NAYS -- 7
J. Wilson	J. Reid	Dalton
Barisoff	Hawkins	Weisbeck
	Neufeld

[1535]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I call second reading of Bill 100.

DEFINITION OF SPOUSE AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

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]

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]

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]

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]

[ Page 14351 ]

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]

[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]

[ Page 14352 ]

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]

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]

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

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 1999
(second reading)

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 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 ]

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]

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 ]

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]

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]

FEE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading)

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 ]

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]

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 ]

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]

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)

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]

Interjection.

[ Page 14357 ]

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]

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 price for this kind of legislation which is being proposed. I would like to point out that my colleague from Okanagan-Boundary has made some suggested amendments. We look forward to receiving the government's amendment with regard to this.

I think there's a message here for people in the province as well. I think that often individuals believe that what they do doesn't make any difference. It is important for communities, for local councils, for individual citizens, for ratepayers, to raise their voices and to focus their attention on these matters when they come before the House. I think that my colleagues from Okanagan-Penticton and Okanagan-Boundary have done an excellent job of itemizing for people how they may be able to move forward and get the changes to the legislation which the government now seems ready to propose in terms of amendment to section 73 of Bill 52. We're looking forward to receiving those amendments and to, hopefully, being able to support them.

However, I do think it's important for the government to understand, when they are trying to send a message to investors, to citizens, that they want to encourage investment, that they can't continue to send mixed messages. They can't say, on the one hand, that they're cutting tax, while with the other hand, they're increasing tax. They can't say they're encouraging investment, on one hand, while on the other hand, they're

[ Page 14358 ]

It is critical that we maintain everyone's rights in this province, that we not act retroactively. Retroactivity sends all of the wrong messages to everyone that has been involved. So as I said, I am not going to go through this bill in detail. I do think that was a critical component.

The final thing I would say is this. When we talk about small business, I think we have to understand that small businesses face a substantial number of taxes. It is good that the government has reduced the small business tax to lower than the Alberta tax, on the one hand. But let us remember that the property tax for small businesses will be going up because of this government's actions. Let us remember that the fees for small businesses have been going up because of this government's actions. And let us remember that the onerous taxation and regulatory codes which have been imposed on small businesses across this province have led to record numbers of bankruptcies, layoffs and people losing their jobs and their savings.

[1705]

Having said that, I would like to again say that I think the work of my two colleagues on this side of the House, the member for Okanagan-Boundary and the member for Okanagan-Penticton, has been fruitful. I appreciate the fact that the government has listened to their presentations, has listened to the cries of people that are subject to West Kootenay Power rates -- who are looking at a $50 increase and who are looking at their rights being taken away. I'm looking forward to at least supporting that part of this bill as an important step to send a message to people that what they say does make a difference.

R. Thorpe: Bill 52, especially section 73, was just totally unacceptable, not only unacceptable to myself, the Leader of the Official Opposition and the caucus but to my good colleague from the riding of Okanagan-Boundary. Together we have worked on this issue, and now I'm glad to see that the light of day has come. Some 67 days ago we tabled in this House amendments to have this struck down. It has taken this government all of that time to come to its senses, to realize that to take away people's right to appeal and to retroactively nail them for $6 million is absolutely wrong. To attempt to take $50 per family out of their pockets is absolutely wrong.

I would like to thank very, very much all of the constituents from the riding of Nelson-Creston for working with us to help cancel this provision of the bill and all of the constituents from Rossland-Trail who have worked with us. I would like to thank those small business operators, those mill operators, who have written us and worked with us in stopping this bill. I would like to thank the mayor and the city of Penticton for the work done in stopping this bill. Even when strong-arming was attempted, they stood up and fought for what was right, and I'm pleased to represent those folks. Of course, the mayor and council in Oliver stood up and were counted. The mayor and council of Summerland stood up on behalf of their constituents and said: "This is wrong, and we will not take it." Now this government has finally seen the light of day, after pressure from constituents.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The mayor of Castlegar, Mike O'Connor, said it was wrong. John Winter, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said it was wrong. The mayor of Trail, Dieter Bogs, said it was wrong. Don Cameron, the mayor of Summerland, said it was wrong. John Hall, the president of Princeton Light and Power, said it was wrong. Rick Jones, the comptroller of Canpar, a major employer in Okanagan-Boundary country, said it was wrong.

You know what? Finally we have a government -- finally, after 67 days of unprecedented pressure, constituents calling and writing in and councils banding together to stop excessive taxation. . . . To take away the right of people to appeal -- they said: "No, it's wrong. It has to stop."

You know, I would be remiss. . . . I think the members over there want to sit and listen to this one. This one comes from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 213. You know what? They represent 200 employees. But they said this is the most repressive piece of legislation that smacks at the very essence of democracy and the right to appeal. They stood up to this government, and they should be applauded.

On behalf of all of the constituents from the Okanagan through the Boundary country, over to Castlegar, down to Rossland and over to Trail, thank you very much for holding this government to account and for working with the official opposition, which says that excessive taxation is wrong and that people must have the right to appeal. That is part of democracy. To all of those folks, I say thank you for working hard, together with us, to bring this government to its senses just this once.

[1710]

E. Conroy: Let me begin by saying that I too had communication from my constituents, from the mayors and from everybody throughout the region. Yes, there was some concern about this bill. But my goodness, it wasn't near the level that the hon. member opposite would have us all believe.

As a matter of fact, as someone who has worked for this particular day for quite some time, I have to say that many of my constituents -- though they had reason to be opposed to Bill 52 for the particular reason around West Kootenay -- fully understood why the government was moving ahead with retroactivity on Bill 52. They knew that it would create a level playing field for all of the major industrial properties throughout British Columbia. Everybody would be in the same ballpark, and we'd end this forever. Everybody understood the benefit of that. They understood that the reduced number of appeals that have now come forward as a result of the status quo. . . . The cost not only to the people themselves -- like the West Kootenays or the B.C. Hydros of the world -- but also to government is quite onerous. Part of the reason for this bill was to eliminate that.

[ Page 14359 ]

I'm very glad that section 73 is going to go, and we're all going to be happy for it.

B. Barisoff: I must say that what the government has done here today is probably one of the few positive things that we've seen come down from the government in a long time. We had all kinds of complaints from all over the riding, considering that Okanagan-Boundary runs all the way up into the Kootenays there. When the member for Rossland-Trail mentions a level playing field, I think he's mistaken about the level playing field. If this bill had gone through, it would have been tilted the wrong way.

I've got letters here that. . . . I think the ones that should be commended are the constituents from the entire area serviced by West Kootenay and the employees of Canpar Industries that would now not necessarily be assured of a job. But these are the small things that are the last straw that breaks the camel's back. The employees of Pope and Talbot -- section 73 would have impacted on them a lot greater than just the $50 per home that was going to take place. I would like to say that when I look at these employees and the constituents of the whole West Kootenay catchment area that deal with it, it has definitely been very positive.

I don't know if I can outdo the member for Okanagan-Penticton in getting up there, but I think that along with the member for Okanagan-Penticton and the Leader of the Opposition on this side, we worked diligently to make sure that the constituents of all the areas of the West Kootenay catchment area were going to be served by this. We wondered why it would take this long before this bill would come forward. We were sure that sooner or later this government would come to its senses and say it's wrong. Retroactivity in these kinds of situations puts the level playing field exactly the opposite way.

[1715]

So with that, as the member for Rossland-Trail said, I think we now have levelled the playing field. I don't think that going with retroactivity was levelling the playing field. I think that now, with section 73 being taken out, we have levelled the playing field.

To all the members of the West Kootenay catchment area, I think that this is a victory for them. I would like to congratulate the government on seeing the error of its ways and the fact that it decided this was something that should be pulled. I would hope that in the future the government would listen to the people, particularly when you get big companies like Pope and Talbot or Canpar Industries that it's going to affect and all the individual constituents of these areas. You get all the mayors from all those areas, and I think this government has to listen to those elected bodies, because that's what makes democracy work. When we get down to this ivory tower and forget about what's taking place on the outside, we lose track of what's happening. We've seen that time after time on the other side of the House. They totally lose track of what's taking place.

In this case, I think that enough pressure came to bear. Fortunately for all the people of the West Kootenay catchment area, they happened to have a couple of MLAs from that side of the House, from the government side of the House, that were actually taking an awful lot of pressure on this bill. With that, it was only natural that we would see a bill like this -- that section 73 would be eliminated -- and possibly look at an amendment that I brought forward.

So again I congratulate my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for the letters that he got and for pushing the two of us to make sure that we dealt with this section appropriately. Again, I congratulate all the constituents of the entire West Kootenay catchment area for forcing this to be pulled. With that, the government has finally done something right. I hope that any other times that all the elected body of a particular area come forward and speak against something, the government listens to what's taking place.

S. Hawkins: I'm happy to have the opportunity to say a few words on this bill. As an MLA who represents a riding that's served by West Kootenay Power, I too got my share of letters and phone calls and concerns, not only from constituents and companies but from community leaders. The overriding theme on section 73 of Bill 52 was that it was repressive, it was repugnant, and it took away the fundamental right of appeal. Why would the government do this without consultation?

You know, I've heard a lot of congratulations in this chamber in just the last few minutes. Frankly, I don't know if the government is deserving of congratulations. You know what? They do something wrong before they're told they have to do the right thing. It's really interesting to hear everyone standing up and congratulating the government.

Section 73 was wrong. Give your heads a shake; you did the wrong thing. Talking about expropriating the fundamental right to appeal was wrong. After a good little while, after hearing from a lot of constituents, after having to hear what kind of opposition to the section the government was going to face, I think that was what forced them to finally say: "Okay, the retroactivity part of the section was wrong, and we'll repeal that."

[1720]

[ Page 14360 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: I have more general comments to make regarding Bill 52. I think my colleagues have summed up their concerns on the issues around section 73 and the West Kootenay Power issue. I've heard members from both sides of the House speak to that. We welcome the future amendment. We hope that it will solve the problem, and we can all move ahead.

But there's a whole bunch of other things to this piece of legislation that haven't been commented on in much detail here tonight, and I'd like to say a few words about them.

Bill 52, Taxation Statues Amendment Act, 1999, is one of the two bills, really, that made up the changes that were contained in the budget for this year. I'd be remiss if I didn't recall for the Legislature exactly the state of the province's economy and, I think, the overwhelming negative response to this government's budget plan for this fiscal year. Indeed, when the government came in with its budget this year, everyone was looking for a sign that the government understood what the problem was.

The problem was a government that was too big, that didn't listen to British Columbians -- an example that section 73 exemplified -- and that didn't understand that they had levied, over the last number of years, an extremely onerous taxation regime that was forcing small businesses, medium-sized businesses, even large businesses right across this province to retrench, to downsize, to withdraw from the economy, to reduce the size of their operations, to shut down, to lay people off in some cases and certainly not to expand. This was a government that had, over the last number of years, introduced an ever-expanding regulatory regime that was also a burden to British Columbians. It was also a burden to businesses and individuals right across this province.

So when we saw the budget come in, in March, at probably the depth of the recession that we've been experiencing here in British Columbia, people were looking for a sense that the government understood the error of its ways over the last number of years and was about to change those ways. It was going to take a different tack. It was going to get its budget under control. It was going to make a realistic attempt to balance its budget. It was going to take a really significant bite out of the taxes that are levied on British Columbians and give them a significant personal income tax rate cut, give people a sense that they didn't have to keep working harder all the time just to feed that ever-growing elephant, the government.

Instead, what we saw in the budget was an $890 million deficit forecast for this year, over $3 billion in additional debt in this year alone and a massive increase in the negative legacy of debt and deficit that this government has put on future generations in this province. I think the comment from pretty much right across the spectrum was universal in its damnation of that approach.

I know this government says that it's about choices, that it's about making decisions. I think that in the last six months, we've seen examples of those choices. This is a government that has chosen to keep one of the highest personal income tax rates in Canada. At the same time, it has chosen to use that money to fund a fast ferry project that doesn't do what it's supposed to do, that's a quarter of a billion dollars over budget, and now we find out that it has operational problems to boot.

This is a government that chose to keep peoples' taxes at a very high level and chose to use that money to bail out unprofitable companies and to invest in companies that could probably raise that money on their own in the private sector market, if they lived in a province that had an environment that was conducive to investment.

[1725]

I know that members opposite take a different view of things. They tell us they're investing in the future of British Columbia. I also remember, however, when the current Premier used to be the Finance critic for the opposition prior to 1991 and then was the Finance minister post-1991. I remember him railing about the private sector investments that the previous government had involved themselves in -- the loan guarantees, the grants, the loans, the capital investments, the equity investments, all of those. In fact, I remember him making a huge deal about it right after the election, when they wrote off that portfolio of loans and investments.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. My colleague reminds me that a whole list of them was presented to us. Why was it wrong back then to do it, and now it's right? If it was wrong then, it's wrong now. The government should not be involved. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo should realize that people have stopped getting upset with his government and now merely laugh at it. They merely laugh at it. If the member opposite, the member for Nanaimo, can't understand that and doesn't understand that fundamental principle, then perhaps he's really lost sight of everything he used to believe in. Now, some seven and a half years into a disastrous governing stretch, he has so much lost control of his ideals and the views that he had entering it that he can't tell which direction he's facing.

[ Page 14361 ]

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Transportation rises on a point of order.

Hon. H. Lali: I would ask the hon. member across the way to withdraw those disparaging remarks he just finished making.

G. Farrell-Collins: If I offended any of the donkeys, I apologize. That wasn't my intention.

G. Farrell-Collins: In all seriousness, I withdraw the comment if the member opposite is offended by it.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I don't think that's an appropriate withdrawal. I think the traditions in this House are very clear on such matters.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I did. I just withdrew it. In all seriousness, I withdraw the comments if the member for Yale-Lillooet was offended by them.

The reality is, though, that the government has changed their priorities and their plans and their rhetoric so many times that it's hard to keep track. They've spun themselves around so many times that they don't know where the donkey is; they don't know where to put the tail. They're just wandering around bumping into the furniture.

The Minister of Finance tabled a budget this year. In her response to the budget, of which this bill is a significant part, the minister said that the only way to protect health care and education was to spend more money and invest more money into the economy -- for the government to continue to spend more.

[1730]

The reality is that the budget that the government brought forward this year led me to believe that there's been a change. They've given up trying to balance the budget. They've given up trying to ever allow the private sector to be the key driver of the economy. Instead, they've decided to go back to Tom Gunton economics, the theory of big government infusions in the economy and big government borrowing -- $3-point-some billion in new debt this year. They're going to inject that money into the economy. That's going to save the economy. That's going to save health care and education. Everybody's going to live happily ever after.

Clearly members on this side of the House and, I think, the public in general are having a very difficult time keeping track of exactly what the government's priorities are because they say one thing one day and then something else the next day. When we have. . . .

An Hon. Member: What are yours?

G. Farrell-Collins: The member asked what my priorities are. I can tell the member. My priorities are to give British Columbians a significant personal income tax cut. It's due to them. They've been suffering under this government for years and years. Hon. Speaker, perhaps. . . .

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please, members. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Nanaimo says he'd love to have a debate. That's what we're here for. He can get up and get involved in the debate; that's his right. That's his prerogative as a member. He should get up and do it. I love it when government members get up and defend their taxation policies and their regulatory policy and when members opposite get up and defend their investment policy, because then they're on the record. You can compare it with what they said last week and see how different it is. I'd love to hear the member get up and enter into the debate and give us his opinions.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, the member continues to speak. I'm encouraging him to get up in the debate. We can put him on the list. He can get up next and elucidate further his economic policies.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'll just let them settle down for a minute, hon. Speaker.

Bill 52 is part of a budget that really has done nothing at all to make a significant change with regard to B.C.'s economy. We're still in difficult straits. We've seen a little bit of an upturn in the forest sector because of increasing lumber prices. That's a good thing; we're happy to see that. Hopefully, it'll last; hopefully, it'll continue. But it doesn't deal with or even begin to address the underlying structural problems that exist in the forest sector, the underlying structural problems that are hampering the mining sector, the underlying structural problems that are affecting the housing construction industry -- which is in a huge recession right now; housing starts are at their lowest rates per capita since we've been keeping track over the last 50 years.

Those industries, which are the predominant private sector employers in the province of British Columbia, are still in a major recession. There have been thousands of jobs lost in the forest sector. We're not about to see that recover yet. We're not about to ever, I don't think, see the 21,000 new jobs that the Premier promised before, and then after, the 1996 election. There is a long, long way to go.

While there are tax cuts in this legislation that deal with small businesses. . . . The minister talked about reducing it to 5.5 percent -- the small business income tax. We're happy to

[ Page 14362 ]

[1735]

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Yale-Lillooet is talking about big banks. I'll have him know that it is this government that reduced the corporate capital tax for banks not once, not twice, but now three times -- not the opposition, but the government members. I would just advise him to talk to the Minister of Finance before he goes off on the big-bank theme, because his hands are dirty on that one.

The fact of the matter is that if this government was truly intent on helping small businesses and turning the economy around, you would see an across-the-board attempt to do so. You wouldn't see a tax cut here and a tax increase over there. You would see them do it across the board -- try and reduce the tax burden for small and medium-sized businesses. You would see the government try and reduce the regulatory burden across the board, not reduce regulations in one area and increase them in another area, which is what we see with legislation after legislation in this House.

While there are some things in Bill 52 that take very, very tiny steps, it's not a sincere attempt to have a real impact on the economy. It's an attempt for the government to be able to stand up and say: "Look at the wonderful things we're doing. We're cutting taxes; we're getting a photo op; we've got a television ad; we've got a print advertisement." That's the attempt. The attempt is all about appearances, about posturing, about spin. There is no serious attempt in the budget -- and therefore through this legislation -- to have a real across-the-board attempt to turn the economy around, to have a real impact.

The disproved methods of the past -- government intervention in the economy, millions of dollars in loans and loan guarantees and equity investments by governments -- simply don't work. It's been proven time and time again. In fact, it's been proven so bad in Alberta that it's against the law in Alberta now. They had to pass a law to stop their own government and future governments from investing in the private sector -- direct investment in the private sector, direct granting of loans and loan guarantees to the private sector. It was so bad in Alberta. . . . They proved time and again that that's not the way to go.

That's the strategy of this government. Their strategy is to invest in the private sector, to get involved in the private sector, to try and pick winners and losers, and do it that way. I think the government's job, through a budget, is to provide a significant personal income tax cut to British Columbians, lower the tax burden across the board for small and medium-sized businesses, lower the regulatory burden and create an environment that's conducive to healthy investment, that says to people in British Columbia who live here already to keep their money here and invest it here, that says to people across Canada to bring their money here and invest it here, that says to people around the globe to bring their money to British Columbia and invest it in British Columbia. That's the way you get the economy turned around, not with the small steps that are contained in Bill 52.

I look for an opportunity to debate some of the issues in Bill 52 in committee stage. We'll discuss it further at that time. With that, I have nothing more to say.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 52, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 89.

[1740]

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

K. Krueger: I have an obligation to declare an interest and withdraw from debate on this bill, so that's what I'm doing. At the present time, I'm an employee on leave from one of the employers whose pension plans are the subject of the bill. So I'll take my leave at this time.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the bill be now read a second time. The Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, has two primary purposes. The first purpose of the bill is to provide an option for joint trusteeship of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority pension plan and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia pension plan. Joint trusteeship allows plan members to share in the responsibility for and control over pension plans in which they participate.

Pension plans are an integral part of the employees' compensation packages. It has long been recognized that a plan member's entitlement to receive a pension benefit is simply a form of deferred wage. As such, it makes abundant sense for plan members to be actively and directly involved in the comanagement of their pension plan. All plan members have a legitimate interest in the administration and content of their pension plan. There are many pension plans across the country in which the management is shared. These plans have demonstrated the positive benefits of joint management for both plan members and plan employers.

This bill provides for the possibility of transferring full responsibility for the operation of the British Columbia Hydro

[ Page 14363 ]

The bill simply provides a framework and a process for reviewing the financial, governance and other related issues necessary to implement joint trusteeship. The process will commence when the parties determine that the time is right. It should also be noted that all plan member groups, not just those who have the authority to conclude an agreement, will have their views and interests represented in the negotiation of the joint management agreement.

The second purpose of the bill is to implement specific changes to the four statutory public sector pension plans that have been agreed upon in various accords. Generally speaking, the objective of the accords is to provide additional opportunities for younger workers to begin their careers. This is achieved by implementing cost-neutral measures that will update and improve the pension plans, while maintaining an adequate residual surplus in the plans without causing the employer contribution rates to change.

The changes to the Pension (College) Act include the following: a change in the enrolment provision to require all new college instructors and senior administrative staff hired on or after September 1, 1999, to enrol in the college pension plan upon reaching a specified income threshold; a cost-neutral change in the plan-member and employer contribution rates so that the indexing arrangement is strengthened; a change in the normal form of the pension from a single-life pension to a single-life pension with a ten-year guarantee; a change in the pension benefit formula from 1.3 percent to 1.35 percent on salary up to the Canada Pension Plan's yearly maximum pensionable earnings; and changes to the pre-retirement death benefit, disability benefit, joint life and last-survivor option, and beneficiary temporary annuity option, which will make the pension plan compliant with the requirements of the federal Income Tax Act.

The changes to the Pension (Municipal) Act include the following: inclusion of for-profit health care employers as employers eligible to participate in the pension plan; changes to the early retirement reduction formula for plan members who are within 15 years of their maximum retirement age; and changes to the pre-retirement death benefit, joint life and last-survivor pension option, and beneficiary temporary annuity option, which will make the pension plan compliant with requirements of the federal Income Tax Act.

The changes to the Pension (Public Service) Act include the following: a change to the age and service rule for an unreduced pension from 90 to 85, effective April 1, 2000; and changes to the pre-retirement death benefit, disability benefit, joint life and last-survivor pension option and beneficiary temporary annuity option, which will make the pension plan compliant with requirements of the federal Income Tax Act.

[1745]

In conclusion, the changes being proposed in this bill enable the government to meet its pension commitments with various public sector accords.

G. Farrell-Collins: Bill 89 and the bill that will probably follow our debate on Bill 89, Bill 95, make some fairly substantial changes to the public sector pension acts. I think the biggest one is the attempt to go to a joint management structure. That is something that we on this side of the House are not opposed to. I think there's merit in going to a joint management structure if it's done right and if the members of the plan decide that that's what they want to do.

The problem I have with both Bill 89 and Bill 95 is that. . . . Instead of a demand from a broad cross-section of pensioners -- people who are drawing their pension now and people who are in the plan, hoping to draw their pension sometime in the future -- these two bills seem to be the result of the accords that the government reached with the various groups of employees in their last round of collective bargaining, with the unions representing the various groups of employees. Indeed, I think the only plan where really involved consultation has taken place is in the Pension (College) Act. In the other ones, the government seems to be creating a shell with these bills that will then allow the government and the unions representing the employees to move into those shells and set up a structure afterwards.

I ask a question, though: why the hurry? Why does this government feels that it's necessary to put those structures in place today, tomorrow or the next day? They came to a labour negotiation accord some time ago. Now, without going back to those employees -- without going back to those pension participants -- the government is setting up this structure within which the comanagement will take place.

The problem that we're finding on this side of the House is that we are getting a lot of calls and letters. A lot of questions are being asked, and issues are being raised by people who are either members of the plan and hope to draw in the future or are currently pensioners in the plan. There were changes made to their plan in the last round of bargaining that created some winners and some losers. There were changes that provided increased benefits to a certain class of members of the plan and decreased potential benefits to other classes of the plan.

There are lots of concerns out there; there is a lot of uncertainty amongst members of the plan as to what exactly these bills -- particularly Bill 89 -- and some of the changes mean. There is a great deal of uncertainty.

[1750]

[ Page 14364 ]

There is a great deal of skepticism out there, a great deal of uncertainty amongst members of the plan -- not that they're opposed to a comanagement system; in fact, a joint management system. . . . In fact, virtually every letter -- not all of them -- that we've received has said something to the effect of: "I'm not opposed to joint management; that might be a good thing. But how is going to work? How are we going to do it? What's it going to look like? How am I going to make sure that my pension benefits are protected? How am I going to make sure that if I die, my survivors' benefits are protected?" All of those things are very, very legitimate concerns.

I think that it's important -- and I've said this a couple of times to the government -- that these bills be set aside for a little while to give a chance for the government and the unions and the other members of the various pension plans that will be affected to go back to their members and talk to them about it, consult with them, explain to them how they'd like it to work, how their pensions are going to be protected, how their pensions are going to be managed, what concerns they may or may not have -- to thrash those out and come to a recommendation.

As I said earlier on, the idea of joint management is not something that there is huge opposition to. It's merely that these people need a chance to think about it; they need a chance to discuss it. I worry that the government, instead of doing something that is going to be progressive and positive and well-accepted and understood by the members, is going to create a backlash. They're going to have a bunch of people out there that are members of these plans who are going to get angry about it because they don't know. They weren't told; they're not informed. They're going to get upset by it; they're going to be concerned. The answers aren't going to be there for them. They're not going to be able to get in touch with the right people at the right time. They're going to be nervous; they're going to be concerned. And the government, instead of getting credit for doing something that those people should be thankful for, you would think -- those people should be pleased with a joint management system -- is going to infuriate and anger a whole bunch of people that should be supporting this.

I've seen municipal governments do this too, where they come in and say: "This is what we're going to do." They throw it out there before they've talked to people, and you immediately get everybody's back up. Then they can find every single thing that's wrong, every perceived wrong, every real wrong that's contained in the legislation. You create a firestorm of opposition that results in a real sour taste being left in people's mouth.

I can give an example of that right in my own constituency. The government, through B.C. Transit, wanted to put in a rapid bus system down Granville Street. It's an example -- and I hope you'll give me a minute to explain it. . . . There was some merit in it; there were also some drawbacks in it. They came and plunked it down in front of people living there as a fait accompli. Then everybody's back got up, and even the good things became suspect. There was huge opposition to it. At the end of the day, something managed to get worked out.

It was a much, much more difficult process than it ever needed to be. It created a huge amount of anxiety for people, unnecessarily in some cases and necessarily in others. It created a huge amount of uncertainty amongst people who lived there and worked along that corridor, people who lived there all their lives and had businesses there for a long, long time. Instead of doing the consultation up front, talking to people, explaining what the needs are, asking them how best we can accomplish those needs without negatively impacting their businesses or their homes but in fact, perhaps, improving the value of their homes -- the service that they get for commuters, the number of people that are going to be coming into their businesses. . . . There are positives as well as negatives. Unfortunately, because of the way it was done, everybody thought everything was negative. There was a huge backlash -- and legitimately so.

I really worry that with these two bills, 89 and 95, the government is doing the same thing. I think there are legitimate concerns there that if people had a chance to think about it, if they had a chance to deal with their representatives on the board, if those people in the non-union -- the management and professional sector of B.C. Hydro, as an example. . . . There has certainly been vociferous opposition there to what's happening with Bill 89. If there could be some agreement struck on how the participation is going to work. . . .

[1755]

G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says there has been; I'm not aware of it. If there has been in the last couple of days, that's great. But if those kinds of things could be dealt with before the legislation comes into the House -- before the legislation appears and is passed in a matter of a week or two -- I think the government would be far better off. It's another example of why I think it's a bad idea for governments to bring in legislation of this import this late in the session and expect the public to have an opportunity to give their input and to understand it in that period of time.

I know that my colleague from Oak Bay-Gordon Head has a great deal to say on this bill and the other bill that will follow. I know other members of my caucus have also. I also want to give a heads-up that the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head will, later this evening, be moving a motion to hoist this bill for a period of time to give that consultation the opportunity to take place.

I think that will be very constructive and very positive. At the end of the day, I think we'll end up with a better set of joint management structures in place. We'll end up with a better understanding and a better sense of ownership of this, as opposed to a negative thing. I hope the government takes us up on that option. As I said earlier, we're not opposed to the concept of a joint management structure, but we think it should be done properly. We think that the people whose plans and benefits are affected should be part of that decision and that the consultation and discussion should take place in advance of, not after, this legislation coming in. I think it'll be a far more positive process for people right across the board. A lot of the problems that exist in this legislation could, I think,

[ Page 14365 ]

With that, noting the hour, I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported Bill 74 complete without amendment and Bills 82 and 87 complete with amendment, was granted leave to sit again.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999

Deputy Speaker: When shall Bill 82 be considered as reported?

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave, now.

Leave granted.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Deputy Speaker: With respect to Bill 87, when shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. J. MacPhail: By leave now, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 6 p.m. to 6:40 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. D. Lovick: First, by the consent of the official opposition, I move that the following bills at committee stage be considered forthwith in Section A of Committee of the Whole: Bill 96, Electoral Districts Act; Bill 88, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1999; and Bill 94, Fee Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. I should emphasize, Madam Speaker, that I believe that for Bill 96 I must request leave now, because I'm not sure that was part of our original agreement. If so, I do so. I move, then, by leave, that Bill 96 also be considered.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Lovick: And in this House, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 89.

PENSION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999
(second reading continued)

What we have heard over the past few days -- particularly since the bill was introduced -- is, in fact, that pension plan members will have no direct say in whether the plan that they have paid into all these years will be put into joint trusteeship. What plan members are saying is that there will be those who participate in discussions, but all plan members in general do not have that opportunity.

I'm very aware that the Pension (College) Act had a proper canvassing via its membership through their annual general meeting. That is a good thing; that is a good process. Plan members are able to go to their annual general meeting, have resolutions put forward, have an understanding, have questions raised about what is happening with their pension plan and then vote on whether this is the form of comanagement that they would like to take place. For those members who were not able to attend their annual general meeting, it is very often the policy of organizations to send out to the membership a copy of the resolutions reached at an annual general meeting.

Again, the memberships have an opportunity to hear what is happening to their pension plan or any other issues that affect them as a member of an organization. That is not the case in three of the other statutory pension plans: namely, the teachers' pension plan, the public service superannuation plan and the municipal pension plan. Those have yet to go through that process. I am hoping that the government understands the necessity for that to take place.

What we also see is that there are members of these plans who are non-union plan members, and therefore they sometimes have no voice in the consultative process. There are non-union members who are managers, excluded members, etc., who have no opportunity -- or feel that they have no opportunity -- to express their desire as to how the comanagement will work and how the joint trusteeship should be enforced.

[1845]

[ Page 14366 ]

As I indicated, Bill 89 enables the four statutory plans to move towards joint trusteeship. One has had a relatively good consultative process; the other three have not. It also enables and provides the framework for two other Crown corporations to move towards joint trusteeship -- namely, the Crown corporations ICBC and B.C. Hydro. Again, we have received some calls and letters concerning those pension plans as well. Some of those concerns -- not all but some -- have come from retirees. The retirees are wondering just what it is that they can expect to see.

If you take a look at Bill 89 -- and I will canvass this more in committee stage if it ends up going to committee stage -- clause 37.1, which is in section 1 of the bill and provides for B.C. Hydro to enter into this joint management agreement, states that it may enter into this joint management agreement with trade unions for joint trusteeship of the pension plan. Nowhere does it include. . .although it may be intended that those excluded members, the retirees, will have the benefit of entering into this agreement and having input into this agreement. It states specifically that it will be a joint management agreement with trade unions for joint trusteeship. I can tell you that there have been retirees, and those who are contemplating retirement, who are concerned because they find the proposed legislation to be unfair and undemocratic -- something which I would not expect members on that side of the House, the government members, to be bringing in: a piece of legislation that would in any way be unfair and undemocratic. However, that is the view that has been taken by some of these retirees from B.C. Hydro.

Their concern is that those employees that are excluded, those employees who are not a member of a trade union, will not have equal representation and a democratic say in any of the discussions that may lead to joint trusteeship of the pension plan. Again, I don't believe they're questioning the concept of it, but they certainly are questioning whether or not the representation will be there.

In all pieces of legislation that are introduced, I think it would be a good governance policy to ensure that people who are affected by a piece of legislation have the opportunity to provide input, to canvass the issues and to be able to speak to those changes that will affect them. Only through that process will we provide the proper and the more fair and equitable and democratic piece of legislation that I think we all would like to see. Bill 89, as I stated, merely provides a framework and allows for enabling legislation to take place for these two Crown corporations, B.C. Hydro and ICBC.

[1850]

Bill 89 also deals with some of the commitments -- as the minister stated in her second reading remarks -- by government to implement some of the accords that were reached last year. I can tell you, from some of the calls that I've received, that some plan members were somewhat surprised, if I can use that term mildly, about the accord that was reached last year -- the details of the accord -- and how it will now affect them. Former members of the BCGEU, for example, are curious as to how these things were not communicated well to them and how the BCGEU was able to reach these agreements with government without the benefit of plan members having been involved. Now we see a piece of legislation having to be brought into place to implement those agreements and changes that were requested of this government last year by the BCGEU.

In particular, I received a fairly detailed letter from a former member regarding the survivor benefits that will now be afforded to their families. And if you were to take a look at the calculations that this particular former member had performed, you would see that there are significant reductions in those benefits. On review of those figures, in an effort to confirm those figures, I did receive confirmation that, in fact, it is true that there was going to be a substantial decrease and decline in the benefits for certain classes of people in terms of their survivor benefits. I know the bill attempts to create an equitable situation, but in so doing it will significantly impact a number of current members when they seek to have early retirement when there is a survivor benefit that comes into play in their situation.

I would wonder, from the words the minister used, that when the accords were reached last year they dealt with cost-neutral commitments, I suppose. . . . It's always difficult to understand just what effect that cost-neutral approach will have. On the one hand, if you're going to have a substantial decrease, then someone else would obviously have to have a substantial increase. That may seem fair in the collective agreement, if you will, of the entire pension plan. But when it starts to impact on individual plan members, they certainly do not see a fairness that is going to be applied, and they would have preferred to have that issue fully canvassed so that they could offer alternatives. Again, that option was not available to them, partially because there was not a consultative process to allow for that.

[1855]

I also see that in one of the bills -- I believe it's going to be in Bill 95, and I will speak to that later -- there is representation, but again, it is representation that previously was provided for retired members through a pension advisory

[ Page 14367 ]

Again I go back to the B.C. Hydro pension plan in Bill 89. The concern that has been raised there by the retirees is that they will be given an opportunity if the board and the authority, I suppose, grant them the opportunity to express their views. But there is no commitment, nothing stated in legislation, obviously -- and nothing therefore stated anywhere else in any other document -- that would guarantee them that opportunity to speak to the concerns that they particularly have.

I want to say that I did check the B.C. Hydro web site, and the update on the B.C. Hydro pension plan that recently came out. I think the authority was trying to provide assurances that those who are managers, professionals, excluded members and retirees would be able to have their views expressed. But they were not asked to sign the accord, and therefore there is no certainty that there would be any continued commitment that those views would be heard. They specifically state on the web site that the enabling legislation that was drafted by the provincial government doesn't give any voice to the managers and professionals of the plan. That certainly would cause those plan members to be upset, to be concerned, to be worried about why this piece of legislation is being introduced and why it was exempted or precluded from having a full consultative process.

As I go through Bill 89 I do see that there are some housekeeping changes, and I can appreciate those. But, again, some of these housekeeping changes were as a result of those accords that were drafted last year that required the legislation to be brought forth and implemented. You have to wonder why these things were not introduced last year for a full review -- to be brought forward for this Legislature to debate.

Why are these things being introduced at this stage of our session? If the accord was drafted last year, if the agreements and the commitment by the government were made last year, then surely the drafting of the requirements to make these changes could have been done earlier and could have been introduced earlier in the session -- even in April or May -- to allow those who would like to, to provide to government the very necessary input we need to provide good governance when it comes to pension plans and to allow us to ensure that. This is exactly what should be happening.

Instead, we have this bill that was introduced last week. We're being told that it's merely housekeeping. Thankfully, there are those who have not yet gone on summer holidays who have had the opportunity to pull this off the Internet and have a good look at it and who have now contacted members on this side of the House to request us to please do whatever we can to ensure that their voices are heard. That is exactly what we are doing, and that is certainly what it is our role as opposition members to do -- to assist this government to provide good governance and good legislation and, where we see that legislation is clearly flawed, to ask this government to consider holding back to provide an opportunity for those members who wish to, to provide input.

[1900]

If the members of the pension plans agree to the issue of joint trusteeship and that there are benefits to be gained, then surely we would not have received the letters of complaint and concern that we have had. Clearly, if the idea is that we are to move towards this new form of comanagement, then it would have made sense, as I stated earlier, to allow the process to probably take place and to allow all those with an interest -- those who are members of the pension plan currently; those who are retired members of the pension plan, whether union or non-union; those who are excluded managers; those who are professionals. . . . All those who will be affected by eventually drawing on their pension plan, either through an annuity or by way of survivorship benefits, should have had the opportunity to discuss this, to bring forward their ideas and to discuss what the idea of joint trusteeship is all about and how it should work to best benefit the plan members -- not to best benefit the government but how to best benefit the plan members.

I would have to ask: if this is such a good idea, then why was it not brought forward sooner? Why was this -- or an idea of this -- not brought forward or introduced last year to allow for a full year of consultation to take place? As I stated, the only group that has had the benefit of that process are those under the Pension (College) Act. If they wished that to occur -- as they appear to have, through their adoption of it through their AGM -- then that's fine. But we should have identified that. There should be legislation for that group and for that pension plan and that pension plan alone.

As each group who requests that their pension plan be altered comes forward, then we should bring in legislation tailor-made for their group. But to provide a skeleton plan -- or a framework, if you will -- for each of the plans to come into without having had that benefit is very worrisome to the pension plan members. They would have liked to have had the opportunity to have the necessary input and then decide if they want to go to joint trusteeship. They will watch this year to see how joint trusteeship does or doesn't work for the Pension (College) Act. They're concerned that if it doesn't work and they don't have a voice, this piece of enabling legislation will allow only a certain group of representatives to move towards joint trusteeship. Then they will have no opportunity to stop it and to prevent that from proceeding. That is not, I would think, a good form of governance.

Members opposite may have thought that they needed to bring in this enabling legislation, because they may have thought that future governments wouldn't do this. I would reject that idea, because if joint trusteeship works, if it is a good idea, then why wouldn't future governments concede and prepare new legislation that would allow for those joint trusteeships? So I ask you: why are we rushing towards this? Why are we pushing this through at the end of this session, if it were not for this government trying to appease a few groups or perhaps a few of their members, whether they be the union representatives or what have you?

The pension plans that are in existence belong to the plan members. They do not belong to government; they do not belong to the unions; they do not belong to any special group. They belong to all those who have paid into the pension plan. That is what we have to remember, and that is why they need to have their say. Without that, it is wrong; it is wrong for all of us to agree that this piece of legislation should go forward.

[ Page 14368 ]

[1905]

Why else have we seen three miscellaneous statutes amendment acts in this session alone? I guess we're in the continuation of last year's session. In any event, what occurs is that legislation is rushed through. There hasn't always been the kind of thoughtfulness that should go into legislation. Errors are made. Whether they are housekeeping errors or otherwise, errors are made because the drafters of the legislation don't know every possible outcome. If they really wanted to have legislation that could be drafted and that we didn't have to amend year after year, they would have gone out to the stakeholders and to the plan members and presented them with the scenarios that could occur as a result of the legislation they're wishing to bring forward. Then and only then would we have the proper ability to canvass the outcomes that will take place and to ask the drafters of the legislation to provide an answer and to ensure that once the legislation is drawn up, it has the full support of the plan members and also that it will not require amendment within six months.

That's what I'm concerned is going to happen. All the correspondence I've received to date indicates that there is an amount of uncertainty as to how this will work, how this will improve for plan members, current retirees, exempt or excluded members, managers, professionals, etc. The members are upset now, which means they will continually be upset, and they will be contacting us throughout the year. I hope they will also contact the members opposite. When they do, it means that we're going to be coming back with a piece of legislation next year called the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 2000. Or if this government is not there, I guess we'll have to make those amendments. But I would hope that we'd get it done right the first time.

If government wants to ensure that all government members and all pension plan members are satisfied, they owe it to hear all those members speak about this. What is consistent through the changes that are requested to be made through the three remaining statutory acts that are being enabled and the two Crown corporation acts that are being enabled is the fact that excluded members and managers have been left out of the process. When I questioned this with the ministry staff, they did concede that that in fact did occur, that the excluded members, the managers, were the only group that appeared to have been left out of the process. I have to ask the government members why that would be. Why would we exclude a particular group? Why would there not have been some effort to ensure that those excluded members had their views expressed and canvassed?

[1910]

I think I have made my concerns known to this government. I have attempted to contact ministry staff to ensure that I have not missed any particular item. I am concerned that this will proceed when it shouldn't be proceeding at this time, so I would like to move that the motion be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the words "six months hence" so that this matter could be allowed to have the full consultation that it requires.

On the amendment.

I. Chong: I'm now speaking to the amendment as to why I believe the six-month hoist is necessary. As I said in my earlier comments, the reason why it's necessary to have this piece of legislation hoisted is because of the lack of consultation -- the lack of consultation that appears to happen time after time with all the legislation that is brought in. But this piece of legislation is that much more significant because it affects a large sector of a particular group, the public sector. We owe it to the public sector -- those who work within these buildings and those who work from without these buildings -- to hear what they have to say. I'm sure that once we allow this bill to be hoisted for six months, we will not only hear from the retired members but also from all the current members. They will have the six months they need to draft the questions they have, to provide them to this government and to provide them, as well, to us. It will give us the time to find the answers which we now do not have and the answers that they will be seeking.

I see the Attorney General here, and I know that he has brought in these miscellaneous statutes amendment acts over the years. Every time that he brings them in, we just wonder if it's going to be the last one. And every time we have an amendment act, we wonder if this is going to be the last amendment act of this session. So I would hope that the Attorney General appreciates the reason why we are requesting this hoist motion -- because we don't want to see an amendment act in two weeks, even. And we don't want to see the Attorney General, and now the Minister of Finance, making more mistakes.

Interjection.

I. Chong: As my colleague says: "He's got an awful lot of work on his desk." I'm hoping it's not because he's having to draft another amendment act in the next few days for us to have to help him correct pieces of legislation that should never have gone through that particular process.

As I stated, the reasons for the hoist motion are quite clear, and I'm not going to go on at length, because I know other members would like to speak on this as well. But it's like any hoist motion, I think, that we introduce in this House. We don't introduce hoist motions frivolously, and I would like to make that point. The only reasons why hoist motions are put forward by members on this side of the House are because we

[ Page 14369 ]

[1915]

As I stated, many people are on holidays and they don't know that this has happened. They had heard that there would be pension legislation being brought in this session, but it wasn't brought in prior to them leaving. Those who were privy to some of the discussions, such as those in the college pension plan, had the opportunity to make the changes as were necessary.

I think that the other statutory pension plan members in the two Crown corporations perhaps thought that they would get that same opportunity and, in so doing, would provide all those changes before their legislation would come forward. I don't think that they expected one document, the one piece of legislation -- an enabling piece of legislation that would provide the framework -- to be brought forward. I think that they expected that they would have the same consideration that those under the Pension (College) Act received, and because they haven't, that makes it that more reasonable to expect that this hoist motion should be approved and that this hoist motion should be supported by government, so that we can get on with doing the business of the people, so that we can get on with ensuring that members of all these pension plans will be adequately represented and that their interests will be protected.

Those questions are out there; they need to be heard. A few people have been able to express them but not everyone. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of people who are members of pension plans and several thousands who are retirees. Each and every one of them should be given the opportunity to speak on this piece of legislation through their representatives, through their organizations or through the process of their annual meetings. None of them will get that opportunity if that bill is allowed to proceed at this time.

So with that, hon. Speaker, I am hopeful that the government will support our hoist motion. I will defer to other members who would like to speak on this motion as well.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to make a few comments also on the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1999 -- Bill 89. Like my colleague from Victoria, I feel that this is another piece of legislation that's being brought forward by this government without consultation, which is something that they continually do year after year after year. All it does it put us into a position that it's not good legislation, and again we have to return to correct the legislation in the following years.

One wonders what the government is trying to create with this piece of legislation. But whatever they're trying to do, it certainly doesn't work. I recall that earlier when the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, before the hoist motion was put forward, started to tell us about the inequities of this bill. The Minister of Finance yelled across the floor and said: "Well, what's wrong with this bill? There's nothing wrong with this bill. In fact, we copied it from Alberta." Well, you know, one wonders. First of all, we all know that Alberta isn't perfect, so. . . .

G. Farrell-Collins: It's just a lot better than you guys.

D. Jarvis: At the same time, are they incapable of making up legislation that's been done properly on their own without copying Alberta?

So it's obvious that it's a bill that doesn't really even have the heart of the government, if they haven't really thought about it themselves and are desperate to the point where they're copying legislation from another province and not fully realizing that this is a bill that's been put forward, as my colleague from Victoria said, without consultation.

I have received calls myself from people in Vancouver and in the lower mainland area with regards to section 1 on the Hydro and Power Authority Act. This is of great concern to them in the fact that there are two groups in B.C. Hydro that are involved in this pension changeover -- this joint trusteeship that the government is trying to put forward. They feel that there is definitely inequity in there. Here we have, in the management and professional employees union or sector, approximately 1,200 employees of B.C. Hydro. They are not going to be represented in this bill. So you've got 1,200 employees there -- professional employees -- who differ from the 4,500, plus or minus, regular employees that are in the union and have a different agreement. So we see that there's an inequity right there to start with.

[1920]

Now, I understand that there are approximately 4,300 retirees that are also going to be involved in this. They will have no representation themselves. There's nothing in this bill that I can see as to where, with the melding of these three groups, they are going to have equal representation in the joint trusteeships, apiece or together.

It's really very poor legislation if this is what they have done, in the sense that all they've done is copy Alberta. Alberta, as I said before, isn't perfect. And if it affects such a large portion of the public sector and they have no voice, then it's obviously poor legislation, brought forward in a rush at the end of a session, that henceforth will become a law that is not satisfactory to the people. The people out there that it affects have had no opportunity to put any type of input into this bill.

That's the story of how bills should be done, anyway. That's probably the problem that we have in this province -- the fact that we don't have a legislative calendar, so we don't have the proper facilities for putting a bill forward and having everyone have input into it. Other jurisdictions, from what I understand -- not having been there -- say that they would have a session like we are having now, and at the end of the

[ Page 14370 ]

All of a sudden, at the last moment of every session I've been in since I was elected in '91. . . . The Attorney General knows full well that he comes up with all these omnibus bills and all the rest of it, with everything that you can think of, and every one of them is supposed to be housekeeping. The housekeeping usually turns into a House mess. The discussions and arguments start, and we have to start changing the statutes all around with the bills.

It's wrong that we should be introducing this at the end of the legislation without the input that's necessary. It's wrong that we see the different sectors that this joint-trusteeship pension will involve not being able to have their own input or equality in discussions as to what's going to happen to their money. And it is their money. That's something we have to consider: they have paid for this, they have put their money into it, so they should have the right to be able to say what is going to be done with their pension. Having said that, I assume that if we don't pass this hoist motion, which I recommend that we do, we will advance to committee stage. Perhaps at that time the government will be prepared to make alternative suggestions with regard to how we can address the concerns of the groups that are upset with the way this bill has been presented to date.

On that point, I would say that I support the hoist motion without question, and I recommend that all the members on the government side, for a change, support the opposition side. This would be to the benefit of everyone involved in this bill, whereas where we're heading now with it, it's going to be a disastrous situation. It'll be upsetting to a great number of people, and there's no necessity for it. Having said that, I would ask that everyone support the hoist motion, as I am going to.

[1925]

I want to be very clear: the joint-trustee provision is not a problem for me, the comanagement is not a problem for me. But there simply has not been fair and equitable consultation. You know, pension plans are about individuals. Where is their voice on this issue? Where's their chance to question, to get clarification, to understand and have a feeling of ownership or at least the feeling that they've had the opportunity for meaningful consultation?

These plans include both union and non-union. . . . Workers of all walks of life that are affected by this legislation are asking questions and asking about the details. Retirees -- where is their opportunity for knowing what's going on, for consultation, for input, for having their questions answered? "How will it work? How will it affect me? Is my pension at risk?"

You know, today in British Columbia there is too much uncertainty. Certainly what we don't need for our workforce, for our pensioners or for our retirees is more uncertainty in British Columbia. We have to put in place a stabilizing factor so that people have some confidence in British Columbia. When workers' pensions are put at risk. . . . They may not be, but when the thought of risk enters their minds, that becomes a stress for them. Surely workers don't deserve that. More importantly, pensioners and retirees do not need additional stress brought before them. They deserve better.

The question that has to be asked -- but more importantly, answered -- is: why not have consultation, especially meaningful consultation, prior to legislation? When legislators rush in legislation, especially when dealing with individuals' rights and entitlements, that causes more uncertainty. The questions are raised: "What are they hiding? What's the rush? What are they going to do with my money? Is my pension going to be lost?"

Let me be very, very clear. Let me say that this is not an attack on joint trusteeship or comanagement. I'm not against those. But why the rush? I've had calls from B.C. Hydro workers and ICBC workers. Why is this government against timely consultation and, as I said earlier, consultation prior to legislation? The question is: why was there not a discussion paper put out and circulated, especially when this government tries to masquerade as caring about workers? Why not put out a discussion paper? Then people can look at it, understand it, perhaps ask questions, get clarification, talk to their co-workers, talk to their fellow pensioners, understand what it's about. What is the problem?

[1930]

I hope that one of the many members sitting across the way tonight will stand and tell us that they support this hoist motion or why they will vote against it and against workers' rights for meaningful, timely consultation on this critical issue of pensions. At a time when the government is at an all-time low in the public opinion polls and its credibility is being questioned, not only by the official opposition but by 80 percent of British Columbians, why the rush? Why does this government not want consultation with the workers? Or is it just another signal of a government in total disarray -- absolutely a government that is pushing, without consultation, on the individual owners of the pension plan? Why? It's a mystery to me.

Pension plans belong to all members, not to a select few -- if that's the case, if that's what's driving this legislation. If it is, the government should stand up and tell us that's what's driving it. But if they truly care about workers, about workers' rights, then they will vote in support of this hoist motion.

Earlier today -- and after some 70 days of me, the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Okanagan-Boundary,

[ Page 14371 ]

I am hopeful that once again, here on July 13 in this Legislature, this government will see the error of its ways and support this hoist motion because they are going to walk the talk -- they are actually going to say that they believe in workers, that they believe in the right for workers to have timely, meaningful consultation, and they're not going to vote against that fundamental right of workers.

In our society what could be more fundamental than your pension plan, than the protection of the right to ownership of your pension plan.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Exactly. As my good friend from Vancouver-Seymour says: "You pay for it, you own it, you must protect it."

[1935]

That's both union and non-union workers, and of course it's the retirees -- the people that have built these organizations, that have built this province. And now we're going to give them uncertainty, in the later stages of their lives, and take away their rights? These people deserve consultation. We must stop the rush. I urge the reasonable government members to join with the opposition members to give workers and retirees the opportunity to understand and to be heard, and then to move forward.

Members, we are only really doing here tonight what you would want done in your particular cases. That's all we're doing here. This is not a special thing for a special group of people. It's about protecting their rights and their pensions. Remember that in the final analysis, it's about those workers, it's about their families, and it's about those workers providing for their families. Surely you would want to have that consultation if it was your family that was going to be impacted.

Fair is fair. If employees and retirees agree after meaningful consultation, so be it. So what can be wrong in supporting a hoist motion that's going to delay it for six months? What can be wrong with giving people the opportunity to understand, to question, to be heard, to have input? And if they agree, put it into place.

Remember, hon. members, this is about protecting people's rights. It's about protecting their ownership rights; it's about protecting their future. I know that most workers would say that it's about protecting their families. Hon. members, I ask you to join with the official opposition today in supporting this hoist motion so that workers, retirees, can have some comfort and certainty as they move forward in their lives in British Columbia.

A. Sanders: I rise to speak in favour of the hoist motion brought forward by my colleague from Oak Bay.

This is a situation where. . . . Normally, pension statutes amendment acts aren't something in my area of expertise, but it's been drawn to my attention by members of my constituency that this is a very, very important issue to them. As has been expressed by my colleagues on this side of the House, delaying this bill for a period of six months would provide much-needed time for individuals who are not in the constituency or in fact in British Columbia at this time -- who are off with their families and children on their holiday destinations, either outside of their home neighbourhood or perhaps out of the province -- to find the opportunity to sit down and really study what the government is planning to do with respect to tinkering with their pension plans.

[1940]

The first letter has some important points, which I'd like to make now. This gentleman says:

"I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to the Hydro Power and Authority Act regarding the management of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority pension plan. The legislative changes, as drafted by the provincial government -- specifically, new clause 37.1 -- provide for B.C. Hydro to enter into a joint management agreement with the trade unions for joint trusteeship of the pension plan. The legislation further defines that the trade union representatives have the power to enter into the agreement on behalf of those employees not represented by the trade unions and that the agreement is binding on those employees not represented by the trade unions."

This gentleman writes on:

"As a B.C. Hydro employee not represented by a trade union, I find this proposed legislation to be very unfair and undemocratic. Those employees who are not members of a trade union need to have equal representation and a democratic say in any discussions that may lead to joint trusteeship of the pension plan.

"I hope that you. . .will recognize the inadequacy of this legislation and fight to ensure that fairness is restored to the proposed legislation before it is proclaimed."

[ Page 14372 ]

The second letter comes from a gentleman who states:

"I am an exempt employee of B.C. Hydro with over 26 years of service, and I have contributed to the B.C. Hydro pension plan throughout my employment. Currently all B.C. Hydro employee groups. . .have equal representation on our pension plan consultative committee. This committee has no basis in statute but is an internal company vehicle which provides employees the opportunity to make representations to B.C. Hydro's corporate management committee and board of directors concerning the provisions of the pension plan. . . .

"My objection to the proposed act is simple. It enshrines in statute trusteeship rights over the pension plan and the pension fund for B.C. Hydro's unionized employees to the exclusion of exempt employees" -- of which this gentleman, who has contributed for 26 years of his employed life, is one. "All B.C. Hydro employees contribute on an equal basis to the pension plan, and this act disenfranchises a certain group."

"The government's motive for this legislation is all too plain, and I object to the obvious meddling in my pension plan to meet a government's political agenda. I am asking you" -- as his MLA -- "to strenuously object to the passage of the Pension Statutes Amendment Act, 1999. Should the act nonetheless pass, I also ask for your commitment after the next election to repeal and revise the provisions of this act to ensure equal representation for all pension plan members."

[1945]

If people are feeling that their pension plans are threatened, this is one of the most uncomfortable feelings that anyone can have. And in my community, where there are many people nearing or at retirement, to not know that they have security in the money that they have set aside -- their deferred income on which they will be living in a time when all costs are rising. . . . If they cannot feel some security that they have control over how that money is going to be disbursed and controlled, you can imagine the kinds of circumstances we're going to have in every retirement home in British Columbia.

If we're going to tinker with people's pensions, and if we're going to do it in the middle of the summer when no one is around, when people don't even know that we're here. . . . For goodness' sake, half the people think we work in Ottawa; they don't even know we're in Victoria. We're doing things that change their entire retirement and their ability to have an equal say rather than have other groups represent them and not have their voices heard collectively. What on earth are we doing here?

This should be a House that brings forward useful workings, useful plans, and that in any case does not do any harm, that brings forward order and organization, and that improves the lives of British Columbians regardless of whether they belong to a union or not, regardless of whether they're retired, going to retire or thinking about retiring, and regardless of whether they're in the middle of their earning-power years and putting money towards their retirement savings. We do not have the right in this House, collectively or individually, to be tampering with people's life savings and their futures when they aren't even around to have a voice, to have any idea of what we're doing here.

I close by saying that I support the hoist motion. I hope this is taken very seriously and with consideration for the people it affects. I hope that we will give people the opportunity to catch up on what we're doing and to remember, as a group, that our voices and our concerns on behalf of British Columbians are to do no harm to our constituents.

G. Farrell-Collins: I want to add my words to the hoist motion put forward by the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. I think there's some real logic to what's being suggested here.

This is one of two pieces of legislation that really go hand in hand: Bill 89 and Bill 95. This is the first one that we're dealing with, and it's the beginning of debate. The comments that have been made by members on this side, in opposition, are all valid. For a bill that's come up in the summer -- it's the middle of July now -- we've received a surprising amount of input. Usually in July, when legislation comes before the Legislature, most people are on holidays. They're manning their barbecues. They're not terribly attuned to what's going on in Victoria. Many don't even know that we're here.

[1950]

My concern with this legislation is that there are a lot of people out there who haven't heard about it yet, who are going to have questions about it -- like the surprising numbers that have already talked to us -- and who, after the fact, are going to say: "What happened? I went away for a week. I come back, and somebody's changed the whole structure of the way my pension plan's going to work." There are the concerns that we raised earlier. There are many concerns by a number of people about how this is going to work and how their pension plan is going to be part of these various agreements. For logical reasons -- for reasons that I think are realistic -- we should be setting this bill and Bill 95 aside for a while to give people a chance to look at them, to talk about what their pension plan and the structure might look like and to give them a chance to comment.

As I said earlier, members of this side of the House are not opposed to the general principle of these two pieces of

[ Page 14373 ]

To do it in this fashion is sort of counterintuitive to what you would think. You would think that if the objective of these bills was to have that public involvement -- to have that involvement from the members who own these plans -- then you'd want to have them also involved in developing the process. I'm very concerned that the government is doing just the opposite of what their intentions are, in that they're going to go out there and offend a whole bunch of people who should be supporting this legislation enthusiastically. Quite frankly, I think there are some leaders of the public sector unions who are going to hear from their members when they find out that this has gone on without their consultation and involvement.

In some cases -- the college plan, for example -- that consultation has happened. But certainly as far as the other pension plans, that hasn't happened in any meaningful way. There are still people who are involved who haven't been consulted at all. Those people in the pension plans that are currently paying into them have had, in some cases, feedback from their unions in the workplace. But there are a lot of pensioners who have not received information which they should have received on what's a fairly significant change to the way their pension is going to be managed, and who have not been made aware that this is happening and what the implications, benefits and risks of that are. It's important that they have a chance to do that.

Members of the opposition are trying to raise that issue. As I said earlier, we're not opposed to the principle of this. If the government was of a mind to set these two bills aside for a period of time, we could withdraw our hoist motion. We could pass second reading on these two bills fairly expeditiously and then let them sit for a couple of months and let that consultation happen. It would provide the government with the opportunity to take some time to go back and discuss it with the members, have those consultations -- leave these two bills on the order paper, having received second reading, approval in principle -- and come back in the spring.

There may be a few amendments that come up, as they do from time to time as bills are examined by the people that are going to be affected by them. Come back when the government calls the House in the spring for the budget, for the throne speech -- I hope we'll have one this year -- prior to proroguing. They could call the House a day or two early, call these bills for committee stage, move them through the House in committee stage and pass them. I think what the government would find is that they'd get better legislation earlier, in fact, because they wouldn't have to go back and amend it next session. They'd get better legislation earlier, and they would have had time to do the consultation with the members of the plans and the pensioners who are also members of the plan, in the intervening period of time.

I know that there are members of the public sector unions that are involved that would be concerned about the bill not going ahead. It's something they agreed to in principle as part of their accords -- to go to this model. But I think that if the House, on both sides, were to give these bills second reading, it would give the assurance that's required that there is a sincere determination to move ahead with it. Just get that consultation out of the way first, hear what people have to say, make whatever small amendments to the bills may be necessary -- as inevitably there are -- and come back and move it through. It wouldn't have to come off the order paper; the bills wouldn't have to be reintroduced. The bills could move forward. I think there's some real logic in that. I hope the government takes us up on that offer, which I think is a constructive way to address the issue that's before us.

[1955]

I think there's a really positive way to go on that. Certainly the same thing with college instructors, many of whom are out for the summer and will come back in the fall -- although there are probably some doing the summer sessions. There are also people in various Crown corporations and agencies, who take time off in the summer, who haven't perhaps been aware that this bill even exists yet. They may not even be in the country. I think they have a right to be consulted before we go ahead with this. I think there's a real logic to that.

Those are people that I know the government likes to consider their supporters -- their core supporters. I would think that in an effort to boost up support amongst those core supporters, the last thing you'd want to do is anger them further, to raise an issue touching at the very heart of their support: their pension plan. I know people work for a long time, as teachers, as people in the public sector. . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: . . .in the municipal sector also, my colleague reminds me. People in a whole range of jobs work long hours for long periods of time to put together a pension plan, something that they can rely upon in their retirement. The last thing you want to do is start delving into people's pension plans without talking to them about it. I know that from personal experience, but. . . . [Laughter.] Sometimes even when you do talk to them about it you get yourself in trouble.

An Hon. Member: Who wrote this speech?

[ Page 14374 ]

I do know that when you get into the area of pensions and you start changing people's pension plans, you get into sensitive areas. People invest a lot of time in that, a lot of their money, and they want to be sure that it's going to be there for them. Given the uncertainty that people have about the Canada Pension Plan, the uncertainty that they have about other investments that they may make: RRSPs -- whether they're going to improve as they have in the past or whether they are hitting a plateau -- all those sorts of things. When you have a public sector pension plan, one of the advantages of working in the public sector is that you've got a guaranteed benefits plan. I know that people want to make sure that that's going to continue to be there for them year after year, that it's going to be there when they retire and that it's going to be there for their spouses or their family members if they happen to pass away.

There are concerns. I have had letters from a number of people about those survivor benefits -- how they're going to be changed with the agreements and the accords that will become part of this structure after those negotiations are complete. All of those things are legitimate questions for those people to be raising. I think that it's really critical that the government take the time to go out and talk to those people; that the union leaders take the time to speak to their members about what they want to do -- about what this is all about, about how it's going to benefit them or not benefit them -- and answer the questions and concerns that they have and move along.

[2000]

People at B.C. Hydro -- the same thing. There are management and professional people at B.C. Hydro who have traditionally had an excluded staff-type pension plan. In the public sector, in the education field, there are people who are excluded staff who have a separate setup for their pension plan, I believe. There are people in the municipal field who have their own pension plan. There are people at ICBC who have one that's particularly pertinent to this piece of legislation. Other Crown agencies, etc., have their pension plans involved in this. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people that have an interest in this -- that have the right, I think, to give their input, to give their suggestions, to be held accountable, to raise the questions and perhaps to provide some answers. I think that it would be very constructive for them to do that.

I don't know. . . . Actually, I do know why the government has a rush to get this done. It's because they agreed to it in an accord with the various public sector unions as part of the last round of negotiations, and they've committed to move forward with it. We're not suggesting that they should not move forward with it. The idea of comanagement or joint trusteeship is something that as a principle I think is a good thing to move into.

I think, though, that they'd be doing everybody a service -- both the leaders of the various public sector unions and the government -- by taking the time to go out and consult with those members, to hear what they have to say, to ask them the questions, to explain to them how this is going to work and to hear what their input is -- also to give them a chance to do the what-ifs, which is what I like to refer to in legislation. There's always: "Well, what if such and such happens? What if this scenario is in place?" You have to go through that exercise and listen to people before you get all of those. Oftentimes somebody comes across a what-if that, when you look at it on the legislation, makes you realize that maybe there's a better way to tweak it, maybe there's a better way to adjust the legislation so that it's better, so that it'll work better for the people who are members of the plan and for the pensioners.

I hope that the government takes that advice. I hope that they take the time, because otherwise it puts us in a position where we have to try and oppose this legislation, raise those issues and try and delay the legislation in order to give the people that are out there a chance to provide their input. I think we could do that in a far more productive way by having them do it through their members, through their representatives, rather than have them do it directly to us, and here in the legislative chamber. As we speak, we're getting other bits of correspondence from people who are out there right now looking at these issues. I think it's important that we have a chance to have those people go through the proper channels, through their representatives, to discuss it, to try and find some structure to these plans and to engage in those negotiations that are going to take place around structuring the various agreements that will then become part of the joint trusteeship. I think that if that's done the proper way, there's going to be a far better sense of closure on this, far more confidence that it's the right way to go and greater assurance amongst those people that their interests are being taken into consideration for the long term. I hope the government takes that advice.

I know that others of my colleagues have some comments they would like to make. I know that we're getting calls in our constituency offices and letters, e-mails, etc., from people that are asking questions, that are concerned. Some of those questions are very nebulous, very general; some of them are very specific.

I think that perhaps the way to do that is to have them talk to the people that will be administering their plans, to have the time to sort that out, as opposed to moving ahead with this now and leaving the consultation for some later date. Inevitably, what will happen is that next year we'll come back in the spring and there will be an amendment act -- a pension statutes amendment act -- that will be dealing with the legislation we're passing now, as a result of the consultation that's gone on in the intervening period. There will also end up being a public sector pensions amendment act that will deal with the problems that are going to be in Bill 95 -- because inevitably there will be something. There will be a glitch, there will be a drafting problem, there will be an error, and those types of things will pop up over the next number of months as people go back to work in the fall and look at those bills, look at the legislation. As the unions and the government and the managers engage in those negotiations to create the new

[ Page 14375 ]

[2005]

C. Hansen: As we consider this amendment that's before us today, the amendment to hoist this bill on second reading, I think it's important that we put it in a perspective as to where we're at in this particular session and the kind of legislation that's come down since this House reconvened at the end of March. First of all, where we're at in this session: we're in the final few days of this particular session of the Legislature. Whether it's going to wrap up in four or five days or at the end of next week or the week after is something that we can't say at this particular point. I think a lot probably depends on how the government treats this particular piece of legislation that's before us.

But if you look at the various pieces of legislation that have come down since March, most of them have been quite innocuous. They've been housekeeping legislation. They've been pieces of changes to legislation and new legislation that I think in most cases probably come out of some of the very dedicated people that we have in the public service. It certainly is not things that have been driven by the NDP caucus or indeed the cabinet.

[B. Goodacre in the chair.]

So now we are in the very final days of this session, and we have a piece of legislation that comes down that makes a fundamental change to the way our pension plans are administered in this province. We have to be a little bit suspicious. I think the public and pensioners and future pensioners have a right to be very skeptical about what's embodied in this particular piece of legislation, because it didn't come down early on in this session when all of this other rather innocuous legislation was going through the House. Rather, they waited until July -- the dog days of July, basically, when people are leaving for vacations.

The last thing people are probably doing is watching television, especially watching the legislative channel -- although I'm sure that there are a few people at home tonight watching this and thinking this is somehow a bizarre rerun of something that happened many weeks or months ago. But no -- this is live. This is July 13 at ten after eight in the evening -- live and exciting summer television for anybody that wants to enjoy it. The truth of the matter is that, by far, the majority of individuals who are directly affected by Bill 89 are not watching the legislative channel tonight. In fact, they're probably not really paying attention to what's happening with the politics of Canada or British Columbia. Maybe they might tune in again in September, once they've enjoyed some family time over the summer.

We have to be a bit skeptical about why this legislation was introduced to the House on July 5, eight days ago. Eight days ago was when we first saw this piece of legislation and realized that it's a fairly complicated piece of legislation. We as the official opposition have a responsibility to do due diligence on this. We as legislators are obviously here. . . . It doesn't matter whether it's July, August or December 24. We have an obligation to do the people's business when we're called upon to do it. But let's be realistic about what our responsibility is with this kind of legislation.

I do not pretend to be an expert on pensions in Canada. We have a very talented caucus. We have people from all walks of life. We have people who are chartered accountants. We have people who are lawyers. We have people, like myself, who have run small businesses. We have people who have been teachers, principals, doctors, veterinarians and ranchers. We've got a whole range of expertise in the B.C. Liberal caucus. But I don't think any one of us could stand up in this chamber and say that we have the expertise to determine the implications and nuances of some of the provisions that are in the particular bill that's before us.

[2010]

Our responsibility as an opposition is to go out to the public and seek that expertise. That's very difficult to do in the middle of July. It's very difficult to go out and find people who can give us that kind of input on not one, two or three pension plans but on four pension plans that are being amended in a substantial way and in different ways. There's no one person that you could go out to, to find out what the implications of this are. Most importantly, it's not the experts that we've got to listen to. It's the people who are directly affected by this legislation.

We had that debate on Bill 58, when this government brought in legislation that was going to give the pension administrators, as designated by the cabinet or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the power to actually take someone's pension away from them just because they had the nerve to go and work in a non-union organization. The excuse that we had from the government was: "Well, that's not really going to affect very many people." Potentially, it could affect thousands of people, but they say: "It's only going to really affect maybe a couple hundred people." Those are a couple hundred real British Columbians, people who are directly affected. Their future and their ability to have an income during their retirement years is directly affected by the changes made in this chamber.

When we first started raising a fuss about Bill 58, there were a lot of people that said: "Well, it's just pension legislation. Who can get excited about pension legislation?" But as more and more people started to pay attention to the changes being made in that bill, more and more people started to write, fax and phone us. I had an individual who was directly affected by that piece of legislation actually come and knock on the front door of my house. It was going to totally destroy his ability to finance his retirement. He'd looked at a small

[ Page 14376 ]

Today we have Bill 89 before us. I must confess that nobody has yet knocked on the door of my house to say that they're going to get screwed because of the provisions of Bill 89. The reason for that is because there hasn't been the opportunity for dialogue. People have not yet had the opportunity to appreciate the ramifications of what's in Bill 89. It's only been on the floor of this House since July 5; there hasn't been time for that debate. Certainly the middle of July is the worst time that we could expect a meaningful debate and for people to have the opportunity to take a serious look at the implications of this particular legislation.

One of the things that is very customary when it comes to changes to pensions in Canada -- it's a tradition, it's a custom -- is to put out a discussion paper, to put out draft legislation for discussion. These are changes that profoundly affect people's lives, not just for next week. It's not something that's going to make a difference in what somebody does for a week in the middle of July or a week next November. These are changes that will affect their pension benefits, that will affect them for the remainder of their days on this earth.

[2015]

The custom that has been in Canada is for this kind of a change to be put out in a draft form and circulated for at least a year, so that people can appreciate how these changes are going to affect their pension and their ability, through that pension, to finance their retirement and perhaps their retirement with their spouse, and their ability to enjoy life. For a lot of people, that's a big part of what they're putting in, in their working lives. It's not just to get the paycheque; it's to get the security. It's to build up that pension that they need for the rest of their lives.

I often hear members from the government side of the House talking about how there are employers in this province who don't provide pensions for their workers, and they say how terrible that is. Well, it's just as terrible to start manipulating those pensions without input from those who are going to be directly affected by it.

I would like to ask: why the rush on this particular piece of legislation? I must say that there are no provisions in it about which I would say: "Yes, I'm going to vote against that." But there are certainly provisions in it that give me a lot of questions. So if the government is sincere in trying to do the right thing for pensioners in British Columbia, they would certainly park this legislation long enough to give reassurance to those pensioners out there who are going to be affected by it. Right now they have every reason to be skeptical, every reason to be nervous about how these particular changes are going to affect their pensions in the future.

I think my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain pointed out how, strange as it may seem, there have been errors made in legislation passed by this government.

An Hon. Member: No.

C. Hansen: I know it's hard to believe that they would actually make mistakes. In fact, it's interesting that in Bill 89 there is actually a provision that they call housekeeping, and I guess this particular section really is. It's an amendment to section 65(2)(n) of the Pension (Public Service) Act. Do you know what that particular section does? It corrects a section reference in the legislation, because the current legislation refers to a section that doesn't even exist. That's an amendment that's in Bill 89.

But I think what it does is point to the fact that when legislation is rushed in this chamber, mistakes get made. In fact, during this session alone, in the last three months we've had to consider bills that were before us that made corrections to bills that were passed earlier in this very same session. That is the kind of mistake that a government makes when it tries to rush legislation. In Bill 89, that's exactly what we have before us today.

I remember one piece of legislation that actually went out for considerable discussion, the Builders Lien Act. There was substantial public debate on that. It was circulated in a draft form, which is the right thing to do. Even after all of that consultation there were still provisions that nobody appreciated the ramifications of, and subsequently amendments had to be made before those sections could be proclaimed.

We have to ask: when Bill 89 gets introduced and rushed through without any public discussion, without any opportunity for due diligence, without any provision for pensioners in this province to give consideration to how it's going to affect their pensions. . . ? I have to ask: what kinds of mistakes are contained in this bill that we will not have the opportunity to catch if the government insists on ramming this thing through with such short notice?

[2020]

Let's look for a minute at some of the provisions in this particular piece of legislation. I think it will start to give a scope of the magnitude of what some of these changes are. First of all, as I understand it, these changes were introduced as a result of accords that were reached between the government and the trade unions. We've had a couple of examples in the last year of accords that were secretly negotiated between the government. . . . In fact, the Premier's own chief accord negotiator, Tony Penikett, who was brought in to negotiate these deals, as we know, is a former NDP Premier of the Yukon. He certainly comes to that position with a certain ideological bent.

Out of the Premier's Office we had these accords that were being negotiated. We had one accord that was basically going to threaten independent providers of training services in British Columbia. We had another accord that was going to threaten the private labs in British Columbia that we are so familiar with if we have to go get a blood test done. We had the same accord that was going to provide for those that provide rehab services, those small companies that provide rehab services in the province to either WCB or ICBC; they were going to be threatened.

We have seen the implications of some of these private, secret negotiations that go on between government and the unions, and here we have another one. Here we have legislation that's coming forward as a result of one of those negotiations. That, given the track record of some of these other accords, is further reason for us to be just a little bit concerned about what's contained in this particular piece of legislation.

[ Page 14377 ]

We've got changes to disability pensions contained in Bill 89. In fact, we have another whole definition coming in for someone who's totally and "permanently disabled," and written right into the definition is a provision whereby permanently disabled is expected to last for the remainder of the person's lifetime. These are not casual changes. These are changes that have fundamental and lifelong ramifications for these people. Anybody who is a member of these plans has a right to be concerned.

We have changes in terms of the joint life and last-survivor benefits -- in fact, specifically, amendments to these four plans to restrict who a plan member may name as a joint annuitant for the joint life and last-survivor pension options. Under the old provisions -- under the provisions that are currently in place -- a plan member can actually designate anyone they choose as a joint annuitant. We're going to start restricting that. Who says you can restrict that? What about the plan member who wants that kind of flexibility in his plan? Has this government talked to that person? No. Has it talked to the union representative of that person? I expect so. But what about the discussion in terms of those who are actually going to be affected by it?

What we have seen time and time again in this House, in terms of legislation brought in by this government, is legislation that's in the best interests of the trade union leadership and not necessarily to the benefit of the individual trade union membership. That's not to say that Bill 89 falls into that category, but we're not going to know that unless there's adequate time to put this out for good, adequate public discussion.

We see changes in here to the temporary annuity for a beneficiary. Just to explain, the amendment repeals provisions which currently allow for a temporary annuity to be paid to a beneficiary. So again we see provisions that are not going to expand the pension rights of workers today but in fact are going to start restricting them. That's not something that I would be prepared to vote for in this House until I got good and adequate feedback, not only from people who are pension experts in this province but also from individual workers who are going to be directly affected by it.

[2025]

There are changes in this that affect some of the very specific pension plans that we've talked about. The college plan, for example, is going to introduce a change in calculating a pension for college pension plan recipients. Again, when you start tinkering with the formulas that are used to determine a pension eligibility, let's make sure that there's the public input and the dialogue on what that means.

There are also changes to the enrolment provision for individuals who are working at our colleges in British Columbia. It's to make enrolment mandatory for all employees who meet minimum earnings thresholds. That may sound like a good thing offhand, but what are the implications of it? What does that do in terms of the viability of these plans? What does that do in terms of the freedom of choice of individuals who are working in term positions, perhaps, at colleges around British Columbia? Those are the kinds of questions that we as legislators have an obligation to ask and to get answers to before we proceed with this kind of legislation.

There are also amendments contained in Bill 89 that are going to adjust the allocation of contributions between the basic and inflationary accounts of that pension plan. Again, that's not up to government to decide; that's not up to trade union negotiators to decide. That's up to individual workers to have input and an opportunity to decide. If they want to give direction to their trade union leaders in terms of how to negotiate, a mandate to negotiate. . . . Where have we heard that one before -- government proceeding without a mandate to negotiate? It might be a very novel approach for this government to actually go out and seek that kind of input.

One of the other pension plans that is directly affected is the municipal pension plan. Here it's going to provide for a change to the reduction formula applied to contributors who are eligible for a deferred pension, specifically meaning those who terminate employment prior to age 55. Again, if you go back to Bill 58, we see the ramifications of this government trying to manipulate pension benefits of those who take early retirement. That is not something that a government should be manipulating and changing without adequate input.

In terms of the municipal plan, we also see changes that affect the private, for-profit health care providers. I know this is one that the Minister of Health will be very interested in. In fact, when I sit down after I complete my remarks, I would welcome the Minister of Health to stand up and explain to this House exactly what these changes mean. I bet that she doesn't know how the changes to the municipal pension plan will, in the future, affect workers at our private, for-profit health care facilities in British Columbia.

When you start looking at the future of health care and our ability to meet long-term needs -- it's a point I had made earlier in this session -- we need that partnership between government, not-for-profit and the for-profit providers of long-term facilities in this province. If we want to have that kind of partnership in the future -- if you want to make sure that the needs of seniors are met in the future when it comes to nursing homes and long term care homes -- we need to make sure that the workers in those facilities are adequately provided for.

Part of that responsibility on the part of this Legislature is to ensure that they have pension benefits that meet their needs, not something that's going to be imposed upon them by government with only a few hours of debate in this chamber, a piece of legislation that's introduced and then passed before any worker in any of those facilities even realizes that they are going to be directly affected.

[ Page 14378 ]

[2030]

We also have a provision in Bill 89 that's going to allow for the transfer of certain employees from the municipal pension plan to the teachers' pension plan. Again, do those particular workers who are currently in the municipal pension plan appreciate how that is going to affect their pensions? I doubt it, because there has not been that kind of dialogue. There hasn't been that kind of input.

In terms of the public service plan, we also find that there are changes to the age and service rules for an unreduced pension for those members retiring on or after April 1, 2000. Again, these are not frivolous changes. These are not housekeeping changes. These are changes that affect real people with real lives who have a real retirement that they have to make sure is provided for. We need that kind of discussion.

The other provision that we heard of -- I guess the last significant one that I want to touch upon -- is the joint trusteeship between the B.C. Hydro plan and the ICBC pension plan. Again, what we have seen is those two plans being forced into a merger without public discussion and without the input from those who are directly affected by it. As some of my colleagues have mentioned earlier, we have had all kinds of input from individuals who are going to be affected by this and who are nervous about what it means. Given the way this government is trying to ram it through, my fear is that they have cause to be concerned. It is only with proper dialogue and explanation that those fears can either be realized or allayed. I think that's what's important.

Before I turn this debate over to one of my colleagues, I ask the government members to support this. Or at least go out in the hall and find your House Leader and tell her privately. You know, if you don't want to stand up and vote against your own caucus in this chamber, go out of the House, find her and tell her that this is something that we should park. This is not something that has to be dealt with in July of 1999.

I heard the plea from the member for Columbia River-Revelstoke yesterday at the start of proceedings, when he basically begged for divine intervention -- that we allow ourselves to get through the remaining days of this session so that we can spend some time this summer with our families. The same sentiment was echoed earlier today in the prayer from the Minister of Agriculture, when he sought that kind of divine assistance so that we get through this particular session quickly and enjoy part of the summer back in our own communities. One way that those prayers can be realized is to ensure that this particular piece of legislation is parked -- that we don't have to continue debating this particular piece of legislation for the next several days and wondering why. What is it about the government's agenda that means it has to be forced through with such urgency? It's not urgent. This legislation should be parked.

It should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services or any other one of the committees of this House. That's a particular standing committee that, like most of the standing committees in this Legislature, has never met -- certainly in the time that I've been a member. And I think it probably goes back several decades -- the last time it ever met and did the people's business. This is a perfect opportunity to send this legislation to a standing committee and allow members of the House who sit on that committee to go out and do the public discussions. Certainly I don't mind doing that in some days during the summer or the fall to make sure we get that kind of input from the public -- from those people who are directly affected by it -- and to make sure that as we proceed with this legislation, we're doing something that's in the best interest of workers in British Columbia and in the best interest of pensioners. Only then do I think that we as legislators have the moral right to vote for this legislation.

[2035]

This is an important bill. It's an innocuously titled bill: the Pension Statutes Amendment Act. Well, we've seen innocuously titled bills before in this House. I can remember one bill that they called a miscellaneous statutes act. Pretty innocuous; I don't think you could get any more innocuous than that. What did that bill do? That bill retroactively changed the law to stop people from being able to pursue a right that they had to sue the government. It made the government immune, retroactively, from the laws of this country. Now, that's not an innocuous thing for a government to do, but it was contained in a pretty innocuously titled act.

That's not the kind of thing that the people expect the government to do with just a stroke of the pen. But it was contained in an innocuously titled act that was introduced to this House in the dog days of summer. And that's what the government is proposing to this House today -- that we pass an innocuously titled act in the dog days of summer.

I am not going to suggest that this act contains anything quite so nefarious as that miscellaneous statutes act that I referred to. Nonetheless, don't we all have a right to be suspicious when we look at this government's record of legislation in the dead of summer, at the last minute, when they're hoping against hope that the public has turned off their television sets and aren't necessarily paying attention anymore, when they're hoping that people have gone away for the summer and have tuned out from politics altogether?

As my colleague mentioned, there may not be many people who are paying attention to the legislative channel these days. There might be a few. If there are: "Hi, Mom; I know you're watching." But I don't know how many other people are necessarily paying attention to the chamber at 20 to nine in the middle of summer, while we pass -- while we're being asked to pass -- an apparently innocuously titled act.

The government certainly doesn't have a record to be proud of when it comes to introducing legislation in the summer. This is the time that they always choose, in the hope that nobody is paying attention, to introduce their most con

[ Page 14379 ]

Look at the labour legislation that they tried to introduce and were forced to withdraw. They tried to introduce. . . . Well, they did introduce it, hoping that no one would be around to protest it. They waited until the very end. Or there are the agriculture bills that they've introduced in this session. Wait until the end of summer. That's a sneaky way to run the government. I don't think British Columbians want their government run that way. I think British Columbians want their government to be run out in the open, when they're paying attention. They want it to be run in a way that includes them.

[2040]

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Why don't we have committees running in British Columbia? I made a speech last week for a crowd that was astonished to realize that the committee system in British Columbia doesn't even work. This government is so consistently scared of going out and meeting with the public and hearing from them that the committees that people get appointed to every year. . . . Despite the fact that the committees exist, despite the fact that MLAs get appointed to sit on those committees every year, despite the fact that a Chair is named, that the Chair gets paid. . . . Despite all those facts, the committees don't meet.

The crowd that I was speaking to was astonished to realize that the Education Committee hadn't met since 1973. I mean, think about that. Think about the changes that have happened in education. Think about what's happened to education funding and the very tough decisions that school boards have had to make about where that funding goes. Are they going to cut crossing guards? Are they going to cut special needs teachers? Those are the kinds of decisions that school boards are making. The Legislature is forcing those decisions on them with its budget cuts. But who is going out to ask the public where those savings should come from? Who is going out to include them in the process? That's why the committees exist -- to go out and talk to people.

This is the same kind of process that we're proposing here today -- not necessarily that this be referred to a committee but certainly that there be the opportunity for the government to go out and speak to the public and consult with them about what this legislation should look like. I suspect that the public does have an interest in the way pensions are structured in British Columbia, just as much as they have an interest in the way education is funded and the way health care is delivered in our province.

We've seen dramatic changes in our health care system, in the way that we fund it and in the kinds of services that we provide for people. But I'd like to know when the committee's going to meet to talk to people about what kinds of changes they would like to see in their system. Health care, education and pensions -- all of those issues affect every British Columbian every day. In the end, government belongs to them. These decisions belong to the people. The government isn't here just to govern -- to tell people what to do, give them direction and expect that they'll obey. The government is here to take direction from the people and to listen to what British Columbians would like to see -- how they'd like to see their province built.

You know, the longer we spend ignoring the public, pushing them away from building public policy, the more they'll become alienated from the system, the less they'll see any point in participating in government. That is not a healthy thing. I'm sure that every member of the House could find some reason to concur with that.

We have to find every opportunity that we can to include the public again in their system. Remind them that this is their government. Like it or lump it, the system belongs to them, and they should be the ones that have the final say in the choices that the system makes for them. They're the ones that should be put back in the driver's seat, and that's what we're trying to offer to the government today -- an opportunity to re-engage the public in a debate about what's going to happen to something that's very important to them.

[2045]

It must be a real source of concern for all of us, and the polls confirm this, that people in the younger age groups in British Columbia -- 35 and younger; people of my generation and below -- are less and less engaged in government than any other generation before them, less and less likely to want to vote, less and less likely to see any point in being engaged in government, less and less likely to believe that there's anything they can do to change the direction of government. What will happen?

You know, today there are two or three or four generations ahead of them that are still voting, that were raised in a system where they did engage in government, where people believed that voting was an absolute duty you had to defend. Many of those people were people who could remember all the sacrifices that were made, very directly, to try and defend those rights in various wars. What will happen when this generation of 35 and younger gets to the other end of the generations in Canada -- and the generations after them? What about when the 35-year-olds are 75? Who will be voting anymore in Canada? Who will care? Who will want to be engaged in government if we don't take these opportunities that are before us now to try and engage people?

Surely there is no issue that would engage the public more than pensions. We know that, and every member of the government must know that, because of what happened on

[ Page 14380 ]

Well, you know what? Whatever your ideological views, the fact is that pension money belongs to pensioners. People put that money aside, and it's their money. For government to come in high-handedly to try and suspend that right with a stroke of the pen in the dead of summer, when they hope that nobody's noticing, is absolutely, fundamentally wrong. And worse than that, the way the government did it was just plain sneaky. British Columbians deserve better than that from their government. They deserve to know that their government is acting in their best interests.

So here we have another pension act. Here we have another pension act when we know that British Columbians are excited and engaged in this issue, when we know that British Columbians care very profoundly about what's happening with their pensions. Here we have an opportunity to go talk to them and find out what they think about this bill, and instead the government is proposing -- with another pension bill -- that we should just pass it along in the dead of summer, in the late evening, in the dying days of a session. Perhaps the dying days of the session will be, hopefully, at the end of a government's term.

You know, it's time we went out and asked people what they thought of this -- find out what they think when governments mess with their pensions. It is a frightening prospect, I'm sure, to be facing your pensionable years, not many years down the road, and wondering what's happening to your government-controlled pension.

[2050]

So why not spend six months educating the public about what this would mean and making sure that people are entirely comfortable with the intentions of the bill before moving forward with it? Why not go out and spend the time to educate, to make sure that you allay people's fears, to make sure that you put aside their suspicions, which have been quite rightfully raised by this government's very disgraceful record with respect to pensions, with this government's disgraceful record with respect to passing controversial legislation in the middle of summer, with this government's disgraceful record of moving forward with legislation that they know will offend people, and never ever once going out and speaking to them?

Even if you put all that other stuff aside, even if you put aside the fact that this bill is attempting to change something that is so profoundly important in people's lives, do you know another thing that the government might find out? The government might find out from talking to its own people that are drawing up legislation that it's not necessarily always a good idea to rush things. Because guess what: the government sometimes makes mistakes. Who would believe it, huh? Who would believe it -- that this government might the odd time make a mistake in drawing up its legislation?

I know there are members of the government who will say vigorously, will tell us with the full force of their beliefs, that government can do anything it darn well pleases. I know there are members of the cabinet that believe that, but you know, that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean that government can go ahead and just make mistakes because it can.

We just went through a bill tonight looking at the Municipal Act -- the Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, Bill 88 -- which has just been introduced to this House in the last week or so, and I am holding before me six pages in small type of amendments that the government has moved to amend its own bill that it just introduced. This is another bill that the government is trying to rush through. Well, thank goodness the government gave themselves a couple of days to go through and read it, because once they did, they found eight pages of amendments. What would have happened, I wonder, if the government had spent a month looking at the bill? Would they have found more amendments?

You know, these are what we call friendly amendments. They are amendments that the government introduces because the government recognizes it's wrong. The government recognizes they made a mistake. Some of them are small amendments; some of them are changing "oiling" with a comma to "oiling" with a period. Some of them are just what you might want to characterize as typos. Some of them are substantial; some of them talk about who gets to participate in discussions of matters that are before council. Some of them are very substantial.

Nonetheless, the point is that there are eight pages of amendments that the government has been able to come up with in just a matter of days to its own bill that it has introduced. My goodness, that's where you're talking about the municipal standards acts. I would argue quite forcefully before this House that the public cares a heck of a lot more what happens with their pensions than they do what happens with the Municipal Act. This is a heck of a lot more important to them.

What about the mistakes that are undoubtedly contained in this bill, in Bill 89? Don't we have a duty to spend some time going out and fixing those mistakes if they're there, spend some time going through them carefully with a fine-toothed comb -- going through them, moreover, with the assistance of the public who are going to potentially be profoundly affected by this bill? Don't we have a duty to go out and talk to some of the experts?

One of my colleagues mentioned that it is standard practice across the country to go out and seek the advice of experts through discussion papers when you propose amendments to pensions, when you go out and change a pension act. The government didn't do that with Bill 58. They didn't do that when they proposed to suspend pension benefits for people working in the building trades and such. They didn't do that with this bill. Why not go out and talk to the experts?

[ Page 14381 ]

[2055]

The public is quite right to be suspicious about this government's direction. The public has every reason to believe that any bill that this government -- this government that the public no longer trusts, that the public no longer supports, that the public has given its trust to and has been betrayed by so many times; this government that is sitting at 14 to 16 percent in the polls; this government that is being led by a Premier who has been so thoroughly disgraced; this government that is being led by a cabinet that has proven itself to be so utterly incompetent that it has driven the British Columbia economy from number one in Canada to number ten; this government that is made up of ministers who are at the bottom of the barrel of ideas; this government that has utterly lost its moral compass and its moral right to lead our province; this government that British Columbians are absolutely desperate to issue their verdict on. . . . If there was ever a government that British Columbians have a right to be suspicious of, it's that crew over there.

You know what? If they won't give us an election, if they won't drop the writ tomorrow, if they won't go out and speak to British Columbians about this bill, then they should hoist it. They should hoist it and at least let them look at it, at least give them a chance to find out what's going on with their pensions. Goodness knows, it's profoundly important to enough of them that they should have a right to find out what's going on.

I'll end my comments with that, and I'll move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported Bill 88 complete with amendment, was granted leave to sit again.

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

Hon. P. Priddy: Now, with leave, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Bill 88, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.

The Speaker: And when shall the committee sit again?

Hon. P. Priddy: Next sitting, hon. Speaker.

Hon. P. Priddy moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999
(continued)

T. Nebbeling: Very briefly, section 52 is related to business licences. Maybe the minister can explain why this section is in this statute, when at the same time we're dealing with Bill 88, where almost similar subsections are incorporated in the bill. Can the minister explain why it is done in two different bills?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there was some question as to whether or not Bill 88 might not go through -- well, before that was introduced. That's why it was put in the Miscellaneous. . . . If Bill 88 goes through, these sections may not be proclaimed.

T. Nebbeling: That's exactly what I really wanted to know. If Bill 88 gets proclaimed and we have a similar statute in this bill, we would have a problem, because they're different again. That was really the only question I had on that section.

Sections 52 to 57 inclusive approved.

Section 63 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move the committee at its rising report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The Chair: I call the committee to order on Bill 82.

FORESTS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

[1440]

G. Abbott: I don't want to spend a lot of time on section 1. But I tried to compare it with the pre-existing section and found it too painful to try to sort it through in my mind. So I'll ask the minister, through staff, to provide a brief explanation of what changes with the introduction of section 1.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In brief, we are doing some things by policy that we now wish to. . . . The policy has become established practice; we want to make sure that the legal basis for that is fairly clear. So we're making clear that we can approve one or more applications -- as (a) or (b) says, "approve an

[ Page 14382 ]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to 2 that's standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 2(a), by deleting the proposed section 48(1)(g) of the Forest Act and substituting the following:

(g) a person who

(i) requires Crown timber for a traditional and cultural activity, within the meaning prescribed for the phrase "traditional and cultural activity", and

(ii) is not selling the timber to others.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This section adds another category of free use permit, for traditional and cultural purposes. The House amendment is designed to provide for traditional and cultural activities to be defined in regulation. My staff briefed members of the opposition about the provision as it stood, which left the interpretation of "traditional and cultural" to district managers -- and/or, presumably, the courts could ultimately be brought in to determine this.

My staff relayed your concerns to me. I agreed that the categories of traditional and cultural purposes should be explicitly laid out for the guidance of both the Forest Service and the public. The definition needs to be crafted carefully and may need the flexibility that regulations can provide in order to respond quickly to any issues that arise concerning the uses of the new permit, particularly with respect to timber allocation or revenue. The House amendment also repeats the fact that the new free use permit cannot be used in order to acquire timber to sell to others.

G. Abbott: The impact of the amendment will be that at some point, whether in legislation or regulation, the ministry will be providing a definition of the phrase "traditional and cultural activity," which will then guide the ministry and presumably the courts in interpreting what that is, if indeed it's challenged at some point. Is that a correct understanding?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. It gives us the flexibility to change the definition to suit the purposes; that's exactly right. This amendment simply says that that will be defined by regulation.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

On section 3.

[1445]

[SECTION 3 (c), by deleting the proposed section 49 (2.1) of the Forest Act and substituting the following:

(2.1) The district manager or a forest officer authorized by the district manager, in prescribed circumstances, may enter into a free use permit authorized under section 48 (1) (g) for a volume exceeding 50 m3, but not exceeding 250 m3.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The effect of this provision is that the issuance of traditional cultural free use permits specifying a volume greater than 50 cubic metres and up to 250 cubic metres will be guided by the circumstances listed in regulation. Again, it's the same rationale as for the previous amendment that I proposed and we just passed. Some issues were brought up about the fact that these are rather large amounts -- five to six interior highway truckloads -- and so there should be explicit guidance as to when this might happen. We might anticipate that it would speak to the issue of the size of community projects that might be involved that would qualify for something like 250 cubic metres.

G. Abbott: I thank the minister for that explanation, and I think the amendment is in the right direction in terms of taking care of the concern that we expressed during the briefing. The minister is obviously going to go back and think about this, but I do think there may be better ways to deal with the occasional need for volumes of that magnitude -- 250 cubic metres or five to six truckloads of logs -- than doing it through this means. I won't belabour the point now, but I think the ministry will want, for their own concerns, to take a second look at that and see if there might be some better way of dealing with this occasional need -- I presume -- or occasional demand on the part of the public to the ministry. I'm happy to let this go through that way.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

G. Abbott: Again, I think it's important that we clarify the intent of section 6 for the record, because it involves annual allowable cut, and it's obviously an important area. I would just like to get a brief explanation here from the minister of the public policy intent of this section.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The intent is to ensure that there won't be any overharvesting in the timber supply area that's affected by individual forest practices agreements.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: On section 9, I move the amendment to section 9 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 9 (c), by deleting the proposed section 84 (3) of the Forest Act and substituting the following:

(3) A person must not

(a) store unscaled timber in decks or piles on Crown land or, in prescribed circumstances, on private land, or

[ Page 14383 ]

(b) remove or transport unscaled timber from Crown land or private land

unless the timber has been conspicuously marked in the prescribed manner with a timber mark that pertains to that land.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Section 9 adds a new marking provision that requires a person to mark timber stored in decks or piles on Crown or private land. The House amendment restricts this requirement on private land by requiring regulations to be made that specify the circumstances under which a person would be required to mark timber stored on private land. The amendment ensures that this new marking requirement on private land will only be used where necessary -- for example, in cases where the person intends to transport the timber from the private land and already has timber marked for that purpose. It makes it clear that if timber is stored on that private land for consumption on that private land, the marking isn't required.

G. Abbott: Just so we're clear, I guess that sections 8 through 10, around the marking of logs. . . . Is there any public policy aim here, apart from the prevention of theft of logs?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This really is one of these amendments that follows from the auditor general's report. It really has to do with tracking to prevent theft.

[1450]

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

G. Abbott: I appreciate the briefing on section 14 which the minister's staff provided me and my colleagues with. But I do just want to quickly review for the record what the process is going to be for the Nisga'a final agreement implementation. As I understand the process from the briefing -- and, indeed, from our discussions earlier during the forest resources chapter debate in the big House -- the chief forester will be doing an assessment or an appraisal of the timber supply in this area after the agreement has been ratified. At that point, as I recall, it will be left to the regional district managers to determine the effect of that, or to the ministry to determine subsequent changes to licences as a consequence of the determination by the chief forester. I think that's a simple explanation of what section 14 is about, but perhaps the minister would like to add to the record some points about how this is going to work.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The chief forester alone will determine the allowable annual cut on the TFL. On the forest licences in the TSLs, the chief forester would again set the AAC. Because there are more holders -- there's only one holder in the TFL -- the apportionment will be a ministerial decision.

G. Abbott: That's fine. Under "Award of licences" -- I guess it would be called sub 178 -- the reference to contractors and subcontractors. . . . The "Award of licences" section, as I read it, is simply a statement that the ministry may award a licence, without advertising, to a contractor, subcontractor or agreement holder that has been adversely affected by the implementation of the Nisga'a final agreement. Is that a crude restatement of what is intended by this section of the bill?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, your phrasing of it is correct.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

G. Abbott: Section 15 takes us to the changes to the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act. Section 15 appears to be straightforward. It adds two new definitions to the Forest Practices Code list of definitions. One is a definition of "maintain" in relation to a road and "modify" in relation to the repair of a road. Could the minister advise as to the reasons why these definitions are being added to the Forest Practices Code Act at this point in time?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me read from a letter that I will be sending to Ron MacDonald of COFI in response to the concerns that they raised. I haven't sent the letter yet, but it's there for signature.

"The writers of the original act requirements and this amendment prepared this section to address another issue altogether; that was to establish which works required approved designs, and the question of what constituted maintenance was considered no more than a resulting clarification of the intent of the existing legislation and regulations.

"Current wording in the act provides for a district manager to delegate maintenance responsibilities to an industrial user of a Forest Service road. The term 'maintenance' has not been previously restricted through legislation to surface items only, such as road grading, brushing, ditch cleaning and similar items, and it could include structural items such as resurfacing, slide repairs, culvert repairs or replacement, or bridge repairs or replacement."

[1455]

G. Abbott: I think that takes care of my principal concern with this section -- that is, that it not provide the ministry with an ability which they previously didn't possess to off-load responsibilities onto, for example, the licensees for maintaining Forest Service roads.

The distinction between "maintain" and "modify" is one that I'm still struggling with a bit here. It would seem to me that when it comes to logging roads or Forest Service roads, there would be just an enormous grey area when you get to determining what's modifying and what's maintaining. If a culvert, for example, is damaged or washes out, would that be

[ Page 14384 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Using the example you gave, if a culvert washes out, unless it were just a tiny little culvert somewhere, I'm advised that it would require some design. Somebody has to say that that will be a safe and effective non-contaminating replacement. The example that you used -- a washed-out culvert -- for all intents and purposes will be a modification.

G. Abbott: So maintenance is those things that a licensee or any other stakeholder -- presumably, the government itself -- could do without planning and design; modification is something that would embrace or involve planning and design. Is that the distinction?

[1500]

G. Abbott: That's fine; I'm sure we'll sort through all that. As people set about taking care of roads, they'll probably do it anyway.

The thing I was curious about, though, was what the implications were for something being designated maintenance as opposed to being designated a modification. Apart from an apparent need -- in some cases, at least -- to plan or to design, would there be a distinction between those two, or are we involved in a kind of semantic exercise here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Primarily, culverts were the grey area. That's what this really clears up. So "modify" is defined by five activities. Section 15(a) is: "replacing or adding a stream culvert." Section 15(b) is: "replacing or adding a bridge, or providing structural repairs to a bridge or major culvert." Section 15(c) is: "relocating an existing road." Section 15(d) is: "re-establishing road subgrade stability." Section 15(e) is: "re-establishing cut slope stability by re-sloping, buttressing or erecting a retaining structure along the cut slope."

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

G. Abbott: I had a look at section 16 and compared it to the existing legislation. As the explanation indicates, the amendment simply deletes those things after "cannot be met." In the old section 36, it went on to say ". . .as a result of. . .carrying out. . .silviculture. . . or (b) the occurrence of a natural event." I'm presuming that the existing section 36 contemplated a natural event. A fire would probably be the best example of something that would result in silviculture obligations not being met. I'm curious as to why the qualifications that were in the existing section 36 have been deleted or are proposed for deletion.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What this amendment does is make sure that it's clear that the liability -- the responsibility and obligation for silviculture work -- is retained by the licensee, even though it might happen to be disrupted by a fire caused by a person.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 17 standing in my name in Orders of the Day:

[SECTION 17 (a), by deleting the proposed section 54 (2) of the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act and substituting the following:

(2) A person who is developing natural resources other than timber must not use a road on Crown land for the development of the natural resources, including the transportation of the natural resources or associated machinery, material or personnel, unless one of the following requirements is met:

(a) the road was approved under the Geothermal Resources Act or the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act;

(b) the road is located inside the boundary of a claim, lease, permit or other authorization granted or issued under the Coal Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Mines Act or the Mining Right of Way Act, and the road was built under the authority of one of those Acts;

(c) the road is located outside the boundary of a claim, lease, permit or other authorization granted or issued under an Act referred to in paragraph (b), and the person is authorized to use it by a special use permit;

(d) the road is a forest service road, and the person is authorized to use it by a road use permit;

(e) the road is one for which another person has a road permit, special use permit, cutting permit or timber sale licence that does not provide for cutting permits, and the person is authorized to use it by a road use permit.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Bill 82 amends the Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act to more clearly specify the authorization currently required to use a road on Crown land for industrial activities other than timber harvesting. The proposed amendment ensures that persons using roads constructed under the Geothermal Resources Act and the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act are not under the impression that they now need a special use permit from the Ministry of Forests to use these roads.

Amendment approved.

On section 17 as amended.

[1505]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: By putting the definition into this section, what we do is distinguish between the industrial

[ Page 14385 ]

Section 17 as amended approved.

Sections 18 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

G. Abbott: The change here is moving from "the regional manager or district manager must assess the condition of the road and" to "the government must." I'm curious as to why this was done.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Basically it's saying that if for some reason an official doesn't have the budget and he can't fix the road, the liability is the government's liability, not the individual's. What I will do is give you a definition that I have here. This amendment's intended to lessen the regional or district manager's exposure to personal liability in negligence actions arising from the condition of the road. The regional or district manager may still assess the road as an employee of the government and may still be sued if personally negligent in carrying out his or her obligations. But this amendment makes it clear that the government can be sued as the entity that has the ultimate responsibility for assessing the road.

Sections 21 to 30 inclusive approved.

On section 31.

G. Abbott: Section 31 relates to review of determinations by the Forest Practices Code. I've struggled a bit to understand what's being proposed here and why. Perhaps the minister can provide that for me.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me try. Under the current section 128, to obtain a review of a determination with respect to the approvals of a forest development plan, range use plan or amendment, the Forest Practices Board must deliver a written request for the review to the review official specified in the notice of determination. This does not work in practice since the board does not receive a notice of approval of a plan or amendment. In addition, the approval notice does not contain the name of a review official, because the applicant does not have the right to a review of a rejection of a forest development plan, range use plan or amendment to either.

[1510]

G. Abbott: I guess I don't want to get too deep into the philosophy of all this, but the impact of this is that the Forest Practices Board more easily or more definitely may be able to review the determination made by another governmental official. Is that correct? We're talking in every case here of a determination that may be made by some designate of the deputy minister. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It really doesn't change anything about the Forest Practices Board being able to ask for a review. It just simply allows us to designate and make it very clear who the person is that they are to initiate the review with. It would be a review of those determinations made by district managers -- that is, forest development plans or range use plans.

Sections 31 and 32 approved.

On section 33.

G. Abbott: Again I thank the minister's staff for some useful explanation that was provided in the briefing. But again, I think it's important for the record to reflect what is intended by the opportunity for the Forest Practices Board to organize itself into panels of one or more members. My understanding of this from the briefing is that the board will only be forming itself into these smaller panels for specific purposes, as opposed to some of the broader-brush things they do. But I think an explanation of that from the minister would be useful, for the record.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As it stands now, with the current seven-member board, only one quorum of four can work at a time. In effect, they only can hold one panel at a time. By being able to have smaller panels, they'll be able to conduct more reviews. So it's quite conceivable that one, two or three people could be conducting a review somewhere, and four or three or two somewhere else. They can actually expedite the business. The final reports all will be the collective responsibility of the whole Forest Practices Board. But the review stage. . . . As is quite common in quasi-judicial bodies, they will send out a hearing panel that can actually collect the information. So it's in order to speed up the process of getting reports through the hearing process to the final stage.

[1515]

[ Page 14386 ]

G. Abbott: I won't debate this any further. One of the magical things about politics is that if apprehended problems become real problems, the minister and I will both hear about it, and we'll have to deal with it. I hope that doesn't happen. I hope that the apprehension of bias remains that. I do think there is at least a possibility of that concern being legitimate here, so we'll watch carefully in the future to see whether the reality has any resemblance to the apprehension. But I'm happy to let section 33 pass.

Sections 33 to 35 inclusive approved.

On section 36.

G. Abbott: I do want to pursue here the point which I raised in second reading debate. I'm sure the minister has some comments that he'd like to make in response to it. Being a naturally cautious sort of guy, I think I can appreciate why the ministry has put in the qualifiers that it has with respect to pilot projects. Clearly this is designed to envision the projects but -- through subsection (3)(b)(i), for example -- provide assurances that there will be "at least equivalent protection for forest resources and resource features" and so on -- and also (4)(a), which limits pilots to 10 percent of the total annual allowable cuts in effect in the forest region.

The concern I had in my second reading comments was that, given the protections that are contained in subsection (3)(b) -- and indeed elsewhere in part 10.1 -- I'm expressing the view that limiting this scope of pilot projects to a maximum of 10 percent may be excessively limiting in terms of opportunities for innovation. The example I cited of a particular pilot making sense because of the unique physical or geographical or who-knows-what character of an area -- that perhaps it would involve 15 percent of the total annual allowable cut in a region. . . . It might involve a little larger area because it made sense in that particular context. As long as all the protections and requirements under subsection (3)(b) and elsewhere are met, does it limit the opportunities for innovation too much to have the 10 percent figure in there as well?

[1520]

We can't really contemplate an area where we'd need to have more than 10 percent to test an idea. Once the tests prove, then it would be nice to move to 100 percent. Whether you tested 15 and then moved to 100 or 10. . . . It could be somewhat arbitrary, but I would argue that what this does is protect 90 percent of the management of the forest resource with a lower risk of a management regime right now.

Across the province, six million cubic metres under this regime is significant. I think that in any given forest district or forest region, it gives large enough experiments to be able to prove the value of the new approach.

G. Abbott: Again, if, for example, we have an experiment that seems to work particularly well in the Okanagan-Shuswap and if it's an innovation the ministry and the licensee and perhaps any other stakeholders involved agree is something that would work, at that point would the innovation be expanded just to the district or to the region or to the province? What would happen, in short, after we agree that one of these innovations works well?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The idea behind the pilots is to test items and matters that might have a general applicability elsewhere in the province. The different pilots should test different aspects. I would imagine that if you're testing high-elevation forestry and tourism interactions in the western Chilcotin, it might not be different from high-elevation Okanagan phenomena. What we would do is we would test the pilots. If the pilots are successful, we would then amend the legislation to allow the findings and the new regime set up by the pilot to be extrapolated across the whole province.

G. Abbott: In subsection (5), we have a qualification that "a pilot project may be established only in an area that is subject to a higher level plan, or an area subject to a regulation made under subsection (7)(f) for balancing competing values and interests." What I understand from a higher-level plan would be, for example, a land use plan or the. . . . I can't remember all the terminology around that. When we say that it has to be subject to that higher-level plan, how much of the province are we talking about in saying that?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would like to remind the member that what's critical in any results-based, performance-based code is the designation of the objectives. That's what land use planning does; it sets out the objectives. The percentage of the province that's covered right now has got to be in the neighbourhood of 15 percent. Yes, you have higher-level plans in the Cariboo. You have one that is probably imminent, in one form or another, in the Kootenays -- not yet on Vancouver Island. You have about 13 LRMPs covering the north and central parts of British Columbia, so you certainly have one in Kamloops. There's one coming in the Okanagan. We won't have these pilots possible until we have moved to get the high-level plans designated as such under the code.

[1525]

G. Abbott: I guess the question will quickly become. . . . For example, if a licensee or an association in the Okanagan

[ Page 14387 ]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We actually have a way to do it. If the three ministers agree to test a pilot in an area without a higher-level plan, they can, but in designating that, they have to balance the competing interests, which is the same thing that happens when we approve a plan. If licensees or anyone make a pitch to have one, we certainly could consider that. In the interests of a wide variety of pilots, I would certainly be receptive to that.

G. Abbott: That makes me happy, and we can roll right through to the end now.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

On section 39.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the amendment to section 39 standing in my name in Orders of the Day.

[SECTION 39, by deleting section 39 (1) (b) and substituting the following:

(b) sections 2, 3, 7 to 11, 13 to 15, 30 (b) and 31.]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This amendment allows the free use permit provisions of the bill to be brought into force by regulation.

Amendment approved.

Section 39 as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee, at its rising, report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The Chair: The committee will recess for five minutes until the next bill.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.

EDUCATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1999

On section 1.

J. Weisbeck: I thought that what we might do is that I'll have a couple of general questions, and then we'll move along to section 11, I think, of the School Act. We'll probably deal with a lot of our questions in that section.

First of all, I want to clarify a couple of things here that the minister said during second reading debate. One of them was that he referred to the PEN number as being K-to-12. I'm assuming that that was the same number used for post-secondary education as well.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Yes, that's the entire intent of the act, in order to enable us to use the same identifier for students enrolled in public education, whether it's in the K-to-12 or the post-secondary system.

J. Weisbeck: Is there any allowance for a number to be given to individuals attending private post-secondary? I realize this act is for public, but what about private post-secondary?

Hon. A. Petter: No, the intention here is to provide. . . . In fact, what it really does is it provides a legislative framework for what already occurs, and that is for public post-secondary institutions to be able to utilize PEN numbers for the purposes of tracking students and providing the best administrative services for students -- both those who graduate through the system and those who come into the public post-secondary system. It does not envisage a regime that operates in the private post-secondary system.

J. Weisbeck: Further to that, there has been tracking of private post-secondary. You've done some outcomes surveys. Is there any possibility that in the future they'd have some sort of similar situation where you could track private post-secondary?

Hon. A. Petter: Anything is possible, I guess, in the general scheme of things. But the reason that possibility is not reflected in this legislation is that it would be a major leap administratively from this legislative regime to have private institutions utilizing PEN numbers -- to be brought in with all the privacy protections and the administrative apparatus to share those PEN numbers from the public system to the private. It's just something that has not been contemplated or undertaken at this time and that would obviously require a major policy initiative involving the office of the privacy commissioner -- as this initiative has, but even more far-reaching -- and the like to ensure that privacy concerns were covered off.

So it would be a much more cumbersome, elaborate regime involving cross-pollination of information back and forth between public and private systems, and that's not really what this system is about. This system is about putting a legislative framework around what already happens, and that is the tracking of students who come from the public system into the public post-secondary system or who come into the public post-secondary system from outside of the public system.

J. Weisbeck: There was reference to a privacy impact assessment. I wonder if you could just expand a little bit on that actual assessment.

[1545]

[ Page 14388 ]

J. Weisbeck: One final question relating to second reading. You talked about consultations with universities, colleges, institutes and students. I'm just wondering what sort of format was used to obtain that information.

Hon. A. Petter: Various organizations were in fact consulted and kept informed of the developments that led to this legislation being introduced. They include the Council of Chief Executive Officers of various post-secondary institutions, along with the University Presidents Council representing the universities. There were also consultations undertaken with the Canadian Federation of Students. As a result of those consultations, I think that there has been, by and large, acceptance of the desirability of having this legislative framework. As I say, it really regularizes and provides a legislative form of protection for practices that currently go on but without the benefit of the kinds of protections and the procedures that are set out here more explicitly.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

J. Weisbeck: Section 2 (2) talks about the personal information necessary to obtain a personal education number for the student. It's sort of the chicken-and-egg thing; you've got to have a number to get registered and whatever. There's no chance, it would appear, that if the student doesn't want to give the information. . . . There's no opportunity there for consent -- no opportunity there to opt out if they don't want to give their personal information. In turn, I would assume, they then don't get a registration number, and they can't go to the institution. I wonder if you could respond to that. Is there any way that there's an opportunity for a student to opt out of this information request?

[1550]

That does no more, in fact, than simply recognize the current provisions in the current legislation with respect to privacy. In fact, it tracks exactly the same language in section 26 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which provides that information cannot be collected unless that information relates directly to and is necessary for an operating program or activity of the public body. So there's no enlargement of powers here. If anything, what it does is makes clear that the institutions have to operate under the general requirements and protections of the general privacy regime and applies it specifically to this particular application.

Sections 2 to 10 inclusive approved.

On section 11.

G. Hogg: With respect to section 11(a) and (b), it is my interpretation -- and I'd like the minister's comments with respect to this -- that this is simply envisioned to grant authority to the minister to provide for individual assessments and the reporting of the results of those individual assessments, as well as on an aggregate basis for the purpose of assessing the effectiveness of education programs that it delivers. And I'm presuming that it's intended to be the explanation and the presentation of the PLAP. Is it the foundation skills assessment, as well, that's intended in this? And is there anything else envisioned to be facilitated through these two sections, other than what I've just outlined?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Currently the School Act authorizes assessments of educational programs for the purposes of comparison to provincial or national or international standards. However, it doesn't provide the authority for assessments at the individual student level. Section 11 provides the authority both to do that assessment and to report on it to students. As I said in second reading, the goal here is a greater measure of reporting, communication and accountability to parents and to their students on the results of the education system.

G. Hogg: My question may have been a little confusing and convoluted, but I'm interpreting your answer as yes, in terms of the statement. I think that's the section which we referred to in second reading, in which I was trying to take full credit for the movement with respect to that. That's the one that the minister again made reference to earlier today.

I have no further comments with respect to section 11.

Section 11 approved.

On section 12.

G. Hogg: With respect to section 170.1 and the personal education numbers and identification processes, I believe that this is just systematizing information which is currently already collected. With respect to the personal education number, it's just allocating a number to be assigned to persons. And subsections (1) and (2) are for the purpose of assigning numbers with respect to information which is already held. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As we work through this, I'll just try to pick up and explain the sections. Section 170.1(1) simply defines a personal education number as a unique identification number assigned to a person. It would be a random nine-digit number. Subsection (2) lists the categories of persons that may be assigned a PEN number -- a student; a francophone student; a child registered under section 13, who is a home-schooled student; or a student under the Independent School Act. I might just note for the record that we're surely not alone in doing this. Many other provinces have this sort of system in place, both for K-to-12 and for post-secondary.

[1555]

G. Hogg: For my edification, can we pass the subsections. Or do you want to go for the whole section 170.1 -- the full discussion with respect to that?

[ Page 14389 ]

G. Hogg: Just with respect to subsection (d), then, if we can move on to section 170.1(d). . . . The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, section 35, allows for the reporting of information with respect to public bodies for research purposes. I'm wondering how this section would magnify, clarify or add to section 35 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Hon. P. Ramsey: First, I would just like to clarify with the member. You're referring to section 170.1(3)(d). Is that right?

G. Hogg: That's correct.

Hon. P. Ramsey: Okay. A minute, please.

Any use of PEN information for research would have to meet the criteria that are specified in section 35 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I believe that's your question -- how the two pieces intersect.

G. Hogg: So this section is enabling the freedom of information. Is that a correct interpretation? I don't know how it can supersede it.

Hon. P. Ramsey: It does not supersede.

G. Hogg: So how can it. . . ? My question is simply: do we require this? Or is that provision being contained within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act? Is this redundant?

Hon. P. Ramsey: Through our work with the freedom-of-information and protection-of- privacy commissioner on the act, it's clear that what the commissioner and commission prefer is that any uses of information be specified. So subsection (d), like subsections (a) through (i), seeks to specify the purposes to which the personal education number may be used.

G. Hogg: It also appears that the ministry is appropriating a slightly new role in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of boards. Is that intended, with respect to (d)? We're researching, evaluating the effectiveness of boards. I'm wondering whether or not there is some intent in this section to say that the ministry is going to be taking on the assessment of boards with respect to the performance of individual students.

Hon. P. Ramsey: The accountability provisions of the School Act are not changed by this. What we are providing through the use of PENS is a tool that I think will serve both school boards and the ministry well in researching the effectiveness of public education and reporting on its effectiveness to students and to the public.

[1600]

Hon. P. Ramsey: Let's put it in context here. I'll just read it sort of as one piece. Subsection (3) says: "The personal education number of a person referred to in subsection (2) may only be used for the following purposes. . . ." Then (d) says: ". . .researching and evaluating the effectiveness of boards, francophone education authorities. . . ." Those tasks of evaluating the effectiveness of boards, francophone education authorities and the like are not affected by this act. Those are activities that are ongoing at the board level and by the ministry. What this section says very explicitly is that the PEN number may be used in conducting that research and doing that evaluation of effectiveness.

J. Dalton: I have a question or two based on the same subsection (d) that my colleague just asked about. In particular, the authorities governed by the Independent School Act -- that's the one I want to zero in on. I presume that the minister will concede that many independent schools are incorporated under the Society Act -- not necessarily all, but certainly a significant number are.

I'm sure the minister will recognize that independent schools manage budgets beyond either the 35 percent or the 50 percent public grant. In some cases, of course, they don't get any grants. Also, the minister has to recognize that the capital and the buildings that are erected and managed by independent schools are no business of the Ministry of Education, because those are strictly on the hook of the independent schools.

Can the minister advise us as to what is envisioned by "authorities governed by the Independent School Act and the programs, courses and curricula delivered by them"? What I'm getting at is that I want to know, from the minister's point of view, what they have in mind as far as indicating to independent schools how they are conducting their business -- beyond what I would concede is the business of the Minister of Education.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his question. After this issue was raised at second reading yesterday, I specifically asked the ministry staff to assure me that my understanding of this was correct. They did. My understanding is that we are making no changes to the Independent School Act or to the accountability requirements for independent schools under that act. What was there before is there now.

Under current legislation, independent schools are required to meet a set of standards. That's reflected in the accreditation process and inspection process for independent schools. Performance measures, including assessment of exam results, are required from all funded independent schools as part of their certification. What the PEN legislation does is make it possible for the ministry and the Independent School Act to carry out those respective responsibilities under the Independent School Act, using PENS both for efficiency and to protect privacy.

J. Dalton: Just to follow up, I would concede that the minister currently does -- and this just substantiated it -- have the ability to go in and measure the effectiveness of a board -- that is, a duly elected board of trustees. He certainly did that in the case of the North Vancouver school board and found them wanting. The same would be true of the francophone education authorities. I'm curious as to whether the minister would see the third authority, governed by the Independent School Act. . . . Would that give the minister the right to go into an independent school and tell the board of gover-

[ Page 14390 ]

[1605]

The requirements for receiving public funding for independent schools are quite clear. I'd be pleased to provide the member with a list of what the specific requirements are, including the requirement to demonstrate a student's human, intellectual, social and career development -- which includes personal assessments and examinations that are satisfactory to the inspector of independent schools. That exists now; it will exist after this act. What the use of PENS does is provide us with a way of carrying out that responsibility more effectively and with more assurance of privacy protection for students.

J. Dalton: Just one more question, perhaps more out of curiosity: does the minister have the capacity now to go into, say, a public school and comment on the cleanliness or the state of health of that school -- that is, its safety and other factors? If so, would the minister, under this authority, be able to go into a private or independent school and also comment on the maintenance quality, public safety and health of that building?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I don't know how much of this form you'd like me to read into the record. I will do part of it here: "An independent school" -- for all categories of independent schools -- "must satisfy the inspector that facilities comply with enactments of B.C. in a municipality or regional district for zoning, health and safety." That's a requirement that independent schools must now meet under the School Act or the Independent School Act. There's nothing in this legislation that changes that responsibility, either to broaden it or to narrow it.

G. Hogg: If I may, I'll just refer now to section 170.1(4). This grants broad discretion to the minister without the benefit of House debate for the expansion of purposes for which the PENs may be used, with the concomitant risk to both individual and group rights. I guess it's a question of principle as to whether or not one deems it to be worthy of legislative review when such matters are dealt with. Certainly, having read much about the concern that privacy advocates have with respect to the growth of shared data banks and the trend to mining of personal information for endless reasons and purposes, my question would be: is this something that the minister sees should be subjected to the scrutiny of the Legislature? Or is it something which the minister feels quite comfortable should be handled within an order-in-council -- regulations prescribing what appear to be endless additional purposes, which may well be made available to the minister?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I will contemplate the answer to that question while we adjourn to the House for a division.

The Chair: We will recess; the division bells have rung. We will reassemble when the division is finished.

The committee recessed from 4:10 p.m. to 4:21 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. P. Ramsey: The member raised an excellent question, which I acknowledged at second reading yesterday. It was indeed one of the ones that I knew we would be debating today. I want to start by saying that I am not sure that subsection (4) either expands the ability of what the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may do or expands the purposes for which PENs could potentially be used -- as broadly as the member might think. I want to start our discussion at that point.

It's clear that any contemplated use of PENS in addition to the ones that are listed in subsections (a) through (i), would have to meet all the provisions of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. So subsection (4) does not give any minister or government of the day the ability to say: "Right, we've got all this marvelous PEN data. Let's sell it to Coke" or "Right, here's a huge bunch of information. Let's market that stuff to whomever." That's simply not permitted under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and any change to the uses of PEN data that might be contemplated by a government now or in the future would have to meet all the provisions of that act.

I don't know if the member has had a chance to review division 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which specifies in great detail what the use and disclosure of personal information by public bodies must be. Just to start, section 32 says:

"A public body may use personal information only" -- I've emphasized this -- "(a) for the purpose for which that information was obtained or compiled, or for a use consistent with that purpose. . . (b) if the individual the information is about has identified the information and has consented, in the prescribed manner, to the use, or (c) for a purpose for which that information may be disclosed to that public body under sections 33 to 36."

Section 34 talks about definitions of consistent purposes. Section 35 talks about disclosure for research or statistical purposes. Again, there are lots of bounds placed on what the information could be used for. Section 36 talks about the use of information and disclosure for archival or historical purposes. Even there, there are further bounds placed around it.

Before we begin a discussion of subsection (4) here, I think it's well to place this in context. This is not open season on use of PEN information. Any contemplation of additional purposes for use of PEN information would have to meet a very high standard before it could even be considered by a minister or a cabinet of the day. That standard is spelled out in great detail in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That's my first point. I apologize for making it at some length, but I think it's well to do it.

[ Page 14391 ]

[1625]

Let me just give a couple of examples. We're now able to use PENS for transfer of information on student transcripts to post-secondary institutions. The advantage of this to students is immense. I remember that when I went from high school to university, it seems like I spent half my life bugging registrars of universities and whoever the official was at my high school to make sure that the right information was going to the right agency at the right time. It was all done by snail mail, and it was all ruinously time-consuming and cumbersome. Now, through the use of PENs -- with the appropriate protection -- at the request of a student, that transfer of information can be done painlessly and quickly. I'm not sure what other similar sorts of initiatives that might be to the benefit of individual students might come up. If something comes up and it meets the strictures of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it might be something that should be considered by cabinet.

Just to give one more example, we are able, through the use of PENS. . . . The estimate by my ministry is that by eliminating double-counting of students, we can ensure efficiencies of some $30 million in the K-to-12 system. I'm not sure what other efficiencies might come up. If one came up and it met the strictures of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, I might wish to bring it forward. So those are the sorts of concerns that I think I would urge on the member as we look at whether subsection (4) here should be included or deleted.

The final point I'd make is more one of being a veteran of this chamber and of ministerial duties. It may seem an easy task to say, "Right, I've got a very minor amendment to this particular bill which I want to bring it forward at the following session," and it happens. I want to inform the member opposite that this does not necessarily occur. There are very good ideas that ministers of the Crown are sometimes prevented from bringing forward -- not because it's not a good idea but because of the press of more significant business. Even though it sometimes seems like miscellaneous statutes stretch out into dozens and scores of sections, there are things that don't make it because of the pressure of time in considering all of them. It is wise to have the sort of provision that subsection (4) encapsulates, to change a purpose of PEN use by regulation between sessions of the Legislature.

Those are the considerations that I would urge the member to think about as he looks at this section. Just to numerate them: (1) the limitations -- and there are severe limitations -- on any change to uses of PENS which a cabinet could even contemplate under subsection (4), because they have to meet freedom of information and protection of privacy; (2) the fact that there will undoubtedly be good ideas, both to assist students and to improve efficiency, that will pop up even though we've sought to be very specific about the purposes in the list from (a) through (i); and (3) the simple mechanics of producing and introducing legislation, which are sometimes far less than streamlined and could indeed prevent the timely implementation of something that is seen as valuable to students or to the system.

G. Hogg: I've struggled to be persuaded by the minister's argument. I felt that when I had proposed earlier that section 170.1(2)(d) -- wondering what it did beyond the protections which are already granted within the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and I was advised that it helped to clarify the process. . . . The minister saw that clarification as being necessary within this bill. So I'm not comforted by the fact that we now go to subsection (4), and I'm advised that the reason we will have protection is for the same reason that we had to include it: it was not protecting us under subsection (d).

With respect to the second issue that the minister brought up, which was the issues contained in (a) through (i) -- each one of them clarifying a specific responsibility and an allocation of responsibilities which are covered under this section -- I'm wondering if there are any that are anticipated that could not be included in that, rather than opening it up again.

[1630]

With respect to the second argument -- that times change -- I certainly agree that times change. I am not at this point persuaded, because times are changing, that we should be taking the provision with respect to privacy matters out of the legislative chamber for those decisions to be made, albeit I certainly agree that it's not always easy to accommodate legislative changes. But I think that in matters with respect to privacy and information, where we're forging some new ground education-wise with respect to these, we should still maintain that type of control in the legislative chamber.

So my response to the minister at this point is that I've not been persuaded by the arguments at this point in time. For that reason, I would move that section 12 of Bill 87 be amended to delete section 170.1(3)(i) and section 170.1(4).

Hon. P. Ramsey: You may wish to write it out, hon. member. On the other hand, I could table the identical amendment -- which I have in my hand, signed and ready for introduction.

G. Hogg: Are you tricking me?

Hon. P. Ramsey: No, I'm not.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members. There is an amendment on the floor at present, and I recognize the member for Surrey-White Rock.

[ Page 14392 ]

The Chair: Is it the will of the committee to withdraw the amendment?

Some Voices: Aye.

The Chair: So ordered.

[1635]

On the amendment.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move the amendment to section 12 that's in the possession of the Clerk. I just want to say that I take back nothing of what I said in arguing the lack of necessity for actually introducing this. However, I do recognize the point that in doing the PEN numbers and the PEN project, protection of privacy is of the highest importance. While this may be more optics than reality, I am willing to delete this section, as the member has requested. So I move the amendment.

G. Hogg: Let me say in response that I don't take back anything I said to the minister, either. I also support the fact that it may be a little more cumbersome at this stage. As the minister has made reference to optics, that may well be a part of it. As we're venturing into some new areas, I think it's important that the optics be correct, as well as the practicality of the implementation of it. I appreciate the amendment put forward by the minister.

Amendment approved.

Section 12 as amended approved.

Sections 13 to 18 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

Bill 87, Education Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1999, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

The committee recessed from 4:39 p.m. to 6:47 p.m.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 88; E. Walsh in the chair.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 24.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 24 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 24, in the proposed section 75(3.1)(f)(iii) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "as they apply" and substituting "as it applies".]

Section 24 as amended approved.

T. Nebbeling: You can go to 56, and then 57 I call again. So anything in between is for the minister.

Sections 25 to 31 inclusive approved.

On section 32.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 32 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 32, in the proposed section 92.3(c) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "as they apply" and substituting "as it applies".]

Section 32 as amended approved.

Sections 33 to 37 inclusive approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 37.1, by adding the following section:

37.1 Section 150(6)(a) is repealed.]

Sections 38 to 52 inclusive approved.

On section 53.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 53 that is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 53 in the proposed section 196(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "section 198" and substituting "sections 198".]

Section 53 as amended approved.

Sections 54 to 56 inclusive approved.

On section 57.

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick question, Madam Chair. Subsection 57(3) talks about the documentation that is needed to

[ Page 14393 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: That's section 15 of the bill.

The Chair: Through the Chair.

T. Nebbeling: I'm talking about section 57. I go by the black numbers; I'm not going by the bill sections.

The Chair: Through the chair, members. We're on section 57. For the benefit of those that are trying to follow in the bill, it's on page 23.

T. Nebbeling: No, it is on page 4. I'm sorry, I'm going by the actual bill; I'm not going by the bill sections. And the amendments are also based on the actual bill.

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: I would recommend that we go back to fix section 15 and then section 57 (3).

The Chair: If it's the will of the committee just to revert -- to go back to section 15 at this time. . . .

On section 15.

Hon. J. Kwan: The question was: what kind of documentation would a person need? Some examples of documentation that would be accepted would include a driver's licence, a car insurance document, any identification card, a health card, social insurance number, credit cards, utility bills, rent receipts, etc. Those would all be deemed to be samples of acceptable documentation.

Section 15 approved.

T. Nebbeling: If we could have a five-minute recess so I can read the numbers. . . . Otherwise I'm all over the field.

The committee recessed from 6:50 p.m. to 6:58 p.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

T. Nebbeling: I would like to move that we go back to section 30.

Motion approved.

On section 30.

T. Nebbeling: This is section 30, which relates to the financial agents' recording of contributions and expenses. I would like to have some clarification from the minister on two different scenarios. One, of course, is when a candidate runs independently, when does that candidate have to start recording his or her expenses and contributions, and in what form does that have to be done? My question in particular is: does that include that the candidate -- or a potential candidate who has indicated to be a candidate -- has to open a bank account at the moment that they make the announcement that they may consider running?

Hon. J. Kwan: The answer is yes. As soon as an individual accepts funds for their campaign or for the purposes of campaign financing, that individual, under the definition of the act, becomes a candidate, and in that instance that individual would have to report and have a financial agent, etc., to disclose their campaign donations and expenses.

T. Nebbeling: Does this apply only for the year that the election is in, or is it prior years as well? If I can just illustrate it quickly, somebody two years before an elections says: "Hey, listen. I'm really thinking of running for council. I'm not happy with things that are happening there." That person, for example, has a dinner with a friend, let's say more exploratory than anything else, about whether he should or should not run for council. That is two years before an election. Should that particular dinner, which may be $100 -- and the tab is picked up by the friend -- be recorded as a donation towards his campaign? Under the guidelines here, I feel that that is the case, but I think it's onerous.

[1900]

T. Nebbeling: That is one part of the question. The other part is: if that dinner takes place two years before an election, would that then apply, or is it only in the year that the election actually takes place? Secondly, in case the friend doesn't give a cheque for a hundred dollars, but says, "Hey, listen; let me pick up the tab here," and it's $125 for the dinner, is that then a donation?

Hon. J. Kwan: As I said, a friend taking another friend out to dinner to discuss whether or not the individual may want to consider running for public office is not deemed to be an expense or a donation within the definition of the act.

If you're discussing it, you're exploring it. That's just a friend taking another friend out to dinner -- no matter when you do it, throughout the course of any year, any day.

T. Nebbeling: In the same section there is a also a requirement to register any donations or contributions, and the list of requirements is quite lengthy. It goes from (a) to (f), and it includes individuals, corporations, and incorporated organizations engaged, trade unions, non-profit organizations and other contributors. I can see that in a big city this is not a bad thing, but if I live in a small community and, indeed, I'm in the process of collecting some funds for an election -- running for council -- I can really see that this section is going to be problematic.

[ Page 14394 ]

I think that that is the problem with a small community having so much exposure to the details of contributions to a campaign; that can lead to some unfair situations. That's why I really question the wisdom of this list and its depth. Has the minister considered that element?

[1905]

T. Nebbeling: I think the point is that the character of a small community is really different than what we experience in the bigger cities. A donation from, for example, a gas station owner in a big city disappears in the fray, and it is really not something that would haunt the gas station owner down the road. In a small community, if the local gas station owner gave a donation to one individual and didn't give a donation to another individual, and after the election the disclosure form showed that indeed he preferred one over the other, I think that that could create some bad blood. I don't think that's what an election manual or an election act should incorporate.

People should not have second thoughts about running or contributing to an election because they're concerned about repercussions down the road, because the wrong individual got a donation and another person didn't get it. It's just something that makes me feel very uncomfortable, and I wanted to note that I'd hoped the minister was aware of that concern. That is not being expressed by just me right now; it has been expressed by others as well.

Hon. J. Kwan: I believe that the member is arguing about the principle of disclosure. The principle of disclosure has applied for all communities since 1993. You have to actually report now any donations that are greater than $100, and that doesn't change with respect to these classifications.

T. Nebbeling: I've never been aware that we had to provide lists, for donations of $50 or $100, of every person who in a municipal election made a donation. That is a new one to me.

Hon. J. Kwan: Since 1993 any candidate or any persons running under an election would have to disclose any donations that they'd received that were $100 or more, municipally. I recall that when I ran in the 1993 election municipally, I did the same as well.

C. Clark: I'm assuming that for the purposes of this act a candidate is deemed to be a candidate after they file their nomination papers. Is that correct?

[1910]

C. Clark: I'm assuming, then, that for the purposes of the financial accounting, much of that would depend on the candidate's disclosure themselves about when they decided to be a candidate. The reason I'm asking this is because I'm curious about cases where a candidate decides to become a candidate, opens up a bank account because they're running for office and then later joins a slate. I understand that a slate can also open up a bank account of behalf of a candidate. What would happen in those cases? Will those individual candidates be required, under this law, to shut down their bank accounts as individual candidates? Or will they be allowed to effectively operate two separate bank accounts for the purposes of financing their campaign?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, the candidate can keep both accounts. In fact, the act requires that the individual have an account. Once the individual joins a slate, presumably under that slate there would be a financial agent for the entire slate. The financial agent will then report accordingly, both for the organization as well as for the individual, and it would be kept in separate accounts.

C. Clark: So the individual would be required to change financial agents, presumably, when they switch. I'm seeing the minister shaking her head. So you would have a different financial agent for the individual's account, possibly, from the financial agent who's acting on behalf of the slate. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Kwan: It could be. It would be entirely up to the individual to decide if they want to keep their own financial agent. Then, having joined the slate, you would also have the financial agent who is responsible for the entire slate. Or alternatively, you could just switch it over to having one financial agent, both for you as a individual and for the slate itself. That's really a matter of personal choice, in terms of how you want to proceed.

C. Clark: Is there anything in the act that attempts to preclude people from funnelling money through a corporation or a non-profit organization in order to hide the fact that they are donating to a political party or a candidate?

Hon. J. Kwan: Under the existing act, section 87 clearly stipulates: "A person or an unincorporated organization must not do any of the following." It then outlines that the person

[ Page 14395 ]

C. Clark: What if, for example, an individual who wanted to give money to a candidate and who decided that they wanted to ensure that it was tax-receipted gave it to a political party and had that political party donate it back to the candidate? Would that be illegal under this act?

Hon. J. Kwan: Yes, it would be illegal to do that under this act.

C. Clark: So then, what governs or precludes. . . ? One would assume that if it's illegal for individuals to give money to political parties that will then give it back to municipal candidates, then shouldn't any donation from a political party to a municipal candidate for the purposes of funding that municipal candidate's campaign. . . ? Wouldn't it follow that the law should also attempt to preclude that?

[1915]

C. Clark: I'm sorry. I probably didn't make my point very clearly, because I think the minister may have misunderstood me. I was speaking about other political parties -- for example, provincial political parties -- which give donations to municipal political parties. I'm thinking of that transfer. I think that what the minister thought I was talking about was municipal political parties distributing money to their slate members, which is obviously supposed to be allowed. My interest is in whether it is legal and within the spirit of the act for provincial and federal political parties to be passing on money -- which is tax-receipted money -- to municipal political parties, which will then be distributed to individual candidates.

Hon. J. Kwan: If a political party at the provincial or federal level decides that they want to donate dollars to a municipal-level party for the purpose of campaigning, they are able to do that within the act as long as those funds are not collected for the purpose of campaign elections at the municipal level. So take as an example. . . . The federal and provincial levels of parties could generate moneys through a newsletter, let's say, and raise some dollars. If they wish to donate those dollars to the municipal party for their election, they are able to do that. The purpose for which those funds are solicited -- and therefore transferred or donated to the municipal party -- would be the essence of whether or not it is in the spirit of the act.

C. Clark: Would it be illegal, then, for someone at the municipal level to instruct a potential donor to write a cheque to a provincial or federal political party -- in order that it be tax-receipted -- with the understanding, on both sides of the discussion, that that money was intended to fund a municipal organization or a municipal candidate? Would that act be illegal?

Hon. J. Kwan: An individual talking about this act is not illegal, but an individual acting out this act would deem it to be illegal. In other words, you can talk about it, but if you actually do it, that's when it becomes illegal.

C. Clark: Just to clarify, what are the. . . ? Do the changes to this act contemplate any changes to the penalties that would be attached to that kind of illegal act?

[1920]

C. Clark: The minister differentiated between the purposes for which the money was donated. That's what determines whether the donation can be made legally or not by a larger political party to a municipal organization. I'm curious about whether that's because of tax-receipting. Is the act written this way because its authors assumed that if you were fundraising through a political newsletter, you probably wouldn't be taxed using the tax-receipting system? Has the issue of allowing tax receipts and people trying to exploit the tax-receipting system at the provincial level in order to fund a municipal campaign -- which is clearly not supposed to happen. . . ? Is that what the authors were trying to avoid when they drew up this distinction between the two?

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm advised by staff that when the provisions were brought in some years ago, the intent was to ensure that there's appropriate and proper disclosure and to try and address the issue of funnelling as much as one could within the act.

C. Clark: Does the ministry have any concern about the issue of tax-receipting, though? Clearly municipal candidates aren't allowed to access the whole tax-receipting system. Presumably the government doesn't want them to for a reason. I'm wondering if people trying to take advantage of tax-receipting -- when clearly the government hasn't contemplated whether they're supposed to be doing that -- is an issue for the ministry at all or if that's a concern that the ministry has contemplated fixing.

Hon. J. Kwan: This act was brought in in 1993. The intent, I'm advised by staff, is not necessarily the issue of tax-receipting. Clearly the way in which dollars are funnelled is an illegal act. . .as it was established in 1993. Really, from that point of view, the main issue is around disclosure and not the issue of tax receipts.

T. Nebbeling: Earlier on we did establish that potential candidates -- candidates who declare at an early stage -- will

[ Page 14396 ]

Hon. J. Kwan: Under this act, it is only when you become an official candidate that there is a mechanism to deal with those dollars that have been collected by a candidate. We don't have a mechanism to deal with people who have not yet declared themselves to be a candidate. We simply don't have the mechanism to do that. The person who is running hopefully would have integrity around those issues and would deal with the matter appropriately.

[1925]

My problem is that by having these new requirements and putting more emphasis on these requirements of disclosure, agent and bank account -- unwillingly, maybe -- the ministry creates a kind of an image around that individual. It gives it a bit of a label: "Oh, he is, or she is, the candidate. Yeah, he's got an agent, because that's required; he has a bank account -- that's required. So it would be okay to give some money."

Traditionally in municipal elections, when people intend to run, they don't announce it until about three or four months in advance. But if they do it earlier, there are no consequences to that, as we have stipulated under this bill. I think that giving them that legitimacy, in a sense, with the bank account and an agent does more damage than good. In the end we may find that people will abuse this, and I have a fundamental problem with that. Having said that, does the minister want to respond to this?

Hon. J. Kwan: The act itself, in requiring that if you as an individual have made a determination that you wish to run as a candidate and begin to collect campaign finances for the purposes of the eventual election, requires that you disclose these dollars once you become a candidate. Ensuring that that process is in place does not, I believe, inhibit a person in any way, shape or form, nor does it prevent a person from deciding, once they have entered into this path, not to run for whatever reason. So whether or not you're required to disclose. . . . Even if you're not required to disclose, those people who go about collecting moneys and then later on decide that they're not going to run in an election would still have to be questioned about what they did with those dollars.

The act in and of itself does not interrupt those kinds of processes. What the act does try to do, though, is clearly establish that if your intent as an individual is to run in an election, at any point in time once you've made that determination there is a set of procedures and rules as they should apply for the purposes of accountability -- for disclosing them to the members of the public in terms of where you might have received funds from for your election campaign.

Section 30 approved.

T. Nebbeling: Section 31.

The Chair: Is that your motion?

T. Nebbeling: Yes.

The Chair: If it is the will of the committee to go back to section 31. . . .

Motion approved.

On section 31.

T. Nebbeling: This particular section. . . . I think I understand what the minister is doing. It is basically assuring that if indeed there is a large surplus, a candidate at the end of the day doesn't either use it for his own purpose or for purposes for which people were not giving these funds. So I have no problem that there is a system in place that will deal with that problem. What I do find problematic is the question of, when a candidate runs within an electoral system, how this whole accountability is going to be developed. I can see that each candidate would still have his funds being put in trust, and then the $500 factor comes into play again. What will happen with the funds that are actually donated to the electoral team or organization -- something that happens? How will that be handled? I would really like to hear the minister explain that to me, because to me that is very confusing.

[1930]

T. Nebbeling: That doesn't make any sense to me. Here we have regulations so that as a candidate, funds you collect either you use up or -- at the end of the day, if there is a reserve -- you have to give up the right to that money. It has to be put in trust, and if you run again, sure you can tap back into it. If you don't run again, then it goes to the municipality. But then there is an electoral system, and they allow them to hold the money.

What the minister is basically doing under this scenario. . . . Maybe it's the right thing; I don't know. Actually, if I was in a system of that nature, I would advise everybody to make their donation to the electoral organization, which then, in return, would disperse the funds to the candidates, and everybody's home scot-free. And at the end of the day, if there is a substantial amount of money left over, it is there for the electoral team to hold onto. So if that's the intent of the bill, that's fine. But I would like to hear the minister explain that.

Hon. J. Kwan: The electoral organization will still have to hold the funds in a separate account. Generally speaking, an

[ Page 14397 ]

But for you as an individual, if you were not running with an electoral party, after the election presumably there is no other political work that you would be engaging in. And whereby that individual has surplus funds, those funds have to go somewhere. In this instance, under this act if those funds are over $500, they actually go to the municipality to be held in trust.

T. Nebbeling: So electoral organizations are allowed to keep that money. That special fund that is managed by the electoral organization can then be used to promote the organization. They basically can do whatever they want with the fund, because there is nothing in the act that stipulates what they should be doing. That's fine with me; I have no problem with that. If from time to time, they want to put out an ad that says, "Keep watching community TV; there's an issue on TV right now that's of interest to the community," and they pay for it out of that fund, that is not a problem. But I do have a problem when we deny that same right to an individual candidate.

If I have some money left in my account at the end of the day and I know that from time to time, for example, I will appear on a cable station, talking about the political issues that we're dealing with in a council. . . . If I would like to advertise the fact that I will be on that cable station on a particular evening, it would be very nice to have those funds available. I cannot see why, if I as a candidate run with an electoral organization, I have the use of that money to continue, in a sense, to promote my viewpoints and promote opportunities for people to either listen to me or hear what I have to say. . . .

Another opportunity would be, for example, that every six months I have a little town hall meeting and I rent a room. It would be nice if I could use these surplus funds for doing that. I cannot do that because I'm an independent candidate. However, if I did belong to an electoral team, I would be able to do that. So in a sense, there is a sort of discrimination -- financial discrimination and an opportunity discrimination -- for people who run for themselves and who have excess funds at the end of the campaign but cannot tap into them because they have to be deposited and transferred to the municipality. I think that's fundamentally wrong, because you set two standards -- one for candidates who run for themselves and one for electoral organizations.

Hon. J. Kwan: If you were a candidate that ran for an electoral organization, you as a candidate would have no surplus funds. It would be the electoral organization that would have funds, and any work that's done beyond that is for the organization and not for personal benefit. For you as an individual, on the other hand -- not under an electoral organization -- surplus funds after the election would be utilized for personal benefit and not for an organizational benefit.

[1935]

T. Nebbeling: I understand that there have been occasions where people misused the funds that were left, but I think it is still wrong for a government to then punish vulnerable individuals who, from time to time, would not use that money for their own personal use but would use that money to communicate with their constituents, the people living in their community and who from time to time would use that money to hire a small hall where people could meet and talk about the issues that they feel are important that the council should be addressing and maybe are not addressing. I think these are pure and honourable uses of these excess funds, and to take that money away is wrong.

Now, if an electoral organization and their candidates have the desire to organize a little town hall meeting or another way to communicate again with their electorate, they're allowed to do that. So I don't understand this double standard, and if the whole change is driven by the fact that certain individuals in the past have manipulated these funds in a way that is less than honourable, I don't think the rest of elected bodies or elected individuals should be penalized.

I hope that the minister can reconsider or at least revisit this particular issue as part of the next rewrite of the Municipal Act, because I really think it puts a lot of council members at a disadvantage compared to council members that run for organizations. So I'll leave it at that.

Section 31 approved.

T. Nebbeling: I'll make a motion to go back to section 37.

Motion approved.

On section 37.

T. Nebbeling: The tradition has been that during election days certain activities could not happen around a municipal hall or a polling station. It is on page 18. Got it?

The Chair: For members of the committee, that would be on page 18.

T. Nebbeling: Page 18, section 37.

Interjection.

T. Nebbeling: Well, that's why I stuck to the bill numbers rather than. . . . Do you see?

Interjections.

T. Nebbeling: Well, there is some scribbling in my book. Maybe 38 has been. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Order, members.

T. Nebbeling: In my book it was scribbled out. So section 37 is fine.

[ Page 14398 ]

T. Nebbeling: I move to go back to section 38.

Motion approved.

On section 38.

T. Nebbeling: As I stated earlier, in the past there have always been certain prohibitions on election day as far as the focus being on hindering an individual from going into a polling station, and I think that has always been justified.

Now, maybe the minister is going to tell me that in 1993 the municipal election act got changed in this section as well. I'm not aware of it, but I feel that this really goes too far. If we cannot in any way get near a polling station and just talk to people -- it doesn't mean that it is necessarily in the form of having a booth there, but just talking about something you believe in -- I find that to be a form of gagging freedom of speech, in a certain sense. I wonder what has really led the minister to take this draconian measure to avoid people near a polling station speaking on issues that they feel are important.

[1940]

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm starting to wonder whether the member, when he ran for city council -- or for mayor -- violated a bunch of the act.

In any event, in the 1993 act. . .

T. Nebbeling: I was not a returning officer -- I'm sorry.

The Chair: Order, members.

Hon. J. Kwan: I'm just kidding.

In 1993 the act already stipulated: ". . .a person must not do any of the following at or within 100 metres of a building, structure or other place where voting proceedings are being conducted at the time: (a) canvass or solicit votes or otherwise attempt to influence how an elector votes; (b) carry, wear or supply a flag, a badge or other thing indicating that the person using it is a supporter of a particular candidate or elector organization. . . . "There's a list that goes on and talks about signs, displays, etc. That has been in place since 1993. This act does not change that. What this act does do, however, is say that on election day you cannot engage in advertising. That's the new component associated with it.

T. Nebbeling: And that's why I said 200 yards and not 100 yards. I was aware of the 100-yards prohibition.

But it is just a matter of seeing more rules put in place to make sure that on an election day, the voice of the community almost becomes silent. Be it by radio, by advertising, or 200 yards away from a polling station. . . . I just believe that we'd be going too far, and we'd be going overboard. There is something to freedom of speech, and I have no sympathy for gag orders. I consider this just another element that makes the whole experience of municipal elections less of a community event and more of an orchestrated military exercise: you can do this; you can't do that; you must do this; you must do that. I do not think that outside the polling station, that kind of public -- maybe manipulation is a strong strict word -- management is the proper way to go. I just want to express that concern, because I've got a feeling that this one will come back.

[1945]

T. Nebbeling: I would like to make a motion to go back to section 56.

The Chair: Is it the will of the committee to go back to section 56? So ordered.

On section 56.

T. Nebbeling: In this particular section, there's a provision created whereby council members can, through the means of electronic or other communication facilities, participate in the dialogue, I suppose, but the vote as well. Much emphasis has been put on the fact that government has to have more openness and that government has to provide more participation opportunities to the public at large. I find that this particular rule, although it may be practical from time to time, really undermines that whole principle of community participation. If a number of council members sit with a phone hook-up talking to an individual who is not there, I think that the public at large is somehow not connected with what's going on there. I find that this section flies in the face of new community opportunities that are supposed to be created between municipal councils and their constituents. It will undermine those opportunities. What would happen if a council decided that it's actually a nice tool, to do it on a phone basis? If three council members very rarely show up and use this particular mechanism, it will allow them to still be counted as having been present. They will not be seen as not having shown up and therefore, after a while, be disqualified from council. It's just a point I'd like to raise with the minister to see if she agrees that this indeed is not in line with all the other thinking about communications between council, and their constituents.

Hon. J. Kwan: This section allows, through a regulation by cabinet, for the utilization of electronic or other communications facilities to facilitate meetings. Those regulations would need to be developed. As of yet, they are not developed. I would anticipate that they would really be utilized only under very special circumstances and would not be utilized for regular council meetings for that purpose, for the reasons that the member had highlighted in terms of concerns. Clearly, if we were to do that, there would be a set of conditions and very special reasons why you would allow for these provisions to take place.

T. Nebbeling: I'm pleased to hear that this section clearly has not been developed to the level that everybody can have

[ Page 14399 ]

So I personally would like to see this section deleted. I don't know if the minister would be willing to go that far, but it would certainly allow the minister in the coming year, when she does a further review of sections of the Municipal Act, to come with a more workable and more concise allowable use of this particular section.

Hon. J. Kwan: The section would actually not come into effect until there is a cabinet regulation, an OIC, that actually brings it into force. So even having passed it, it would not be in effect. As I said, for it to come into effect, it does need a cabinet order-in-council, and we would contemplate bringing an order-in-council for these purposes only under very special circumstances for consideration.

[1950]

Hon. J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 57.1, by adding the following section:

57.1 Section 230(1) is repealed and the following substituted:

(1) This section applies to council members in relation to

(a) council meetings, and

(b) meetings of committees referred to in section 235(1)(b) [standing, select and other council committees].]

On section 58.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 58, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 58,

(a) in paragraph (a) by deleting the proposed section 231(2) of the Municipal Act and substituting the following:

(2) If a council member attending a meeting considers that he or she is not entitled to

(a) participate in the discussion of a matter, or

(b) vote on a question in respect of a matter

because the member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter or for any other reason, the member must declare this and state the general nature of why the member considers this to be the case., and

(b) in paragraph (b) by deleting the proposed section 231(5) of the Municipal Act and substituting the following:

(5) Whether or not a declaration is made under subsection (2), if a council member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter, the member must not

(a) participate in the discussion of the matter,

(b) vote on a question in respect of the matter, or

(c) attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter.]

Section 58 as amended approved.

On section 59.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 59, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 59, by deleting "Section 235 to 238" and substituting "Sections 235 to 238".]

Section 59 as amended approved.

On section 60.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 60, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 60(b), in the proposed section 242(7) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "local government officer" and substituting "municipal officer".]

On section 60 as amended.

T. Nebbeling: Just a clarification, Madam Chair. Subsection (a)(4)(c) states: ". . .the council may proceed with the matters until the counterpetition is signed by at least 5% of the electors. . . ." In Bill 31, that was introduced as subsection (6) of section 242. We have deleted subsections (4) and (5) of section 242, as introduced in Bill 31 -- not subsection (6), although subsection (6) is now suddenly reappearing as (c) in this section. I read this now that we have in (c) this statement about the 5 percent, and then subsection (6) is still in place as well but is identical in wording.

Hon. J. Kwan: The only thing that's new in this section is 60(a)(4)(c), which states: ". . .a statement that the council may proceed with the matter unless the counter petition is signed by at least 5% of the electors of the area to which the counter petition applies." So really, the intent is to make sure that notice is given with respect to a counterpetition process.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that, but I do not understand how section 242 of Bill 31 also included subsection (6), which has identical wording. In section 60 as introduced in this bill, you have repealed subsections (4) and (5), but you have left subsection (6).

Hon. J. Kwan: Subsection (6) is still needed, because it clearly indicates that if there is a 5 percent counterpetition for a particular project -- that is, if the counterpetition is successful -- then you cannot proceed with that project. So that is still required to indicate the petition results and the follow-up action as a result of the successful petition.

[1955]

[ Page 14400 ]

T. Nebbeling: Maybe I can get a little bit better clarification, because I don't understand it. Is the wording identical, or is there a change in wording?

Hon. J. Kwan: The only change is with respect to the notice.

T. Nebbeling: Here we see: ". . .a statement that the council may proceed with the matter unless the counter petition is signed by at least 5%. . . ." So if it is signed by less than 5 percent, they may still go ahead. Is that what you're trying to say? The fact that subsection (6) is still there but is identical. . . .

Hon. J. Kwan: Subsection (6) still applies.

T. Nebbeling: What is the difference in wording between subsections (6) and (4)(c)? To me, they're identical in wording.

Hon. J. Kwan: The section tells you that you have to give notice. Subsection (6) says that if through a counterpetition process you are able to collect 5 percent or more signatures, you cannot proceed with the project.

Section 60 as amended approved.

Sections 61 to 72 inclusive approved.

On section 73.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 73, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 73, by renumbering the proposed section 302.1 of the Municipal Act as section 301.1.]

Section 73 as amended approved.

Sections 74 to 118 inclusive approved.

On section 119.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 119, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 119, in the proposed section 554(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, by deleting "oiling," and substituting "oiling".]

On section 119 as amended.

T. Nebbeling: Just a quick clarification. This whole issue of municipalities being able to provide service in other municipalities. . . . I can see, in a regional approach, that there are areas where that makes sense, but what I would like to hear from the minister is how far this authority goes. I'd like to illustrate my concern. If one town has a transit system that is approved by the provincial government and in part there's funding from the provincial government. . . . If the adjacent town says, "Listen, we do not have a transit system, but we would like to tap into your service," would the municipality that has the transit services available be able to go into an adjacent town and do a similar program there, as well, under contract?

Hon. J. Kwan: They would be able to as long as they have consent from the other local governments.

T. Nebbeling: I understand that. For example, the transit system is often financed in part by the provincial government, or the provincial government makes a contribution to that system. How can we make sure that this contribution will not be used in part to provide service in another community? We can obviously say that it's up to the council to do that, but I don't think the electorate would be very pleased to see a council have that kind of authority. So is that covered, or is it just a free-for-all?

Hon. J. Kwan: In addition to that, clearly the British Columbia Transit Act would also apply, and it would be covered under that act.

T. Nebbeling: That would mean that the adjacent community would have to apply for transit services. Once they're approved by the provincial government, only then could they maybe make a contract with a community that already has the service in place. Is that how it would work?

Hon. J. Kwan: They would have to work with the provincial government to establish the transit service. Once they do that, then they have to go and work it out with the local government.

Section 119 as amended approved.

Sections 120 to 140 inclusive approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 141, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 141, by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a), by adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following paragraph:

(c) in subsection (7) by striking out "subsection (6)," and substituting "subsection (5),".]

[2000]

Section 141 as amended approved.

Sections 142 to 146 inclusive approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 147, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 147, by deleting the proposed sections 655 and 656 of the Municipal Act.]

T. Nebbeling: I'd like to quickly speak to the amendment. It is more in the sense of congratulating the minister for having made this decision. In the bill, there are certainly a number of issues that I would have been concerned about.

[ Page 14401 ]

This particular section, 147, whereby municipalities would basically be given carte blanche in deciding what businesses they desire in the community -- not including businesses that are established -- and the opportunity to give them their marching orders, as I said this morning in second reading, is very anti-business. It was a surprising thing to see in this bill, considering the desire of the government to see it a little bit more in the way that the business community is trying to tell government how to behave. So I spent some time speaking to this section.

I'm thrilled to see that the minister has decided to pull both 655 and 656. It will give the government an opportunity to revisit -- which I believe is right -- what the bill was intended to do, and to look at how they can rephrase and reword the section together with business organizations and no doubt the UBCM. That will lead, then, to sections that will give municipalities the authorization to deal with businesses that clearly do not fit in a community, not necessarily because of dislike for a business but more for legal reasons or reasons that have to do with illegal activities. So I'm pleased to see the withdrawal of these two sections.

Amendment approved.

Section 147 as amended approved.

Sections 148 to 167 inclusive approved.

On section 168.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 168, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 168(b), by renumbering the proposed section 799(3) of the Municipal Act as section 799(2.1).]

Section 168 as amended approved.

Sections 169 to 214 inclusive approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 215, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 215, in the proposed section 19(2) of the British Columbia Transit Act, by deleting "any of sections 14, 15 and 17(15)." and substituting "either of sections 14 and 15".]

Section 215 as amended approved.

Sections 216 to 230 inclusive approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendment to section 231, which is in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 231, by deleting "section 259.2" and substituting "section 359.2".]

Section 231 as amended approved.

Sections 232 to 238 inclusive approved.

On section 239.

T. Nebbeling: This section intrigues me. I don't know if it is a section that there's a problem with, but it intrigues me for the reason that we have put a lot of emphasis in this bill on how to empower municipalities to control businesses. We just deleted two sections that I felt would have been going too far, because it would have told businesses that are in place that they no longer can be in a community, and after three years they have to be ready to pick up their materials and disappear.

This particular section is actually, under the Horse Racing Act, giving individuals who are licensed under section 11 of the Horse Racing Act. . .to overrule all the sections in the provisions that deal with business licences and other areas where municipalities have a say in business operations in their town -- by having a fundamental waiver where municipal councils, including the city of Vancouver or its delegates, do not under these sections have the right to refuse a business licence for these horse operators.

Maybe the minister can explain to me what justifies any business that you can think of to be prohibited by a municipality under this act; but when it comes to horse racing, it's not. I know there was an Attorney General who today is a lobbyist for the horse-racing industry. But I think this really goes too far, and I would really like to hear an explanation.

[2005]

T. Nebbeling: I understand that the provision was there in the past. Without maybe wanting to hit on the horse-racing industry, because I believe it is an industry that is having enough difficulties right now because of certain forms of taxation it is subject to, I still must say that we have seen a considerable number of changes in this act that have given municipalities the authority to deal with businesses. I like to see horse racing, in this sense, as a business. The powers that have been given to municipalities to deal with businesses of any nature and to prohibit them from entering into a community, telling them to leave a community. . . . Why is this particular sector of business excluded from that? There must be a reason for that. If the minister hasn't got it, then maybe I can get it later. But I find it really an intriguing situation. Without putting blame on people, I feel that the lobbyists may have succeeded in achieving something here that the big corporate world out there has not been able to do, and that is getting a waiver from certain sections that are being introduced in this bill. Maybe the minister can explain that.

Hon. J. Kwan: My staff advises me that this may well have been in place before I was born, so I wouldn't really know the thrust of it. What I should say, though, is that if the member is really interested, I would advise the member to

[ Page 14402 ]

As well, when we embarked on the discussions with local government, they never identified this section as an issue for us to look at. Therefore it just hadn't been changed. As I said, the only changes that we brought about were consequential changes in terms of references to the sections, etc., because of the changes that we have brought in in other parts of the act.

Sections 239 to 252 inclusive approved.

[2010]

Hon. J. Kwan: I move the amendments to sections 253, 254.1 to 254.3, 258.1, 272.1, 284, 291, 304.1, 311, 311.1, 317, 323, 328, 332.1, 333 and, 336, which are in the possession of the Clerk.

[SECTION 253, by deleting the proposed section 253 and substituting the following:

253 Section 11.1 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1)(a) and substituting the following:

(a) to a local government who is a party to an agreement under section 334.1 or 828 of the Municipal Act, or, and

(b) in subsection (5) by striking out "subsection (1)(c)," and substituting "subsection (1)(b)".

SECTIONS 254.1 to 254.3, by adding the following sections:

254.1 Section 23(1) is amended by striking out "section 461 of".

254.2 Section 24(1) is amended

(a) in paragraph (a) by striking out "section 831 of", and

(b) in paragraph (b) by striking out "section 835 of".

254.3 Section 26(1) is amended by striking out "section 833 or 835 of".

SECTION 258.1, by adding the following:

Power for Jobs Development Act

258.1 Section 7(6)(b) of the Power for Jobs Development Act, S.B.C. 1997, c. 51, is amended by striking out "sections 601 to 603" and substituting "sections 360 and 363".

SECTION 272.1, by adding the following section:

272.1 Section 1 of the Supplement to the Act, enacting section 15(1) of the Act, is amended by striking out "for general and debt purposes levied under section 331(1)(a) and (b) of the Municipal Act" and substituting "imposed under section 359(1)(a) of the Municipal Act".

SECTION 284, in the proposed section 31(1)(b) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "up".

SECTION 291, in the proposed section 47(4)(f)(iii) of the Vancouver Charter, by deleting "as they apply" and substituting "as it applies".

SECTION 304.1, by adding the following section:

304.1 Section 122(6)(a) is repealed.

SECTION 311, by deleting section 311 and substituting the following:

311 Section 145.1 is amended

(a) by repealing subsection (1) and substituting the following:

(1) This section applied to

(a) all meetings of Council, and

(b) meetings of committees referred to in section 165.6 [standing, select and other Council committees]., and

(b) by repealing subsections (4) to 12).

SECTION 311.1, by adding the following section:

311.1 The following section is added:

Council member declaration if not entitled to vote

145.2 (1) This section applies to members of Council in relation to

(a) Council meetings,

(b) meetings of committees referred to in section 165.6 [standing, select and other Council committees], and

(c) meetings of bodies that are subject to section 165.7 [application to other city bodies].

(2) If a Council member attending a meeting considers that he or she is not entitled to

(a) participate in the discussion of a matter, or

(b) vote on a question in respect of a matter because the member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter or for any other reason, the member must declare this and state the general nature of why the member considers this to be the case.

(3) After making a declaration required by subsection (2), the member

(a) shall not take part in the discussion of the matter and is not entitled to vote on any question in respect of the matter,

(b) shall immediately leave the meeting or that part of the meeting during which the matter is under consideration, and

(c) shall not attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter.

(4) When a declaration required by subsection (2) is made,

(a) the person recording the minutes of the meeting shall record the member's declaration, the reasons given for it and the times of the member's departure from the meeting room and, if applicable, of the member's return, and

(b) the person presiding at the meeting shall ensure that the member is not present at the meeting at the time of any vote on the matter.

(5) Whether or not a declaration is made under subsection (2), if a Council member has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter, the member shall not

(a) participate in the discussion of the matter,

(b) vote on a question in respect of the matter, or

(c) attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter.

(6) Subsection (5) does not apply

(a) if the pecuniary interest of the Council member is a pecuniary interest in common with electors of the city generally,

(b) if the matter relates to remuneration or expenses payable to one or more Council members in relation to their duties as Council members, or

(c) if the pecuniary interest is so remote or insignificant that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the member in relation to the matter.

(7) A person who contravenes subsection (5) is disqualified from continuing to hold office as a member of Council, unless the contravention was done inadvertently or because of an error in judgment made in good faith.

(8) If otherwise qualified, a person disqualified under subsection (7) is qualified to be nominated and elected in the by-election to fill the vacancy created by this disqualification and, if elected, is qualified to hold the office.

(9) The Council may apply to the court for an order under subsection (11) if, as a result of subsection (2),

[ Page 14403 ]

the number of Council members who may discuss and vote on a matter falls below

(a) the quorum for Council, or

(b) the number of Council members required to adopt the applicable by-law or resolution.

(10) An application under subsection (9) may be made without notice to any other person.

(11) On an application under subsection (9), the court may

(a) order that all or specified members of Council may discuss and vote on the matter, despite the other provisions of this section, and

(b) make the authority under paragraph (a) subject to any conditions and directions the court considers appropriate.

SECTION 317, by deleting "Sections 374.4 and 375.5" and substituting "Sections 374.4 and 374.5".

SECTION 323,

(a) by deleting the proposed subsection (7) and substituting the following:

(7) A bylaw in relation to elections or other voting under the election amendments may be adopted any time after June 29, 1999 and, if adopted before those amendments come into force, is deemed to be retroactive to the date of its adoption.,

(b) in the proposed subsection (8) by adding "June 29, 1999, being" before "the date on which this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly,", and

(c) in the proposed subsections (9)(a) and 10 by deleting "the date on which this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" and substituting "June 29, 1999".

SECTION 328, by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) If a bylaw under the old section 252

(a) imposes a tax or charge on property other than taxable property within the meaning of the new section 651.1, and

(b) was adopted

(i) before June 29, 1999, being the date on which this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly, or

(ii) in accordance with subsection (2) of this section,

the bylaw ceases to have effect on June 30, 2004, unless earlier repealed.

SECTION 332.1, by adding the following section:

Continuation of current tax collection arrangements

332.1 If a bylaw has imposed a tax collection scheme under the old section 391 or 394(2), until the bylaw is repealed, the municipality continues to have the authority provided under the old provisions in relation to the bylaw and, for these purposes, those sections are deemed not to have been repealed, except that the bylaw may not be amended to

(a) change a date on which an instalment of taxes is to be paid under the old section 391,

(b) change a date on which percentage additions may be made under the old section 394, or

(c) change the amount of a percentage addition referred to in paragraph (b).

SECTION 333, in the proposed subsection (1), by adding "the new" before "Division 2".

SECTION 336, by deleting the proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) Sections 9, 10, 12 to 43, 63, 146, 263 to 269, 275, 278 to 310, 321 to 323 and 328 are deemed to have come into force on June 29, 1999, being the date on which this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly and are retroactive to the extent necessary to give them effect on and after that date.]

Sections 253 to 336 inclusive as amended approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. Kwan: I move committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 8:12 p.m.