1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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, JUNE 4, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

10023 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Tiananmen Square anniversary. Hon. Mr. Dirks –– 10023

Mr. Harcourt

An Act to Provide for Rent Stabilization (Bill M213). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10024

Renters (Security of Tenure) Act, 1990 (Bill M214). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10024

An Act to Provide for a Rentals Mediator (Bill M215). Mr. Blencoe

Introduction and first reading –– 10024

Oral Questions

Travel expenses. Mr. Clark –– 10025

Shortage of perfusionists. Mr. Perry –– 10026

Motor vehicle inspection. Mr. Lovick –– 10026

Quintette coal-mine. Ms. Edwards –– 10026

Business development centres. Ms. Cull –– 10026

Helpline for children. Mrs. McCarthy –– 10026

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Jacobsen)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 10027

Mrs. Boone

Ms. Edwards

Mr. Perry

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 14). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10034

Ms. A. Hagen –– 10035

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 10037

Mr. Barnes –– 10039

Mr. Reid –– 10040

Mr. Clark –– 10041

Mr. Loenen –– 10042

Mr. Zirnhelt –– 10043

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10043

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 15). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10043

Mr. Blencoe –– 10044

Mr. Clark –– 10044

Hon.Mr. Couvelier –– 10045

Personal Property Security Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 26). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10045

Mr. Clark –– 10045

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10046

Fuel Tax Validation Act, 1990 (Bill 30). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10046

Mr. Clark –– 10046

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10046

Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 32). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10046

Mr. Clark –– 10047

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10048

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 39). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10048

Mr. Clark –– 10049

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10050

Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1990 (Bill 19). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Couvelier)

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 10050

Mr. Miller –– 10051

Ministerial Statement

Environment Week. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 10052

Mr. Zirnhelt

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House

His Excellency Franqois Bujon de l'Estang, Ambassador of France to

Canada, who is visiting from Ottawa. He's accompanied by his wife and

by Mr. Bernard Ledun, consul-general of France in Vancouver. Would the

House please make them welcome.

MR. SIHOTA : Mr.

Speaker, I see in the gallery today an alderman from Lillooet, Mr.

Balwant Sanghera. Would all members please join me in giving Mr.

Sanghera a warm welcome.

HON. MR. COUVELIER : Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour, the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis), I'm

delighted to ask the House to recognize the presence in our midst this

afternoon of a number of business people from the Vancouver area: Mr.

Chris Carl, Mr. Mike Roche, Mr. Sheldon Eggen, Mr. Peter Jesson, Mr.

John Parks — who, by the way, served in this Legislature, as many of you will remember — and Mr. Per Brunes. Please give them a hearty welcome.

MR. VANT :

Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today is the Committee to Save jobs from

Williams Lake: the chairman, Terry Tate, Mitch Van Dale, Wade Fisher

and Ellis O'Toole. They are here in the capital because of their

concern about the recent blockade of the logging road in the Chilcotin.

They are here to see me, various members of government and the

opposition. I would expect the House to give them a very warm welcome.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, I see in the members' gallery today a friend and the

vice-president of the Cowicham-Ladysmith New Democrats' constituency

association, Mr. Tom Harkins. I'd like the House to join me in making

him very welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Visiting us today from Kyoto, Japan, from Ritsumeikan University — and they also operate a secondary school — are

the president, Dr. Takeo Tanioka; Dr. Otohiko Okugawa, who is a

professor in the office of development; and Mr. Kiyo Kawaguchi, who is

professor of economics at Ritsumeikan University. They have 30 students

now in the Saanich district who are visiting Stelly's and Parkland

secondary schools this afternoon to arrange for 30 students from

British Columbia to visit in Japan as part of our Pacific Rim

initiative exchange program. I wish the House would make them very

welcome.

MS. MARZARI : In the gallery today, bringing the intelligence of the

value-for-money audit to British Columbia from Ottawa, are Mr. Jean-Pierre Boisclair,

from the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation, and his director of research,

Mr. David Moynagh. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

In the gallery today are 42 women from the Italian Cultural Centre

ladies' club. These women are very active in many events around the

community, but their major effort is in organizing blood-donor clinics.

They have done so for the past 11 years. In fact, they have collected

something like 10,000 pints of blood for the Red Cross. On behalf of

the Premier especially and myself, I would ask the House to make them

very welcome.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, I would

like to introduce to you and through you to the House today, and ask

the House to make welcome, a retired logging foreman from Terrace. He

has been there since 1948 and is a strong leader in the seniors'

community there. He is here to join the Seniors' Advisory Council

tomorrow in their deliberations in advising the Minister of Health — Mr. Lou Gair. Would the House please make Lou welcome.

MR. RABBITT :

A few minutes ago the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota)

introduced a constituent of mine who is attending the buildings today.

He is on the advisory committee to the provincial ESL advisory body.

Balwant Sanghera is a schoolteacher as well as an alderman from

Lillooet. He will be moving to that great constituency of Richmond in

the near future. So I'd ask the House to give him a really warm welcome.

MR. CLARK :

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the first member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) and myself, I'd like to join with the government side of the

House to welcome visitors from the Italian Cultural Centre in our

constituency of Vancouver East. They do excellent work and service in

the community. The blood bank is only part of that, but it's an

excellent service for people in Vancouver East. I'd like to welcome

them on behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.

Ministerial Statement

TIANANMEN SQUARE ANNIVERSARY

HON. MR. DIRKS :

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Today marks the

first anniversary of the incident at Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Today

in this Legislature we should remember the students who sacrificed so

much for their cause. We're privileged in our country to enjoy

unfettered freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of speech

and freedom of religion. These freedoms belong to us not simply as

Canadians but as human beings. Though each country and each culture

differ, these same freedoms are sought by all. Today we mark the

anniversary of an event which reminds us of how long the journey may be.

[ Page 10024 ]

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Speaker, I think the events in Tiananmen Square were a reminder to

us all of how fragile and precious human freedom is. I may say that the

Chinese-Canadian community in British Columbia and in Vancouver have a

long history of striving for freedom. In China, you recall, it was the

Chinese-Canadians who financed Dr. Sun Yat-sen at the start of the

revolution to bring about a democracy in China. It was the

Chinese-Canadian community who helped put together the Chinese Cultural

Centre so that we could all enjoy the Chinese culture. In that centre

is the Dr. Sun Yat-sen garden to remind us of the value that all

Canadians place on the human freedoms that the students were striving

for — modest from our perspective in our great democracy — such as

freedom of speech and the right to have access to education based on

merit, not on who your parents are or what their wealth is. So it is

indeed an appropriate time for this Legislature and this great

democracy of ours to mark this — I wouldn't say anniversary — one-year point from the sad events of a year ago.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

RENT STABILIZATION

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled

An Act to Provide for Rent Stabilization.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes a flexible system of rent

stabilization which operates when the local rental vacancy rate falls

below 1.5 percent. When the vacancy rate is between 1.6 percent and 3

percent, municipalities may opt for rent stabilization. Rent

stabilization ceases when the vacancy rate rises above 3 percent.

The

effect of this bill, at the start of this parliament, would have been

to apply rent stabilization to greater Vancouver only. It would have

been a municipal option in Kelowna and Victoria, and all other urban

centres would not have been affected by it.

There has been

a sharp change in the rental market since 1986. At present, vacancy

rates would not apply in Dawson Creek, Kitimat and Prince Rupert. It

would be a municipal option in Cranbrook, Fort St. John and Kamloops,

and it would apply in all other centres. New rental construction coming

on stream after June 4, 1990, is exempt for a ten-year period. Small

rental complexes with three or fewer rental units are also exempt if

the landlord lives on the premises. The bill sets out rights for

landlords and tenants. Among rights established for tenants are

protection against arbitrary eviction; the right to receive

compensation and relocation assistance for no-fault evictions; and the

right to receive rent increases limited to changes in operating costs,

as measured by the consumer price index, currently running at 6 to 7

percent.

The following are among rights established for

landlords: the right to raise the rent once every 12 months; the right

to raise the rent by 10 percent for additional tenants; the right to

apply for special rent increases, based on....

[2:15]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Time under the standing orders for the introduction has

passed. I must therefore ask you to commit the bill to committee.

Bill

M213 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders

of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

RENTERS (SECURITY OF

TENURE) ACT, 1990

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled Renters (Security of Tenure) Act, 1990.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation advises that in

Vancouver over 6,200 rental homes were lost to conversion, demolition

and changes in use in the three years ending October 1989.

This

bill does three things: first, it protects renters from unnecessary

eviction when their homes are proposed for renovation, demolition or

conversion to condominiums, by requiring that notice shall not be

served before all municipal or regional district requirements are met;

second, it provides for reasonable notice for residents forced to

relocate following the municipal permit process; third, it provides for

actual reasonable removal expenses to be paid by the developer,

together with compensation for the inconvenience and stress caused by

the relocation. We propose $100 a month compensation, up to a maximum

of $1,200.

Bill M214 introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

A RENTALS MEDIATOR

Mr. Blencoe presented a bill intituled

An Act to Provide for a Rentals Mediator.

MR. BLENCOE :

Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes the rentals mediator to administer

the Residential Tenancy Act and resolve disputes between tenants and

landlords. The bill is another important component of our legislative

package to bring fairness back into landlord and tenant issues in

British Columbia.

The bill provides for the rentals

mediator to be established in the same way the former rentalsman was

established by the New Democrat government of the day. The rentals

mediator will have exclusive jurisdiction to mediate matters relating

to repair and service orders, locks and access, landlord right of

entry, security deposits, termination of the tenancy

[ Page

10025 ]

agreement on orders of possession, and service of notice.

The

rentals mediator and the office would also administer the flexible rent

stabilization system proposed by a companion bill and just introduced a

minute or two ago. Together with the others presented today on landlord

and tenant matters, this bill will help ensure fairness and equity

between landlords and tenants in the province.

Bill M215

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the

day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Finance. Upon receipt of the

comptroller-general's report into certain expense irregularities in the

Ministry of Health, the minister immediately took steps to see that the

deputy minister, Stan Dubas, was fired. Can the minister explain to the

House why the former minister was not apprised of those sections of the

report that discussed his expenses at the same time Mr. Dubas was fired?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The hon. member makes a false assumption. He builds his house of cards

on an incorrect assumption, and therefore the following question

doesn't flow. It's incorrect for him to suggest that I somehow had a

direct involvement in the decision dealing with the departure of a

deputy minister.

As is the member's bent, he frequently on

weekends makes an outrageous claim during what is normally a quiet news

period for the purpose of attracting some attention. He did that again

this weekend. He refers to it with the second part of his question.

my opinion, the integrity of the system involving matters of public

conduct and the damage that might be done to innocents by public

discussion of these matters until investigations have been completed is

a heavy matter and one that every member of this House must appreciate

and recognize.

It developed over last week that apparently

the RCMP themselves admitted that the issue surrounding the report had

been under their examination since.... If I understand properly, the

press report was March 27.

It is grossly improper, in my view, for the hon. member to suggest, given that

a police investigation was underway, that I or any cabinet minister should have

shared with others who were named in the report, even though there was no reason

to suspect wrongdoing.... Nevertheless, it would have been grossly improper,

in my judgment, knowing that such an event was unfolding — that is to say, a police

investigation of the matter — to have discussed the issue with any individual

named in the report.

believe that all of us, particularly those with a governmental

responsibility, have to weigh very seriously and cautiously how we

handle matters of this import. We have two obligations, in my view: to

protect the reputation of innocents who might be involved or named in a

report; and secondly, of course, the obligation of protecting the

freedoms and options available to the statutorily appointed

individuals, in this case the police themselves, I had studiously

avoided making mention of the police investigation because I realized

the sensitivities. There are two different groups whose options have to

be protected here. With the police themselves announcing that this had

unfolded, it seemed to me quite appropriate that I repeat it here in

the House.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, we had a police

investigation that was unfolding which did potentially involve the

reputations of others, which did result in the decision by the senior

public servant in the province to terminate another public servant, and

which unfortunately resulted in a minister of the Crown resigning on a

matter of honour — not any suggestion of guilt, not any suggestion of responsibility, but purely honour.

Now in this case....

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Answers to questions that are put in question period

must be brief and to the point. While this particular answer seems to

have captivated everyone's attention, we're still violating the rules

of question period. If the minister wishes to make a ministerial

statement about it, perhaps another time would be more appropriate. But

I would ask the next member standing to have a brief question, and

perhaps a brief answer, because question period is not that long.

MR. CLARK :

Can the minister inform the House when he became aware of the

comptroller-general's report and when he became aware of the RCMP

investigation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I didn't come with any diary, so I'll take that question on notice.

MR. SPEAKER : The question is taken on notice. Do you have a new question?

MR. CLARK :

A new question, Mr. Speaker, The minister had the comptroller-general's

report for one week before the former Minister of Health saw the

relevant parts of it, It certainly appears that the Minister of Finance

was part of a cover-up. Can the minister explain why it was appropriate

to show the former Minister of Health sections of the report on May 30

but not appropriate on May 23?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The events of last week are all on the record. The member doesn't ask

the question because he needs to know the answer; he already knows the

answer. The ex-Minister of Health himself requested such a meeting so

that he might determine exactly what was being said in the report.

[ Page 10026 ]

It was his decision at that time to request such a meeting, and it was his decision, purely on a point of honour — not because there was any suggestion of guilt or responsibility — to do the honourable thing and resign last week.

SHORTAGE OF PERFUSIONISTS

MR. PERRY :

A question for the Minister of Finance, who many feel has become the

real Minister of Health. British Columbia hospitals are currently

experiencing shortages of perfusionists, health professionals whose

services are critical to open-heart surgery. The government has failed

to respond to recommendations made by the Hospital Employees' Union two

months ago, which were advanced in an effort to resolve those

shortages. Officials at Vancouver General Hospital are now considering

privatizing that service to an American private medical company,

Psycor. Can the minister explain why he has failed to respond to the

submissions from the Hospital Employees' Union; what steps the Ministry

of Health has taken to communicate its concerns to him as the minister

responsible for hospital finance; and why he is so complacent and smug — I see him smiling now — at a time when patients are dying after...?

MR. SPEAKER :

Order! Hon. members, we're starting off a bad week with question period

going this way. The questions have to actually be questions, not long

statements. That long a statement is going to draw an answer that will

certainly see the clock out and may well run into the afternoon's

proceedings. I would ask members to consider the question.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

First of all, I have to tell the hon. member that I am not the Minister

of Health and have no desire to be. It would take a far wiser person

than myself to handle that awesome task, and we have one who does it

very well. I am merely a bean-counter who attempts to satisfy the

taxpayers' craving for some sense of fiscal responsibility, together

with the insatiable spending requests of the socialists opposite. I

have no specific knowledge of any initiative by the Hospital Employees'

Union, nor should I have. It seems to me that if there is such a

proposal in the wings, it would be in the office of the Minister of

Health (Hon. J. Jansen), who is fully capable of handling issues of

that dimension. So I think the question is misdirected, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTION

MR. LOVICK : Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor-General. I have to pause there to see if he will turn. Yes, he is awake.

the Kamloops inquest your director of inspection and carrier safety

testified that a Kamloops spot safety inspection rejected half of the

trucks stopped Further, one in five trucks was ruled unfit to operate

and was pulled off the road. The question is this: has the minister now

decided to get tough — as he claims to be a tough guy — with the 365,000 trucks passing through Kamloops annually and establish a permanent inspection facility in or near the city?

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, that's a question of future policy.

QUINTETTE COAL-MINE

MS. EDWARDS :

My question is to the Minister of Labour. The Quintette coal-mine in

northeastern B.C., through a recent arbitration panel decision, remains

in a state of fragile stability. The decision only covers the next ten

months, and world coal prices are well below the level needed to

sustain Quintette. In the case of possible significant layoffs at

Quintette, what steps has the minister decided to take to ensure that

Quintette workers, unlike the Sullivan mine workers before them, are

given more than two weeks' notice of imminent layoff?

[2:30]

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I just informed the member that where there are large numbers of

employees, the question of adequate notice for employees affected by

layoffs is a concern of my ministry. We are looking at that issue. I

can't comment further on it, but we are reviewing it and may be dealing

with it in the future.

MS. EDWARDS : The federal and

provincial governments put $1.5 billion of taxpayers' money into this

development, and 1,500 jobs are at stake. What specific contingency

plans does the government have in place to cope with the impact on the

community of a possible bankruptcy or closure?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, that question is not one that I think should be directed

to my ministry. I think you would have to direct it to someone else.

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTRES

MS. CULL : My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. On Saturday, the Times-Colonist

reported that the business development centre at Camosun College is to

be closed. Can the minister tell us how many of these business

development centres he has decided to close, and what the reason is for

closing them?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : It's a good

question. Actually, the matter is now under advisement within the

ministry. We've been reviewing it for some time, wondering if we are

getting maximum utilization for the dollars spent. I can't give the

member an exact answer in terms of how many at this point, but I can

tell you that it's under review. As we decide to proceed, the notices

of closure will be forthcoming.

[ Page

10027 ]

HELPLINE FOR CHILDREN

MRS. McCARTHY :

Mr. Speaker, this question is to the Minister of Social Services. It

has been proven by experience that the best way to fight child abuse

and child violence is through greater public awareness. For some time

now we have stopped the television ads that promote the Helpline for

Children, which has been such a successful line and the first in

Canada. Early recognition and quick action against the perpetrators,

and counsel to the victims, are really the answers to child sexual

abuse and child violence. I would like to ask the minister if he would

consider renewed and aggressive advertising to promote the use of the

Helpline for Children so that more of our citizens will be made aware

of its availability in dealing with these various serious incidents.

MR. SPEAKER : This question is also out of order, but the Minister of Labour may wish to respond.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Speaker, as the member said, British Columbia has led the way on

the Helpline for Children. It's a very important service to society,

and one that I feel very strongly about. Yes, I will review the matter

with the ministry to see that we do all we possibly can to make the

service available, and to make it known to the community at large that

that service exists.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 59: minister's office, $331,553 (continued)

MRS. BOONE : I want to talk a little bit today and question the minister on something that we touched on Friday a little bit — some

heated remarks about staff and what have you. It was intimated by the

members opposite that we were attacking the staff of Social Services,

and we said that was certainly not what we were doing. There are some

very major concerns.

I am sort of drawing things out a little bit so the minister can get his assistants in line there and my colleagues can leave.

I have before me some information written by a former employee of Social Services.

He points to a lot of concerns that he has about social services in the region.

I am convinced that some of the problems that I've had.... Over the years

we've seen a tremendous turnover of staff — as the minister quoted last

week, 25 percent in our region, which is region H. It has been a constant problem,

with us being unable to maintain our staff and keep them around. Consequently

we always have a problem with new people coming on line and those people not

necessarily being up to snuff with the policies and being able to handle things.

A lot of problems happen as a result of that.

I know, for example, that my office is constantly dealing with Social Services.

My assistant, who was previously employed by Social Services and Housing, can

usually solve a lot of these problems just by quoting from various policies

and stating what is available. But it appears that a lot of times — and I'm

not saying that it's because the people are being nasty or mean — the employees

are just not aware of the policies and the assistance available, because they

are brand-new employees who have been on the job only six months or so. This

is creating a lot of problems for us.

The letter that I've got from this previous employee — and I'm not going to mention this person's name, because he or she has asked me not to — voices

the complaint that people who come into Social Services are often not

told of many resources available to them. It states that this a

documented fact. An example is upgrading in trade schools or college;

no one these days has to remain with a low-grade education.

Also,

as you may be aware, recipients are paid once a month. So when money

and groceries run out, no one tells them that they can come in for a

food voucher to supplement their income. They are not aware that rent,

hydro and telephone can be paid direct to the landlord or business,

ensuring that they won't dip into that money, therefore avoiding being

evicted or having power shut off. They're often not told that there are

allowances for winter clothing and boots, and the letter said that in

the Prince George region they were frequently sent out to second-hand

stores and told to find clothing and boots elsewhere.

We've

found that people are not told that they can appeal; they don't know

what appeals are. When they approach our office, we have to tell them

that they have the right to appeal and show them how to do that. As I

said, I honestly don't believe that it has anything to do with

employees doing these things deliberately; often they are brand-new to

the jobs and are not aware themselves of a lot of these things. And

they find themselves so overworked in many cases that they're making

some of these decisions.... However, that doesn't help the recipients.

The fact of the matter is that the recipients are not being given the

information they require to make their lives better; they are unable to

assist themselves in many cases and think that's all that's available

to them.

I mentioned to the Minister of Health (Hon. Jansen), for example, that recipients

are not made aware that they can apply for subsidies for health premiums. I

know this personally from one case I got involved in. A young girl, a single

mother on social assistance, had been paying her full premium for well over

a year before she realized, when I was talking to her, that she could apply

for premium assistance.

just want to ask the minister what he is doing to alleviate this

problem to make sure that new employees.... First of all, we have to

make sure that staffing levels out there are increased so employees can

assist

[ Page 10028 ]

people

properly, that new employees are made available and given time to spend

with clients, and that they know the appropriate policies and do

everything that they can to prevent the types of problems I have

mentioned here.

I think it's a severe problem when an

employee takes the time to write me a four- or five-page letter

basically saying that as a social worker he was unable to do the job he

wanted to do and that he felt troubled that social services recipients

were not receiving the type of assistance they should have. What is the

minister doing to make sure that this type of problem doesn't continue,

to make sure that people are made aware of all the assistance that is

available to them?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The second member for Langley seeks leave to make an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. PETERSON :

I appreciate the House giving me this opportunity. In the gallery are

32 grade 6 students from Willoughby Elementary School in Langley, and

with them is their teacher, Mrs. K. Ulmer. Will the House please join

me in giving them a very warm welcome.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Yes, I can appreciate that there can be difficulties at times with new

people who perhaps don't have as much experience as we would like to

see. We did discuss the fact that for whatever reason, in your area

particularly, there has been a high turnover. That's something that

perhaps makes it a little more difficult at times. However, the

ministry is doing all that it can to try and deal with that problem. We

have a recruitment and retention policy with the ministry which shows

the activities that the ministry is carrying out in order to increase

and enhance its staff.

There are a number of things. I won't go through all of them — there are 80 things listed here — but I would point out the last two. "The ministry has increased its staff training budgets" — which

would be important. The final one I think you might find particularly

interesting is that the northern university in Prince George will have

a social work program starting in September '91 that will hopefully

deal with the issue of training people right in that particular area.

the Prince George area we have a pool of workers which we draw from to

try to fill the vacancies as they appear, so that we will have people

who have some experience. We have lowered our ratio of supervisors to

staff to the point where we now have one supervisor for six members of

staff in that particular area. The final thing is that since 1988 in

that particular region we have increased our staff by 6.5 percent for

social workers, 8.5 percent for financial assistance workers and 10.5

percent for clerical workers.

Oh, bodies — that's 6.5 bodies.

In addition to that we have these brochures — which I'm sure you are familiar with —

that we try to make available to the people so that they will know all

of the programs and services that are provided. Nevertheless, I accept

that there are times when people do not quite understand it, for

whatever reason. But it's something we try our best to prevent

happening.

MS. EDWARDS : I would let the minister

know that I am going to want some answers to the questions I was asking

him on Friday about day care and assessment of unlicensed care. In the

interests of efficiency, I thought I would stand up now and let the

minister know I will want to ask those questions, and then go back to

the member for Prince George North who has some other issues she wants

to pursue.

MRS. BOONE : The latest information we

have shows the university will not be opening in 1991. We obviously

won't be having our program in that university at that time.

there anything in the ministry programs? Forgive me for not knowing

this, but is there any assistance? There are some professional services

in health — physiotherapists, for example — where a $5,000 grant is

given to people who will move to some of the northern or outlying areas

for a two-year period. Is there any such assistance to try and make

sure we get qualified social workers up there?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

No, there isn't anything quite like that at this time. The ministry has

chaired an interministry committee to identify and make recommendations

to GPSD to address all ministries' northern staffing concerns, but

there isn't anything specific at this point in time.

MRS. BOONE :

I would like to suggest, since we are not going to have our university

open for at least another two years, that the ministry seriously look

at this. I would suggest we have such a massive turnover because

conditions are so horrible for people to work in a situation where they

are with people who often have no more seniority than they do and are

not much more aware of the situation. Therefore the personal gain and

sense of doing your job well really doesn't exist when you are

constantly in a situation and unable to perform because you don't know

what you are doing well.

I would suggest that's part of the

problem we have up there; that we do have a real problem in the whole

of the northern region, but particularly in region H. There's a

constant turnover of staff there, which leads to a real problem with

morale. We have to address that, or we're not going to keep people

there anyway.

I would suggest that you should be looking

seriously at some means to give a primer to people to get them up

there. My sense is that when people come up north, if we keep them

three years we've got them forever. I think they may freeze in there or

something — I don't know. If you can keep somebody in our area for three years, I think they finally begin

[ Page

10029 ]

to understand that there is hope beyond Hope, that

lifestyles do change and that we do have a lifestyle that has a lot to

offer people. We have to get them up there and into the region first.

That seems to be a problem. People seem to want to finish their degrees

in the coastal areas here and never want to leave the soggy wetlands of

Vancouver and Victoria. Lord knows why — I wouldn't want to stay

here. We have to make sure we can get them up there. Could the minister

give me some assurance that he will seriously look at this type of

thing and consider trying to do something as a means of encouraging

people to go up there until such time as we do have a baccalaureate

program?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : I really think things

are better than what the member says. They might be like that at times

up there. I do think it's an attractive place, but it may be different,

of course, from the lower mainland. But still it has its own charm.

Yes, we will look at that and consider the recommendations you make.

[2:45]

MS. EDWARDS :

I hate to let that go past without saying that I, with the member for

Prince George North, can't understand why people don't like to come

into the interior in greater numbers than they already do. They just

don't know what they're missing half the time.

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS : However, to the Solicitor-General (Hon. Mr. Fraser), there's a glitch somewhere.

Anyway,

Mr. Chairman, I still want to pursue the questions I was trying to get

answers to on Friday, which involve a program that the ministry

announced back in December of '89 to encourage non-profit agencies to

recruit, train and support family day care providers in British

Columbia. But when the contracts get down to recruiting, training and

supporting, it seems the contracts involve a considerable amount of

assessment. In what is required under the contract that I have with the

Women's Centre in Cranbrook, there is an indication that the person who

will be hired by a non-profit agency will not only assess each

caregiver, but will also assess each unlicensed day care facility.

assume, Mr. Minister, that you are not going to be able to answer these

questions until you have another resource person with you, as was the

case on Friday, which is why I didn't get these questions answered on

Friday. I am pretty well repeating the question I was asking you on

Friday.

I'm hoping that this is the pacing mechanism that allows this person to

come and tell me why you would have somebody hired on an ad hoc, year-to-year

contract to assess unlicensed day care facilities to ensure — and I'll quote — "that the environment in the facility is conducive to quality care."

The contractor — that is, the non-profit society — will, together with the Social

Services and Housing staff, develop a tool to accomplish whatever is required

by the contractor's assessment to ensure that the environment is conducive

to quality care.

There

are a great many assumptions in there, Mr. Minister. There are a whole

lot of things there about unlicensed day care; it is generally

unlicensed, I guess. The reason people get licences is partly that

people who can get licences are able to meet assessment requirements.

There are assessment requirements for unlicensed care, and I am curious

to know what level of assessment is going to be done and what kinds of

standards and criteria are going to be set up. How uniform is this

going to be across the province? How stringent is it going to be? I

have various questions of that nature.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Chairman, we made a note of the questions the member asked last

Friday. We have the answers here, and I'll go through them. Perhaps it

will answer all of the questions you have. If it doesn't, you could ask

the additional ones.

The member for Kootenay referred to

the terms of the agreement in Cranbrook and asked about the difference

between a registry and a directory. The term most frequently used by

the ministry is "registry," but sometimes, as in the Cranbrook

agreement, "directory" is used. In the context of the day care support

program, the two terms mean the same thing. I think that was one of the

questions you had.

Registries of available day care

services are designed to help parents locate day care which best meets

their needs and the needs of their children. The information contained

in the registries is readily available.

Guidelines for

assessment have been developed, which include a range of suggested

activities such as personal interviews, references and home visits.

Assessments of both day care facilities and service providers vary from

area to area, depending upon the many different characteristics of each

community.

The most important and primary assessors of

service must always be the parents themselves. The ministry, throughout

its day care support agreements with non-profit agencies, augments

parent assessment with assessment done by the agencies. Agencies are

expected to exercise professional judgment in determining how and what

to assess.

With respect to training, there is no requirement that care providers in the informal sectors — family day care — have

training. However, training packages have been developed which are

offered at community colleges. This training is not to be confused with

the early childhood education course offered by the community colleges.

Staff in licensed group day care centres are required to take this

training, which is an entirely separate curriculum from the family care

course which has been developed.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr.

Chairman, I'm still puzzled. If it's unlicensed, it indicates that

there is obviously going to be quite a range of care available as well

as criteria. That certainly seems to be the case.

[ Page 10030 ]

From

what the minister has said, the criteria will vary from area to area,

so obviously it depends largely on the professionalism of the

contractor. It depends on the area, the parents, etc. I'm just not sure

in the end what the assessment is for.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The assessment is there to help parents choose the kind of day care

they require or wish to have. I guess that's really the purpose. It

also covers establishing the training needs within the community.

MS. EDWARDS :

What I see, Mr. Minister, is obviously a single person with a budget of

$45,000. You're not talking about more than one person, I have to

guess. This person is supposed to carry out a function that for a

licensed day care is carried out by people with specific professional

expertise. Besides doing the assessment, this person also assesses what

the training needs are going to be for, these people and the design of

the training.

What I am really trying to get at is that if

this one person is supposed to do this whole range of extremely

professional things, why is the ministry putting it out to contract to

non-profit groups which are then given a wide degree of latitude to

meet whatever criteria they have?

I don't for a minute want to say to the minister that community groups don't have a right to say what goes on in their community — I

want to start from that point. But I find a real difficulty with why

the ministry now wants to do some kind of registration of people and

assessment of them and then make an attempt to give them training, all

in the person of a single expert, if you like, who can be hired by a

community organization. Then you say that the assessment will depend on

the professional judgment of that group. Who decides? Is there any

question by the ministry about the professional competence of a group

to make a professional judgment in this area?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The registry is there, firstly, to determine who would like to perform

that service within the community and, secondly, for parents who may

want the service. As far as control is concerned, yes, we will monitor

to make sure it's adequate service. The registry is really there to

bring the parties together, to find out who wants to provide service

and who requires the service.

MS. EDWARDS : Is the minister hoping for unlicensed day care to get closer to the requirements and criteria of licensed day care?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

No, we're not. Informal day care is out there, and it's a choice for

parents. We are not directing that they must go a certain way.

MS. EDWARDS :

Has the ministry discussed with the Ministry of Advanced Education and

Job Training the difficulties you've had in seeing that training is

provided, and have you suggested that some more diversified training

might be provided through community colleges?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Yes, we have had those discussions, but they apply more to the licensed day care than to the unlicensed.

[3:00]

MS. EDWARDS : Some people see the whole business of training — as defined here —

as very basic level training. In other words, It's almost

consciousness-raising in the development of self-esteem and basic life

skills training and so on. These courses are provided on a regular

basis by such voluntary agencies as women's resource centres. If they

are providing the type and level of training that the ministry sees

being involved in these contracts, it takes a degree of trust and a

willingness to depend on the other group to take your interests into

consideration.

If a person is trying to develop that trust and is also attempting to assess that person's ability to make a livelihood — because it may be a livelihood for that person — and

if they have to do the assessing, which is the decision of whether they

are able to make their livelihood, and they have to make that decision

before they even do the directory.... As you can see, these things are

all tied in. I am curious to know how the ministry sees those functions

all being performed in the same place. Or are we simply working at a

level of "let's pat you on the back and make you feel good"?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

No, we're not working on the pat-you-on-the-back thing, although I

would like to commend some of the people who provide the service and,

in fact, do pat them on the back. I think they provide a very good

service.

But you know, when we talk about unlicensed day

care, we're talking about two children or less, and I think there are a

lot of people who are qualified to do a good job of providing that

service. You talk about trust. I would assume that trust is a very big

part of it. Certainly I would feel that way, and I think most parents

would feel that way.

As far as training people in order for

them to care for two children, I think there are a lot of people who

know how to do that as well as anybody we might send there to train. So

I really think that training for that type of day care.... Apparently,

I'm told, it's a very appealing kind of day care. Many parents like

unlicensed day care with the small number of children and the very

personal attention.

MS. EDWARDS : Mr. Minister, I'm a

veteran of the child care wars. I have had occasion to employ day care

people in licensed facilities and in group places — everyone from

high-school teenagers to grandmothers from down the road. I agree with

you that some of the best day care we have is given by friendly people

who share some of your values. However, to me, that's not what we're

talking.... I'm not sure that the minister isn't trying to turn this

into something else. Because of the way things are in this

[ Page

10031 ]

day and age, we have women who choose to stay home with their own children — they sometimes have to — and

to be able to do so, they care for a number of children. You suggest

that there are less than two all the time, and maybe that's so,

according to the rules. Is it the case that if you get more than two

children, you have to be licensed? Let me clarify that first.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Yes, to be an unlicensed day care, it's two or less children. I hope,

as a result of me saying that, that somebody who, out of the goodness

of their heart, is providing care for an extra child — or maybe two — on a temporary basis will not face some difficulty. But the rule is that it's for two or less.

MS. EDWARDS :

I see a whole lot of activity going on here around an unlicensed

situation, and I'm not sure what the goal of the ministry is. I know

that there are people in our community who need the kind of day care

that is not currently available. They need day care for people who work

shifts; that's the major need. And they need some other things. But the

directory may or may not deal with that.

I think you're

setting up a situation where one person may be required to do for

unlicensed day care what is done by very well qualified experts who

presumably.... I believe that's what the ministry believes for licensed

day care. We're expecting them to do this. Perhaps you can find very

qualified experts. But if they're experts in assessment, are they also

experts in setting up training programs? Are they experts in doing

everything that's required in this program? That's my question, Mr.

Minister. I still feel somewhat uneasy about what exactly the goals are

with this program.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : Well, the

goals are to provide or make possible the best service that we can make

available to the public. One of the advantages of the unlicensed day

care that you are obviously concerned about is that it tends to be

flexible and sometimes convenient for people requiring the service.

We're looking to improve the quality, the availability and the support

for this kind of system. We certainly are not intending to rule out or

impede in any way the opportunity for people who want to provide this

unlicensed day care with a small number of children.

think we can all appreciate that if you're operating a licensed day

care with a large number of children, that's a different kind of

undertaking than having a couple of children to look after. Therefore

the training requirements must also be different. What we're trying to

do here is a practical approach to a problem and to make it as good, as

convenient and as satisfactory as possible for the public.

MR. PERRY : I'd like to come back to some issues of housing that

I didn't have the opportunity to raise one or two weeks ago when the former

minister was here. I realize that the new minister can hardly be expected to

be intimately familiar with all the details of provincewide housing needs. But

I recognize that he's a sincere and thoughtful man, and I'd like to

explore some of his philosophical perceptions of the issues.

want to begin by citing from questions I raised in the waning hours of

the Legislature last year on July 19 when I asked the then Minister of

Housing, Mr. Richmond, how he felt about the demolition of apartment

buildings which were in good physical condition and whose inhabitants

regarded those buildings as their homes.

I would like to

read, for the minister's interest, briefly from a letter I read at that

time. I won't read the whole letter but simply quote from it. I entered

it in the record on July 19, 1989, at page 8780 of Hansard . This is a letter from a woman who lives in Kerrisdale, Mrs. June Black:

"Legalized

vandalism best describes what is happening to well-built rental

apartments in Kerrisdale these days. Most of the buildings slated for

demolition are in beautiful shape and well maintained. They are about

half the age of most of the houses in the area. They provide

accommodation for many more people than will the replacement

condominiums which are only for the very wealthy. Luxury condos

generally take up a whole floor. The result is a net loss in available

suites.

"Landlords will be tempted to raise

rents as the housing supply shrinks. Demolition refugees will search,

mostly in vain, to find affordable living spaces. Their homes, reduced

to rubble, are being trucked off to landfills — the dollar value, in

their building materials and labour, written off. And with no apparent

concern that these huge heaps of trash increase our garbage problems.

"Three

buildings have been levelled and 12 more are scheduled for destruction.

This rape of our resources has got to stop. Our laws don't permit

people to deface and vandalize property; those caught are punished. We

should not turn a blind eye to the current building demolition binge

just because the perpetrators own these premises."

I read

again from the record. I'll quote from my remarks: "I'd like to ask the

Minister of Social Services and Housing, who really represents the

government on this issue, what he feels. This is a government that

often talks of Christian morality. Does he think it's morally

appropriate to destroy perfectly good rental accommodation?"

Now the record will show, Mr. Speaker, that the minister at the time replied that he found it very difficult to connect — I had gone on to make a further point — starvation

in Third World countries and Christian morality to the demolishing of

buildings in Vancouver. The point I was trying to make at the time was

that I found it immoral and unethical to demolish a perfectly good

building in which people have lived for as long as 25 years at a time

when there are literally over a billion people in the world who are

homeless and there are hundreds of millions who are starving to death.

Obviously I was on a different philosophical wavelength from the former

minister.

I'm really asking this minister to declare — since he's assumed this new portfolio — where he sees us moving.

[ Page 10032 ]

Having

described the situation as it was last year, I want to amplify the

comments made by Mrs. Black. The situation has actually worsened, in my

view, since that time. Not long ago — in fact, only a few days after that exchange in the Legislature — the

first member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) and myself were

summoned by local residents in the area of Kerrisdale in our riding to

attend a protest against a building demolition on West 40th Avenue.

When we arrived at that building, we found that inside the building

there were refrigerators with their coils intact, with the chlorinated

fluorocarbons, or CFCs, inside the coils and that a wrecking ball was

about to demolish the entire building.

You, Mr. Speaker, as

a former Minister of Environment, will know that this could not have

been a good thing to demolish the building intact with the

refrigerators in it. Yet when we called this to the attention of the

crane operator, he pointed to a pile of a previously demolished

building adjacent and to the remains of a crumpled refrigerator and

told me that the coil was intact and the CFCs were still inside it and

elaborated that in fact one could smell them if they'd come out, so he

was sure they were still in there.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that

your reaction is similar to mine at the time. We attempted, while still

in the building, to call the Ministry of Environment, both provincial

and federal, and request that an inspector be sent. All of us were

aware that this was a bad thing to do. We found that there was no

provision to prevent this happening, and we simply refused to leave the

building until something was done. In the end, the supervisor

gracefully backed down and arranged for those refrigerators to be

carted out of the building by hand.

I should point out that

the first member for Vancouver-Point Grey risked her personal safety

when the crane operator attacked the building with his wrecking ball

while we were in it and ran his machine across her path as she tried to

enter the building. I think it's difficult for members from more rural

ridings than Vancouver to understand the gravity of what has actually

been happening in that neighbourhood.

[3:15]

Let me give you another example of how this affects people. In a

building called Quilchena Lodge on West 38th Avenue in Vancouver are a

couple of elderly sisters, aged 93 and 95, if I recall correctly, the

95-year-old was widowed at the Battle of Ypres in World War I. The

93-year-old never married, and both of them have lived in that building

since January 1963, in an apartment that is an aesthetic delight. It

has beautiful paintings on the walls and is a comfortable home for

these two very elderly women.

That building is now

scheduled for demolition. There's no question in my mind, as a

physician, nor in the minds of gerontologists I have spoken to, that

the forced expulsion of women of that age and of some in their late

eighties who also inhabit the building will have detrimental

consequences on their health. These women are not invalids. They walk

three blocks to West 41st Avenue to do their shopping. They take a

taxicab to visit their doctor nearby. This is their home, and yet they

are going to be driven out purely so that a building in good physical

condition can be demolished.

I think that the residents of Vancouver, from whatever political persuasion — including

long-time supporters of my party, the Liberal Party, the Social Credit

Party and undoubtedly other parties, including the Conservatives — are

revolted by this situation. They find it morally repugnant. Senior

members of the churches, such as the former moderator of the United

Church, the Very Reverend Robert Smith, visited that building and the

apartments of those elderly women and shared the ethical revulsion that

I feel at a disgrace like this.

The city has found itself

unable or unwilling to deal with this. In the waning hours of this

debate, I would simply like to ask the minister where he stands. Does

he think this is a good thing to happen in our society or not?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

The member asked for my own philosophical views on the matter, and I

guess that's fair enough. To start with, I think that we should not lay

the responsibility of the demolition of those buildings at the feet of

the provincial government. It is the prerogative of the city and the

municipality to control that sort of thing if they wish to do so.

The

city of Vancouver has taken some action but not as much as some other

communities have. The argument has been made that in order to continue

the redevelopment of the city, they have to remove older buildings to

make room for new ones. I suppose there's some validity in that

argument.

If you want my philosophical concern about it,

the problem as I see it, at this particular time when there is a very

severe shortage of rental accommodation.... We've heard a lot today

about what we might do to alleviate the problem of rental supply or to

deal with the problem that people face with renting. We had some

solutions proposed here earlier this day. But those solutions did not

deal with the essential problem of supply. The question you brought up

does deal with that. I've heard the argument that the buildings taken

down are replaced by larger ones that in fact accommodate more people.

There is one problem, however: the buildings that come down are

affordable; the ones that go up are not affordable to a fairly

significant sector of society. The concern is: how are those people

housed?

I want to tell you that my philosophical view is

that I have a great deal of concern about that happening at a time like

this. But the control lies within the hands of the city or

municipality; they are the ones that should exercise it. After all,

they are responsible for the development of their communities.

the issue you mentioned about the building being knocked down with the

refrigerators inside, I think it would be the responsibility of the

inspectors

[ Page

10033 ]

who gave the permit to demolish the building to see

that it was carried out properly. I don't think it's really a problem.

Although it's a concern of this ministry and the province, it is not

within the control of the province.

MR. PERRY : In

comparison to the answer I received last year, we've made some

progress. At least I see some sensitivity to the issue. Not to be

argumentative, but for the new minister assuming these

responsibilities, I will point out that in the case of the demolitions

in my riding — particularly in Kerrisdale but also elsewhere — I believe it is universally true that buildings demolished have been replaced by larger buildings that accommodate fewer people.

the case of the Quilchena apartment that I described, although the

developer has been relatively innovative in attempting to accommodate

the elderly tenants, the net effect will be to replace 65 rental units

with 25 to 30 rental units if that demolition proceeds.

the seven minutes remaining to me, let me raise a few issues very

briefly. Could I ask the minister whether he is prepared to give an

indication whether the government will bring forward the amendments to

the Vancouver charter, requested by the city, in this session so that

the city will have increased authority to deal with the adverse social

consequences of demolitions?

Two of the important

amendments requested would give the city the power to regulate the

destruction of trees larger than eight inches in diameter on private

property and to levy development fees which can be applied against the

substantial proceeds of redevelopment towards provision of social

services and facilities in the community that make up for some of the

negative impacts of demolition.

Can the minister assure us that those amendments will be brought forward this session for approval?

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I'm not prepared to assure the member of that, because to do that would

be the same as to announce the legislation. As I'm sure the member

realizes, future legislation is not something that we would discuss in

detail during the estimates.

But I would say that through

my other ministry I've been part of discussions with the city. We know

some of the concerns they have, and we listened very closely to them.

We'll just have to wait and see what kind of responses we have to the

requests of the city.

MR. PERRY : Mr. Chairman,

another brief question. Will the minister give us any assessment of the

current status of the Jericho lands in Vancouver? As he knows, there is

intense community speculation over the future of those lands.

With the knowledge that the Jericho Hill School will be moving, there's

great concern in the community as to whether the land will be sold to a private

developer, as was the case in the Expo lands or the Westwood plateau, or whether

the land will be retained in public hands for potential long-term leasehold

development, as was the case in the south shore of False Creek.

There's

also great concern about what form any future development might take. I

would seek some reassurance that the government will undergo a public

process. This is a question we've asked many times in this House. We

have yet to receive a reassuring answer.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I have to, first of all, say that the use of those lands are within

another ministry. So I can't really speak for that ministry.

But I would point out that we, in this ministry, have made sure that all ministries — that includes the ministry responsible here — are

aware of our concerns about the need for housing accommodations,

particularly affordable housing or rental accommodations, within the

city of Vancouver. They certainly know our concerns on that.

MR. PERRY :

Mr. Chairman, one other quick question. The Department of National

Defence, in concert with the federal Department of Housing, has

recently announced plans for the redevelopment of veterans' projects

along Fourth Avenue and along Broadway in my constituency.

the Chairman may be aware, these are projects occupied largely by World

War II veterans, who occupied the buildings on the legitimate

understanding that as veterans — usually of combat in World War II — they

were entitled to certain considerations from the public for their

sacrifice in the national interest. They have enjoyed apartments at

reasonable rents, which have afforded them a good standard of living in

that area.

Many of the tenants are concerned now that the

redevelopment may proceed and quite radically reduce the amount of

living space available to them, even if it increases the number of

people who may live on that site — a very worthwhile idea, in my view.

What

I'm seeking from the minister is some indication of what the role of

the provincial government is in that project, and whether he will

insist that the public consultation process genuinely take account of

the veterans' legitimate concerns, particularly considering that many

people of my generation are not fully aware of the sacrifice these

people made, both men and women, during the war and that they are a

rather vulnerable minority now, as war veterans who can't count on the

automatic understanding of the public that they would have had closer

to the time of their military service.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

Mr. Chairman, we have had meetings with the federal minister on that.

There's been talk, I understand, about doing a display project, if you

like, to try and do something innovative. There has been no response on

that officially; no agreement has been made. They are aware of our

concern about the possibility of some social housing, and the federal

government now has a project man-

[ Page 10034 ]

ager dealing with that project. We are in consultation with them on this.

MR. PERRY :

I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he would be willing to

commit himself to meeting with a committee of the veterans living in

those projects if they wish to meet with him.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN :

I am a little bit reluctant to say yes to that. The reason for that is

that the federal government is involved, and it may or may not be

appropriate. Just to say yes or no here to that question is something

that I wouldn't like to do. However, I can assure the member that it

might happen. Failing that, I would assure him that people from the

ministry will certainly be keeping in touch with those people and

making sure that all of the concerns they have are considered when the

decision is made.

MR. PERRY : The clock gives me time

for one final brief question. This morning I was made aware of

difficulties experienced by the so-called triage facility on Main

Street in Vancouver. It is a facility run by the St. James Church

community services for indigent people and the chronic mentally ill as

one of the places of last resort for street people, who mostly have

chronic mental illness. The development pressures in that neighbourhood

from the Concord Pacific and Bosa redevelopments adjacent are putting

tremendous pressure on that facility, which serves about 50 to 100

people and actually provides their housing needs. It is now operating

on a month-to-month lease.

[3:30]

I would simply like to ask whether the minister is aware of this

situation. If he's not, I'd be delighted to pass on to him some

documents I received this morning, because this is becoming an

increasingly critical housing problem for the chronically mentally ill

in the city of Vancouver.

HON. MR. JACOBSEN : We

certainly are aware of the project you are talking about. We are not

aware of all of the details, and we welcome your passing on anything

that you have. If you offered to pass something on to us, we would

certainly be prepared to receive it.

Vote 59: minister's office, $331,553 — approved.

Vote 60: ministry operations, $1,673,675,447 — approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, I believe it's time to move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

HOME OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

Mr. Speaker, this bill will achieve three objectives: it continues into

1990 and subsequent years the basic homeowner grant at assistance

levels that were increased in 1989; it will introduce a supplementary

grant for homeowners who have school taxes in excess of the basic

grant; and it will create a statutory appropriation to cover some

homeowner grant program costs. These changes are part of the

government's response to the concerns raised by homeowners about high

and rising residential tax rates.

In addition to the

homeowner grant enhancements, the government has responded in three

related ways. Firstly, it has made residential school property taxes a

provincial revenue, so that the province now directly controls school

tax rates. Secondly, it has significantly increased funding to public

schools from other revenue sources. Thirdly, it has required school

boards to hold referenda to approve spending in excess of their

allocation of the provincial education spending block.

As a

result, residential school property tax rates will increase by only 4

percent on average across school districts. Without these changes, 1990

gross residential school property taxes would, on average, have risen

in the order of 20 percent. Revenue from net residential school taxes

will equal only 10 percent of public school costs in 1990-91. Instead,

as a result of increased funding for education from sources other than

residential property taxes and a higher level of homeowner grant relief

in 1990, the majority of homeowners will see their net school taxes

fall from the 1989 levels, and many of the remainder will experience

only marginal net school tax increases.

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. Perhaps I could ask those members who wish to

participate in the debate to wait until they're recognized before

beginning to speak, or if they wish to speak on something other than

the debate, to do so elsewhere.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

For 1990, the supplemental homeowner grant provided in this bill will

equal 25 percent of residential school taxes in excess of the maximum

basic grant. For 1991 and subsequent years, this supplement will equal

50 percent of this excess amount. In the interest of fairness, neither

the basic homeowner grant nor the supplement will be applicable to

referendum taxes. Homeowners should not be sheltered from the impact of

their decisions on referendum taxes by being provided an additional

homeowner grant, leaving owners of residential property not eligible

for the homeowner grant to pay the full referendum tax.

The

supplement is being introduced to ease the burden of taxes on

homeowners and to address a residential school property tax

distribution problem.

[ Page

10035 ]

Under the current system, for example, a homeowner who receives a

tax notice for $500 of gross school taxes would likely pay $70, while a

homeowner who receives a tax notice for $1,000 of gross school taxes

would pay $570, more than eight times as much.

The

beneficiaries of the supplement represent a broad range of lifestyles

and income levels. I was reminded during the property tax forums held

throughout the province last year that high property tax bills are not

necessarily an indicator of high-valued homes or ability to pay. I

found, for example, that many homeowners in the interior who have been

paying high school taxes have modestly-priced homes by lower mainland

standards and that many lower mainland homeowners are house-rich but

income-poor.

Over half a million households will receive

the supplement. The supplement will result in reduced net school taxes

from 1989 levels for over 400,000 of them.

The maximum available benefit from the supplement will be capped at $1,000. This will affect fewer than 1,000 households.

The

1990 cost to the province of the supplement will be almost $50 million.

In 1991 this cost will rise to slightly more than $100 million. After

this homeowner grant increase, net revenues from residential school

property taxes will be close to $300 million in fiscal '90-91, down

sharply from fiscal '89-90.

Following the property tax

forums of last year, the government examined the option of entirely

removing residential school property taxes. However, this approach was

rejected for several reasons. Not only would it have been too

expensive; it would also have put B.C.'s tax system significantly out

of step with other jurisdictions. All other provinces either levy a

residential property tax themselves or give this authority to school

boards. In addition, it would have required the replacement of

residential school taxes by other taxes. This would likely have had the

effect of shifting some of the burden of taxes from non-resident

property owners to B.C. residents.

This bill also creates a

statutory appropriation for the payment of homeowner grants to

municipalities and individual homeowners. Although most of the cost to

the province of the homeowner grant program will take the form of

deductions by municipalities from their remittance of school taxes to

the province, there will still be cases where the province will need to

reimburse individuals or municipalities directly; for these cases the

statutory appropriation is required.

In conclusion, we are proposing to continue the 1989 homeowner grant benefits

in 1990 and subsequent years, and to introduce a homeowner grant supplement,

thus creating a more balanced distribution of the tax burden. These and other

measures that I have mentioned affirm the government's commitment to supporting

and encouraging home ownership and should alleviate the concerns of homeowners

about high and rising school tax rates. I move the bill now be read a second

time.

MS. A. HAGEN :

As the Minister of Finance notes, this bill is part of a number of

initiatives of his government around education taxes and funding. In my

comments this afternoon, I want to range fairly broadly over those

issues, as the minister has done in his.

First of all, I'd

like to note that we are, of course, supportive of initiatives that

produce fairer taxes for people, and particularly of changes in taxes

that may be regressive, as we have known the homeowner tax for school

purposes has been for quite a number of years. I think it should be

stated at the outset that the reason for that unfairness rests very

clearly on the shoulders of this government, which has pretended for

many years that it has indeed been dealing on a fair basis with the

homeowners of the province in respect to school taxes, while it has

consistently pushed more and more of the costs of operating our schools

onto the homeowner. Fortunately this year there are some changes that

shift some of that balance. Insofar as that shift occurs, we welcome

the change.

But I would note right off the bat that as is

so often the case, the government tends to exaggerate the extent of the

relief that is available. If we go back to budget day — the minister's

day in this House, when he has the opportunity to present to the people

of the province his plans for the budget for the next year and the

effects it is going to have on people's pocketbooks and services — in

the text of his speech the example the minister used was that there

would be a $250 tax reduction for people who are not seniors as a

result of the bill that we are now debating; and that there would be a

$182 tax deduction for seniors. I want to note that that example

applies to very few citizens of British Columbia. It may involve those

people whose homes are in the 80 or 90 percent group as far as the cost

of their homes and the assessment is concerned.

[3:45]

If we go back to some of the tables at the back of the book — not something that was ever said in this House; not something ever recorded in Hansard — a

truer story emerges. On page 61 of the 1990 budget book, the average

tax benefit is noted for 1990 and 1991. In this case we're looking at

an average tax benefit of $40 — a far cry from the $250 that the minister touted on budget day, April 19, in his budget speech

Furthermore,

the minister noted that a very significant number of households would

benefit. We certainly have indications that the minister's claims are

considerably exaggerated in that regard. One-third of the districts of

B.C. — 23 — will receive no benefits at all; none of the residents of

those school districts will see any improvements as a result of this

legislation, which brings me to the point where I think it's fair to

say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation is structured to provide tax

relief to those who live in large houses and who pay high taxes. Those

who pay the most taxes are favoured most. And it's true that among some

of those people are those who are, to use the minister's words,

house-rich and cash-poor. But by

[ Page 10036 ]

and

large, all who have looked at this legislation and all who have

examined who it will benefit note that it does benefit those people who

are more likely to be the friends of Social Credit, those people whose

incomes enable them to pay a better share of the cost of education.

Where it benefits those who are houserich and cash-poor, we are

thankful and grateful, but there are many people who are neither

house-rich nor cash-rich who will not be receiving benefits from this

particular legislation.

This bill is a part, as the

minister has noted, of a broad range of changes that have occurred in

education finance. I've had a number of discussions with citizens

around the province who have been paying very close attention to the

changes that the government has brought forward; they are not only not

seeing any significant changes in their taxes but they are recognizing

that the government has done a good deal to disarm them from

information that enables them to make good local decisions about

education.

For example, the minister notes a referendum

system that was introduced this year. It requires that for any local

school board decision on operating costs that exceed what the

government states is the amount of money that will be available for

school districts to run their school programs and their school system,

the school district must go to referendum, but it must go to referendum

with only a part of the information that citizens need to have in order

to make informed decisions. It must go to referendum without having

information about the amount of tax that will be charged by provincial

government decision against homeowners for that district's share of

local taxes. That means that residents in school districts are being

asked to make decisions without knowing the implications for their

taxes.

The reason for that is twofold. The principal reason

is that the government is not making available to school districts the

proportion of the costs of the block funding for that district that

will come from local taxes. I know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) has made a great thing about the fact that people should be

making these decisions on educational grounds alone, but that is a very

specious argument, Mr. Speaker. We know that school boards make

decisions about what the programs are going to be in their district on

the basis of the educational needs of the district, on their

priorities, and on the cost of those programs to their local taxpayers.

All of those factors are taken into account for responsible

decision-making. We are asking homeowners to make decisions on

referenda with only a part of the information available. They do not

know when they make a decision on a referendum what the tax implication

will be, nor does their school board know what the tax implication will

be.

Let's look at a very germane example of that situation,

one I've heard a good deal about from citizens who are very angry

because the government did not provide their school boards with the

information to enable them to make an informed decision.

The

Coquitlam School District recently held a referendum. I believe the

amount was for something in the order of $4 million for that

referendum. And with the information that they had available at that

time, they calculated that the cost on an average household for that

referendum would be around $150. However, when that board learned the

amount of money that would be available to it under its share of the

block to its district, money that would be coming from its local

taxpayers and money that would be coming from the province, there was

an entirely different picture. The cost to the average taxpayer in

Coquitlam was calculated, and after that district had all the

information about the tax implications of these changes, the tax

implication of the referendum would have been $9. You can imagine the

difference that that makes in terms of people making decisions.

Decisions

are made on the basis of the educational program being offered, and

they certainly are made on the basis of the taxes that will be charged.

I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of situation will occur

over and over again with this government's system of trying to hobble

taxpayers into making good decisions about education.

could come back to the whole issue of referendum, and note again that

that decision, that bill we dealt with, Bill 11, earlier in this

session to require referendum is a decision that is going to haunt us

in terms of good educational decision-making at the local level for all

of the time that it exists. Coquitlam is an example of the hobbling

that occurs because this government does not want citizens to be armed

with all the information they need in order to make careful decisions

in respect to the educational priorities of their district.

Let

me come back again to the question of this bill, how it has been

promoted and what it actually does for citizens. I would like to use

the example of my own district, which is in the lower mainland. It is a

district that has seen very significant increases in the value of homes

in my city of New Westminster, which has a very large number of older

people, many of whom still live in their own homes. We got our tax

notices this morning, I would note that in my home in New Westminster

this legislation gives me what I would call a very modest tax saving of

$35.27. The $250 benefit that was promoted by the minister on budget

day, translated for a modest lower mainland home — my home is fairly average in the community — produces that kind of saving.

People

in my riding who have not benefited even by that modest saving are the

seniors in my community. I have looked again at homes that fit into the

modest to slightly more expensive, and I find that older citizens are

not seeing any savings at all out of this much-touted legislation. They

are seeing tax increases of up to about 5 percent of their bill last

year. It all goes to point out that, although this bill does provide

some relief for some citizens, those who are going to benefit now and

even more so with the benefits proposed for next year are the more

affluent people in our society — those who have benefited from an education, who will benefit from the education our children receive and who have the means to

[ Page

10037 ]

provide for a more significant share of the cost of educating our children.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

Throughout

this whole change process, we have a government that is desperately

trying to make some recompense for its folly and its failures over the

past ten years in the funding of education — a government which, as I

noted at the start of my remarks, has consistently shifted the cost

onto local taxpayers instead of paying its fair share and is now trying

to make some adjustments to improve that cost-sharing. It has finally

got to the point where it is accepting the McMath formula of sharing:

90 percent of the dollars for education coming from the province and 10

percent from homeowners. It has been seven years coming to that more

fair perspective, and I would note that it only came to that

perspective after we proposed it as policy and passed it as policy in

our March convention of the New Democratic Party held in Vancouver. In

fact, as I've noted earlier in this House, the Premier was ranting

about the earlier sharing ratio as the most wonderful thing in the

world at 83 percent of the funding coming from the province, just the

day before the budget was tabled.

Finally, I would like to note that one thing that is a subtle part of this reform — these

changes which we have not had an opportunity to debate as a package,

which we're debating piecemeal through the budget debate and through

debate on the school finance arrangements and now through this

homeowner grant — is that this government has indeed taken over the

financial decision-making for school districts. I would suggest that

there is a very fundamental shift here in something that we hold as

very valuable: the way we look at how our education system will be

funded. We know that the province has a significant responsibility — constitutionally, historically and practically — for

how our schools are run, what programs there are and what funds are

available. But implicit in all the historical working relationships

between government and local school boards is the right of each of

those bodies to make decisions around financial matters and to be

accountable and responsible for those decisions.

This

legislation today is the final piece of legislation in the package that

takes away from boards the right to make financial decisions on behalf

of their school districts. Mr. Speaker, I predict that the change will

not be good for the long-term health of education.

Education

is still a bargain in British Columbia in terms of what we as taxpayers

pay. It's a bargain for most of us as homeowners. It's a bargain for

us, in terms of the proportion of our provincial budget that goes into

education. It's a bargain in terms of this activity being one of the

most important tasks that we undertake as government on behalf of our

children, the future of our economy and the social well-being of our

body politic.

By shifting, as this government has done, the responsibility for that decision-making

onto the provincial government by removing from local decision-making bodies — namely, the school boards — the right to be involved and accountable for some

of the financial decisions, I think this government is taking us on a path which

most citizens believe is not in the best interests of education.

Although

changes that provide modest improvements in the cost of education to

local taxpayers are a part of that package, in the long run they are

really minuscule, in terms of any genuine financial benefits for most

of the taxpayers of the province. There are many who will see no benefit — in fact, some increase — and

in the long run, the overall package will be a disservice to how we

manage, fund and make decisions both provincially and locally.

Mr.

Speaker, we will be supporting this bill, but we will be supporting it

with the knowledge that it is a part of a package that has aspects that

we believe are bad and wrong for British Columbia. We will be looking

very closely over the next year at some of the outcomes of these

decisions in respect to boards' ability to manage their systems in ways

that are consistent with the responsibilities they should have in our

longstanding practice in the province.

Mr. Speaker, the

legislation is very straightforward and requires very little discussion

when we get into committee. Other colleagues of mine will be speaking

to some of these issues as they affect the taxpayers in their

communities and to the broader issues of the changes that this

government has brought forward and the effects of those changes.

MS. CULL : Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. CULL :

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have some Scouts from the 5th

Garry Oak Scout Troop in Oak Bay, along with their teacher Mr.

Williams. I ask the members in the House to make them welcome.

[4:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on this bill, because I

think it does provide significant tax relief to the taxpayers of this

province. I can't quite accept the arguments made by the member for New

Westminster — the education critic — who makes a great deal of the fact that the government has shifted the cost onto the taxpayers.

doesn't matter which pocket it comes out of. The taxpayers pay the

total bill for education and for government spending. So to focus on

that is somewhat surprising.

I know the member now suggests

that, contrary to what has actually happened, it was their idea to

provide this tax relief. When we made available the information that we

were now funding 83 percent of the total education budget from

provincial coffers, and that there would be significant tax relief in

this coming year, I noticed that the opposition leader then

[ Page 10038 ]

went

public with the remarkable and astounding conclusion that if you move

from 83 percent to more relief.... So he jumped on the 90 and 10 figure

and said, "That is what we would do, " and of course, when it came to

the 90 and 10, he said: "See, we did this all together." It doesn't

take a great deal of intelligence or imagination to say that we'll go

for 90 percent if 83 percent is going to be changed and improved. I

guess it's the old story: when something good happens, they say it was

their idea.

I notice that the member points out that

education is a bargain. When I talked in the past as Education minister

about education as a bargain in this province, we had the opposition

saying: "The taxes are too high. The taxes are too high." Now, when we

have reduced the taxes, the critic says education is a bargain at that

price, so I'm not quite sure at what level they want to get involved.

The

member criticizes the amount of tax relief based on last year's and

this year's taxes. What the member neglects to factor in is what the

taxes would have been this year had we done nothing. I asked my

ministry to run through the scenario of what would result if we had

stayed with last year's system and increased the block by only 6.17

percent and if the supplementary amounts had not been increased — and

remember, the initial preliminary budgets were coming in quite a bit

higher. If the province stayed at the 75 to 25 sharing ratio and the

increase at the district level had been in every district no more than

6.17 percent, then the average increase would have been over 15 percent,

Any

other additions in supplementary would have brought that up, and some

of our early calculations showed that with no moves, the increase would

have been up to almost 30 percent and about 25 percent on average in

the province. I can tell you that the scenario goes all the way up to

increases well over 30 percent and 36 percent if we had not taken the

steps we did.

I want to give the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Couvelier) a great deal of credit for recognizing that because of

assessed values, the discrepancies between lower-priced homes and

higher-priced homes had grown dramatically and that much of the money

from the homeowner grant, which was intended for education funding in

the first place, was in some districts not being fully provided to

education because of the way the homeowner grant worked. In other

districts it fell far short of the total tax.

The member

mentioned the Coquitlam example, and maybe the taxpayers in Coquitlam

should know that I have asked the ministry to run it at the median, at

the 70th percentile, because at the median it incorporates the number

of vacant properties and what have you. Over time we found that if you

move up to where 70 percent of the assessed values are below the

particular figure.... Of course, in Coquitlam the taxes at the 70th

percentile went down by $45 with the tax relief measures that this bill

incorporates. The member mentioned that in her case it went down about

$35, 1 think she said.

What the member neglects to mention

is that with no increases in expenditures other than 6.17 percent and

no supplementary increases, if we had left the system in place, the

taxpayers in the New Westminster example — it was New Westminster she was using as well as Coquitlam — the taxes would have gone up $133; and they have gone down $45 as a result of these measures.

Isn't

it interesting that all they use is the $45 figure, not what might have

been. All the measures, coupled with this, certainly have provided a

great deal of tax relief to the people who were paying the most for

school taxes. It moves a bit more equity into the system, and next

year, as this bill indicates, when we move to the 50-percent

supplemental homeowner grant, it will bring in more equity into the

system and will in most cases still leave money left over to pay for

municipal taxes for people at the lower assessed levels or lower tax

brackets.

I thought it only fair to know — and I might as well use the Coquitlam example — that

in Coquitlam, with no increase in expenditures, the taxes would have

gone up under the old system something like $53 at the 70th percentile.

At the 70th percentile they went down as a result of these measures by

$126, so that's roughly $180 more that the people of Coquitlam at that

level would have been paying. You can take any level and come up with

slightly different figures, but at the 70th percentile the taxpayers

saved about $180 this year because of these measures. The example used

in the Minister of Finance's budget statement was a correct one at that

taxation level, and there are people at that taxation level whose

saving would have been $250. So it was not misleading; it was giving

that particular example.

I want to make very clear the

point that we could make the comparisons of last year's taxes and this

year's taxes and come up with perhaps a relatively small savings

figure. But if we compare that to what would have been without any

changes, I think we'd get a much more dramatic figure. Next year, of

course, it will be even more than that.

The member made

quite a point that the taxpayers don't know what the referendum tax

implications might be, and I have to correct that for the record. It

was clear on the ballot form that each of the measures had to be

translated into cost per $10,000. Anyone could translate that to what

it would mean for a $50,000 home, a $100,000 home or a $150,000 home — or whatever value. That information was to be made absolutely clear on the ballot — and was done. So the members knew what the tax implication would have been for passing a referendum.

I've said many times, the referendum should be based on needs for extra

expenditures and not on the amount of tax room that we create by other

measures. I think the people were quite clear in what they were voting

for. Next year, with more time available, I think they'll have a great

deal more information, where boards will also provide some of the

information that they did not provide this year in order to allow those

people to make a correct decision.

[ Page

10039 ]

I would like to commend the minister for not just a one-year package

but for saying that the homeowner grant, at the level that it was

raised to last year, will stay in place, plus a supplementary homeowner

grant to make the taxes actually paid for education far more equitable.

With

the $700 homeowner grant available to seniors, any of them living in

modest homes are certainly not paying any school taxes now. If they are

living in more than modest homes, they still get the $700 homeowner

grant plus 25 percent of any difference.

[4:15]

1 think this measure is in the best interests of education. The

other measures with it are in the best interests of education, because

a good education system depends on continuity and predictability. That

is what the system now builds in. I want to commend the Minister of

Finance for not doing it as only a one-shot measure this year, but for

committing this government to a continuation of the homeowner grant,

for increasing the supplemental for next year and for continuing to

look at the tax measures to try to accomplish what is necessary for

education — that is, a willingness of the taxpayers to support it at the same rate as the economy.

I've

asked many taxpayers: "Would you be willing to have increases of 6

percent if the economy is running at 6 percent?" They say: "We have no

difficulty with that." What they have had a lot of difficulty with is a

25 percent tax increase when the economic indicators were at 5 or 6

percent. That is what is happening.

To conclude, the member

feels that the school boards should have full autonomy to set the

budget at whatever level they want and then send $90 out of every $100

of that to the provincial government, which should pay it without

question or without any input. If we're moving to the provincial

government now guaranteeing 100 percent of the funding for education,

based on all of the expenditures of last year plus an increase in line

with the economy.... That is what the royal commission report suggested — in other words, block funding based on actual expenditures plus an increase in line with the economy.

think the Finance ministry is to be commended for accepting that,

because it meant a lot of extra funding and taking on a lot of extra

responsibility. But you could not have a system — nor did Sullivan recommend a system — where

the government picks up all the tab for education and somebody else

sets the total amount. You could not have a system like that and make

it work.

With all of my compliments to the Minister of Finance I would hope that next

year, as we ask for our share of the money, he would be more than happy to oblige

to keep a wonderful education system going. This will help a lot of taxpayers,

and it will not hurt those at the lower level. I certainly support this bill.

I think it's a good measure, and I support the commitment for the future

that is necessary in the best interests of education.

MR. BARNES :

I just want to say a few things on this bill. I'm not going to speak

with the detailed analysis of the critic or the Minister of Education.

But the minister referred to school districts wanting to set their

programs and have the government pay the tab. I think that's a fair

exchange when you consider that taxpayers are taxed and the government

spends the money. Very few taxpayers really have that much to say about

what the government is going to do — what priorities they're going to

set. I suppose that once you're elected to government, that's as it

should be. But surely we realize that education ultimately has to be

recognized as a public responsibility, not just homeowners'

responsibility.

We've come along way as far as our educational aspirations are concerned.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES :

I realize they're part of the public. I'm talking about the general

public. The minister is trying to throw me off course. He knows what

I'm driving at. Education benefits the public generally. It benefits

every sector of society. We have to recognize that responsibility and

stop trying to find ways of shifting the burden on certain classes of

people.

As far as this bill is concerned, it's quite

evident that the larger your premises the better a tax break you

receive. It's been quite clear that people with modestly priced homes,

who may be really up against it as far as their disposable incomes are

concerned, are not going to benefit that much from this legislation.

I'm

disappointed that the minister didn't make an announcement that was a

little more profound and far-reaching, recognizing that many school

districts are going to be doing without because of the government's

policy of referenda asking taxpayers who are already heavily burdened

to assume extra taxes in order to provide what this government may

consider as programs outside the block-funding formula.

Clearly

there should be a different philosophical approach to education and

education funding. This is really the direction that we're going to

have to go. This is a step that appears to be maintaining somewhat of

the status quo to protect against annually increased costs, trying to

stabilize what we already have, but it's far from adequate and far from

what the situation should be. I'm hoping that after the next election

we're going to be looking at ideas that are far more comprehensive in

terms of education funding so that we can raise the level of

flexibility and respect the diversities that exist in the different

school districts, doing this in such a way that the dollar does not

determine whether or not an effective and comprehensive education

program is available.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say for the record that this will be helpful to some taxpayers — no question about it — but

not to those, for instance, in the city core where they're not in those

huge, expensive homes, and perhaps not the high-wage earners. But it's

a step, I suppose, in the direction of maintaining something of the

status quo.

[ Page 10040 ]

MR. REID :

I take pleasure in standing in my place today to speak on Bill 14,

because in my constituency, in Surrey, it was more than evident in the

recent referendum that the taxpayers of my riding are adamant that tax

relief and the possibility of increased taxes for school costs.... It

was a total refusal. We had more than a 65 percent opposition across

the municipality of Surrey-White Rock in the referendum.

I attended a meeting — which the minister so graciously attended — in

my constituency just before the referendum was voted on. A large

segment of the community showed up, and they heard the minister make

his case for block funding. They also allowed the opportunity for the

Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), who also

happens to represent one of the Surrey ridings.

I can tell

you that $209,824,205 was the budget approved by our school board last

Monday, an increase of $3.5 million in less than a month. Even though

the referendum passed, they raised their budget by over $3.5 million.

What troubles me — as the member from Vancouver Centre said — is

that the mean area of taxpayer costs in Surrey is $116,000 as it

relates to the chart which was presented to us by the minister last

week. This indicates a reduction in our riding of $97 on the average

taxpayer as a result of this amendment. I can tell you that it couldn't

come to a more welcome community than mine. The reason I say that is

because I have the results of the referendum poll that was conducted

to....

MR. CLARK : What was the turnout?

MR. REID : Okay, I'll give you that, Mr. Member.

In 30 polls in my constituency were the following results: James Ardiel Elementary School — 161 in favour of the increased taxes, and 353 opposed; West Whalley Junior Secondary — 150 approved the additional expenditures, and 399 were opposed; Prince Charles Elementary — 109 approved, and 315 were opposed; William Beagle Junior Secondary — 158 would approve it, and 259 would have been opposed; Senator Reid —

strangely enough, 214 approved it and 183 were against. The reason for

that one, I might point out, is that the area surrounding Senator Reid

happens to be the headquarters of the B.C. Teachers' Federation for

Surrey. So it probably was indicated that it was the only school and

the only area that voted in favour of increased taxation.

Let me give you the other ones.

MR. CLARK : Is that in your riding?

MR. REID : No, not in my riding.

Erma Stephenson Elementary — 105 approved of the increased taxation, and 231

were opposed — over 60 percent; Riverdale Elementary — 177 approved, and 341

opposed; Hjorth Road Elementary — 212 approved, and 310 opposed; Johnston Heights

Senior Secondary — 253 approved, and 454 opposed; Green Timbers Elementary — 187 approved, and 264 opposed; Fleetwood Elementary — 214 approved, and 537

opposed; William Watson Elementary — 64 approved, and 148 opposed; David Brankin — 136 approved, and 192 opposed; Frank Hurt Secondary — 245 approved, and 318

opposed; Dr. F.D. Sinclair Elementary — 154 approved, and 290 opposed; T.E. Scott

Elementary — 148 approved, and 235 opposed; Newton Junior Secondary — 555 approved,

and 605 opposed; municipal hall — 101 approved, and 228 opposed.

Interjection.

MR. REID : For the record, right.

This

is for the record because I want it to go down in perpetuity that the

constituents in my riding were opposed almost unanimously to the

increase in taxation. It's so those people from the opposition who

won't be around next time can keep a copy of this Hansard

under their pillow, and the next time they're talking about taxation to

the people who voted them out of office, they will know why.

In those dynamic ridings such as Surrey, this was the result: Anniedale Elementary — 45 approved, and 85 opposed; Port Kells Elementary — 40 approved, and 146 opposed; Cloverdale Elementary, my riding — 249 approved, and 581 opposed. That's where the rodeo Is. Latimer Road — 181 approved and 317 opposed.

Interjection.

MR. REID : No. Only one, I told you. I'll give you the one back. I'll read it back in the record.

Grandview Heights Elementary — 98 approved and 205 opposed. Now down in that dynamic South Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale area: Crescent Park Elementary — 539 approved, and 792 opposed; Sunnyside Elementary — 171 approved, and 326 opposed.

In your language, that's close. Okay? That's what you're going to have in the next election. You're going to be that far off.

[4:30]

Earl Marriott Secondary — 283 approved, and 789 opposed — talk about a pretty strong message; Ray Shepherd Elementary — listen and pay attention — 260 approved, and 576 opposed. That's more than what you'd call a fair margin. H.T. Thrift Elementary — 173 approved, and 549 opposed. That's a pretty strong message. Peace Arch Elementary — down

in that sunny White Rock-South Surrey area where all the dynamic

leadership is: 117 approved and 226 opposed. The next one should really

put you on your ear, Mr. Member. White Rock Elementary, where the

seniors are worried about taxes: 327 approved and 813 opposed.

You

asked me earlier about the record of the vote. It's very troubling,

because there were 18,160 votes cast out of a total possibility of

120,363 — 15 percent got out to vote. But that 15 percent gave us a

very strong message. If you multiply those who didn't come out to vote

by the same percentage of rejection,

[ Page

10041 ]

it would have been a significant message to the NDP and those people who propose that people are satisfied with more taxation.

my riding, with 40,766 students, our costs today in running the school

district in 1990 is $209,824,205. You can divide it by any number you

want, but it's a lot of money.

Our taxpayers have said once

and for all: "We want to give a message to this government. We want to

talk about the homeowner grant amendment and how much we support that

amendment. We want to talk about leadership and good government and

about a government that wants to keep the taxes for the average

taxpayer of a constituency which is the fastest-growing in British

Columbia...." The answer was a resounding no.

I commend the

Minister of Finance for Bill 14. 1 stand in my place and offer support

for Bill 14 and support from a resounding electorate who said: "No more

taxation in Surrey-White Rock in 1990."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. CLARK :

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that you're in the chair, you'll probably

be interested to note that the last speaker's detailed, poll-by-poll

analysis of the referendum results in his constituency has nothing to

do with this bill. I'm sure you'll show the same latitude to members of

this side of the House, Mr. Speaker.

I just have a few

comments about the bill. This was meant to be one of those platform

items for the governing party going into a fall election. I know that

because there is a direct correlation between the number of times an

announcement is made — and the number of press releases issued — and

the saliency of the issue in any platform document going into an

election. If there's only one press release issued by the government,

then, essentially, it's not that significant. It's just another

announcement.

If there are two or three press releases,

then it might be one of those second-tier election platforms. When an

announcement is made five or six times, press conferences are held and

different ministers are involved — and we end up with four to six press releases on a subject — then we know the government really wants to highlight this issue. They, of course, have done that.

The

problem was that the announcements were for significant tax relief for

homeowners. And then the bill came in. They were confounded, because

they built up all these expectations about how great this legislation

was, and it didn't quite meet the billing. That's the danger in these

multiple announcements: you get people excited.

British Columbians welcome a tax break. We on this side of the House will be

supporting this bill, because any tax break is welcome news to citizens of British

Columbia, who have been overtaxed by this administration. But even when this

government gives a tax break, its ideology intervenes — as is always the case

with this administration.

The

tax break in this bill varies according to your wealth. In other words,

the wealthier you are and the bigger your home, the bigger your tax

break. Let's look at the facts. Approximately 300,000 households in 22

school districts get no benefit at all. The government had press

releases and announcements saying that everyone was going to get a tax

break and everyone was going to have school tax relief, but 300,000

households in 22 school districts got no benefit at all. In another ten

districts taxpayers receive assistance of less than $10 a year.

After

the tax increases imposed by this administration, I don't think giving

back ten bucks annually was enough to influence their vote, and I don't

think it would be enough even if they gave them more. Certainly if they

thought it would have some influence on them, I don't think $10 would

do it.

We're up to 32 school districts that either got no money — no tax break — as

a result of this bill or got ten bucks a year. Maybe in Surrey they got

more. I'm sure they did, so Surrey got more. I know that Shaughnessy

got more. West Vancouver got big tax breaks.

But, you know,

in some districts they didn't get that much. Let's look at a few

things. I have here, from Kamloops, a quote: "A provincial grant that

gives owners of higher-priced houses a tax break means Kamloops

taxpayers with the fanciest homes pay the least overall tax increase."

Now listen to this, Mr. Member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale: "For

those with houses assessed at $40,000, the overall tax increase for

this year will be 15.55 percent. People with houses assessed at

$100,000 will pay a 2.2 percent tax increase." Someone with a $100,000

residential assessment gets $430 back on school taxes, plus — now — $129

for the supplemental grants. Meanwhile, someone with a $40, 000

assessment gets the $430 basic grant, the same as last year, but

doesn't pay enough school taxes to get the additional grant. So if you

have a $40,000 home — a modest home in Kamloops — you get no tax break. If you have a home in Kamloops assessed at $100,000, then you get a $129 break.

It's

very clear, from the philosophy of this administration, that they're

biased. The fancier your home, the bigger the tax break; the more

modest your home, the less your tax break.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK :

Well, average people have seen personal income tax increases, medical

service premium increases and fee and licence increases, and soon

they'll see the GST.

The government gives no tax relief

across the board. The government thought they were going into an

election. They made five or six announcements. Why wouldn't the

government provide at least some tax relief for every homeowner in

British Columbia? Because it doesn't fit the sort of narrow ideological

agenda on the other side. If you live in White Rock and you have a

fancy home, you get more money than if you live in White Rock and have

a modest

[ Page 10042 ]

home. That's the reality. A mansion in Shaughnessy....

Interjection.

MR. CLARK : It is capped at $1,000 — that's

true. A mansion in Shaughnessy gets $1,000, and a modest home owner in

Kamloops gets nothing. When you combine that with the other initiatives

in tax policy of this administration, when you look at the debate on

the sort of flat-tax option for homeowners and for municipalities — all of which brings in an element of regressivity to the tax system — this is another example....

Before

I conclude, let me talk about another thing that the member for New

Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) said. That's the difference between the

rhetoric and the reality. We have lots of rhetoric from the other side.

The reality is a little different.

Look at the numbers. The

budget says this is a $50 million promise; but the press release says

only an $18 million saving to provincial homeowners. The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) said: "Well, it's $50 million if you look

at what it would have been had it not been for this grant." The reality

is, however, that it's an $18 million tax break for homeowners. That

means that 400,000 homeowners get the break. That's an average of 45

bucks annually for homeowners in British Columbia. But on budget day

the minister released a number that said a $250 break for a homeowner

in North Vancouver. That was, I think, the only number used. Yet the

average is $45, and 300,000 get nothing. The number used in all the TV

ads, all the commercials, all the "B.C. Reports" and all the propaganda

from the government generally refers to $250 for this homeowner in

North Vancouver.

Yes, some homeowners in North Vancouver do

get $250. Yes, that's a good thing because tax relief is always a good

thing, anytime, especially when they've had so many tax increases from

this administration. But surely it would be fairer to have any tax cut

across the board. Surely it would be fairer to have, if not a tax break

that was bigger for poor people than for rich people, then at least the

same dollar tax break for all homeowners in British Columbia. That

would surely be fairer, given the kind of tax burden they've had with

the Tories in Ottawa and this particular administration here in

Victoria.

So even a tax break hasn't really flown that well

for this government. Even when they thought this would be a big

election winner for them, it hasn't been the case. That's because they

don't seem to understand the simple question of fairness, the simple

reality that if the government were honest and fair and provided tax

relief across the board, it would give them much more kudos — instead

of skewing the tax break for the wealthier homeowners, skewing the tax

break in favour of those who least need a tax break in British Columbia.

MR. LOENEN :

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to stand in my place and support this

legislation. In fact, what it does is address an injustice that has

festered for a long time, and grown in the last few years, when we've

seen rapidly rising assessments in certain parts of the province,

particularly the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island. This

legislation recognizes the representations that have been made not only

by individuals and municipal councils, but also by the GVRD.

think the mayor of Vancouver and a delegation from the GVRD came to

Victoria two years ago with a brief, well-researched document that

showed that because of rising assessments in the lower mainland, the

burden for education funding had shifted from the rest of the province

to the lower mainland. They made the case that the lower mainland paid

a disproportionate share of education funding, to the tune of $150

million. That was two years, and ever since then we have seen nothing

but rising assessments in the lower mainland, to the extreme where some

families who live on fixed incomes and some elderly people who have

lived in their homes for perhaps ten, 20 or 50 years have been forced

out because they were carrying a disproportionate share of the

education burden.

The member opposite ought to recognize

that on this side of the House we have always been proud of the

homeowner grant initiative, because it is meant to help provide housing

for people. This bill, which carries that principle a bit further

through the supplementary homeowner grant, is also directed to do that — to

provide housing and to make it possible for people to continue to live

where they have perhaps lived for many years, not to be forced out

because of rising taxes.

The member opposite scorns this

initiative and says that somehow it is designed to favour the rich, the

wealthy and the well-to-do. How wrong of him, because in many instances

there is no relationship between rising property values and the actual

cash flow of those people; that is particularly true for the elderly

and for people on a fixed income. They may live in their family home,

but now suddenly in the last years of their life, when at last they are

looking forward to retirement in their own home, they are faced with a

situation where they are forced out of that home in order to pay the

taxes, which have increased so dramatically because of the rising

values.

[4:45]

It's very easy to say that somehow more benefits are going to the

lower mainland than to people in Kamloops. This legislation is designed

to even out some of the inequities that exist. Ever since I was elected

in '86, the school board and individuals have come to me and said:

"Look, there is a great inequity."

Whereas in our community the average

homeowner might pay $400 in property taxes to be directed towards

education, Prince George, Kamloops and many other places around the

province either pay very little — maybe less than $50 — or nothing towards the education portion.

That kind of inequity certainly needs to be addressed, and I am happy to see that this legislation

[ Page

10043 ]

addresses it. We have listened to the concerns that

have been expressed; we have listened to the representations that have

been made. This is a direct response to those concerns.

Mr.

Speaker, as I have indicated, it is a great relief to the people in my

community. As I said, they are immensely grateful that at last this

government has recognized the imbalances that have been generated in

the last few years because of the rising assessment.

In my

community the average homeowner will benefit to the tune of $93 this

year because of this legislation. In addition to that, that $93 will

double next year. It is for that reason that I am pleased to stand here

and commend the minister and the people who have worked on this and who

have listened to the concerns that have been expressed. I see this as a

great initiative that brings about greater equity, more justice and

more fairness for all citizens in the province, allows people to live

in their homes and makes home ownership more affordable.

I support this legislation.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

I rise to join in the debate and to make the simple point that the

people in the Cariboo were expecting significant relief from school

taxes. That didn't happen.

MR. LOENEN : They've never paid enough as it is.

MR. ZIRNHELT : Convince them. Join me on the campaign trail and convince them.

MR. LOENEN : Are they paying $400...?

MR. SPEAKER :

Order, please. The member interjecting across the floor has just had an

opportunity to speak. Perhaps if the member speaking could address the

Chair, we could proceed without interjections.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

Mr. Speaker, with the introduction of block funding, I think it was

abundantly clear to people, when they heard the budget as well, that

there would be significant relief; that hasn't happened. People have

come to me and said that they feel that there should be some

significant relief to those who pay the average; that hasn't happened.

In fact, we expect the average taxes to go up at least 8 to 10 percent,

depending on the final figures. I think we have to recognize that the

benefits