1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th 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)

MONDAY, MAY 15, 1995

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 19, Number 25

[ Page 14245 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have a very special visitor in the members' gallery today. His Excellency Bienvenido Garcia Negrin is the newly appointed Ambassador of Cuba to Canada. He's making his official visit to British Columbia, has been in Vancouver, and is now in Victoria. Could the House please welcome him.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am delighted today to welcome to the House the new child, youth and family advocate, Ms. Joyce Preston, who is here today in the galleries. She is officially starting her duties as of today, however she has never stopped working on behalf of children, youth and their families. Ms. Preston will be sworn in immediately after question period. I hope not only that we welcome her today but that we work closely and cooperatively with her throughout.

V. Anderson: I'd like to share with the Minister of Social Services in welcoming Joyce Preston here on behalf of all of the Legislature. We have great anticipation of her work amongst us in the next few years.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have the pleasure of asking you to welcome to this House 60 grade 11 students from my favourite school, Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, with their teacher Ron Boulding, a good friend. Could the House please welcome them.

A. Warnke: It's my pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine from the great city of Vancouver. I would like the House to welcome Mr. Chris Childs, who is here today.

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today Sarah Howard. She is a former receptionist and reliable assistant to the Liberal caucus, is in the galleries and is taking time out from her studies at UVic to join us for question period today. Would the House please make her welcome.

Hon. J. Smallwood: It's my pleasure today, on the occasion of Sneaker Day and the launch of SummerActive '95, to introduce Dr. Don Hunter, who is the chair of Active Living Canada. Don Hunter lives in Saanich, where he is the director of parks and recreation in that municipality. SummerActive shoelaces and active living tip sheets have been delivered to all members' offices to encourage participation in SummerActive events in communities throughout B.C. Please help me welcome Dr. Hunter to the House and help launch SummerActive.

Oral Questions

B.C. FOREST SERVICE AND PENTICTON FOREST FIRE

M. de Jong: Last year the Penticton area was hit by a forest fire that destroyed 18 homes, led to the evacuation of more than 3,000 people and ultimately cost $5 million. Price Waterhouse has just released its evaluation of the Forests ministry's handling of that blaze. At one point, the report states the following:

"The internal communication structure of the Forest Service was not effective. On the morning of July 25, media and citizens calling the Penticton forest district were being reassured that the status of the fire was unchanged. The message was not changed until 1 p.m., approximately 15 minutes before an immediate evacuation of the upper Carmi was initiated."

Can the minister explain to us and to this House why people's lives and property were apparently put at unnecessary risk?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased to respond to the member's question. B.C.'s Forest Service and fire protection service are recognized as among the best in the world. The member may not appreciate it, but fighting a forest fire of the scope of the Penticton fire and one as close as that to homes necessarily entails tremendous risks for all concerned. Mistakes are indeed sometimes made, and as the member indicates from this report, there were some mistakes made in communications. The overall report indicates, however, that the response of the ministry was first-rate.

As I have indicated through press releases and announcements that were made, the ministry has taken corrective action to deal with some of the communications problems that arose. I invite the member to read the report if he wishes any additional information on the fire.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

M. de Jong: The same report goes on to state:

"There was a two-and-a-half-hour time lag between the Forest Service evacuating its own crews and notification of the Carmi residents of the revised fire status. There was very real potential for serious injury or death, and that no lives were lost is largely due to friends and neighbours notifying one another rather than a well-laid-out and -executed evacuation plan."

My question to the minister is whether he accepts the judgment of the audit document that his ministry's incompetence very nearly cost people their lives?

Hon. A. Petter: It's really a shame that the member opposite would seek to attack those in the Ministry of Forests and other ministries who have fought forest fires under extremely difficult circumstances. I had the opportunity last summer to go up to Penticton and to witness those workers on the ground working tirelessly day in and day out fighting that fire. I think it's shameful that this member would smugly stand up in this House and attack those hard-working and dedicated citizens who fight forest fires on behalf of British Columbians.

Yes, there were mistakes made; but the report also demonstrates that the Forest Service's response was exemplary. And as I've indicated, corrective action has been taken.

W. Hurd: The Price Waterhouse audit of the Penticton fire states: "Between July 21 and July 25, the public was not adequately advised of the fire threat, and certain communities were left on evacuation alert."

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Hon. Minister of Labour, please stop interjecting, in order that we can hear the question.

[ Page 14246 ]

W. Hurd: The public was not adequately advised by this ministry, and certain communities were left on evacuation alert. Can the minister explain why, in four days, his ministry was unable to ensure that people in Penticton were even aware of the danger they were in?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased that this ministry was prepared to go through this kind of public audit and report, so that deficiencies could be discussed and corrective action taken. That's what we've done.

I do regret that the members opposite continue to quote selectively from a report, the major conclusion of which was that the Forest Service and Penticton fire department responded well overall. The fire was appropriately fought. Many of the difficulties arose from this being an interface fire. This was a warning signal to British Columbians about constructing houses in areas close to fire. And yes, there were problems in communication.

I have indicated to the member that the ministry, as a result of this review, has undertaken changes already to improve communication. I encourage him not to attack the Ministry of Forests and those dedicated workers but to work with us in improving the service that they and others provide.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

[2:15]

W. Hurd: Let me quote back to the minister the response of one of those dedicated public servants, John Wenger, the Penticton district manager for Forests, who stated: "There's a lot of onus on people to be prepared. If they want to live in a forested environment, they've got to be prepared to meet those emergencies. There's a lot more people can do." Is it the position of the Ministry of Forests that Penticton residents are to blame for their own misfortune? Does the minister intend to reprimand Mr. Wenger for his attitude toward defending people's lives and property, when he's saying: "Everyone for themselves"?

Hon. A. Petter: Had the member read the Price Waterhouse report, he would have found out that the report itself indicated that this fire was a wake-up call to British Columbians who choose to locate in areas that are proximate to fire risk, just like those who choose to construct on floodplains, and that citizens have a responsibility, in making decisions where to locate, to take precautions if they choose to locate in high-fire-hazard areas. That's in the report itself; that was the principal statement made by the author of the report at the news conference last week in Penticton. I would encourage the member to research his facts more carefully.

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONES

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the minister responsible for the B.C. Pavilion Corporation. In response to my request regarding personal calls by government employees to 1-900 numbers, I was appalled to learn that, in fact, members of the staff of the B.C. Reform -- uh, B.C.... [Laughter.]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please.

J. Weisgerber: I think that might be a clip.

I was appalled to learn that members of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation had, in fact, made calls to Coast-to-Coast Dating Services, Telepassage for Adults, and Bedtime Stories and Fairytales of Hollywood. Can the minister tell us what action he has taken to prevent that kind of abuse of taxpayers' money?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we're both a little confused. I don't know a lot about that particular issue, but I will take it on notice and report back to the House.

The Speaker: The question is taken on notice. The hon. Leader of the Third party has a different question?

J. Weisgerber: A new question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. A similar problem exists within the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. That ministry has clear guidelines to deal with the abuse of government phones by employees for private use. Can the minister tell us what action she has taken to prevent employees in future from using the government system to call 1-900 numbers and groups like the Quest Dateline, the National Sweepstakes Co., Bedtime Stories and Fairytales, and the Love Connection.

Can the minister tell us how this kind of abuse can possibly be allowed to continue within government? Why hasn't her ministry taken any action to date to discipline the people responsible?

Hon. J. Pement: I, too, will take a close review of these situations that have been pointed out by the member, and I will take the question on notice so I can answer specifically to the House.

FORT ST. JAMES HIGHWAY CLOSURE

D. Symons: I'd like to place a long-distance call to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Liberal opposition has learned that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways intends to close a highway, or a portion of it, north of Fort St. James. Mining companies have stated that exploration funds would drop dramatically if this highway is closed. Does the minister not realize that the road is vital to the exploration efforts of several B.C. mining companies and that the closure of this road would be another blow to the British Columbia mining industry?

Hon. J. Pement: The member hasn't been specific as to which road he's speaking of. However, I would take that question on notice and get back to him.

UNAUTHORIZED USE OF GOVERNMENT TELEPHONES

R. Neufeld: My question is to the Minister of Government Services. So far, only two ministries have advised that no 1-900 calls were made by their staff, while two other ministries have confirmed that such calls were made. In light of the evidence we have revealed today, will the government now conduct an internal audit to determine the scope of this problem throughout government? Will the minister now tell us what steps he is prepared to take to discipline anyone caught using government phones for their own purposes?

[ Page 14247 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I will be making some calls, but I wouldn't use the 1-900 number to look into this matter.

I would like to say to the member that I'm not aware of either the scope or the nature of the problem that you're talking about.

An Hon. Member: Take it on notice.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I have certainly taken notice, and I will take the issue on notice and get back to you.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a supplemental.

R. Neufeld: It's a sad day indeed when calls can be made to chat-line services on taxpayers' time and money. Two Crown corporations have advised us that there is no policy in place with respect to calls placed to 1-900 numbers -- or, if there is, they are not aware of it. Will the minister now advise all government ministries and government agencies that such calls are specifically prohibited, and that offenders will be prosecuted?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm tempted to say yes to taking that question on notice; I'll pay due consideration and notice to the issue and perhaps get back to you. I can tell you that the issue you have pointed out appears to me, on the face of it, to be a very serious issue of civil servants -- who usually do very good work for all of us as British Columbians -- making some calls that they shouldn't have been making during working hours, and it will certainly be looked into.

BURRARD THERMAL TASK FORCE REPORT

G. Farrell-Collins: I have a question that maybe the minister -- or a minister -- can answer today.

The Burrard Thermal Task Force was set up to advise the NDP government of the environmental impacts of B.C. Hydro's Burrard Thermal plant. Task force member Stuart Hertzog, former NDP candidate for Vancouver-Quilchena, said: "The task force glossed over major environmental aspects of Burrard, especially ammonia transportation, handling and the effects of chlorinated cooling water being dumped in the Burrard Inlet."

Can the minister tell us why these issues were glossed over by the Burrard task force and what he intends to do about it?

Hon. G. Clark: Of course, those issues were not glossed over by the task force. The task force did superb work. As a matter of fact, I am delighted to inform the House that the city of Port Moody has for the first time, certainly in my memory -- maybe ever -- now withdrawn its opposition to the environmental permitting process for the expansion of the Burrard Thermal plant. This Burrard Thermal upgrade, when it is complete, will have the highest environmental standards of any thermal plant in North America. That was the task force recommendation -- subsequent adoption by a Utilities Commission report, and B.C.

Hydro is committed to that. Again, the most vociferous opponent of that plant was the city of Port Moody, and we're really delighted that they've now seen that these high standards are being met.

The Speaker: Supplemental, hon. member.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would suspect that the lack of opposition from Port Moody has more to do with the $20 million road they got from B.C. Hydro. I wonder what the total bill for the whole province is going to be to buy off everybody before the next election.

The NDP candidate, Stuart Hertzog, made several other observations on the Burrard Thermal study. He called B.C. Hydro's Burrard utilization study a flawed and self-serving document based on questionable assumptions about environmental cost. He called the operation of the task force a cosy, non-critical atmosphere receptive to Hydro's technical and financial needs but not to the needs of the environment or the views of the public. He recommends a public hearing into Burrard Thermal's operation.

Is the minister prepared to listen to the people of British Columbia who have to suffer in the Fraser Valley airshed, and call for public discussions and public consultations on the Burrard Thermal issue?

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I find it offensive that the member would attack the integrity of the city of Port Moody, and particularly the mayor, hon. Speaker. We have been working with the city of Port Moody on very serious environmental concerns that they and their citizens have. We have a good cooperative relationship, and we've agreed to fund a land use study of the whole area to make sure that all of the development in that area is environmentally sensitive. But beyond that, this opposition has opposed every single environmental initiative that this government has pursued. To stand up in the House and somehow defend the environment, I think is too much.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the bell ends question period.

IMPACT OF FOREST PRACTICES CODE ON NORTHERN COMMUNITIES

Hon. A. Petter: I rise to respond to a question that was taken on notice in my name last week by the Minister of Finance. Last week the Leader of the Opposition asked about the availability of studies done by the Ministry of Forests and Wild stone Resources on the impact of the Forest Practices Code. These studies were undertaken for the Forest Practices Code technical subcommittee in order to assess the impact associated with various widths of streamside protection zones, and to assist staff in developing final regulations. I'll certainly ensure that the North Central Municipal Association has the address of Wild Stone Resources in Penticton, so they can obtain the studies from that source.

The member also raised a question regarding the involvement of northern communities in government strategies. In respect of that, hon. Speaker, let me just say that this government has been unprecedented in its involvement, in its consultation, with all communities around issues such as the Forest Practices Code, the timber supply review, land use planning and the forest renewal plan. Based on that consultation, we have pioneered some tremendous changes for British Columbia, despite the ongoing negative and constant opposition to those initiatives by the members opposite.

Hon. J. Smallwood tabled the annual report for the British Columbia Housing Management Commission, 1993-94.

[ Page 14248 ]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply A for the purposes of debating the estimates of the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour; and in the main House, I call committee stage of Bill 3.

GRAINS AND OILSEEDS REVENUE PROTECTION PLAN TRUST FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 3; D. Lovick in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

[2:30]

M. de Jong: With respect to

section 2(b), that, I presume, is a fixed amount. Perhaps the minister can indicate what it is as at March 31, 1995.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, it is. It's $23.2 million.

The Chair: Shall the

section pass?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Just a moment; I would like to clarify that. I mistakenly took that to be on the whole section. On

section 2(

b) specifically, the amount is $3.8 million, not the $23.2 million that I gave before.

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman; I went to go and get my copies of the estimates and the Public Accounts, and perhaps the question has been asked. What is the balance in the farm income assurance fund special account?

The Chair: I'm sure we all agree that repetition is a good thing -- repetition is a good thing.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think it was a different question, hon. Chair. He's asking for the balance in the farm income assurance fund, which is $26.7 million. The account balance of that fund that pertains to this particular legislation was the number I gave previously to the member for Matsqui.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That's $3.8 million.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

M. de Jong: With respect to

section 4(a), could the minister confirm that amount and whether or not it is also $3.8 million? I'll start there.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: That is $3.8 million.

M. de Jong: Subsection (

b) refers to revenues relating to premiums paid by farmers. Is the minister in a position to indicate the anticipated amount that would flow to the fund at this point?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. The whole purpose of the act is to secure the funds that have been paid in and save them in trust to be paid out. That is the $3.8 million.

M. de Jong: My question may not have been worded properly.

Section 4(

a) refers to the $3.8 million amount, I believe.

Section 4(

b) refers to premiums and other sources of revenue from farmers and the governments, federal and provincial. Does the minister have an anticipated amount that would flow to the fund via

section 4(b)?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It does depend on how many people subscribe in any given year and pay into it. We anticipate that all of the premiums that have been paid will go into this fund. Based on previous years, we anticipate that at $4 million, but it could fluctuate to somewhat lower than that.

F. Gingell: I was expecting the minister to say $8 million, and instead he said $4 million, being the amount that's been paid in in past years. But when I looked at the special accounts in the estimates for last year, the revenue from the grains and oilseeds

section indicates $8 million for the year '93-94 and $8 million for the year '94-95. Were those numbers substantially lower, or is this only a portion of those premiums that is now going to be put into the trust account?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The accounting change that this act is about recognizes the provincial contribution, not the contributions from the federal government and the others. We understand that those estimates you quoted from were based on previous years, which were $8 million. Last year it was actually $4 million, so it was substantially less than was budgeted for.

F. Gingell: Can the minister give us the breakdown of how much money he anticipates from farmers, from the provincial government and from the federal government being paid into the fund?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes, I'll give you a percentage. Under the terms of the national agreement, premiums are paid 25 percent by the province, 33 1/3 percent by the producers and 41 2/3 percent by the federal government.

M. de Jong: Referring to subsection 4(c), the fund will include any interest generated by its accumulated funds. Subsection 4(

c) also refers to other income. What is the minister anticipating will form the basis of other income?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The only one that we could foresee at this moment might be penalties that might be paid. Right now we don't envision any, but we want to provide for it.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

[ Page 14249 ]

M. de Jong: My question to the minister relating to

section 6 in this bill is probably a question I could ask about numerous statutes. I do have a concern when legislation that needs to be enacted by the Legislature can be repealed by order-in-council. That's not unique to this piece of legislation, but it is included here, and I'm wondering what explanation the minister can give. What purpose is served by allowing for an order-in-council decision as opposed to a decision of the Legislature?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Through this legislation we are asking permission to end the account when it's no longer needed. The sunset of the program two years from now makes it no longer necessary, so we are actually debating the feasibility of that. We see no way that there won't be a need to sunset this, because the official notice for termination of the program has been given.

F. Gingell: So the purpose of this bill, then, is to pull out, before they vanish into the consolidated revenue funds, funds that you believe tree fruit farmers and the federal government have contributed towards this plan in past years but which have not been required for the purposes of the plan.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In a general response, the tree fruits dollars and so on are all transferred out already. This deals with grains and oilseeds, so this is....

Interjection.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. You meant grains and oilseeds. Did you want a briefing on the difference?

F. Gingell: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I meant grains and oilseeds.

Is it true that the purpose of this act is to pull out of the consolidated revenue fund the assets which you believe others have a right to, rather than being under the general jurisdiction of the provincial government?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my understanding that this applies to funds that have been voted, but we want to make sure that they are secure so that they're there in trust and can be drawn on in the windup of the fund. It doesn't require that they sit on the books of the province.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

M. de Jong: My question again relates to the tenets of legislative draftsmanship. The bill is retroactive to March 31, 1995. There is, of course, a general rule against retroactivity. I'm sure that in this case it relates to the government's accounting practices. Yet in my discussions with those who know more about these things than I do, there's no requirement that the act be deemed retroactive to March 31. It's another example, I think, of good drafting practices giving way to accounting expediency. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not he is of the view that that was absolutely necessary in this case.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When you deal with the year-end, that's generally considered the time when you should reference.... It should be referenced in the bill, so we would argue that it's good accounting practice to do it that way. We announced the legislation at the earliest possible date. We happen to be debating it some time after we announced it, but the bill has been there on the books and so I think that the retroactive nature isn't a serious problem. It was just a matter of timing -- when the Legislature sat.

Section 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Grains and Oilseeds Revenue Protection Plan Trust Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I call committee on Bill 4.

GRAZING ENHANCEMENT SPECIAL ACCOUNT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 4; D. Lovick in the chair.

[2:45]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

W. Hurd: I wonder if the minister could take a moment under

section 2 to advise the committee about the nature of the special account. I assume that it carries forward in each consecutive fiscal year as a special account. Could he explain whether it would be on the books of his ministry, or would it be an entry in the general revenue

section of the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would carry forward on the books of this ministry.

W. Hurd: Could the minister elaborate on exactly how applicants will access the funds under the plan? I think he has mentioned in second reading the amount that would be available. What type of application process would the minister be looking for with respect to individual applicants? Would they be people who necessarily hold current grazing tenures in the province? Perhaps the minister could explain what type of criteria he would be looking for in terms of allocating planning funds under

section 2, which deals with the special account.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I explained in second reading, we didn't offer all the details before we had the advisory committee up and running. We have to get Treasury Board approval

[ Page 14250 ]

for the final criteria, which are being worked on. In general, the people who could access the funds will be people who have grazing tenures. It is conceivable that a wildlife group or a ministry that related to wildlife -- any range-related enhancement -- may apply. The purpose of the fund is to carry out the integrated range obligations of the government under the land use plan. It's conceivable that it's open to people who want to enhance the range for a number of purposes, including environmental, but the focus of this is to deal primarily with the issue of grazing for livestock.

W. Hurd: Can the minister explain whether a special weight is to be given to planning processes, to assisting tenure holders and putting together a longer-range plan for their tenure, or is it the minister's suggestion or vision that we'd be dealing with specific projects on the land base? What component of planning, as opposed to specific projects, would we be dealing with? Would it be an even mixture? How would the breakdown occur?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't expect that these funds will be spent on planning as such. There are planning obligations for range tenures that will be met by Ministry of Forests staff working with the range tenure holder. This is primarily for the carrying out of enhanced range management programs and projects. It is possible that once a plan is in place for a particular grazing unit or grazing tenure, then there may be funds applied for to carry out and achieve some of the objectives. It's primarily for the carrying out of plans, whether they're range development plans, subregional or regional land use plans.

May I add for your clarification that since the whole notion of enhanced management is also important, you can enhance management and thus enhance the resource. We therefore expect that the training of tenure holders and other interest groups in range management may be part of the fund. Should the advisory committee recommend that, it's possible they'll get into the training side of it, because what we're trying to do here is encourage private land stewardship, public land stewardship and public understanding of the need to enhance and refine our management practices for the range resource.

W. Hurd: As the minister knows, range tenure holders in the province are now subject to the Forest Practices Code. I wonder whether this fund would specifically prohibit projects that might have the dual purpose of meeting a mandate to improve the rangelands as opposed to some aspect of the Forest Practices Code, because it seems that there might be some potential for overlap here. Because of the more stringent requirements of the code, we may be in a situation where an application would come forward that might more specifically be dealt with within the Ministry of Forests.

Will there be a screening process by which projects that might be coming forward with a dual purpose of grazing enhancement as well as the Forest Practices Code would be put at the bottom of a priority list? I wonder if the minister could elaborate on what role the Forest Practices Code may or may not play in access to this special account.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Forest Practices Code is part of the regulatory regime or the legal regime under which this will be administered. Projects will be expected to be in compliance with the Forest Practices Code. If there's an implication of an objective under the code -- say, to advance biodiversity in a grassland area of a particular kind -- then it might be that they could access funds if there is a demonstrated public benefit from the project. I hope that answers your question, and I'd be happy to answer further if it's not clear.

W. Hurd: Just another brief question under

section 2. I wonder if the minister could describe the application process for the committee. When an applicant comes forward with a proposal, would it be a written application to the ministry? Would it go to a special committee within the ministry or a special branch of the ministry that administers the allocation of funding in each fiscal year? I wonder if the minister could just explain the process by which he expects applications to come forward.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As you know, there are three ministries involved in the administration and the adjudication of the fund: Agriculture, Environment and Forests. The funds are in our budget. The applications will come to the Ministry of Agriculture and then be circulated to the relevant ministries. If a decision has to be taken, the final decision will be taken by the Ministry of Agriculture.

W. Hurd: Will the new proposals be subject to sign-off by the first nations?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It would be appropriate to conceive of these as projects, not as licences or permits. Presumably the plans that might be necessary, subject to the permitting process, will have already gone through the consultation mechanism. So this is really implementation as opposed to planning new works and so on. So the answer is generally no to your question.

R. Neufeld: On the money that will be in this account, is it going to be evenly spent across the province, specifically in Peace River North and Peace River South, the same as the other areas? I know that you already have your land use plan in place in Cariboo-Chilcotin, and I appreciate that. But what does that do for other areas such as my two constituencies that have an LRMP going on, but they have not set aside any lands or anything? How are they going to access any money out of this account? Or is there a board contemplated by the minister for the constituencies of Peace River North and Peace River South, the same as for Cariboo-Chilcotin right now?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'll answer your question by illustrating with where there has been an LRMP that is nearing completion -- it's waiting to be signed off, as it were -- and that's the Kamloops area. Through that planning process, a request came forth for a grazing enhancement fund in proportion to the AUMs for that region. We are actively considering that request and the need for it. Part of our response to the LRMP will deal with whether or not the Kamloops area will access the funds.

We are trying to manage it by saying that where there are land use plans that have by implication a need to enhance the resource -- where the plan says we want to enhance the range resource -- then consideration will be given to that region to access the funds.

Further, you had a question about the committee structure. If it's necessary to create a grazing enhancement committee in a particular region, then I would take consideration for

[ Page 14251 ]

that. We are letting the regions themselves articulate the need for it. When I was talking to producers in your region, I said: "Well, in the planning process, you consider it. If there's a need and you can justify that need, then I'd be happy to advance it and try to convince my colleagues that it is necessary."

We have made motions to establish a committee in the Cariboo. We're less advanced in the Kootenays, where we committed a certain amount of funds -- $750,000 coming out of this fund annually for five years. So as the plans gel and the need is clear, we'll respond appropriately.

R. Neufeld: Then, I understand that an LRMP process must be almost complete or completed before any access to funding is available to anyone. Is that correct?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's usually through an LRMP that you have the expression of the regional or subregional plans. What has to be in place, according to this legislation, is that regional planning objectives have to be stated very clearly, so we know that the expenditure of funds is meeting an objective that's been agreed to under a regional plan. You'll notice that the language in the act relates to regional planning objectives.

R. Neufeld: Can you explain the rationale to me, then? As I understand it, the minister will make the final decision, obviously. I guess that for the Cariboo-Chilcotin area it must first be presented to that board or committee for their approval, for any project or whatever funds are being accessed. Then it will go to the minister for approval. In other areas, such as Kamloops or possibly the Peace River country, obviously -- as I understand it from the ministry -- you don't have to have a range advisory committee. Members will make application individually, just directly to the ministry.

Then the ministry will respond. I'm a little confused. I'm not disputing the committee process; don't get me wrong.

If we need a committee in the Cariboo-Chilcotin to vet applications for funding, why wouldn't that be consistent with other areas of the province? It seems to me that you're going to get an awful lot of ad hoc people coming in and saying: "I want a grant for this or some help with that." There's nowhere for them to go to, to get some kind of direction as to what they can and can't apply for.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can see the reason the member would ask the question. If there's a need in the Peace for both grazing enhancement.... If there's a need to access it as identified by regional plan objectives of some kind, then we'll have to find an appropriate process to get advice there. I expect, in an area like the Peace, as in the Kootenays and probably in Kamloops, there will be some kind of advisory committee established.

The issues in the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Kootenays are rather complex, and I expect that therefore a broader range of advice is necessary. First of all, you've got to get through the first hurdle, and that is answering the question whether the regional planning objectives are in place, so that the funds could be spent according to the planning objectives. Then we'll see for the need.

I'd be happy to take your opinion, your advice and the advice of people in the region as to whether a committee would be necessary in the Peace River. As it stands now, until we've signed off on regional plan objectives, there isn't access to the fund. But we hope to get there over the next few months to a year.

R. Neufeld: Is there a range advisory committee structured now or going to be structured shortly for the Kootenays region?

[3:00]

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Yes. I have two answers, one an additional bit of information to your previous question. We're working on provincial guidelines and coordination as well, to look at.... As you know, this came out of two regional plans, so we're responding to that. We're working on provincial guidelines and coordination right now.

With respect to the Kootenays, we are actively considering the membership of that committee now, as we announced we would move on grazing enhancement in that region, with the approval of the plan.

R. Neufeld: I'm concerned about the Peace. I'm not exactly sure when the LRMP process will be completed; I don't think the people who are working on it right now have a finite time when it's going to be completed. But we have an awful lot of grazing in the Peace country, and I'm certain that there are all kinds of good projects that could come out of range enhancement there. That goes along with trying to get the agricultural industry to diversify in the north and probably go to more cattle-oriented -- or even hogs, or whatever it takes.... So there is some range enhancement that has to be done there.

I'm a little concerned -- and maybe the minister can alleviate my concern -- about funds being expended specifically in the Cariboo and the Chilcotin, because they already will have their range advisory committees in place. I realize that funding for range enhancement isn't just a little bit this year; it will be something that happens over a period of time. We're talking about range enhancement, so what's set up this year in the Cariboo-Chilcotin will not be in isolation from what's going to take place next year.

I'm a little afraid of the funding being allocated more to the Cariboo-Chilcotin and the Kootenays, and by the time the Peace gets their LRMP process in place, there will not be much of the fund left, or what is left will not be sufficient to look after the issues that they bring forward.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said, different regions are at different stages in their land use planning. We can't change that, but we expect the LRMP to be done within the year in the Peace. It's my intention that we would look at a funding allocation based on the AUMs in the region, but it may take the Peace longer to get up and running on this, as the Kootenays are a little behind the Cariboo, and so on. The distribution of the funds will be based on the relative number of AUMs -- in other words, the resource use in the area; that would be the check and balance.

So the amount spent in the Cariboo-Chilcotin would be in proportion to the AUMs, and the amount in Kamloops and in the Kootenays would be based on the AUMs in those areas. If you go ahead and take the figure of AUMs in the Peace, and then figure out what size you think the fund ought to be -- that's when it's up and running and there's an agreement on the land use plan and the need for grazing enhancement....

[ Page 14252 ]

What you're telling me is that there is a need for it. I'm saying that if the LRMP identifies that and they can agree that the funds can be spent to meet regional planning objectives, then government will have to respond to that.

The Chair: Just before I recognize anybody else on

section 2, may I just remind the committee that for about the last five minutes we've really been having what looks suspiciously like a second reading debate. I would just remind members that we are on

section 2, which is a very straightforward section, and I would ask that our remarks be directed accordingly.

F. Gingell: We have actually been discussing every other

section but

section 2. But I'd like to get back to

section 2, if I may. In the total scheme of things, this is a relatively small sum. It may not be a small sum, and it may be a very significant sum for the people involved in the interests of enhancing grazing, but in the total scheme of a $20 billion provincial budget, it's a relatively small sum.

Listening to the interesting discussion about how this is going to work, I've been trying to think about why we would have a special account. What does a special account do? It doesn't give you multibudgeting. You may think that it does, but it doesn't; it's still up to Treasury Board to approve it and any amounts that come into the budget the following year from amounts that aren't spent in the first year. There isn't anything that is avoided, except having a vote in the Legislature on the amounts of money that a special account gives you, that couldn't be done within your own ministry.

All these laws, regulations and thoughts, and the way you are going to develop these grazing enhancement plans, just seem to me to be like good governance, but you are supposed to be operating with good governance in your ministry.

The Chair: Member, I am sorry; I hesitate to interrupt, but the House has already voted on the principle of this bill, and your remarks are calling entirely into question the principle of this bill. They are quite out of order, member. I'm sorry, but I have no option but to tell you that. I would ask you, member, to please try to bring your remarks into order.

F. Gingell: There has been a wide-ranging debate going on in this House about this issue, and I'm surprised that it's only when I get up -- and for the first time in some time -- to speak about

section 2, instead of

section 3, which was discussed at some length.... But I would like to discuss

section 2 and talk about whether this is the right role for a special account. If the minister and his ministry feel strongly about it, why didn't they set up a special trust account similar to the one we have just dealt with about the oil seeds? Except, of course, that this special account doesn't have anything in it except funds from a government vote; there are no outside funds.

It does seem as though you have set up a very complex exercise. You are going to spend more money on administration to do a whole bunch of things you could have done as efficiently and effectively through just your ministry vote and your ministry operations.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I'm familiar with the options, and we considered the various options on how to do this. If I could simplify things, the reason we establish a special account like this is so that unspent funds from one year can be rolled over to the other. It's very clear from the producers who are involved in this; the request coming through the land use planning process was for the ability to take funds, roll them over and not be compelled to spend them in any one year.

Yes, it could have been done they way you said, and then it is dependent on us voting an amount to commit -- which, in this case of the Cariboo, was $2.5 million a year on average for five years. In the first year, you have got a problem; in the second year you might be getting ramped up. We anticipate that the third year would probably have most of the funds expended.

We could have done it a number of ways. We've chosen to do it this way. The funds that will go into the special account will have to be voted every year -- there's no question about that. We didn't feel there was a need for establishing a trust account.

F. Gingell: I agree with the minister that the vote will apply to new allocations to the fund. You don't need to go through the vote process to deal with amounts carried forward, but you can't spend them unless you get Treasury Board approval. It would seem to me that Treasury Board approval is more difficult than the circumstance where you have 51 votes out of 75.

Wouldn't a special fund, a trust account -- where you wouldn't have to go through Treasury Board, and the funds would be allocated in there and no one could touch them -- have been a more preferable route, particularly since you want to give the ranchers the assurance that yes, the money is there; yes, it is real; and yes, the plans are going to be taken to fruition?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It is my understanding that trust funds are used only where there are funds usually, and where the funds are coming from another source. In this case it is coming from the government. We think it is an appropriate mechanism. A trust would be much more complicated to administer. We think we will be keeping the administrative overload to a minimum. There is a model for a program like this: the old ARDSA program. Our ministry has had experience in the past with running that five-year program -- two of them, as a matter of fact, at five years each.

So we're confident this is the appropriate administrative structure to deal with a situation where we don't have multi-year budgeting and we don't have outside funds coming in; and therefore there is the need for a trust. We think it's the most flexible administration of a program like this.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

F. Gingell: The description in this year's estimates indicates that the costs of the administration of this account are going to be paid out of the fund. I can appreciate that probably isn't very much, but it's something that's not provided for in the act. Can you tell us if that omission is intentional or whether you're going to bring forward an amendment to allow the costs of administering the fund to be paid out of the fund?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Would you like to repeat that for me?

F. Gingell: If the minister turns to the estimates, on page 69 we have for the first time the new grazing enhancement

[ Page 14253 ]

fund special account. The description underneath it says: "The account also provides funds for costs related to the administration of the account." I was going to ask about that as my next question, but I'll ask it now so we can deal with them both at the same time. How much is that expected to be? It just surprised me, when it was provided in the estimates that the administration costs would be paid out of the act, that the act doesn't provide for it.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The Treasury Board plan will include administrative costs. As I said, we're working on that. It's our understanding that we don't need to put it in the act, that it's just a matter of.... If the legislation states the objectives, the budget states what the money can be spent on, and it's just a matter of getting Treasury Board to agree that the expenditures are in line. I would anticipate they would be like any program -- in the range of 10 to 15 percent.

One of the things that I'm interested in is the discipline provided by the people who are on the advisory committee, where they will be asking some of those same questions. We intend to administer it as efficiently as we can.

C. Serwa: On

section 3(1), with respect to expenditures for the "enhancement of range resources in a manner consistent with regional land use planning objectives," etc., is there any coordination between this and the expenditures for those purposes and stocking levels? Obviously, one of the real pressures on rangelands is stocking levels in good years. For the past ten years we've had good years in the cattle industry, and I think that we can see the effects of them on rangeland. When you're talking about making these expenditures to enhance rangeland, what coordination do we have between allocated stocking levels?

It seems to me that ranches like Douglas Lake are stocking very heavily at the present time because the market has been so good. We're dealing with range enhancement with these expenditures, not only on open rangeland, which was formerly bunchgrass country, but also, I presume, in the forested areas, which is a different type of grass.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The coordination that you allude to as necessary would happen with the regional plans. When somebody wanted to adjust their stocking levels, you'd look at whether or not the resource could handle it; if there was an opportunity to increase stocking levels through the expenditure of range enhancement funds, that could be considered. This is not meant to be a direct subsidy for range development for individual operators as such. In the end we have to say that the enhancement of that resource fits with regional land use objectives.

As you know, most of the regional land use plans have specific economic objectives, and there's a great debate as to whether or not the industry can grow under some of the constraints that are put in place by regional land use plans. The way the Cariboo land use plan fell out, there was an agreement that yes, range can be enhanced in some areas. There may be other areas where range use will decrease, but it's a matter of spreading out range use over a different configuration of range uses.

[3:15]

The answer to your question is yes, stocking levels would be taken into account. If the grass weren't there, they couldn't have it; but if there were an area or a region or a subregion or types of ecosystems that could be enhanced for grazing, then on a general basis it would be available. Demand for the need to enhance for domestic livestock has to be taken into account. If the demand isn't there, I don't think we'll see applications to enhance the resource.

C. Serwa: Still on 3(1) and that point, I appreciate that, because what we're dealing with is in isolation. The belief is that we could simply enhance the productivity for forage for certain rangelands by capital investment without being unduly concerned with stocking levels. Both elements play a large component

part in the health of our rangeland and its ability to provide perennial use for that purpose. I'm pleased with the response from the minister on that.

W. Hurd: Just a brief question as to the land use planning component of

section 3(1). Can the minister advise the committee whether applications for areas designated as protected under either the Cariboo land use plan or the Kootenay land use plan would be given the same weight as would applications for funds outside the protected-area status? It's an important point, particularly in the Cariboo.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As a matter of fact, during the final days of the land use planning process, I discussed that very matter with the person who is now heading the range advisory committee. I know that he has communicated to people in the industry up there that the highest priority would be for those protected areas, as a matter of fact. One of the reasons is that that's where, in meeting the objectives of the regional land use plan, you may have the most dislocation. You may not.

It may be that you want to spend the money in integrated resource plan areas because that's where you can shift out of some areas that are more sensitive -- be they sensitive areas, protected areas or whatever. There's a lot of flexibility in there, and the committee will decide on the priorities. We want the refinement of the program objectives and the program priorities to be very much driven by the dialogue that's going to take place between the three ministry representatives and the range advisory committee.

W. Hurd: Just one other brief question, and it relates to that portion of rangelands where we have a marginal forest utility -- a grey area where the rangelands give way to marginal forest land. I just wondered whether projects that identified the best and most appropriate use for those types of lands.... Because of rainfall and other factors, a more appropriate use of the land might be rangeland. On the other side of the scale, a more appropriate use might be more intensive forest management. I just wondered whether those types of projects would be subject to funding support by the special account as well.

There is a forestry component in there, but at the end of the day, there might be an opportunity to actually increase the amount of grazing lands if the forest isn't the highest and best use.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: What you're alluding to is one of those areas where.... They have to work out some of the details, but the people who are on the committee -- particularly the person from the forest industry, who is very well experienced in silviculture -- will try to identify the areas where we can do precisely what you suggest.

I would like to add that in areas where there's encroachment of timber on what have traditionally been the types of grasslands that might get more productivity by doing prescribed burning, that may well be a kind of project. In the

[ Page 14254 ]

areas you're talking about.... If you take, say, a pine forest that might be on the margin of productivity, that is more problematic. The benefit-cost ratio is pretty low in some of those areas. It seems to me that they're going to have to spend the money where it can best be spent and not just have corrective action by, say, clearcutting lodgepole pine, which gives you lots of pinegrass, for example. I would say that we can work in the marginal forest areas as an area where the best investments could be made, provided they can be long-term investments and they can really help.

My guess is that the most productivity is going to be by enhancing the grasslands by enhancing the quality of management for domestic stock and wildlife in that area.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

W. Hurd: Just a brief question with respect to

section 4. I have been advised by my colleague for Delta South that it isn't necessarily desirable that an annual report, complete with audit information, be provided on a special account, because the ministry and the auditor general do have that function. I wonder if the minister could advise us whether the annual report that is prepared for the special account will be tabled in the B.C. Legislature, and whether the public will have an opportunity to review on an annual basis the projects that are ongoing and perhaps be given the opportunity to comment on whether the best and highest land use decisions have been made with respect to the special account.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We don't anticipate tabling it in the Legislature, but it will be a public document. I think that will answer your question.

W. Hurd: Can the minister advise the committee what opportunity there would be for public input into the kinds of decisions that are made on the applications that would come forward? In the various regions of the province, the public would not necessarily be aware of what is actually being proposed, and might want the opportunity to offer comment. What steps would the minister suggest the public take to make their views known? Would a catalogue of approved projects be available for public discussion or review? What component of public input do we have here?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The reason that we have an advisory committee with broad public involvement on it is to achieve that public input in a direct way during project approval and project planning. To the extent that there is a business plan for this program in a particular region, if the regional advisory committee decides they want to submit a business plan and get some feedback on it before they approve projects, then they could do that.

There will be some debate during estimates, of course, but the main public input is into range use plans. If a range use plan identifies a project -- a fencing project, a water development project or a planting project -- at that point the public can have input. Range use plans are advertised, and so on. We don't want to duplicate the process that's there for the normal forestry permitting project and plan review. The committee might decide that it's advisable to have some public meetings or do some advertising about what they plan to do, but I wouldn't hold them to that at this point, because I think the public input will be provided in the range use planning process.

The other thing is that if there's a general enhancement of the range resource that might come out of a particular timber company's development plan, there would be some review of that then. But basically, the areas in which enhancement can take place are pretty well set as per the land use plan, and that basically says anywhere, provided it meets the Forest Practices Code.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

W. Hurd: Just one brief question, again with respect to the allocation of funds. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee whether it would be possible for a local government or regional district or some other public body to make application and to combine this application with some other initiative under either the forest renewal plan or some other public purpose? Or is he envisaging individual applicants coming forward? Would local governments or regional districts be able to apply for funding, and could they piggyback that funding with any other current program related to forest enhancement, water protection or whatever else might be available from other ministries?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Let me say that it is possible for the local government to apply. It would go through the same process. It would go to the range advisory committee, and if they said that part of the project they had in mind involved funds from another source, I'm sure it would get active consideration. If we can lever funds this way, that would be fine. There was never a call to have local government considered -- and I can't think of one in my region right now where this might happen -- because the regional district governs private land mostly....

If there's a public purpose for spending money, it theoretically can be spent on private land. But I can't think of any area where.... I can think of no regional district that governs grass management on private land. They might do it; I don't know. But the answer is yes, it is possible.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

D. Mitchell: Could the minister explain why the retroactivity clause is here for the commencement of this bill? Is it simply because April 1 is the start of the fiscal year? Why could this bill not have been effective on the date of its passage or proclamation?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The fund has been announced...

D. Mitchell: Shame on you.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: ...in the budget, and this gives effect to the administration of those funds. So there's no shame needed.

D. Mitchell: I know that we're not here to debate principles...

[ Page 14255 ]

The Chair: At this stage, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: ...but, hon. Chair, there are principles in the bill, and the minister has gone ahead and just admitted to the committee that he started to spend the money before the bill had passed in the House. Does the minister believe that that's the proper process, that he should treat the Legislature and this Committee of the Whole House...?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Point of order. There is a misinterpreting of what I said. I said the fund was announced. There have been no funds expended....

The Chair: Hon. minister, I have to advise you that that's not really a point of order; it's a disagreement. I'll let the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi continue.

D. Mitchell: I would just like to get this minister to clarify why it is that a fund has been established, anticipating approval by the Legislature. We have to be concerned when retroactivity is brought into any piece of legislation that comes before this House. The minister has prepared this as a fait accompli, assuming that it would go through without any amendment, without any changes. Is that the proper approach this government would like to take with its legislative program -- to simply look at the Legislature as a rubber stamp? Is this retroactivity appropriate? Is it necessary?

Why could we not have this bill simply come into force, have its commencement take place on the date when it's passed by the Legislature?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This is one mechanism. The money was in the budget, and it's a general budget question. Can you spend any money before the budget is approved? That's what interim supply is about. If there are any funds that need to be spent under this before it has passed this House, it will come under an interim supply bill, so I don't see a problem. This is just setting up the mechanism, and if during this debate it is seen to be necessary.... This is the last clause of the act, and nobody has demonstrated any other option or convinced me in debate that we need to amend this act.

The Legislature has moved very fast through this act. I appreciate that you have to keep me on my toes on this matter, but I don't think you've done any damage to the bill here.

[3:30]

C. Serwa: I think that in listening to the last bit of debate between both members, the fact remains, then, that this bill was really not necessary; the ministry has the ability, within itself, to provide funds by regulation. None of this whole debate was really necessary, because -- confirming what the minister has said -- they could have actually done that, and that's why they've gone ahead; you have that authority under the ministry in any event. All this is is a good-news item -- a pre-election item -- for the ranchers in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It's nice to have the member for Okanagan West's endorsement of the fund as a good-news bill. I have to say that there is a reason for this; it's to require the carryover, so that we are not debating.... The people who are involved in the effort to put in the economic part of the land use plan can rest assured that there will be carryover, and that they won't be waiting for the estimates to be passed every year before they can decide on expenditures in the spring. This money should be spent this time in years coming up.

Section 7 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Grazing Enhancement Special Account Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 19.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1995

(second reading)

Hon. D. Marzari: It is my pleasure to put forward Bill 19 at this point for second reading. As I said when I introduced this bill to the House for first reading, affordable housing is a priority for this government. We believe that affordable housing makes a significant contribution towards equity, because people who have difficulty finding housing are often disadvantaged in other ways -- single-parent families, immigrants, aboriginal people and people with special needs.

Affordable housing makes a significant contribution towards health, because people must live in secure and adequate homes in stable communities to enjoy physical and mental health. It's a significant contribution towards economic growth, because residential construction is an important source of job creation in the economy, and stable housing is virtually a prerequisite for getting and keeping a job.

Because the federal government has unilaterally withdrawn from all social housing programs, our government has taken a strong leadership role in housing. We're doing everything we can to encourage the development of affordable and appropriate housing for British Columbians of all incomes and housing needs. The Minister of Housing, Recreation and Consumer Services has the lead role in terms of finding and implementing new and innovative ways to increase the supply of affordable housing. The most significant progress has come through Homes B.C., a made-in-B.C. housing program that's addressing a wide range of housing needs, from homelessness to home-ownership.

Bill 19 is consistent with the goals of Homes B.C., and with our government's commitment to providing affordable housing for more British Columbians. Bill 19 recognizes that the traditionally narrow definition of home-ownership isn't appropriate now that we have to do everything we can to increase the housing supply. It embraces a broader understanding of what constitutes home-ownership by amending the Home Owner Grant Act to extend grants to housing cooperatives and equity housing societies. These forms of housing already make a significant and growing contribution to the supply of affordable housing in British Columbia.

[ Page 14256 ]

The Homes B.C. program supports housing cooperatives and equity housing societies as a good way to increase the supply of affordable housing. Last week the first limited-equity housing cooperative under the Homes B.C. program was launched at a groundbreaking ceremony in Vancouver. Typically, the people who live in these units are in the low- to moderate-income range and can't afford conventional home-ownership. This legislative amendment will have a positive impact by making their housing a little more affordable.

Over the years the homeowner grant program has made it a little easier for hundreds of thousands of British Columbians to own a home, but by accepting a broader definition of home-ownership, we'll see that this legislation will let our helping hand reach a little further and offer assistance to more of those who need it most. In doing so, it will bring the technical conditions for the grant program into line with the spirit of the law. I'm happy to move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.

F. Gingell: It's important that the government design its programs to ensure that there's a clear understanding of what they're trying to accomplish. In questioning the means by which it is being accomplished in this case, I know that this minister and the members of the NDP would never take my statements out of context and suggest that I'm not in favour of affordable housing and the government's responsibility to provide affordable housing.

One appreciates why the homeowner grant came in originally. It was a means by which a grant was given to homeowners who were in those days paying about 50 percent of the cost of their public school system. In fact, they were paying on average a little more than that; I think the number was well into the 60 percent range that was paid by property owners on the basis of the property taxes assessed by their local school districts. The homeowner grant was brought in, and as the ability and the role of school boards in determining how much money was spent on K-to-12 education within their school district....

The need for the homeowner grant became even more apparent, because school boards were losing the ability to make those kinds of decisions. The homeowner grant really just moved a portion of public education costs from a property-owner taxpayer to a provincial taxpayer. My own feeling, having spent so many years on school boards looking into the issues, is that the appropriate means of funding education is through provincial taxes levied on all provincial taxpayers, rather than on one distinct class of property ownership where the taxes are not related to education costs.

What the government is doing now is bringing into play an additional set of exemptions that will, in effect, be grants -- that's what these are -- to another group of property users. It is the owner that is going to get the grant. Previously the word "owner" was the key item, and the word "owner" is not going to be the key item in this change.

If we're interested in making affordable housing more affordable and in ensuring that there's a better supply of affordable housing, I'd really like to suggest to the minister that she should attack that problem head on and deal with it from that viewpoint, and not in a roundabout method through this situation. I'm sure that I could find, if I wished to, a whole series of examples where this grant would be inappropriate and where there would be better means of assisting families at the low end of the income scale to get into good-quality housing.

I would really like to suggest to the minister that perhaps it is time to look at all the various programs that assist in the affordable housing issue and maybe pull them into one package, so the cost of them all can be more clearly understood by the taxpayers, and so both taxpayers and government can put into place programs of evaluation that will look at whether these programs are accomplishing their intended results and whether we're getting good value for our money.

As a matter of fact, I was interested in the minister's remarks in second reading, in saying this is really about affordable housing, because the way the homeowner grant has been phased out has caused unaffordable housing. In fact, unaffordable housing has become the issue.

When the Minister of Finance brought in the original provisions of getting the homeowner grant out completely and the other issues that were to do with the taxation of houses that have an assessed value of a substantial sum, it was this minister who, I believe, played a role in coming to the rescue of some very hard-pressed taxpayers -- taxpayers whom the minister will know from her own riding.

Many of them live in homes that were occupied by their parents, homes that have been in the family for many years and homes that could not be afforded by these owners if they would have to buy them in the market of 1995, instead of receiving them by way of inheritance or by having bought them in the forties, fifties and sixties when housing on the west side of Vancouver was more reasonably priced in relation to the prices of homes in Richmond and Oakridge, when that opened in the fifties, and in Burnaby.

It seems to me that in 1995 we should be rethinking the whole exercise of the homeowner grant and exemptions and the taking away of the exemptions on this scale of $1 for every $100 of assessed value in excess of $475,000. This is legislation that doesn't work well. It's legislation that was put together originally, I guess, in the late fifties -- or perhaps it was the early sixties -- and that's been fiddled with and played with. Band-aids have been attached to it; they've tried to fix it in different methods. It's really become quite a hodgepodge.

When you add in a new group of property owners who will receive the grant but who were never intended to in the first place, perhaps it's time to have a second look and see how these various government incentives -- important incentives in the field of affordable housing -- are most efficiently and effectively carried out.

[3:45]

We will, of course, be interested in third reading committee stage, where we can get some more details on the plan. Basically, we support this bill because it would be difficult not to support it. But I think that the more government focuses in on clearly defining what they are trying to accomplish, the means by which they are going to accomplish it, the programs that they will put in place, and the means by which they can measure their success in reaching their goals, the more they may well see that this route is outdated now and that perhaps there are better ways of accomplishing the desired results.

D. Mitchell: I would like to add a few words on this bill, Bill 19, the Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995. I apologize to the member for Delta South. I missed his last few remarks on whether the Liberal opposition was going to be supporting or not supporting this bill.

F. Gingell: Supporting.

[ Page 14257 ]

D. Mitchell: They will be supporting this bill, he says, which is good and interesting. I thought the member for Delta South actually provided a good rationale for opposing the bill and the principle of the homeowner grant. Having said that, I think there is some ambivalence among members of this House and even on the part of the government that has brought forward this bill, because Bill 19 deals with the policy that was brought in -- as the member for Delta South correctly said -- back in the late 1950s by the previous Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett. It was part of the vision of that period....

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: W.A.C. Bennett, that's correct. The member for Delta South may recall there was a Premier of that name.

The principle of a homeowner's grant was crucial to that period of British Columbia's development, when the dream of every British Columbian was to own a home, to own a house. The initial principle of the homeowner grant was assisting the vision and the dream of home-ownership not only as a tool of economic development but as a way of fulfilling provincial social goals of the of the day.

Over the course of time, the homeowner grant has been added to, expanded and changed to the point where I think one does have to question whether the homeowner grant fulfils its initial intention. Bill 19 extends the benefits of the homeowner's grant to those who live in housing cooperatives and equity housing societies, as stated by the minister. I would argue that that takes away from the principle of home-ownership by extending the benefits through this grant to those who do not per se own homes, but who live in cooperatives, in affordable housing that is subsidized by the governments at various levels -- whether it be municipal, provincial or federal -- through a variety of programs.

In general, I think it would be useful to have the minister state what her government's view is toward this and why they continue to support the home-ownership grant program, given the positions taken by the New Democratic Party in the past with respect to this program, which have certainly not been favourable. Also, I wonder if the government is interested -- and it would be very useful to know whether the government is interested -- in taking the burden of school taxes off property and whether they are making progress toward that goal.

Either we should totally remove the homeowner grant or we should remove the cost of school taxes from property -- one or the other. The direction we are going in seems to be muddling the situation further, not clarifying it at all.

I think the goal of maintaining the homeowner's grant for now and extending it to some categories of homeowners can and should be supported. But what does this bill do? When we get to committee stage, we are going to have to look closely at some of the

definitions provided under this bill -- for instance, the definition of eligible occupant and also the definition of an owner. Who is an owner under the legislation? That strikes at the principle of this bill, which we are debating here in second reading. Who is an eligible occupant under the program? Who is a homeowner under the program?

Hopefully, the minister has consulted with her colleague the Minister of Housing on this bill, as she said during her second reading comments. If she has, she would be aware of a recent controversy in the community of Squamish, the constituency I represent, where the directors of a housing cooperative have sought to privatize their co-op, effectively giving to the residents in that co-op fee simple ownership in the property that they're occupying. I can tell you that the Minister of Housing has promised some action on this, and I think that is desirable.

I don't think anyone should be allowed to benefit from a program of subsidization over years and years and years, where affordable housing has been obtained and subsidized by the state, and now, all of a sudden, individuals wish to gain or even profit from that subsidization. This bill doesn't seem to address that issue at all. In fact, this bill is extending the homeowner grant and the principle of the homeowner grant to residents of co-ops, to members of cooperative societies.

The minister hasn't really satisfactorily explained why. Why are we doing this? Why, first of all, is the government supporting the homeowner grant program, which it did not support when it was in opposition? Why are we extending it to a category of residents who are not really homeowners?

How is that going to improve the stock of affordable housing in our province? The minister did address that in her second reading comments, but she didn't say how. How is this homeowner grant's being extended going to increase the stock of affordable housing, which is so lacking in so many communities in our province? She hasn't addressed that.

An Hon. Member: In West Vancouver.

D. Mitchell: Yes, indeed, in West Vancouver as well, and in many parts of the province where people and families have grown up. They've grown to the point either where they're on fixed incomes and can no longer maintain their homes and the communities where they've spent their lives or where they cannot afford to pass on those homes to a younger generation because of the increased value of the homes. Some members may not appreciate that, but that's happened in many parts of the province, including -- yes -- West Vancouver and others.

I don't know if this bill is really all that well thought out. When we get to committee stage, we'll be able to find out. We'll be able to question the minister a little more effectively. I'm certainly going to have many more questions.

There is a need for affordable housing. I don't think this bill helps that goal. There is a need to question the premises upon which the homeowner grant is structured today. I don't think this bill does that.

It simply incrementally adds on yet a new category of who may be eligible to receive the homeowner grant. One has to question whether that's a form of bribery -- whether we're trying to bribe yet a new category of voters to support the government because they've been included in a handout from the government. Is it right? Does it derogate from the principle of home-ownership that the homeowner grant was initially established to support?

There's another aspect of this bill that I think needs to be addressed, and that's the commencement. We tried to address the commencement clause in the previous bill. The Minister of Agriculture was completely unable to explain the retroactivity clause. In this bill as well, commencement is deemed to have come into force January 1, 1995. Again, is this retroactive legislation really necessary? It certainly should be frowned upon in this House. The minister's going to have to explain that as well when we get to committee stage.

[ Page 14258 ]

C. Serwa: I'm pleased to rise and speak to the philosophy and principles of Bill 19, the Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995. The member who spoke just prior to myself was really quite correct when he was talking about the arrogance of this particular government in bringing in retroactive legislation, such as this particular bill.

I can't speak very much on the philosophy and principles of this bill, because fundamentally this is a bailout bill. This is a bill designed to strive to make this government look good again as the election nears. Why does one come to that suspicion? Is there something wrong with....

Interjection.

C. Serwa: The Minister of Tourism says.... Well, I think they're going to require every bit of assistance they can get. That's the reality.

Yes, there is something wrong with this bailout bill for the NDP, because it's based on the philosophy.... Perhaps the inspiration was given to this party from Washington, D.C. When they were elected, the first thing they did was repeal something, and that something was the renter's tax credit.

With the renter's tax credit, every person.... Let's face it, the individuals who can least afford home-ownership are those who rent. And those who needed any amount of fair assistance to compensate for the education taxes were the renters. That's why the Social Credit government brought in the renter's tax credit. All individuals, whether they had home-ownership or paid through their rent, were compensated and allowed for that under the renter's tax credit. Now, if that had still been in force, none of this would have been necessary. All of the individuals and areas here would have been treated accordingly and equally in British Columbia.

Instead, what you have done -- with this current government trying to bail themselves out of this situation -- is take away from many who can least afford home-ownership and who are caught in the dilemma of the escalation in home rental rates. You're taking away from them and giving to only a very select and minor group that you have included in this particular bill. I guess they're special -- special interest groups, friends and insiders of the current government. But it seems to me, again, really wrong to treat British Columbians in a very different manner.

The right thing would have been simply to admit your mistake, take a second look at it and reinstate the renter's tax credit, which would have covered all of the areas of specific concern. The government has chosen not to do that, believing that smart politics is probably to take something away from everyone and then return a little bit of it with the appropriate fanfare and say: "We really care about home-ownership in British Columbia."

I don't think this government has ever cared about property ownership. This government, whether it's in the provincial or the federal jurisdiction, has stood united in their opposition to the concept of the private ownership of real property. That's why it was not enabled in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: because of the New Democrats -- the socialists in society who oppose ownership of real property. That debate comes into this Legislature, and that's a reality. Right off the top of the mark, that concept of being concerned about property ownership....

Affordable housing is another area that is a joke of this particular current government. I say that with all reality. They have never considered the affordability of housing. First of all, in an area of the province.... Even though we have now about 3.6 million or 3.7 million people and about 4 or 5 percent of the land of this province is arable, we have no shortage of land for housing. But this current government sought, in their wisdom, to create an artificial shortage of land for housing. The escalation in lot prices from the time this artificial shortage was created has gone from $1,000 or $1,500 a lot....

I remember a developer in our constituency selling lots; if you bought one for $2,500, you got a second one for $1. Then this current government had the wisdom to bring in the agricultural land reserve, which immediately created an artificial shortage and made this specific developer a multimillionaire overnight, because now he had at his disposal a large number of lots, and the market was sufficiently enhanced because we had created this artificial shortage of property.

Today, when we're looking at the wisdom of a government that is talking about affordable housing and looking at the land costs -- it doesn't matter whether it's for condominiums, apartments, individual home units or duplexes -- we find that we are paying $70,000, $80,000 or $100,000 simply for land costs. There's no other reason for it other than the artificial shortage this government created.

So when we look at this particular bill.... The government is trying to come through as if they really do care about those people who are less advantaged, as the minister has said, less able to afford the traditional form of home-ownership. I say it's a facade. It's a pure, simple, shallow facade, and it does an injustice to the people of British Columbia from a government that is trying to look good at the expense of ordinary British Columbians -- hard-working in most cases and, in some cases, disadvantaged British Columbians. They're trying to reap political credits from doing something that they took away.

When we look at the homeowner grant.... There was certainly a lot of speculation and talk about traditional commitment to that concept. Yes, the homeowner grant was set up originally to defray the costs of education. Instead of having all of those costs loaded onto the backs of those who own homes, the concept was to reuse other tax revenue, perhaps, but also resource revenue, to defray the costs of education and take them off the backs of homeowners.

[4:00]

The previous Social Credit government included, over and above the traditional homeowner's grant that this government wanted to take away, the supplementary homeowner's grant. When the supplementary homeowner's grant came in, in the first year, it looked after 25 percent of the differential between the homeowner's grant and the total education cost. In the second year, it was up to 50 percent, and it was proposed that it would continue advancing until it had eliminated school taxes from home-ownership.

This government, in their wisdom and their purported commitment to home-ownership and affordable home-ownership, sought to take away the supplementary homeowner's grant. There again we have added to the cost of home-ownership, and rather than it being borne on a shared basis by all of the people through the cash flow of the province, this government -- this socialist government -- has chosen once again to dump on the backs of those who actually own homes and make them take the burden of the cost of public education. Again, I think that is very wrong.

[ Page 14259 ]

This government talks about affordable home-ownership; yet, when a subdivision is created, 5 percent of that land, or the value of 5 percent of that land, has to be turned over to the Crown -- to public ownership. In one particular subdivision that I've heard about -- 400-some-odd acres -- the municipal government not only wants 5 percent of the area to be subdivided but they want 5 percent of the total area which is not going to be subdivided, and a very small percentage of that area will in fact be subdivided. This government has made a great deal of that possible.

The current government is talking about looking for school sites by taking away another 5 percent of the developer's parcel of land and allocating it for school sites. It sounds great, but, therefore, individuals who are buying a lot on that property.... The end result is that the consumer has to pay. All you're doing is making it less and less affordable. You're dumping on a smaller and smaller group of people, and you believe that, as government, you can get away with it because it's in the public interest to do so.

It's like the voluntary gifting under the Municipal Act that is being taken and abused by a number of jurisdictions in British Columbia. If you want a building permit, and the city or the regional district wants road widening, you can't get your building permit until the road widening is voluntarily gifted. There's no rationale, there's no tie-in, but again, it's the concept that you can take, and if you're taking for the public good, somehow that's honest -- that's an honest business transaction. In my books it comes fairly close to theft, and that again increases the cost of home-ownership.

If this government was really concerned about home-ownership, they would have a greater influence with respect to servicing, with respect to the type of subdivision requirements that are necessary. Right now, you have to put in all of the components, and that has to be borne by the potential homeowner of the property, and it's amortized and paid for once again by the homeowner through the taxation structure. So they fundamentally pay for the assets twice. I think that's very wrong.

The size of the homes is another area of concern. Most of us -- the older ones among us, anyway -- grew up in homes that were perhaps 700 to 900 square feet in size. Now it appears that even a minimal size for a one-bedroom apartment is perhaps 1,100 or 1,200 square feet, and homes under that are almost unheard of in today's market. Again, if we're looking at affordable housing, we're going to have to look at a different concept; we're going to have to look at a modular type of housing -- a smaller home that, say, a newly married couple can move into.

But it's preplanned, so that they can move into affordable housing on an affordable lot, and after, when they have a family, they can build other components; but those components are part and parcel of the overall plan, so that it doesn't look like an add-on type of situation from ad hoc planning -- fundamentally, from the origin of that, it's factored in. If you have two or three children, you can continue to build that home, and the components fit in because it was preplanned. If the government was really concerned, they would certainly encourage that type of activity.

Secondary suites are another real opportunity that, probably because of the NIMBY syndrome, we're having a great deal of difficulty in achieving in the province. But again, good leadership for affordable housing would encourage some sort of referendum perhaps -- block by block if you wish. Or an area of a community, if they're in favour of secondary suites.... This government should take leadership steps in encouraging that, to provide affordable housing for individuals in communities. In my community there are a lot of elderly people.

I would say that if a young couple or younger family were there, the safety and security of the elderly would be enhanced, and an opportunity for a full yard for the young family would be enhanced as well.

Manufactured housing sites are another area where there is a real shortage in the province, and it's not a competitive market. It's fundamentally a seller's market rather than a buyer's market. I see no effort on the part of government to encourage regional districts or municipalities to formulate zoning; there are no real incentives to encourage the development of manufactured home sites. And manufactured housing is certainly a valuable component for affordable housing.

When I look at the Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995, and I see that so much has been taken from so many, and in turn so little has been given to so few, in spite of the benefits to those who are receiving, I say that the government is misdirected. If the government were really, truly committed, they would bring back the renter's tax credit and the supplementary homeowner's grant and incorporate them. Those two factors that had already existed prior to this government would reduce the annual cost of home-ownership.

We'll be looking at this bill

section by section, but I'm appalled at the chutzpah of this provincial government, who believe that they can win Brownie points on the basis of something they have taken away and returned so little of to the people of the province.

G. Farrell-Collins: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would ask the members of the House to help me make welcome 120 students from Walnut Grove Secondary School in my riding of Fort Langley-Aldergrove. They are here with several of their parents and Mr. Sparks, their teacher.

L. Fox: I am pleased to stand in my place to speak to Bill 19, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995. When we look at legislation, one of the first questions we must ask ourselves is whether or not it's fair, and I think I could make an argument on both sides of that question with this particular legislation.

Interjection.

L. Fox: Yes, I could do it fairly. First of all, when we look at the offering of a homeowner grant to subsidized housing, it's presently being done on thousands of homes in British Columbia that have either originally been purchased under the old federal AHOP program or today under the native housing program, as it was renamed in the very early eighties. These programs have supplied British Columbians with opportunities to acquire a home -- their first home in many cases -- but at a realistic price and with a realistic payment.

I don't mind admitting that the very first home I bought in 1973 was under the AHOP program, as a low-income earner at that time and with a family of three children. That was a great

[ Page 14260 ]

program in that it opened the doors and provided me with an opportunity to get out of rental accommodation and into a house that I was able to sell in later years, gain the equity from, and from that point forward, have a conventional mortgage.

We offer homeowner grants to many subsidized houses in British Columbia today. So you could ask the question: is it fair to do it in that instance and not fair to do it in this instance? The other question that comes to mind with respect to this issue is.... When I read the legislation it appears to me that it isn't really the individual that's getting the homeowner grant here, it's the cooperative that's getting the homeowner grant. So it is the cooperative that is gaining the benefit. Hopefully that would be reflected in the fees charged back on the respective apartments, but that's not clear in this legislation.

I think the real issue here is whether or not homeowner grants are the right way to go in terms of relieving taxpayers of some of the burden of educational cost. That is the real question. British Columbians have been screaming for the last ten years for an overhaul of the residential taxing system, for the government to come up with a source of income for the purpose of funding education, other than the residential tax base. In most cases, I think, we can all agree that the assessment on a particular home does not -- does not, I repeat -- necessarily reflect the ability to pay.

If we reflect back to when the homeowner grant was brought in, the purpose of it was to alleviate the homeowner from educational taxes. If we look at the situation today in British Columbia, we find that many municipalities, through the homeowner grant, are achieving substantially more than what the educational portion of the taxation raises. In actual fact, my home community receives about $100,000 more in the homeowner grant from the provincial government than it would if it collected the education taxes directly without the homeowner grant. So I think there's a need to overhaul the system.

The other issue in this is that one would have to ask: if this is going to apply to cooperatives and to housing society buildings, why then is it not also applied on a similar principle to apartment dwellings, to large apartment buildings? Because, as we all know, renters pay their share of taxes through the rental fees that they pay. I don't see a whole lot of significant difference between an apartment building and a cooperative, other than the subsidized monthly price that they pay for that apartment facility.

I could see it if we were doing this -- if cooperatives were all structured in the same way and, indeed, if they were an entry into the housing market -- so that somehow or other it was an incentive and the individuals gained the equity out of it, and when it was resold they could get out and become more self-sufficient and no longer be dependent on a cooperative type of structure. But what we see is the opposite. What we see is that once we get into that structure, there is a dependency then; there is a dependency by that individual who stays with that cooperative housing unit, and very, very rarely, unless their income improves substantially, do they ever move out of it.

As I said earlier, I could oppose or support this based on which principle I wanted to apply. It's very, very difficult in the legislation itself to identify at the second reading stage what principle the government's got behind it. Because I believe there's an element of fairness contained within this legislation, I am prepared to support it.

T. Perry: I thank the member for Okanagan East for yielding her place to me for just a few minutes.

I am speaking in favour of the bill; I intend to support it. That may come as a surprise to members of the opposition, but I think it's a good bill, and I want to commend the minister for bringing it forward. It happens to particularly affect a housing cooperative in my riding called the Harbour Cove cooperative. Many members will have passed by the Harbour Cove cooperative or walked by it on the False Creek seawall on their way to the Granville Island market, but probably few have recognized it.

[4:15]

Listening to the member for Prince George-Omineca, I noted that he pointed out that many members of housing cooperatives, once ensconced in the cooperative, never move out. It occurred to me, as a medical man, that that's rather like human beings and most other animals and their skins. Were not like snakes; once we're in our skin, we usually inhabit it for the rest of our life. That may not be such a bad thing.

That's actually the essence of what housing cooperatives are meant to be about: to provide affordable housing for one segment of the population who could not otherwise afford to obtain a stable residence, and who would otherwise only be renting all their life and perhaps have to move from one place to another. I think it's great if people stay in the cooperative as long as they want to.

Interjection.

T. Perry: I hear the member saying that that's a socialist approach. If that's the definition of socialism -- to celebrate and be happy when people can have stability in their lives -- then I think that's wonderful. That's a new definition of socialism to me. There are a lot of

definitions that I've heard in my life, but that socialism is the respect for stability in life is a new one, and it's kind of a nice definition.

For those out there in TV land and for those in the gallery who don't know, a cooperative housing project has the advantage that people without a large amount of money to invest in capital have the chance of having stable housing, just like people who can afford to buy their own house. Since it requires some subsidy from the public in general to be developed, the trade-off is that when you get your stable housing, you don't get to cash in and make a large windfall capital gain or real estate profit when you move.

The equity and ownership in the building stays with the building so somebody else can take advantage of that housing. That's sort of like a hermit crab moving into a shell: when it moves out, another hermit crab can move in; the hermit crab doesn't get to take the shell with it. There's precedent in nature, as well.

Anyway, I promised that I was going to be very brief. I only expanded on that because I heard the member opposite make such an interesting comment. Cooperatives are good in the right circumstances. They're very good for people in that harbourfront cooperative particularly, where there are some people with very serious disabilities who have their own, stable home. A woman heavily involved in the Alzheimer Society and a very famous film-maker who has a very serious disability have both been able to have a stable home there.

I want to pay tribute not only to the minister but to the lawyer for the cooperatives, Rob Fenton, who has worked very constructively over the last three and a half or four years.

[ Page 14261 ]

Even before the change of government, he was working at trying to secure this fairness: if there was going to be a rebate on tax owed, just the fact that you own your own house and are in a position to reap that capital gain if you sell it should not somehow magically qualify you for a subsidy that people who aren't in a position to make a capital gain should not also have access to. This is a fair measure of....

D. Mitchell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: The hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi rises on a point of order.

D. Mitchell: We're on the bill that's dealing with the co-op amendment to the Home Owner Grant Act that the Minister of Municipal Affairs brought in. The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain has raised some important points about his constituents, but he has not yet told us whether or not he's in favour of the homeowner grant and whether or not it should be extended to members of co-ops. He's spoken in favour of co-ops, which is great, but that's not the bill that's in front of us. I would like to hear from the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain as to whether or not he is in favour of the homeowner grant...

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: ...being extended to members of co-ops, because that's what the bill is about.

The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member rises on a point of order -- and obviously has taken advantage to make somewhat of a speech himself. However, I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver-Little Mountain to relate his remarks to the bill as closely as possible. All members realize that in second reading there is fair amount of latitude provided for debate. Please proceed.

T. Perry: I have no objection, hon. Speaker. I'm only conscious that I'm impinging on the time of the member who yielded to me. Thank you for the clarification.

Yes, hon. member, I strongly support the extension of the homeowner grant to members of housing cooperatives. I've lobbied very hard for it with the former minister, and again with the current minister. I'm really pleased that the current minister has delivered that, and that's why I will be so enthusiastically voting for this bill.

J. Tyabji: I should say to the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain that I don't think that rules in this House are known to be held right to the bottom line, so when he says "a minute," I know that ten or 15 minutes could easily be....

T. Perry: That's the first time the hermit crab has made the Hansard index.

J. Tyabji: That's true; it probably is the first time the hermit crab has made the index. I don't know that the people in cooperatives would want to be associated with the image of a hermit crab, but....

For the members in the gallery who represent Generation X, I think this is a most important debate. The fact that we will be extending the homeowner's grant to cooperatives, and the whole issue of affordable housing, is, I think, going to affect people of my generation -- Generation X -- probably more than people from preceding generations, because the issue of affordability and the ability to actually have some ownership of or equity in the place they live in is going to become a bigger and bigger issue as the baby-boomers move up on the scale and Generation X moves into the homeowner market.

The Alliance supports Bill 19 in principle. We think it is a good first step, but we know that this government promised a comprehensive provincial housing strategy. That strategy should remove school taxes and isolated tax on property. That is something that the Alliance leader has been calling for since 1987; it has been a matter of debate in this House for a long time. The fact that even in this bill -- which is just specifically about the extension of homeowner grants to cooperative housing or eligible applicants -- this grant has to have a special

section just dealing with how the property tax collected for schools is to be used demonstrates that it is too cumbersome, it is not workable and we should start from scratch.

How do we start from scratch with a housing strategy in B.C.? How do we make sure that people across the province are going to have equal access to, or at least an opportunity to access, housing that they can own? We know that non-profit societies play a very important role in B.C. I think it is fair to say that we share the discomfort that some of the Reform members expressed about the non-profit society, or the corporate entity, being the applicant that would apply for the extension of the homeowner grant. We feel more comfortable with it being the individual, because of course it's the individual who would have to be encouraged to access housing.

In addition to that, we know that we don't have a strategy in the province for proper non-profit housing. It's being done primarily on an ad hoc basis. We have some excellent non-profit societies that are putting forward good programs, and if those happen to have good government liaison agents, then they are usually first in line for grant money. There are also some non-profit societies who don't know what is available; they don't have government liaison agents, and they have a group of volunteers who put together very good housing projects. Those people don't know where they fit into the system.

There is no strategy in place, as the member for Okanagan West pointed out -- and I'd like to point out we don't often see eye to eye on a lot of issues -- with respect to the secondary suite issue. This is something this government could have dealt with in the first term of the House. We could have had a good debate on whether we are going to have secondary suites, whether there's going to be zoning allowed for that, whether the Municipal Act is going to be amended and whether this government is against secondary suites in principle. That would be an excellent way of dealing with affordable housing.

If, for example, you have a young couple or a young person who wants to purchase a house and who would be able to develop a secondary suite, being eligible under this act -- under the extension of the homeowner grant -- for a homeowner grant, perhaps the purchasing of the house for that individual would be that much more accessible.

We won't know, because that issue hasn't been dealt with. Because secondary suites haven't been dealt with, we're left only with the eligibility requirements that are laid out in

[ Page 14262 ]

this bill. So although this is an important first step, it's important to recognize that this does not represent a solution to the problems facing young people and all families.

I note as well that the bill has a provision -- in the event of the eligible occupant passing away -- that the deceased occupant's removal from the situation does not mean that the other person living in the unit is automatically no longer eligible to live there. We know that there are other issues in which the person who lives with the spouse of the eligible occupant should be protected. If there's an issue of abandonment; if there's an issue of the person disappearing; if there's an issue where it's not cut and dried that the person is deceased....

If suddenly the spouse of the person who is deemed to be an eligible occupant is left by themselves in the housing unit, that person could be very vulnerable. We know there are situations today where people are fighting with the government because they would like some recognition of their status as independent from the status of the spouse. So that's something that we'll deal with in committee stage -- the issue of abandonment rather than just the issue of the person being deceased.

The Alliance Party supports a rent-to-own program for housing development in British Columbia. We recognize that in many parts of the province, the provincial government owns Crown lands which could be accessed for rent-to-own programs; that we could have innovative approaches to long-term planning in the regions; that there are many urbanized parts of the province that would still allow some proper planning for rent-to-own housing.

Bill 19 would open the door for some discussion on a proper rent-to-own strategy so that young people are not locked into rental agreements where they're ending up paying somebody else's mortgage. Although I've focused primarily on young people, we know as well that there are families and people whose children have grown up and left the house -- people who are moving away from stand-alone houses and would like to get into a different situation; they might go into a rent-to-own program.

There are people who have misfortunes in their lives; suddenly they go from having a great many capital assets to having very few capital assets. Those people as well would be eligible for a rent-to-own program because the provincial government could move into partnership with those people.

We should stress that it is the individual and the opportunity of that individual that the Alliance Party believes should be advanced; we shouldn't just be looking at a non-profit society or corporate entity as being able to benefit from government grants and handouts. We have a problem with that because it could be something that would be fairly limiting in terms of access and opportunity.

So, hon. Speaker, we support Bill 19. We believe that Bill 19 could go further; that there should be a provincial strategy for housing; that we should go towards a more creative approach; that we should have planning that would involve long-term planning for rent-to-own; and that if we did that, we might be able to finally address some of the housing crises we see in many parts of the province. Most certainly we have a vision for the province that would provide hope to so many people who are looking for some option other than being locked into something that is almost unaffordable and certainly in the long term is getting them no further ahead.

The Speaker: The minister closes debate.

Hon. D. Marzari: I appreciated the debate on this bill. Bill 19 is a very minor amendment to the homeowner grant legislation. It doesn't pretend to begin to be a housing plan for the province, which the Housing minister is engaged in developing. It doesn't begin to talk about the massive need for affordable housing that our large urban areas experience on a day-to-day basis. It doesn't begin to address people who sleep under bridges in your riding, Hon.

Speaker, and in ridings and municipalities throughout this province where poverty and destitution is the name of the day for many people who cannot afford shelter. There is a housing tragedy which this government is doing everything it can to deal with. We built 600 units of affordable housing last year for societies for people with special needs, for people who have found themselves homeless, and for societies that have simply come together to build themselves affordable housing units.

We have basically replaced the federal government's funding, which had been there for Canadian citizens since the mid-seventies, with the National Housing Act. The federal government no longer exists in terms of providing housing. This provincial government, unlike many others, has stepped into the breach and started to provide housing and to build hundreds of units of housing, with and for societies and non-profit groups.

[4:30]

Bill 19 is only one small piece of a very large jigsaw puzzle that we must all, in this House -- and certainly in our government -- begin to start piecing together. Bill 19 is the piece which basically says that a homeowner's grant may be extended to co-ops and societies. The line at which the definition is drawn is around equity: people being able to invest some dollars towards their home -- their stable home in a stable community. In essence, that is the basis of this small amendment to the bill.

New forms of housing are coming on the market every month, it would seem, as developers and municipalities, and as the government.... We try to figure out how we can provide affordable housing. Societies are being formed now which provide equity investment that will provide affordable housing. Co-op housing is attempting to find ways in which it can subsidize itself in its own existence, and some co-ops are, in fact, developing stratification, or have built strata title units right inside the co-op. Those strata title units are market housing, the proceeds of which basically assist the co-op in maintaining itself and maintaining its equilibrium in the larger community.

[D. Lovick in the chair.]

This legislation starts to look at the new forms of innovative housing that are being built now, that are being investigated now, and it says yes to equity investment in housing -- a basic right and a basic need that many people have expressed in our communities. This legislation helps co-ops conform, in many cases, to a situation that already exists. It provides the legal basis for homeowner grants to be delivered to a co-op housing society and to the societies that are now being built.

I will not pretend that this bill begins to address the larger and sometimes insurmountable -- it would seem -- problems of housing in our society, but as one piece that I as Minister of Municipal Affairs can place into my legislation to begin to

[ Page 14263 ]

address the situation, I am proud to draw a close to second reading of this bill. I look forward to committee stage, as we discuss this amendment. I move second reading.

Motion approved on division.

Bill 19, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1995, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 9.

WATER PROTECTION ACT

(second reading)

Hon. E. Cull: I move that Bill 9, the Water Protection Act, 1995, be now read for a second time.

The Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks began a complete review of British Columbia's water legislation in July 1993 with the release of the discussion paper "Stewardship of the Water of British Columbia." Bill 9 is the legislation that was promised in the first phase of that review.

The Water Protection Act has been long awaited by British Columbians, who have demanded that responsible steps be taken to preserve and protect our water. The Water Protection Act provides essential protection of British Columbia's water. It is introduced in response to the growing uncertainty surrounding the future of this precious resource. It is introduced to assert sovereignty over the water resource, which is an integral part of our ecosystem. It also provides an important first step that will enable us to better manage and protect groundwater.

The highlights of the Water Protection Act are as follows. There are four main points in this act. The first is that the Water Protection Act reconfirms the ownership of surface water and groundwater in the province. To properly manage and protect the water resource, the province has to have a clear authority, both as owner and as regulator. This legislation reconfirms that the water resource is, and always has been, vested in the Crown, except insofar as private rights have been established.

Second, this act prohibits future removal of bulk water from British Columbia; this government has no intention of letting the federal government, through NAFTA, risk British Columbia's sovereign rights over its water. We have not received the assurances that we need that NAFTA does not include bulk shipments of water; therefore the provincial government is taking the steps necessary to protect B.C.'s rights.

Following the passage of this bill, it will only be acceptable to remove water from the province if the water is transported in containers of 20 litres or less, if it is for the use of persons and animals while in transit, or if an operation was in existence prior to the bill coming into force. Water removers who are grandparented under this bill are restricted to the existing levels. There's great potential for economic development in this area, and the key is for the province to have control over that development -- not the federal government or the United States.

The third feature of the act is that it prohibits large-scale transfer of water between the major watersheds of the province. Under this prohibition, the proposal by Multinational Water and Power Inc. to divert part of the flow of the North Thompson River into the Columbia River and then on to California would be prevented, as would the McGregor diversion. This government will not yield to the pressures from proponents of a continental water market who argue that water is a commodity that should simply be traded in the same way as oil, natural gas or electricity is now traded.

The government has carefully considered the implications of this proposed legislation, including the current knowledge of natural ecosystems, and we are confident that we have the public's full support. Extensive consultations throughout the province on water stewardship have made it very clear that the people of B.C. recognize that water has many values other than simply that of a commodity. We are looking at those values comprehensively in this bill, and we're listening to what people are saying about them and adapting the new water legislation accordingly.

The passage of this bill will be the first step that takes us out of the current nineteenth-century regime of water management and moves us into the twenty-first century.

In closing, I commend to your attention this important piece of legislation, which will provide the first and the long-awaited step in the protection of British Columbia's water resources.

With that, I move second reading.

M. de Jong: In the last number of years -- more particularly the last ten or so years -- British Columbians have become much more aware of the value of that water resource which heretofore we tended to take for granted.

As we became more aware of the resource, we all learned of schemes that were being introduced for the diversion of that resource for export purposes, beginning with diversions that would have seen the entire Rocky Mountain Trench turned into a huge natural reservoir with water flowing to the southern United States, the use of a tanker trade along the west coast, and even schemes that saw ice floes being shifted along the west coast of British Columbia -- a whole range of proposals that would have seen British Columbia's water resource shifted as a commodity and sold as a commodity elsewhere in the world, generally in the United States.

In former days, I suspect that those proposals would have been looked upon very favourably, with a view simply to the short-term economic returns that would have vested in the proprietors and those with the rights to pursue the exportation of water. Times have changed in British Columbia. British Columbians are no longer of a view that our water is for bulk export. Insofar as the minister has spoken on legislation that reflects that fact, she and her government will have the support of the official opposition with respect to Bill 9.

That is not to say that we don't have some concerns with the bill. The minister has spoken about the fact that the bill firstly reaffirms -- "reconfirms," I think, was the word she used -- the vesting of water rights in the Crown in right of the province of British Columbia. We are suspicious to the extent that when government seeks to reconfirm a right, that's generally a pseudonym for "we are seeking to expand our right." I go further in asking the question, at least, about the jurisdictional efficacy of a government declaring a reconfirmation of a

[ Page 14