1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2789 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 2789

Ministerial travel. Mr. Lea –– 2790

Forestry waste assessment. Mr. Lea –– 2790

Ministerial travel. Mr. Skelly –– 2790

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 2790

Rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 2790

Ministerial travel. Hon. Mr. Waterland replies –– 2791

Hospital funding. Mrs. Dailly –– 2791

Programs for women. Ms. Brown –– 2791

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 14). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 15). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 26). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 28). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 35). Committee stage, (Hon.

Mr. Smith)

section 5 –– 2793

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mrs. Dailly

section 8 –– 2794

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

section 9 –– 2796

Ms. Brown

section 10 –– 2797

Ms. Brown

On

Section I –– 2797

Ms. Brown

section 12 –– 2798

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

section 13 –– 2799

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

section 14 –– 2799

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

section 25 –– 2800

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Ms. Brown

section 14 –– 2802

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Rose

section 28 –– 2802

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

section 29 –– 2805

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

section 30 –– 2805

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

section 33 –– 2805

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barnes

section 48 –– 2805

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Hon. Mr. Brummet

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, there are four outstanding

civic legislators in the members' gallery today, from the constituency

of Kamloops. I would like the House to welcome His Worship Mayor Mike

Latta and aldermen Kenna Cartwright, Patricia Wallace and Dr. Tony

Milobar.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, Eileen Bevan of the Hansard

staff would like the House to welcome two special friends who are in

the Speaker's gallery today: Mr. and Mrs. Leland Dollar from Durban,

South Africa.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Visiting us in the House today we have two

very fine constituents of mine from Powell River: Mr. and Mrs. Axel

Nord. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr.

Dick Canney from the city of Toronto. He is a special projects officer

with the Ontario government. I would ask the House to bid him welcome

to beautiful B.C.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Visiting Victoria today is my assistant

from Prince George, Marilyn Hinton, who is very active with the party

and assists me in my ministry. I would like the House to bid her

welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a

number of students from the Avalon alternate secondary school in the

company of Mr. Ames. I ask all members to bid them a cordial welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: In the gallery today from Prince George South

are Gordon and Patricia Pickering. Would the House please welcome these

constituents of mine.

Oral Questions

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of

Tourism. Will the minister advise whether the government ordered B.C.

Hydro to confer a benefit valued at about $200,000 to officials of

Mainland Magazine to circulate promotional material regarding the sale

of Beautiful British Columbia magazine subscriptions to all B.C. Hydro customers?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question

is no.

MR. COCKE: Interesting. Will the minister advise whether the government

undertook free mailing of Beautiful British Columbia magazine promotional material

as part of the terms of sale?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, again, the answer to the

question is no. I would like to elaborate a little. I am pleased that

the member has asked the question, because it does give a chance to

clear the air and say exactly what happened.

The Hydro promotion of mailing out subscription renewals is a

long-standing tradition between the magazine and Hydro. The agreement

to do this was an agreement reached between the purchaser and B.C.

Hydro. It was done to assist in the transition of the magazine from the

public to the private sector, and it was done on the proviso that there

would be absolutely no additional cost to the taxpayers of British

Columbia. Any additional costs were to be borne by the magazine.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that there was no

condition of this arrangement in the agreement for sale. It was only an

undertaking that it would be requested of Hydro by the purchaser and

that Beautiful British Columbia magazine would make such a request. The decision was made by B.C. Hydro.

MR. COCKE: Very interesting. When a government appointed

board have a request made by a government, I would gather that the

answer would be in the affirmative.

Mr. Speaker, why were the other prospective buyers not given this opportunity?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to point out that the request was not made by government. Secondly, all the other applicants to purchase Beautiful British Columbia

magazine had that in their submission, including, I might add,

Maclean-Hunter, the vice-president of which phoned me this morning to

apologize profusely for statements made by one of his staff. In fact —

to clear up the matter, since there has been some doubt cast by the

member — clause 9 of their submission asks that government agree to

this mail-out from Hydro for five years. Mr. Armstead assures me that

Hydro would have agreed to the same conditions if they had been the

successful purchaser.

MR. COCKE: It sounds pretty profound to me. But in any event,

the minister previously took on notice the question of why the

government has also mailed out at its own expense subscription renewal

notices to all Beautiful British Columbia

magazine subscribers. Will the minister explain why this action was

taken and whether other interested parties were advised that the

government would provide this service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I will. I am glad that the member has

re-asked his question of October 6, because I have the answer to the

question I took as notice. In his question the member made an

assumption that the cost of sending out the renewals was being borne by

the taxpayers, and I would like to point out that once again the member

is totally wrong. The cost of the renewals mailed out by Beautiful British Columbia is being borne by the new publisher-owner by prior agreement.

[ Page 2790 ]

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. It is a time, the government informs us, of

government restraint, and normally the expenses that a minister would

incur this year would not come up for public scrutiny in public

accounts until the following year. But because I know that the

government is very interested in showing the public of the province

that they're putting their money where their mouth is, or not putting

as much money where their mouth is — I wonder if the minister has

decided, so that people can see this government as practising what they

preach, to make the expenses of his trip to Europe public in the

Legislature at this time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest that my estimates will be

on the floor of the Legislature within the next several months, and

that my hon. critic, the member for Prince Rupert, will have during

that time the opportunity to question me about anything to do with my

department that he wishes. But I want to tell the member for Prince

Rupert that I'm glad this government has undertaken an overseas

merchandising trip, and I'll be quite happy to discuss that whole

program during my estimates.

MR. LEA: I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that anyone on this side

is saying that ministers, even in bad times, don't have to travel. What

we're asking is: did the minister direct his staff to put him up in

hotels or accommodation on this trip that may not be as expensive as on

previous trips? We'd like to see that tabled in the Legislature. Did he

stay in the best hotels, as he usually does, or did he ask his staff

when making his arrangements to put him into places that were clean and

reasonable?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd be most happy to inform the

member for Prince Rupert that the Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development always stays in clean and reasonably priced

hotels, even when I travel to Prince Rupert,

[2:15]

FORESTRY WASTE ASSESSMENT

MR. LEA: A while ago, in question period, the Minister of

Forests took an endeavour that when he received from Macmillan Bloedel

the waste assessment sheets coming in he would make them available in

the Legislature. I wonder whether the minister has those sheets now and

whether he will make them available.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The waste assessment sheets would be

received from the ministry, not Macmillan Bloedel. As a matter of fact

— I think it was last week — I sent another note over to the ministry

asking where they were, and as soon as they arrive I will be more than

happy to share them with the member for Prince Rupert.

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL

MR. SKELLY: Has the Minister of Forests obtained Treasury Board authorization for ministerial travel to China at public expense?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I certainly know that the request for

travel has gone to the Minister of Finance, and as I go through my mail

here today I will probably find the approval from that minister. As

soon as I do I'll be very happy to interrupt proceedings and so advise

the member.

MR. SKELLY: Can the minister advise what amount he requested from Treasury Board for that travel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We requested sufficient funds to do the

business which we have to do in China, and I'm sure that our request

was not for any more than the absolute minimum required to do it in a

very frugal manner, as is my normal custom, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Forests, in his response, said

he was expecting the approval would be on his desk. I would ask the

minister if it is not the policy that they must get prior approval that

is the understanding I have from the auditor general before travelling

outside of the country.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if I don't have that approval on my desk before 11:00 o'clock tomorrow, I assure the member I won't go to China.

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: I had another question for the Minister of Tourism

but I'll ask him this: would the Minister of Tourism care to

contemplate tabling the agreement with Mainland Magazine?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is yes.

MR. COCKE: When?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

RENT CONTROLS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions for

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister

advise what investigation, if any, he has conducted into major rent

hikes which have been inflicted upon tenants since the government

abolished rent control by order-in-council in conjunction with the July

budget?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have not instituted any major

investigation into major rent hikes, if there in fact have been a

number of them. I am aware of a number of examples that were brought to

me, some showing substantial increases and of course some showing

reductions in rents, or level rents, over the past year or 18 months.

But I think the member is aware, Mr. Speaker, that where there is an

increase of 15 percent on those rents that are still under $500, they

have the opportunity to have the rent reviewed during the next year, up

till October 1984.

MR. BLENCOE: This is not a question, but is the minister

aware that many tenants are very afraid of going to the rentalsman for

review because of the eviction without cause which is going to come in

with Bill 5? I think that is something you should take into

consideration when you're advising tenants to appeal, because they are

very scared to do that.

[ Page 2791 ]

A supplementary question: has the minister decided to investigate a

rent increase of 112 percent at 115 Haro Street, Vancouver, British

Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member

has identified an example. If he would send the information to my

office, I'd be quite pleased to investigate it and report back to him.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, I am not about to do your job. These applications are all on file in Vancouver....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria

repeatedly abuses the privileges of question period I would ask the

hon. member to confine his remarks in question period to questions.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister

undertake to investigate a 60 percent increase at 809 Denman Street in

Vancouver following the cabinet decision to lift rent controls?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, what really disturbs me in this

House is that that second member for Victoria has never come to my

office to raise the issue of concern regarding....

MR. BLENCOE: You're the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, questions and answers are what this period is for. Debate is for another forum in this House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, then can I say to you that I

would hope that the member opposite or the MLA from the area concerned

would go to my ministry offices, where we have people employed to deal

with this type of issue, and give them that information. If they do

give them that information, I am confident that my staff will carry out

an investigation. I also extend to the members opposite that if they

wish to come to my office with any particular item of concern, I will

be pleased to investigate it forthwith.

MR. BLENCOE: That information is on file in the office of the rentalsman, which you are the minister for. On a supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know if the member thinks he is a ventriloquist or what, Mr. Speaker....

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member indicates a supplementary question.

MR. BLENCOE: Has the minister decided to investigate a 48

percent increase in rent imposed on the occupants of 1345 West 13th

Street in Vancouver?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a supplementary. That

is a new question, The Chair had taken the Minister of Forests' place

in order that the member be afforded a supplementary.

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a followup to the

question just asked me by the member for Alberni, as soon as they heard

this question my staff. being the normal, efficient staff they are,

sent down the approved travel authorization form to me. It happens to

have been dated October 6, so it is in hand long before my departure on

the trip. The amount requested for the trip was $4,150.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister

of Health. The B.C. Hospitals Association alleges that the 3.9 percent

increase in this year's budget does not provide enough money to finance

current operations. Has the minister decided to review this

information, and has he decided to reconsider an adjustment in this

year's grant levels?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know to whom they have

made that allegation. I don't know whether the member suggests they

have advised my ministry of this or they are talking among themselves.

I would have to know who has made that statement and to whom.

MRS. DAILLY: In the interest in assisting the minister in

answering the question, the president of the B.C. Hospitals Association

has stated that hospitals have not been allocated enough money to

finance current pay levels let alone consider a 3 percent increase next

year and a 1 percent increase after that. Will the minister comment on

that statement?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if perhaps we could

trouble the Clerk to ring the bell to end question period, which

actually ended about two minutes ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Labour and has to do with a memo which went out under the signature of

the deputy minister. The minister issued a news release on July 19

stating that women's programs were never considered a direct order for

cost-cutting measures. Can he advise why his deputy minister

responsible for women's programs is now writing government officials to

determine which government cutbacks affect women?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2792 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

Bill 3 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 6 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

Skelly

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 9 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 27

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reynolds

Reid

NAYS — 17

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 11 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

Skelly

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 2793 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE (COLOURED)

TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1963

Bill 14 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 15 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 26 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

[2:45]

MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL TREASURY FINANCING

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 28 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 5.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it may be of assistance to

the committee with respect to

section 5, which redefines

"chiropractic," that the previous definition of "chiropractic" under

our act restricted the area of involvement by a chiropractor to that of

the spinal column. The new definition permits the chiropractic

adjustments to take into consideration articulations of the human body

other than specifically the spinal column. The new definition is in

line with the

definitions allowed for "chiropractic" in other

jurisdictions in North America and it permits chiropractors in British

Columbia to perform similarly to their fellow chiropractors elsewhere.

MRS. DAILLY: We had that explanation from the minister who

was in charge of this bill when the Minister of Health was away; we

appreciate the further explanation on that. At the time we were

debating this we did expand outside of this particular amendment to ask

a question of the minister in charge at that time — I can't remember

which minister. Anyway, he did say he would discuss it with the

Minister of Health. Our question was: seeing you have expanded this

area with the chiropractors, could the minister comment on the

possibility of allowing x-rays to be used by the chiropractors? I know

the minister is well aware of the problem. I'm sure he has had

chiropractors appeal to him about it. Our concern is primarily the

extra cost to the patient and to medicare, which has to be charged with

the cost of paying for another x-ray. Could the minister comment on

that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the question of x-rays for

chiropractors and others has been an ongoing argument or discussion

between the two associations for some

[ Page 2794 ]

time. We have not made any modification to it. This

amendment, of course, doesn't have any effect on that. It is not a

simple problem, depending on which camp you listen to, because there

are some very strong disagreements with respect to the use of x-rays.

The Medical Services Plan at the moment does not cover x-rays as

offered by the chiropractor, as it is not part of the overall program.

We have not yet resolved the disagreement between the Chiropractic

Association and the BCMA or the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

So we really have nothing new with respect to x-rays. We are still endeavouring to find some middle ground.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved,

section 8.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have some real concerns about this

section. This

section is the one that deals with the disposal of

documents, and it does a couple of things. One which I have no

objection to is that it expands the definition of a document. That's in

subsection (a). What happens is that now a document becomes books,

documents, maps, drawings, photographs, letters, vouchers, papers and

any other thing on which information is recorded or stored by any

means, whether graphic, electronic, mechanical or otherwise. That's

fine. If they want to expand the definition of a document to include

these other things, I don't really see anything wrong with it. But the

section goes on to introduce a new concept of "records schedule." It

says that when a document is first introduced.... It's stated right at

the beginning that we're going to be told how long that document is

going to remain active, at what point in time it is going to become

dormant and when it is going to be legal to destroy it.

I fail to understand why we need this amendment, because presently

under the act we have a

section which says that documents remain alive

and well for seven years. After that a decision is made as to whether

to dispose of them or not. This amendment means that, for example,

vouchers which are used by cabinet ministers to go to Broadway shows or

whatever can, when they are introduced, have a time-span built into

them that will say, "This voucher is only going to remain active for

six months, then it is going to become dormant and then it should be

destroyed," rather than have that voucher available for the legislative

committee on public accounts to look at for up to seven years.

So I am opposed to this, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce an amendment to

section 8(b).

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you need two copies? I only have one. I can write another one quickly for you. Did you find it? Okay.

The amendment is to delete subsections (

a) and (b). Those are the

additions which would describe a document's lifespan from the date on

which it was created until its final disposition. It means that we

would go back to the lifespan which is outlined in the existing

legislation under the Document Disposal Act,

chapter 95.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it would seem that the

amendment takes us back mostly to the earlier legislation. You may want

to consider whether it's in order or not. If you rule that it is in

order, I will respond a little more fully to the member's concerns.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee appreciates the fact that it's a

negation, but not a total negation. I would like to see the amendment

first. We'll allow debate on it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, based on previous rulings, I was

very careful not to negate the whole

section because I realize that

that would be out of order.

As I said, I want to expand.... We have legislation which already

says that documents can be destroyed when they are deemed not to be of

sufficient public value to justify their preservation, and an officer

in charge of having custody of the document, blah, blah, blah, etc., so

forth and so on. But now we have a new concept being introduced; that

is, that the government is going to specify when a document is

introduced exactly what the lifespan of that document is going to be.

For example, there's absolutely nothing to prevent a government

deciding that the lifespan of every document introduced during its term

of office comes to an end and should be destroyed once that

government's term of office comes to an end. It's another centralizing

kind of thing which the government is doing. In addition to that, it

really is impairing our access to information. It is interfering with

the opposition's and the public's right to know what's going on inside

these documents.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you that the definition

of the document was expanded to include everything. It's not just the

old definition of books, maps, schedules and those kinds of things. It

has now expanded to include anything that is graphic, electronic,

mechanical or otherwise; everything can now be designated a document.

At the time a memo is written, it can be put on the memo that this

document remains active for ten minutes, then it becomes dormant and

then it's time to dispose of it. Or the document can remain active for

24 hours, or whatever. That is going to curtail and interfere with

access to information at a time when the government and everyone should

be making information more available to the community at large, and

certainly to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We find the government

building this kind of protection into its legislation, and I think it's

dangerous.

Interjection.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: That's right. Vouchers, expense claims and all of

those kinds of information can have their life shortened. The access of

Public Accounts,

which now does not have access to a document until it's over a year

old, can be tampered with. So I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that you are

ready to rule that my amendment is in order so that I may debate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I would like to give the minister plenty of time

to get up and say that he is accepting the amendment, naturally in good

faith. You have seen it, have you? Or you certainly have a pretty good

idea what it says.

[ Page 2795 ]

We're a bit suspicious in this particular area, and that's precisely

why we've moved the amendment. We can't see the urgency for the

destruction of all these documents, particularly in such short order as

we can visualize in our mind's eye.

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess the member's reasoned argument

deserves some comment. I appreciate that she may see some Orwellian

significance in the extension of the definition of documents and the

advance designation of the lifespan of a document. But the designation

of the lifespan of the document isn't going to be done in a

self-serving way by the minister who has possession of it; it's going

to be done in categories by regulation which will be published. So that

if you take the ordinary kind of memo that passes in government offices

— simple memos — you might have a regulation that gives them a lifespan

of a year, and then after one year they move into active designation

and after three years they're disposed of, or something along that

line. It wouldn't, be individually based, it would be category-based;

it would be done by regulation in categories, and there would be a

person or an officer who would be in charge of that.

But in an era where I think everybody is trying to bring about more

efficiencies in government, to bring forward masses of documents every

five years, every seven years or whatever it is to a committee to sort

of look over and then give the okay to as to whether these should be

disposed of, seems highly bureaucratic. I can also tell you that I

doubt that documents and the destruction of them will be extended to

the desks of members or past members or pieces of furniture or that

sort of thing. I don't think this can be used in an Orwellian way even

though it may be capable of an Orwellian construction.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the

minister should mention Orwell. It just happens that I'm halfway

through once again reading 1984, and the only thing I am finding of

course is that most of 1984 has come to pass — came to pass, anyway, on

July 7, 1983. But the explanation terrifies me even more than my

original thinking on it. I think it's even more dangerous, Mr. Chairman

— what the minister has outlined is going to happen to documents once

this

section goes through and makes it absolutely clear that we're

going to have a shutting down of even that very tiny window on

information which we now have. For that reason I hope that the minister

will at least accept the amendment in good faith and let us go back and

continue to work with the act on document disposal as it now stands, as

imperfect as it is.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to extend the designation to areas

other than what we perceive as documents today, I think, is within

reason. But to provide that the opportunity to make sure that certain

categories are destroyed at the will of the government.... That's what

we're talking about when we're talking about that it's going to be done

by regulation. I perceive that as a dangerous proposition, because

those regulations can be made or destroyed. You're going to find a

later

section in this bill that talks about how the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council may make regulations including regulations,

whatever the hell that means.

Mr. Chairman, our bone of contention is that there should be the

same kind of time disposition as is presently in place, or let them

legislate it so we know what we're voting for.

Right now we're voting for the government to make the decision

behind the closed door. That's what we worry about, because we've seen

some of the decisions that have come out from behind that large oak

door called the cabinet door.

HON. MR. SMITH: There is the safeguard under the amendment

which is 9 on the bill but the amendment to 3(2), which has the effect

of providing that a document won't be destroyed before seven years

unless.... It has to be a document, under the amendment, that's listed

in the records

schedule approved by the select standing committee. So

there is the opportunity for a committee of this House to approve the

record schedule, and the record

schedule is the document that will set

out the timetable. I appreciate the concern, but I think this is an

amendment that has been genuinely introduced to try to eliminate

bureaucracy and the cost of moving and storing documents, and it is not

designed in any way to prevent access to information.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you didn't rule the

minister out of order even though he had moved on to another section,

because that gives me the opportunity to comment on his comment, which

is that the safeguards built into the other

section are going to be

abrogated by the amendments covered in

section 9. We're going to have

the public accounts committee, which has an overwhelming number of

government members on it, ruling on the value of a document that may be

condemning or damning in some way in terms of the government or one of

its members. His explanations make things worse. Every time he

explains, I become more alarmed by what he is saying. In fact, the act

as it now reads says the documents can't be destroyed except after

seven years unless certain things happen. And then when we go to

section 9 we'll discuss the amendments introduced under

section 9 which

will gut those "unlesses" — if there is such a word.

What we have is that any document or record, by electronic media or

mechanical or otherwise, that the government — either with the cabinet

or individual — will now have access to when they introduce that

document....

Mr. Chairman, a statement went out from the Ministry of Labour

dealing with women's programs today, there wasn't any reason why that

document with that information in it could not have had a timespan

attached to it as outlined by these amendments. The definition says:

"includes any other thing on which information is recorded or stored by

any means." They've expanded the definition of document now to include

everything, and then they have introduced this new section, which they

call the record schedule, which says that at the time the document is

drawn up we I re going to get a

schedule which tells us the lifespan of

the document. What, I am saying to you, is going to interfere with our

access to information.

We should be expanding the opportunity for us to have access to

information, not shrinking it — and certainly not centralizing it in

the hands of the cabinet. As it now stands, that document lives for

seven years, Now an amendment is being introduced which is going to

tamper with that and bring that to an end. I think that that is very

dangerous.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether the minister wants to respond

to that before I ask a question. It seems to me that these clauses

under the Document Disposal Act amendments

[ Page 2796 ]

are distinctly out of place in a modern,

computer-based society. I think the government is trying to create the

view here that these documents are so bulky that they're going to

require great warehouses to store them;

whereas we know that today,

through the aid of the chip, you can store documents forever, and even

though you might destroy the original document you can put that

information through a computer. It's electronic storage, it doesn't

take any space or bulk at all, and it's just a matter of course that

all these things could be preserved for a lot of reasons. One is that

they could be significant heritage material. They could be archival

material of the type that could be extremely valuable for future

scholars. The other side of it is that we should be able to have this

on microfilm or on chip or on computers or in some other way, so that

we can have this stuff on the basis of freedom of information alone.

The temptation to destroy material that might be a bit controversial or

iffy is certainly always going to be present.

[3:15]

I have had some experience in the business of document storage. I left office

twice in Ottawa, once voluntarily and another time because I was fired. The

archival material was requested by Archives Canada, all of the correspondence

of that whole period of being a back-bencher — an individual back-bencher, his

letters and all the rest of it. If that kind of material is of potential value

for some future scholars, or for whatever other reasons, certainly the documents

issued by cabinet ministers must, after a time, be made public and useful. I

would hate to see any valuable information suppressed that might be of some

historical or scholarly significance.

That is why I am a little concerned about this. I admit I haven't

heard all the debate, but it seems to me unnecessary. If you can't

defend it on the grounds of bulk or on the grounds of the difficulty of

retrieval or storage, then the only way that I think it can be defended

is on the basis of some information being so sensitive that we need

that stuff destroyed after it has had its limited usefulness or

circulation.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if I could put a little historical

significance on this whole thing. Right now the archives are almost

bursting with a bunch of irrelevant material that has been there

because the Social Credit majority onPublic Accounts last year and

again this year decided that they didn't want to have the documents

disposed of, but they didn't know quite why. Therefore there is great

pressure down there. Then we come up with this as an alternative to

that situation. The documents that I'm describing are seven years and

older, some of them a good deal older. That's the genesis for this

little piece of legislation. In any event, I think the minister is

overreacting to the screams and hollers. If he would only go to his own

colleagues and say: "Look, let them dispose of the documents that

should be disposed of...." MaybePublic Accounts , if they ever get

another opportunity to meet, can pass a resolution to that effect. In

any event, there are two years of documents that haven't been disposed

of by virtue of the fact that somebody suspected that maybe they should

take a look at them. But nobody has, so they sit there. I think we're

just overreacting, and I support the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I think the Document Disposal Act is one that is

too important to treat in a cavalier manner. It's not just, as my

colleague from Coquitlam said, that there's stuff that's of interest to

archivists as part of our heritage. There are also very important

vouchers and documents which the whole assembly should have some

control over, in terms of if and when it is ever to be disposed of. The

decision under the original act to put the date of seven years on each

document is a good one, and the minister has not explained why a

decision is being made to change it. As my colleague from Coquitlam

said, saying that it's too much paper to be piled up in one spot is

just not good enough. Information can be put, as he said, on microchip

or microfilm. There are many ways of reducing information and storing

it so that it doesn't take up much space. The minister knows that. He

is really not serious when he gives us an explanation to the effect

that it's too much paper using up too much space.

I would ask him to consider seriously, if he doesn't want to accept

the amendment, at least pulling this

section and referring it to a

legislative committee. Let us have more discussion about this and about

why it is that the government at this time needs to do two things. Why

does the government need to expand the definition of "document," and

why does the government now need to curtail the length of time a

document is protected and therefore available for public scrutiny

either by this House or by the community at large? We need to talk

about this, because I think it's just not good enough to slip it into a

Miscellaneous Statutes Act and through the Legislature that way. It's

just too important a thing in terms of a democratic society for us to

treat it in this cavalier manner.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

NAYS — 27

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to call a division on

section 9 too, in case anyone wants to hang around, Mr. Chairman.

Section 9 goes on to amend

section 3 of the original act, which

says: "No document shall be destroyed before the expiration of seven

years from which it was created unless...." It gives two reasons why a

document can be

[ Page 2797 ]

destroyed. In addition to that we have a new

section which now allows the document to be destroyed based on the

schedule which we just passed in

section 8 and which I was opposed to.

What I'm suggesting we do is amend

section 9 and accept the fact that

section 3(2), as it is in the Document Disposal Act, should stand, but

where subsection (

c) is added — to list the record of schedules — that

that be deleted and that subsection (2), where it said "be destroyed in

accordance with instructions in the record schedules," be deleted too.

In actual fact what will happen is that

section 3(2), as it now stands

in the Document Disposal Act, is a

section which will stand if my

amendment succeeds.

Speaking in support of the amendment, I want just to accept that I

lost the amendment on

section 8 and that in fact there is now going to

be a prescription, with all documents and records, saying exactly what

their lifespan is going to be, and when they're going to be active, at

what stage they're going to be dormant and when they can be destroyed.

I've accepted that fact even though I disagree with it. What I would

like to see, however, is that the original rule, that the document

should live for seven years, be operative and that the only exceptions

to those rules be the rules outlined in subsections (2)(

a) and (2)(

b) of the original act. That is, two years have expired from the date on

which it was created, and there is available to the officer who would,

but for the destruction, have charge or custody of the document

microfilm copy — which is what my colleague from Coquitlam mentioned —

or the recommendation has come through the Select Standing Committee on

Public Accounts and Economic Affairs. I think those two criteria have

worked — as I said, imperfectly, but they have worked — and I think

they should stand.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, this amendment as proposed for

this

section is too much of a negativity, and I have to rule the

amendment out of order.

MS. BROWN: What do you mean, too much of a negativity?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a direct negative, hon. member, and the amendment is out of order.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Campbell

R. Fraser

Johnston

Pelton

Michael

Ritchie

Richmond

Hewitt

Heinrich

McClelland

Brummet

Waterland

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reynolds

Reid

Parks

NAYS — 15

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 10.

MS. BROWN: Can the Attorney-General explain the significance

of the comma? A whole

section has been written just to put a comma in.

Or should I ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) that?

HON. MR. SMITH: For greater grammatical certainty and

composition of emphasis and being a very cautious draftsman, this

section was recommended in that form with a comma.

Section 10 approved.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

section 11.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, sections 8 through 11 all deal with

the Document Disposal Act.

Section 11 deletes the

section of the act

which says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations

about the disposal of documents under this act. Then it goes on to add:

"designating and establishing classes and series for the purposes of

section 3(3)." As you know, that is the one we tried to amend earlier.

Then: "respecting the transfer, destruction or other disposition of

documents or classes or series of documents...and" — this is the

insidious part — "prescribing the form and content of records

schedules."

All of the arguments that I used earlier, when I introduced the

first amendment which was ruled in order and the second amendment which

was ruled out of order, apply here. We have the government expanding

the definition of document and throwing out a net so wide that nothing

is exempt. It includes every single thing. Then it says that the

decision to dispose of these documents is going to be based on a

certain record schedule. Then in this amendment it says the cabinet is

going to sit down and decide what the

schedule is, what classes of

documents, how they're affected, what their lifespan is, which one is

active for how long, which one is dormant for how long, etc.

We presently have a piece of legislation which clearly states seven

years, unless we find that it can be put on microfilm — after two years

you can destroy the document because you can now put it on microfilm —

or unless the Public Accounts and Economic Affairs Committee of the

Legislature says: "This document is no longer significant, so go ahead

and destroy it." That's gone now. This new amendment to that very

important act centralizes all action about what happens to every

voucher and document under the expanded definition that this government

issues. I insist that this is not in the best interests of the general

public. It is curtailing our access to information. It is an insidious

and

[ Page 2798 ]

dangerous amendment, and the opposition stands unalterably opposed to it.

I'm not going to try to amend this section, because it should be

deleted, and to do that would be to be ruled out of order. You can't

delete the entire section. I see the Clerk is agreeing with me. But if

it were possible, I would like to have seen sections 8, 9, 10 and 11

all deleted and the existing Document Disposal Act (1979) be the

document disposal act that stands. It just does not make any sense, Mr.

Chairman, if the government is really committed to freedom of

information to the community at large and everyone knowing what it's

doing, that it should start tampering with its documents in this way.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) described it as Orwellian, and

I certainly agree with him that it goes beyond Orwell. It's a dangerous

thing that we're doing here, Mr. Chairman. We're opposed to it and

we'll be voting against this section.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Chairman, I described the member's

fanciful

interpretation of the sections as Orwellian, not the bill. But

I know that as a student of Orwell she would understand that I was

referring to her

interpretation.

Section 11 simply makes clearer the major purposes of the

regulations rather than leaving them in a blanket form as it was

previously under the act. It makes very clear what the intentions are

in designation of categories, gives specific designations on the

transfer and destruction of documents, and also sets out the forms and

contents of the schedules. It seems to me that it's a better form of

draftsmanship than the previous section, which left us no guidance and

very wide discretion.

[3:45]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it does make it clearer. As I said

before it's the clarity that makes it even more frightening, because

the Attorney-General is very open and honest about what this amendment

is going to do, and it is what the amendment is going to do that we are

opposed to.

As to his comments about Orwell, Mr. Chairman, I want to say it may

be my imagination that this document is Orwellian, but I think that

history will bear me out that it will be found to go even further than

Orwell thought of in 1948, when he wrote his predictions of the future.

So we still remain unalterably opposed to this section, Mr. Chairman.

Section 11 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Howard

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Blencoe

Rose

Passarell

Mitchell

Wallace

Barnes

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 12.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have two basic questions on

section

12. Why are we doing this? The second question, the supplementary to

that, is: who asked for it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, we are doing it really to

assist taxpayers. It's a meting out of justice, to be honest with you,

because where assessments are made and it becomes apparent that the

assessment on a particular piece of property is too high, the

assessment could be under appeal, in court of revision to the

Assessment Appeal Board, or it could eventually end up in court. By

law, the taxes which have to be paid are those which are based on the

assessment which is under appeal. Now it may very well be that another

assessment will come in at a lower level. This gives the taxing

authority, and in fact the Minister of Finance, the authority to make

the adjustment in that year.

As I understand it, the law is now such that the taxes which would

have to be paid on the higher assessment must be paid, and it's really

nothing more than that. It allows the amounts to be collected for

school tax purposes to be adjusted in the current year, and under the

existing legislation — should this amendment not pass — it can only be

done in a subsequent year. I cannot speak on this first-hand, because

this particular amendment is sponsored by the Ministry of Finance, but

there obviously were a number of concerns and representations of those

concerns made to the Assessment Authority. Where an injustice was in

fact being perpetrated the law is such as to preclude the taxes being

paid at a lower level if in fact the assessment is too high.

MR. ROSE: I'm not quite clear on how this works exactly.

Suppose someone's appealing his taxes. Under this situation I assume if

the appeal is won during that current year, the taxes can then be

adjusted — not retroactively, but there can be some adjustment and

perhaps even a payback. Does the minister foresee a reimbursement to

certain aggrieved taxpayers provided they win an appeal? Or is the

adjustment in the hands of the assessment board under its power to be

able to grant that appeal without having it go to the appeal board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: For example, if it did go to the court of

revision, as a result of the hearing at the court of revision.... Of

course I'm not now talking about the Assessment Appeal Board or a court

of law. But let's say there was a reduction given by the court of

revision. That allows for an adjustment to be made in that year. The

law as now written would say that it would have to be in a subsequent

year. So the taxpayer gets the benefit of the year in which the court

of revision has made a decision that the assessment notice is

[ Page 2799 ]

incorporating a value on the property which is higher than it ought to be.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. ROSE: These are perhaps all rather housekeeping things,

but I'm not certain about that, so I ask the same questions about this

section: why, and who asked for it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The amendment on

section 13 is rather interesting....

AN HON. MEMBER:

Section 20.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, on

section 20; I appreciate that.

Let me give you an example of something which occurred in British

Columbia last year. One particular municipality was going through the

depths of recession, and the taxes were not being paid. In fact, the

percentage of unpaid taxes was very high. The law now states that the

municipality must remit by December 31 those taxes which are to be

paid, and in fact the assessment notices went out in July of that year.

The tremendous burden placed upon the municipality in the case of

school taxes which have not been paid by the taxpayers within that

municipality is, as I've mentioned, quite onerous. The municipality

would have to borrow those moneys from a bank and remit them to the

provincial government for school purposes. What we have suggested — and

it's incorporated within the proposed amendment — is a provision for

municipalities to pay taxes to the province when the tax revenue is

received by the municipality. It eliminates the current required

payment by December 31.

[4:00]

There are two alternatives which are given to municipalities: either full remittance

by February 15, permitting local governments to retain all penalties and interest

associated with taxes.... So the municipality, if they in fact did pay by

that date, would retain the penalties which would otherwise be payable to the

provincial government, and that of course involves interest as well as the penalty.

Or, in the alternative, if they defer the remittance which has not been collected,

then the penalties and interest which otherwise would be payable would accrue

to the Crown provincial. So we've given them an alternative. Remit the full

tax bill, and then when you do collect those taxes in the municipality for school

purposes you retain the interest and penalties which are provided for. If in

fact you do not wish to pay, you eventually will collect them and remit them

to the Crown, but the Crown then collects the interest and the penalty.

I can assure you, my experience with this particular town was that

it found an exorbitant burden placed upon it for school purposes. They

were entitled to some measure of relief.

MR. ROSE: I missed part of what the minister said, and it was

so detailed that I'm not sure I understood all of it. Nevertheless, for

clarification, the municipalities now have the right, if there are

unpaid taxes, not to remit the full amount, or if they do remit the

full amount, they have a grace period of two months, I think the

minister said. There is a possibility, if they remit by February, of

getting the penalties back or retaining the amount that would have been

the penalty. But what is not clear to me is how this helps them, except

perhaps in the case of the taxpayers being delinquent for more than two

months.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will repeat: the law states that taxes

are collected by a municipality for municipal purposes which it uses

itself, but it is also the collecting vehicle for school taxes. Those

school taxes are remitted to the Crown by December 31. What happened

was this: the taxes were not collected, but there was still a burden on

the municipality to remit those taxes to the Crown. Because the

municipality had not collected those taxes, it had to borrow funds from

its banker in order to pay the Crown. We as the Crown were using the

municipality, and still do, as a collection agent, but we placed upon

that municipality an additional burden. It was acting as our agent to

collect school taxes but couldn't collect them. Because they still had

to pay them under the Municipal Act, they were then incurring a

tremendous interest burden. So we thought we would look for a couple of

alternatives which would reduce the impact upon the municipality. The

first alternative as proposed in the amendment is that the municipality

will still remit by the due date. However, for those taxes which are

not paid — and you eventually do collect, or through tax sale sometime

down the road — you're entitled to the interest and the penalty which

would otherwise have gone to the Crown. That is what happens....

MR. ROSE: Where do they get it? Do they get it back from the Crown?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, they collect them from the taxpayer when they are remitted.

The other alternative was this: municipality, we realize that you

are our collection agent, and we recognize that you, as a municipality,

should not suffer the burden acting as our agent. If you have not

collected those taxes, you remit them when they come in, but we, the

Crown, are entitled to the interest and the penalty. So they have an

alternative. It's meting out a measure of justice.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. ROSE: I would like a similar explanation on

section 14.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This amendment clarifies that the first

$5,000 of assessed value of farm outbuildings is deducted in assessing

farm improvements. It was to coincide with the provision under the

Municipal Act.

MR. ROSE: You mean $50,000?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Pardon me, it should be $50,000. The first $50,000.

MR. ROSE: It's up from what?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Up from $5,000.

[ Page 2800 ]

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask the minister whether or not he

has a calculation of what this means in revenue to the province —

forfeited revenue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot answer that question. I believe

the question is: what, as a result of increasing the exemption from

$5,000 to $50,000, is the amount of revenue which is to be forfeited by

the Crown? I cannot answer that question. I would respectfully suggest,

though, that it would probably be a negligible sum.

MR. ROSE: It's of some significance, because if some group,

whether farmers or industries or commercial groups, are paying less,

and the bill remains the same, it means other people are paying more.

Exemptions given to commerce or business or farms or industry for

buildings and machinery which are not remitted by that particular

segment of taxpayers are going to place the equivalent burden on the

others. I'd like to know what those figures are.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I repeat my earlier comment:

I cannot give you the exact figures. To assist the member, I will raise

this point. Remember, the $5,000 was $5,000 of assessed value. We're

talking $50,000 now; that means $50,000 of actual value, That's the

first item. So the amount which is forfeited, if in fact there is some

— and I suspect there may very well be — will then be mitigated or

reduced.

I might also say that this particular amendment is in accord with

the Municipal Act and reflects the change of assessed value to actual

value basis. We've already done that in the Municipal Act. I do not see

any reason why those who pay school taxes should not have the

opportunity for the same benefit. So the only way I can help the member

is by drawing the distinction between assessed and actual value —

assessed being $5,000 and actual being $50,000. Also, it is already in

the Municipal Act, and there's no particular reason why it should not

be in the Education (Interim) Finance Act. As to the actual amount

which is forfeited, I still cannot answer that question.

MR. ROSE: Well, would the minister agree to provide me with that information when he has it? He can go to Finance and get it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes. Whatever I can find to help out....

I'll have to go to my colleague the Minister of Finance, whose

particular amendment this is, but I'd be glad to accommodate the member

for anything like that.

MR. ROSE: As to the parallel between that and the Municipal

Act having to do with actual value as opposed to assessed value, I have

just one small problem with it. That has to do with — I know it's nice

and neat — the wording of the end of clause (

b) here: "farm

improvements exclusively used to operate a farm, other than (

i) a

dwelling house, and (ii) fixtures, machinery or things referred to in

subsection (4) to the extent that their assessed value exceeds

$50,000." But the minister made quite a point that this really deals

with actual value, not assessed value, and I just need a little

clarification on that one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You've got me.

MR. ROSE: I know. Well, will you find that out, too?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the remarks going back and forth, but to be recorded in Hansard we have to get you through the microphones.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, what we're attempting to

determine is the following. In the Municipal Act, we want to know what

the definition of assessed value is. References then refer to the

Assessment Act, and.... The question really is, right now, whether

assessment under the Assessment Act means actual value. I would tell

you that I suspect it probably does, but I cannot be sure of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I suggest that it would depend on whether

the assessed value they are referring to there is the assessed value

for actual taxation purposes or the assessed value from the assessment

board.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, is there any provision in this House,

as there exists in many others, to stand a particular clause and

proceed with the others until the information is...? It's quite a

common practice in other legislatures.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It makes a lot of sense to me, hon. member. If we can achieve unanimous consent of the House, perhaps we can go ahead.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, because of the technical

nature of this question, although it may be somewhat unprecedented in

this chamber, if we have unanimous leave perhaps we could permit this

section to be considered not immediately but perhaps in 15 minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted, hon. members?

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 15 pass?

MR. ROSE: No, wait a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Well, I didn't wish to speak to it, but I don't

want 15 to pass until our critic has an opportunity to decide whether

or not he wishes to speak to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, so ordered. The critic obviously doesn't wish to speak to it. Shall

section 16 pass?

Sections 16 to 24 inclusive approved.

[4:15]

section 25.

MRS. WALLACE: I guess I should begin by asking a question:

what is the Human Rights Act? I don't see it anywhere in the statutes,

and I note that there is a bill on the order paper which has had first

reading only and has not progressed any further than that. I'm

wondering whether or

[ Page 2801 ]

not we're within our legal rights to be passing a motion referring to

an act that doesn't exist.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have asked the same question of our

legal counsel and are advised that we are within our legal rights to do

so. In the event that the Human Rights Act were not to become law in

British Columbia, then the amendment would have no effect. It would not

be in force.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, it would have no effect,

but it would have an effect because the reference to the Human Rights

Code would have been wiped out of the B.C. Hydro act, if in fact there

was no Human Rights Act. I just have a feeling that we should perhaps

let this sit, the same as we have done with the other legislation,

until such time as there is a Human Rights Act, if there is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman,

section 77 of this act

provides for proclamation by regulation of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and in the event that the Human Rights

Act had not been processed through the House, then that

section would

not be proclaimed and would have no effect. It would not be proclaimed,

because it would have no effect in law.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, there is no such thing as

proclamation. That's been wiped out. There is a new bill that deals

with regulations. We don't have proclamation any more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Regulation.

MS. BROWN: Let's get some clear explanation about what's

going on here, because there is no such thing as proclamation. Maybe

the Attorney-General can explain what's going on.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. The passage of the Regulations Act has

already taken place. The Regulations Act will shortly be brought into

force. Once that act is brought into force, then a regulation will be

required in place of proclamation under

section 77 to bring this act

into force. That will not occur without a change as set out in the

sections that replace Human Rights Code with Human Rights Act. If the

Human Rights Act in some form did not pass, then a regulation would not

bring that consequential amendment into force. That's what will happen.

You're not going to delete a reference to a concept. It's going to be

under one act or the other. It will be under the new act if it passes,

and it will be brought into force by regulation and made applicable to

that. Or if it isn't passed, it will not be brought into force and the

old Human Rights Code will be there.

MRS. WALLACE: This

section is presuming that the Human Rights

Act is going to pass. As I pointed out, it has only been introduced for

first reading. That was on July 7. It has never been called for second

reading. It has never been in committee. Whether or not it is ever

enshrined in the laws of this province, I am still hoping that that

will not happen. To presume it is going to happen by passing this

section seems to be jumping the gun. I know I'm not supposed to refer

to previous decisions, but we did get unanimous agreement to leave that

last section, because the government didn't know what an assessed value

was. We had the bill pulled before because the Minister of Health

wasn't here for another section. It seems to me the government doesn't

have its house in order for dealing with this bill, and I would move

that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

Cocke

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Blencoe

Rose

Mitchell

Wallace

Barnes

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

Skelly

NAYS — 27

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 25 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, a few moments ago the Chair, with

consent of the committee held over

section 14 pending the acquisition

of some information by the minister on a question posed by the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). With the committee's permission, we can

go back and deal with

section 14.

[ Page 2802 ]

section 14.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to

compliment the member on pulling this out and looking for an

explanation. There is an explanation for it. The eyes of the hawk over

there did a superb job.

I would like to make reference, Mr. Chairman, to a provision in Bill

7, the Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), which has been passed. If I

make reference to that particular bill....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Look, this is difficult enough without struggling with this.

There's an amendment to

Section 1 of the Assessment Act. The

explanatory notes read as follows: "Establishes actual value as the tax

base for municipal purposes, while retaining the present system of

establishing assessed value for other purposes." As an example, Mr.

Chairman, I make reference to

section 9 of the Bill 7 where

section

398(

m) is amended by striking out "$5,000" and substituting "$50,000."

With respect to why it went from $5,000 to $50,000.... The rule was

that assessed value is equal to 10 percent of actual value. So if

$5,000 is at 10 percent, obviously 100 percent is $50,000. Actual value

equals assessed value. There's now no percentage rule.

Going back to the use of the words "assessed value," I make

reference again to the Assessment Act, which I referred to when I made

my opening remarks this time around. The marginal notes state:

"...while retaining the present system of establishing assessed value

for other purposes." Obviously the choice of the label would appear to

retain the expression "assessed."

MR. ROSE: Is the minister, Mr. Chairman, saying that it's

consequential to bring it in line and that there really is no

difference now? Is he saying there isn't a particular advantage to a

farmer over what he had before because he was assessed at 10 percent of

its actual value, and he had a $5,000 exemption? Now he is assessed at

full value, and he's got a $50,000 exemption, so it's a sawoff and he

doesn't gain anything?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the

member is correct on that statement. Of course we don't need to worry

now about the original concern which started this — that is, the amount

which the Crown may very well have forfeited as a result of the change.

Using actual value, it would appear to be nothing.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I want

to make absolutely certain that since there is no money accruing to the

Crown and since there is no loss of it because of these exemptions,

what is happening here under the amended

section 25, or

section 14 in

this bill, is a distinction without a difference. It merely brings the

thing in line with these bills — I think they are 7 and 12. So in that

sense it's a housekeeping amendment.

I have one final question. Subsection (

a) says: "farm improvements exclusively

used to operate a farm, other than (

i) the dwelling house" — which is nontaxable

— "and (ii) the fixtures, machinery or things referred to in subsection

(4)." If you look down to the end of subsection (4) they are exempt from

taxation for school purposes. "Fixtures, machinery and similar things located

on the farmland and used exclusively to operate a farm, which, if erected or

placed in, on, under or affixed to land, or to a building, fixture or structure

in, on or under the land would, between the landlord and tenant, be removable

...." In other words, if the landlord and tenant agree that these things

can be removable and they're physically able to be removed, they are exempt

from taxation for school purposes. If you add that to all the things above in

subsection (

a) and (

b) and (

i) and (ii), what is taxable if you exempt all those

other things? I can't think of very many. The well, perhaps. It is located

under the ground, but it can't be removed by the tenant.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the whole purpose of this is to exempt farm outbuildings up to a value of $50,000.

MR. ROSE: So the outbuildings, barns and that sort of thing —

are really the only improvements that are taxable under this

section —

those buildings that exceed an actual value of $50,000?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is yes.

Section 14 approved.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

section 28.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps we need a little bit of help here, Mr.

Chairman. We have no opposition to subsection (

a) of this particular

section. Subsections (

b) and (

c) we oppose most strongly, of course.

They bring in the amendments to Bill 9 and their application to the

Islands Trust. So if we can, we would like to break down this

particular section. We would support (a), but would like to go on

record against (

b) and (c).

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee would be

willing to accept an amendment — I think it would be in order — if we

amended this

section to delete subsections (

b) and (c). I think that my

colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) would be willing

to explain to you in more detail the kind of damage that really could

be done to the Gulf Islands if these subsections are not deleted. The

whole concept for the Islands Trust originally started with the

original Social Credit Party — not this one, but the one led by W.A.C.

Bennett. He was the person who recognized the fragility and the

specialness of the Gulf Islands, and he was the first person to move

the idea of protecting them. If you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, he was

the person who put the freeze on and said that property on the Gulf

Islands shouldn't be subdivided below ten acres.

When the NDP became government in 1972.... The reason I'm so

familiar with this is that I travelled with the municipal affairs

committee, as did the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder).

Interjection.

[ Page 2803 ]

MS. BROWN: No, I didn't stay in any big hotels on the Gulf Islands. There weren't any.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That was on a minesweeper.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The Minister of Industry and Small

Business Development was there too, as was the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis). We were all part of the committee that established

the concept of placing these islands in trust because of their very

special nature.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[4:45]

MS. BROWN: This amendment is going to say the islands should

be treated exactly the same as any other municipality in British

Columbia. That is not true, because they are unique. Even the

government members on that committee — the member for South Peace

River, the member for Saanich and the Islands, and the member from the

Fraser Valley — recognized the unique and special nature of the Gulf

Islands, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it would seem that you are speaking to the amendment, which hasn't come forward.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not speaking to the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you an amendment to bring forward?

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes. But I thought that before you had an

opportunity to rule on the amendment I should explain to you why I feel

moved to move an amendment.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Is it in order? Okay. I just have to sign it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that

section 28 be amended to delete subsections (

b) and (c).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is correctly written. Would the hon. member like to speak to the amendment while we are deciding on a ruling?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think that the development of the

Gulf Islands has to remain the responsibility of the Trust and the

locally elected Trust representatives. There is a kind of community

government now existing under the Trust which obviously has had the

support of this government until now, Mr. Chairman, because they have

made no move to wipe out the Trust. And what it is based on is that

people living on the islands, through their locally elected

representatives, develop community plans and decide what should happen

to the islands.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is

interrupting, so there isn't any point in my going on any further. Is

that okay? The Attorney-General has indicated that he is now willing to

listen to me.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is a kind of protection which exists in the people living on

the islands themselves having a say as to how they should be developed.

What kind of zoning, what kind of development, whether it should be

multiple-family or single-family, the size of the lots, how far from

the water's edge, whether it should be commercial, residential — those

kinds of decisions are made at the local level, Mr. Chairman, of course

under the supervision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. For the

minister to move an amendment which would see that responsibility

treated in exactly the same way as it is by municipalities is to place

those islands in jeopardy.

I don't think it's necessary, Mr. Chairman, for me to go into a long

dissertation about how special the islands are and why we should

protect them, not just for us but for future generations. I think if

the minister just went back and read the report brought down by the

municipal affairs committee — in 1974 I think it was — he would have

all of the arguments there why we would be opposed to this. I am hoping

the minister will accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, of course I speak against

this amendment. It's meaningless and unnecessary. The sections referred

to are consequential. However, the member should know that there will

still be settlement planning taking place on the islands as there has

been in the past. So really, Mr. Chairman, there is no need for this

amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to go into the

specifics or the details and the problems of Bill 9 in terms of

implications of removing regional planning from municipalities, but I

would like to just go on record as saying that if there is one area in

British Columbia that is a sensitive, delicate, very important island

environment, it is the Gulf Islands. I think most of us are aware of

their beauty and their uniqueness and indeed the strength and the

determination of those residents to ensure that this area was planned

properly and is planned in a regional kind of capacity.

Mr. Chairman, again the minister — perhaps it's lack of knowledge of

certain areas — has not really thought through the full implications of

removing the regional concept as applied to the Gulf Islands. Maybe he

has and maybe he can clarify that for us this afternoon. But my initial

request or overture to the minister is: has he thought more seriously

about this particular island environment and the fact that over the

years they have indeed planned on a regional level — all the islands —

taking into consideration a special environment and physical

attributes? Has the minister thought that through, and is he concerned

that this island environment might be jeopardized by these particular

sections?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, to that member who claims

such high qualifications — whether it's through ignorance of Bill 9 and

what it does or innocence I'm not about to judge. That member knows

quite clearly that Bill 9

[ Page 2804 ]

removes the regional plan as it applies to

municipalities. This is in reference to the Islands Trust, and as you

know, regional districts will continue to do settlement planning, and

no doubt settlement planning will continue on the islands. So I am

really surprised that you should continue on this front.

MR. BLENCOE: You really shouldn't be surprised, Mr. Minister.

If there is one piece of legislation that has virtually total

opposition of 1,400 elected officials across this province, it's your

particular piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise all members of the committee that

we should return to the amendment currently before us, to

section 28 of

this act.

MR. BLENCOE: Has the minister had any discussions,

correspondence, communication or special meetings with the Islands

Trust since his term of office commenced about the particularly unique

problems of planning in that area? What concerns have they expressed

about his approach to planning, and particularly vis-à-vis

section 28

in this act?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, my first official meeting

immediately after my appointment was with the Islands Trust. Since that

time there have been absolutely no concerns expressed to me by them

over Bill 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the bill before us, please.

MR. BLENCOE: The question, Mr. Chairman, was not to the

specifics of Bill 9. I was asking him if he has had any discussion with

them over the particular sections in Bill 35. That was my question.

I'd like to pursue this because this is to do with the Islands Trust

and amendments to the Islands Trust Act, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

ask the minister for his thoughts and ideas per se on the Islands Trust

Act. Here we have some amendments which are fairly substantial and

important to the Islands Trust. Is this the start of some major

alterations to that concept of the Islands Trust Act and all the things

they have managed to establish there in the Gulf Islands?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, this is not the start of any great alteration to the Islands Trust Act. The amendments are consequential.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister knows the meaning of the word "consequential," because he is really using it in....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Don't what?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Don't lecture the House.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not lecturing the House. I am asking the

minister for a statement. Really, what we have is not just an amendment

to the Islands Trust Act but a

section of the act that calls into place

the Municipal Act, which has to do with regional plans. The whole point

of the Trust is that the planning for those islands should be done in a

certain way by special people who are committed to the protection of

those islands. What this amendment does is to strike out sections 807

and 808 of the Municipal Act, one dealing with regional plans and the

other dealing with the official regional plans. It also strikes out

section 812, the one that says: "A regional board, or the council...may

not enact a provision...which would impair or impede the ultimate

realization of all or part of the objectives of an official regional

plan." Also the regional plan

section as well. This is not just a

little something that is going on here; it's the whole concept of the

Trust itself being involved in the development of the plans for those

islands. That's what he's wiping out.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, those sections have been repealed, and as a consequence they have to be lifted here.

MS. BROWN: No, they don't.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Otherwise you would be referring to something that isn't there.

MS. BROWN: That's precisely what the second member for

Victoria said — it's Bill 9 revisited. As an aside to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), you shouldn't have to be

municipal critic in order to appreciate the special nature of the Gulf

Islands. It's that kind of tunnel vision over there that we have to

live with which is creating such havoc. If the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and other members cared about the islands, maybe

this amendment wouldn't be going through. But in fact, because they're

not....

MR. KEMPF: I know more about those islands than you do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order.

MS. BROWN: You see? The member for Omineca knows more about these islands than I will ever know. That's what he said.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He's being attacked by his colleague from South Peace, Mr. Chairman, who is saying that that's not very much.

I want to give the member for Omineca a chance to stand up and fight

for those islands. I think they are at risk if this

section goes

through and if my amendment fails.

[5:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

[ Page

2805 ]

NAYS — 26

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 28 approved.

section 29.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to know why

section 6 of the act is being repealed. That's the

section that says

that where doubt exists as to whether a matter relates to general or

local affairs the chairman of the general trustees determines that. Why

was that repealed?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the member to repeat that. I have some competition here, and I didn't hear.

MS. BROWN: Subsection (

b) repeals

section 6 of this act. That

section is the one that deals with where doubt exists as to whether a

matter relates to general or local affairs, the chairman of the general

trustees determines that matter. Why is that

section being repealed?

Who then determines whether it is local or general?

I have found my own answer.

Section 29 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 16

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Blencoe

Rose

Mitchell

Wallace

Barnes

Lockstead

Hanson

Brown

D'Arcy

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[5:15]

section 30.

MR. STUPICH: May I ask the minister whether or not this was requested by the Islands Trust?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As you know, Protection Island comes within

the municipality of Nanaimo, and there is agreement on both sides that

this change be made.

MR. STUPICH: Did the minister ever consider doing it the other way around, taking it out of the city?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Does he mean that the city of Nanaimo go into the Islands Trust? I didn't consider that.

MR. STUPICH: It wasn't meant to be that much of a joke. The

question is whether or not you considered taking Protection Island out

of the city of Nanaimo.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MR. D'ARCY: Once again we find a reference to the Human

Rights Act, which has not even been called for second reading debate.

This

section further shows the government's contempt for the

parliamentary process, and we're going to be voting against this

section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that point has been well canvassed, and the answer has been given.

MR. BARNES: I think it rather presumptuous of the government

to move in this way. I would like to associate myself with the remarks

of the previous speaker. I hope that we will win the division on this

one.

Section 33 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Phillips

A. Fraser

Kempf

Waterland

Brummet

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 12

Howard

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Sanford

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 34 to 47 inclusive approved.

section 48.

[ Page 2806 ]

MR. BLENCOE:

Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity the opposition has had to

ask some questions about this decision by the government to bail out

the Whistler municipality and allocate considerable public funds

to bailing out a ski resort. It gives us the opportunity to ask some

particularly pertinent questions of the minister who is responsible for

this particular section. Who is going to be taking responsibility for

this?

First, I would like to ask the minister if he could perhaps give us

some background to the current state of the art in terms of the

Whistler situation. We understand that there was to be an interim group

to take responsibility for this. My initial question to the minister

is: what is the position at the moment of the government's role? Who is

actually running the operation at this time? Perhaps we can get a

report on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we're a little beyond the

amendment here; the amendment is exemption from real property taxes. We

will allow some latitude, but I am sure there are items that the member

is trying to canvass that would be better and more appropriately

canvassed during the estimates of the minister. I will have to ask all

members to abide by that. We must be specifically relevant in committee

debate.

MRS. WALLACE: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would draw your

memory back to the time when this bill was introduced. The government

House Leader indicated that it would be treated more or less as in

second reading during committee because there was no general principle.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that what the member for Victoria

is saying under that particular

interpretation is quite in order

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Chairman remembers that agreement well and

also the commitment that was made during the second reading. However, I

still must advise that we are speaking to exemption of property taxes.

Other discussion about the subject matter would be far better discussed

during the minister's estimates. Can we speak to the

section itself,

please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, obviously in this

section we're

talking about exemption from taxes. That has to reflect on the nature

of the business the government has decided to transact, and this

particular corporation and this particular setup. What we and the

public of British Columbia would like to know, because millions and

millions of taxpayers' dollars have already been spent and now they are

going to be exempt from taxes as well, is exactly how the government is

planning to pay for all this. Is the public going to continue to foot

the bill for a very expensive resort for the rich when at the same time

you are cutting very essential services in this province? I think the

people of British Columbia are entitled to some answers about this

particular setup, Mr. Chairman. I will continue to ask. My first

question to the minister is: could he give us a report on the actual

operation as it is right now — the running of this development

corporation and who is actually in charge? We'd like to have a little

report about that before I get into some further detailed questions.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I can only respond to questions as they would directly relate to this amendment.

It is quite straightforward here that properties held under this

Crown corporation will be exempt from tax until the property is sold.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

MR. BLENCOE: A very good question. I have many questions, Mr.

Chairman, but a very simple one, given the minister's response, is: why

should they be exempt from taxes? To back that up, you know that many

municipalities in the province of British Columbia would love to have

such exemptions and such special privilege. Give us some reasons why,

Mr. Minister. Or do you have any?

All right, I'd like to ask either that minister or somebody in this

government responsible for this massive bailout: how much money has the

province committed to Whistler in terms of grants — total dollars

committed in terms of grants, taxes, borrowings, interest charges, free

land grants and tertiary services like the massive investment in

Highway 99? What is the total dollar investment by the public in this

ski run?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first questions were in order. I believe the second questions are straying somewhat from the principle of the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: I want some answers, Mr. Chairman.

[5:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we have other lands held by

levels of government that are not subject to property tax. I am

surprised that the member would be asking such a question.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Absolutely no answer, Mr. Chairman. I have asked

the minister or somebody.... Maybe the Premier should come out of

his office and answer some very serious public questions. I want to

know how much money the province has committed already to this

particular project, how much they are prepared to commit in terms of

grants and total taxes.... How much exemption are you going to

give, Mr. Minister? The people of British Columbia demand an answer.

What are the borrowings and the interest charges on these millions and

millions of public dollars you are using? Let's have some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as they apply to exemptions, the

questions are totally in order. As they apply to other dealings, they

would best be discussed under the minister's estimates. In terms of

administrative actions the questions are out of order. I am certain the

committee can understand the distinction. Does the minister wish to

answer?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the member

should realize that before the takeover of the Whistler Village Land

Co. Ltd. that property would all be exempt from property tax, and this

is simply transferring from that company to this development company.

Once the land is sold, property tax would apply. I repeat, we have

situations in other municipalities where land is owned by the

municipality

[ Page

2807 ]

and no property taxes are being paid. However, Mr. Chairman, I would

suggest to that member that if he wishes to explore this entire

question of the Whistler development, he do so in the minister's

estimates, when that time comes.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we're certainly not getting any answers,

and it's quite obvious that there is an attempt to cover up this

particular scandal in the province of British Columbia. There's no

question about that. We have a scandal in British Columbia, and the

minister is covering up.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, no!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Victoria will withdraw that statement.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reference to

scandal, but I don't withdraw the reference to the fact that we're not

getting answers in this House today. I think that's a fair statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm sorry, but the term "coverup" must be withdrawn without qualification, immediately.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: What am I being asked to withdraw, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Coverup.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw the term "coverup."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BLENCOE: However, I would like to say that I'm most disturbed, as our party....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The term has been withdrawn. Is the member now participating in debate?

MR. BLENCOE: I am indeed.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw reference to any offensive term that might suggest there might be some underhanded....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: Well, there might be, I said. Mr. Chairman, we

can only assume that when neither the minister or anybody else on that

side of the House is prepared to answer factually and honestly the

things we're asking about this particular development....

Let me go on. I would like the minister or the Premier to answer:

how can the government take over a company with more than $27 million

in liabilities and nurse it back to health at a minimum expense of $10

million without a single cent of taxpayers' money, as it was claimed at

the time? Now, you tell me how you can do that, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is beyond the scope of the

section before us.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there has been an awful lot of

latitude allowed in debate during this bill because of an agreement

that was made in another forum which your Chairman and all members

agreed to and which was graciously accepted. However, we cannot stray

into ministerial estimates simply because we happen to see a certain

term or proper noun mentioned in a specific

section which deals totally

and specifically with land tax exemption. The minister may wish to

answer questions with respect to land tax exemption. Please proceed.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would indeed....

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I don't mean to interfere

with the minister's desire to clarify the situation, but you indicated

your recollecting that an agreement with respect to the bill was made —

something that at least would assist us to talk along the lines as

though this were second reading. Could you repeat exactly what the

agreement was, for clarification?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The record will show that during second reading

debate the members participating in that debate agreed that since this

was a miscellaneous statutes bill with many different sections and no

specific contained principle, the debate would be better covered during

committee stage. This is a common agreement during miscellaneous

statutes amendments in their second reading stage. What I have simply

said is that although that agreement is listed in our records, it does

not allow us to proceed into debate which would be better covered in a

different forum, specifically the minister's estimates.

MR. BARNES: Could you give us an example of the parameters?

You've indicated only that you recall that there was an agreement. Give

us an example of what is allowed under this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been quite specific. If one reads

the section, he will note that it refers to land tax exemptions. That

is the type of debate that can be allowed. The member for Victoria has

pursued some questions along those lines but has strayed to other

matters which would be better contained in the minister's estimates. In

fact, if pursued in this forum, it would offend the rule of

anticipation and other members' rights to speak on this subject during

the minister's estimates.

MR. BARNES: So then the agreement doesn't make any real

distinction between what is the normal procedure...? Is that what

you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The reference to an agreement is standard

practice and is so stated in the records of this House. It is standard

practice when we are in second reading debate on a miscellaneous

statutes act.

[ Page 2808 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wanted to draw the attention of the

second member for Victoria to the fact that we're dealing with property

tax exemption. I repeat that whenever the minister responsible for this

particular Crown corporation comes in with his estimates, you will have

an opportunity to get those questions answered.

For one who has had so much experience and claims to be such an

expert in municipal politics, I am quite surprised that you do not

understand that there are many municipalities in this province that

have land-development or holding companies — land being held by

municipalities where no property tax is being paid. But I would hope

that now that that has been made clear to you, you will understand that

this situation is simply a transfer from one level of government to

another. What you are telling the House is that simply because the

government, through this move, is helping this thing succeed for the

benefit of that community, they should have different rules. How

ridiculous can you be? Should we have one rule for one level of

government and one rule for another?

MR. BARNES: You should know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Certainly not, and I'll repeat that there

is land in this province held by municipalities from which there is no

property tax obtained, and that this is a transfer from one level to

another.

MR. BLENCOE: Again, the minister is trying to steer around

the questions the public have been waiting for some answers to for a

long time. Let me rephrase my thrust, Mr. Minister. In the particular

area in question, as I've already said, the government is taking over a

company that has $27 million in liabilities, and there is going to be a

minimum expense of $10 million to $15 million to try to bring it back.

What I would like to ask the minister — and it relates to exemption —

is: how is the public going to be assured that there is going to be

some public payback if there are tax exemptions? Where is the revenue

going to come from? You're already giving millions of dollars to

British Columbia's playground for the rich, and now you are going to do

away, through tax exemptions, with what might ensure that the people of

British Columbia, the majority of whom cannot enjoy those facilities

and cannot afford them....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. You are now going to say that

there is going to be no tax system to ensure it's paid back. Who are

you trying to con, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Also, I find that an improper

reference to an hon. member. The second member for Victoria will

withdraw the last reference.

MR. BLENCOE: Withdraw the reference to what, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference to the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BLENCOE: But I would like him to answer the question

about a huge debt, giving more money and then exempting them from

taxes. How is the public going to recoup its investment?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just recently visited

Whistler and spent a long weekend there, and I can assure that member

that every walk of life is enjoying the Whistler village. The wishes of

the people I spoke to — and I spoke to many as I roved around there —

were: "Keep her going. Get this thing finished. This is great; it's

close to the city and we folks can really enjoy it." The convention

centre is being finished now, a great plus.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the minister that he is now straying from specific relevancy. To tax exemptions, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think that the results of

the last election and how we had our member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. Reynolds) elected is the answer in itself of how successful

we are in Whistler.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll try another tack with the minister. Here's

a very well-known quote from a well-known Socred back in the summer of

1982: "Whistler is no different than anywhere else. We cannot bail them

out any more than we can bail out a private development." That was the

former minister, Mr. Vander Zalm, who said those very things.

MR. MICHAEL: He doesn't know what he's talking about. That's why he's growing bulbs.

MR. BLENCOE: Is he really getting to the Premier that much,

that you have to attack him in the House? Boy, he really must be

getting to you. Little Billy's boy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the tax exemption, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I would like the minister, in his terrific

defence of this massive bail-out by the public of British Columbia, to

give us....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The members will come to order.

[5:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the minister to try to give us some

rationale in terms of the policies of this government of restraint.

Maybe the minister can give us some intelligent rationale as to why in

the difficult times we face today major cutbacks in essential services

like human services — services for children and.... I think it's

important, because this tax exemption is going to cost the people of

British Columbia a lot of money, and because of that other services

can't be maintained. I would like the minister to say how he can see

this as a major priority in terms of the dollars this government

[ Page 2809 ]

is going to spend on a ski resort when at the same time you're restraining the handicapped, the poor and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. BLENCOE: It relates to this, Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear the minister's defence of that kind of restraint policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, I will advise the committee that

we're entering debate which would be better discussed under estimates

of ministers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult for

that member to understand, with his socialistic philosophy, that the

greatest threat to those who require services such as health, education

and so forth is winding down projects that create jobs. As long as this

government can move in the direction of creating jobs, then those

people requiring those services will be assured of getting them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to try and

explain to the member that all of the questions he is asking, in his

eagerness, he can ask me during estimates, I will give him a full

answer at that time regarding finances. In his eagerness to sling

accusations and to raise things that were well explained to the public

earlier, he's forgotten to read the section, particularly the last

phrase, which says: when the WLC "ceases to be the owner." The WLC took

over these lands which were owned by the Whistler Village Land Co.,

which was a creature of the municipalities. In effect, they were

municipal lands, and the municipality did not charge itself taxes on

lands until it sold the lands. It was a very simple thing in the

agreement. In taking over those lands and holding them the WLC, a

municipality, would hardly pay taxes on that land until it was sold. As

soon as it was sold the taxes go into effect. It's a very simple

explanation. The rest of the accusations the member is making are

completely incorrect. I would be glad to explain that to him during

estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: We now have a minister who seems to have a

little more knowledge of what is happening. I ask the minister: because

we're talking about tax exemptions and there's going to be more lost

revenue to the province, can the minister give us a total dollar figure

on how much the government has spent on this particular project in

terms of grants, taxes, borrowings, interest charges, free land grants

and services? Will you give the House and the public of British

Columbia some answers on those things?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that question is totally out of order, and so would an answer be. That question would be better....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The question would be best

addressed during the estimates of the minister, which the minister has

already agreed to. In fact, we would preempt the rights of members to

speak on this subject if we entertained that type of questioning now.

It would be totally unparliamentary.

Shall the

section pass?

MR. BLENCOE: No. I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. How much revenue is being lost by this tax exemption?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: How much potential revenue is the province of

British Columbia and the people of British Columbia losing in this tax

exemption for their rich friends in Whistler?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The company, Whistler Village Land Co. Ltd., was not collecting property tax before. Therefore, there is no loss.

MR. BLENCOE: How much potential revenue is being lost to the

people of British Columbia so they can assure that this property is

paid back and is off their backs? How much?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is becoming repetitive, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: I will try another tack.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, again we are talking about the

financial arrangements and the exemption, and therefore the ability of

the taxpayer to try to recoup some of its massive losses on this

particular project.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the tax exemption.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, a recent announcement by the

government that the provincial government would move in and directly

complete the convention and community centre at Whistler....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is totally outside the scope of this section.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not, Mr. Chairman. What we are doing is

relating to a financial arrangement, and the province is giving away

any opportunity to recoup some of the losses for the people of British

Columbia in this particular section. I think that is important.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the questioning now is totally

outside of the scope of this

section before us. I am sure the committee

understands it. Numerous answers have been given by both ministers

concerned, and I think that unless there is a new line of questioning

with respect to the

section before us, we must continue on....

Interjections.

[ Page 2810 ]

MR. BLENCOE: You don't like these questions, do you? You know

this is an embarrassment to your government. You know that. You're well

aware of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the section.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will come to order. The member is reminded of standing order 43.

MR. BLENCOE: We on this side of the House would like to get

to the bottom of some of the financial implications of public

involvement in this corporation. Giving them property tax exemption is

a major shift in policy, and we have to question the rationale and

wisdom of making such a move. I would like to ask the minister....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: You're waiving a potential revenue for the province at the taxpayer's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the ministers not to interject. Does the member have a new line of questioning?

MR. BLENCOE: I have a new line of questioning. If the

provincial government, in its wisdom, is not going to collect any

revenue from Whistler, how is it going to pay for the convention

centre? How is the money that they're shelling out going to be returned

to the people of British Columbia? Because of this announcement and

because of these financial arrangements that are being talked about, it

would be very useful if the minister or the government would table the

agreement on the convention centre.

MR. REYNOLDS: On two points of order. One is under standing

order 43 on tediousness and repetition. You've warned the member a

number of times. The other point of order is that this member is

persisting in asking questions of the minister under this bill.

Whistler really falls under Lands and Forests. The Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has been up a number of times and has

told this member that he would be quite pleased to answer these

questions under the proper estimates. He keeps on asking questions and

making statements that are inaccurate and misleading to a number of

people. He's got people who might believe some of the stuff he's

saying. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to ask the

member to stick to the questions of this minister. Municipal Affairs is

not the minister to be asked the questions. It's the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing and Environment who is prepared to answer them.

Speaking as the member for that constituency that has Whistler, this

member is damaging a great tourist area by making inaccurate

statements, and I would ask you to ask him to stop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The members of the

committee have been advised many times that when in committee we must

be strictly relevant to the

section before us. Latitude has been

allowed, but this

section deals specifically with real property tax

exemptions, and that is the scope of this

section and is as far as we

can go.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I draw to your attention that

there's nothing in here that identifies this as being the

responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has the jurisdiction, as I

understand is the case, then certainly he should be the one accountable

for what's going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee or parliament cannot decide on

which minister will be responsible. Nevertheless we cannot entertain

debate that is not contained in the section. That's the underlying rule.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would agree with the member for Skeena. He's

exactly correct, and if his member would stick to the questions

pertaining to this bill, they would be fine. But my point of order was

that he's straying into areas that are covered by the other minister.

He keeps on doing it continuously, and that's why I would ask you,

under standing order 43, to ask him to desist.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we have a very strange arrangement

before us in

section 48: total tax exemption. That doesn't happen very

often in the province of British Columbia — and, I can tell you, a lot

of municipalities and a lot of people would like see that happen. So I

think it's very important that we try to get to the background of why

this government particularly wants to see this happen. I think it's

incumbent upon the government, at this opportunity, to give some real

examples, some honest background on the dollars of public expense gone

into this particular proposal, to back up the fact that they want to

give tax exemptions to these particular corporations like WLC

Developments Ltd. So I think that whoever answers — I don't care if

it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing — it's appropriate that somebody in the government give the

public of British Columbia some answers which would rationalize such a

section as 48. Obviously we're not going to get that today.

I would like to continue with some questions to the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, because I think it comes under his jurisdiction in

terms of the investigator of municipalities. I think....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. We're really beyond the scope

of the section. I will advise you once again that

section 48 of Bill 35

deals with real property tax exemptions: when they come in effect and

when they cease. Questions which relate to the administrative actions

of a minister will be better discussed during ministerial estimates. Is

that understood?

MR. BLENCOE: It's understood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now perhaps your line of questioning can relate to

section 48.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we are trying to get to the bottom

of why the government in its wisdom would like to give such an amazing

exemption, and what the background to that is. So I would ask again the

general question of that minister: is he prepared at this time to give

the potential revenue lost from this exemption? Is he prepared to tell

the people of British Columbia how much public money has already been

spent on this...?

[ Page 2811 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister would not be allowed to answer the

second part of your question. It would be out of order, as well. With

respect to the first part of the question, it is in order, and if the

minister wishes to answer....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, for the last time, I will

attempt to answer if that helps the Chair. He is repeating himself over

and over again, playing political games, We are dealing with property

tax exemption. As has already been stated, the Whistler Village Land

Co. Ltd., being owned by the municipality, had tax exemption on this

property. With the changeover that same exemption is being transferred

over until the property is sold. The benefits to the community will be

enormous, and already we are seeing signs of success for that entire

development. The community and its people will benefit immensely.

Sections 48 through 50 inclusive approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada