1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

253 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting reports

British Columbia Buildings Corporation annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979. Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 253

Legislative Library report. Hon. Mr. Schroeder –– 253

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Fish processing industry. Mr. Lea –– 253

Predator control. Mrs. Dailly –– 254

Alert Bay medical facilities, Mr. Gabelmann –– 255

Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act (Bill 9). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Passarell –– 256

Mr. Macdonald –– 256

Mrs. Dailly –– 256

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 256

Division on

section 1 –– 257

section 3.

Mr. Hall –– 257

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 258

Report and third reading –– 258

Special Purpose Appropriation Act (Bill 10). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 258

Mr. Cocke –– 258

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 259

Special Purpose Appropriation Act (Bill 10). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 260

Mr. Leggatt –– 260

Hon. Mr, McClelland 260

Mrs. Wallace –– 261

Ms. Brown –– 262

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 262

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 262

Mr. Hall –– 263

Report and third reading –– 264

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 13). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 264

Mrs. Wallace –– 264

Mr. Ritchie –– 266

Mr. Skelly –– 267

Ms. Sanford –– 268

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 269

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 269

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 13). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mrs. Wallace –– 271

On the amendment to

section 1.

Mrs. Wallace –– 271

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 271

Mr. Barrett –– 272

Mr. Hyndman –– 273

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 273

Mr. Barrett –– 275

Ms. Sanford –– 276

Mr. Lea –– 276

Division on the amendment –– 277

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The priest who led

us in prayer today is a constituent of mine and, I think, a friend of

many hon. members in this chamber. I would therefore like to ask the

House to particularly welcome Father Bernard Hanley of St. Joseph's

parish in Saanich and the Islands.

Mr. Speaker, with your

permission, I would like to introduce also in the Speaker's gallery

today Mrs. Lew King, a constituent from Sidney, and two relatives of

hers from Sweden, Mr. and Mrs. Moberg.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. George Hewison, Mr.

Jack Nichol and other members of the United Fishermen and Allied

Workers union, some of whom are in the galleries now. Many will be

meeting with me later on to discuss the vexing problems on the coast

involving fish processing. They will follow and be part of the

conversations that I will have with the federal minister as well as the

fish processors themselves. I would very much like the House to join me

in welcoming them.

MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today

we have 13 grade 7 pupils from Airport Elementary School in Fort St.

John. They have come 800 miles with their teacher and principal, Mr.

and Mrs. Bernie Brandt, to visit Victoria and this Legislature. I would

like the House to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: In

conjunction with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), I join in

the welcome of the delegation of the United Fishermen and Allied

Workers Union. I would like the House to join with me in expressing the

unanimous hope that their visit will not be in vain.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

On behalf of my colleague for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe) and myself, I'd like to introduce Mrs. Rita Buckshon of

Vancouver, a constituent of Vancouver–Little Mountain.

MR. STRACHAN: I would like to have the House welcome a constituent of mine, Colin Kirk, deputy government agent of Prince George.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Please welcome Mayor George Harris, of the District of Mission, and Deputy Mayor John Agnew.

Presenting Reports

Hon.

Mr. Curtis presented the annual report of the British Columbia

Buildings Corporation for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1979.

Mr. Speaker presented the report of the Legislative Library, under the Legislative Library Act.

Oral Questions

FISH PROCESSING INDUSTRY

MR. LEA:

A question for the Minister of Environment. Has the government taken

any administrative moves to ensure that herring and salmon process

licence holders be required to process herring and salmon in British

Columbia, (

a) in the case of herring, to require that a licence holder

will not ship out ungraded roe; and (

b) in the case of salmon, to

ensure that at least 70 percent of salmon be fully processed before

export?

HON. MR. MAIR: The member has probably raised

the basic part of the question that is vexing the government at this

point, the reason for which I am going to be meeting with the gentlemen

I introduced to this chamber a little earlier.

In answer to

the hon. member's question, I have already met with the federal

Minister of Fisheries, with the processors, and will meet with the

members of the union. It's not restricted to just the province of

British Columbia, as I'm sure the member knows. This is going to

require action of both our own and the federal government.

However,

I can assure the member that the problem is very much on our minds, and

we intend to make recommendations in the very near future. I'll report

to the House when we are able to do so.

MR. LEA: Is

the minister saying that in the case of process licensing, and the

requirement of those licences, it is not the sole jurisdiction of

British Columbia?

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't think

there's any question, Mr. Speaker, that the government has the right to

license processors. The more vexing question is the purpose for which

that licence is required. If we require that licence for a purpose

which is within our constitutional powers under

section 92, that poses

no problem. If, on the other hand, we do through the back door that

which we can't do through the front door, or if we do it for purposes

that are not constitutionally within our rights under

section 91, then

we run into trouble. That is the reason it is most important that we

and the federal government get together and come forward with a common

program and a common policy.

MR. LEA: Is the

government willing today to place a moratorium on the issuance of any

new process licences in the B.C. fishing industry until the problems

he's talked about are sorted out?

HON. MR. MAIR: The very simple answer to that question is no.

MR. LEA: A very simple question then is: why not?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we can ask questions, but we cannot insist on answers.

MR. LEA: Why will the minister not place a moratorium on this licence issuing?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is inadmissible in that it pries into government policy.

[ Page 254 ]

MR. LEA:

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, does the government have any figures

to show what portion of the fishing industry is now owned by offshore

investment — in other words, Japanese money, American money, foreign

money?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer to that question,

Mr. Speaker, is yes, we do have figures. I don't think that anybody,

however, would be prepared to authenticate their veracity, for a number

of reasons. First of all, it is difficult to keep up-to-date records.

Secondly,

there's a very large question as to what constitutes control. On the

one hand it may be the ownership of shares; on the other hand it may be

a debenture giving the right to ownership of shares and control of

shares under certain circumstances arising. It certainly is not the 90

percent or more that the member opposite said in the campaign. However,

it certainly is enough to cause us some alarm and some concern, and it

is enough for the government of this province to have refused to

license any more processors unless they happen to be British Columbia

residents and Canadian citizens.

MR. LEA: On a final

supplementary, can the minister tell us why it is dangerous — as I

assume he means — for us, the public, to have these figures, when it is

not dangerous for the government to have them? Why aren't the figures

that you have as a government made public?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Well, in the first place, I thought I had made it clear that the

figures are relatively meaningless, because they can't be authenticated

as to their accuracy. Secondly, unless I have missed something along

the line, I don't recall the member asking me specifically for the

information that I do have. I'm not suggesting by that that I'll give

it to him; but if he wants it, I think he should ask for it.

MR. KING:

I have a supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has

indicated this might be a matter for federal-provincial discussion, I

would like to ask him whether or not it was on the agenda for

discussion between our Premier and the Prime Minister of Canada at

their recent meeting at 24 Sussex Drive. I would note that the Premier

emerged from the meeting full of support for the new Prime Minister and

his ambassadorial shifts; I wonder if they discussed the fisheries

problem.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I haven't the

faintest idea what was on the agenda for discussion between the Premier

and the Prime Minister; but I can say, if the member would permit me

the opportunity of answering, that it certainly was on the agenda for

discussion between the Hon. James McGrath and myself yesterday

afternoon.

PREDATOR CONTROL

MRS, DAILLY:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment.

According to a radio statement this morning, the minister is planning

to start a program of wolf poisoning. In view of the fact that several

months ago — prior to the election — the minister said that he was

going to delay any such program of wolf poisoning until further

documentation came before his ministry — and this was not expected

until the fall of this year — my first question to the minister is: why

then are you proceeding with the poisoning of wolves?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, it would be a gross overstatement to say that we are

embarking upon a program of wolf poisoning, and it would be very

misleading if anybody were to draw that conclusion from either the

remarks I made or something that was said by the press.

What

I did say — and I'm glad to say it again today — is that there are

certain areas of this province where the predator-control problem is

particularly acute relative to domestic animals, mostly sheep and

cattle. In those areas it has been impossible to control predators

without contemplating the use of poisons, at least in limited times and

in limited areas.

The member asked why we were doing this

without giving it study, or words to the effect. May I say, Mr.

Speaker, we have given it considerable study, and the extent of those

studies we will be releasing in the next few days to the public, and,

of course, to the House. I think the member will be satisfied that we

have given it a great deal of thought, a great deal of study, and had a

great deal of public input before embarking upon what will be a very

minor use of poisons in certain specified areas against specified

animals at specified times.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a

supplementary question. Now that the minister has confirmed that his

government does condone a policy of wolf poisoning, I wonder if you

could tell us, Mr. Minister, why you did not embark on the use of

lithium chloride, which, as you are aware, is used to create an

aversion in the wolves. Apparently they do not then have to be

poisoned, and yet they do not continue being predators. I wonder if you

could tell us why you did not embark on this program.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I want to once again say that the government does not

condone wolf poisoning. The government of the province of British

Columbia recognizes that from time to time, in a limited way, poisons

must be used for the control of predators in areas where domestic

animals have become the food for the wolves, because man has moved in

and moved out their natural food supply.

Now the member

asked why we have not tried lithium chloride, which is an aversion

program, and I want the member to know that we have. We have a program

ongoing on the Bonaparte Plateau now where that is being tried. I

regret to inform the member in the House that unfortunately the results

have not been particularly encouraging vis-a-vis the wolf. They have as

far as the coyote is concerned, but not the wolf. However, we will

continue that experiment. Hopefully, as science progresses — and

science and technology being what it is, Mr. Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. McGeer) — perhaps we will reach the day when that will

supplant other methods that we now have to take for predator control.

MRS. DAILLY:

On a final supplementary for this time on this matter, Mr. Speaker, the

minister must be aware that the U.S. wildlife branch has never endorsed

the poisoning program for wolves. I wonder if he has contacted the

American wildlife branch and whether he could explain to

[ Page 255 ]

us why, if they have been able to handle their predator problem without poisoning, B.C. is embarking on it.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad that the member asked that question because

except for the state of Alaska, the continental United States of

America virtually has no wolf problem. You might just as well ask me

why they don't poison wolves in Sweden. I'll tell you, Madam Member:

because they don't have any wolves. So it simply is not necessary in

areas where the wolf population is as minimal as it is in the

continental United States from which the member has got her figures. It

is simply not necessary to use poison under those circumstances.

The

poison that we will use, I want to emphasize again, will be minimal.

We'll be talking about a very, very few animals indeed, and only under

circumstances where we cannot control predators in other ways. Mr.

Speaker, I suspect that the member opposite is trying to distort this

out of all context so it appears that we have embarked upon a massive

poisoning of wolves. We have not, and I want to emphasize that.

MR. HOWARD:

I would like to ask the Minister of Environment a supplementary

question, and ask him if he will table in the House a paper or a

document indicating the areas within which this limited poisoning

program is going to take place.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr.

Speaker, I'I take that under advisement. I'm not going to give an

undertaking in the House today to table documents when I don't know

which ones the member refers to, but I will answer questions in this

House. When documents come into my possession which I think the public

ought to know about and particularly this House ought to know about,

I'll be very pleased to table them.

ALERT BAY MEDICAL FACILITIES

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The chief

coroner, Glen McDonald, said his jury in Alert Bay called for an

inquiry with a big "I" and a full-scale public inquiry under the Public

Inquiries Act, with a judge as chairman. Will the minister now agree to

set up such an inquiry?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible to ask the member for North

Island a question at the same time as I attempt to give him an answer.

Would he agree that what we should do in this case is follow the

direction given to us by that inquest jury? Would that be a fair

assumption of your position, Mr. Member?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. It is unusual to be asking questions across the floor

the other way, but perhaps the member for North Island has another....

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the minister will now, as the

chief coroner has urged, set up a public inquiry under the Public

Inquiries Act? Yes or no.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can

only assume in his answer that the member does agree that we should

take the advice given to us by the coroner's inquest. You can nod your

head if you agree with that.

I'd like to read to you, Mr. Speaker. what the jury did recommend in this case. I'd like to read from the coroner's inquest....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. If we permit each member the very same

latitude that certain members are presuming, we will have anarchy in

this room. Let's have order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I had a question from the member for North Island relating

to what the chief coroner is alleged to have said in a newspaper

article in the Victoria Colonist

this morning. I think it only fair that I read to the House. In answer

to that question, part of the document signed by Glen McDonald,

coroner, on the certificate of cause of death as determined by the

coroner's inquest. That's really the only official document that we can

go by in terms of what the coroner's inquest said. We can't go by some

report in any newspaper or on any radio station.

The document signed by Coroner Glen McDonald read:

"We,

the jury, recommend that an investigation by the B.C. Ministry of

Health and Welfare and the College of Physicians and Surgeons be held

to look into the medical practices of Dr. Pickup and the general

standards of medical services in Alert Bay.

"Furthermore,

that the appropriate B.C. nursing association inquire into nursing care

at St. George's Hospital, and make recommendations."

I want

to repeat very quickly what I said yesterday. Prior to this inquest, we

had had a request from the St. George's Hospital in Alert Bay that the

hospital committee — which is a standing committee of some ten years'

duration in this province — be dispatched immediately to look into the

very things that are recommended here. We agreed to that; however,

Coroner McDonald, as is his right, at that time asked us not to

activate this committee while an inquest was in place. Of course we

acceded to that request.

As soon as the inquest was over and

the recommendation was made to us, I recommended to the chairman of

that committee that the investigation which was recommended on February

8, I believe be held forthwith. In order that we might fulfil the terms

of the recommendations of the coroner's inquest jury, I sent an

invitation through the chairman of that committee to the Registered

Nurses Association of British Columbia, requesting they be part of this

investigation. That is being done at this present time. We are

following to the letter and more the recommendations made by the

coroner's inquest jury in this case.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: With leave, I would like to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

LOWER MAINLAND STADIUM FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

[ Page 256 ]

section 1.

MR. PASSARELL:

I have some concerns about

section 1 and the allocation of the $25

million to the lower mainland stadium fund. Not a penny of this $25

million is going for the youth of the north for playing fields. As I

reiterated last week, many of the schools in the Stikine school

district do not have playing fields. I would like to see the government

allocate some of this surplus revenue to build playing fields, instead

of building another football stadium in Vancouver.

This week I received a poem from one of my students, and I would like to read it into the record:

The flowers will grow,

The weeds fill up the holes.

We need a playfield to give us joy.

When it comes to May,

We like to play,

The birds will sing,

The fish will swim,

For our playfields will be king.

This was from Bluebell Jack, age 7, at the elementary school.

the Year of the Child, I would like to see 1 percent of this lower

mainland stadium fund go to build playfields in the north — maybe a

satellite field for the youth, so one day they might be able to go down

to Vancouver and play in a football stadium. Accordingly, I move the

following amendment, which would change

section 1, line 8, to add after

the words "British Columbia" the following words: "with 1 percent of

the $25 million being allocated to provide playing fields for the

children living in isolated communities of northern British Columbia."

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have the amendment before us. Just one moment, please, hon. member.

The amendment appears to be out of order under standing order 67.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Chairman, the

section doesn't say where this multiplex is to be

deposited. But some people in the NPA — and some people, I hope, not in

this government — have thought about dumping it in the PNE grounds.

Vancouver East has already become the dumping ground for heavy truck

traffic. They've widened Boundary Road; the situation around Cassiar

and Hastings is a nightmare. The residential areas are being destroyed

by on-street parking, in spite of the residential preference.

The

traffic congestion around the PNE is simply unbelievable. All right,

you are doing something here with some public money, and you are just

getting your foot in the door. Don't think that this is all you're

going to have to cough up to create this $100 million — and much more

multiplex.

The Attorney-General is nicely ensconced in an area where he doesn't have

any traffic problems, and the rest of the city does. You know, we live in the

kind of society where the basic essential social necessities — and one of them

is transit and the transportation of people — are ignored and given no social

priority whatsoever, while we think in terms of the franchise owners of the

sports clubs. We think in terms of the spectators, which is fine; we think in

terms of the athletes. And we destroy, by distorted social priorities, residential

areas around the PNE and the northeast

section of Vancouver. What is this Legislature

really doing about public transit? What are they doing about commuter traffic

to the games at the PNE and to the spectacles at the PNE? What are they doing

for light rapid transit? They're talking about it, but they are not beginning

to apply anything like the funds that are in this bill for a multiplex.

Now

I'm not against the concept of a sports stadium, but I am against it

being deposited where you are going to destroy a residential area. You

have already largely destroyed that area with traffic strangulation.

The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) knows exactly what I am

speaking about because it slops over into her riding too. The Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) knows what I am talking about, and the

chairman of this committee has witnessed the widening of Boundary Road,

with heavy trucks coming in from the Fraser Valley, coming in from

south of the border, coming in from the whole Fraser Valley. They're

streaming through the residential areas of Vancouver East. Well, it's

time we got our priorities straight, and if that means a social

approach to the social problems, so be it. But social priorities ought

to come first, not second. Time after time the basic amenities for

people are ignored in favour of the franchise owners of the big clubs

and all these spectator sports.

I say pass this bill. Give

your support to sport, if you will, but don't dump it in the PNE

grounds, at least until you've solved — and totally solved — the very

serious traffic problems that are destroying that neighbourhood.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I spoke on this problem of where this stadium is going to

go during second reading. The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald)

has certainly expressed the feelings of all the people in that area, in

Vancouver East and in Burnaby North, who are going to be very adversely

affected if there isn't any proper transit system or attention paid to

the traffic needs. So I don't think there is any point in having to

reiterate this, except, once again, to ask the minister if he will give

this House and those of us who represent those areas that are going to

be vitally affected a commitment that the money will not be forthcoming

from the provincial government until a proper study is made of the

right place for that stadium. I wonder if the minister would comment on

this. During second reading I made this point, and I don't recall the

minister commenting on this aspect of great concern to the members for

Vancouver East and Burnaby North.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

With relation to the member who spoke first who had concern over

playing fields and so on, I just want to point out that there are

several other items in the surplus appropriations which are

province-wide: acceleration in highway programs; the $14 million for

B.C. Rail, which, you could say, is more in the direction of the area

you represent than, perhaps, any other; in addition, I might mention

the $10 million supplement which has gone to forest management. As a

reminder, I want to mention that I'm very much aware of the problem you

face.

There were other comments from the member for Burnaby

North and from the second member for Vancouver East with relation to

the location of the sports stadium. As the bill very clearly indicates,

no procedure has been established for a location. You can be sure we're

going to require input from local officials of municipal areas before

any decision is made as to where it's going to be. There is

[ Page 257 ]

predetermined indication in this bill, or from the government, where

such a stadium might be located. We'd rather arrive at that through

input from the local areas.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

Waterland

Nielsen

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Mussallem

Howard

Leggatt

Lorimer

Hall

Nicolson

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Gabelmann

Mitchell

Hyndman

NAYS — 1

Passarell

Mr. Passarell requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICHOLSON: Did not a number of members on that side stand up against the motion?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're just slow getting down.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Perhaps, hon. member, you might take the opportunity to review some of

the standing orders so that when you choose to rise on a point of order

you have a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: My remark

was not a facetious remark. I looked back and saw this member rise and

saw these people standing, and I was under the very definite impression

— and I say that very candidly — that there were people voting against

it on the other side. Since they seemed to come from the north, I made

a very logical assumption.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

it's the observation of the Chair over lo these many divisions that we

have witnessed that some members are tardy in rising and a little tardy

in taking their seats again. Perhaps we will all be a little more

punctual in not only rising and taking our place, but also in appearing

for divisions.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. HALL:

During second reading of this bill, I made a number of suggestions to

the minister, and waited for some response from him regarding what he

might consider to be an effective policy on the part of the government

to ensure a real British Columbian component in this project. I didn't

find any response from the minister. I made a number of suggestions to

him that he might want to suggest to those people in charge of the

project that the payment of public moneys should be met with an

assurance that we will use British Columbian companies, British

Columbian workpeople, and make sure that the multiplier effect, the

good economic effect, the first-class impetus that this scheme may have

will indeed take place in the province. If this is a good idea to spend

public money upon, then the public should receive the maximum benefit

from it.

I read the unemployment figures to the minister,

and he didn't appear to understand them. I should perhaps have read the

car-sales figures instead. Nevertheless, I didn't get any response. I'm

now asking in committee if the minister will give us some assurance

that he and his advisers will meet under the payment

section when

satisfactory arrangements are made — as it is in this subsection — to

make sure that that preference is increased, that instead of the usual

5 percent preference for British Columbian products and British

Columbian companies, a higher percentage may be used. There's no point

in spending this public money, there's no point in applauding ourselves

and patting ourselves on the back for this good work, if the effects of

it are felt only in the States, or in Alberta, or in Ontario.

would like to pursue this point with the minister — and I'd like him to

respond, as he didn't respond under the convention centre one — and

find out what his ideas are to ensure that the multiplier effect will

indeed stay at home.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I

thought I did respond and comment on the matter raised by the member. I

guess he didn't hear, or perhaps he was out of the House at the time —

I don't know. But I commented on the fact that we have announced a

purchasing preference policy in British Columbia, which came out about

a year and a half ago. The member suggested at the time that we had a

preference policy of 5 percent for B.C. products, and he recommended it

should be 10 percent. Our policy is already 10 percent, Mr. Chairman,

and you can be sure that we've made this policy known to all public

bodies in the province and recommended they follow it, and we shall

certainly remind them of that fact in terms of the expenditure of these

funds.

MR. HALL: The second point I raised in second

reading of the bill, Mr. Chairman, was the guarantee by the government

that there would be fair wages paid on this project. I reminded the

minister that for years in this House there was a Fair Employment

Practices Act, which saw to it that fair wages were paid when public

moneys were expended in the form of grants or subsidies, or in any way

were transferred to a private operation. That Act was repealed, as you

will no doubt remember, Mr. Minister, and was substituted by another

one, which was repealed in its turn by this administration; and I'm not

now aware — although I may be incorrect — of legislation that will

assure fair current wages being paid. I would like the assurance of the

minister that that will indeed be the case, and to have him tell us

under what statute it may be done, and what his

[ Page 258 ]

advisers

will be recommending to the foundations or corporations charged with

the administration of this $25 million, plus all the public money that

will be coming in, we presume, from Ottawa and the business sector. In

sum, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what guarantees the presently

unemployed working people will have, if there is indeed a 10 percent

preference for British Columbia workers and British Columbia companies,

that fair wages will be paid on the site.

I know we can't

insist on an answer, but I think it's of reasonable importance when one

sees not only the $25 million from this government, but also possible

money from the federal government — and we presume that the business

sector will be paying some money in. I wonder if the minister would

indicate — and maybe he could even find out from the Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Williams) — what we can expect to see in the way of policing

the fair wages and good working conditions that should surround this

kind of operation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Bill 9, Lower Mainland Stadium Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL PURPOSE APPROPRIATION ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, Bill 10 allots $42.5 million of the 1978-79 revenue

surplus to programs and projects to assist the British Columbia economy

and to continue the high level of health care which has been provided

in this province. These programs and projects are, in addition not only

to funds set aside for the Vancouver and Victoria trade and convention

centres and the lower mainland stadium, but also to any amounts

provided in the regular estimates. Specifically the $42.5 million is

proposed to be spent as follows:

First of all, $25 million

is to be paid for health and hospital costs throughout the province as

determined by the Minister of Health. Secondly, there will be $7.5

million to purchase shares of the British Columbia Development

Corporation. Thirdly, $5 million will go for a small business

assistance program in the lower mainland and greater Victoria areas to

be administered by the Minister of Tourism and Small Business

Development. Lastly, there will be $5 million for the purpose of

industrial research to be administered by the Minister of Education,

Science and Technology. These expenditures, as I say, will assist the

economy of this province and therefore deserve the unanimous support of

this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, in second reading we're discussing the principle of this

bill, and I note that the major aspect of the appropriation is a $25

million sum for health care. I note that a major mistake was made back

on November 19, 1978, when the Minister of Health sent a memorandum to

hospitals, the hospital board chairmen, indicating at that time that

they must live within a budget increase of 5 percent. At the time, of

course, he was begging the question, as he is now, as to how you live

within a budget increase of 5 percent when all aspects of care in the

hospitals have gone up much in excess of 5 percent: wages around 8

percent increase; cost of medical surgical supplies an increase of

20-plus percent; increase in food costs for hospitals around 14

percent, etc. At that time many responsible people in the community

warned the minister that he was on the wrong track. I think most people

knew where the order came from; it was treasury board, that hasn't

seemed to show too much evidence of concern over health care. But in

any event, it was the minister who had to carry the responsibility for

sending the memorandum.

When we approached the session of

the Legislature last March and into April, there was a deathbed sort of

response to what had become a very ugly situation within most of our

health community. That was one of the hospitals starved for funds, with

no seeming assistance on the horizon. So the deathbed repentance, so to

speak, came with the determination of the government to throw an

additional $25 million into the situation to try to clean up some of

the mess that had been caused.

This, according to the

minister, has raised the across-the-board sum to hospitals on an

average of about 7.5 percent. That 7.5 percent — by just reviewing in

percentage terms some of the numbers that I went over a moment ago — is

still grossly inadequate. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that anyone

on this or any side of the House should suggest irresponsible

expenditure of funds on behalf of the taxpayer. However, an

irresponsible lack of funds is just as earth-shaking to the health

community as would be an opportunity to spend high, wide and handsome.

This

bill is certainly a part of the bail-out proposition for the health

care community, but it's not enough under the present circumstances.

The Economic Council of Canada in their report last fall — as a matter

of fact, I think it was the last quarterly report of last year — said

that the cost of health care is not growing in this province at a rate

that would exceed their expectation, nor is it growing at a rate that

is harmful to the economy. The cost of health care in Canada is running

at roughly 7.2 percent of the gross national product, which is probably

one of the best situations in all of the free world, including that

great country to the south of us, where it is substantially higher

despite the fact that they have neither universal medical care nor a

hospital-care plan. Nonetheless, the overall cost in the United States,

and in most European countries, is a greater percentage of the gross

national product than it is here. That's not to say: well, let's not

worry about it. But it is to say that under these circumstances we

should not be placing our hospitals in jeopardy, which we have done and

do now, even with this increased expenditure. And if the minister who

says we don't happened to be on a long list waiting for surgery, he

would not be of the same mind.

I certainly applaud this

token gesture toward our health care scheme in the province. I

certainly recognize that it's a far cry from the 5 percent

determination that was made last

[ Page 259 ]

fall.

Heaven knows how that determination could have been made, other than as

some kind of desperate response to a demand of the minister by his

colleagues on Treasury Board, because there's no way a minister in the

face of having to meet increased costs could do that kind of thing on

his own with the advice of his own staff.

I've been reading

some very interesting materials — and I want to go into this in much

more detail in the estimates — on this vast shortage of nurses, and

that's one of the reasons why we're closing down wards. I tell you

there's always a shortage of personnel if conditions for those

personnel are not posted. I have gone from place to place, from

facility to facility to find out if there really is a concerted effort

to secure staff, and, Mr. Speaker, in most instances I found that the

administration is very wary of hiring staff because their budget is

just too tight.

I hope against hope we can have within our

hospitals a kind of budgeting system that will tend to create a better

program of budgeting and accountability. I was once charged with the

responsibility of Minister of Health, and recognize it's a very

difficult proposition. The kind of incremental budgeting we have is

very difficult to deal with.

You could see, for example,

where it would be in the best interests of a hospital laboratory to get

rid of much of their supplies prior to the end of a fiscal period. If

they didn't, by next year they wouldn't be able to demand that same

increase in budget. Those are technical aspects, but they have to be

dealt with.

Right now we have a crisis within our health

care scheme. No amount of discussion or debate in this House is going

to change that crisis. I know many of the administrators of hospitals

are scared to death. They talk one way off the record, and another way

for the record, sitting quietly in one's office, or one's living room,

and one can hear a response of: "Oh, my God, I don't know how we can

carry on."

On the other hand, when approached by the media,

and worried about any future considerations from the ministry, under

those circumstances administrators tend to be very quiet about their

needs. Let's make no mistake about it; the headlines began some years

ago, and will continue. Until it can be shown not by words but

demonstrably by the priorities served by this government on health

care, that situation will prevail.

I hope we can all look

forward to seeing a better situation. Under the circumstances the $25

million is inadequate. I don't know how the minister is going to handle

it. Let me give you one example of its inadequacy.

The

minister takes full credit, of course — or the government takes full

credit — for completing the Royal Columbian Hospital. Heaven knows why,

but at least that's what they were doing in the election campaign. In

any event, regardless of where the credit lies for that hospital, we

now have a super facility in New Westminster, and it's about time.

That

super facility is fairly sophisticated, and the reason for that is that

it attracts trauma all the way from the PNE to Hope. Because of its

geographic location, that's where the ambulances go; that's where the

severely traumatized victims go and that's where you have to have a

very sophisticated facility.

Having said that and having

completed a pretty sophisticated facility there, what do we find? No

consideration in the budget for the additional expense that you are

faced with when you do have a sophisticated or a more sophisticated

facility. It's as though at one time the Royal Columbian was a

community hospital with little in terms of intensive care, trauma

units, et cetera, with a very high cost, but nevertheless very

important in a regional basis. That fact of life was not recognized in

the budgeting.

They were given the same kind of incremental

increase as were most of the other facilities in the province. These

are the mindless approaches the opposition has difficulty dealing with,

and if the minister is having difficulty selling his case to the

Treasury Board, then I hope he can find some volunteers to assist him,

because it is a very, very urgent situation in our province. I hope

there is some kind of acknowledgement of just how urgent it is. We will

go into far more detail when we get into the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Speaker, this is one of several bills presented, arising out of

this budget, which exemplify the results of the care that has been

taken in the administration of public funds. In this case, it is

primarily being devoted to the needed funds for attending to hospital

budgets, the needed funds for the purchase of shares in the B.C.

Development Corporation and, as I said, to accelerate the

small-business development program, where there has been a vacuum in

terms of the metropolitan areas. These moneys were not available to

enterprises within these areas previously. Lastly, of course, there are

funds for new needs described for the purpose of industrial research,

to be administered by the Minister of Education.

As I say,

it follows on this government's policy of immediately allocating funds

which have been saved in the manner I described. I think that all

members of this House, therefore, should support the objects of this

bill and its principles. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to move

second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 10 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

SPECIAL PURPOSE

APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

MR. HALL:

On a point of order, I like to straighten these things out as fast as I

can. I think that is good parliamentary practice. I said in a previous

debate that the minister did not respond to my remarks. I wish to

apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, Hansard

— and I just say this is a clerical error.... The speech which the

minister made was not included in the Blues on Friday, June 15. There

were two pages inadvertently missing from the Blues. I knew that you

did not respond to my remarks on the Victoria and Vancouver trade

centres, because I was in here for the whole of the debate, but I did

leave the House shortly before you wound up second reading on the lower

mainland stadium, and I missed your response to my remarks. As I say,

unfortunately, when I did check the

[ Page 260 ]

debate

afterwards — I do tend to do my homework — I found that these pages

were not included in the Blues. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not really a point of order, hon. member, but since you've made it, the Chair appreciates it.

section 1.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriate

section for me to say one or two

more words on what I was talking about. I indicated in my remarks in

second reading that the $25 million was inadequate, and I used a number

of reasons and examples why. But one of the things that I feel is very

important to further point out is that I have talked at some length to

nurses and officials of the Registered Nurses Association, asking

whether or not there is a real recruiting campaign going on. They say

that at best it is half-hearted; at worst, there is no campaign at all.

So I really, really hope that all of this summer holiday syndrome that

is used each year to indicate that there is a vast shortage of nurses,

and therefore people with a surgical problem that isn't acute have to

wait in line, is not anything more than the fact that we are not paying

enough attention to the funding of health care as a priority.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks and perhaps ask the

minister a question. In my naivete of newness here, I wasn't sure how

the minister goes about allocating the $25 million under

section 1(c).

The

section reads: "$25 million to be paid for health and hospital

costs in the province, as determined by the Minister of Health." I

wonder if the minister would bring us into his confidence, since the

section provides that these funds will be paid as determined by the

minister. The first question I have is: will that be allocated with

regard to deficits incurred by hospitals operating in the province? In

other words, will that be allocated toward the deficits of any

hospitals?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think it

might be more appropriate for the minister to answer that question,

perhaps during his estimates or even now if he returns very shortly.

I'm sure he would be happy to.

MR. LEGGATT: I

appreciate that. The difficulty is we will be past the

section by the

time he is here, and at that point my question would be out of order.

Therefore I would like to make a couple more points in regard to the

allocation of these funds.

My understanding is that at the

present time there is approximately a $40 million deficit in various

hospital boards across the province.

I see the minister

returning, and I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted now

to put that same question.

section 1(

c) deals with the allocation of

some $25 million to be paid as determined by the Minister of Health.

Will any of these funds be used to carry or fund the deficits that have

been incurred by various hospitals in the province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I thought that had been made quite clear in several public statements

including a major press conference that was held with the various

hospitals around the province. The formula basically is that the first

charge on the $25 million will be to provide 2.5 percent on the budgets

of the hospitals for certain costs. The first of these costs would be

increased wages and benefits, and the second would be some non-salary

increased costs.

That would take up about half of the $25

million. The rest will be used, along with other budgetary provisions

and year-end adjustment provisions, to pick up deficits which have been

incurred for the 1978-79 fiscal year.

MR. LEGGATT: I

would like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise as

whether, after the expenditure of the $25 million in this way, there

will still be deficits that have been incurred by various hospital

boards in the province? In other words, these funds are insufficient,

in the manner in which you're allocating them, to cover the existing

deficits in the various hospitals in the province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I've also said that this is not the only budgetary item which will be

used to cover those deficits. Some normal year-end adjustments are

being made; some have already been made to the tune of $8 million to

$10 million. There will be further budgetary commitments. This is only

part of the money that will be used to retire deficits. At this point I

can't — because all of the information about the total amount of the

deficits for the past fiscal year is not in our hands — guarantee that

all deficits will be picked up through that procedure. But I have told

the hospitals that it will come very close.

MR. LEGGATT:

One of the difficulties that seems to be facing many hospitals now is a

shortage — probably on a temporary basis — of qualified RNs. I

understand, for example, that the B.C. Institute of Technology's

midwifery program has been discontinued.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

"Midwifery" is the right word, and my colleague who originates from

England knows what that means. We have a number of practical nurses in

the province who are from abroad who haven't qualified because of the

discontinuance of these specific programs.

I want to ask

either the Minister of Education, Science and Technology or the

Minister of Health — I'm not too sure which ministry this comes under —

if there is anything allocated in this

section to beef up the nurses'

training program in any of the institutions in the province, so that

those nurses can complete their qualifications.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I have a feeling that we're into the Ministry of Health estimates now

or those of the Ministry of Education — I'm not sure which either. As

I've just explained to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, it's all fully

allocated at the present time. There would be none left from the $25

million for that purpose.

I'm a little confused about the

member's reference to midwifery. I understand that according to the

Medical Act of British Columbia, midwifery is not allowed to be

practised. I don't know why they're training people to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

We are straying somewhat from the scope. This would appear to be the

estimates of the Minister of Health on this subsection of this

particular section.

[ Page 261 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

I just want to briefly advise the minister that midwifery is an

acknowledged program in the nursing program. It deals with childbirth,

and I'm sure the minister may know that. It is a program that has been

discontinued, and so I would just like to give the minister notice to

examine that and see if we can't get it underway again.

One

last point with regard to this particular section. We have had some

tragedies in our hospitals which deal with the lack of proper

psychogeriatric provision in the province. I'm particularly referring

to the Valleyview Hospital in my constituency, which was originally

designed and still operates as a psychogeriatric hospital. We have had

some incidents where patients who should have been allocated to that

hospital have been, in fact, put into acute-care hospitals, and serious

harm has come to them thereby. I would ask the minister whether there

was any allocation with regard to expanding facilities in the

Valleyview Hospital for psychogeriatric patients. That's my last

question, Mr. Chairman. When he dealt with the general distribution of

these funds, I wonder if he could be specific in terms of the

Valleyview Hospital in my constituency as to whether any of these funds

will be allocated to that hospital.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, again I hope this will take the time out of my estimates,

when we get to them, so that we can get through them more quickly. The

answer is no. I've explained for the third time where the money is

going. It is for acute-care hospitals, and not for others. Particularly

it is not for government institutions; we wouldn't take the money from

acute-care hospitals away to transfer it to government institutions. So

I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the member has information

about some tragedies — as he puts it — that have taken place, and he

wishes information from me about them, I would appreciate it if he

would come to me, because he certainly hasn't. I have not heard from

that member about any concerns he has. If he has them, as a responsible

member I hope he'd come to me about them.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I raise the question in this House, and I hope the minister does read Hansard ,

because it deals with the death of Jenny Alida Cherry. Glen McDonald

was the coroner, and his recommendation was that this hospital was

understaffed. That has been brought to the minister's attention. I hope

now he will be again reminded to have a look at what happened in that

particular case in terms of his own responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Might I remind the member this would be better placed in the minister's estimates rather than this.

MRS. WALLACE:

I, too, want to deal with this problem of the $25 million allocated to

pick up extra hospital costs. Certainly it appears to be a way around

increasing the regular budget more than the 5 percent by putting this

kind of money in here when obviously the 5 percent was not adequate to

carry the hospitals.

I'm very interested in the minister's

comments when he says this is all going to acute-care hospitals,

because those hospitals have at least been granted a 5 percent

increase. I want to talk a little bit about the minister's long-term

care program. I'm talking about money that you're allocating for health

care, and I'm concerned about how that money is being allocated. I

think I'm quite within order. If you feel I'm out of order, Mr.

Chairman, I'm sure you will call me to order.

In dealing

with this allocation, I think we should have a look at how it is being

spent. Certainly the Legislature should have some input into the

directions that fund should go. A long-term health care program in this

province has been instituted, established, and has been in existence

now something like 15 months. At the time the rates were set for those

people who were carrying on this care in the province, they were told

if they would accept this rate those rates would be reviewed in 15

months. It was sort of tacitly agreed that the rates could very well be

too low. They now have had an increase, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, with respect, on a point of order, the item she's raising

is in a long-term program which is an item that has a vote in my

estimates. We will have full opportunity to discuss it. In no way does

it relate to this bill, and it should not be discussed at this time.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the

section where the minister's

responsibility is outlined says: "Health and hospital costs, as determined

by the minister." Is long-term care not a health cost? Just because he

happens to proclaim that he's not determining that should not mean that

he can have this

section or this bit out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I'm sure all members would agree that the debate being

carried on by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) would be

more appropriate under the minister's estimates, rather than under this

particular subsection. If that's not the case and we go down this list

of appropriations, we can go through tourism, small business,

education, science and technology. In fact, we could have a duplicate

of the estimates with no limit on it. Our standing orders say "strictly

relevant." In this committee, which is discussing this particular

section, I cannot entertain the entire spectrum of estimates for all of

the various ministries under which these appropriations are in order.

It is in order to ask the ministers what they are planning to do with

this particular appropriation, but to delve beyond that and go into

other areas for which they have responsibility is something which will

be much more appropriate in estimates.

MRS. WALLACE: Do you agree that I have the right to discuss the advisability or otherwise of the minister's determination?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. Member, if we allow the scope of debate to widen beyond what we

have already restricted it to, then we're in fact going to go through

the estimates of all these ministries both on this

section of this bill

and in their estimates as well. What is appropriate to discuss now is

where the funds are being appropriated to.

MRS. WALLACE: That's what I'm discussing.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the government introduced this bill.

Included in the bill are all the areas that you outlined. We understand

that we have the

[ Page 262 ]

estimates

to look forward to. Certainly there isn't going to be that kind of

in-depth work. But if we're restricted, and we set a precedent now that

endangers the committee stage of a bill in the future, I think we're

making a very, very bad determination here. I respectfully ask the

Chairman to reconsider his position with respect to this whole question

of being out of order in this case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would only be appropriate if you allowed the Chair to answer to the previous point of order before you continue on your own.

MR. LEA:

On the previous point of order, obviously what we're doing here is

talking about a specific amount of money that is going to be spent by

the Crown in this bill. When we get to the estimates, we're going to be

talking about a different set of moneys that are going to be spent by

the Crown in health services. To preclude comments on this amount of

money means that this money will go through with no comment at all from

the opposition — that's what your ruling would mean.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, that is not so. As you know quite well, the estimates

range over all ministerial responsibilities. It is absolutely the case

that when the minister's estimates come up he must be responsible for

all the questions. There is no limit on debate in estimates, as members

know and as the Chairman knows all too well.

I ask that the debate be kept to the area of this specific appropriation, rather than breaking it off into other areas.

MRS. WALLACE: I will try to keep within the confines of your dictates. If I am out of order, I expect that you will call me to order.

The

$25 million we are talking about is being allocated for health care and

hospitals. Hospitals have been allowed to increase their budgets by 5

percent. Long-term care has not had the benefit of that increase. On a

trial basis for 15 months they started on what was agreed to be a very

low per diem. At the end of that 15 months they received niggardly

increases, to say the least, increases of something like 3 percent — 50

cents per day on $13.50 for personal care; it’s far less than 5 percent.

would urge the Minister of Health to consider the plight of those

personal-care homes, nursing homes and intermediate-care homes, and

ensure that some of this extra funding is allocated to alleviate that

situation, which is even worse than the situation that has developed in

the acute-care hospitals — and that is certainly beyond description.

I hope I have kept within the confines of your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. I might point out that the member for Prince

Rupert (Mr. Lea), in raising his point of order said that the debate

that you've just taken

part in would not be appropriate under the

minister's estimates. Of course, since there is no appropriation in

this particular funding for long-term care, it would in fact be most

appropriate to discuss it under the minister's estimates.

It's

also appropriate to point out that once this

section is passed and the

bill is passed, it does become the administrative responsibility of the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), in which case the entire area

can be canvassed once again during his estimates.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I just wondered whether the minister has notified any of

the hospitals which are going to benefit from this $25 million windfall

of how much they're going to get. I'm specifically interested in the

situation of the Burnaby General, where their budget came in $1.2

million short, the result of which, of course, is that they are in the

process of laying off some of their staff and having to cut back on

some of the programs which they had hoped to introduce. They've had to

change their mind in that respect. I'm wondering whether the minister

has been in touch with the specific hospitals which are going to

benefit from this money and notified them exactly as to how much

they're going to be getting, because I'd like to know whether Burnaby

General knows that they're going to be getting some of this money, and

if they are going to be getting any of this money. Maybe that should be

my first question, Mr. Chairman: will Burnaby General be one of the

beneficiaries of this particular Act? If so, has Mr. Barth, the

administrator, or the hospital board been told precisely in terms of

dollars and cents how much they will be receiving?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer).

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would just respond to my question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I appreciate your situation, but the Chair is duty-bound to recognize those members who are standing.

MS. BROWN: Thank you. The minister appreciates it too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education yields to the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped that the member had been listening

when I answered this question earlier. Yes, the hospitals have been

notified. I met with their boards individually at a large meeting to

talk about how this $25 million would be allocated some time ago — well

before the election, as a matter of fact — so they know that they'll be

getting 2.5 percent added to their adjusted budgets off the top and

that we would then look at their deficit positions with a view to

covering as much of those deficits as we possibly could.

There

is no way, Mr. Chairman, that we could possibly let the hospitals know

what the deficit coverage will be at this point, because nobody knows

yet. All of those figures are not before us from the hospitals at the

present time, but once we know we'll be able to deal with them directly.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to digress for a brief moment from the Minister

of Health's estimates to say that I'm going to support this particular

section of the bill because it's generally such an excellent section,

but also because it has a particular item in it which will provide

funds to establish scientific research with industrial goals in the

province. I wanted to let the members know that we have what we hope

are exiting plans for the utilization of these.

I'd like the members to know that on Monday next at the Delta River Inn in Richmond we're going to be having a

[ Page 263 ]

seminar

on science policy where we're going to bring together people from the

universities, from industry, from government agencies like the B.C.

Research Council, and from the ministry to discuss science policy in

general and how best to use some of this money in particular. I extend

a hearty invitation to attend that seminar, particularly to the members

of the opposition. If we could find one who would care to stay all day,

I'll stay myself; otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I'll just be there in the

morning to give the keynote address.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I don't know whether Dr. Suzuki will be there or not, but we have sent

around the world a brochure on science and research in British

Columbia, and with leave I'd like to table it with the Chair. It's

available for the members.

MR. LEA: In how many languages?

HON. MR. McGEER:

to it has been really quite positive from organizations around the

world. I have high hopes that we'll be able to put the money allocated

in this particular bill to immediate use for the benefit of all British

Columbians through the development of new growth industries in this

province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would remind the

minister that during the committee stage it is not appropriate to table

items. Perhaps the new members might take note of that as well.

MR. HALL:

One thing, Mr. Chairman, that the results of May 10 have done.... I've

seen a remarkable improvement induced in the attendance of the member

for Vancouver–Point Grey on Fridays and Mondays. If nothing else. I was

wondering when he was talking about his exposition whether or not he

checked with the Whip, but he obviously has.

Mr. Chairman,

I'm pleased to see all the ministers who are involved in this Special

Purpose Appropriation Act now in the House, and we can probably get

through the business expeditiously by having the answers to the

questions.

One of the troubles with the bill is that when

these bills are presented they're good political documents, and when

they're going through the various press conferences and they're part of

the budget speech there's a great deal of political kudos involved in

them. But what appears to be the sensitivity on the other side is that

they don't want political accountability when the bill is debated in

the House. That's part of the problem, and I think it would have been

useful if we had more than just a press statement in front of us,

because I'm not too sure that that is even an official document — we

don't even allow questions based on press statements in this House. We

might have had a statement from a minister as to what he was going to

do with $25 million. And then, perhaps, the questions that you are

asking this side to pointedly ask the ministers opposite would have

been asked.

There are two or three questions that I have, if

I may now ask them. The first is: could the Minister of Tourism and

Small Business Development tell the House whether or not the $5 million

for the small business assistance program in metro areas — it's

section

1(

e) of the bill — is for a loan program only, or is any of the money

for administrative purposes, for staff and so on? Is it going to be

part of a program for advice and that sort of thing, or can we look

forward to the entire $5 million being placed for loan purposes?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

MR. HALL: Now we're getting somewhere.

The

second question is: is the $5 million for industrial research — to be

administered by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology — the

B.C. Discovery Trust Fund that is mentioned on page 31 of the budget

speech? I want to know if there are two programs or one program —

they're often guilty of hyperbole. Secondly, are the proceeds the

interest spun off by the investment, or are they capital itself?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, in the coming year we're going to require more than the

interest. We're going to require a substantial amount of capital to do

two things. First of all, there are a number of projects of outstanding

scientific merit that can be undertaken now if funds are generated for

the scientists to commence work. These programs have been identified by

the Science Council in the past year or so since the council's been in

operation. So if we're to take advantage of opportunity we're going to

have to move to fund them now.

The second area where funds

will be required is in developing suitable land for research

organizations to establish their facilities here. We've got property

identified for our Discovery Parks, but none of it is developed to a

state where a firm could actually build its research facilities on

those lands. So we need up-front capital to get that started. Those are

the two areas that we have so far identified where we're going to need

additional funds.

We've also had a preliminary report from a

consultant we've engaged to take a took at the situation with the B.C.

Research Council. Some areas have been identified where the B.C.

Research Council needs to strengthen its scientific base in order to be

able to offer consultative and scientific services to whole industrial

sectors. There are four or five of them — the fish-processing industry

is one particular example — and we may have to spend miss ion-oriented

money in the next year or so to build up research capability in

specific areas.

I mention the fish-processing industry as

one, because our fish processors here in British Columbia have no

research capability of their own. We've extended the limit to 200

miles, which is going to make it possible for our own fishing boats to

extend the area from which they take a harvest much farther. By the

same token, it takes them longer to get the catch back. Therefore we're

going to have to be looking at the technology of managing that catch

and getting it to market before it spoils.

So we've got a

more important reason than ever for developing a research capability:

we haven't got any at all. As a matter of fact, — there was a limited

group at the fisheries technological station at UBC, and the federal

government terminated funding for that group as of the end of May —

it's broken up. So we've got nobody in that area

[ Page 264 ]

our time of greatest need. That's a possible third requirement for

funds to go into specific programs related to the B.C. Research Council.

MR. HALL:

Thank you for that explanation, Mr. Minister. I take it then that the

$5 million industrial research — lower case printing — is indeed the $5

million — upper case — British Columbia Discovery Trust Fund. It's one

and the same fund.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes.

MR. HALL:

Could the minister tell us if this is the only piece of change being

sent away from this place under the Special Purpose Appropriation Act

that is going into a trust? Could he tell me if the directors of the

trust have been appointed? Who is going to be on the trust? Are there

some names we could have a look at?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, at the present time we are developing the terms of

reference of a beneficial trust, and that process has not been

completed yet. So we are not at the stage where we could name any

trustees. But up to the present time, the work of negotiating for land

has been done by Discovery Parks Inc., which is a subsidiary

organization of BCBC. No leases have been signed although negotiations

have taken place. But it would be our intention to have these leases

managed by Beneficial Trust, and we are just in the process now of

drafting the terms. So we are not at the stage where we could name any

trustees.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Special Purpose Appropriation Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a major step forward toward the

fulfilment of the government's stated objective of taking school taxes

off farm and agricultural land. We are not there, but we are taking a

step in that direction. What this bill does is amend

section 203(

a) of

the Public Schools Act. This

section presently provides $1,000 land

exemption per farm unit in determining taxable values on all classified

farms for school and other local government purposes.

The

$1,000 exemption is going to be replaced by one which amounts to 50

percent of the land assessment value for school purposes. It has been

extended to include not only land classified as farm under the

Assessment Act, but also most properties lying within boundaries of the

agricultural land reserve designated under the agricultural Land

Commission Act. This exemption, according to this bill, will begin in

1980. Owners of 100,000 parcels of land will benefit. As the opposition

well knows, the owners of these lands have been denied development

rights, and therefore, because of severe land restrictions.... That was

a matter of attitude on the part of people who were elected. Some

thought they did and others thought they didn't. But whether or not you

think they did, or whether or not you thought they didn't, the fact

remains that as of now, under the agricultural Land Commission Act,

they don't have the rights, but they're being taxed in many cases as if

they did.

Since it's agricultural land reserve, then they're

going to be entitled — if this bill passes — to the advantages of

farmland with respect to assessment for school purposes. Reductions of

about $150 million in assessments are expected to occur when this

exemption is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, because the school

tax rate base is used for levies made under other Acts, there's going

to be some effect on the distribution of levies for hospitals, regional

districts, improvement districts, libraries and other local government

purposes. As far as school taxes are concerned the base is so widely

distributed it's not considered that this will have any particular

effect on the redistribution of taxes. The Assessment Authority has not

yet been able to identify the major problems as far as the amendment of

these other Acts will be concerned, but these studies are continuing.

The

Assessment Act provides for a phase-in of certain types of assessment

increases, and these will continue on agricultural land reserve

properties, notwithstanding that the taxable value comparison between

1979 and 1980 is materially affected by the application of the new

exemptions. Does everybody understand that clearly?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. McGEER: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MRS. WALLACE:

We in the opposition certainly support the principle of this bill. We

support the principle; we have for a long time supported that

principle. But we have some very grave concerns about the method that

is being applied in an attempt to move that tax burden from

agricultural land. I think that the minister would have done well to

have met with the officers of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and

discussed their long outstanding recommendations with them where they

have said: "Look, we're quite prepared to pay school tax on our home

site the same as anyone else, but we want that other area of land

removed from that tax base." That would be a much more equitable

arrangement and a much more simple one, because the bureaucratic

nightmare that's going to result from this particular piece of

legislation is really beyond comprehension.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly this is going to keep him in business for the next 20 years if this Act passes, Mr. Member.

[ Page 265 ]

The

home site concept would have been a much fairer way to go, a much

better route, because there are too many inequalities that are going to

result from this particular piece of legislation. First let's talk

about the inequality that will result to the farm community itself, the

various types of farming people. Let's talk about ranches, for example.

have a great amount of land and very little improvements. I think they

must have lobbied the minister, because they're going to get the real

result. They're going to get the biggest return from this particular

piece of legislation, because those large expanses of rangeland, some

of which are in the ALR and some of which aren't.... We'll talk about

that kind of problem when we get into the bureaucratic problems that

are going to develop when you try to figure out how much of a

proportion of a particular beef animal was raised on agricultural land,

and how much of it was raised on land that's out of the ALR, and try to

figure out how much that non-ALR land actually produced to see whether

or not it qualifies for the farm assessment rate. You're just beginning

to get into the tip of the iceberg on this whole thing when you try to

sort it out. But those are the people who are going to benefit most,

the people who are involved in ranching.

Go to the tree

fruits people. They tell me that their present tax rate is

approximately $20 per acre on their land, so they're going to get quite

a little increase. Cutting that in half, that's $10 an acre reduction

in tax for the tree fruits people, who again have a large land base and

not too much in the way of improvement. But when you get into some of

the other agricultural industries, you have a different situation, The

dairymen, as you well know, Mr. Speaker — there are many of them in

your constituency — have a minimum amount of land and a high

expenditure in improvements.

I have taken the trouble to put

together a few figures which give you just a little bit of an idea of

the proportion of tax that the dairymen pay on their land as related to

what they pay on improvements.

Now, for example — the

dairyman's figures that I have here are from my own constituency —

there is one dairy farmer that I talked to who has 149 acres of land.

His tax on that land is presently $93.18, but on his improvements he

pays a tax of $1,144.33. Now if you cut the $93 in half, you give him

$46 or $47, and he's still paying a tax bill of well over $1,200.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, not his house. Those are his improvements, his buildings. This

particular farmer has a very large building where he houses some 400 or

500 cattle; he doesn't pasture them out at all. He has a very high

improvements bill, but a very low land bill. So he's getting a very,

very minimum kind of return from this as compared to the fruit farmer,

for example, who is getting a $10-an-acre reduction.

There

are other examples. Here's another one: he pays $84.30 taxes on land,

and his improvements — this is an even heavier one, Mr. Speaker — are

nearly $3,000. His tax bill is $2,962.11 for his improvement tax.

Now this is a farmer, the third one, who has a slightly different type of operation.

He pastures his cattle out. He has more acreage and not quite as much in improvements,

but even he, Mr. Speaker, pays $1,540 land tax and $2,590 taxes on improvements.

So this bill is going to do little or nothing for the dairy industry. I suggest

that it is not fair to approach it on that basis, because every sector of agriculture

production should be considered on the same basis.

I'm

sorry the new member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), isn't in

the House because while I don't have figures on turkeys, I have figures

on broilers, and I know he would be interested in those. I talked to

some of the broiler growers when I was preparing my notes for speaking

on this bill, and I find that they have the same situation. Their land

has a very high value in the Fraser Valley. The assessment of one

grower that I talked to was $1,040. Some of these I get some way and

some the other, depending on how the municipality sets up their

billings, or on which particular form the farmer happened to file his

tax notice or assessment notice. But this was the assessment and the

story is just the same. His land assessment is $1,040, and his

buildings are assessed at $17,017 — 17 times more for his buildings. So

his tax, based on that reduction of some $580 on his assessment for his

land, is not going to do anything meaningful for his tax bill.

Grower

number two experienced a very similar situation: $660 land assessment,

$6,017 for improvements. So, you see, they are not going to benefit in

the same ratio, certainly, as the ranchers or as the tree fruit grower,

who has a high proportion of agricultural economic base in land.

There's

another inequality in this bill too, and that rests on the average

taxpayer, because if you reduce the assessment by cutting in half the

agricultural land in any given school district, then it follows that to

maintain the same standard of education, the mill rate is going to have

to go up. So while the farmer will get some small benefit, I think when

it comes to a broiler farmer in the Fraser Valley, it's quite probable

that his mill rate will go up more than his assessment goes down, and

he, in the end, will be paying more land tax than he was before.

It's

the ranchers who are going to benefit from this, and those school

districts where those rangelands are located are going to be facing

some pretty serious problems because they will have their assessment

cut practically in half.

There's a difference, just the same

as there's a difference in the types of farmers. There's a difference

in the make-up of the various school districts. Certainly I don't think

this is going to affect Point Grey very much, because I don't think

there is much farmland in Point Grey. But areas like the Cariboo and

Kamloops and Williams Lake are going to be highly affected by this

because there is such a great percentage of their assessment base,

their tax base, that is agricultural land. They're going to find

themselves in a very untenable position.

That's very unfair

to the taxpayers who will have to pick up this burden, or else they're

going to be put into the position of cutting back even further on the

educational standards in this province. We're already in a position,

Mr. Speaker, where the portion of the school costs that's home by the

local taxpayer has escalated beyond reason. In the three or four years

that this minister has been responsible for the portfolio of education,

we in my constituency have seen the school tax portion go from 55

percent to 70 percent — that is, the portion that's borne by the local

taxpayer. I suspect that is probably one of the lower areas. When I

talk to some of my friends from other areas I find they are paying an

even higher percentage at the local level. That is where I have very

grave differences with the Minister of

[ Page 266 ]

Education

in the attitude he has taken in withholding funds from the school

districts and putting that excessive burden on the local taxpayer. This

will just compound the problem, Mr. Speaker. This bill simply compounds

the problem. That's why I object so much to the way this thing has been

done.

I've spoken about the bureaucratic nightmare. I can't

believe that a man with the degrees and the background this minister

has could come up with such a bureaucratic procedure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe that's why.

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe that's why. Certainly it boggles the mind how this thing is going to work.

All

farmers received a notice from the Assessment Authority in June 1979.

It says: "Dear Sir or Madam," and it has attached a big long form here

which has the legal description, the type of farming operation, time

spent in active farming, number of parcels in the farm unit, assessment

number, total acreage cultivated, irrigated, pasture, rough, cleared,

not cultivated, not arable — all kinds of things. It would take a week

to fill this out. With it, a letter says: "We will be reviewing all

properties classified as farm to determine if they meet the standards

for the 1980 assessment."

I don't know if the minister

neglected to inform the Assessment Authority about this bill he was

bringing in. They didn't need to prove the fact that they were

producing on ALR land to qualify for school tax. Anyway, this is the

letter they got: "We will be reviewing all properties...to see whether

or not they meet the standards for the 1980 assessment."

goes on to say: "The standards have not been finalized but will likely

be similar to the standards sent to all owners of farm properties late

in 1977, and based on the income from primary agricultural products

raised on the land." If we're going back to 1977, Mr. Speaker, we've

got problems. They never did get that one resolved. They finally

postponed the whole thing, because they couldn't resolve it. What is

farm classification? What do you have to do to qualify for farm

classification? A

section of the Assessment Act says you have to do

certain things; you have to have $1,600 on the first four hectares, 5

percent of the actual value of land for all that exceeds four hectares.

If you're going to be a developing farm you have to come up to a

standard that meets the requirements of the assessment commissioner —

all kinds of rules and regulations.

Do you know that every

assessor and every authority in every area of this province has a

different

interpretation? In Nanaimo they talk about "cultivated land."

I have friends who have pasture that was out of the agricultural land

raised cattle on reserve. It was very poor land, but they raised cattle

on it. But there was no farm classification way they could get

agricultural or farm classification because the assessor we've had

other at there said it has to be cultivated. We've had other assessors

who talk about "capital and labour input." I have a letter here from

someone who for some time has been trying unsuccessfully to get farm

classification. They followed all the rules that were set down in this

letter from the Assessment Authority about the $1,600 and the 5 percent

— everything that was there. They were told they didn't qualify because

they weren't sufficiently labour- and capital-intensive. This

particular family paid $45,000 for that piece of raw land, but

according to that particular officer they weren't sufficiently

capital-intensive. They have employed two people full-time, one person

half-time and one other person who is full-time employed but also

working on the property. That's not sufficiently labour-intensive; they

were refused farm classification as an emerging farm.

The

thing is a complete shemozzle, Mr. Speaker. I had one person come to me

and ask about various things that he could produce and what the price

would be. He was selling retail at a roadside stand, but he was told by

the Assessment Authority, or by one officer of it, that the productive

value of the land is not related to the retail price. It's only related

to the producer price. Even though they're getting retail for their

product, they have to account only for the producer price.

have one person saying that you don't have to have sales slips, and

we've got others saying — and I have it in writing — that you must have

sales slips in order to qualify. The classic example was the farmer who

wondered whether the selling of manure off his property would be

considered productive income. He was told yes.

But then he asked: "If I put the manure on my property, can I claim for it?" He was told no.

Ultimately

one farmer sells his manure to the other farmer, and the other farmer

sells his manure to the first farmer. At that stage, Mr. Speaker,

everything begins to stink a little bit.

It is a

bureaucratic nightmare, and it hasn't been resolved. In June 1979 we're

going back to the same thing that was issued in 1977 which was a

complete failure. Because of these kinds of loopholes in this Act, we

in the opposition are concerned.

We agree that we should

ease the burden on agricultural land, but when the minister stands up,

in introducing the bill, and talks about developers, I think we're at

the crux of the thing.

I have changed my opinion. Anyone who

owns land in the agricultural land reserve deserves the same

consideration, but only as long as that land stays in the reserve.

There should be a provision to prevent taxpayers' dollars going to

accommodate those people who have land in the reserve and who later get

that land out of the reserve. There is no provision in this bill to

prevent that from happening.

We can reduce our assessment

base, our tax base. We can bring down the tax base and supplement it

with other tax dollars. But those very people who are getting the

advantage of that reduction can turn around and get that land removed

from the agricultural land reserve, make windfall profits and not have

to pick up those back taxes. That, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely unfair

and unjust.

While we support the principle, and we'll vote

for the principle in second reading, we have some amendments which we

intend to introduce in committee stage. If those amendments are not

accepted in all or in part by this Legislature, we will have to oppose

the Act in third reading.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I

think that it would be fair to this House if it were pointed out to the

member for Cowichan-Malahat that she was getting two areas on the farm

mixed up. I noted with interest that you weren't sure whether this

would apply to turkeys. I believe it applies to all forms of

agriculture.

[ Page

267 ]

We're

talking about two cost areas here. One is land tax and the other, of

course, is the improvements. Now this bill will give the necessary

relief to those people who are locked into that land freeze. The taxes

on improvements have to do with the operation itself. Without straying

too far from the bill, I think that our Minister of Agriculture. (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt) has indicated that agriculture will have the opportunity to

cover those costs from the marketplace where they should come from. I

don't believe it's fair that we should get these taxes mixed up. We're

talking now about the land tax and land within the agricultural reserve.

This

is something that should have come in when the freeze came in. I am

very pleased that we're now making some headway in this direction. The

farmers and those people who are in the freeze will also be pleased.

The

member for Cowichan-Malahat was talking about two different things. She

was talking about taxes on land, and she was also talking about

improvements. That should be paid for by the sale of the product that

they're producing.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I believe

what the member from Central Fraser Valley said applies, because what

we're dealing with here is land that is in the ALR but is not being

farmed, and people have no intention of farming this land. But the

people who are locked in in some way in the ALR are performing a

service by protecting agricultural land for future generations of

British Columbians. They should be compensated in some way for keeping

that land in agriculture.

Unfortunately a lot have suffered

because taxes have increased over the years, but these people have not

seen an increase in the development potential of their land. People in

the agricultural land reserve should not pay a penalty in taxes for

protecting farmland for all British Columbians and for future

generations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you when the original legislation was brought in?

MR. SKELLY:

That's the reason we passed the bill in the first place and one of the

reasons we provided in the original legislation an allowance for the

Land Commission to make recommendations and changes in taxation in

order to soften the blow for those people....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, we wish that all of the province could gain

advantage of your remarks. Perhaps you could try the microphone next to

you, to see whether or not it is working.

MR. SKELLY:

Where was I? I support the government in their effort to compensate the

people who are protecting land for future generations of British

Columbians, and that was always our intention. It was, for the

information of that member, who used to be a land commissioner.... If

he read through the Land Commission Act, he would find out that he had

the power to make recommendations to government on that very issue.

Now the thing that concerns us, Mr. Speaker, most of all, is whether or not

this bill is actually going to meet that need or resolve that problem, and there

is the difficulty that our opposition finds with this bill. We found during

our term of office and during the term of office of W.A.C. Bennett that it created

more problems when you began tinkering with assessments to compensate people

who gave up certain land values and certain land rights. It is not in the best

interest of the province to tinker with assessments. The thing you should be

doing is going to tax credits.

One

of the ideas of setting up the Assessment Authority and going to full

market value as the basis of assessments was that everybody would be

assessed on an equal basis. If you wished to compensate senior citizens

to assist them in remaining on the land or in their houses, you gave

them a tax credit. If you wished to protect farmers against the high

cost of school taxes and local taxes, you didn't drop their assessment

or change the basis on which you calculated their taxation, you gave

them a credit to taxes. That's the way to do it. This one goes back to

the old way, unfortunately, by exempting a certain level of the

assessed value for taxation, and it's going to cause a lot of

confusion, as my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) stated.

Now

I'm wondering if the minister has done a study of the effect on each

school district, the district-by-district impact, because I know a

large number of the districts on Vancouver Island.... I'm thinking of

School District 69, for example, at Qualicum Beach, where there is a

large area of agricultural land reserve. They have a fairly low

assessment base upon which to impose their mill rate. This is going to

further decrease their assessment base and cause them additional

problems. They have timberlands which are poor revenue generators for

school districts. They have rural residential lands, which are also

poor revenue generators for school districts, and now they have a large

area of agricultural land reserve. As far as the assessment goes in

that area, it will be cut in half and reduce their revenue from that

land even more.

I am wondering how the minister is going to

compensate those school districts for their loss in assessment base and

for their resultant loss in taxation revenue. It is going to be pretty

difficult. What is actually going to happen, if the school districts

have the legal right to do it, is that they are going to have to raise

the mill rate, increase the tax revenue from their lower assessment

base, and that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to do here.

Perhaps

I have this wrong; perhaps the minister has done a detailed analysis of

the school districts. You didn't publish that before you made the bill

available to the Legislature, unfortunately.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member. If you would address the Chair you would not invite interruption.

MR. SKELLY:

I am sure the minister would agree that it would have been far more

helpful in debating this bill if members of the Legislative Assembly

had circulated to them beforehand a list showing the impact that this

would have on those school districts. I'll give you the examples of

School District 70 and School District 69. By how much is the

assessment in those two school districts going to be decreased? By how

much will they have to raise their local component of the mill rate in

order to make up what they will lose as the result of a decreased

assessment base? In other words, Mr. Minister, how much of the tax

relief that is given to agricultural land reserve is going to be

transferred to homeowners and businesses in the Alberni

[ Page 268 ]

Valley

and in the Qualicum-Parksville area of School District 69? I'm

concerned that the bill is self-defeating because it simply takes the

tax burden off the agricultural land assessment and puts it on

homeowners and businesses, who are already suffering from high taxes

under the Social Credit government and who, in the case of some

businesses, are having difficulty surviving with the high level of

taxes, costs and other impositions which this government has delivered

upon them. I'm sorry that the minister has not made this information

public and available to the members of the Legislative Assembly in

order to improve the quality of debate. I hope he will make those

figures available to us before he continues with the bill.

Has

the minister considered the possibility that we could run this

legislation in much the same way as we run the homeowner grant

legislation, that a school district be allowed to calculate its tax

revenue based on a mill rate imposed on 100 percent of the assessment

in the ALR and on farmland? Then, subject to the terms of this bill,

you would calculate what their tax revenue would be, using the same

mill rate imposed on land that has been 50 percent exempted. Then

certify the difference, send it to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

and have that money refunded to the school district out of general

revenues, rather than forcing the school district to make up that

additional amount out of increases in taxes on residential property and

businesses. That's one of my concerns.

The other concern is

that I hate to see the land that is owned outside the province or

outside the country taxed on the same basis as land owned by Canadian

farmers, Canadian homeowners and Canadian businessmen. Why should we

allow this tax credit to non-resident landowners in the province of

British Columbia? If some of those changes could be made in the bill,

we would find this bill acceptable.

There are other things

we would like to see in order to reduce the burden that is put upon

people whose job it is to protect farmland for the future. Where a

parent wishes to give part of an agricultural land reserve property to

a son or daughter or blood relative, right now that is permitted under

section 11(4) appeals under the Land Commission Act. Unfortunately it's

impossible to get the homeowner grant on the new home that is built on

that parcel under

section 11(4) of the Land Commission Act. I wouldn't

mind seeing the homeowner grant allowed to taxes on that additional

home in the agricultural land reserve. It's something the minister

should have considered.

I would also like to see some

government guarantees or assistance for mortgages for homes that are

built where a blood relative is building a home on his parents'

property within the agricultural land reserve, allowed by the Land

Commission Act,

section 11(24). The banking community will not lend

money for mortgages to those homes, because they don't have a separate

certificate of title against which encumbrances can be registered.

should have looked at this in a total way, rather than in a piecemeal

way. I don't think this Act really resolves the problem for all those

people who are in the agricultural reserve and who are protecting that

land for future generations of British Columbians.

MS. SANFORD:

I would like to re-emphasize some of the points raised by my colleague

for Alberni with respect to the overall effect that this legislation

will have within given school districts in the province. I would like

to see the provincial government reimburse the school districts out of

general revenue for any revenue that they would otherwise have received

as a result of the changes we are debating here this afternoon.

The

minister indicated some time ago, when he made $9 million available to

the private schools of the province, that it wouldn't affect the

education budget of the province, that it would come out of general

revenue. Now whether it did or not, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure, but he

indicated to us that there was money for this kind of thing in general

revenue. It seems to me that the school districts themselves could be

reimbursed for whatever revenue they might lose as a result of the

reduction here today in assessment on land which is in the agricultural

land reserve.

You know, it's unfair to ask the homeowners of

the province to bear an increasing burden of the education tax.

Homeowners are going to have to do that as a result of this, Mr.

Speaker, if the minister cannot guarantee today that money will be

forthcoming out of general revenue to ensure that the tax money coming

into school districts will not be reduced. The school districts have no

alternative. If there is less money coming from one source, they're

going to have to get that money from another source.

Mr.

Speaker, we've been aware over the years that the Minister of Education

has had no compunction about putting an additional tax burden on

homeowners in the province for educational purposes, but I think just

for once it would be a gesture of goodwill to the homeowners of the

province to assure this House that the lost revenues will in fact be

reimbursed out of general revenue to each of those school districts

affected. I'm sure some of the school districts will be affected. The

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned School District 69. School

District 71 also has a good deal of agricultural land, as I'm sure your

school district does, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that this is a very

small consideration that should be given to the homeowners in view of

the huge increases that they've had to face as a result of the Minister

of Education putting an ever-increasing load on the backs of the

homeowners of this province.

In areas like School Districts

69 and 71, there is no huge industrial base. Where there are

timberlands, as in the case of School District 71, the revenues were

severely affected when the new Assessment Act came into effect, because

those timberlands dropped significantly in assessed value. There again,

the school board had no alternative but to place that burden onto the

homeowner.

But the other issue which the member for Alberni

touched upon is one that I've taken a great interest in over the years,

and that's the matter of foreign ownership of land in this province.

Mr. Speaker, I am almost positive, although the government has

certainly not been helpful in this, that there is some land which is

now in the agricultural land reserve which will benefit in terms of

assessment and taxation as a result of this bill today, and which is

owned by absentee foreigners. We don't want to give them the tax

advantage that the minister wishes to extend to those people who have

land in the agricultural land reserve. I have attempted time and time

again to have the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) do some research

on the number of absentee foreign owners of land in British Columbia.

The Attorney-General has not been able to find one or two staff

[ Page

269 ]

people, or to hire one or two staff people, to do that research.

1974 the government accepted an amendment which required that people

who are purchasing land in this province state their citizenship. We

can find out how much of this land which is now in the agricultural

land reserve is actually owned by absentee foreigners. Mr. Speaker, I'm

sure if the Minister of Education prevailed upon the Attorney-General,

that research could be done and, as a result, we would not be giving

this kind of tax advantage to absentee foreigners who own land in this

province that's within the agricultural land reserve. In fact, I wish

he'd go much further and prevail upon his government to put an end to

the sale of land in B.C. to absentee foreigners.

But I know

that this government has not been concerned about foreign ownership.

All you have to do is look at Cargill and the sale of the bus line.

That's been sold to a firm in Seattle. There was no compunction there.

We had the Premier make the statement, "B.C. is not for sale " and I'm

sure he had the interest of British Columbians at heart when he made

that statement. He made that statement in spite of the actions he took.

But here, the Minister of Education has a chance to show that the

people of British Columbia who have land within the agricultural land

reserve can benefit from this particular reduction in assessment. But

for heaven's sake, let him stand up in the House and say that he's not

going to grant that same privilege to foreigners who live outside of

this country but own land which is in that ALR.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would just like to make a comment as Minister of Agriculture.

The

bill recognizes two things: one is those properties classed as farms

and the other is agricultural land, or the land locked into the

agriculture land reserve. It deals with lands; it doesn't deal with

improvement. It identifies the lands that are involved, and the member

for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) recognizes that.

The

member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned the interference with

assessment rolls and the problems that could occur. The effect, I

think, was also mentioned by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — the

negative effect on the other landowners because of this reduction in

assessment.

The numbers in most cases, although I haven't

looked at these figures regarding the effect on the assessment roll....

If we talk taxation the numbers are not that great. In other words, the

effect would be minimal on the rest of the property owners in a school

district.

But let me say this: in regard to the farmer, his

farm property, his outbuildings, et cetera, are exempt; his residence,

the actual building, is assessed for school purposes, and the large

land base is assessed and has been up until now for school purposes. So

I would suggest to you that the farmer, when you talk about the person

going to be affected by taxation changes and the shifting of the

taxation, has been carrying quite a load in regard to school tax over

the years. So we are now bringing it down to a more equitable situation

where we're really looking at a fairer concept for the farm rather than

having the farmer, you might say, carry more of the load than he should.

that is the concept of the bill where you identify.... The farm home,

of course, pays the school tax and a share of the agricultural land,

but not the total agricultural land. The effect on the

assessment roll.... All things would still be assessed at 100 percent

and then classified for farm purposes at the 50 percent of assessment.

it won't be a major administration problem but it does recognize the

farm community and the fact that large land bases shouldn't have to

support the school operation. If you agree, I suggest that you should

have done it some three or four years ago, You know, you talk a lot

about it but you never do anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were here three years ago.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I said three or four. Now if you want to count days, I'll get to three and three quarters or four.

This

does recognize, first of all, the properties in the agricultural land

reserve that are non-productive. First of all, you find where a person

has property locked in to the land reserve, it's not making any

revenues and you compound the problem by assessing him for school

purposes. So it cleans that problem up and it also goes further in

classifying farm land and making a fairer deal for the agriculturists

in this province.

All that I suggest to you — and I'm sure

you're aware of it — is that I'm surprised that you'd get up and argue

the point when I know the member for Cowichan-Malahat has been stating

the fact that we should have a fairer deal for the farmer in regards to

property taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill

basically goes a long way — and has the support of the agricultural

industry in this province — to rectifying an error that's been in place

for a long time.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the

members opposite asked for details with respect to how the assessment

base would be shifted. The members agreed that it was appropriate that

people who had land locked in the agricultural land reserve should be

compensated in terms of taxes but were concerned that the shift would

be so great that it was going to throw school budgets out of whack.

When

I introduced the bill, I mentioned that the total reduction would only

be $150 million. That's against an assessment base of about $13.5

billion that's growing 5 percent to 10 percent a year.

Now

if you take individual school districts, the reason why I didn't

provide details is because it's so small. As for the specific districts

that were asked about, School District 70 will make less than half of 1

percent difference in the assessment base; School District 69, 3

percent; School District 66, a fraction of 1 percent; School District

65, less than 2 percent...

MR. KING: Of their total budget?

HON. MR. McGEER: ...of

their assessment base. Of their total budget, it's going to be less

than that, Mr. Member, because this principle of equalization means in

theory that, for the bulk of school taxes, all of that which is

contained in the basic education program is shared by the province as a

whole. Therefore the only reason why the local rate base would have a

bearing on the taxes of a given school district would be its enrichment

over the base.

Interjection.

[ Page 270 ]

HON. MR. McGEER:

The member says that it's nonsense, but there is no reason why....

School districts set their own budgets, and therefore they're permitted

access to this assessment base, to tax at any level that they wish. All

that we do for the province as a whole is to equalize; that's the

principle.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I didn't devise the school financing formula. If the members opposite

are, dissatisfied with the school financing formula, they had three

years in power in which they could have done something about it. Since

we've got dissatisfaction, now that they're in opposition, with what

they did in government, I think that, when the members of the

opposition start criticizing a bill like this and saying that we're

tampering with assessment in British Columbia, they should be aware of

the fact that this is one thing that this government has not done.

When

you people were in power you wouldn't let the assessment base reach

full market value; you were afraid of the votes it might cost you. It

was this government that allowed fair assessments to be applied. We're

the ones who took away tampering. When you were in power you were the

ones who were in charge of tampering.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Yes, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Premier, he brought down

a bill and as soon as it was laid down on the floor of the House he

whisked it away faster than...it made your eyeballs spin. I tell you

that he was in charge of tampering when he was the Premier.

what happened? We brought in a bill — not this particular one, but one

last year — which allowed fair market value to be the assessment base.

It took away tinkering with the taxes — and that party accuses us of

tampering! The one thing we didn't do was to interfere. And similarly

with this bill, it's the essence of fairness. All it does is to reduce

by 50 percent — and the members opposite agree with this — the taxes

paid by people on their farmland and on land that's locked in the

agricultural land reserve.

It's going to be no

administrative nightmare, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) suggests. It's something which has been discussed in detail by

the taxman on my left here and his associates, the land commissioners,

and there have been consultations through the land commissioners with

the agricultural industry. I can only say that you agree with the

principle that there should be consideration; we've applied it in the

fairest fashion possible. The impact on any given school district is

going to be vanishingly small. Every school district, Madam Member,

will have an increase in their assessment base this year far beyond any

reduction of the agricultural land reserve part. The assessment base is

growing at 5 to 10 percent per year. This is going to reduce the land

base by 5 percent maximum, and in most districts by a fraction of 1

percent.

The overwhelming majority of the adjustment that's

required is going to be covered by the assessment equalization, the

financing formula for schools, whether you agree or disagree with how

much provincial revenue is thrown into the pot for total education.

There is equalization in the provincial grant as well as the basic levy

that takes care of the vast bulk of these expenditures.

I'm

pleased that the opposition will support the bill on second reading,

Mr. Speaker, but it should be done with the full understanding that

this is a bill that's fair and has been given careful thought. If your

support is conditional on your subsequent ability to tamper with the

bill in committee, please don't support it, because there's no point in

undergoing any kind of flip-flop while you're in opposition. Either you

are for something or against it; so please support the bill and see it

through. If you want to duck out halfway through, why don't you duck

out now? I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when this group was faced with

an important bill on schools they walked right out of the House. They

wouldn't even vote on second reading. If you haven't learned to accept

your responsibilities as an opposition, leave now and don't vote on

this in second reading, and then come back and be against it on third

reading.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I observe that the Leader of the Opposition is far less disruptive when he's in somebody else's chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on this note of tranquillity I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 13 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

13, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to

circulate the material he has, on a school-district-by-school-district

basis, prior to debate in committee on these sections?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not permissible to table documents in committee.

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm talking about having a recess and circulating the material.

One

of the problems that we have in this House, Mr. Chairman, is the fact

that this is an overly secretive government. They tend to keep all the

materials to themselves. One of the reasons this House is considered

such a poorly controlled House is the fact that the information that is

legitimately available to all members of the House, information that

was compiled by public funds and by public officials, is never

circulated to the people who own that information — and that's the

people of British

[ Page 271 ]

Columbia.

If you want effective debate on these issues, if you want informed

debate on this issue, then have the decency, if nothing else, to

circulate the information, so that all members will be able to debate

the issues in an informed way.

My question is: would the minister consider circulating the information he has to other members of the Legislature?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Mr. Chairman, I'm informed by the surveyor of taxes that the

information is not at the present time in a form in which it could be

circulated. And with respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would

serve any useful purpose, inasmuch as the principle of the bill is well

stated, and all of the details flow from the principle, which we've

agreed to. Amendments would only interfere with that general

principle. But I would be very happy to supply rough figures to the

member on any given school district that he is interested in, as we

have them here now.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this is

the problem, time after time, with every bill in this House. It is

going to be a problem with Bill 11 when it comes up — we have

inadequate information to discuss B.C. Hydro.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

Which is just as meaningless as everything else you table, Mr.

Minister. But to give the Minister of Finance credit, he did circulate,

prior to last year's borrowing bill on B.C. Hydro, a document which

outlined a number of the issues that were going to be dealt with under

that bill, so that the members of the Legislature could study that

expenditure document, and at least debate in an informed way what we

were talking about in second reading and in principle. It's a shame....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY:

Yes, and I talked to the minister before, and he promised that it would

be circulated again, and I thank the minister for that assurance.

But

every other minister in the Legislature seems to feel that it is to his

political advantage to keep all this information secret in order to

skew the debate in this House, in order to score cheap victories in the

House. It is unfortunate that he Legislature has to be conducted in

that way and that the government of the province has to be conducted in

that way.

section 1.

MRS. WALLACE: In

second reading my colleagues and myself have spoken about some of our

concerns about this section. One of the concerns that was raised was

the certainty of people who are non-resident and non-Canadian

benefiting from this piece of legislation. My colleague for Comox (Ms.

Sanford) mentioned that she had been trying to get the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Gardom) to prepare a list of absentee landowners. When the

Select Standing Committee on Agriculture from last session were

travelling around the province holding hearings, I recall we met in

Fort St. John. At that time we had a brief presented to us which

detailed the number of foreign owners who had been purchasing land in

the Peace River area. There were owners from Germany, Switzerland and

the United States. Great quantities of land were purchased and held in

the name of foreign corporations. Much of that land is now in the

agricultural land reserve, and those owners will benefit from this

legislation as it now stands. For that reason I would like to move the

following amendment to be added as subsection (5) under

section 1:

"This

section shall only apply to land owned by Canadian citizens."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. However, for your next amendment it would be an assistance if you could sign it.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, I'm sorry. I will sign it at a later date.

think we have made our case, Mr. Chairman. There is no reason that we

should give non-resident owners the kind of tax break that this bill

will give them. Many of the non-resident owners are corporations; many

are holding it for speculation, and many will be successful, I'm sure,

in getting that land out of the agricultural land reserve. There is no

reason that those corporations which are looking for windfall profits

based on the resources of this province — our basic resource, our land

resource, our most scarce resource — should be allowed to have a tax

break to encourage them to hang on to that land. They should not get

into land investment for the pure purpose of speculation, but that's

what's happening. That's why we have moved this amendment and are

supporting it. I urge the members of that side of the House to think

very carefully about this suggested change in the bill. This is a

principle to which we could all give our support. It's a principle that

deserves the support of both sides of this Legislator, and I urge all

members to support the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER:

This is not an amendment that the government can accept at this time.

but it's a proposition that can certainly be studied and we could

undertake to do that.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER:

The Leader of the Opposition groans at the thought of studying

anything. I