to use a name more consistent with its trading name.

Amendments to the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act restate and clarify the purpose of the act in order to ensure that intended-use housing for low-income seniors is maintained and that public investment in affordable housing is preserved.

The amendments to the Human Resource Facility Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act are consequential to the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens Act) and clarify that under each of these acts an affordable housing agreement may be registered on the title of a property that may contain other uses in addition to affordable housing purposes.

The amendments to the Human Rights Code will improve the operations of the Human Rights Tribunal and are procedural in nature.

[1625]

As part of the government's high-tech strategy, the amendments to the Income Tax Act introduce a scientific research and experimental development tax credit program in British Columbia. Under the program, refundable and non-refundable corporate income tax credits of 10 percent are made available to corporations that incur qualifying expenditures after August 31, 1999. Qualifying expenditures are defined as those that qualify for the federal scientific research and experimental development tax incentives that are made in British Columbia.

The amendment to the Industrial Development Incentive Act will increase the cap authorized under the act from $500 million to $600 million.

The proposed change to

section 37 of the Labour Relations Code is a measure directed at ensuring that this provision applies equally to voluntarily recognized collective bargaining situations as it now does to situations involving certified units of employees. It will ensure that during trade union mergers or amalgamations, existing voluntarily recognized bargaining units will be maintained by the trade unions involved.

The housekeeping amendment to the Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, is to correct a drafting oversight. Specifically, it removes a reference to the Workplace Act, which is being repealed later this year.

The amendment to the Mines Act defines the time allowed for the Ministry of Employment and Investment to proceed with certain enforcement actions respecting violations of regulations under the Mines Act and will replace provisions in the Offence Act currently being applied for this purpose.

The amendment to

section 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act will enable cabinet to make regulations exempting persons or classes of persons from having to wear a motorcycle helmet when operating or riding as a passenger on a motorcycle. For example, cabinet will be able to exempt Sikhs who wear turbans from having to wear a motorcycle helmet. As well, amendments to this act will allow the service of notices of driver's licence suspensions by registered mail or certified mail.

A housekeeping amendment to the Offence Act corrects a missed

section reference.

The Petroleum and Natural Gas Act is being amended to provide greater operational certainty for companies engaging in exploration and development of petroleum and natural gas in British Columbia by exempting large-area commercial recreation tenures from compensation provisions of the act.

The Police Act is amended to allow the police complaint commissioner to appoint a retired judge to conduct public hearings into public trust complaints against municipal constables.

The amendment to the Public Service Labour Relations Act is minor housekeeping, deleting references to prepaid mail.

The amendments to the Royal Roads University Act, the Technical University of British Columbia Act and the University of Northern British Columbia Act are consequential to the amendments to the other post-secondary acts.

The Tobacco Sales Act will be amended to require the Ministry of Health to publicize the names of retailers whose right under the Tobacco Tax Act to sell tobacco is suspended because of multiple convictions for tobacco sales offences. It is expected that this will have a strong deterrent effect and will significantly increase the likelihood that suspensions will make it much more difficult for children to purchase tobacco.

A minor amendment will be made to the Tobacco Tax Act to facilitate the administration of the Tobacco Sales Act. The Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act will be

[ Page 14354 ]

amended to remove the unproclaimed sections that are redundant now that the government has brought its own direct action against the tobacco companies to recover health care costs.

Lastly, the transitional

section regarding packinghouse assessment validation for 1993-97 protects the property tax base of seven Okanagan communities by confirming that commercial packinghouses are not entitled to farm classification for the 1993-97 tax years. Without the amendment, $800,000 in municipal taxes would have to be repaid, causing financial hardship to many small communities.

Hon. Speaker, that concludes my remarks.

[1630]

G. Plant: There are some certainties in this world. Night usually follows day; spring eventually follows winter. And by the time this government gets to Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1999, they've usually found a way to get themselves and all the rest of British Columbians into a spot or two of trouble.

There are in fact a few things in this bill which ought to be commended. In particular, I want to commend the government for bringing forward

section 48, which is the

section that will amend the Motor Vehicle Act to allow cabinet to make regulations exempting classes of persons from the requirements of that section. That is, it's an amendment that will allow cabinet, as the Attorney General says, to create certain exemptions from the requirement to wear motorcycle safety helmets. That's a good thing in this bill.

There are some other things in this bill that are innocuous. There are some things in this bill where I think the government is making some mistakes. I don't like what the government is proposing to do to the Expropriation Act or the Coroners Act. I think we need to ask some hard questions about the amendment to the Industrial Development Incentive Act. No doubt, there are one or two other little jewels that we will have the opportunity to expose when we deal with this bill in committee stage debate, which I think is the right place to raise the issues that need to be raised. I'm sure that we will get to committee stage debate on this bill soon enough.

Hon. H. Lali: I wish to speak to a part of the bill, which is the exemption for Sikhs for wearing a motorcycle helmet. The freedom to practise one's religion is a fundamental human right. This amendment recognizes and honours the human rights of British Columbians. Society cannot afford to deny the fundamental right to religious freedom. Certainly riding a motorcycle is more dangerous than riding a bicycle or driving a car, and it cannot be denied that wearing an approved motorcycle helmet reduces the risk of injury and minimizes health care costs resulting from motorcycle accidents.

However, even where safety is a concern, society cannot afford to deny a fundamental right to religious freedom.

Other jurisdictions have recognized this and have acted as we are today. The United Kingdom and the province of Manitoba have already exempted turban-wearing Sikhs from wearing a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Some other countries -- such as South Africa, for example -- do not provide formal exemptions, but they do choose not to enforce their helmet legislation where Sikhs are concerned. There are more than two dozen jurisdictions worldwide where Sikhs are exempted from motorcycle helmet laws.

It's worth noting, too, that Sikhs have been granted similar exemptions in other situations. Sikh RCMP officers are permitted to wear a turban instead of the regulation cap. The Workers Compensation Board of B.C. allows Sikhs to wear the inner portion of the turban, provided it fits under the safety hardhat. In the Indian army, the turban is part of the standard uniform for unshorn Sikhs.

The costs of exempting Sikhs from the helmet law will be marginal and will be far outweighed by the benefit to religious freedom. Human rights are paramount. Sikhs who want to wear a turban for deeply held religious reasons have the right to do so. This is clearly a case in which the government must make an accommodation on religious grounds. I'm proud of this amendment. I'm pleased that as a result, the small number of turban-wearing Sikhs who wish to ride motorcycles will be able to do so without compromising their religious convictions.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 97, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1635]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 94.

FEE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that Bill 94, the Fee Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, be now read a second time.

Bill 94 clarifies the legal authority of the province to charge certain fees under the Company Act, the Land Title Act, the Lottery Act, the Partnership Act, the Pension Benefits Standards Act and the Personal Property Security Act over the last 20 years. This legislation follows a review of provincial fee legislation to ensure that it is consistent with the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding Ontario's probate fees. That decision has provided guidelines to determine whether a fee should be placed in legislation rather than in regulation.

The Supreme Court's ruling was in relation to fees in Ontario. However, the ruling has made it necessary for British Columbia and other provinces to review their fee legislation and make changes where appropriate. Alberta and Newfoundland have already enacted similar legislation to confirm their fees, and other provinces are currently examining their fees.

I want to make it clear that this legislation will not result in increased fees for any of these fees, and users will not pay anything more as a result of this legislation. Bill 94 is a technical amendment to protect revenues that allow the government to continue to support services that British Columbians have told us matter the most to them, particularly health care and education.

G. Plant: This is a truly awesome piece of legislation. If you look at the commencement provision, it goes on for pages

[ Page 14355 ]

-- pages of commencement provision here. There are all sorts of fees that this bill is going to save retroactively by reaching back -- way back -- into the past, way back to 1973, back to 1978, back to 1974, back to 1976, saving fee after fee after fee.

I was thinking when I read this statute for the first time that when it comes into effect, there is going to be an astonishing moment. It will be like a virtual moment. It will be a really amazing thing, because there will be this kind of tidal wave roll through the laws of British Columbia that no one will see. It may swamp us, but we won't be able to see it.

We'll feel the foundations of this building shake for a moment, I think, as statute after statute, order-in-council after order-in-council, fee after fee and regulation after regulation for over a quarter of a century will be retroactively repaired, rewritten, rehabilitated, restored, revitalized, given new life. It will happen in a flash. And 26 years of government work to collect revenue from British Columbians -- illegally, I should say -- will be made whole.

We will all feel so much the better for it, I am certain. We will all feel, the moment after this bill comes into effect, as though something truly good has happened. We will feel as though we have passed through purgatory, because it will really be almost like a purgative experience.

[1640]

When I look at this bill, I'm mindful of the situation that I used to experience when I was a kid. There was a cookie jar in the kitchen, and the rule was that you weren't allowed to get the cookies out of the cookie jar unless you asked permission. And, of course, we all had ways of getting around that basic rule. When no one was looking, we could take the lid off the cookie jar and reach in and take just a couple of crumbs from one of the cookies. Now, I want to be clear in this example. I'm speaking about the construct of ideas about how one hypothetically could avoid these rules.

I certainly wouldn't admit to ever having done it myself, but it would be possible to reach in and grab just a few crumbs. In fact, if you were careful and cautious, if you bided your time, if you made sure no one was going to catch you -- maybe you waited until a day when the cookie jar was particularly full -- you might be able to get one cookie out of the cookie jar and no one would catch you. Well, that's a great way of running a cookie jar. In fact, you can actually run a cookie jar that way for a quarter of a century if you are careful and thoughtful.

But, unfortunately, in 1997 this government lost all pretence of care or caution. It had been waiting too long for access to the cookie jar. It had been thirsting for access to the cookie jar for so long that it threw caution to the winds and, in one fell swoop, reached its hand into the cookie jar and pulled out a whole handful of cookies -- dozens of cookies -- which it immediately began shoving down its throat.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Canada came along, saw the crumbs on the government's face and said: "You know, it's actually against the constitution to take cookies out of the cookie jar." And as a result of that piece of jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada last fall, as a result of the greed of the government of Ontario and the greed of this government in seeking to tax death in the form of what it misleadingly referred to as probate fees . . . .

As a result of that loss of caution, the decades of petty larceny that governments had been engaging in by charging fees in a way that violated the constitution of the country were exposed, and the sham was revealed for a sham, and the government found itself in a situation in which it had to re-examine every single fee that it charges British Columbians. So, as a result of that examination, we have Bill 94.

You know, hon. Speaker, one of my favourite jobs in this Legislature -- and I'm being sarcastic -- is when I get the opportunity to look at a bill that amends a piece of legislation that we have already amended in this session of the Legislature. Just weeks ago we were called upon to vote on the Probate Fee Act. That was the act that this government introduced earlier in this session to correct the problem that it was faced with as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

And what it did was, of course -- as this government is wont to do -- come in and retroactively repair the problem with probate fees. The bill passed, and presumably at the time, lo these many months ago -- well, actually, it was just a few weeks ago -- everyone in the government who was alarmed and concerned and full of fear felt a quiet come upon them as they realized that the prospect of this serious flaw in probate fee collection in British Columbia had been brought to an end. There was a quiet moment, no doubt, a happy moment.

It must have lasted for about a nanosecond, because here we are again. Just a few weeks have passed, and someone has realised that they didn't quite fix the Probate Fee Act enough. We had better fix it again. You know, I looked down at the vessel, and there were six or seven layers of sheeting on the vessel designed to keep out the strongest attack. But six or seven layers of sheeting are never good enough. Why not add 30 or 40 more?

[1645]

The Probate Fee Act part of this bill,

section 72, is a wonderful example of how when you ask legislative draftpersons to take something which is bullet-proof and make it, I don't know, atomic-bomb-proof, they can do it if you give them enough words and you give them enough weeks. Guess what: they've been given that chance. They've come back to us. They've said: "We can make a good thing better. We can rewrite the Probate Fee Act that was written, oh, just a few weeks ago. We've decided, in retrospect, that it wasn't quite good enough. We can make it even tougher.

We can make it even more impervious to attack by all those nasty people out there who would have the effrontery to challenge the ability of the Crown to collect revenue from her hapless, unwilling subjects."

This bill is a truly remarkable piece of legislation -- 39 separate commencement provisions. It is, I think, perhaps one of the most interesting pieces of legislation that I have ever seen. It takes the idea of retroactivity, which I think is an offence against public policy, and expands it beyond anyone's reasonable imagination of what could possibly be achieved. I was actually looking for the transitional provision near the end of this bill that says: "(

a) World War II did not in fact occur; (

b) Newfoundland did not become a province of Canada in 1949." But no, all I find is 39 separate commencement provisions that are intended to ensure that these thousands upon thousands of fees that have been collected from British Columbians in the millions upon millions of dollars over the last 27 years are kept warm and safe in the heart of the consolidated revenue fund -- where, no doubt, they belong. It's a great moment in the history of British Columbia that we get to undo so much injustice. I'm just glad to be part of it.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's the last time I let my colleague speak first on one of my bills.

[ Page 14356 ]

I honestly don't have a great deal to add. I think the member for Richmond-Steveston summed it up. It really is a fascinating piece of legislation: to go back 20 years and revise the history of how the government -- not just this government, but also governments preceding them -- levied fees in this province. That we have to go back retroactively to legalize those fees for 20 years is quite a remarkable piece of legislation.

If nothing else, I think the decision out of Ontario and perhaps even the fact that the government is moving with this legislation are a bit of a warning to legislators right across the country. Not just with fees, but with a whole range of things that government has done, there has been a trend over the last number of years toward moving away from bringing issues to the Legislature for amendment, for change, and instead writing into legislation sections which allow for fees, for provisions, for policy to be revised through order-in-council on its own.

I think that's appropriate in some cases, but in many cases I think it has gone too far. It reduces the accountability, it reduces the transparency, and quite frankly, it puts governments in a situation where they have to come back with legislation like this to fix the problems that they've had in the past. So without being nearly as eloquent or as entertaining as my colleague from Richmond-Steveston, I'll leave my comments at that. We'll pursue the issue further in committee stage.

[1650]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move second reading.

Second reading of Bill 94 approved on division.

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

Leave granted.

Bill 94, Fee Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration later today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 52.

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

(second reading)

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that Bill 52, the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, now be read a second time.

Bill 52 amends 13 provincial statutes to implement measures announced in the 1999 provincial budget. These amendments build on the three-year plan introduced last year by cutting taxes for small business, reducing compliance costs for business, enhancing fairness and simplifying administration of the tax system.

I'd like to note for the House in second reading that the concerns of the community around a particular

section of the bill,

section 73, have been heard by our government. There was concern raised in the community that there was the nature of retroactivity to that particular section, and I will be introducing an amendment to ensure that that

section does not proceed at this time. I have no plans for proceeding in the future in the way that it's intended now to cover retroactivity. I hope I can put everybody on notice that if you were planning to speak to that particular section, you can relax. It won't be going forward. I know there's a huge amount of disappointment that the government actually listened and changed.

Hon. Speaker, the government recognizes the importance of small businesses to British Columbia in creating new jobs. Bill 52 provides tax relief for this critical sector by reducing the small business corporate income tax rate from 8.5 percent to 5.5 percent, effective July 1, 1999. The small business rate in British Columbia would be lower than Alberta's rate. The reduction in the small business rate will ensure that B.C.'s small businesses are competitive and will support additional job creation in this sector.

This cut will save the nearly 40,000 small businesses in British Columbia a total of $63 million annually. To encourage investment and job creation in the province, the Corporation Capital Tax Act is amended to extend the corporation capital tax holiday to four years from two years for qualifying investments made after March 31, 1999.

This government is also committed to improving the environment, and I intend to initiate broad discussions on how to reform the tax system to better reflect environmental values that British Columbians hold dear. As a first step, Bill 52 embodies two changes to encourage environmentally friendly activity. First of all, the bill amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to provide a future exemption for the ethanol component of low-level ethanol blends of gasoline.

The exemption is intended to stimulate the development of innovative ethanol production technologies in the province, encourage the development and construction of an ethanol production plant and simultaneously increase future use of ethanol in gasoline to reduce emissions from motor vehicles. The exemption will be brought into force when a commercial-scale ethanol plant is in production in the province.

Second, to encourage the use of motor vehicles which use cleaner-burning fuels, a partial refund of provincial sales tax is provided for the purchase or lease of eligible factory-manufactured vehicles designed to operate on eligible alternative fuels. This will provide a similar benefit to that currently provided for kits to convert a vehicle to operate on natural gas or propane.

The government's three-year plan announced in last year's budget responded to concerns from many sectors of the British Columbia economy that the personal income tax system makes it difficult to attract and keep highly skilled individuals in certain occupations. In particular, concern was expressed that the top marginal tax rate was too high. In response, government committed to reducing the top marginal tax rate from 54.2 percent in 1998 to 52.7 percent in 1999 and then subsequently to 51.3 percent in 2000 and 49.9 percent in the year 2001.

Bill 52 implements the next step in this reduction for the year 2000 taxation period by decreasing the personal income tax surtax from 19 percent to 15 percent. This change will reduce the top marginal rate to 51.3 percent for the year 2000, as promised in the three-year plan.

[1655]

The Assessment Act is amended to authorize the British Columbia Assessment Authority to continue using prescribed cost manuals and depreciation tables when valuing hydroelectric dams, substations and power plants.

Interjection.

[ Page 14357 ]

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, there are two parts to it. Yeah, I know.

I just want to make it clear that the act will be changed through amendment to the various parts to ensure that the community's concerns around the retroactive application of this particular

section . . . . It will be removed from this legislation. We'll take care of that by amendment.

The International Financial Business (Tax Refund) Act is amended to simplify how the act applies to securities transactions with non-resident brokers. Specifically, the amendments eliminate the requirement for a registrant to obtain a declaration from a non-resident broker where the IFB registrant is acting as principal to the transaction.

Bill 52 amends the Logging Tax Act to simplify and clarify the interaction of the logging tax deduction and the two-year small business corporate income tax holiday.

At the request of the Organization of B.C. Placer Mining Associations, the Mineral Tax Act is amended to simplify and streamline the application of tax to placer miners. This will significantly reduce compliance costs for placer miners and administration costs for government. A number of minor amendments are also introduced to enhance administration and improve enforcement.

Bill 52 amends the royalty and deemed income rebate calculation in the provincial Income Tax Act to clarify that payments made under the Mineral Tax Act and the federal resource allowance losses are both deductible in the calculation of provincial income tax. In addition, certain eligibility provisions for the two-year small business income tax holiday are amended to allow greater access to this benefit. Bill 52 also removes the restriction for documentary films so that such productions can qualify for the Film Incentive B.C. corporate income tax credit.

Bill 52 amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to transfer an additional 1 cent per litre of clear fuel tax revenue to the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority. This will contribute an additional $57 million annually to finance major highway transportation projects in the province. The act is also amended to transfer 1 cent per litre of clear fuel tax revenue to the British Columbia Ferry Corporation. This transfer will increase to 1.25 cents per litre on October 1, 1999. In fiscal year 1999-2000 the revenue transfer will be closer to $64 million. This will increase to $71 million annually when fully implemented.

The transfer provides an additional secure source of funding for the provincial ferry system. The act is also amended to expand and clarify the use of coloured fuel in some areas and to introduce administrative changes that will improve the application of the act.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is amended to enhance fairness and improve the administration of the act. Fairness is enhanced by extending the 12-month period during which an eligible first-time homebuyer may apply for a refund to 18 months. This change is effective January 1, 1998, to resolve a number of outstanding claims. The two existing exemptions for subdivisions are also amended to enhance fairness. Currently, failure to apply for exemption results in tax being payable by all parties to the subdivision on the total fair-market value of the property transferred.

Tax will now be imposed only on the net proportional increase in the fair-market value received by a transferee if the requirements for full exemption are not met. The exemption for transfers of principal residences between related individuals is amended to include transfers from a deceased to a related individual who's been using the property as a principal residence for at least six months. A definition of the term "parcel" is introduced to clarify the application of the tax and reduce uncertainty. The definition provided is consistent with current administrative practice.

[1700]

The Social Service Tax Act is amended to reduce red tape, enhance fairness and improve administration. Red tape and the compliance burden for certain sectors is reduced through the provision of exemptions for boomsticks and product labels. The application of tax to these items has been technically complex and expensive for business to comply with and for government to administer.

Fairness is enhanced through an expansion of the exemption for modifications to motor vehicles to accommodate persons requiring the use of wheelchairs, for settlers' effects subsequently converted to business use and through the provision of partial tax refunds or credits for multijurisdictional vehicles in certain circumstances. A variety of amendments are also provided to enhance administration, such as the authority to register liens for tax payable.

G. Campbell: The minister has gone through a number of issues with regard to Bill 52 which are a reiteration of some of the comments she made earlier. I don't intend to reiterate all of the comments I've made in the past with regard to our onerous taxation regime in the province. I would simply remind people that no matter what is said, it's what is done that makes a difference.

With that in mind, I would like to start by congratulating the government for proposing the amendment which they will be bringing forward on

section 73, because for all that they said -- as my colleagues from Okanagan-Penticton and Okanagan-Boundary have pointed out -- in community after community, with the number of consumers that would have been affected by this onerous piece of legislation, at the end of the day it is consumers, it is citizens, who pay the