1987 Legislative Session: 1st 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, DECEMBER 14, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2985 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Feed Hungry School Children (Bill M209). Mr. Cashore

Introduction and first reading –– 2985

Tabling Documents –– 2985

Presenting Reports –– 2985

Oral Questions

Riverview Hospital and mental health care. Mr. Harcourt –– 2987

Privatization of liquor stores. Ms. A. Hagen –– 2988

Privatization of B.C. Hydro divisions. Mr. Clark –– 2988

Pacific Coast Salvage and Demolition Ltd. Ms. Marzari –– 2988

Subdivision of B.C. Place land. Ms. Marzari –– 2988

Cowichan Bay breakwater. Mr. Bruce –– 2989

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987 (Bill 68). Second reading

Hon. B.R. Smith –– 2989

Mr. Jones –– 2990

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 2991

Mr. Rose –– 2993

Mr. Harcourt –– 2994

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2995

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 60). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2995

Mr. Clark –– 2996

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2996

Assessment Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 67). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2996

Mr. Clark –– 2997

Mr. Blencoe –– 2998

Ms. Edwards –– 2998

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2998

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987 (Bill 68). Committee stage.

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2999

Mr. Clark

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Mr. Rose

Ms. A. Hagen

Mr. Cashore

Mr. Guno

Mr. Williams

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mrs. Johnston

Ms. Edwards

Ms. Smallwood

Mr. Jones

Hon. Mr. Brummet

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm pleased to advise the Legislative

Assembly that with us today is His Worship Norm McNee, the mayor of

Valemount. His Worship Mayor McNee is an employee of the Ministry of

Highways, and I see that he's here with one of his former employers

Graham Lea. Would the House please welcome both of them to the assembly.

MR. JONES: In the gallery today visiting Victoria is a

long-time Burnaby resident, Mrs. Esther Huebner. I know my colleagues

on both sides of the House would join me in welcoming her today.

MR. CRANDALL: I'd like to ask the House to welcome a good

supporter of mine and a long-term Social Credit supporter, my mother,

Barbara Crandall. She's in the gallery, and I'd appreciate your

welcoming her.

MR. CASHORE: I'd like to introduce my son. Ben Cashore, who

is visiting from Ottawa. He's a former Page in the House of Commons, a

political science grad from Carleton University in Ottawa and presently

a research assistant to Audrey McLaughlin, Member of Parliament for the

Yukon. I ask you to join me in welcoming my son Ben.

HON. MR. REID: I'd like the House to make a special welcome

to Mr. Sam Yamamoto from Seaward Construction. He has with him today in

the precincts some investors from the Pacific Rim. I also want to make

a special welcome to the newest car dealer in Victoria, Mr. Graham Lea.

MR. CLARK: I have the honour today to introduce to the House

Karnail Singh Doad, who is a member of the Legislative Assembly for the

Punjab in India. Mr. Doad is a solicitor by profession and was elected

as an independent. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Accompanying Mr. Doad today is Arjan Singh Ghuman, an associate of Mr. Doad's from Surrey.

MR. CHALMERS: From the great riding of Okanagan South, we

have special guests, three young ladies: my daughters Jennifer and

Nicole and my wife Rosalie. Would you please make them welcome.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I'd like to join my colleague from Vancouver

East in welcoming the two gentlemen: Mr. Doad and his associate from

Surrey. My constituents wouldn't welcome me in Surrey were I not to

join my colleague in welcoming the two gentlemen.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO FEED HUNGRY SCHOOL CHILDREN

MR. CASHORE: I move that a bill intituled

An Act to Feed Hungry School Children be introduced and read a first time now.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that children from low-income

families have adequate nutrition. Inadequate nutrition imperils a

child's opportunities to benefit from education and to enjoy good

health. Not a panacea, this bill begins to address the crucial issue of

child poverty in B.C. It applies to both public and private schools and

enables education authorities to supply schoolday meals to all

schoolchildren on income assistance without charge. It includes

children of other low-income families, ensures anonymity of pupils and

applies Canadian dietary standards to the program.

Poverty confronts all of us as the most urgent social issue. Mr.

Speaker, if we fail to address the issue of poverty, we do so at our

peril.

Bill M209 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.

[2:15]

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the 1986 annual report of the B.C. Assessment Authority.

Presenting Reports

Mr. Chalmers. Deputy Chairman of the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor-General,

presented a report, which was read as follows and received:

"Hon. members, I have the honour to present herewith

the report of the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor-General for

the province of British Columbia for the first session of the

thirty-fourth parliament.

"Respectfully submitted on behalf of the committee. Larry Chalmers, MLA. Deputy Chairman.

"Pursuant to

section 2(2) of the Auditor General Act,

a special committee of the Legislative Assembly is to unanimously

recommend to the assembly a person to be the auditor-general of the

province of British Columbia.

"In 1977 the office of the auditor-general was

established under the provisions contained in the Auditor General Act.

This report is the third recommendation to the Legislative Assembly.

"On Thursday, April 16, 1987, the Hon. C.S. Rogers, on

behalf of the Hon. W.B. Strachan, moved that a special committee of the

Legislature be appointed to recommend a person to be appointed as

auditor-general as provided under

section 2 of the Auditor General Act

and, if required, an acting auditor-general under

section 3 of the

Auditor General Act, and that the committee be composed of Mr. Hewitt,

convener, the Hon. Stephen Rogers, Messrs. Mercier, Rabbitt, Crandall

and Chalmers and Messrs. Stupich, Blencoe and Clark, and further that

the special committee so appointed have the following powers: (

a) to

appoint of their number one or more subcommittees and to refer to such

subcommittees any of the matters referred to the committee; (

b) to sit

during any period in which the House is adjourned and during any

sitting of the House, and to adjourn from place to place as may be

convenient; and shall report to the House on the matters referred to it

during this session or following any adjournment of the

[ Page 2986 ]

House or at the next following session as the case may be. The

motion was agreed to.

"At its organizational meeting on June 2, 1987, the

committee elected Mr. James J. Hewitt, MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, as

its chairman and Mr. Larry Chalmers, MLA for Okanagan South, as the

deputy chairman. A subcommittee consisting of Messrs. Hewitt, Chalmers

and Stupich was constituted for administrative purposes.

"The committee conducted 12 meetings in Victoria and

Vancouver on the following dates: Victoria, June 2, committee;

Victoria, June 30, committee; Victoria, August 12, subcommittee;

Richmond, August 26, committee; Vancouver, September 16,

chairman/consultant; Vancouver, September 23, committee; Victoria,

November 4, committee; Vancouver, November 13, chairman/consultant;

Victoria, December 2, committee; Victoria, December 3, committee;

Victoria, December 4, committee; Victoria, December 10, committee.

"After soliciting proposals from six management

consultants in the province, the committee decided to retain the

services of Stevenson Kellogg Ernst and Whinney of Vancouver to assist

in the candidate selection process. The committee prepared draft

position selection criteria upon which a systematic, accurate and fair

assessment of all candidates could be made. An advertisement prepared

and approved by the committee was placed in selected British Columbia

and Canadian newspapers in June of this year.

"As a result, the committee received 40 applications

for the position of auditor-general. The initial candidate evaluation

on the basis of the applications received was undertaken solely by the

committee. The committee requested that the consultant undertake a

preliminary screening by telephone of the candidates approved for

further consideration. Receiving the consultant's report on this phase

of the selection process, the committee approved a list of candidates

to be interviewed in person by the consultant. A short list of

candidates from the consultant's report on the interviews resulted in

seven individuals being interviewed by the committee on Wednesday,

December 2, and Thursday, December 3, of this year. On Thursday,

December 10, 1987, the committee reached a unanimous decision.

"Recommendation. After concluding the interviews, the

committee diligently considered the qualifications and assessed the

prospective impact upon the office of the auditor-general and the

requirements of the Legislative Assembly of the seven finalist

candidates.

"Your committee unanimously recommends to the

Legislative Assembly that the name of Mr. George Morfitt, FCA, be

recommended to the Lieutenant-Governor for the position as

auditor-general for the province of British Columbia, to exercise the

powers and perform the duties provided by the Auditor General Act.

"Mr. George Morfitt is a Vancouver resident and a

fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia.

During his distinguished career in the public and private sectors Mr.

Morfitt worked for Clarkson Gordon and Co. in Vancouver during the

years 1958-67. From 1967 through 1987 he became the chief financial

officer and director of the Diamond Group of Companies and then the

executive vice-president. Mr. Morfitt has been affiliated with the

Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia as its

president; governor and executive committee member of the Canadian

Institute of Chartered Accountants; a member of the chartered

accountants' government advisory group; governor of the B.C. School of

Chartered Accountancy; and a member of the long-range strategic

planning committee of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

With the University of British Columbia, Mr. Morfirt has been chairman

of the board of governors, president of the alumni association and

chairman of the finance committee. Mr. Morfitt has been chairman of the

Universities Council of British Columbia. Many other British Columbia

organizations have been the recipients of Mr. Morfitt's services.

"The Special Committee to Appoint an AuditorGeneral

would like the assembly to be aware of the harmonious manner in which

the committee conducted its hearings. The committee expresses its

appreciation to the Clerk of Committees, Mr. Craig James, for

coordinating the meetings, communicating with the candidates, preparing

the advertisement and assisting the consultant, and to the consultant

for the professional manner brought to bear upon this task.

"Your committee unanimously recommends to the

Legislative Assembly that the name of Mr. George Morfitt be recommended

to the Lieutenant-Governor for the position as auditor-general for the

province of British Columbia to exercise the powers and perform the

duties provided by the Auditor-General Act.

"Mr. Larry Chalmers, MLA, Deputy Chairman."

MR. CHALMERS: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

MR. CHALMERS: I'll keep my remarks very brief.

As spelled out in the report, some 40 applications were received for

the position of auditor-general. The committee met on a number of

occasions and reduced that to about 12. At such time the firm of Ernst

and Whinney was hired to do further in-depth interviews with the

candidates and reduce it to about a seven-candidate list. All seven of

those candidates were interviewed extensively by the committee, and Mr.

Morfirt was chosen to be moved forward and recommended today.

Before doing that, I would like to say that the committee has worked

extremely hard. I would like to pay tribute to Mr. Jim Hewitt, who

served as our chairman — citizen Jim Hewitt now — and did so very well.

His guidance was appreciated by all of us who were newcomers to this

job, as Mr. Hewitt was involved in the original process when the first

auditor-general was chosen for the province of British Columbia. His

ever-present good humour brought us through some very stressful times.

I extend my appreciation to Mr. Hewitt on behalf of all the committee.

I'd also like to commend all the members on the committee for the hard work and effort that they put in and the

[ Page 2987 ]

thoughtful consideration towards the end — in

particular the members opposite who sat on a committee. Through their

cooperation, we ensured that we had a non-partisan approach to bringing

forward a unanimous recommendation.

MR. CLARK: As has been pointed out, it is a unanimous report,

and that's somewhat unusual in these chambers. On behalf of the New

Democratic Party, I am pleased to stand and support Mr. Morfitt's

application and appointment. Mr. Morfitt clearly has the academic

credentials for the job, but more importantly, in my view, he has a

long association with the business community. After sitting in the

House for only one year and watching the performance of the government,

it's quite clear to me that what is needed more than anything is a

fresh business approach to the way in which we govern ourselves in this

province. I am hopeful that Mr. Morfitt will bring that fresh approach

and scrutinize fearlessly the activities of the government.

MR. CHALMERS: I move that this House recommend to His Honour

the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Mr. George Morfitt, FCA, as

an officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties

assigned to the auditor-general for the province of British Columbia

pursuant to the Auditor General Act, Revised Statutes of British

Columbia, 1979,

chapter 24.

MR. SPEAKER: Before that, we have the first motion, which is the adoption of the report on the auditor-general.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: The second motion put by the member.

Motion approved.

Mr. Mercier, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Economic

Development, Transportation and Municipal Affairs presented the report

of the committee respecting a review of the Islands Trust Act, which

was taken as read and received.

Oral Questions

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL AND

MENTAL HEALTH CARE

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question to the Minister of Health,

the minister who has closed the doors of Riverview Hospital. As we

know, hospitals right across this province must use their

emergency-care facilities, and in some cases their intensive-care, to

handle the waiting-lists of mental health care patients. Now the

minister says that patients that can't get care are living on the

streets of B.C. by choice.

Will the minister immediately lift the diversion order on B.C.

hospitals and open beds at Riverview to handle the patients who, not by

choice, are on the streets of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK: Currently, of course, Riverview handles these

patients. We have also 2,000 beds other than that. When I spoke about

people being on the streets, I was referring mainly to the mentally

homeless in our province, and to date we have counted eight who are not

with homes.

We have continually tried to provide a place for them, and they have

rejected that. We feel that where a person should be committed under

the Mental Health Act and does not allow that or does not so wish,

there is very little we can do, unless he is incapacitated and we must

take that action.

I should also mention that the printed articles are not quite

correct, because a mentally homeless person, if he is eligible for

work, would receive not the $375 but in fact $480. If he is mentally

handicapped, he would receive more than that: $583, not $387 –– I can

assure this House that every homeless, mentally handicapped person will

be provided a place to sleep.

MR. HARCOURT: It's the expert opinion of the Greater

Vancouver Mental Health Service that in this substantial shift of

mental health care patients from institutional to community care, the

communities have not been given the resources they need to care for

these people. I don't think it's good enough to quote from Anatole

France that the rich and poor are equally entitled to sleep under

bridges, to beg for food and to pay $40,000 for a heart operation. I

would like to ask the minister if he will immediately turn off the tap

and stop pouring mental health patients into the streets until he

provides communities with the resources for the patients right now.

[2:30]

HON. MR. DUECK: We are not closing down Riverview, nor are we

downsizing Riverview at this time. This is a normal process that has

been going on for many years; as people are assessed and as they are

ready to go into the community, they go. We do not release anyone from

Riverview who does not have a place to go and a plan of what he is

going to do with his life when he leaves the institution. They are not

turned out on the street. You're trying to make an issue of this, and

I'm telling you that anyone released from Riverview will have a place

to sleep. At last count we had eight known who did not have a place to

sleep at night, and they refused help. I am telling you this as a fact.

MR. HARCOURT: Speaking about facts. Mr.

Minister, in September your facts were that there were 1,306 beds at

Riverview. There are now under 1,200 beds. That's downsizing; that's

starting to close the doors. I would like to have the minister listen

to the Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society, which has made

it very clear to you, and I quote....

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: No, I visited them myself, like you should do, member; you should see the people on the streets of our city.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARCOURT: You should go out and see it. The minister should.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Leader of the Opposition would take his seat, and if he could get to a

[ Page 2988 ]

question, and if he could have a little less interference from the other side, we could get question period over with.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Minister, I'm not suggesting that you read

the papers; I'm suggesting that you read the experts. I quote from the

Greater Vancouver Mental Health Service Society: "Community services

for the mentally ill are inadequate. Community services providing

development of employment for the mentally ill are extremely limited.

They cannot afford market housing, and, for many, rehabilitation can

only be initiated in a residential setting."

Will the minister accept the expert opinion of mental health care

professionals and recognize that the mental health care system in this

province has a crisis?

HON. MR. DUECK: I do not accept the fact that the mental

health program or the service is in crisis at all. That we do not have

adequate housing for everyone, to your standards, perhaps is true.

You mentioned that I should visit. I have visited all the homes —

every one of them. I don't know if you've visited them all, but I have.

I make a point of doing that, and I'm telling you that we have the best

mental health care delivery service in all of Canada. Other provinces,

other ministers come out here and look at our service, and they use it

as a model. And we're still trying to improve it from day to day.

That's why we're going to provide homes, in the community perhaps,

other than the Riverview and one particular institute. That is going to

be an improvement.

You people on that side have criticized it from the day that report

came up. Why don't you look at the letters we have received and all the

written submissions that have come in that have praised us and

applauded us for doing exactly that, and the plans we have for

providing this type of home for these people, notwithstanding the fact

that we're not going to do it before those resources are in place? I've

said this how many times? Do you ever listen?

PRIVATIZATION OF LIQUOR STORES

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, British Columbians have told the

Jansen committee that they oppose the privatization of liquor stores.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the Jansen committee

have stated that the liquor distribution branch is an efficient

retailer, and it should not only be kept but be enhanced. The Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has added his voice on the privatization of

liquor stores, saying: "This issue is not carved in stone."

My question is to the minister responsible for privatization. I'd

like to ask that minister if he's prepared to listen to British

Columbians and to his cabinet colleagues and caucus and at this time

reconsider the plans to privatize liquor stores in this province.

HON. MR. DAVIS: We're always prepared to listen. This is a

matter of future policy but, as has been stated on numerous occasions,

we're also prepared to look at every opportunity where savings can be

achieved and moneys made available for people programs in the province.

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. HYDRO DIVISIONS

MR. CLARK: A question to the minister responsible for privatization.

Would the minister inform the House what the upset price is for the natural

gas division of B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The market will determine the upset price.

MR. CLARK: Is the minister telling us that there are no

minimum prices that could be accepted for any of the services being

offered for sale by the government of British Columbia?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there are minimum

prices on any asset that the people of the province own, but to attempt

ahead of time to determine the actual price would be foolish. You're

asking the government, perhaps, to publish an upset price. That would

simply indicate what the price is. We may well find that some of these

assets are much more valuable in the eyes of private entrepreneurs than

the value put on them by the public.

MR. CLARK: If the minister is concerned about affecting the

bidding, maybe he could tell us what the minimum price would be for the

three divisions of B.C. Hydro, that are for sale.

HON. MR. DAVIS: All we know today is what they cost: that is,

the basis used for rate-making. That basis won't change for rate-making

purposes in the future. But we don't know what entrepreneurs may offer.

If they see an opportunity to make those functions more efficient, they

would see a higher value in them than the historic value or the

historic book value, and those prices will be determined in the

marketplace.

MR. CLARK: Would the minister tell the House whether the

proceeds from the sale of Hydro assets will go to pay down the debt of

B.C. Hydro or into general revenue of the government?

HON. MR. DAVIS: That decision hasn't been made yet, but it could lead to an interesting debate.

PACIFIC COAST SALVAGE AND DEMOLITION LTD.

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Minister of Forests

and Lands. Mr. Minister, in March of this year you let a contract to

Pacific Coast Salvage and Demolition Ltd, for a dollar; no performance

bond, because it was a dollar. You were going to clear off a debt that

they owed you because they'd botched up previous jobs, I gather As a

result of the contract you let this year, $50,000 in outstanding wages

is owed to workers who worked for that company. One of those people in

my constituency, Elizabeth German, is out $3,500, but $50,000 is

outstanding to workers from a company that obviously had no intention

of paying.

What have you decided to do to rectify this situation? Right now

Workers' Compensation is suing, small retailers are suing and small

companies are suing. It's a long and tedious procedure, and my

constituents are out.

HON. MR. PARKER: I have received some correspondence from the

hon. member, and I have asked my staff to investigate and report to me.

I will be pleased to bring that information to her attention at the

earliest possible occasion.

SUBDIVISION OF B.C. PLACE LAND

MS. MARZARI: I have a question for the Minister of Economic

Development. The good will between the provincial government and the

city of Vancouver around the B.C.

[ Page 2989 ]

Place land seems to have been tested recently. The

city of Vancouver expected that the provincial government would use its

subdivision bylaw and its land registry office for any proceedings. Yet

we have here an indication that B.C. Place lands were subdivided this

fall by order-in-council. Does this set a precedent for future

activities on the part of B.C. Place — going out and subdividing

without notifying or consulting the city of Vancouver?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to that is no, and the

principals and staff of the Vancouver city council were all advised and

were working with B.C. Enterprise Corporation. The transfer was one

which was part of the negotiations with the city, which were very long.

I think that at the time it came before the city council, the mayor

made comment that it was just that and that it was in accordance with

the city of Vancouver's wishes in cooperation with BCEC.

MS. MARZARI: I'll take this, Madam Minister, as a promise

that no further subdivisions will go on. Although there had been some

consultation over one subdivision, pursuant to that another subdivision

of ten additional acres took place without consulting the city. But I

will accept your answer as a promise to the city of Vancouver that from

this point on no further subdivision will take place by order-in

council.

COWICHAN BAY BREAKWATER

MR. BRUCE: I have a question for the Minister of Environment

and Parks. Last week during the major storm here on the coast, the area

of Cowichan Bay underwent some very severe damage — approximately half

a million dollars' worth — on the marinas and the wharves in the area.

The federal government has indicated that they cannot provide any

assistance to the people in my area, and the emergency measures

coordinator for the province of British Columbia is down dealing with

the people today in an effort to give some assistance. However, the

problem is not so much the fact of emergency measures assistance; what

is required is a proper breakwater to be constructed in Cowichan Bay. I

would ask the minister: would he undertake on behalf of myself and the

residents of the Cowichan Bay area to make the proper representations

construction of a full-fledged breakwater in Cowichan Bay'?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: In the pursuit of brevity, yes.

MR. HARCOURT: I rise under the provisions of standing order

35 to ask leave to make a motion calling for the adjournment of the

House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public

importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member state his matter?

MR. HARCOURT: In 20 days, Canada and the United States will be having

the proposed Canada-United States free trade agreement coming forward for signature.

This proposed deal has enormous consequences for British Columbia. As it is

now written — we have received the final text — the proposed deal infringes on

provincial jurisdiction; it forces our province in particular to surrender

powers to the federal government and to the government of a foreign power; it

surrenders provincial control over our natural resources, including energy,

and it threatens the jobs of tens of thousands of British Columbians, particularly

in agriculture and the fisheries, fish-processing in particular, which is not

covered by this agreement. Despite these shortcomings — I stress that these

are just in point form to show the concerns that we have as New Democrats, and

that British Columbians have — the provincial government has denied members

of this Legislature the opportunity to even debate the government's own

motion No. 69.

[2:45]

There being no other opportunity for this Legislature to review

thoroughly the consequences for British Columbia of this agreement,

which is proposed to be signed by January 2, Mr. Speaker, as I've

outlined the urgency and the consequences and the fact that we have not

had a chance to debate — and will not unless we do it here in the next

few days prior to January 2 — if you find my motion in order, I'm

prepared to move that this House adjourn to discuss the proposed

Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Has the member got his statement? I will take it under advisement and report back to the House later.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 68.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 5), 1987

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the practice on

these grab-bag bills, I simply move second reading. We can have the

debate on second reading if the other side wishes. The discussion has

to be clause-by-clause because there are so many different measures

contained in the bill. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Do You want committee with leave today?

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, perhaps it didn't go in Hansard ,

but the Attorney-General, who I suppose is acting House Leader and is

introducing this bill, asked if we wanted to have committee today. We

didn't even have second reading, as far I'm concerned. We did have a

speaker on second reading that was perhaps a little bit slow off the

blocks. Nevertheless, I think it went by rather rapidly. We can discuss

the matter of committee of this bill later today — since it is without

principle, like many bills put forward by this government — and we

might not need a long time on second reading.

However, these things sometimes have a dynamic all of their own.

Until we have an opportunity to huddle on this matter, then perhaps my

hon. colleague for Burnaby North would have a chance as our leadoff

speaker and designated hitter on this bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I did first reading of this bill the other day, as I recall, on behalf of the Attorney

[ Page 2990 ]

General, and I guess there were mixed signals. To

set everything straight and to allow the full unfettered debate to

carry on, I would firstly ask leave for the second reading motion to be

discharged. I understand it has been voted on.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: So there is no motion for second reading

now. We have simply introduced the matter for second reading, and

debate is now available to members of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. JONES: I'll try not to bring any fetters forward on this one.

As the government House Leader indicated, this is a grab-bag bill. I

would like to comment on one

section of the bill briefly.

Section 38 of

the bill is the responsibility of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet). I think there really is a principle to this section, the

principle being the government's Pacific Rim initiatives program.

That's a program that's worthy, I think, of some debate in this House.

We have not had — at least to this point in time — the opportunity for

discussion of the government's initiatives in this regard.

I would like the minister to have an opportunity to convince me that

this is a worthy initiative — that we do have a worthwhile proposal

before us in terms of this program. It is a costly program to the

taxpayers of this province. It was introduced by the Premier, rather

than the Minister of Education, a few months back. There was a

price-tag attached to it, and that price-tag was some $12 million over

three years, I believe. I think it is important that there be some

opportunity for discussion of that, and some opportunity for the

Minister of Education to convince this side of the House that this a

worthy expenditure of public funds.

I feel somewhat at a difficulty viewing this piece of legislation.

It's very much like the one that we saw the other day on the Open

Learning Institute and distance education. I saw both sides of the

coin. I saw a tremendous potential benefit and a tremendous opportunity

for abuse of educational resources to do what really has become, in my

mind and the public's mind, the major philosophy of education of the

government's over the last ten years: to reduce costs and service.

I think we have to be convinced that the homework has been done on

this program; that there is a cost-benefit analysis; that it is

worthwhile to spend $12 million on this kind of initiative when we have

severe problems in our own back yard. When we have a legacy of ten

years of this government creating tremendous problems in education and

in the operation and the climate of the school system of this province,

I think we need to be convinced that $12 million can be spent abroad

and not better spent in our own back yard.

We have, at present, a Royal Commission on Education touring this

province, hearing thoughtful, concerned citizens present their ideas

for improving our education system. The commission itself is a big

expense to this province, and it seems to me that while that commission

is going on there would be some restraint on the part of government and

the Minister of Education, that they would restrain themselves to some

degree in bringing forth what I consider to be rather extreme positions.

While we have that commission, we also have action teams running around the

province looking at areas where costs can be reduced in education. While we

have that commission going on, we hear presentations by the Ministry of Education

in its brief to the royal commission on such schemes as merit pay, year-round

schools, contracted learning services and home schooling. We hear the Minister

of Finance suggesting that we're looking at the voucher system. There is

real concern on the part of the education system in this province that the zones

recently developed are the county system revisited.

So we have many contradictions. I have been a student of education

politics in this province for many years and feel I have some degree of

understanding of motivations of this government, but I'm yet to be

convinced that any of these schemes even fits into the government's

philosophy of costcutting.

We have this $12 million proposed, and we see in this bill some

$442,000 of taxpayers' money being expended. I'm sure the minister will

be able to explain to me that there will be cost recovery of these

funds, that we have some half-million dollars in student exchange

programs which will already be expended out of this year's education

budget. The expenditure of those funds is strangely being done through

the eight zones, or counties, or states, or economic development

regions. Perhaps the minister at the same time can help explain to me

why, rather than dealing with school boards as is the tradition in this

province, that efficient process is now being complicated whereby in

the lower mainland southwest region some 19 superintendents are going

to have to get together and decide how to spend $175,000 to set up

student exchange programs with the Pacific Rim. We also have a million

dollars being spent on a teacher study program, which also comes out of

the 1988 expenditure for education in this province.

I've already tried to convince the minister that the government's

expenditure on education is probably considerably below what would be

normal in this country. I've explained to the minister that in terms of

expenditure on education as a percentage of personal income, this

province ranks last as compared to every other province in Canada — not

first, not second, as it was a few years ago, but dead last — and that

in terms of operating costs per pupil and expenditure as a percentage

of the provincial budget, we are the lowest of any province west of New

Brunswick.

We're not big spenders on education in this province, and yet we

have before us a proposal in this bill of half a million dollars, at

least initially, as part of a $12 million Pacific Rim initiatives

program announced by the Premier a few months ago. So we have $12

million — no small amount of money — from a government that is not

known to be a big spender in education. I'm left with the question:

why? Convince me. Explain to me that where we've got serious problems

in our school system.... I'm sure the minister has heard from virtually

every school district in this province concerns about capital

construction. We need in this province roughly $150 million per year

for the next five years just to keep up with the growth and maintenance

of school buildings in this province. We have a number of classes of

37, 38, 39, some over 40. We have line ups of students who can't get

places in post-secondary institutions. We still have a poisoned climate

between this government and the education community; a lack of trust;

no initiatives to provide post-secondary spaces, improve class sizes,

build the buildings that need to be built.

[3:00]

[ Page 2991 ]

We even saw problems in the news recently about the kinds of

institutions that the government is planning to set up abroad. I'm sure

the minister is well aware of the concerns of many who are in the field

of providing educational services to foreign students, the problems

created by Alpha College: the problem of misleading advertising:

suggestions that there are dormitory spaces, physical education

programs, support from government, regulation by government, when none

of these things are accurate. So we have all kinds of problems that I'm

not aware the minister is dealing with in terms of these kinds of

institutions right here in British Columbia.

I don't know what the fascination is with Hong Kong; why we need to

set up schools so that we'll better understand the Hong Kong culture or

the Hong Kong economy or the laws of Hong Kong. I don't know whether

this is in the category of foreign aid. Perhaps it's a worthwhile

venture, but I'm yet to be convinced. It seems to me that this

government is very supportive of the free trade agreement between the

United States and Canada. Why are we putting $12 million into a program

to be putting so many eggs of the basket into looking south? I'd like

to see the plan laid out. I'd like to see the cost-benefit analysis.

I'd like to see the returns of these great opportunities in the Pacific

Rim that are going to justify the expenditure of $121 million of

taxpayers' money. I'd like to see some indication that we're dealing

with the serious problems that we face in education in this province,

in our own backyard, before we're willing to spend all kinds of funds

looking eastward.

I think the minister would have a hard time convincing the people of

this province that this is a worthwhile venture. I would very much like

to hear his remarks on this

section of this bill, and I would like him

to convince me that this is a worthwhile expenditure.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I had thought perhaps we would cover some

of this in committee and clause-by-clause, but I see the member has

converted this to some general principles.

I believe that in his summation the member said we would have a hard

time convincing the people of this province that it is worthwhile to

take some initiatives to involve Pacific Rim languages, to discuss

Pacific Rim culture in our schools, to bring to a greater extent into

the schools the reality of what exists out there. I would suggest that

we'll have no difficulty whatsoever in convincing the people of this

province that it's worthwhile to establish better, greater ties and

relationships with the Pacific Rim countries west from here — you're

talking about east. Anyway, I think we would have no trouble convincing

the people that it is worthwhile to establish better relationships with

the people we're doing an increasing amount of business with. I suggest

that the only people we will have difficulty convincing are the members

of the opposition.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The member started out his comments by saying that he sees some

merits, some benefits, to some of these programs. But because the

government is doing this, because the government is proposing them,

therefore it must be all wrong. That's an attitude I find so difficult.

I have kept that member informed on what we're doing in the Pacific Rim

initiatives, all of these sorts of things, and yet.... Is he standing

up in this House and saying that the position of the official

opposition in this Legislature is that no effort should be made to

introduce Oriental Pacific Rim languages into our schools, no effort

should be made to provide more material, more information on these

countries? I would hope that is not the position the member is taken.

He mentions the $12 million. The $12 million is in there because we

were given a start of $3.5 million. as promised in the budget last

spring, to try to provide some initiatives in the education system to

improve our situation with the Pacific Rim countries. The reason it has

moved to $12 million for three years.... That member, who says he has

experience in the system, must be well aware that the reason we're

moving it over three years is so that we don't just have one startup

program and then no commitment to carry on. The government has made a

commitment of actual funding for three years so that we can plan our

programs for three years through the Ministry of Education. It has made

a commitment thereby that we are starting into this and that we're

going to carry on: that we're going to properly, carefully introduce

programs into the schools to bring in some of the Oriental languages,

to bring in more information about these countries, to get our students

informed. For that member then to stand up here and say that we're

spending $12 million abroad has got to mean that he is obviously not

paying any attention to the material I have sent him, no attention to

what is being announced throughout this province in press releases,

because most of that money is being spent to provide better

opportunities for the students in this province. To say that we're

spending $12 million abroad.... I don't know how you get those kinds of

statements, unless it's with some intent to distort and misinform the

public.

The only serious problem we have with this great initiative that is

being carefully planned and developed is the critics who are.... I have

no objection to critics. But when critics take a statement like that,

which they're putting out in order to criticize the government and

distort the information, and try to turn people against a dragon that

does not even exist.... Let's have that member say what he's for and

what he's against. Or are you simply against the government, and you

don't care about any initiatives with the....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Let that member stand up in this House and

say the opposition is against introducing any Oriental language

training into the public schools of British Columbia. Stand up in this

House and say that you're against any student and teacher exchanges

which enhance our understanding and knowledge of each other. Stand up

and say that, if that's what you mean. If that's the opposition

position, then stand up and say that you're against any relationships.

And then you say: "I'm going to insist on a cost-benefit analysis being

done."

MR. JONES: Too tricky, isn't it'?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's not tricky. It's just ludicrous to say

that we could plot exactly how many dollars are going to result five

years down the road from a better understanding of each other. It is

common knowledge and commonly accepted in the business world, the

academic world — in every world you want to look at — that when people

deal with each other. If they can speak each other's language, they

[ Page 2992 ]

communicate much better, and that results in a

better understanding of each other and in better economic arrangements:

it results in all sorts of things. When you are dealing on an economic

basis with the Japanese, for instance, if someone there could speak

their language, don't you think that might be the factor that decides

what happens? I can't quantify in dollars today what's going to happen.

But I can assure you, Mr. Member and everyone else in this House, that

I'm fully convinced that it will be of great benefit educationally,

culturally and economically to this province. If that member can show

me that that's an untrue statement, then I'd certainly like to be

convinced.

Talk about extreme changes. And then there's the royal commission.

It's interesting to note that the opposition was pushing for a royal

commission — that it was a benefit and had to happen, and all of these

wonderful things. Now the member is saying that the royal commission is

a great big expense to the taxpayers. So make up your mind, Mr. Member.

The other interesting thing is that many of the discussions about

what should and should not happen in education have been initiated by

reporters who have asked questions. I think that the member is saying

it's okay for all of those people and all of the critics to raise all

these issues, but apparently, according to that member, it's not

appropriate for any member of this government, any Minister of

Education or Finance minister, to enter into any of those discussions.

When someone comes up and asks me if I'm aware of a program that's

operating somewhere else, that member's advice to me as Education

minister would be to shut up and not talk to anybody about any

questions or proposals. How ridiculous!

MR. JONES: Where's your plan'?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I don't have a plan for 12-month schools,

because I did not plan it; I did not propose it. Somebody raised a

question and I answered it, but you went out there and said how

ludicrous I was for not having a plan for something I simply responded

to. I think that is distortion, trying to turn the public against

something that does not exist.

MR. JONES: The public's already turned off and has been for years.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Why? Not because of the programs. Not

because of what we're spending and not spending in education. It's

because of a concerted effort by you and your cohorts to give people

false information. You have said that the Minister of Education

proposed a 12-month school year, and how ridiculous that was without

consultation. To me that's a deliberate distortion for your political

purposes, because the Minister of Education in this province has never

proposed a 12-month school year. All I have said is that I've heard of

it happening elsewhere and will look into why they are doing it and

what they are doing. It would take a great deal of consultation with

the teachers, the educational community and the public in this province

before I'd even take a position on it.

But you went out there for your political purposes and said: "The

minister has no plan. He hasn't consulted with anybody." Then you say

that the public is disinterested. The public is not disinterested. The

public might wish to discuss it and ask me what I feel about it. But

you've already decided that I'm wrong. Those are the kinds of

ridiculous statements that you make and then try to translate into

saying the public in this province is not willing to go along.

Getting back to this bill, the reaction that I've have from the

public and from the school districts in this province is that those who

have applied for all this money are well and above anything that we can

possibly afford. Every school district in this province, basically, has

applied for funding because they say we have a really good project. We

think it's great to bring in Oriental languages, to bring in more

information about the Pacific Rim countries.

That member stands up in here and says the public isn't interested?

Go tell the school boards, Mr. Member, that you are against any

cultural curriculum materials and Oriental language programs in this

province, because they are interested, very interested.

I might point out to that member that since we have put this program

into place and said that we would fund certain students and teachers to

go over to the Pacific Rim countries in order to learn more about them,

we have had a dramatic interest from Japan, particularly, to say: "We

want to reciprocate; we think this is terrific; we hope to send ever

more students to British Columbia and more teachers to British Columbia

than you will ever possibly send over to Japan."

You tell me there's no interest in this. You tell me to justify it.

I think it's been justified day by day, except by the people who

absolutely believe that anything this government does has to be turned

into a poisoned climate.

The only people who benefit from a poisoned climate is the

opposition. You work your way out to develop a poisoned climate by

distortions, by talking about spending $12 billion abroad, when you

know better, Mr. Member. I guess it wouldn't upset me so much if you

didn't know differently. But when you deliberately mislead the public

and this House in that way....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Okay, I'll withdraw "deliberately mislead." I guess I do get upset when I do know....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would just remind the minister to please address the Chair as well.

[3:15]

MR. HARCOURT: Take a deep breath. Calm down.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It's hard to calm down when I hear

statements like: "We in this province are last in Canada in our

operating expenditures for pupils." Both of us can read the tables and

we know different. You people will not acknowledge the total

expenditure that this government has made on education, and choose to

use selective portions of it in order to translate into their own

figures.

This plan was initially announced, saying that we were going to put

some money where our mouth was in this government to try to create some

better cultural, educational exchanges and opportunities as they affect

the Pacific Rim countries, The Ministry of Education was asked to work

out the details and the implementation to see what could be done.

If that member had been even looking at the material that I have

sent him, I think he would have to agree that the people in my

ministry, in consultation with advisory committees from the BCSTA, the

BCTF, some people interested in education, the universities and some of

these countries, have put

[ Page 2993 ]

together an excellent program. It's an excellent

way to use that money to the greatest and best advantage for all of the

people in this province.

To stand up in this House and denigrate those people as though they

had no plan because the plan wasn't complete the day the concept was

announced — as though there is something wrong with that.... The

Ministry of Education has been assigned the responsibility to put this

plan, to provide the details, to work it out with the people who are

interested and make sure that we get the best value for this money, and

I think that is being done.

I think if that member would stop blatantly criticizing and read

some of the material that's coming up and the interest that's out there

in the public, the school boards and everyone else in this province

except the opposition spokesman, then I think he will agree that this

is going to be an excellent program.

MR. ROSE: I don't know what some of us do over here to excite

the minister, but I think that he should really maybe have a glass of

warm milk and a cookie, because I don't think this is good for him.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker. on a point of order.

MR. ROSE: What's the point of order?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The point of order is that I will decide whether I drink milk and cookies or....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The opposition House Leader continues.

MR. ROSE: perhaps I made a mistake provoking the minister. We are in the land of milk and honey. At least we have been.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Get interested in education.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to come over and have a look at your

speech, because I'd like to see if it's underlined "argument weak here,

shout louder."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are in second reading of Bill 68.

MR. ROSE: I know, so it's very general, and I'll be guided by

that very broad generality associated with second reading. I certainly

wouldn't want to trample on your authority, but this kind of short-fuse

approach to the opposition is really unacceptable. Our job here....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Is to oppose, right? Anything, everything.

MR. ROSE: Just a minute. Our job is to examine any kind of legislation

and to look and see if there are any plans behind the announcements, because

we have very good reasons to examine behind the announcements. For instance,

with the United States of British Columbia, we found that it was urgent. We

passed an order-in-council for $8 million. Then we find that the Premier says

there were no plans or details behind the announcements; they were all concepts.

I'm a little bit tired of hearing the minister's same old speech; if

the opposition questions him at all, somehow we're knocking or we're

just opposing. Just because he announced it....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Do you ever read your garbage in Hansard ?

MR. ROSE: To answer the direct question. I don't read Hansard at all, because I'm not a masochist. I like to think I contribute a great deal to Hansard ,

but I don't punish myself by reading it. I think that's the height of

egotism. Do you read your own speeches? If you read your own speeches,

you would never give another one of that type. I don't think there's

any question about that.

Our job is to inquire into the details of government plans for

proposals and concepts, right? And that's exactly what we're doing here.

I'll give the minister time to go out and have his milk and cookies

if he wants, but while I'm on my feet, I would like to just say two or

three other things. We have a kind of cynicism about some of the

educational plans of this government, going back to 1983. Something

like $300 million to $400 million has been taken out of our education

system, and that is a fact. Therefore when you come up with a brand-new

snazzy idea about cultural exchanges and all the rest of it, we want to

know what it's all about. I think we're very entitled. As a matter of

fact, we would be derelict in our duties if we didn't do it just like

this.

I happen to think that the development of ethnic languages in our

schools, the Pacific Rim languages, is a good thing. I have no

difficulty....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: All he asked was: where is your plan? How far is it

going to go? Is it going to be out of the Excellence fund or is it

going to he out of the school budget? We know what you've done over the

years. There's an amendment right here in this bill, Mr. Speaker.

affecting the homeowner grant. We've had no change in the homeowner

grant for at least six years, except to make seniors pay a minimum of

$100. We could take $150 off each and every homeowner's taxes. That's

why I think we're interested — while you're busy loading the homeowners

with educational taxes — in some kind of relief, because you've

certainly been stealing money from education, and you're certainly not

giving it to the homeowners.

Let's get back to the debate at hand. There's no point in just

getting up and shouting and making a lot of racket, trying to paint my

friend as a bigot because he might have the audacity to question you on

what concepts and plans were behind this flashy, snazzy announcement

about Oriental schools in Hong Kong. Are you going to stop there? I

mean. Is there going to be one in Bangkok? Will there be one in

Managua, Nicaragua? Perhaps you might have one in....

MR. GUNO: Atlin.

MR. ROSE: My friend from Atlin said he'd like to have one.

[ Page 2994 ]

I think it's a wonderful idea to send B.C. school teachers to all

parts of the world, because at least that way they'll have employment.

We might even be able to bring my daughter back from California and

send her to Hong Kong; I think she'd love that. There are 3,000

teachers in B.C. who are unemployed.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, they've gone away, but there are 3,000 on the books

that could work. You get up and correct me a little later; that'll be fine.

The point is simply that it's not good, enough to try to paint my friend

in a bad light because he's asking the proper questions.

I could move on in second reading if I wanted, as I think I've dealt

with the minister's concerns, and invite him to partake in any

libations he feels are appropriate. But I ask him to calm down, because

I don't think he should get upset. It's not good for him. A little

Valium or something like that might be helpful for him.

I don't know about the Steller's jay. Are you going to tell us all about it? I was hoping that perhaps some other birds....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: No, I've left the birds, and I'm going to the bird. I'm abandoning the squirrels, and now I'm going to move to the birds.

I think there were some very interesting submissions. The Steller's

jay tends to be cheeky, and I hope that we can at least be cheeky in

British Columbia. I was rather hoping that you might consider the

ruffled spouse; that is a species indigenous to all parts of British

Columbia. Nevertheless, that perhaps was turned down....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: The ruffled spouse, not the Brussels sprouts.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, enough of this frivolity.

The ruffled grouse just left?

Seriously, there are a lot of things in this bill. I think that more

appropriately than discussing them in any detail here in second

reading, there will be ample time to discuss them in all manner of

detail in committee.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Look, I know lots of other birds, but I don't think it would be appropriate. I get myself in enough trouble from time to time.

There is the matter of the homeowner grant; I'm concerned about that. The

offloading of taxes for schools onto property owners. There is the whole matter

of the Municipal Act amendments. And then there is this college board. If we're

going to get into the details of that act, if I'm here I'd like to know

why in the private bills committee we exempted that particular board and part

of its land, and now suddenly.... Perhaps we didn't receive the right

kind of information, but I see that it's no longer completely exempt. And

there are some interesting little sort of associations there in Surrey, with

our friend the head of the college board and the school board and — guess what?

— the Social Credit Party. Just ask my friend from Surrey-Guildford-Whalley

and points east, and we'll learn a lot more about that.

Anyway, I think the idea of expanding our school system, jobs for

our young people, to improve the language all over the place.... I

don't think we can be provincial there. We want jobs for our teachers,

and to internationalize, an improving educational system under the new

minister, one that is deftly trying to recover from the terrible

battering it received over the last five years. I think it needs all

the help it can get, and we'd be prepared to give it that help.

MR. HARCOUKF: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Brummet) had not left for his hot milk. I was hoping to talk

to him about the provisions in the bill, sections 38 and 52, that deal

with the language-training program and with the question of our

educational institutions expanding abroad to create opportunities. I

think that in his haste to not drink warm milk but to drink his own

bathwater and have an automatic response to our education critic, the

hon. member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones).... The critic was trying to

make the point that charity begins at home; that these initiatives are

fine; we'd like the details; we'd like to see the plan behind it; we'd

like to see where they expect it to be; the benefits. When we ask for

that information, the minister goes into a huff and becomes a grousy

something or other.

As I said, charity begins at home. We have some serious problems

that we wanted to bring again to his attention. There are hungry kids

in our school system that we should be dealing with, and that's why the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has

an act to deal

with the thousands of children who can't learn in our own schools

because they don't have proper nutrition, for whatever reason. We want

the minister to hear that, so he can finally do something proper about

it. We want him to hear that teachers are committing criminal acts by

xeroxing textbooks — which is against copyright law — because there

aren't sufficient textbooks in our schools right here in British

Columbia.

[3:30]

We think that he should understand that there are people coming here

to our great country, as most of us have, as immigrants, who can't get

were trying to make that point, while putting across a basic agreement

with the outreach that is occurring as described in the Pacific Rim

studies programs for our students. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you a number

of schools that I have spoken to in and around Vancouver and throughout

British Columbia where I've made just that point. I have said it's

this country, but if you are living on the west coast you should learn

Mandarin; you should learn Cantonese; you should learn Japanese; you

should learn the Thai language, Filipino, Punjabi, Hindi. Those are the

languages that young people will have to have an appreciation of. They

will have to understand the cultures of these Pacific Rim countries,

because that's what Canada now regards British Columbia as: the front

door of Canada to the Asia Pacific area.

So the concept is a valid one. What we're asking for is not the

concept, but the plan. We'd like to know what is behind that good idea.

Just to say,"Trust us," and if we say: "Well, Mr. Minister, we do...."

Your job is to give us a plan. It's not for us to trust you it's for

you to put a program, a plan,

[ Page 2995 ]

before this Legislature so that we can then talk about how we can improve it.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: This is estimates, not the bill.

MR. HARCOURT: It is a proposal; it is a concept to develop.

The House Leader for the government knows full well that we are here

always to make sure that the taxpayers' money is being spent wisely.

That is what we are here to talk about.

Interjection.

MR. HARCOURT: I am here to talk about the concept and the

government House Leader, if he wasn't signing Christmas cards, would

know that that's what I've been doing for the last ten minutes.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm sending one to you.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, I'm sending one to you, too, and it will

be in a non-partisan way that we enjoy a happy holiday season, and that

is exactly what I intend to say to the hon. House Leader. But also,

listen to the concept that I'm here to talk about, not estimates. I'm

not here to talk about the budget; we've already done that.

We say to our young people to take advantage of this $12 million, to

learn these languages that I have just described, and to understand,

more importantly, the cultures, because that is so important to any

long-term friendship relationship. And trade follows friendship. I said

that when I was the mayor of Vancouver and traveled on at least a dozen

occasions to the Asia Pacific area. It is absolutely essential that you

have our young people understanding those languages and those cultures,

and our schools are a good place to start that. We don't have any

disagreement. But we want to see a plan, just like I asked the Minister

of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) for a more aggressive plan

on the Asia Pacific area. This leads into it, so that we are more

systemic in our approach, in our grasping of the opportunities of the

Asia-Pacific.

I suggested three countries that we’re missing the boat on,

Thailand, China and India, where we have no representation. For our

students to go there and learn the languages and the culture and for

our government representatives to be there is essential to the future

of this province. We don't disagree with that. But again, we could have

heard from the minister.

Dr, Bill Saywell, the president of Simon Fraser, and the president

of UBC told me and other members of our caucus recently — and the

president of the University of Victoria and some of the presidents of

our colleges who are actively into this exchange program of students

and scholars in the Asia Pacific would tell you — that bringing

students to this country is absolutely essential to our long-term

well-being. I can vouch for that. In our visit two years ago to

Malaysia with Dr. Bill Saywell and eight other leaders of business and

the trade unions and academia and the professions from British

Columbia, Dr. Saywell in Kuala Lumpur was met by 35 recent graduates of

Simon Fraser, who were the young up-and-comers in Malaysia, who were

proud of coming to Canada, and who paid their own way, bringing $10,000

a student into our community to pay for their room and board and for

all of their activities here. They went away very enthusiastic about

Canada because of that education. They were forming an alumni

association for Simon Fraser in Malaysia, 400 graduates throughout

Malaysia; they will be the business, the government, the cultural and

financial elite of that country. I can take you to Hong Kong, where

over 60,000 people have graduated from Canadian educational

institutions.

So we're not questioning the validity of the concept. We are saying

two things: one, our education system has some serious problems.

Charity begins at home. We are saying, secondly, that we'd like to see

a plan behind this concept. We hope, when we get into more detailed

discussions and committee, that the minister will not huff and puff,

will not behave in a grouchy manner and be called to task, because

we're doing our job, which is asking questions and making sure the

government programs are tight, well-run and make sense. We hope — with

the deep breathing that's now going on in his office as he practises

yoga and some meditation and retains a cooler demeanour and a cooler

frame of mind — that he will come back here and be able to give us the

plan behind this exciting concept.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair advises hon. members that pursuant to standing order 42 the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not the minister in this case — it's

the Attorney-General's bill — but I will advise the House that I am

closing debate and would relinquish my seat, of course, if there were

any other members who wished to participate. Seeing none, Mr. Speaker,

I call second reading 9 of Bill 68.

Motion approved.

Bill 68, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987, 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. STRACHAN: I have to find a minister, Mr. Speaker,

because I call second reading of Bill 60, Property Purchase Tax

Amendment Act, 1987. I don't see the minister.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's in Treasury Board and we're trying to

find him. Perhaps we could just briefly recess, Mr. Speaker. I advise

the assembly that the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is in

Treasury Board and is being sought at this moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps all members would just sit easy for a few moments. I think the Minister of Finance will be along very shortly.

PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill 60 is to

amend the Property Purchase Tax Act to improve the fairness, clarity

and administration of the act. Specifically. Bill 60 proposes to

provide eight new exemptions; to amend several existing exemptions, to

apply the tax to commercial amalgamations not recognized under the

Company Act and to Crown grants and leases: to amend a number of

[ Page 2996 ]

definitions; and to provide new procedures to enhance administrative efficiency.

The eight new exemptions include an exemption for the transfer of

land which has reverted, escheated or forfeited, to the Crown and is

being returned to the original owners within one year of the date of

the reversion, escheat or forfeiture. This exemption recognizes the

concept in the Escheat Act which holds that when escheated land is

returned within one year of the date of the escheat, the escheat is a

nullity. The exemption also clarifies that transfers after the one-year

period, and transfers to persons other than the previously registered

owners, are taxable.

An exemption is proposed for transfers of land to the federal Crown

or agents of the federal Crown. Under the Constitution Act, the federal

Crown is taxable only by agreement. The federal government has, to

date, refused to pay this tax or its equivalent in any jurisdiction in

Canada. While recognizing the exempt status of the federal Crown,

however, initiatives to persuade the federal government to pay the tax

are being discussed.

An exemption is proposed for transfers required to correct a

conveyance made in error or to correct an error in the description or

survey of a property. This exemption will ensure that taxpayers are not

required to pay additional tax to correct efforts in registration.

An exemption is proposed for the transfer of municipal tax sale

properties which were bid on and paid for before March 23, 1987. These

transfers were previously exempt from ad valorem fees under the Land

Title Act, and are accordingly....

Mr. Speaker, because no one's listening to me, I'm wondering whether

this is really necessary. Maybe we can get into it during committee. I

now move second reading.

MR. CLARK: We'll be brief on this because, as the minister

and the House know, we opposed the original introduction of the

Property Purchase Tax Act and moved a very simple amendment to exempt

homes under $100,000, which would have saved the first-time home-buyer

from what we on this side of the House feel quite strongly is an

onerous tax on first-time home-buyers. If you will recall, at the time

we spoke at length in our opposition to this piece of legislation.

I think one has to ask why such extensive amendments are necessary

for a bill that was passed at the end of May. It seems the height of

incompetence to try to bring in substantial amendments to legislation

that we passed only a few months ago. It clearly shows that the

homework wasn't done originally, that they had not thought out this

legislation. We see continuously that legislation is introduced without

proper thought, care and consideration. We see this kind of sloppy work

being done time after time, and then extensive amendments just a few

months later. This bill in particular has an extensive series of

amendments which clearly should have been caught at the original

introduction of the legislation. We could also talk about some of the

amendments that were made at the time.

I have a question for the minister which maybe we can get into when we move

to committee stage. There is a category in this bill that exempts Crown grants

and leases that contain an option to purchase. Where a lease or grant was entered

into before 1987, the purchaser is given until January 1989 to exercise his

option to purchase, without being subject to the tax. I don't quite understand

why that group of individuals would be exempt from the tax. As I said earlier,

we oppose the tax. We moved amendments to exempt a category of purchasers —

namely, first-time home-buyers. Now the government is moving not to exempt first-time

home-buyers, or any such category of buyers, but to exempt those who hold options

to purchase Crown grants. I don't want to cast aspersions on that group

of individuals who hold those options, but it seems to me discrimination to

single out that group of potential purchasers and to alleviate the tax burden

on that group of purchasers when there are other purchasers, such as first-time

home-buyers, who are more worthy of government intervention to excuse them from

paying this tax. We'll deal with that

section in committee stage.

Once again, our position is unchanged. We oppose the implementation

of the Property Purchase Tax Act. We think that to bring in extensive

amendments to a bill that was only passed in May of this year clearly

demonstrates the incompetence of the government, that they haven't got

a handle on the legislation and shouldn't have introduced it in the

first place until the homework had been done. So we will be opposing

these amendments to this act, as we oppose the act.

[3:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, members are advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This is a taxation act, and it is

customary for amendments to a taxation act to be brought forward as

deemed necessary. I take affront at the hon. member's suggestion that

the act as originally drafted failed to do its job. I think it's fair

to say that any new piece of legislation obviously requires a review

shortly after its introduction, so that accommodations can be found for

anomalies that arise. I find nothing unusual about amending a tax act,

particularly one that is so new.

Dealing with the question of Crown grants — and if he reads Hansard

tomorrow, he'll be able to hear what I'm now saying — the member should

be informed that they were only taxable effective November 1, 1987, and

that prior to that date they were exempt. As a consequence, in an

abundance of fairness, this government being eminently fair and

sensitive to injustices, it is only appropriate that an exemption be

proposed for transfers of Crown grants and leases which were agreed to

in writing prior to November 1. This is merely another evidence of this

open government recognizing the needs of the common man and ensuring

that fairness and equity applies to all. I move second reading.

Bill 60, Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1987, read a second

time on division and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 67, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. COUVELIER: This bill does five things. It introduces

a legislative method of dealing with industrial assessments based on

cost less depreciation; it arrests further erosion of the industrial

property tax base; it restructures the Assessment Appeal Board; it

provides for assessment appeals directly to the Assessment Appeal

Board; and it

[ Page 2997 ]

provides for updating of Assessment Appeal Board fee-setting and cost apportionment arrangements.

The cost less depreciation method of valuing industrial property is

being introduced to deal with industrial property valuation problems

that have been a concern to municipalities in recent years. The problem

being dealt with dates from 1982, when industrial taxpayers, seeking to

cut costs during the recession, began to argue that the assessed value

of the properties did not reflect the impact of economic change on

value. This led to large differences between the estimates of value

given the properties by the owners and the properties' assessed values.

Since 1982, the assessment appeal boards and the courts have

adjudicated many disputes related to this issue. At the same time, the

government has substantially reduced industrial property taxes by

eliminating the tax on machinery and equipment and by lowering

non-residential school tax rates.

However, the problem still exists in spite of better economic times,

lower industrial tax levels and extensive litigation. Municipalities

such as Elkford, Sparwood, Tumbler Ridge and others continue to face

uncertainty as the result of volatile, unpredictable assessments. This

legislation is therefore being introduced to deal with the problem. It

establishes a major industrial property class that is to be assessed

according to a simple cost less depreciation approach. Using this

approach, the first step is to determine the cost of replacing an

existing industrial building with one of the same size that would be

constructed using modem materials. The cost figure is then depreciated

using regulated depreciation schedules. The result should be simply

determined, stable assessments for municipal tax purposes. In order to

deal with any significant adverse impacts on industry, provisions are

also included in the bill to provide for the phasing in of any

assessment or taxation changes.

The second component of the bill deals with the question of tax base

erosion. In recent years a number of properties have been removed from

the tax base by the courts, only to be put back into the tax base by

provincial legislation. This recurring cycle, in which owners appeal

and, if they are successful, local governments object and the

government changes legislation to deal with local concerns, has caused

difficulty for both local governments and industrial taxpayers —

indeed, all taxpayers.

The fundamental problem is that the distinction in the existing

legislation as to what components of a large industrial complex are and

are not assessable is unclear. As a result, the legislation cannot

withstand the aggressive legal actions that have been launched against

it in recent years.

However, because changes to the property tax base affect municipal governments,

changes must be approached with care. The approach set out in this bill is designed

to deal with this problem and to make those industrial improvements which have

been exempted by court orders since 1985 taxable for 1987 and subsequent years.

Under the legislation, exclusions to the definition of industrial improvements

are limited to improvements that were classified as machinery and equipment

when the government eliminated property taxes on such improvements in 1985 and

to similar improvements constructed since that time. Exemptions for industrial

improvements constructed after September 30, 1989, will be based on a clear,

precise

schedule of exemptions to be set out in regulation. These exemptions

will be designed to replicate the current tax base and will provide clear direction.

The third part of the bill restructures the Assessment Appeal Board.

As originally established, the Assessment Appeal Board was a single

expert appellant body to which appeals from courts of revision could be

referred. Over time, in order to accommodate an increased workload, the

single board has expanded into a number of individual boards. The

multiple boards have made uniform decision-making difficult, which has

resulted in decisions from various boards that are inconsistent with

each other. This, in turn, has reduced the predictability of appeal

outcomes and has led to additional appeals.

This bill creates a single board which may, at the direction of its

chairman, sit as one member or as a panel of three or more members.

This structure should contribute to greater consistency in board

decisions and allow the board to adjust to the unique characteristics

of different appeals.

The fourth part of the bill permits appeals to be made directly to

the appeal board. This replaces the present procedure under which

appeals are routed to the board through the assessor. The new approach

is more efficient than the present system and eliminates what some

appellants have considered as an inappropriate role for the assessor.

The fifth part of this bill provides for updated methods for the

imposition of fees and the apportionment of board costs. This is being

done partially to enhance cost recovery, but more importantly to curb

nuisuse of the assessment appeal system. Presently fees for appeals to

the board are set at the 1953 level of $5 for the first property

appealed and $2 for each additional property. These low fees and the

lack of any effective means for apportioning costs between parties has

led to the growth of contingency-fee assessment-appeal companies that

appeal large numbers of properties on a contingency-fee basis on the

off chance of winning a reduction. This is contrary to the purpose of

the board, which is to resolve serious disputes between owners and

assessors. An enhanced fee structure that does not hinder the

discourage multiple appeals, together with provisions for the awarding

of costs where it is clear the system is being misused, will make the

boards more efficient and allow for faster, more effective resolution

of genuine disputes.

In

summary, the bill stabilizes municipal tax bases and provides for

more effective resolution of assessment appeals. I now move second

reading.

MR. CLARK: Let me say at the outset that clearly we had a

problem with industrial assessments in British Columbia, and in many

cases a crisis. Hundreds of millions of dollars were rolled back in

assessments in this province, in some cases involving significant

amounts of paybacks from municipalities to corporations. That clearly

was unacceptable. The previous minister struck the industrial

assessment committee to look at that, and I reserve some judgment,

because I want to look in detail at the report that was commissioned

and at the act, to see how close — maybe the minister could address

some of that — the recommendations of the committee come to what is in

the act.

Having said that. I think there a couple of things consistent with

the recommendations and which I think are commendable. First, the

establishment of a special appeal board to deal with industrial

assessments makes sense, both because they have the expertise,

hopefully, and to discourage the wide variation in appeals that we were

getting because of the individual assessors making individual opinions

on an

[ Page 2998 ]

individual industrial property basis rather than on

any kind of coherent policy. Second, it makes sense to have a

consistent framework in the act rather than the market-value-only

position that was there before; because of the difficulty of measuring

market value and the difficulty of the different assessors' measuring

it resulting in different numbers.

I'll have more to say in committee stage, but I must say I have some

concern with what appears to be a bit of a simplistic approach of costs

less depreciation. My recollection of the committee's report was of a

much more sophisticated approach to measuring the value of those

industrial properties. While I recognize the concern when the value of

the property goes down dramatically — as it did in 1982 and 1983 as a

result of the serious recession — I'm not sure that this doesn't

unnecessarily depress the assessment when the value goes up. I realize

we can't have it both ways, to some extent, and stability is the most

important, but it seems to me that there may be an opportunity here to

be slightly more sophisticated. It seems to me also that the committee

struck by your predecessor recommended a more sophisticated approach,

and I hope the minister might just briefly address that in his response.

Basically, a legislative method for dealing with it, a special

appeal board to deal with those questions, and stability in the base

makes a lot of sense. I think that in that sense it's very good, but

with some caveats respecting the precise method you've used. I reserve

some more questioning on that for the committee stage.

MR. BLENCOE: My comments, like my colleague's, will be brief

at this stage. I just wish, as Municipal Affairs critic, to share that

we too have been waiting for some action. Knowing local government and

the problems they've had over the last few years, we certainly welcome

this government's attempt to rectify the problems of assessment,

particularly for industrial purposes.

As we all know, there are many communities which have virtually gone

bankrupt. I know that some communities, at one point, would have gladly

given their community to the province for a dollar, especially a few

years ago. I have to say that because this bill came down late Friday,

we haven't had a chance to really look over in detail a lot of the

detail, but from first glance, we think it's a start. The government

and the Finance minister have clearly tried to grapple with this very

difficult job, I might add; there's no question about that. There's no

easy answer, but I think we have to find some common ground in terms of

the communities that these major industrial plants serve. For many of

these communities, the only industry is a single industry, and I think

they have to recognize that they owe some responsibility to those

communities. It's not a straightforward matter of reducing their

assessment and walking away. They have to recognize that they have some

responsibility.

[4:00]

Mr. Speaker, we will have further to say in committee, as we do a further rundown of the details of this piece of legislation.

MS. EDWARDS: I also want to be very short in saying that I recognize

that this is badly needed legislation, whatever it is. I have to confess to

the minister that I haven't yet had the opportunity to examine it very closely,

nor have I had the opportunity to canvass my constituency on their exact response

to it. However, I do know, in having some hints about what it might be, that

I believe that the municipalities in my area were favourably disposed to what

you are proposing. I know that some of the mining companies in my riding include

a number which are not so favourably disposed, but I want to know exactly their

particular points before I discuss it.

What I need to say, Mr. Minister, is that I don't any longer want to

have this terrible struggle that seems almost insurmountable for the

particular entities dealing in it. The municipalities simply can't

afford the kind of tax taken — give and take — nor the problems they

had trying to plan, which has gone on partly because of this problem.

And I know that the mining companies are certainly in no particular

position right now to have a great shift and sort.

So if in fact we get to some stability in the assessment and the

taxing system here, I'm sure that it will bring some good at any rate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members are all advised that pursuant to standing order 42 the minister will now close debate.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: A number of points were made by hon.

members opposite. I'll try to deal with them with short comments,

because we undoubtedly will spend some time during the committee stage.

First, dealing with the question of whether these proposed

legislative changes recognize the recommendations of the special task

force created by my predecessor to look into this whole matter, I can

say that we have taken those recommendations that were pertinent and

valid out of the report.

As to the report's "major recommendation," which dealt with a pretty

significant restructuring of the minutiae that the assessment appeal

boards were to use as criteria to examine appeals, in relation to those

specific recommendations, we have not accepted them. When we introduced

publicly the task force's reports and distributed them to the local

governments and the industrial sector, we got almost unanimous

criticisms for the recommendation. The report suggested a very

complicated, technical determination of values using a variety of

formulas. It was our judgment and that of the people who expressed an

opinion on the matter that we were making the issue even more

complicated and were reducing the question of stability and the ease of

understanding. We were making it far more likely that the appeals that

we were being inundated with were going to increase exponentially if we

had accepted that rather complicated formula to settle these matters.

In short, I don't think we found any local government in favour, and I

do not recollect receiving any correspondence from the industrial

sector in favour of those particular amendments. Other recommendations

we did incorporate into this amendment act.

Dealing with the second point raised, which had to do with the need

for local government stability in taxation revenues, I must recognize

the complimentary remarks by the hon. members opposite on our intention

here. I must also add a caveat, if you like, to local governments in

British Columbia. These amendments assume that local governments will

be responsible in their taxing authorities and that they will not abuse

the taxing power given to them through this new change in procedures

and regulation. And if it turns out in the fullness of time that the

local governments do not rise to that challenge to be responsible, then

clearly it may be a matter that has to be revisited. But this

government starts on the assumption that local governments are partners

in providing

[ Page 2999 ]

responsible government to our province, and that

they will use discretion and sensitivity in applying their taxing

powers under these proposed changes.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the detailed discussions in third reading I

think will allow us to get into the technicalities, if that is the wish

of the members opposite. May I just caution you that it is an extremely

technical subject that has more combinations and permutations than mere

spoken words can explain. So with those words, Mr. Speaker, I call for

second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 67, Assessment Amendment Act, 1987, 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. STRACHAN: Once again we're in an interesting situation: lots to do, but we don't know where to go from here.

The hon. opposition House Leader spoke to me earlier and made the

recommendation that perhaps we could ask for leave to go to committee

stage of Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 5), 1987. I don't

know if he has discussed that with his caucus, but he had wanted to

attend something else at the moment. So if that's agreeable, I would

ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to go to committee stage of Bill 68.

Leave granted.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 5), 1987

The House in committee on Bill 68; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MR. CLARK: There's a bit of a dilemma. I know that the hon.

House Leader for the government side is very able, but I think he may

have some difficulty dealing with committee stage technical questions

on clauses.

AN HON. MEMBER: The cabinet is coming.

MR. CLARK: Oh, they are. My first question around the Auditor General Act might be difficult for the House Leader to answer.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll try.

MR. CLARK: Because we're downgrading the position of the auditor-general

— and I understand from sitting on the auditor-general committee that that's

been in the works for some time — I would like to know if the minister knows

whether or not we're competitive with other auditor-generals across Canada

in our new salary range. It seems to me we don't want it to reflect upon

the position of auditor-general, We don't want to be saying to the public

that we're downgrading the position of auditor-general because we've

given that person a wage cut in excess of $30,000. So if the minister could

assure us that this new rate of pay was comparable to other auditor-generals

across Canada, it might assist us in supporting this clause.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member is well aware, and he has

already indicated this.... I know the committee of selection for the

Auditor General Act was concerned with this. I think all members of

that committee did a remarkable job in relaying the message to the

candidates that there would be a change in legislation.

Just to recap briefly on the history, when the legislation was first

drafted it became apparent to the government that any salary would have

to be tied to the setting of a salary that is decided not by the

executive council or a majority of the Legislative Assembly but rather

by an independent body. So the salary in the original legislation, Mr.

Chairman, was set at that of a Supreme Court judge. That certainly set

it aside from any control of the executive council or in fact of the

government of British Columbia, and did that quite clearly. However, it

also became apparent to us that there was a remarkable escalation going

on within that salary by the federal government. At present the Supreme

Court judges receive a salary of $111,700. The federal government has

also tabled legislation that will increase the salary retroactive to

April 1986 to $115,000 and then to $121,000 retroactive to April 1987,

and to $127,700 effective April 1988. The recommendation of the recent

report of the Select Standing Committee on Labour, Justice and

Intergovernmental Relations, which set out for another task, was to pay

the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court a salary of $94,326 for 1988.

Those reports, of course, were adopted, and it was on the basis of that

figure that we reckoned as government that that would be an appropriate

salary level for the auditor-general of British Columbia.

With respect to the member's question as to other salaries across

Canada, I regret that I cannot inform the committee of that number,

although maybe the member can, because I'm sure if you were on the

select standing committee to look at an auditor-general, you might have

those numbers more at hand. I can't give you that comparison, Mr.

Member, but maybe the Attorney-General can, or maybe if you insist on

having this information, we could stand down that

section until such

time as we can verify the information that you require.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I gather you'd like to have the salaries of

auditor-generals across the Commonwealth and the western world. One of

the reasons for tying them to the salary of the Chief Judge of the

Provincial Court is to set them in this province and not set them

indexed to something outside the province.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the government House Leader on this

one would stand it until both our opposition critic and the Minister of

Social Services (Hon. Mr. Richmond) are here.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 2 is stood over.

Section 3 approved.

[4:15]

section 4.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could just explain the reason for this section.

[ Page 3000 ]

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

HON. B.R. SMITH: It's consequential in the sense that the

grounds for the revocation of a debt collector's licence are being

amended, and they will no longer include the revocation of a licence

issued under the Investment Contract Act, because the Investment

Contract Act was repealed, or will have been repealed when the bill we

debated here last week passes the assembly and receives royal assent.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. ROSE: I'm intrigued by the new British Columbia bird. I

know the minister would like to take a peck at trying to inform the

House and the general public how this illustrious feathered friend was

chosen over all the noble and courageous birds that are indigenous to

this province. Some thought maybe we should have had the falcon;

somebody else suggested that since we're involved in free trade, maybe

the bald eagle would have been appropriate. There are all kinds of

different ones that I hesitate to mention, not because I can't think of

them but because I just don't think I'd get away with talking about

them. There's an amendment here of the Emblem and Tartan Act. I imagine

we could go behind this particular amendment and go right into that

Emblem and Tartan Act, and that would probably uncover a lot of old

wounds. It would take us back to Scotland and all the rest, but I don't

think we want to do that.

But we want to know why this pipsqueak of a jay was chosen over all

the rest. I know that the minister will be able to convince us all that

while the great blue heron was passed over, and some of these other

birds that....

MR. WILLIAMS: Peregrine falcon.

MR. ROSE: We talked about the falcons, and we have chosen, instead, the Steller's jay.

MR. WILLIAMS: The whisky-jack.

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't think that would be appropriate for the province, but at one time it was, perhaps.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm delighted to leap to the breach and

respond to my hon. friend opposite, to members of the committee and to

British Columbia in general, and to tell you how enthused and pleased I

am with the selection of the Steller's jay as the B.C. provincial bird.

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Cyanocitta stelleri, right. I'll tell you about the name too — not the Latin name, but the way it came to be appointed.

Seriously, 1987 was the centennial of Canadian wildlife. The first

wilderness area was set aside by Sir John A. In 1887 in Saskatchewan,

and it was decreed across Canada that provincial governments should pay

homage to this celebration and do something significant. It occurred to

us in British Columbia that we did not have a provincial bird, and

perhaps it might be a good idea for all British Columbians to enter

into the process of selecting one, and we did.

We had a remarkable public relations campaign, handled very ably by

a gentleman I want to mention now, Ron Kowalilak of the Ministry of

Environment and Parks. He did just a first-class job of doing a public

relations campaign for the balloting. He sent out ballots. There was

good radio and television coverage, and it was really a remarkable

campaign. In the end we received 85,000 ballots, and the Steller's jay

won.

There were many other candidates. We even had a write in

section of the ballot....

MR. ROSE: Did you have any

section 80s?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We had

section 80 ballots, yes.

Coming in second was the peregrine falcon. By the way, the Steller's

jay got about 21,000 ballots, which is more than many of us in this

room get — and ever will. Second was the peregrine falcon; third was

the trumpeter swan; and it went down from that point. Other candidates

were the American dipper, which my friend opposite might wish to

reflect on. Then there was the hummingbird, but I've forgotten how the

ballots went there. I have a short attention span when it comes to

hummingbirds.

In any event, the winner was the Steller's jay. By the way, you'll

notice the spelling is S-t-e-l-l-e-r-'-s. If we examine that, class, we

notice that's not the way we spell "stellar" as in "stars." Also,"s",

so it must be someone's name. Eureka! You're right. The Steller's jay

is named after George Steller, who was a German physician and

naturalist with the Bering expedition, and traveled the Alaska

panhandle area with the Bering expedition, which was financed by the

Russians and came, of course, to the west coast of British Columbia.

Being the renowned naturalist that he was, he named that cute little

critter the Steller's jay.

So there we have it. That's really about all I wanted to say about

section 5, but I knew you'd be delighted to hear that.

MS. A. HAGEN: I'm not sure whether I'm rising because my

Scottish ancestry comes to the fore with the Emblem and Tartan Act, or

because of the Steller's jay. But I did want to ask the Minister of

Environment what kind of power this particular amendment gives to the

province in respect to this ubiquitous bird. Because I had been told

that by virtue of laying claim to this bird as an emblematic part of

our taxonomical whatever, we may limit people's use of this particular

bird — ways in which they may advertise and so on. I wonder if either

the Minister of Environment or the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) can say what we are in fact taking on to ourselves, and have we

asked the bird's permission to so limit the use of its ruffled feathers

and cheeky voice and ubiquitous travels around the province?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I just sought a fast legal opinion from

the Attorney-General with respect to use of the Steller's jay, and he

said: "I don't know." But I presume that anyone could use the Steller's

jay in spite of its official designation, the same way anyone could

make reference to the dogwood, which is our official flower. So that

status would be the same. This simply enshrines its officialdom in the

Emblem and Tartan Act. The bird is already protected under law in terms

of hunting and that type of thing, and this simply states that it is

now our official bird.

[ Page 3001 ]

MS. A. HAGEN: Just as long as we're not going to give it the

Olympic treatment, and I gather that that's the intent of the

minister's comment.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. CASHORE: I'm hurriedly reading some notes that we've been

able to get on this section. I think there is much in this

section that

this side of the House would endorse, but I would like to ask the

Attorney-General to rise and explain this

section and its aims and

objectives. We may have some questions following that.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Am I required to speak on the Steller's Jay, or can I go on?

AN HON. MEMBER: We've already done that.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Oh, good. I'm much relieved.

The amendments to sections 6 and 7 — I'll deal with them together —

are really to reduce court activity and costs, place responsibility

back on parents for their children and make the process of obtaining a

family court order less intimidating and frustrating. Through the

amendments we will get access to the provincial tracing unit to

applicants who need and deserve assistance to vary or enforce a custody

or access order. This

section will allow an enforcement officer to

conduct locational traces for custody and access matters, as it is now

possible for maintenance under

section 63.2 to help applicants in

family court.

The amendments will also, in matters of custody enforcement, make

access to federal data banks under the new federal act, the Family

Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act — which was proclaimed

only two weeks ago — more efficient and practical. We'll have access to

these data banks, not access to any privileged information which has a

solicitor-client privilege or information that a family counsellor

gets. Those are protected in the sections. It's an attempt to get this

information, and to get it into the hands of parents and people who

need to enforce custody and access, and to do so without everything

going into the funnel of the court. The only way you could get it

before, as you know, was pursuant to court order. So it's really an

attempt to make that information more accessible to the people who need

it.

MR. CASHORE: I would take it then that this legislation's

main intent is to facilitate this process, and that it's not getting

into the area we have been anticipating with regard to support payments

and that sort of thing. We would anticipate that there will be further

legislation coming in that regard.

HON. B.R. SMITH: That's absolutely correct. The legislation

for automatic enforcement of maintenance and subrogation rights — the

two sort of separate things that we have to do — is in final

preparation. It's my hope and the hope of the Minister of Social

Services and Housing (Hon. Mr. Richmond) that we would at least be able

to get a bill into the chamber here before we break. It may not be a

bill that will pass; we may bring it in as exposure. That may depend on

your reaction to it when you see it. But we're not holding it back.

We're trying desperately to put the final touches to it. It's been a

very difficult measure to put together. There are a lot of technical

problems with it. We want it to work and we want it to work well. Fm

aiming to get something in this chamber this week in that other area.

That's by and away from sections 6 and 7, but I think you're entitled

to that response.

MR. CASHORE: With regard to the comments that the

Attorney-General has just made and anticipating that this legislation

before us facilitates part of that process, I would like to say to the

minister that I would really hope that the other part of it, the

legislation that you intend to bring in, would address — as well as the

concern of those people who are on income assistance, and how that

might in a sense replenish the enormous cost that is involved there —

those parents who are of low income who cannot avail themselves of the

facilities of the courts.

HON. B.R. SMITH: I totally agree with the member. The

legislation we're putting together is not simply designed to be a

collector or set-off of welfare payments from defalcating husbands, but

is also to be a mechanism that will allow the working poor to collect

their proper dues from absconding spouses. By "the working poor," I go

right up into the professional middle class. A lot of women in that

category who have been left by husbands and who are not on social

assistance are having one terrible struggle and simply can't collect.

The legislation is going to deal with them, for sure.

[4:30]

MR. GUNO: I just have a very brief question. As I understand

it, this

section allows an enforcement officer to have access to

information without having to obtain a court order. I think that's a

welcome change. As someone who briefly practised family law, I think

it's generally accepted to be one that is now in line with the federal

law.

One question I have is on one of the items under the exemption

clause in (2). I understand the solicitor-client privilege has been a

very justifiable exemption, but the exemption under (

c) which purports

to exempt any information from the director of statistics, who I assume

would be in charge of releasing anything that's relevant under the

provincial Statistics Act.... Can the Attorney-General comment on that

exemption?

HON. B.R. SMITH: I'll just have to act that act for a minute,

because I don't know that I can do that right off the cuff. Just a

minute. I also apologize that I wasn’t listening to everything you

said, because somebody was interrupting me. I'll just check that out.

Section 9 was a rather blanket provision for secrecy. It appears to

me that all this does is to provide that the powers of the enforcement

officer, under subsection (1) of 37. 1, these broad powers of tracing

that we're talking to.... The freedom to do those things does not apply

in respect of any information which is prohibited because of secrecy

under

section 9, so all the categories under

section 9 are still

secret. The secrecy provisions of statistics provide those people that

can have access for the statistics.... They're all set out. A person

who is not employed or engaged under this act and doesn't have a lawful

purpose for getting that information can be prosecuted for making it

available. For disclosing under that act. you can be prosecuted as

well. There are a number of people who are held to be legally entitled

to information; they're all set out.

[ Page 3002 ]

As far as I can tell from this section, it keeps and maintains those

privileges and safeguards of secrecy. The enforcement officer's powers

under 37 (

l) are subject to subsection (2), which says that subsection

(1) does not apply in respect of information the disclosure of which is

forbidden by

section 9. So I take that to mean, hon. member, as you

probably would agree, that

section 9 — the secrecy provisions under

statistics — are still in force. Somebody cannot get a tracing order

and then give that information at large to the public or someone who

isn't authorized, or else they'd still be in violation of the secrecy

provisions of 9 in relation to private statistics.

MR. GUNO: Would you interpret this as also saying that if

under 37 (

l) you are unable to get the information that's required, you

still have recourse to the court to obtain the order for the

information?

HON. B.R. SMITH: That's the way I understand it: you still

have access to the court, but you need not take the court route if you

can come under the provisions of the enforcement officer. But you would

still have the court route.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

section 8.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's interesting to note that this government

has done very little to improve the circumstances of homeowners over

many years, in terms of increasing this grant. An earlier Premier would

have made sure that this was done annually so that the net position of

the homeowner was not sliding backwards. Under this administration,

they are sliding backwards in terms of some kind of redistribution, in

terms of the incidence of the tax — i.e, the tax on the average

homeowner. Because you haven't increased the grant, the incidence on

the average homeowner is higher than ever. So you're not keeping with

the great traditions of the earlier Social Credit administrations that

knew this was an onerous burden for the average homeowner. That being

the case, you may very well face their wrath in the near future.

Sections 8 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. CLARK: I'd just like the Attorney-General to explain 14, 15 and 16 in terms of the implications of those changes.

HON. B.R. SMITH: These remedy some glitches in the bill that

we brought in last year, which is working quite well. I only wish that

I could persuade my federal counterpart to adopt our approach to the

classification of visual materials in this province, which we did by

public consultation and meetings, and by talking to a lot of groups

instead of by imposing that kind of a strange new test, as they're

doing in the Criminal Code amendments.

Currently the act in

section 8 (2) provides that where there is a contravention

of the act, its regulation or an order of the director, the director may refuse

to issue or reissue or may suspend or cancel a licence. I guess you could argue

that breaches of a condition of licence would constitute a contravention of

an order of the director, but the proposed amendment makes it clear that breaches

of conditions of a licence are grounds for action by the director. So it's

to absolutely put beyond question the power of the director to do that. We did

not have a direct court challenge on that, but it was apprehended we were going

to get one. So this is to try to make our regulatory scheme beyond attack in

that sense.

MR. CLARK: Maybe the minister could just clarify. These

amendments deal with legislation that was introduced and passed in June

1986. Is that the legislation? It seems to me to be kind of quick to

make amendments. Is it the result of some consequence that has come up

— a court case or something like that?

HON. B.R. SMITH: We were anticipating a challenge or had some

notice we were going to have a challenge on that ground. Somebody was

going to challenge the director's power to do that, so we'd want to

head it off before we do.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. CLARK: Maybe the minister could explain

section 16,

because it seems to me that it deals with municipal liability with

respect to licences. Maybe he could just clarify that. I made a note

here that the municipal council members should not have been liable in

this kind of situation anyway, so I'm wondering why the need for

changes. I've got a note here that the Attorney-General's department,

December 14, 1987...., that this

section shouldn't have been here in

the first place.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Without getting the bill, I'll have to stand

it down and come back to it. If you just wait a minute, I may be able

to give you that answer.

We're repealing 13 (

l) because municipal officials don't do that any more.

Interjection.

HON. B.R. SMITH: No, business licences were issued but not in

relation to someone whose licence had been cancelled under 8 (2). That

is as a result of somebody breaching an order of the director. Since

the director just got the power to do this under this bill, 13 (

l) is

no longer applicable. There are not going to be cases where a business

licence is being issued to someone whose licence has been cancelled

under 8 (2).

If that doesn't answer it adequately, I'll be glad to stand it down

and come back on it. I just think it's an academic section. That's the

note that I have.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't be long on this section.

I would like to say that we're pleased to see this here and should

indicate that there had been some conversations between my office and

the minister's office to try to ensure that it was here during this

session. For a number of years the business community has been waiting

for the opportunity to establish business improvement areas. I know in

my own community the downtown business community is anxious to

[ Page 3003 ]

have and has wanted such a mechanism to do their own kind of programs for business improvement in the downtown area.

Generally we are very supportive of this section. We hope that it

will allow local councils to move ahead to establish business

improvement areas. In the past, local councils have voiced a concern

that a business improvement area elected group might clash with the

local council in terms of priorities and issues. That may happen, but

generally I think we have come to the conclusion that the ability to

establish a business improvement area and allow those businesses in

that area, within some reasonable parameters, to define their own

agenda and priorities is a good idea.

We are very supportive of this moving ahead. I would, though, ask

some questions of the minister and maybe the minister can get some

clarification for me. Subsections (6) (

c) and (

d) specify that

non-resident and corporate voters will be allowed to vote. It

specifically says: "sections 36 and 38 apply for the purpose of

determining who is an elector under

section 674 (4)...." Basically,

it's the non-resident and corporate voters.

[4:45]

Two problems arise. First, it doesn't say resident voters are

excluded, but it doesn't say they're included here. It specifically

says that non-resident voters and corporate voters.... I understand the

reason for that: many of them do business in downtown Victoria, for

example, but live in another municipality. But it doesn't say residents

of that business area will be able to vote. I presume they're not

excluded. I hope not. It's just a point of clarification. I don't know

if she can answer today, but maybe the minister can get an answer. Is

it the intent of this legislation to exclude residents of the

prospective BIA areas? I. would hope not.

Also, one that we are not going to say too much about: there could

be in the future, which is always a problem, allowing the corporate

vote.... It might create a clash, because we know that in corporate

interests versus the tenant business person or the shopkeeper who

leases or rents space, obviously the corporate direction is somewhat

different than those small tenant directions. I hope that that won't

create all sorts of problems in those business improvement areas. Those

corporate lobbyists tend to be a little more powerful than the small

shopkeepers who lease or rent space. We would hope that these business

improvement areas won't get into conflict over those kinds of

priorities.

Those are just two things that I bring up to the minister. The first

one, I think, is the major one: that hopefully those who are resident

in the BlAs won't be excluded from voting.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I will get clarification on that, because

I don't have a response, but if we were bringing forward legislation

that was going to allow businesses to tax themselves, it would be my

hope that the residential taxpayers would not be called upon to pay any

part of that levy, so in turn it would seem to me that they wouldn't be

included in the vote. But I will get clarification on that.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm just curious and wonder if the minister

would respond and explain subsection (9) (

a) and (b), about the time

limit for these designated improvement areas. It says that they must

come to an end at a certain time. I wonder if you would explain the

reasoning behind that and whether you expect that there will be a

number of renewals of this kind of thing. Will that be allowed? What's

the story on that?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In bringing forward the bill we did call

upon input, and we received copies of similar legislation from other

jurisdictions. I would have to assume that this was the ideal

situation. There's no question at all that the contract could be

renewed after five years, but it would have to be renewed on agreement

— the people in the area would have to agree to an extension.

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Perhaps what we could do is ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to explain the purpose of this amendment.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: I'm hesitating a bit because I'm trying

to remember the date the original bill was introduced. It seems to me

that the tax exemption legislation that originally went to committee

and was passed through this House took effect in '85. At that time a

portion of the property was not registered in the name of the Pacific

Bible College. Although this House thought we were giving tax exemption

to all of the property used for education and worship, we did not do

that, because a portion of the property was registered in the name of

the society. We are correcting that to fulfill the commitment we

thought we were giving them in 1985. It is strictly because part of the

property was registered under one name and part under another, and it

was not caught when the bill was put forward in 1985. Nothing new is

being added to what was understood by the House in 1985.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Am I to understand then that this change,

including the naming of the Bible Fellowship Housing Society, now

identifies the whole parcel and that the whole parcel will be exempt

from property taxes.)

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: The property that is used for educational purposes.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I understand that there is a portion of the

property held by the Bible Fellowship Housing Society that is now

currently in tax sale. This legislation deals retroactively with that

portion of the property and therefore wipes out the owing taxes. Is

that correct?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: That would be correct to a point because

it does not exempt them from payment of all the outstanding taxes. To

clarify, land that is owned or leased by the college which is not used

for educational purposes is not considered to be college property and

is not exempt.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I would expect that the minister is familiar

with some of the detail, so I'll take some liberty in telling the

minister what I understand to be the situation. The Bible Fellowship

Housing Society has a request before the municipal council asking for

rezon