1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1989

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6247 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Mr. Harcourt –– 6247

Labour and justice committee meeting on electoral boundaries.

Mr. Sihota –– 6248

Appointment of president of B.C. Institute of Technology. Mr. Jones –– 6248

Low-level military flights. Mr. Perry 6249

Federal support of kaon factory. Mr. Loenen –– 6249

Ministerial Statements

Gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. Hon. Mr. Davis –– 6250

Ms. Edwards

Pharmacy dispensing errors. Hon. Mr. Dueck –– 6251

Mr. Perry

Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989 (Bill 17). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mrs. Johnston) –– 6251

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Mowat

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Williams

Mr. De Jong

Third reading

Provincial Symbols and Honours Act (Bill 4). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Reid) –– 6257

Third reading

University Endowment Land Park Act (Bill 16).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Dirks) –– 6257

Mr. Harcourt

Mr. Guno

Mr. G. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Government Management Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Michael)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 6262

Mr. Williams

Mr. Barlee

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Clark

Appendix –– 6275

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

HON. MR. SAVAGE :

It's indeed a pleasure for me to rise in this assembly today to welcome

the board of directors of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, who are

circulating through the precincts to meet with several MLAs to make

them better aware of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, as well

as the industry they're directly involved in. I'd really appreciate it

if this Legislative Assembly would make them welcome.

Also

in the gallery today is school trustee Dale Saip from the Delta School

Board. I would also like to have him recognized, as well as to say that

Dale has worked very hard for our party, and we really appreciate that.

Would the members make him welcome.

MS. PULLINGER :

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce my aunt

and uncle, who are in your gallery today. Probably many people here

will know them: Percy Pullinger and his wife Margaret. Percy was a

school superintendent in Kootenay school districts and latterly in

Sooke School District. Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. LOENEN :

It's always a delight to welcome constituents, and I'd like to welcome

two people who, in their respective professions, make a wonderful

contribution to our community. Mr. Glen Laubenstein is the

administrator at the municipal hall, and Harvey Gibault is the

municipal engineer. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. BARLEE :

I would also like to take this opportunity to extend our welcome to the

various directors of the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture. We

wish them a warm welcome in the precincts of the House.

I'd

also like to extend a welcome to an old friend of mine, Mr. Bud Wilson,

who played hockey, tennis and lacrosse with me many years ago. He is a

resident of the city of Kelowna and is now living in Victoria.

MR. ROGERS :

The first member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) and I would like

to welcome three constituents here today: Penny Hazle, Sachi Yamakami

and Mona Blusson.

MS. EDWARDS : I would like to

welcome Bob Webster, who is executive director of the Federation of

British Columbia Writers. In that position he represents some of the

most creative people in the world — the writers of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : In the gallery this afternoon we have, for a repeat

visit, former Vancouver alderman Helen Boyce, who is also here as a member of

the board of Theatre Terrific in Vancouver. With her is Sue Lister, artistic

director of Theatre Terrific, and the founding director, Connie Hargrave. I

would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

MR. SIHOTA :

I thought my good friend the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) was

going to join my good friend the second member for Nanaimo (Ms.

Pullinger) to make this a hat trick for Percy Pullinger. Percy is a

constituent of mine, and I've served on the board of directors of the

Pacific Centre for Human Development with him. I too would like to

extend my warm wishes to Mr. and Mrs. Pullinger. Welcome.

MRS. GRAN :

Mr. Speaker, seated in your gallery today are two very dear friends of

mine from Langley, Jim and Rita Cunningham. Jim is the director of

development and public relations for Trinity Western University, and

Rita is a nurse at Langley Memorial Hospital. Would the House please

make them welcome.

MR. PERRY : I'd like to draw the

attention of the House today to the fact that this is the first day of

Passover. It's a very solemn and joyous celebration in the Jewish

religion, in Jewish secular tradition, and in the history of the world.

It's a date that celebrates one of the first great achievements for

human freedom and dignity in recorded history: the liberation of the

Jewish people from slavery and bondage in Egypt. I'd like the House to

commemorate that today.

MR. ROSE : Mr. Speaker, I've

just been advised that 50 grade 9 and 10 students from Hastings Junior

Secondary School in Port Coquitlam are in the gallery, along with their

guests from Quebec. I believe they're from Maria Chapdeleine School in

the community of Jonquire. They're here on an exchange visit. I would

like the House to welcome them.

MR. GABELMANN : I've

just been advised that we have in the gallery this afternoon visitors

from the communities of Tahsis and Zeballos on the west coast of

Vancouver Island: Mayor Tom McCrae of Tahsis, Mayor John Crowhurst of

Zeballos, Sandy Naylor and Bob Atwal. I'd ask the House to make them

all welcome.

Oral Questions

GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. HARCOURT :

I have a question to the Minister of Environment. On Monday the

minister said that a natural gas pipeline through the Coquitlam

watershed would not damage the lower mainland's water supply. I want to

remind the minister that his own staff report concludes: "There is

insufficient evidence to rule out environmental damage." As well, the

Utilities Commission report states: "The commission is concerned that

all details of the environmental protection plan are not in place, yet

Pacific Coast Energy Corp. proposes to award construction contracts by

May 4, 1989." Given these documents — your own reports — will the minister now agree that there is insufficient information to support his claim of no environmental threat?

[ Page 6248 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I don't know how many times we have to say this. I said it twice on

Monday, and it's now Thursday. I thought maybe the Leader of the

Opposition would have sorted it out by now.

AN HON. MEMBER : It's the first time he's been here for a while.

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I see.

have said repeatedly that the project will not proceed if we suspect

there is going to be any environmental damage. What else do you want to

know?

MR. HARCOURT : On Monday the minister failed to

make a commitment that cabinet would put a Ministry of Environment

representative on the pipeline monitoring committee. The minister has

now had a chance to be briefed by his staff or perhaps even to read the

Utilities Commission report himself. He knows that it's his

responsibility, not the GVRD's, to protect the environment along the

entire pipeline route. Yes or no, Mr. Minister: will you advise your

cabinet colleagues that there must be a Ministry of Environment

representative on the pipeline watchdog group?

HON. MR. STRACHAN :

I don't know if there was a question there. I don't discuss cabinet

discussions. Furthermore, I'm advised that my colleague the Minister of

Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Davis) is going to be

making a statement soon on this very subject. So I'll just leave it at

that.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT :

Once again the minister is trying to dump his responsibilities on

others. When oil threatened the west coast of the United States and

Vancouver Island, he said it was a federal responsibility — he's

ready to follow. If lower mainland mayors are concerned about their

drinking water, he calls them political and says it's up to them to

make their case. Would the minister agree to stop lecturing the mayors

of the lower mainland and instead get his cabinet off the political

fast track and guarantee the protection of the drinking water for the

lower mainland?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : In the first place, the rhetorical question –– 99 percent of it — was nonsense, and the member knows that. Secondly, I have indicated — this would be about the fifth time now —

that if there are any environmental concerns, the project will not

proceed until those concerns are addressed. We'll write it out for you;

we'll have someone read it to you; you can take it from there.

MR. HARCOURT :

The tenders are going out May 4. Tender documents have to be drawn.

They have to know what the environmental safeguards are. Is the

minister saying that all that work can be done in two weeks?

HON. MR. STRACHAN : Yes.

LABOUR AND JUSTICE COMMITTEE

MEETING ON ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

MR. SIHOTA :

I am sure all members of the House are aware of the Dixon decision

rendering our electoral boundaries unconstitutional, and all members

are aware that the Fisher recommendations are before the Committee on

Labour, Justice and Intergovernmental Relations. My question to the

chairman of that committee is: when will that committee meet?

MR. CHALMERS :

Arrangements are being made for that committee to meet, hopefully at 11

o'clock on Tuesday morning, and you will be advised accordingly.

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDENT OF

B.C. INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

MR. JONES :

A question for the Minister of Advanced Education. I would like the

minister to explain to this House his role in influencing the BCIT

board of governors in the recent appointment of a president at that

institution.

HON. S. HAGEN : Perhaps I could ask to have the question repeated.

MR. JONES :

I asked the minister to explain his role in influencing the BCIT board

of governors in their recent decision to hire a president of that

institution.

HON. S. HAGEN : Very simply, I had no role in that decision.

MR. JONES :

The minister says he has no role. I wonder if the minister can explain

why his handpicked board of governors ignored the unanimous advice of

the selection committee composed of representatives of the staff

society, the student society, the union there, the management there and

the education council at that institution in favour of a candidate that

the selection committee had rejected but who is close to the Minister

of Advanced Education?

HON. S. HAGEN : I'm not sure

what he means by "close" to the Minister of Advanced Education. The

fact of the matter is that the responsibility for the choosing of a

president of that institution lies with the board of governors. The

board of governors made the decision, and I happen to concur with the

decision. I think it was a good decision.

MR. JONES :

I'm sure the minister concurs with that decision. I want the minister

to know that the people at that institution are very upset by the

decision of the board of governors, and they want to know when this

government is going to stop interfering in the operations of that

institution.

Interjections.

[ Page 6249 ]

MR. JONES : When are you going to butt out, Mr. Minister?

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. The question is out of order.

LOW-LEVEL MILITARY FLIGHTS

MR. PERRY :

I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday this week,

Innu aboriginal people who protested treetop-level military flights

practising first-strike nuclear warfare tactics in Labrador were

acquitted by a judge of the Provincial Court of Newfoundland. We are

now facing similar low-level flights by the U.S. Air Force in a

corridor from Fort Nelson to CFB Comox, a move that will surely bring

protests from many British Columbians. Has the Premier protested to the

British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : We've not

been advised of this happening at Comox. Although I appreciate the

question, I know that many of the things that we hear around the

corridors are rumours that are somehow emanating from the NDP. I don't

know where this came from, or why it has come forth. If you have

further information regarding this proposal, I would be very pleased to

receive it. However, as you stated too, a decision was made in one

particular instance by a court. I would imagine we could see similar

action taken, and a judge would again have to decide.

MR. PERRY : A supplementary to the Premier. It's an open secret — it's not even a secret; it's an open fact —

that these low-level flights are planned for the corridor from Fort

Nelson to Comox. The United States Air Force has made these plans clear

to members of the Denman Island Peace Group. My question to the Premier

remains: has he protested this to the Prime Minister? I don't think

we've received an answer to that question.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

First of all, as I have said, I have not received the information as

yet. I certainly don't intend to act based on rumours. I think we

should get the details of any such proposal to see why it's being

proposed, how it's being proposed and what the effect of it is. I am

sure that this will all be made available to the government of British

Columbia, should that be the case.

MR. PERRY : Just

one further supplementary. Many of the tests of this nature are

concluded under an overall umbrella agreement signed in 1981 between

Premier tell us if he has established any task force in the provincial

government to study these issues and to make itself aware, before the

flights begin, whether or not the flights are going on? What is their

real purpose? Are they in fact first-strike nuclear weapon practice?

Are they in fact preparation for fighting a nuclear war?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : I appreciate that this is a result of an agreement between the United States and Canada. Most British Columbians — and most Canadians, hopefully —

are aware that there is such an agreement. In fact, we share the

defence of the continent. With this agreement and the commitment on the

part of both nations, there are certain obligations. I appreciate that

the member and others might be opposed to the contents of the

agreement, or to the fact that there should be some sharing of defence

of the North American continent between the United States and Canada.

lot of Canadians are very grateful that we have a fine neighbour with

whom we can enter into agreements and whom we can trust — not only

to trade with and to have the benefits of their purchases of

Canadian-made goods or Canadian resource materials, but similarly, to

participate with us in a matter of defence. I think that Canadians by

and large — I appreciate that the people opposite in the socialist NDP don't feel this way — are very appreciative of our good neighbours to the south.

FEDERAL SUPPORT OF KAON FACTORY

MR. LOENEN :

My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training,

concerning the kaon factory and its importance to all British

Columbians. Because of the deficit-cutting that the federal government

is involved in, I wonder if the minister can assure this House and the

people of B.C. that he will make every representation possible to

ensure that the project will go through and that the government of

Canada will hold to its promises and continue to support that very

important project.

HON. S. HAGEN : Yes, there has

been some concern on behalf of the Friends of Kaon and the committee

that I chair to make sure that this project goes ahead. As the House

well knows, this is a very important project for the future of British

Columbia. It started out as a project of three universities and has

grown to involve eight universities right across Canada, including the

University of Toronto, University of Montreal, University of Manitoba

and University of Regina, which just joined recently.

Economically,

this is very important for the province. The construction alone of a

$570 million project will generate 19,000 person-years of employment.

It will generate $1.2 billion worth of economic activity, half of which

will stay in the province. The other half will be spread across the

rest of Canada.

It's important to know that this government

is in strong support of this project. I'm not exactly sure where the

party across from us sits. I understand that the new critic of research

and development, the Leader of the Opposition, may not be in favour of

this project, but he should be aware that the city of Vancouver backs

it, the GVRD backs it and the people of British Columbia back it.

The

kaon factory is precisely the type of clean, high-tech industry that we

need in this province. I can tell you that this government will

continue to

[ Page 6250 ]

work

hard to put pressure on the federal government. We're aware of their

desire to balance the budget, and we support that, but at the same time

we're structuring the cash requirements for this project to meet their

objectives.

Ministerial Statements

GAS PIPELINE TO VANCOUVER ISLAND

HON. MR. DAVIS :

I want to state as emphatically as I can that there is no way in which

the Vancouver Island gas pipeline will be built through the Coquitlam

watershed unless the company, Pacific Coast Energy, agrees to meet all

the conditions laid down by the federal government, the province of

British Columbia and the Greater Vancouver Water District. These

conditions are demanding indeed.

Several members of the

official opposition have asked Ottawa to stop the project. The hon.

member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) wants it put off for at least six

years. The hon. member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) has asked the federal

Minister of Energy to intervene. She asks that the federal

environmental assessment review process proceed; she doesn't seem to

know that this review process has been proceeding in parallel with our

own — those of the province and locally — for nearly 12 months.

We've worked cooperatively since last summer with three federal

departments: Energy, Environment and Fisheries and Oceans. I have no

doubt that the three federal ministers will sign this project off

favourably by mid-May at the latest.

Not only has the B.C.

Utilities Commission held hearings over several months and in numerous

municipalities, but our Ministries of Environment and Health have had

considerable input. They, like the federal departments, have added

project certificate that the company, Pacific Coast Energy, must adhere

to strictly during the preconstruction, construction and operating

phases.

Regional concerns have also been addressed in

detail. The project certificate says not only that the standards

imposed by the Greater Vancouver Water District on B.C. Hydro, logging

companies and other operators in the Coquitlam watershed will be

observed, but also that the GVWD is being asked to nominate a person or

persons to serve on the pipeline monitoring committee from the planning

stage through construction to operations.

[2:30]

Most members know that Greater Vancouver Water District staff have

already identified the conditions which it believes must be met if

water quality is to be maintained and disruption kept to a minimum.

These standards relate to construction techniques and timing, health

certification of workers, control of workers on site, waste collection

and handling, fuel and lubricant handling, construction supervision,

monitoring of water quality and so on. All of these conditions will be

met; all costs will be met by the company.

The B.C.

Utilities Commission, after issuing its several reports, concluded that

risks from pipeline construction in the Coquitlam watershed are

"acceptable and manageable." This will undoubtedly be true if the four

pages of conditions which are part of the draft Pacific Coast Energy

project certificate are met.

They will be met or, as I said

earlier, the project will not proceed. Perception is also important.

We're not talking about a large-diameter oil line on a 200 foot

right-of-way; we're talking about a small, one-foot diameter natural

gas line with a right-of-way of 20 feet to 30 feet. When built, it will

run along the high side of an existing, relatively wide, well-traveled

logging road.

Also, construction will be limited to times

when there is little traffic, precipitation is at a minimum and runoffs

can be contained. Why deny several hundred thousand residents of

Vancouver Island and the Sunshine Coast the human health and

environmental advantages of a clean, colourless, odourless fuel like

natural gas?

Acid rain emissions by industry alone can be

cut by up to 10,000 tonnes a year. The line can also eliminate 300 oil

barge movements a year up and down Georgia strait. Fuel bills — residential, commercial and industrial —

will fall, and there is, of course, security of supply. This is a B.C.

resource, a B.C. source of energy which now will be made available to

the majority of people in the province.

The overall benefits — social, environmental and economic —

of the Vancouver Island pipeline are too great for those of us in this

House to ignore. True, the project must be clean, clean, clean,

especially in the Coquitlam watershed, but our three levels of

government, together with their various agencies, have looked hard at

this project and found it acceptable.

They will also insist that during its construction and operating stages it be a model for others to follow.

MS. EDWARDS :

As an example of Mr. Clean, Clean, Clean, this is an amazing decision

of what needs to be clean, because the Coquitlam watershed has not been

included in what needs to be so clean. What we have here is a

classification of several things that need to be addressed that have

not been addressed yet. They have identified certain things that need

to be addressed. The Utilities Commission report says very clearly that

they have not yet been addressed. They outline some of the difficulties

of addressing them; for example, if the particular timeframe the

minister has laid out is followed, the time windows for doing it in a

clean way will be extremely difficult if not impossible to meet.

The

pipeline, if it goes ahead, goes through watersheds; it goes through

parks. The minister suggests that the Ministry of Environment has been

involved in the....

Interjection.

MS. EDWARDS : Up to now. Certainly, Mr. Minister, there was no testimony given by Ministry of En-

[ Page 6251 ]

vironment employees at the Utilities Commission hearings. That's very interesting.

seems that this is again the whole business of whether we're going to

go ahead with a huge project that involves millions of dollars of

public money, and whether we're going to go ahead with it in an

extremely short and rushed time-frame regardless of whether or not it's

going to be proven to be safe and clean. That's the line: it has not

yet proven that it can be, and we're going to go ahead anyway. So I

accept the minister's statement with a considerable degree of

disappointment.

PHARMACY DISPENSING ERRORS

HON. MR. DUECK :

I wish to inform this House of a concern I have respecting a number of

incidents which have recently been reported in the media and from my

staff, involving alleged dispensing errors in pharmacies in British

Columbia. There is also a concern that these errors may be related to

the apparent dispensing-fee price war among such pharmacies.

The

clinical advice of our professional pharmacists is a very important

part of the British Columbia health care system. I would be very

concerned if long lineups or other factors are pressuring pharmacists

to the point where they have difficulty maintaining the standards of

their community pharmacy practice. Public safety remains our first and

most important consideration.

I want to assure this House

that my staff are working closely with the College of Pharmacists and

that the college is actively investigating these matters to ensure that

standards are maintained and that there is no breakdown in direct

communications between pharmacists and prescribing physicians or

between pharmacists and the public.

It is, however,

important to keep this matter in perspective. Pharmacists dispense in

excess of 14 million prescriptions per year, and I am advised by the

College of Pharmacists, the professional body responsible for these

standards, that dispensing errors have been extremely rare. Should

changes be required, I expect to have recommendations from the college

in the very near future.

MR. PERRY : I don't think

there's anything very controversial here. I've worked often with many

different pharmacists, and I have confidence in the ability of the

College of Pharmacists of British Columbia to investigate problems and

deal with them appropriately.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 17.

RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE

LIMITATION ACT, 1989

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On

section as amended.

MR. BLENCOE :

This is the meat and bones of this particular piece of legislation. In

her introductory remarks about this bill, the minister said she had

deep reservations about this legislation. I'm wondering if the minister

could — for the edification of all members of the Legislature — indicate to us what her concerns are with this legislation. Because you said those....

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill is self-explanatory, and my personal

reservations are really not important at this point in time. We have a

bill before us that we are dealing with, and I feel we should be

dealing with that and not my personal reservations.

MR. BLENCOE :

With respect to the minister, we are not dealing with personal

concerns. We are dealing with the Minister of Municipal Affairs — an important ministry —

and an important piece of legislation that is going to have a dramatic

impact upon assessments and the Assessment Authority in the province by

intervening very seriously in the marketplace analysis for tax

purposes, and we have depicted the implications of that. The minister

has said publicly to the people of British Columbia and to

municipalities that she has concerns. As minister, I don't think she

can get away trying to say — which she said publicly here as the minister —

that these are her personal concerns. I think the municipalities and

the public are entitled to know what the minister's concerns are with

this bill.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I believe that those

reservations have been adequately expressed. We're really talking about

a second reading issue, which is the principle of the bill.

It's

my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that we are now down to the specifics

of the bill as printed before us, and I believe we should deal with

those issues.

MR. BLENCOE : The minister said the

concerns have been canvassed. Were they canvassed by our side or by

your side? We certainly canvassed our concerns in second reading. Are

you saying then that the concerns we raised are legitimate and are

basically your concerns?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : No, that's not what I said.

[ Page 6252 ]

MR. BLENCOE :

I think it's most unfortunate that the minister in charge of a very

important ministry governing municipalities, regional districts, local

councils and this issue — it's bread and butter in terms of taxes and assessments —

is not prepared to say, in bringing this bill to the floor of the

Legislature, that she had deep reservations. I think that shows that

this minister has some problems in terms of this ministry and how she

deals with it.

So I'll leave it there, but needless to say,

we're going to have some concerns expressed by local government that we

now have a minister who has introduced legislation that she's not happy

with. She knows there are problems. She's referred to the issues we

have canvassed, and I suspect she knows the issues we've canvassed are

quite legitimate — the impact on her ministry, the local councils

and the Assessment Authority, and the minister cannot deny that. She

knows what she has done, and it's damaging to local government.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, I would have to ask for your direction on the area of

discussion that we should be entering into here. It may be appropriate

and necessary at this time for me to repeat some of the comments that

were made earlier.

This bill has been brought forward as a

result of a request from the city of Vancouver. The request was made by

a unanimous vote of that council — representation from the largest

local government in the province of British Columbia by unanimous

request of their council — for assistance in addressing a very serious concern they had in their community.

a result of that request, we felt we had an obligation as a ministry

and as a government to respond, because we truly believe in local

autonomy. We truly believe that members of council were elected to make

localized decisions. But having said that, it was important to us in

the ministry that the opportunity for addressing the concern be made

available not only to the city of Vancouver, but to all of the

communities in our province.

We subsequently had

discussions with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and several of the

mayors on the lower mainland, and the result of those discussions is

Bill 17. That is what you have before you.

[2:45]

MR. BLENCOE : What discussions did you have with the B.C. Assessment Authority, and what is their opinion on this legislation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I didn't personally have discussions with the B.C. Assessment

Authority, but there were internal staff discussions with the

Assessment Authority.

MR. BLENCOE : Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. Were you trying to indicate something to me? You have an introduction to make?

MR. MOWAT : I want to speak to this.

MR. BLENCOE : You want to speak to this? Good, I'm glad.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please proceed.

MR. BLENCOE : Can the minister indicate to us whether the B.C. Assessment Authority supported this legislation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I'm not sure it would have been appropriate for me or my staff to have

asked them whether they supported this legislation. This government is

giving direction, not the B.C. Assessment Authority. I can tell you

that the Assessment Authority has agreed the proposal is workable, and

they are providing the technical help to any municipality that intends

to utilize the legislation.

MR. BLENCOE : Does the

minister realize the full implications of tinkering with an assessment

system like this? Assessments in this province are now carried out

every two years, yet this legislation is only for one year. Is the

minister aware — or does she recognize — that next year

you're going to have the same pressure? You're going to have the same

rise in assessments, and therefore there's going to be pressure to do

the same thing again; yet we've only got this bill for one year.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I go on facts. I don't have a crystal ball. I would like to reiterate that this legislation is for 1989 only.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm sure the minister is aware, though, that assessments in this

province are carried out every two years. Therefore people who had a

sudden increase in assessment in 1988 will not see any change in that

value until 1990. Is the minister aware of the pressure she will have

for 1990 now that the precedent has been set for 1989? Is she fully

aware of the precedent-setting tone of this legislation?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

No one on either side of the House has any way of knowing what the

market is going to do. Indications are that it has already levelled

off. Having said that, I would suggest we deal with the bill, which

truly spells out that it is for 1989. What it does, in effect, is

cushion the substantial increase that some local taxpayers would be

faced with. Rather than having it hit them very hard in one year, it is

cushioning it and spreading that increase out over two years. But to

suggest that we may have — or will have — the same type of

pressure next year.... I'm not privy to what may happen a year from

now. I'm dealing with what we have before us, which is a bill to

address the 1989 taxation problems.

MR. BLENCOE : I

assume she'll probably deny this, but if the minister looks at the

legislation, at what's going to happen in, for instance, those areas of

Vancouver that have experienced assessment increases and high property

values.... In your bill I know it's land; I recognize that. Is the

minister aware

[ Page 6253 ]

that

by capping in those high-increase areas, it's going to transfer the

load to those in, for instance.... I'm not that familiar with

Vancouver, but evidence has been shown that property holders in the

east side of Vancouver will bear the results of capping increases in

the west side, the Kerrisdale area.

Does it not concern the

minister that you are benefiting those who are seeing the values of

their property rise dramatically, and who indeed could benefit by that,

at the expense of moderate property owners? That's basically very

unfair at a time when everybody in this country and this province is

talking about tax reform and spreading the load as fairly as possible.

This bill is not very fair in that capacity, because it transfers the

responsibility from those who probably can afford it better to those

who can least afford it.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The

suggestion is that the minister is doing this and the minister is doing

that. What the minister is doing is putting forward legislation that

allows local government to do something they have asked us to give them

permission to do. We are not going into any of the local communities

and insisting that they use this legislation. It is being made

available to them as a result of a request from the largest community

in this province by unanimous vote. I seem to be having a problem

getting that message across. In a good many cases, if we are going to

be talking specifically about the city of Vancouver, it has been

suggested to us, and the figures I produced yesterday would go further

to verify, that a good number of the uncapped properties will be

looking at tax reductions this year as a result, among other things, of

the increase in the homeowner grant that the provincial government has

provided and the increase in the provincial funding for schools.

MR. BLENCOE :

I appreciate the minister's response to local government, and I know

she has on occasion taken some friendly criticism from me that this

government at times does not respond that well to local government

initiatives and ideas.

MR. WILLIAMS : St. Ann's Academy.

MR. BLENCOE :

St. Ann's Academy and the Provincial Capital Commission in the city of

Victoria is a classic example. A minister refuses in that situation the

people of this area, Victoria, an option to see what the Provincial

Capital Commission.... She over and over denies that community input

and that request.

Yet there are times when a minister has

to take a look at the full implications of legislation. When you are

looking at a system that has impact on all British Columbians who own

property or their own homes, you are just not making legislation for

one community or one neighbourhood. You are preparing legislation that

impacts on every area of this province, particularly when you introduce

legislation that is precedent-setting and takes us back 20 years in

terms of political manipulation of a system that, boy, if you

manipulate it, creates all sorts of problems for you.

I think the minister knows the slippery road she has gone down. I think now this government — and I know there are many on that side of the House who've had municipal experience — know what this legislation is going to do. They know how precedent-setting it is.

question is: is the minister fully aware of the global or the

provincial implications of this legislation, despite the request from

Vancouver city council?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Yes, I am.

MR. BLENCOE :

Well, the minister is aware of the implications, and I don't think I

have to address those anymore. We've canvassed them. She'll be hearing

from many mayors and aldermen about the slippery road she has taken

local government down.

I have one question before.... I

understand my colleague from Vancouver Centre has a question. I am

wondering if the minister....

MR. WILLIAMS : Little Mountain.

MR. BLENCOE : Oh, right. It's easy to forget about the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain, I must admit.

Question to the minister: will homes that have changed ownership in the last year be eligible for relief under this option?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The answer is yes.

MR. BLENCOE :

If I get that correct then, this bill allows those who are speculating

in residential property to not only make huge capital gains but also to

get a tax break on their assessment. Have I got that correct?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Property ownership has no bearing on whether or not you qualify for benefit or otherwise under this bill.

MR. BLENCOE :

The case I am trying to make is that, in terms of fairness for the tax

system, those who are participating in flipping and are not living in

those properties and are part of the escalating assessments are, in our

estimation, a major cause of why you have had to bring in this very

questionable legislation. Now it seems that those people not only make

huge capital gains and create the high cost of property many British

Columbians can't buy, but through your legislation they are going to

get a tax break. You are rewarding those flippers and those

speculators. Am I right?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : It

appears that the second member for Victoria sees a bogeyman under every

bed and around every corner. Really, we have legislation here. Those of

us on this side of the House don't feel that legislation should apply

to somebody that the members opposite don't believe should own a piece

of property. The legislation applies to the property — regardless of the ownership. That is the way the legislation has been brought forward. The

[ Page 6254 ]

suggestion of flipping and land speculation is not a part of this bill.

MR. BLENCOE :

I'm going to leave it there. I think the minister knows the point I'm

making, that we have indicated that this bill is very unfair to

moderate-income homeowners, and that those who have seen dramatic

increases in the values of their property are going to benefit by this.

Yet now we also see that those who are speculating in the market and

not living in those properties are not only making huge capital gains

by flipping properties but are also going to get a tax break from this

government. That really shows where this government's interests are in

terms of fairness in the tax system. We object to that kind of

procedure.

We found out this afternoon that not only is

this bill very dangerous in terms of what it actually says in

legislation, but it's also going to give a tax break to those

speculators who are buying and selling properties without living in

them, creating the inflated land prices and housing costs, particularly

in Vancouver.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I guess I should

go over this again. This bill is a result of a request from the largest

community in the province of British Columbia — the city of Vancouver —

by a unanimous vote of the city council, the locally elected people,

the people elected to make local decisions. They requested this

legislation. It's not something that the provincial government has

initiated. It's not something that we're doing to give somebody a break

over somebody else. It's in response to local government.

[3:00]

We not only say that we believe in local autonomy; we show it by

responding to requests that we receive from local government. It's very

strange, in my mind, that the second member for Victoria is continually

talking about giving local government, locally elected people, more say

in what happens in their community, about giving them more authority,

about recognizing them to a far greater degree than they are by this

government, and then when they have come to us.... They have met with

all the local MLAs in the city of Vancouver, and it's my understanding

that they received their concurrence and support for this type or

similar-type legislation. Now that the city of Vancouver, the largest

body of local government in this province, has come to the government

and asked for assistance in addressing a problem in their community,

the NDP members — particularly led by the second member for Victoria —

are turning their backs on local government and saying: "We always say

that we believe in local autonomy, but we're really not going to

respond when you come to us and ask for some help." I think that that

attitude is certainly becoming very prevalent on that side of the House.

want to tell you, Mr. Member, that the local government, the locally

elected people in this province, are watching what's happening on this

bill. Whether or not they intend to use the legislation, they are

looking to see who supports the position and addresses the concerns of

local government, and they're not liking what they see on your side of

the House.

I don't know whether the member is just here to

attempt to drum up some strange stories about what members on this side

of the House are doing, but this legislation is very plain, simple and

clear. We are addressing a concern that was brought to us from the city

of Vancouver by unanimous vote. The mayor and council have asked for

our help, and we're responding. It was unanimous. The letter sent to

me, Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the letter I received on my desk....

I don't have it with me, but I can table it for you. It was a unanimous

request to my office to deal with this subject, signed by the mayor of

the city of Vancouver.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I'm sorry, but the letter, to the member of the opposition, was to the effect that it was a unanimous request to my office.

MR. MOWAT : Mr. Chairman, I hope you'll give me the latitude that you gave the last member in this debate. We're in third reading....

MR. BLENCOE : Committee, committee, committee.

MR. MOWAT :

In the committee. But I must say that I'm a bit concerned, and I wasn't

able to speak the last time around. In the city of Vancouver we have

what we call city caucus meetings. In these city caucus meetings, the

provincial members representing Vancouver are asked to attend these

meeting with the city council.

On March 10 we had a city

caucus meeting when the city of Vancouver brought to us this problem.

At that meeting were: the Leader of the Opposition, the former mayor;

the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Ms. Marzari) and former

alderman; the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) and former

city planner; the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark); the

second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) came, but I think he

was too late for the debate; the first member for Vancouver South (Mr.

R. Fraser); the first member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mrs.

McCarthy); and I was also present. After a lengthy debate, it was

unanimously agreed that we would go for this.

MR. G. HANSON : Let's see the Hansard .

MR. MOWAT : We're talking about a city caucus meeting.

MR. G. HANSON : I understand that. Have you got the minutes?

MR. MOWAT : Yes, I do. They're from Mayor Gordon Campbell.

all agreed. We had a thorough discussion about this. We were talking

with.... Now the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) is

shaking

[ Page 6255 ]

his head. You were late; you didn't get to the meeting on time.

But

I've got to tell you the former mayor and the first member were there.

We discussed a 20 percent capping. After the former finance director,

Mr. Leckie, gave a presentation to us, we all agreed. We had a debate,

and it was unanimous.

Now the former mayor is shaking his

head. It was unanimous. We even debated whether the first member for

Vancouver East's new house was going to cost a lot of money because the

assessment was going to go up. We said: "Well, he is going to benefit

from this."

AN HON. MEMBER : Which one of his houses?

MR. MOWAT : Which one of his properties?

I'm

shocked to think that we left that meeting unanimously agreeing with

the city council. There were some aldermen there. Alderman Rankin was

there; he agreed with it. I just can't believe that after we went

through all that that we're going to see that there are some problems

with it.

The flip-floppers are back. They sat in the Hyatt

and discussed it; they were all for it. Then they get out here and they

start to show their true colours. We have reacted to an issue that was

brought to our attention, and we gave it to the local representatives

elected for the city of Vancouver to look at, and they came up with a

program and a solution.

We agreed to it, and it went back

to the council of the city of Vancouver, who unanimously agreed to

this. I have some real concerns when it was unanimously agreed to by

the city of Vancouver, and now we're getting into flip-flopping. They

came to us, we sat down and agreed, and then once they come back and

see that there may be some political fallout from this, they don't

agree with it.

AN HON. MEMBER : On one hand they want a park; on the other hand they don't.

MR. MOWAT : Yes. Just like yesterday: on one hand they wanted a park and now they don't and now they do.

MR. BLENCOE : You're sore about that because we voted for it.

MR. MOWAT : I'm not sore about that. You wasted about three hours of the taxpayers' money. It cost us about....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, we are speaking to Bill 17.

MR. MOWAT : It cost about $70,000 to sit here yesterday afternoon and go through something. It's ridiculous.

MR. HARCOURT : Are you saying the Legislature is a waste of time?

MR. MOWAT : No. The way you guys handle it, it is.

MR. BARNES :

I just have a couple of questions. First I want to respond to the

second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. I think the remarks made

by the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain just expired those

caucus meetings that we've been holding in Vancouver, which have been

held at the request of the mayor and are supposed to be in confidence.

Caucuses

are for the purpose of sharing in a collegial way. Now it seems as

though the member is suggesting that we can go out and talk about

everything. I am sure the mayor of the city of Vancouver will be

surprised to hear that because we have been talking to him quite

candidly in the past.

MR. MOWAT : How can you be two-faced all the time?

MR. BARNES : That's all I'm going to say to that. You can consider yourself as having opened the door on those caucus meetings.

One

other thing the minister has suggested was that the vote was unanimous

in support of the request by the mayor and council of the city of

Vancouver to have this mechanism in order to assist those people whose

properties unfortunately have increased so much they can't afford to

pay the taxes. In order to assist them, the minister felt it incumbent

upon her to make this extraordinary move, something that she deeply

regrets but out of respect and a sense of compassion and concern for

those people whose property has increased to the extent that they can't

afford to pay their taxes.... That's free enterprise going too far.

want to ask the minister whether a survey was taken among these people

who unfortunately couldn't afford to pay their taxes. And were they

asked: "Do you wish us to cap your taxes?" Was an effort made to find

out just who those people were who couldn't afford to pay their taxes?

There's no question about it, Mr. Chairman, there will be people who

will have been living in a home, let's say moderately priced at

$100,000, which all of a sudden is worth $200,000 or $300,000. Those

people may be on fixed incomes, can't afford to pay their taxes and

will need some help. I can understand the problem. They are

property-rich and dollar-poor, or cash flow-poor.

In some cases, for instance, when a person reaches a certain age and is no longer earning an income — say, a senior citizen —

there is a mechanism whereby that person may defer their taxes. In

other words, there's a chargeback against the property. When that

person eventually moves out or something happens that they no longer

will be in that home and when the property transaction takes place,

then the property is taxed.

But here is a situation where

people are making huge profits and are being forgiven their taxes, and

the taxes are being redistributed among the population in the Vancouver

area with no charge. I'm asking

[ Page 6256 ]

the

minister if any effort was made to find out who could afford to pay

their taxes and who could not and if anybody requested this help? In

other words, who asked for the help other than the mayor himself?

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : The answer to the last question is that the Vancouver city council asked for this, Mr. Chairman.

And

my goodness, I would hope that we would not attempt to institute a form

of referendum from the provincial government in order to ensure that

requests that come in to us from local government for legislative

assistance would require us to take a referendum of the residents in

the area to ensure that what the people they elected — their mayor and council —

were asking us to do was really what the people wanted us to do. The

mayors and councils in the districts across this province were elected

to represent the people of their communities, and surely those are the

people we're supposed to be dealing with and responding to.

This

legislation is in reply to a request from the city of Vancouver asking

us to come to their assistance because they felt they had a serious

problem. I would hate to think that we would go in there and ask the

mayor and council to start doing a means test on everybody living in

Point Grey or Kerrisdale, or on some of the longtime residents who are

sitting in those areas who have seen these very dramatic property

increases, and ask them how much money they have in the bank, how much

they have coming in and if they can really afford to pay their taxes.

The mayor and council surely have a feel for the conditions in their

community, and I would hope that we wouldn't be out there doing a

referendum to question something they've asked us to do for them.

MR. BARNES :

I think the minister's response contains all I need in order to deduce

her position. It's quite obvious that she has expanded it into

something far different from what I'm saying. I'm simply saying that if

people need help with their taxes in a fair and equitable situation,

then they will certainly ask for it. Here is a case where it's a gift,

forgiving a large amount of money — $500 in some cases. Do you

mean to tell me that a person who has realized a profit of 200 percent

or 300 percent is not willing to pay his fair share of taxes, even if

there was a transaction to sell it the next day and he wouldn't owe

anything? You don't care about trying to recover that, and yet you

won't even protect people on fixed incomes.

As you know,

there are many people being kicked out of their homes. There's no

rentalsman. You didn't bother to intervene on behalf of people whose

rents are going up. You don't want to intervene, because that's the

free marketplace. We don't want to get into that debate, because we

know the minister's position on that. It's a little biased there.

[3:15]

What I want to ask the minister is: are you prepared to admit that you were

incorrect when you said that the request was unanimous? Because it was not.

Ald. Gordon Price told me last night at a public meeting where we were discussing

this issue: "Look, wait a minute; you're wrong. I did not support it;

in fact, I'm opposed to it." I want you to admit for the record that

there was at least one alderman not in favour of this.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has suggested that I have

misled the House, Mr. Chairman. That is absolutely incorrect. The

letter I received, signed by the mayor of the city of Vancouver,

suggested to me that the request was by way of a unanimous vote of the

Vancouver city council, and that is what I dealt with.

MR. WILLIAMS : I am just reading subsection (2), and it says:

"The

adjusted value of land on the 1989 property tax roll of any parcel of

land that is classified as class 1 — residential in B.C. Reg. 438-81

and is included in that roll is the lesser of (

a) the 1989 assessed

value of the land, or (

b) the 1988 assessed value of the land plus 'X%'

of the 1988 assessed value of the land where 'X%' is the sum obtained

by adding the average percentage increase determined under subsection

(3) to 15%."

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

I would be pleased to give you an example, although I am absolutely

certain that the question is in jest. But I will give you an example.

MR. WILLIAMS : I'm interested in the "X" factor.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : Okay. The value in 1988, assuming it to be $100,000.... You're asking where the cap is coming in?

MR. WILLIAMS : I am just asking what it means.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Okay. Assuming that the 1988 assessment was $100,000, and assuming that

the average increase in the community was 10 percent, from 1988 to

1989, we would add the 10 percent and then we would allow for the 15

percent cap. So anyone who went over a 25 percent assessment increase

would have their taxation number adjusted. We refer to it as an

adjusted value.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON :

Mr. Chairman, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) has asked

the question again. The Assessment Authority will assist any community

that wishes to participate in this, and I think we should make it clear

that there are only, to the best of my knowledge, with the exception of

Vancouver, three communities even entertaining the utilization of this

legislation: the two North Vancouvers and West Vancouver. I really

haven't heard whether any of those three are going ahead.

[ Page 6257 ]

MR. De JONG :

I am not sure whether I am speaking at the right time during this bill,

but I do have some reservations about it, although I can understand the

reasons why the bill is brought forward. Certainly there is a unique

situation in the city of Vancouver and the surrounding municipalities;

however, as I said, I have some concern.

Really, by the minister having indicated it — and this bill only applies for this year —

I see it as a temporary measure. I would like to ask the minister

whether in fact this is a temporary measure and, furthermore, whether

the minister is entertaining the idea of communicating with the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to have the Assessment Act

changed so that these rapid changes in assessment values can be

accommodated in the Assessment Act rather than by these types of

measures.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : There is no question

about this being a one-year piece of legislation. It would be my hope

that before too long we would look at ways and means of properly — not on an emergency-type basis —

addressing any future possible major fluctuations and heated property

sales in the province. Certainly I will be conferring with my colleague

the Minister of Finance in an attempt to determine whether there might

not be a better way of being prepared for these types of situations.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, to add

section 6.1. [See appendix.]

Sections 6.1 and 7 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON : I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. RICHMOND : By leave now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 17, Residential Property Tax Increase Limitation Act, 1989, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : I call committee on Bill 4.

PROVINCIAL SYMBOLS AND HONOURS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. REID : 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 4, Provincial Symbols and Honours Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 16.

UNIVERSITY ENDOWMENT LAND PARK ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. HARCOURT :

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put forward an amendment to

section 3,

which will now be

section 3(c). It reads: "nothing in this act shall be

construed as to prejudice the claim of aboriginal title of the Musqueam

Indian band to the University Endowment Lands."

HON. MR. RICHMOND : First of all, Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for providing us with a copy of the amendment which he has tabled.

After

careful consideration, it is my contention that the amendment is not in

order, for the reason that it alters the very intent of the bill. It

might appear on the surface to be a very short and simple amendment,

but I contend that it alters the principle of the bill as agreed to in

second reading. I cite Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia , second edition, page 132, where it says "Inadmissible amendments, " if people want a reference point.

my opinion, this does alter the principle of the bill as agreed too in

second reading in that it goes to the very heart of the bill and could

at some future date prevent this land from being a park in perpetuity.

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect I submit to you that it

undermines the very intent of the bill, which was to provide a park for

all the people of British Columbia for all time. This amendment has the

possibility of destroying that intent.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The first member for Victoria speaks to the point of order.

[ Page 6258 ]

MR. G. HANSON :

Mr. Chairman, as you make your deliberations with respect to whether or

not our amendment is in order, I would like to contend that it is in

order.

Section 3(

b) of the bill states clearly: "the Greater Vancouver

Regional District shall not transfer the land and improvements

transferred by the grant unless it has first obtained the approval of

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council." What that essentially addresses in

principle is the idea of third party alienation. The debate we've had

in this chamber is really about the third-party alienation of the land

and the effect that may have on some future case of the Supreme Court

of Canada or some other high court of this land with respect to

third-party alienation or the patenting of a transfer of land to a

third party, which could preclude the validity of a claim.

That

matter was addressed by the justices of this province earlier in the

year. I don't know whether I need to quote for you, but perhaps I

could. In the restraining order application of February 9, 1989,

justice Craig states on page 3:

"I turn then to the application to restrain the

implementation of the conveyance of the property. The legal problem

that lurks behind the conveyance" — this is the germane point — "is

that once the conveyance is granted,

section 23 of the Land Title Act

may preclude any remedy of the plaintiffs" — the plaintiffs are the

Musqueam people — "to obtain their claim to aboriginal title. That

possibility, in my mind, approaches irreparable harm, and for that

reason I think the appropriate order is to direct that there be an

order restraining the implementation of the conveyance as proposed."

[3:30]

Subsequent to this judgment, the restraining order was lifted

because the GVRD agreed that third-party alienation would not take

place from their side. The concern is that the province has not

similarly agreed to do that. That is what our amendment is about.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Speaking against the amendment and for its inadmissibility, I would

just like to point out one thing. The member quotes

section 3(b) — "the Greater Vancouver Regional District shall not transfer" —

as being binding on the use of the land. But the amendment starts out:

"nothing in this act shall be construed as to prejudice the claim of

aboriginal title...." The amendment clearly negates any

section that

may come before or after it, just by its mere words: "nothing in this

act shall be construed as to prejudice the claim of aboriginal title of

the Musqueam Indian band to the University Endowment Lands." I submit

that it changes the entire intent of the bill and is therefore out of

order.

MR. GUNO : Speaking on the point of order, I

briefly want to support my learned colleague from Victoria in his

contention that this amendment does not go to the heart of the bill,

and that it is really merely a "without prejudice" clause that would

preserve the right of the Musqueam people to pursue their claim. I

don't think the contention of the member opposite that it goes to the

very heart of the bill is valid.

MR. GABELMANN : On the point of order, if you'll take another point, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN : No objection. I would like to hear what everyone has to say on this particular point of order.

MR. GABELMANN :

The government House Leader is assuming that the result of a claim that

might be negotiated would be a particular result, which he claims would

negate the bill. That may or may not be the result or something that

would flow from the discussions. It seems to me that people who have a

legitimate claim should not have their right to pursue that claim

extinguished by

an act of the Legislature, which is designed to do

something else altogether. That's the effect of this legislation and

why this particular amendment is necessary.

The amendment

does not, by passing, mean that there will not be a park and an opening

ceremony this weekend. If the government House Leader's point were

valid, what we would have is no park, no ceremony and no nothing on the

weekend. The fact is that that will happen. If the Lieutenant-Governor

arrives tomorrow, as we expect him to, and we go through all of the

procedures, even with this amendment passed, we will have a park.

Therefore the debate on this amendment is quite in order, and I don't

think the government House Leader has a point at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Hon. members, this particular amendment has in some ways provided a bit

of a unique opportunity for the Chair, because the hon. Leader of the

Opposition did mention yesterday that the amendment was coming forward.

It did give me an opportunity to review it and to give it some thought.

Also, of course, I've now had the benefit of the hon. members' thoughts

on this amendment.

I would suggest that the question of

whether an amendment is out of order because of its being contrary to

the principle of a bill which was considered and passed by the House in

second reading sometimes involves a very fine distinction. I've

examined the bill and the amendment that has been put forward — notice of which, as I said a moment ago, was really given yesterday by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition — and I have also listened to the arguments as they were presented to this time.

is my view that the principle of the bill involves the transfer of the

land as a park, free of any encumbrance except those stipulated in the

bill.

Also I would suggest that the amendment would leave a

cloud on the title of the subsequent acquirer of the land, which is

inconsistent with park status. Accordingly, I am going to rule that

this amendment is out of order as negating the principle of the bill.

MR. HARCOURT :

Continuing on

section 3, Mr. Chairman, your ruling and the argument put

forward by the government House Leader proves our point exactly: that

this bill is intended to prejudice the rights of the Musqueam people.

That's exactly what we have been saying all the way along.

[ Page 6259 ]

am indeed saddened that this government has rejected this amendment.

Everyone, including the Musqueam people, agree that the University

Endowment Lands should become a park. Everyone, except the members

opposite, understands that that is not the issue before this House. The

issue is not about a park, for the park is not threatened; it's about

this government denying the Musqueam the right to seek justice. This

government is unwilling to recognize aboriginal rights — in this

case the right to negotiate a land claim. Worst of all, this is a

government that attempts to exploit, and even provoke, confrontation

between B.C.'s native and non-native peoples for its own political gain.

will have a park in Point Grey. The Musqueam want it; the people of

Point Grey want it; we want it. The shame is that this government has

intentionally decided to deny the Musqueam the right to negotiate their

aboriginal claim, even though it poses no threat to the park.

doubt this government will attempt to distort the events of the past

two days, distort our struggle to right their wrong, distort our

attempt to amend the legislation to protect the Musqueam's right

without jeopardizing the park. This Socred government has sent a very

clear signal to the people of British Columbia. The future holds more

of the same with the Socreds: unnecessary confrontation over aboriginal

rights and land claims. More confrontation will prevent all British

Columbians — native and non-native — from moving ahead with

the sustainable development of many of our lands and resources. British

Columbians are way ahead of this government. We want aboriginal rights

to be recognized so that we can finally negotiate claims and put an end

to confrontation and get on with building a better B.C.

This

government's political agenda has no room for a responsible approach to

building B.C.'s future. British Columbians know that the UEL park is

not threatened by protecting the Musqueam's rights. This Socred

government wants to bury its head in the sand and not deal with the

reality of aboriginal rights — or worse, exploit any unfounded fear of these rights....

HON. MR. DIRKS :

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would wonder which

section of this

we are now debating. It sounds like we are back into second reading,

rather than going through this bill clause by clause.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you hon. member. We are in committee stage. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware of that. Please proceed.

MR. HARCOURT : I am indeed, Mr. Chairman. That is exactly what

section 3 does: extinguish the right of the aboriginal people. The

House Leader in his challenge made that very clear and your ruling

cements to beyond 100 percent that that is what this act does. That's

exactly what I am saying. That is the result of the act. It is now so

crystal-clear to British Columbians what is behind this act. It's not a

park.We all want the park. It's to do an injustice to the Musqueam people.

New

Democrats are determined to bring British Columbians together, not to tear them

apart. To that end I want to read into the record today the following letter

that I've sent to Prime Minister Mulroney:

"I am writing to you regarding the University Endowment

Land Park Act proposed by the government of British Columbia, which is now before

the Legislative Assembly. This act transfers a parcel of land which is currently

the subject of a aboriginal land claim by the Musqueam band to the Greater Vancouver

Regional District for park purposes. Justice Anderson of the British Columbia

Court of Appeal earlier this month granted the Greater Vancouver Regional District

the right to proceed with this transfer, provided they do not argue 'third-party

alienation' of the Musqueam's aboriginal claim. Justice Anderson also

said it would be dishonourable for the government of British Columbia or the

Greater Vancouver Regional District to use the transfer to deny the Musqueam

people their rights.

"While I and members of my caucus have struggled for

years to have this park established, we have also moved an amendment which would

create this park without jeopardizing the rights of the Musqueam to pursue negotiations

of their aboriginal claim. By refusing the amendment, the Attorney-General and

the government of British Columbia are committed to a course of action intended

to jeopardize the rights of the Musqueam people.

"The purpose of this letter is to advise you that should

the members of my party form a government in British Columbia, we will work

to ensure that the Musqueam people have the right to pursue a negotiated settlement.

Whether the Musqueam are successful in settling this claim or not, it is our

belief that it is essential that their right to pursue a negotiated settlement

not be frustrated. In the spirit of the judgments made in the highest courts

of Canada, I ask you to recognize the Musqueam people's right to pursue

a negotiated settlement of their aboriginal claims.

Sincerely,

Michael Harcourt,

Leader of the Official Opposition"

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I'm sorry, your time has expired.

HON. MR. DIRKS :

In reply to the hon. member opposite, it has been consistently the

position of all British Columbia administrations, including that in

place from 1972 to '75, that there are no subsisting aboriginal titles

in British Columbia. Bearing this in mind, the government cannot now

accept any kind of amendment which might implicitly recognize such

claims.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN : We're on

section 3.

MR. GUNO :

Yes, I know we're on

section 3. I decided to take

part in this

political process because I thought that I would be part of the

solution and I thought that this forum would be an honourable place in

which to do that. Today I'm

[ Page 6260 ]

ashamed

to be part of this process. I'm ashamed of this government's blatant

attempt to thwart the legitimate claims of the Musqueam people.

The member for Texas or whatever — South Peace —

talks about there being no claim, no aboriginal right. Well, that's

absolutely blatantly untrue. The member for South Peace, this

government's version of an Indian agent, says that the position of the

province of British Columbia is that if aboriginal title did exist, it

has long since been extinguished. The courts have not denied that; in

any application to the courts, it has never been overturned. Indeed, it

is also the position of the province of British Columbia that should

the courts decide at some time in the future that aboriginal title does

exist, then by the terms of the union it is quite clearly the

I think that

the member has acknowledged the possibility that in the future the

existence of aboriginal title does exist. And yet this government has

taken steps to thwart the right of the Musqueam people to pursue their

legitimate claim. If there are any doubts whatsoever that the intent of

this bill is for that purpose, I think that the House Leader today

pretty well eliminated those doubts.

MR. G. HANSON :

Before I begin my remarks, I would like to introduce Musqueam

councillors who are presently in the gallery. I would like the House to

make them welcome.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that our guests

are having to witness this sad event. We have attempted over the last

few days, through force of argument, through reference to legal

documents and precedents in this country.... Doesn't this government

read the newspapers? Almost every single day in this nation there is a

Supreme Court or a County Court case upholding native rights. In the

one the other day of the Innu in Labrador, the justice remarks in his

judgment: "Did Canada think that it magically took these lands from

people? There are no treaties. There is no compensation. There is no

extinguishment of their rights." He likened that to seventeenth-century

thinking. He said: "When are governments going to get out of

seventeenth-century thinking?" If anything applies to the cabinet of

this province, it's seventeenth-century thinking.

I think all members know that the Musqueam case is in many respects special, because their misfortune — if you can call it a misfortune —

was to live in a place that was enveloped in an urban setting, and have

third-party alienation of their traditional territories engulf almost

everything but the UEL. After the Calder case Pierre Trudeau said:

"Maybe you have more rights than I thought." With a divided Supreme

Court of Canada decision, they established the comprehensive claims

office and invited claims from all of Canada. Guess what? The Musqueam

claim was the only one advanced in British Columbia that was turned

down. Why was it turned down? Hugh Faulkner, the minister at the time,

said it was third-party alienation of their traditional territories;

therefore their claim was extinguished. Shame!

How can you

take away a person's right? It's like me going camping, finding a nice

field, putting my tent up and saying, "I live here now; this is mine,"

without any respect for the people who are there already. The Musqueam

people were asking not for this chamber to adjudicate their claim, but

for simple, natural justice. They were asking that this Legislature not

take action to extinguish their claim by transferring to a third party

land which they traditionally hold claim to. Shame on this House!

In the Guerin decision — the same Delbert Guerin who appears in many court cases as a champion of rights for the Musqueam people — the justice said that the aboriginal rights were sui generis , or a special genre of rights only extinguishable to the Crown.

The

Crown has a special obligation to these people because their rights

have not been honoured. Their aboriginal title and their rights are in

an overflow of litigation. This decision today was to force the

Musqueam people back into the courts again. The thing that heartens me

is that I know they will ultimately succeed and have their rights.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

I feel an obligation, I guess, to stand and speak, having listened to

the last two members, who at least had the courage to vote against the

bill yesterday, which is more than I can say for the rest of the

members across the way who have felt moved to speak today.

There

are some points that are worthwhile considering. I was glad that the

member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) read my comments with regard to aboriginal

title, because they serve to put into perspective where we are coming

from. Having taken the position of accepting on behalf of the Musqueam,

the only band in British Columbia whose aboriginal claim has been

refused by the federal government.... If we were in fact to attach to

the title of a piece of land a rider, a disclaimer, a cloud, a caveat

because of the interest by a band whose claim is the only one in

British Columbia that has been turned down....

If we were to follow this logic through, any other property — certainly any other Crown property in British Columbia located where an existing and accepted claim is —

would obviously have to have a caveat on the title. If the Crown were

to sell a piece of land to an individual in an area covered by a land

claim, it would logically follow that there would be a caveat on the

title suggesting that the title is in question because of an existing

land claim.

You are then only a very short step away from

privately owned fee-simple property transferring from one party to

another, in an area that's covered by an aboriginal claim, also

including a caveat. I suspect the members will say that land claims

don't involve fee-simple lands, but I would direct them to an ongoing

claim in Kamloops on a golf course that is a privately owned,

fee-simple piece of property. The band has challenged the right of the

owner to transfer it to another party because of an aboriginal claim

against the property.

What we are looking at, if we were to accept the amendment that was turned down, is that quite

[ Page 6261 ]

possibly

any property transfer in any area in British Columbia covered by an

aboriginal claim would have a caveat suggesting that there was some

question about the title of that property. That is the reason this

government has rejected the call for that kind of caveat on the

property.

If we're led to believe — and I believe that members across the way are sincere —

that what you're talking about is the Musqueams' ability to claim

compensation as opposed to obtaining title to the lands known as the

UEL, then I don't believe we're doing anything that would stop a

compensation claim being made to the federal government. If the federal

government wishes to acknowledge their claim and if they wish to enter

into a settlement with them, so be it.

Yesterday the first

member for Victoria (Mr. G. Hanson) read a statement which indicated

the Musqueams had no interest or did not wish to have the park used for

any other purpose. As I understood the statement that was read in the

House yesterday, Mr. Member — and he frowns — it was an

indication that the Musqueam did not oppose the preservation of a park.

Therefore the only logic could then be to look for compensation. I

suggest they're still quite able to do that.

MR. GUNO : I want first to apologize for some of the heat I threw earlier.

want to respond to the last speaker, whose contention that the Musqueam

people's application for comprehensive claim status has been refused is

not true. The crux of the matter we're discussing today is their

ability to somehow come under the umbrella of the federal government's

claims policy, which states that their claim or application can be

thwarted if the area they're claiming is superseded by law. The passing

of this bill does exactly that. So it's not that their claim has been

refused; it's still under consideration. I would suggest very strongly

that this bill, in effect, does prejudice that application.

for your explanation about a caveat, that these spring up almost

automatically when you're talking about land claims, I suggest that you

do a little more analysis of the whole claims process.

There

are really two ways to deal with land claims. The first one is through

litigation; unfortunately, that's the route this government chooses to

follow. The second one is negotiation. I think that if the government

are serious in entering this new era of consultation with the native

people, they will find that once they understand the basis of much of

the aboriginal people's claims, it's not the 125 percent the Premier

talked about yesterday; it's not the huge land transfer that your

government continually throws up as a way to scare away any opportunity

for really dealing with this in a realistic and rational way.

That's

why I'm really disappointed to see that this government did not at

least consider an opportunity to preserve the right of the Musqueam

people to pursue their claim. It's a simple question of justice. I

would think the member, if he's going to be credible as the Minister

Responsible for Native Affairs, had better do a fairly comprehensive

study of the whole matter. It's complex; it's not as simple as you have

portrayed it.

[4:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN :

Just before we proceed, hon. members, and with all due deference to the

sincere feelings that I know prevail in those who stand to speak, I

would just like to remind everybody that we cannot re-enter second

reading debate and that we are, in effect, dealing with a

section of

this act which deals with conditions of transfer.

Having said that, is there anyone else who would like to speak?

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Savage

Strachan

Vant

Michael

Dueck

Parker

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Huberts

Dirks

Messmer

De Jong

Chalmers

Veitch

Reid

S. Hagen

Ree

Davis

J. Jansen

Johnston

B.R. Smith

Loenen

Gran

Mowat

Peterson

Bruce

Serwa

Jacobsen

Davidson

NAYS — 19

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Boone

D'Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Barlee

Guno

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Pullinger

A. Hagen

Perry

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. DIRKS : I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill

16, University Endowment Land Park Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

[ Page 6262 ]

YEAS — 46

Savage

Strachan

Vant

Michael

Dueck

Parker

Weisgerber

L. Hanson

Huberts

Dirks

Messmer

De Jong

Chalmers

Veitch

Reid

S. Hagen

Ree

Davis

J. Jansen

Johnston

Pelton

B.R. Smith

Loenen

Gran

Mowat

Barnes

Marzari

Harcourt

Gabelmann

Boone

D'Arcy

Clark

Blencoe

Edwards

Cashore

Serwa

Bruce

Peterson

Barlee

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Pullinger

Perry

Davidson

Jacobsen

NAYS — 2

Guno

G. Hanson

HON. MR. STRACHAN : I call Committee of Supply.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES

On vote 31: minister's office, $259,265 (continued).

MR. WILLIAMS :

I quickly scanned the list the minister gave us today where he

indicated by code how many were full competitive sales. We're talking

about 72 land sales by the Enterprise Corporation. There was one call

for competitive proposals out of 72. That was for the Expo lands, which

we're all familiar with. Four of the 72 were tender calls; 60 were

listed as advertised sales and negotiated, whatever that means. It's

not a good batting average: 83 percent of the sales for all these

different lands were not full tender calls. Maybe the minister can give

us explanations for some of these which I find difficult.

Whistler there is reference to a previous ski area agreement

commitment. I don't know whether that's with the mountain development

group and the lift group or not. Maybe the minister could advise us.

There's a series of sales at Whistler in the town centre to Bosa Bros.,

CP Hotels and a range of other companies — at relatively modest prices, at very low prices.

There's

the reference to the previous ski area agreement, which I gather was a

commitment that required a fixed price, in effect, or a fixed price per

acre. I simply don't know. Maybe the minister could advise the House

what those arrangements were in Whistler. You state in here: "All sales

were pursuant to standing option under ski area agreement initiated by

Lands, Parks and Housing;" and: "Sales prices reflect base acreage

values plus a share of revenues under the ski area agreement." It's

that agreement that may enlighten us.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I'm not familiar with that particular sale. I would think, from

listening to what you've said, the question would probably be better

asked under the estimates of the Minister of Crown Lands (Hon. Mr.

Dirks) rather than my own. It was clearly done before my time, and,

from what I can understand from listening to the point that you've

made, it was made by that ministry.

[4:15]

MR. WILLIAMS :

That's all very well. I can understand the point the minister makes,

but, for example, there was a sale to CP Hotels of lots 7 and 12 at

Whistler. I've seen some general plans of the town centre, and I think

the site is immediately behind the Delta Mountain Inn. It's ten acres.

These are fabulous values in the Whistler town centre. The Japanese

bought out Al and Nancy Raine, for example, at a very high price, and

other offshore people have bought in downtown Whistler. Ten acres at

$275,000....

AN HON. MEMBER : How much?

MR. WILLIAMS : To be precise, $275,791 —

for ten acres in downtown Whistler. There's some arrangement in terms

of revenues under the ski area agreement, and that might be some other

revenue for the Crown. The pattern is consistent: two acres to Bosa

Bros. for $82,000; another 7.7 acres to Bosa Bros. for $209,000; United

Properties, 3.8 acres, $85,000; Craftsman Ventures, 2.82 acres,

$47,000; Crestview Realty, 1.5 acres, $34,000; Craftsman Ventures

again, 4.1 acres, $119,000; and Bosa again, 1.7 acres, $175,000.

All

of those really deserve some analysis and supporting information,

because those are incredibly low prices in downtown Whistler. If you

try to buy a condo in Whistler now, you pay a very high amount. There

are others here too: Brandywine Properties....

AN HON. MEMBER : How much an acre?

MR. WILLIAMS : In the case of CP Hotels, we're talking about $27,000 an acre. We all know how expensive property is in downtown Whistler.

It's

kind of interesting to reflect on that, because I was minister at the

time we made the decision to establish the town centre and the new

lifts on the mountain. It was a garbage dump owned by the Crown, and we

had to establish a berm next to the creek to protect it from flooding

in the future. We were able to design the lifts so that the focus of

value was all in the town centre site: two lifts, one toward Whistler

and one up.... What's the other mountain called? No skiers here?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Blackcomb.

MR. WILLIAMS : Thank you. What would I do without the Chairman?

It was an interesting exercise. We had snow engineering from Colorado come in and look at the

[ Page 6263 ]

snow

situation. There was this wonderful opportunity to focus all the lifts

on the old garbage dump and also tie in with the old Whistler complex

itself. It's a marvellous design solution in terms of establishing the

town centre, but again at this point, it's the time of payoff in terms

of all these investments. So the question is the background in that.

find myself looking at the sales in Songhees, for example. I said last

week that it was interesting to compare Songhees with New Westminster,

because the differences were so significant. But I think if you look at

Songhees carefully, that deserves some real analysis too.

I don't know if you've checked the local newspapers, Mr. Minister, but the standard price now in Songhees — the member for Victoria would know, I'm sure —

is running about $235,000 a suite. If you put a basic square-foot cost

to a suite, it isn't uncommon to think in terms of $65 to $70 a square

foot for a fairly good frame condo, and that's essentially what they

are. The land sale price, though, would have run at about $18,000 a

suite when the deal was made, plus the amount to construct. You, Mr.

Minister, said that in this case all the servicing was in for sure, so

that wasn't a cost for the poor fellow — or now a rich fellow —

who bought the site. If we're even conservative, what are we talking

about there in terms of some new residual land value? Is it $75,000 a

suite probably? Is that reasonable?

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : No, it's not reasonable; that's the trouble. Nothing you guys do is reasonable.

wonder if the minister might be willing to work this one through with

me. When I was looking at a pad just a few minutes ago, I thought:

let's try and come up with a residual land value on the Cavell property

site right here in Songhees that's for sale right now. Any thoughts on

that, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I wonder — just deviating somewhat for a minute —

if the member could indicate to me whether he has obtained a copy of

the statement of claim regarding the property in New Westminster we

were discussing before lunch? Has he obtained a copy of the statement

of claim? We referred to a court case, and I was wondering if your

research people had found a statement of claim.

MR. WILLIAMS : No.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I appreciate the response though, Mr. Member. It's just a matter of

attempting to work together to clear up questions and points that have

been raised by the member opposite. Without getting into a debate or

being prepared to answer detailed questions regarding the debate we had

earlier that the member was quite hot on, I would be prepared to send

to the member a copy of the statement of claim.

Regarding

the property in Songhees. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to

sound like a broken record, but properties.... Again, I could check as

I have in other instances and provided information to the member on the

extent of the advertising that took place and the precise method of

selling. But if he wishes me to do that, I could repeat that.

But

suffice it to say, the market is the market is the market. As long as

we have a sufficient number of participants in the marketplace that are

interested, the staff do an adjudication of valuation of what they feel

the market will bear. If the results come in in that range, they

obviously were satisfied. Recommendations then go to the board of

directors for authorization for final approval. That obviously was done

in the instance to which the member refers.

I want to say

for the record that I obviously was having a discussion with my staff

prior to lunch, when the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) was

speaking. A statement that she made was drawn to my attention during

the lunch period. Whether she's listening now or not, I would ask that

member to perhaps go to the trouble of reading the statement of claim

that I have sent over to the first member for Vancouver East and return

to the Legislature and give considerations about the statements that

she made which are contained on page 14 of the Blues. That statement

is: "I've listened with great interest to the skilled presentation of

my colleague for Vancouver East about the facts of a corrupt land sale

in New Westminster, where the public was defrauded of money that it

should have had."

I would ask that member, Mr. Chairman, if

she would be kind enough to review the statement of claim, to read it

thoroughly and give consideration to returning to the Legislative

Assembly and offering apology to this government and to the staff

involved in that transaction.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order,

please. I think the opportunity to ask for this type of a statement was

at the time that the event took place. I have given the minister some

liberty, but I would ask you now to return to the estimates. This is

not the proper procedure for doing this. Members of the executive

council are not at liberty to ask questions of the members of the

opposition.

MR. WILLIAMS : Back to the Songhees area.

The sale was for $2 million. It was in fact then a $20,000 land cost

per suite in terms of the Cavell sale. The current prices over there

are around $235,000 a suite. The suites are running about 1,000 square

feet. Even if we said $100 a square foot for construction costs, that

would then be $100,000. Put down $20,000 as land cost originally —

there might well be some other site costs beyond utilities, since

you've said utilities and infrastructure were essentially paid for by

the Enterprise Corporation in this case. Even being very conservative

and allowing another $20,000 or $30,000 per suite for sales cost and

the like, that gets us up to $150,000. They're selling at $235,000, and

I think I am being generous. Does that mean we are talking about

$80,000 a suite in terms of profit, which in this case would be $8

million again?

[ Page 6264 ]

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I think I am being conservative, Mr. Minister. I think this is a

rational process to go through. My figure of $100 a square foot is not

what you would pay in a frame building at all; the numbers are more

about $65.

AN HON. MEMBER : $80.

MR. WILLIAMS : Okay, $80. I'm willing to concede to an expert. I've even given it $100 — to throw $20,000 around just to let it slide here or there, one way or the other.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS : Yes, it looks like a number perilously close to and pushing towards $100,000 a unit.

I've

seen a lot in the politics of this province in my time and I have seen

some pretty dumb things done by government. I've seen scandalous things

done by government. As I begin to go through this list of Enterprise

Corporation sales, I'm beginning to think I have never seen the likes

of it before.

What kind of justification can there be for

this kind of fire sale game? The Songhees was the most beautiful

undeveloped residential land in Victoria, our capital city. It is water

frontage that looks out on the Empress Hotel and the parliament

buildings and is within walking distance to downtown, and a waterfront

walkway in front of it. It's absolutely splendid.

[4:30]

On a per-unit basis it's better than the New Westminster deal. It

just shakes you. You just wonder when amateur night will ever end. I

just had another look at LRO documents. This one was so sweet they

didn't want to flip it. I don't blame them. There was so much money to

be made here they didn't even try to flip this one.

I see

that they got $15,206,441 from the Standard Trust Co. on this one. That

probably takes care of an inflated land value for the principals in

Cavell Developments — of what dimension, I couldn't say, but I

think it would be substantial. Part of that mortgage agreement with

Standard Trust lets them all share the profits. That's sweeter than

paying an interest rate. Standard Trust, again, like the Bank of

America and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, knew what it was

doing.

AN HON. MEMBER : An American company?

MR. WILLIAMS : It's Standard Trust Co., at 69 Yonge Street in Toronto, Ontario.

we accept those numbers and it's 100 units, that puts us at around

$152,000 per unit, which probably includes an inflated land price for

the principals in the Cavell company, which will no doubt be

significant. Even after going through that exercise, we're still

talking about the difference between $152,000 and $235,000, which again

gets us up around $80,000 per unit, from which you have to deduct sales

costs and maybe a little bit. But what we're talking about is something

up there around $7 million or $8 million in a very short period of time.

this one I'm just going from LRO data available to everybody. We've

been generous in terms of what we think unit costs are per square foot

of building in this town. You, Mr. Minister, have the privatization

staff and part of your ministry with you. They're so busy off-loading

these great Crown assets that they haven't stopped to look backward to

see what kind of mess they've created or what kind of mistakes they've

made along the way, and it seems clear that they're abundant.

You

said this morning that they will be making announcements about

privatization of more Crown assets in the next week or two —

within two weeks. I don't think we can afford it. Don't sell anything,

and our credit rating will go up. Don't sell a thing. Hold on to it,

because it's probably worth ten times what you're selling it for. Don't

do it. It's now clear that we can't afford this anymore. I just wonder

if your staff has done any backward looking, any reflection. Have none

of them stopped and looked to see if there was a flip along the way?

Has none of that work been done? Maybe you could bring us up to date.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I did indeed send a copy of the statement of claim over to the member,

and I have to assume that he has not had time to read it, review it or

glance at it. Perhaps if he wishes to send a copy down to his research

staff, they could quickly give him a

summary of the contents. It might

ease his great concern regarding "Flipco." There are a lot of answers

in that document, Mr. Member.

I see that the second member

for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Barlee) is present in the assembly today.

I will see that he also receives a personal copy, because I know he has

sat in this chamber for many hours and shown a great deal of interest

in the statements made by the first member for Vancouver East.

have to say that I have a great deal of sympathy for the box that the

member for Vancouver East is in. He's got a lot of problems, and his

party's got a lot of problems. I will say at the outset that I

sincerely congratulate that member for what he did back in the early

seventies regarding Whistler. It was good, sound judgment and one of

the things — and I emphasize the word one — during those

glorious years that he can look back on and hold his head high about.

He must feel pretty good about that. I'm sure you think about that a

lot and talk to your colleagues about that tremendous decision you made

regarding Whistler in those years, because it was a good decision, and

I compliment the member. If we chose to, there are a lot of other

things we could reflect on that weren't all that glorious, but I don't

know whether we want to get into all those areas here today, because

the clock is ticking and time is going by. Suffice it to say: a great

decision.

Even though members of his party were under full

throttle attack on our government back in 1982-83 when we had to step

into the Whistler situation, make some very tough decisions and back

them up with a substantive guarantee to pull them out of the

[ Page 6265 ]

mess

that developed during those years, I am sure the member would agree

that this government, in retrospect, did the right thing back in 1982.

I certainly remember it being a very high issue in the '83 campaign:

the dumb decisions of this government in bailing out the Whistler

corporation. I know the frustration that the member must be going

through when he examines the record. He looks at the performance of

this government and of the Whistler corporation in 1987, and he sees

$150 million of economic activity in that small community in one single

year. It must be disheartening for him not to be receiving the credit,

knowing full well that it's the government that deserves the credit for

that tremendous construction boom in 1987. He must also be somewhat

saddened by the fact that a repeat performance took place in that

community in 1988 — another $150 million of capital spent in the

province of British Columbia with tremendous spinoff effects, providing

facilities for thousands of tourists worldwide to visit that great

community. I give that member credit in some small measure, or perhaps

significant measure, for the decisions that were made back in the early

seventies.

I am sure that in looking at the current year

the member is distraught. There is no question that he is in pain

because he knows full well that in the year 1989 the projections are

that there will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of $300 million,

equal to the previous two years of capital, spent in the Whistler

community. That doesn't sit well. The NDP members aren't happy when

things are going well in the province. They are not happy when there

are all kinds of new buildings going up, people working, taxes being

paid, capital being circulated, revenue coming into the provincial

government, new programs being announced, bridges, highways, education

grants and university grants and positive things happening in the area

of health with new hospital construction, and increases given to

workers above the cost of living. They're not happy with that. It

breaks their hearts to see those good things happening in our province.

I have some empathy and some feeling for the member. He's got to grab

onto something. He goes back in the records and starts looking through,

picking out individual things and trying to relate the facts of what

they were sold for a few years ago. In some instances he goes back as

early as the seventies to some of the things we've gathered that now

affect the corporations which I am in charge of, which indeed

originated back in the seventies, and decisions made then — right

decisions. This province needed economic generators. We needed

development. We needed to put people to work. We needed economic

activity.

I repeat that I do not wish to sound like a

broken record, but we have professional staff, a corporation made up of

top people analyzing and evaluating pieces of property. We have a

committee that reports to the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands

(Hon. Mr. Dirks). The committee is made up of, again, high profile,

top-notch people who review the process. They review each and every

sale. They thoroughly analyze the proposals from the proponents. They

make recommendations after a thorough analysis. I stand here quite

satisfied and convinced that, taking all factors and all matters into

consideration, the staff recommendations and the board decisions have

been correct at the time the decisions were made.

I repeat

that I trust the member will see fit to have a review of the statement

of claim that we've referred to. Read it over, and be sure to give a

copy to the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), because I am

sure that once the member has had an opportunity to read the statement

of claim she will see fit to return to the assembly.

MR. WILLIAMS : It was nice to hear the stump speech from Anglemont, Celista or Sorrento, but I don't know....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I'm not insulting them; I think they are marvellous. They may

occasionally vote a way that I don't admire too much, but beyond that

they are good people.

I am intrigued. I listened fairly

carefully, although when the bull gets so deep, you kind of withdraw.

Cavell Developments was what I asked you about, Mr. Minister. I don't

remember your responding on that one.

AN HON. MEMBER : Were you listening?

MR. WILLIAMS : Oh, I was listening.

went through trying to come up with residual land value numbers and....

Maybe we could deal with these code numbers that you've used on the

various land sales. It's clear that the majority of them are what your

staff call "listed advertised sales" where lands are listed or

advertised for sale, and the final terms are negotiated. It's not clear

to me what that means. Does that mean that in some cases you would

simply advertise that lot x is for sale, and you wouldn't put a price

on it?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : I think it's reasonable to say — and I repeat —

that we have a competent staff of professional people in the field.

They know what the parameters are to which they can work on individual

parcels that are put on the marketplace. Suffice it to say, some offers

come in with all kinds of subject-to clauses in them that may mean that

the transaction would not complete for many months or years in the

future. That particular situation may not fit the parameters to which

the lands committee is working toward.

[4:45]

We attempt to lay out as much information as we can when proposals

are put to the marketplace. I know that the member opposite is very

much aware of what these proposals look like. I know he is aware of

that, because we are aware that the NDP caucus has seen fit to spend

$500. We thank you for that investment, on behalf of the B.C.

Enterprise Corporation, and for picking up a parcel for the Westwood

[ Page 6266 ]

properties. You know how thorough and detailed the packages are that you pick up.

understand you've also picked one up just recently for the parcel up in

Whistler. Thank you very much again, on behalf of the government and

the Crown corporation. We are sort of recycling the money here. I'm

sure that you're familiar with that as well, and you know the detail

and the trouble we go to. I have no doubt that you are going to witness

some announcements from my ministry or from the Minister Responsible

for Crown Lands in the next two, three, four, five or six weeks on the

Whistler lot in which you've expressed interest.

You're going to see an announcement made — hopefully before the next few weeks, but certainly within the next few weeks —

on the Westwood Plateau. No doubt we'll hear the drums, the shouts and

the hails as to the extremely good price that we got for these

properties in April and May of 1989 — extremely high prices.

would suggest to you, Mr. Member, that if it hadn't been for the

foresight of previous ministries and previous officials of government

to put some property in the marketplace at very reasonably priced

levels to attract investors in order to get facilities such as Whistler

underway, we would not have the great infrastructure, the great

investment or the great tourism in that community that we have now.

Someone

had vision. Someone could see the great opportunities of the future.

They knew what Whistler meant to the international skiers. I'm not sure

if the member is aware that Whistler has grown so dramatically in the

last couple of years that it has jumped from the seventh largest ski

resort on the North American continent in early 1988 to today when they

are in third place in North America. I expect that in the early part of

the 1990s, we will see Whistler grow even further into the second

position.

I congratulate once again — and I'm serious when I say this —

the first member for Vancouver East for being part of the process of

making the Whistler corporation happen. He deserves compliments for

that, and I'm sure he's proud of that.

We don't want to

talk about some of the other things that happened in British Columbia

in 1972 to 1975, nor do we want to waste the time of the ministry's

estimates in talking about the variety of failures and doomsday events

that have taken place in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and other

jurisdictions. We don't want to take up the time of the House reviewing

some of those dismal failures. We don't want to talk about the Mineral

Royalties Act of 1974. We don't want to talk about Norman Levi's

overrun. We don't want to talk about Jim Lorimer's comments on public

transit, or about the agricultural blunders and Panco Poultry and all

those types of things. We don't want to take up the time of the House

on those areas.

I know the frustration. I know how sad that

member must be, and indeed all members opposite, in looking over what's

happening in the great province of British Columbia in every

corner — on the Island, in the north, in the south and in the interior — the progress, the spirit of confidence.

The

member must have picked up a bit of those vibes when he visited the

great community of Sicamous last weekend. I'm sure he had a feel of the

confidence being expressed by that great community. That community, by

the way, is giving serious consideration to incorporation. We're

working with the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Vant), and I think we

may have some positive announcements for that community in the next

little while.

I know how sad he must be. It must really

give a great deal of pain to be able to go across the province and

through the lower mainland, to see announcements being made, to see

positive developments, to see British Columbia leading all of Canada,

to see that this province has attracted four times as many people in

1988 from the province of Ontario — that province we hear so much about — as compared to British Columbians moving to Ontario.

must be saddened indeed in looking at the statistics from the Minister

of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid), statistics that clearly show a 13 percent

growth over last year. The tourism of 1988 has exceeded the tourist

figures in that great year of 1986 when this province hosted the world

exposition. I wonder where this province would be today had the

government of the day listened to that former mayor of the city of

Vancouver who sent telegrams all over the world advising against Expo

coming to the great city of Vancouver.

I don't want to take

time up with those types of things, but I'll be interested in hearing

other areas that the member may wish to cover in this very exciting

ministry covering lots of Crown corporations. There seems to be one

particular one that the member is more interested in than the others,

but that's all right. We're here to answer the questions, Mr. Member.

MR. BARLEE :

I would like to ask the minister why in the Songhees development the

average profit.... About the average profit, I think the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) was extremely generous. You can

probably assume that it's going to cost $80 a square foot, not $100 a

square foot, and that average unit price would realize $105,000 per

unit. Now there are 100 units being developed in that area. This would

mean that the entrepreneurs make a net profit of $10.5 million. As a

relatively new member to the House, I would wonder why this would not

accrue to the province rather than a handful of so-called entrepreneurs?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I sincerely appreciate the member's involving himself in the debate

today. It's good to see a member from the interior, the south Okanagan,

taking an interest in things that are happening in the lower mainland

and on Vancouver Island.

However, for the record, I cannot

accept the figures that the member has stated. They may or may not be

right. I have no way of instantly validating those figures. But suffice

it to say that we are interested in fair-market value at the time of

sale. We hear

[ Page 6267 ]

lot of debate and a lot of comments made in the House about the

tremendous amount of money that developers make. It's strange, Mr.

Chairman, that we never hear any comments or suggestions or speeches on

the great deal of money that developers lose. I can tell you, there are

a lot of losers out there in the marketplace.

MR. BARLEE : I've lost some.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Yes, the member says he's lost some. I can reciprocate by saying that I

too have been in that game and lost some. So you win some, you lose

some.

The facts are that property is advertised; trained

professional staff analyze, adjudicate, recommend; and markets change.

Who would have ever predicted that the average selling price in the

city of Vancouver in just 12 short months...?

MR. WILLIAMS : Who indeed?

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Who indeed would have ever predicted? I'm sure the member for Vancouver

East would still be the proud owner of all those Hemlock Street

properties if he could have had the vision as to where they might be in

1989. I also often wonder, in reflecting on Hemlock Street, how poor

old Malcolm MacLean ever made out, where he ever landed. But suffice it

to say that life goes on. Values go up and values go down and the world

continues.

MR. WILLIAMS : That's right. For you they go down, for me they go up.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Well, there you go. That's the breaks. I'm saddened by that too. The

mistake a lot of people made is perhaps not investing more money in the

lower mainland, because the market's hot down there. Even pubs are

selling for a pretty good price right now.

You have to make

decisions. But all in all I'm confident and indeed proud of the staff

of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. They put in a lot of hours on

behalf of the citizens of the province; and, yes, they get paid good

money for it as well.

There can be criticism indeed of the

sales prices, when reflecting and looking at 1987 prices and seeing

where we are in 1989. But I ask the member and the members opposite:

who would have believed that the average selling price of houses would

have grown by some 60, 70, 80, in some instances 90 percent in just 12

short months? That's the marketplace.

MR. WILLIAMS :

The minister refers to the land committee that adjudicates these

things. Maybe he could give us some more details about who's on the

committee and what their expertise is.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, we have three cabinet ministers on the board of directors

of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation. I as the member responsible for the

Crown corporation am the chairman and president. We have structured the

corporation in such a way.... It's unfortunate that the member did not

take the liberty, as did his predecessor, of doing a tour and having a

personal meeting with the staff, to have a better understanding of how

the system works within the corporation.

I act as the

chairman and oversee personnel matters, administration and the

comptrolling division. The direct line and responsibility of the

Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), subject always to the

approval of the board, is the disposition and sale of the loans

portfolios. Any questions dealing with the sale of loans portfolios

should, of course, be directed to the Minister of Finance, as I said

earlier. The Minister Responsible for Crown Lands (Hon. Mr. Dirks) has

a direct responsibility for land disposition. I as the chairman and

president of the corporation oversee to a degree the framework, the

structuring, the policy and, of course, personnel matters. But on

specific matters dealing with the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands,

I would ask the member to perhaps save those questions, and he'll have

an opportunity to ask questions during that minister's estimates.

MR. WILLIAMS :

I think I asked who was on the lands committee and how disposition was

handled, and we got a dissertation on the Ministry of Finance and

disposition of loans. Then we got something about how the minister

operates as the chairman of the Enterprise Corporation. Is the lands

committee not a part of the activities within your ministry? Is that

what you were saying?

HON. MR. MICHAEL : Mr. Chairman, the lands committee reports to the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands.

MR. BARLEE :

Mr. Minister, I'm rather curious about the amount of money that CP

Hotels paid for the ten acres in Whistler. It works out to $270,000-odd

dollars for ten acres, so approximately $27,000 per acre. I just

purchased a lot in Penticton, which is certainly not as high-profile as

Whistler. I paid $35,000 for a fifth of an acre, and that works out to

$175,000 an acre. Here's CP Hotels — who probably have much deeper pockets than I have —

and they've only paid $27,000 an acre in an area that's extremely

desirable. The same type of land in Penticton is $175,000 an acre, and

certainly can't be as valuable. Why the huge discrepancy?

[5:00]

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

Mr. Chairman, I would have to bow and ask the member for

Boundary-Similkameen if he would be good enough to keep that question

and put it to the Minister Responsible for Crown Lands. It's clearly

under his jurisdiction, and it suggested that in the document that has

been circulated. I am sure the member has shared it with you.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Before we proceed, in order to assist the committee, the Chair has examined Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia . I am not familiar with who the minister was at the time these various

[ Page 6268 ]

transactions took place. Therefore it is left to the Chair to receive instructions from others.

Questions

of a new minister relating to the actions of a former minister

occupying the same portfolio are out of order. If these various

operations took place when this minister was responsible, then they are

in order. I take advice from the minister on the reorganization of the

government and on which ministries have responsibility for which

departments. It's quite confusing.

MR. WILLIAMS : The difficulty I have in terms of the Whistler arrangement — presumably it is still operative; not everything is complete there —

is understanding the nature of it. I would think that your ministry

would at least have an understanding of the nature of your inherited

agreements there. Clearly those transactions involve the B.C.

Enterprise Corporation. I would presume you are constrained by previous

contractual arrangements. Understanding that constraint is the concern

over here. It's hard to fathom why there wouldn't be an understanding

within your ministry of what that constraint was. While they may well

have been inherited from the Ministry of Lands, the transactions

nevertheless took place at the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

chair the board of a major financial institution, when I'm doing more

productive work. Any transactions such as this certainly would get my

review, I assure you. If there were such an agreement with some

subsidiary, or some previous contractual arrangement, and we were

selling those assets, I can assure you that I would want to understand

them thoroughly before I allowed the transactions to take place. I find

it hard to believe that there isn't an understanding of those

agreements and arrangements. Maybe you could get briefed by your staff

so we could understand them, and so that in the future, when you are

dealing with any further dispositions at Whistler during the term of

your administration, we would understand thoroughly what the process is

and how you are sticking to the rules of the contracts.

HON. MR. MICHAEL :

I'm sure the member will engage in a deep analysis and discussion with

the minister when his estimates are before the House. The thing I have

to pass on to the member is that when the decision was made to unwind

the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, there was a very onerous workload laid

on the three cabinet ministers who were appointed to the board of

directors — a tremendously onerous responsibility and a great deal of work.

in all management decisions, Mr. Member, there is the question of

organization and areas of responsibility. Rather than putting the

entire burden on a single minister, who already has under his

jurisdiction such things as the government personnel services division,

which is very heavily engaged in the negotiation of several union

contracts, and all of the benefit packages, and the Superannuation

Commission.... He is also responsible for the Purchasing Commission and

all of the exciting things going on there, and the great amount of work

that has to be done. Lots of it has been done and more is being done.

Very exciting announcements are about to be made as a result of the

Purchasing Commission, Mr. Member. We are going to have some very

exciting, environmentally sound recommendations going to cabinet next

Wednesday which will be announced shortly thereafter. I am sure the

member will be pleased with the work brought about by the employees of

the Purchasing Commission.

Other areas of responsibility are the B.C. Systems Corporation —

several hundred employees and a great deal of exciting things

happening; the B.C. Buildings Corporation; government vehicles and

airplanes, the Challenger....

Rather than putting all of

the responsibilities of the BCEC on one single ministry, it was a wise

decis