1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 1985

Morning Sitting

[ Page

5785 ]

CONTENTS

Provincial — Municipal Partnership (Taxation Measures) Act (Bill 25). Committee stage

On

section I –– 5785

Mr. Blencoe

section 2 –– 5785

Mr. Blencoe

Division

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mitchell

section 3 –– 5789

Mr. Blencoe

section 3.1 –– 5790

Mr. Blencoe

section 5 –– 5791

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading –– 5791

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 26). Second

Reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5791

Mr. Cocke –– 5791

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5792

Division –– 5792

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates, (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 37: minister's office –– 5792

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mrs. Dailly

Appendix –– 5795

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this morning are Mr. Bob

Henderson from Telkwa and Mr. Keith Connors from Prince George. I would

ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Yvonne has a very special guest in

the gallery today. That special guest is our grandson, almost three,

Jay Douglas Hazelwood. He's come to see where his grandfather works.

MR. D'ARCY: In the gallery today are Mrs. Sharon Glendinning

of Blueberry Creek, representing the Castlegar parents' association,

and with her is Mrs. Marlene King of Castlegar, representing the

Castlegar and District Teachers' Association. Mrs. King was my

children's first primary school teacher. I'm very glad to have her in

the galleries today in Victoria.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the order of business for the

day, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave of the House for permission for the

Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources to

proceed with their organizational meeting this afternoon at 3 o'clock.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 25.

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP

(TAXATION MEASURES) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention

to the amendment on the order paper in my name, a proposed amendment to

section 1 –– I move that amendment. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wondering if the minister could succinctly give us the rationale for this amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The rationale for this amendment is that should a property inadvertently be omitted from the roll, it could be covered.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the

section of the legislation that I

wish to see amended, on behalf of our caucus. Our concern is, as I've

already expressed in debate on second reading, that for municipalities

to avail themselves of some of the more useful components of this

legislation they have to get into a tax-relief or tax-giveaway system.

I believe that is somewhat of a blackmail kind of clause. I think it

would be very useful that that prerequisite of giving tax relief not be

compulsory, and if this minister wishes to benefit those municipalities

who are not in a position financially to give such tax relief — do not

have the reserves — then I think it would be useful that this

particular amendment be amended to take out that compulsion.

I have discussed this with many elected officials at the local level

and,

whereas they have some doubts and apprehensions about the

downstream costs of tax relief in terms of putting the infrastructure

in place — the ongoing maintenance costs for industrial development —

they believe that some of the components, as I outlined before in this,

whereby the province will cost-share the 50 percent on municipal and

economic development officers or expenses of local volunteer and

economic development committees, economic development promotions and

market research on economic development, are something that we have

been suggesting for some time in this Legislature. However, we don't

feel that the prerequisite for municipalities to avail themselves of

those aspects of this legislation should be tied to tax giveaways.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to

this section, the amendment standing in my name to

section 2, by adding

the following subsection: "(

c) notwithstanding any provision of this or

any other act, every municipality shall be eligible to participate in

economic development programs of the government."

I will also be recommending that we strike

section 5 of Bill 25. That is also included in this particular amendment to the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, Mr. Member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated the rationale for.... Oh, sorry. Does the minister wish to speak?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this amendment for the simple reason....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment: was the member deferring to the minister?

MR. BLENCOE: I was going to speak to my amendment, which is usually normal under the....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Victoria had been recognized, Mr. Minister.

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take much time. I think I've already

indicated why I think the amendment is a positive move for local

government: it will allow municipalities to opt

[ Page 5786 ]

for participation in the various economic

development programs without committing themselves to industrial tax

cuts. I think such flexibility in legislation for local government is a

useful tool.

The minister has already indicated he is not going to support the

amendment. That's unfortunate, because nearly everybody I have talked

to in local government over the last few weeks about this legislation

suggest that they wish this flexibility. As I've already indicated, if

the minister and the government are serious about seeing municipalities

develop their own economic development strategies, or create economic

development committees or economic development promotions, those

municipalities who do not have the financial resources to consider tax

relief on new developments, or new development on existing industry,

should not be compelled to give tax relief. I think that's only fair.

[10:15]

Everybody I've talked to on this issue believes this is a positive

amendment to the legislation. I would hope that the minister would see

it as a process that will be useful. It has come through my extensive

consultation with local government that they would like to see such an

amendment, and it gives the flexibility that the minister says he

wishes to give local government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this

amendment. First of all, with the exception of the northern part of our

province, we have spoken to over a thousand people representing

municipalities throughout the province, and there is overwhelming

support for the program as it is written. It is true that one

municipality has suggested that they are not bound to that portion of

the agreement. That municipality, of course, is the city of Vancouver,

and they have been advised that we are not prepared to change the

agreement. The agreement has been well accepted throughout the province.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 15

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Stupich

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Rose

MacWilliam

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS 27

Waterland

Brummet

Segarty

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

R. Fraser

Parks

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Davis

Reid

Veitch

Reynolds

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I would be remiss if I didn't

raise under this

section a concern that has been expressed very vigorously by

one of the municipalities within my constituency. It's all very well to

have these programs introduced if the municipal councils involved can in fact

afford to have them, but there are many municipalities.... I think the minister

is aware of a letter that has come in from the village of Cumberland with respect

to their views on this particular program.

The people in Cumberland feel that the program that has been

announced by the minister is not going to benefit them in any way,

shape or form. They have expressed great disappointment in the program

in that they cannot participate, because they don't have the basic

funding or the basic services in order to entice any industry, new

business or new development into that community. Mr. Chairman, the

minister, I'm sure, has received a plea from Cumberland saying that

this program should enable municipalities, in partnership with the

government, to develop the services that are necessary so that they can

entice industries in at some time in the future.

What's the point of having a program like this when communities that

are already financially strapped cannot hope to participate? This is

the concern that I would like to bring to the minister this morning on

behalf of my constituents in Cumberland. They need water lines, sewer

programs, sidewalks built and roads repaired. They need all of these

things, Mr. Chairman, before they can over hope to have any expansion

of the industries and businesses within that community of Cumberland.

They had written to the minister saying: "Please take us into

account. Please ensure that we will be able to borrow sufficient money

in order to do the necessary things so that we can participate in this

program as well." They're disappointed. They're angry. As they say,

what new business, what new industry is going to come into the village

of Cumberland and start putting in water lines, sewer mains, and

everything else before they can even locate? I would like the minister

to comment on that particular concern from that community. Because of

the cutbacks over the years, that community is so financially strapped

that it can't even consider participating in this program.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there is something in this

program for every community in British Columbia. I guess it's a

question of what comes first, the chicken or the egg. Are you going to

go ahead and borrow and spend in all of these public works ahead of

doing something to stimulate the economy, which will generate the funds

from which the municipalities all benefit through revenue-sharing? The

thrust of this legislation is to stimulate economic renewal and

development at the local level, and by doing so you start to generate

income for the province from which that same municipality would benefit

through the revenue-sharing.

I think a very good example of what has been happening out there is

the community of Sechelt, where the representatives from Sechelt that

attended the meeting in Victoria announcing the program went back to

council and said, as this member has just said: "There's nothing in it

for us. There's nothing in it for small communities." That same member

was at a workshop meeting — I believe it was in Kimberley — and stood

up and said: "You know, I feel just a little bit embarrassed because I

went back to my council after hearing of the program in Victoria and I

said there was nothing in it for us. Council decided that they weren't

going to participate." She said: "Now that I have had an opportunity to

hear from the minister and from his staff, I see now that there is

indeed something for our community. I will be

[ Page

5787 ]

going back to my council to recommend that indeed they reverse that decision."

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will tell Cumberland and all other

municipalities, as I have told you just now in this House, that indeed

there is something in here for them. Cumberland will be given the

opportunity to meet with people from my ministry to help them discover

the parts of this program that can be beneficial to them.

MR. MITCHELL: As our debate leader has indicated, we are

going to be supporting the bill, but not because we really feel that it

is a municipal partnership at all. It's really, as one of the aldermen

in my riding stated, a form of blackmail.

Within the Esquimalt municipality there are a majority who want to

vote against the bill, but they do want to participate in the economic

development officers for the regional area. This is the important part.

We cannot allow municipalities to start getting into a game playing one

municipality against the other. The progressive idea of the Esquimalt

municipality is that they want to go in and work as the Capital

Regional District to develop economic potential in the area as a whole.

They are more than happy to work with the Capital Regional District,

and they want to make sure that the money that is available for the

development officers is there. So they are going to support it, because

they feel that they are being blackmailed into something that is

political hype.

Now the amendment that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe)

proposed was a positive amendment. I know I can't refer to that

amendment, because that has already been voted on. But what it did was

recognize the good parts, the positive parts of the economic

development that is needed in British Columbia to diversify our

industries. It's something that I have been saying in this House every

year that I've been here: we must diversify and have economic

development. These are some of the ideas that are contained in the bill.

I know it's one more number that will be on the list, and that the

minister will say all these municipalities are supporting him. They are

supporting him in parts, but they do have that gut feeling, Mr.

Chairman, that they are being blackmailed, that they are being forced

into something that they don't.... There isn't any real incentive or

land available in a bedroom community that is going to bring in new

industry that will not work in opposition to those industries that have

carried the load when times were tough. And they don't want to go

in.... They don't want to bring in a new organization or new industry

that is going to run in competition with industrial firms that have

held on, that have paid their way.

[10:30]

They don't want to see, as one lawyer friend of mine in municipal government

said.... What it's doing is giving a lot of new business to lawyers

who may be reforming or restructuring an existing company so they become a new

company, so they can come under the benefits of cheaper taxes. You know, he

says, "Maybe as a lawyer I should be supporting it, " but as an elected

alderman he has to look after and speak for all those who are in industries

— to protect all of them, and not to play games. This is our main objection:

that the bill is not there for positive ideas. It is there as a kind of a forced

media hype that we're going into partnership. We're not going into partnership.

They're going into blackmailing.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, experience tells me that

indeed there is limited negative response to this, but usually the

politics come through. The member, of course, I would think, is

speaking more for Esquimalt, where one alderman did come on the air

while I was there and say that he was opposed to it for various

reasons. But he admitted at the same time that he hadn't read it,

hadn't seen it and really didn't know anything about it. So I cannot

waste much time with those who are opposed to something they don't know

anything about.

Now we're not talking about bribery here at all. We're talking about

a volunteer program. There is not under any circumstances going to be a

time when a municipality will be told that they must join. I have made

it clear that it is entirely voluntary. If they don't wish to be

involved, I will not take time to try and twist their arm, because we

have too many — 87 up until Tuesday of this week — who have expressed

interest. We have too many that really want to get on with the job.

Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about giving away taxes at all.

Again, that's an indication of not understanding what the legislation

says. We're talking about postponing additional taxes that will come on

stream after this program expires.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that that member there will really look at this

program, look at the volunteer part of it, look at the partnership role

that it plays, and understand that we're not talking about asking

municipalities to give any tax income away at all. We're talking about

postponing taxes until the program ends, or they may decide to do

otherwise. They may decide to phase in, phase out or whatever —

tremendous flexibility.

MR. MITCHELL: I guess one who has negotiated many

agreements.... An agreement is something that you mutually agree to.

You take the areas that you are in agreement with and that you accept:

that's a partnership. A partnership is not something that you either

take all of or you get nothing. There are sections in the legislation

that will cover one municipality 100 percent. But there are other

municipalities that are still part of British Columbia that should be

in a partnership, and that partnership should be that they are allowed

to sit down and negotiate from their position, from their

circumstances, from their land base. Remember that some of these

municipalities, like Esquimalt, have been municipalities since 1912.

They have carried the load, they have been the industrial base for the

shipyard industry for British Columbia through two wars. We do have

some industrial base; we do have some stake in British Columbia.

The minister comes along and says: "We know everything, and you

either take it all or you take none." We say that a real partnership

exists when the minister and the government will sit down and work and

negotiate with each municipality, to give some of the benefits that are

involved in this package, so that the local government can make the

decision about what they want to utilize and what is going to be

beneficial to that particular location. That's all we're saying.

A partnership is a partnership. A partnership is not something where

the big guy says: "You sign this the way I've written it, or you don't

sign at all." That's what we're saying is wrong with this particular

attitude, and I think that the attitude of the government is what's

lacking — the attitude of true partnership. True partnership is sitting

down and agreeing on the issues that you agree on and signing those,

not to be

[ Page 5788 ]

hoodwinked or to be pushed into going along with

the government because they are the boss and they are the biggest. The

worst

part is that they have all the money tucked away in Victoria

where they have centralized it, and no one else is going to get it

unless they sing to their song-sheet and dance to their tune.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the agreement is an agreement

of offer to enter into the partnership. The member fails to recognize

that the province is also going to be committed to forgoing 50 percent

of the non-residential tax. So you have an offsetting factor there. In

addition to that, there are many other components to this program that

will be provided by the provincial government.

The other component, and the one that this member seems to neglect

to talk about, is the economics of it — the great potential for new job

creation. Those are the things that you should be zeroing in on. Those

are the things that you should be highlighting, not being negative and

attempting to leave the impression that this has been imposed. No such

thing; it's strictly voluntary. Considerable discussion took place with

the community, with the UBCM, and certainly when the discussions first

opened we had the proposed agreement all thought out. But we listened,

Mr. Chairman. We have been listening and we have been talking; we have

talked to over a thousand people. The reason for some of these

amendments today is that we have been listening.

Let's not forget the real thrust of this legislation — to create new jobs for our people.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a number of questions, but it comes to my

mind that if we are really developing what the minister wishes to call

partnership and cooperation, part of that could be within this very

legislative chamber. We have suggested what we think a very good

amendment, which we think is supported by the majority of local

councils and municipalities that may or may not participate in this

legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where's your amendment?

MR. BLENCOE: I've already moved it. You got here late.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Victoria will please address his comments to the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps you have the same words for the member for Columbia River.

What I'm trying to say is that not only are we trying to develop a

partnership with the municipalities and the provincial government, but

let's not forget, in that atmosphere of trying to achieve some

cooperation within this chamber, that this side of the House represents

750,000 people in the last election. Mr. Chairman, there is an

opportunity here....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I rise on point of order. I realize

that the young second member for Victoria hasn't been in the chamber all

that long, but I wist someone would remind him that in committee stage we are

dealing with a very narrow range of debate oriented specifically to particular

clauses of the bill. Perhaps if he would understand that, he would confine his

remarks somewhat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point with respect to the narrow range of debate specific on the

section is well taken.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a

partnership act and municipal participation. What I am suggesting is

that also, if we are talking about partnership and cooperation, there

is a fact that can be made and even talked to in this section. That is

that this side of the House represents 46 to 47 percent of the

population of British Columbia, and I think it would have been in the

interest of all British Columbians to accept suggestions for some

changes to this legislation in an atmosphere of conciliation and

cooperation. That's what we are suggesting...

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR.BLENCOE: ...and what do we have? We once again have a

negative government that won't listen to any change from this side of

the House. That is most unfortunate. I don't think British Columbians

want to see that, Mr. Chairman. I think they would like to have seen

some partnership between the two sides of this House on this

legislation, given that we represent a considerable proportion of the

population of British Columbia. But again we have a negative government

that won't listen to change, won't listen to suggestions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member

had ample opportunity to carry on this type of debate during second

reading of the bill. Surely, in the interest of the business of the

House, he could obey the rules of the House and confine his debate to

the section, which he has not been doing. He's been talking about a

general political position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. You should confine yourself to the specific elements in

section 2, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think the points are well made and I think British Columbians understand the points that I'm trying to make.

I'd like to ask a specific question of the minister. He keeps saying

that there is great interest, and he referred to it in his discussion

of this section. I think he said 87 municipalities have expressed some

kind of interest. Could the minister tell us this morning how many have

actually signed? We've had this piece of legislation now....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. member, we're dealing with the specifics in

section a 2. The Chair

must remind you for the second time....

MR. BLENCOE: I would also remind the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order.

[ Page

5789 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there is no time for a point of

order when the Chair is cautioning you. The Chair has asked you to deal

with the specifics in

section 2 — for the second time.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister mentioned how many had shown interest — he said that on

section 2. I'm asking him how many have signed.

[10:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, doesn't that member realize

that you cannot sign official documents without the legislation having

been passed? That's why we're anxious to get on with this.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll rephrase my question. How many of those 87 have indicated to the minister that they are waiting at his door to sign?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty-seven.

MR. BLENCOE: How many?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, if we can have that member's

cooperation and that of his colleagues today, and pass this today, our

first official signing will take place in that great community of Trail

on Monday. Immediately after that we will have 40.... We now have 40

who have passed the resolution. Some signed letters of intent. The

first official signing will be Monday, and from there on we know that

we have 40 ready to sign up.

MR. BLENCOE: Again on this section, I ask the minister: how

many have requested to be able to utilize only those sections of the

legislation that refer to economic development officers, local

volunteers, committees, promotion aspects of this legislation. How many

have asked for just those components?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Vancouver has not as yet indicated their

decision. They have commended the Premier for the leadership that the

program is giving. They are the only one that has clearly said they

would like to enter into the agreement without that portion 1. We have

possibly two or three others who have hinted that maybe it would be

more acceptable to them if that portion wasn't there, but it's

overwhelming that the agreement in its entirety is being very well

received.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the order paper — to sections 3(a), 3(

b) and 3(c). [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps the minister can give us the background and the

rationale for these amendments — his

interpretation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The reason for these amendments, of course,

is to add more flexibility to the program. Again we're talking about

amendments that have been arrived at as a result of the communications

we've been having throughout the province with municipalities. Only

yesterday I received a letter, the last one received, requesting this

sort of flexibility.

What this does is allow a municipality to enter into an agreement by

parcel. It allows the municipality to have a variety of tax adjustments

and to enter into an agreement for phasing out the tax relief. It just

adds a greater flexibility to the entire program. It also covers an

existing building within an industrial park that has been vacated — at

least 50 percent of it — for the past six months.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm particularly interested in the last section.

Is the minister saying that an entrepreneur who wishes to reopen a

shut-down industry — it's a dormant industrial structure.... If it's

been shut down for just six months, then this will allow them to

reopen? Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I was slightly ahead of myself there. We

will deal with that in the additional amendment that it is on the order

paper —

section 3.1.

MR. BLENCOE: That's what I thought, Mr. Minister.

Just a general comment on the amendments coming forward today. I

think we've got the amendments before us because there has been lack of

proper consultation — the partnership theme — beforehand. If the

minister had worked it out.... I'm sure that all kinds of other things

are going to come up as local councils look more closely at this

legislation. There are also going to be all sorts of other unique and

innovative ideas that this minister could have utilized. But because he

did it in Victoria behind closed doors, with no consultation — or very

little consultation — with those to be affected by this legislation,

today we have amendments trying to band-aid this particular piece of

legislation. If he'd entered into sincere and real consultation we

would have had apiece of legislation that I don't think would have

looked like this. Well, we probably wouldn't have had it because it

might have been positive; we would have had some legislation that

really reflects what local government desires and what they feel are

the major components of real partnership.

What we have here are a few band-aids, because there was not the

proper consultation with local government, I suspect that as local

councils look at this legislation and try to convince the minister that

there are other ways to go, they will have all sorts of other ideas. He

is doing his consultation the wrong way. He said it in Newcombe

Auditorium, quite categorically: "If you're not interested, we don't

want to talk to you." Out front he stated that. That's the kind of

attitude, the kind of treatment, this minister and this government have

given local government. This process is the wrong way. It is reversed

to the way it should be. We wouldn't have to have a number of patchwork

band-aid amendments on a piece of legislation that was constructed by,

I don't know who; but it certainly wasn't done in true partnership and

consultation with local government.

That is why I have proposed some motions for real partnership and

real consultation to rebuild local governments in British Columbia. We

are concerned about this government's continuing attitude to local

government and the process that it

[ Page 5790 ]

puts in place; and we'll continue to say that. We

wouldn't have to have these last-minute amendments if the minister had

done his job properly; if he had consulted properly and had really

believed in and looked up the dictionary meaning of "partnership."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke

has indeed attended many of these meetings, including the UBCM

convention. But apparently he totally missed the theme of the last UBCM

convention, which was "community with emphasis on unity." This minister

has spent considerable time out there communicating with

municipalities. We have learned from that. We have learned that this is

the approach that they want. They have been asking for the ability to

give some tax relief. We have had requests from the communities for

this opportunity to give tax relief. When we brought in the variable

mill rate, that was at the request of municipalities. These amendments

are not technical. These amendments are in here as a result of our

communications, as a result of all the meetings that we have been

having — and of the workshop meetings we have been having all over the

province, at which, as I have already indicated, we spoke to over a

thousand people. These were all very well-attended meetings, all very

positive, and they were all very positive about the entire program.

The member, I am sure, would be critical the other way today if we

hadn't had these amendments, some of which have been requested by the

community. He would be lambasting us because we didn't bring them in.

So I just want that member to know that there has been tremendous

cooperation; there has been two-way communication.

The member forgets that many good things start with an idea

somewhere. You put that idea together; then you take it out and you

talk to the people about it. That is what we have done. As a result of

that talking with the people, we have found the need for these

amendments which further enhance the program according to their desires.

MR. BLENCOE: That makes my very point. If you had talked

beforehand.... What you have learned is your lesson. You did something

without consultation and now you've had to do some.... Because you

listened you finally did some cooperation. Fine! Terrific! What I am

suggesting to you is that in the future, when you bring in legislation

that's based on partnership, you read the dictionary meaning of

partnership.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this

member has been advised a number of times this morning that he should

be discussing specific sections of the bill. He is standing here and

lecturing the minister on his means of operation rather than debating

the bill. Would you please bring him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member will debate the specifics of the section.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's nice to see the Minister of Forests so concerned

about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and defending him so, I might say, capably

— but I don't particularly want to go quite that far. A few minutes ago

the minister said "unity" — that's what this legislation is all

about — and he was referring to this particular section. As I've already

categorically said, this legislation flies in the face of unity. It's not

going to create unity at all. It breaks up municipal cooperation — gets them

fighting discount wars. We already know that some municipalities are having

to say: "Well, one municipality is going 60; we'll have to go 65 percent"

— or whatever. It's not a bill for unification.

The other point, Mr. Minister, is that you say these municipalities

have asked for the ability to give tax breaks. Well, that's fine, but

why make it compulsory for every municipality to give tax relief?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They have to to get the other components they

may wish to participate in. Why not make it for those municipalities

that wish to give a tax break — and so be it; they make that choice?

Why not allow that to happen? Why make tax breaks compulsory for every

single municipality?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am having difficulty assessing

the viability of you debating the principle of the whole bill. It's the

amendment to

section 3, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: I am responding to the minister's statement that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, two wrongs would not make a right. Please deal with the....

MR. BLENCOE: Well then, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Please deal with the amendment to the section.

MR. BLENCOE: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you bring the minister up when he goes off the topic.

What I am saying is: why not allow municipalities that wish to give

tax relief under municipal participation to do it? If they don't want

to do it, that's the way to go. Let them choose; let them have their

flexibility. This is not doing that at all, Mr. Chairman. It's

compulsion, and that's not partnership or cooperation.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 3 as amended approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the order paper introducing

section 3.1. [See appendix.]

section 3.1.

MR. BLENCOE: I am just going back to.... The minister stated

that he jumped the gun on talking about dormant industrial structures.

Perhaps he would give the specifics on that aspect.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm very willing to, Mr. Chairman. We have,

again as a result of listening to our municipalities, realized that

there are existing buildings in industrial parks which are standing

vacant, and therefore we have been asked to consider an amendment that

would indeed put those

[ Page 5791 ]

buildings to use. The amendment allows for the tax

benefit on those where 50 percent of the building has been vacant for a

period of six months or more.

MR. BLENCOE: I think this is a good move, and it's something

that we have suggested; it has come through to us that it gives a break

to existing industry that has struggled through the recession.

Consequently, we support it.

I just wonder why the minister is really tying it down to six

months. You know, the recession.... This government has been in office

more than six months, and we've had some real problems in this province

because of certain policies. Why would they limit it to six months? I

think the scope should be a little broader. Maybe the minister could

just expand on that.

[11:00]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's very simple, Mr. Chairman. The

building could have been vacant for 20 years. We say six months because

we feel that it should be vacant for at least a six-month period. We

have had suggestions made that some people could play little games by

closing down and wanting to start up again under this program. We feel

that by placing the six-month period in there we would prevent that

from happening.

Amendment approved.

Section 3.1 approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. BLENCOE: On the proposed amendment to the bill, if you

noticed, I also added that we strike

section 5 of this particular piece

of legislation. Again, I think the industrial electricity rate discount

has some merit; however, again, I don't think a prerequisite to

achieving the industrial electricity discount should be once again the

tax relief or the tax giveaway. I think if this is a useful component

of this partnership, Mr. Chairman, then it should stand alone. I don't

think it should be again a blackmail sort of situation, where you have

to give money away in one hand, and participate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we note your amendment, and you

were kind enough to copy us with it, but we also note that it would not

be in order in that it would alter the principle of the bill. You would

have to vote against that particular

section if you wanted to oppose it.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 25, Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 25. Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES

AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR, CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, Bill 26 is essentially an

amendment. I guess it could be deemed to be an amendment to the

amendment bill, Bill 46, which, of course, amends the Legislative

Assembly Allowances and Pensions Act. So Bill 26 was brought on on the

basis of a careful review of the provisions contained in Bill 46.

Really, after that careful review it has been deemed appropriate that

there be a downward revision in compensation. The bill is a simple one,

very clear, and I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is noted for his

brevity, and I note his brevity again today. I suggest that this is a

partial amendment to Bill 46. There is one aspect of Bill 46 that I

don't see covered in this particular amendment, and that's the amending

section 9 that I suspected would occur.

Section 9, I believe, in the

old Bill 46 refers to parliamentary secretaries. I note that an

order-in-council has been passed — illegally — on that section. But I

guess that's a government prerogative under these circumstances.

The whole thing is a mess. What our leader asked for, suggested, and

has been doing so since 1976, is a new system of formulating

Legislative Assembly allowances and expenses, etc; that is with an

independent tribunal at arm's length from the Legislature, appointed by

the Legislature. Under those circumstances it strikes me that we would

not be forever damned by whoever is critical of what an elected person

earns or the expenses with which he or she is confronted. That's what

we ask now. We say: "Let's get this whole question outside of the

Legislature."

Three years ago, when we received a 10 percent cut, there was nobody

out there on the parliamentary steps weeping and wailing. But when it

goes the other way, then all heck breaks loose.

MR. ROSE: What's that "heck" all about?

MR. COCKE: That's a euphemistic statement.

Mr. Speaker, it's time now that we should review the whole process

and get it out of the Legislative Assembly altogether. I can think, for

example, who the tribunal.... It should not be name people; it should

be name positions. For example, the Chief Justice of the province could

chair it and

[ Page 5792 ]

possibly the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour could sit on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Munro.

MR. COCKE: I don't think he's president at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to decide or to suggest who they could be,

but people whose positions are completely at arm's length could be

empowered to come up not only with the suggestions but with the ability

to implement. That could be provided in legislation. Then we would not

only be properly looking after events with respect to our own

allowances but we would be seen to be in that position.

Under the circumstances I can't see how we on this side of the House

could possibly vote for this bill. Once again it is an arbitrary

decision made by the government. I think the government would be better

served, and so do my colleagues, taking the whole question right out of

the Legislative Assembly. I believe that all assemblies should be

looking at this particular direction. Some already do.

It's high time we were doing something different than what we've

been doing, and it's high time that something different from what we've

been going through occurred so that we needn't go through these kinds

of situations again. It's unfair to the public. I think it's unfair to

us, and I think that that's the way we could better serve the future

respect of this assembly from the public perception standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I think I've said all we on this side

of the House can say, which is that we can't support this amendment

based on the fact that it should be at arm's length from the

Legislative Assembly.

[11:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take the member's comments under consideration. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Segarty

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Pelton

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

Parks

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Reid

Ree

Veitch

NAYS — 14

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Stupich

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Brown

Rose

Lockstead

MacWilliam

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Bill 26, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1985, read

a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: May I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have in our gallery today

that great candidate in the last election for the Social Credit Party

in Vancouver East. I do hope the member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Williams) is trembling in his boots today. I'm sure that all members

would like to bid special welcome to Mr. Mario Caravetta.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 37: minister's office, $206,025.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the estimates for the

Ministry of Health for the 1985-86 fiscal year would give a clear

indication of the financial dimensions of our comprehensive health care

system, which we consider to be among the best anywhere, and which we

hold out as perhaps the most comprehensive health care system in Canada.

As members will note, the total amount that the committee will be

asked to vote for the ministry is two and two-thirds billion dollars.

When the amount paid directly to the ministry in the form of premiums

in our medical services plan is added — that's about $347 million — the

ministry's total budget in direct spending will exceed the $3 billion

mark. Ten years ago $3 billion was the total amount of the provincial

budget.

Managing a budget of this size imposes special responsibilities.

With the Health ministry accounting for in excess of 30 percent of the

total provincial budget, very prudent management is required to ensure

that the demands of the health system do not take over and smother the

legitimate demands of many other worthwhile government endeavours and

programs. I can assure members that the ministry has a most capable

management team.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention the appreciation of Peter

Bazowski, who recently retired after four years as Deputy Minister of

Health and a very long and successful career in the public service. The

result of Peter's efforts as the top manager of the Health ministry is

seen in the more efficient and cost-effective health care delivery

system in the province. I'm confident there will be continuity at the

top in the Health ministry, with the duties of deputy minister being

taken over by Mr. Stan Dubas, who served as senior assistant deputy

minister during the past four years and had a very important role to

play in the significant changes which have taken place over the past

number of years.

In its role as the principal manager of the health care system, the

Ministry of Health is a partner of the many diverse elements of the

system which directly provide care to British Columbians. There are

certain services in which the ministry is a direct provider —

preventive services and mental health programs. In other areas, such as

hospital programs and physician services, the ministry's role is that

of a funding agency and policymaker. In a system which directly employs

about 75,000 people in British Columbia, a broad spectrum of

professional and occupational specialists, there is bound to be

conflict at certain times. Institutions and professional groups guard

their jurisdictions zealously. Sometimes the minister is expected to

act as referee between competing

[ Page

5793 ]

interests; at other times the group or institutions themselves may be at odds with the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, while I am outlining the scope of our ministry, I

would also like to recognize the attendance today in the galleries of

the Hon. Andrew Mensaros, who is a member of the legislative assembly

for Western Australia. Mr. Mensaros is visiting Victoria, and I would

like to recognize his presence here today.

Despite the impressions of permanent combat which appear frequently

in the headlines, the reality behind the scenes is that these groups

I've been speaking of are partners in a system which provides for

nearly all the health care requirements of British Columbians. This

reality is recognized by those partners. When you strip away the

rhetoric and the public posturing, you'll find that the ministry and

the various professional and institutional groups enjoy a very good and

close relationship. The system simply could not function otherwise.

As I mentioned, one of the ministry's main roles is that of a

funding agency for most of the health system, which brings us to this

year's estimates. They call for an increase of $126 million over the

comparable 1984-85 figures. That would be about a 5 percent increase.

There are always demands for expansion of services — many competing

demands — but in our current economic conditions, with the province

rebuilding its economy to hopefully a full recovery from the tough

years of the early eighties, I think to maintain current service levels

is a very reasonable objective.

Careful management of the funds allocated for health services has

been a significant achievement of the ministry over the past several

years. With one notable exception the ministry has operated within

budget. The exception has been the Medical Services Plan, which has

operated on an open ended basis. The total amount spent has been

determined entirely by the number of services provided to the plan's

subscribers. Rapid growth in utilization of the plan has meant

expenditures have consistently exceeded the amount budgeted.

There is every possibility that this situation may become a thing of

the past. The ministry has negotiated an agreement with the medical

profession which calls for government and the profession to share

responsibility for future growth in the utilization of services. Under

the agreement we've recognized that population growth will lead to some

increases in the use of services, and we've allowed for a 1.5 percent

increase in the budget. A further 2 percent increase has been allowed

for utilization increases resulting from such factors as the

demographics of the province, the aging of the population and some

technical changes in medical procedures. In the event that the Medical

Services Plan budget is exceeded, the medical profession will absorb

increases of up to 4 percent. That will be done over adjustments in the

fee schedule. We hope and believe the plan will remain within budget,

making such adjustments unnecessary. We have some reason to believe we

will not exceed that budget this year. But we do have a slight padding

of 4 percent, which is a considerable amount of money. Estimates before

the committee in vote 39, projected total budget for the Medical

Services Plan of $936 million, include the 3.5 percent I mentioned.

In connection with the Medical Services Plan, I should mention that the ministry

has profound concerns about the impact that British Columbia's considerable

supply of physicians has on that plan and the budget. The ministry has attempted

to come to grips with this phenomenon, recognizing that the province has, in

our judgment, at least 300 more physicians than are required to provide a good

level of care. Those 300 physicians would cost the plan approximately $50 million.

[11:30]

Attempts to reduce the oversupply through controls on medical

practitioner numbers, which entitle physicians to bill the plan, were

quite successful since we introduced that in late 1983. In fact, 135

fewer doctors received numbers in 1984 than in 1983. As members are

aware, I recently introduced legislation which we believe would ensure

that practitioner number controls will continue. I believe the process

will play an important role in keeping our costs within affordable

limits.

Mr. Chairman, preventive programs tend to have a low profile until

there is a public scare about the possible outbreak of a communicable

disease. Fortunately, that type of scare is almost without foundation,

thanks in a very large part to the quality of preventive health

measures and the people in the field. The use of preventive programs in

B.C. has ensured that the vast majority of our children are immunized

against serious communicable diseases, that standards of hygiene

affecting our public water and food supplies are regularly monitored,

and that the orderly development of our communities takes into account

public health concerns.

Some of the traditional public health measures have served us well

for some time, and they are becoming increasingly important as

pressures on the environment increase. But along with these more

traditional programs the ministry is working on other developments to

promote better health. The ministry's health promotion branch is

engaged in five pilot programs, each aimed at improving the health of a

specific target group. By focusing on known health problems in these

groups rather than taking a broad-brush approach aimed at the entire

population, we hope to come up with some effective and cost-effective

solutions dealing with those problems.

For the interest of the members, the five programs we are now

working on, which are pilot projects, include reducing the incidence of

low-birth-weight babies in high-risk groups who have not taken

advantage of existing prenatal programs; improving the health and

independence of senior citizens through increased activity and better

health practices; preventing back injuries in hospital workers;

encouraging junior high school students not to start smoking; and

reducing obesity in students at the grade 6 level. All these projects

ultimately rely on the concept of the individual taking more

responsibility for their own personal health. They are designed for

application in other settings throughout the province, after being

tested in specific communities. The general approach is to develop

programs that can be delivered through various existing community

resources such as schools, senior citizens' groups and volunteer health

associations. The groups would be assisted by the various instructional

and promotional technicians, and they would be advised of the

techniques and materials which would be available for them.

Vote 40 also covers a range of services grouped under the title of

community care services. These include vital statistics, forensic

psychiatric services, alcohol and drug programs and mental health

services. Again, Mr. Chairman, the funding budgeted would allow the

current levels of service to be maintained.

[ Page 5794 ]

The lion's share of the ministry's budget is found under vote 41,

institutional services, at approximately $1.8 billion this year. Most

of that, of course, is earmarked for the province's hospital system. It

allows the hospitals to operate 11,400 acute-care beds, the same level

of service as last year.

During the past year B.C. hospitals have coped well, although a few

incidents created dramatic headlines — but we anticipate and expect

that. For example, there was great consternation when Vancouver General

Hospital announced the temporary closure of beds. There were

predictions of dire consequences — the usual rather silly statement

that seems to be standard, that people will die in the halls. In fact,

there was very little impact on the level of services provided, and the

waiting lists did not lengthen.

Vancouver General Hospital, by the way, has just been awarded a

three-year accreditation, which is the highest possible evaluation by

the hospital industry. St. Paul's Hospital recently received a similar

rating, as have other major B.C. hospitals. I think that speaks highly

about the ability of hospital management and staff to cope with

resources when they're not as freely available as they have been in the

past.

In fact, the ministry has enhanced its ability to analyze the

performance of hospitals, and some of the resulting statistics really

have brought certain matters to the attention of many and have been

very useful.

During 1984 the ministry has asked hospitals to monitor the time

patients have waited for non-emergency surgery. Hospitals are requested

to do this once every three months by checking the waiting time for

each patient who received surgery during a given week. The most recent

statistics were gathered during February from 14 of the largest

hospitals in the province.

Mr. Chairman, the statistics are most interesting. For inpatient

surgery the statistics show that 76 percent of patients had their

operations less than eight weeks after surgery was booked. That period

is considered optimal for efficient booking of operating rooms,

scheduling of staff, patients' convenience and the availability of the

physicians involved. The figures are: four out of five patients waited

less than eight weeks for surgery; 17.6 percent waited between eight

and 16 weeks; and 6.5 percent had to wait more than 16 weeks. The

statistics for day surgery paint a similar picture: 85 percent had

their operations performed in less than eight weeks.

I would suggest that it's evident that the waiting periods are not

what some of the headlines would suggest, but by focusing on isolated

cases and presenting them as typical, the argument that certain

situations are desperate sometimes appears to be reasonable. Such is

not the case. There will always be exceptions, of course.

But these so-called crisis situations are inevitably accompanied by

demands that the whole problem could be solved by throwing more money

at it — a great deal of money. I think almost without exception those

cries for more money can often be traced to people who have absolutely

no idea where the money even comes from. Money is by no means a panacea

for health care problems.

One approach which we are gratefully borrowing from our friends in Ontario,

while not costly, will probably prove to be very beneficial. I'd like to

just fill the members in on this. Perhaps you have seen some information. In

Ontario they experimented with computer terminals at each of major hospitals

in a given area. They regularly update the picture on the availability of beds

in the emergency operating rooms in each facility. The local ambulance centre

also has a terminal.

The ambulance crews, then, communicating by radio with emergency

physicians at the designated hospitals, can be informed of the most

appropriate hospital immediately available to these emergency patients.

They can then head to that specific hospital.

Mr. Chairman, the ambulance dispatcher coordinator is aware at all

times of where a bed and a position suitable for the services required

by that patient would be, rather than perhaps going to the wrong

hospital and then being diverted. This approach was first tried in

Hamilton in a network of five hospitals. Prior to its introduction, the

Ontario Health ministry heard the same complaints others had had that

the only solution to these crowded emergency rooms was more and more

beds. The computerized emergency admission system was such a success in

Hamilton they were able to reduce the congestion without having to add

any beds. In fact, it was so successful it's being spread to six other

major cities in Ontario, including Metro Toronto.

The same system is being adapted for use in British Columbia. The

first installation will be open next month in Victoria. It'll connect

Royal Jubilee, Victoria General and Saanich Peninsula Hospitals. Once

the system is operating smoothly we will introduce it in other areas:

New Westminster, Coquitlam and the downtown Vancouver core.

Interestingly enough, the total cost for the three systems will be

about $50,000. The cost of operating one acute-care bed year round is

$120,000.

A story for the media, if they're listening: waiting lists for

open-heart surgery have been a high profile issue for many, many years.

After an analysis this past year, the statistics tell an interesting

story. The number of open-heart procedures being performed is steadily

increasing. In 1983 the figure had reached 1,722 operations, which was

up from 1,501 in 1982; there was a steady average in the 1,400 range

for several years before that. At the same time the waiting list has

dropped from 417 patients at the start of 1984 to 190 by the end of the

year. At St. Paul's Hospital and Royal Jubilee the waiting time for

open-heart surgery has been reduced to about two weeks. Hospitals have

been able to respond to the needs of the acutely ill by focusing

resources to meet specific demands such as open-heart surgery.

A steadily increased emphasis on day surgery has been another

approach. This was introduced in our hospitals in 1968. Now more than a

quarter of all surgery in B.C. is performed on a day basis, with the

patient discharged within 24 hours of admission. It relieves the

patient of the inconvenience of a hospital stay and costs approximately

one-third to one-half of a single day's in-patient stay.

A couple of other comments. During the past year I had the pleasure

of participating in the opening of two exceptionally fine hospital

facilities. One was the Eagle Ridge Community Hospital in Port Moody.

Another was the A. Maxwell Evans Clinic in Vancouver, which is the main

facility of the B.C. Cancer Control Agency. Among other things, the

increase in funds in vote 41 will provide full-year budgets for these

hospitals, which came on stream partway through the year.

Funding will also be provided to increase the number of

extended-care beds operated by our public hospitals to more than 7,000.

Ten years ago we had 4,000. The continuing care program is also within

vote 41. Funding for long-term care facilities will be increased to

accommodate the addition of two new intermediate-care facilities: a

50-bed unit in Oliver and a 130-bed unit which will open on the B.C.

Place site —

[ Page

5795 ]

not associated with B.C. Place, but on that site,

False Creek. Both will be operated by non-profit societies. Since the

continuing care program was introduced in 1978 as the longterm care

program, it's grown to a point where its budget is $300 million a year,

serving more than 55,000 British Columbians.

In both the facility care services and those services provided in

the home, about 85 percent of the clients are senior citizens. The

program is going to be even more essential as the age continues to

increase in our population. Seniors comprise approximately I I percent

of the population, but that group consumes approximately 35 percent of

the health care budget. Increasingly, the emphasis in continuing care

is toward the home support programs where care can be provided without

disrupting the client's life through institutionalization. The services

are less costly to provide than facility-based programs, which means

more clients can be served with the funds available.

I am confident that the funding allocated to the health ministry in

these estimates will enable the many providers of health programs in

B.C. to continue to offer a high standard of service to our citizens.

While the occasional controversy regarding a particular facility or an

individual patient is often allowed to overshadow the unsung,

day-to-day service provided through the province, I am convinced these

are the exception and not the rule.

[11:45]

There can be very few British Columbians who do not require one health service

or another during the course of a year, and I am sure the overwhelming majority

are very satisfied with that service and grateful to the health professionals

and workers who provide it.

Mr, Chairman, I look forward to remarks by members with respect to

the estimates. I will try to provide them the best answers available. I

would just like to say that we are very proud of our health care

services in the province, and that we are most fortunate in having a

very competent group of people offering these services to our citizens.

We are indeed a very fortunate people in British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to thank the minister for giving a

fairly detailed rundown of his ministry. That's always helpful to the

critics over here — or debate leaders or whatever we wish to be called

— when we have to reply.

I'll be starting off with some general remarks as the debate leader

for Health. Then I'll move into the area of hospitals, with some

specific remarks and questions for the minister in that area.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

25 The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 25) intituled Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1 , in paragraph (

b) of the definition of "eligible improvements" by deleting "entered on"

and substituting "entered on or eligible to be entered on".

SECTION 3 , (

a) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

"

(2) The exemption under subsection (1) shall be a percentage of the taxes that the council sets by bylaw, but

(

a) a bylaw shall not set a percentage of less than 50%, and

(

b) in respect of any eligible improvement for which the council

does not set a percentage in accordance with this section, the percentages is

50%.",

(

b) by adding the following subsection:

"

(2.1) A bylaw under subsection (2)(

a) may do all or any of the following:

(

a) set a uniform percentage in respect of all eligible improvements,

(

b) set a uniform percentage for each year,

(

c) set different percentages in respect of eligible improvements

situated on different parcels of land specified in the bylaw, and

(

d) set different percentages for different years,", and

(

c) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

"(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of an eligible improvement where

[ Page

5796 ]

(

a) the tax that would be payable in respect of that eligible

improvement if this

section were not in force is less than an amount prescribed

by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or

(

b) the assessed value of the eligible improvement is less than

an amount prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

SECTION 3.1 , by adding the following as

section 3.1: " Relief for vacant industrial buildings

" 3.1

(1) In this

section

'industrial building' means

a building in the industrial class of improvements prescribed under

section

26 of the Assessment Act ;

'tax' means tax payable under

section 273(

a) and (

b) of the Municipal Act or

section 373 of the Vancouver Charter.

"

(2) Where a municipality has entered into an

agreement, the council of the municipality may by bylaw reduce the tax

payable in respect of an industrial building where, during the entire 6

months immediately before the enactment of the bylaw, not less than 50%

of the floor area of the building has been vacant and unused.

"

(3) The percentage by which the tax on the

industrial building may be reduced under subsection (2) is a percentage

of not less than 50% nor more than 100%, set by the council for all

vacant buildings or for the particular building.

"

(4) A bylaw under this

section applies only in

respect of the calendar year in which it is enacted, and has no effect

unless it is adopted not later than May 15 of the calendar year in

respect of which it applies."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1986,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada