[ Page 253 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting reports

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

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

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Fish processing industry. Mr. Lea –– 253

Predator control. Mrs. Dailly –– 254

Alert Bay medical facilities, Mr. Gabelmann –– 255

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

On section 1.

Mr. Passarell –– 256

Mr. Macdonald –– 256

Mrs. Dailly –– 256

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 256

Division on section 1 –– 257

On section 3.

Mr. Hall –– 257

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 258

Report and third reading –– 258

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 258

Mr. Cocke –– 258

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 259

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

On section 1.

Mr. Cocke –– 260

Mr. Leggatt –– 260

Hon. Mr, McClelland 260

Mrs. Wallace –– 261

Ms. Brown –– 262

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 262

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 262

Mr. Hall –– 263

Report and third reading –– 264

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

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 264

Mrs. Wallace –– 264

Mr. Ritchie –– 266

Mr. Skelly –– 267

Ms. Sanford –– 268

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 269

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 269

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

On section 1.

Mrs. Wallace –– 271

On the amendment to section 1.

Mrs. Wallace –– 271

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 271

Mr. Barrett –– 272

Mr. Hyndman –– 273

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 273

Mr. Barrett –– 275

Ms. Sanford –– 276

Mr. Lea –– 276

Division on the amendment –– 277

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 20, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The priest who led us in prayer today is a constituent of mine and, I think, a friend of many hon. members in this chamber. I would therefore like to ask the House to particularly welcome Father Bernard Hanley of St. Joseph's parish in Saanich and the Islands.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I would like to introduce also in the Speaker's gallery today Mrs. Lew King, a constituent from Sidney, and two relatives of hers from Sweden, Mr. and Mrs. Moberg.

HON. MR. MAIR: I would like the House to join me in welcoming Mr. George Hewison, Mr. Jack Nichol and other members of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers union, some of whom are in the galleries now. Many will be meeting with me later on to discuss the vexing problems on the coast involving fish processing. They will follow and be part of the conversations that I will have with the federal minister as well as the fish processors themselves. I would very much like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BRUMMET: In the gallery today we have 13 grade 7 pupils from Airport Elementary School in Fort St. John. They have come 800 miles with their teacher and principal, Mr. and Mrs. Bernie Brandt, to visit Victoria and this Legislature. I would like the House to make them welcome.

MR. HOWARD: In conjunction with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair), I join in the welcome of the delegation of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. I would like the House to join with me in expressing the unanimous hope that their visit will not be in vain.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On behalf of my colleague for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) and myself, I'd like to introduce Mrs. Rita Buckshon of Vancouver, a constituent of Vancouver–Little Mountain.

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

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

Presenting Reports

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

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

Oral Questions

FISH PROCESSING INDUSTRY

MR. LEA: A question for the Minister of Environment. Has the government taken any administrative moves to ensure that herring and salmon process licence holders be required to process herring and salmon in British Columbia, (a) in the case of herring, to require that a licence holder will not ship out ungraded roe; and (b) in the case of salmon, to ensure that at least 70 percent of salmon be fully processed before export?

HON. MR. MAIR: The member has probably raised the basic part of the question that is vexing the government at this point, the reason for which I am going to be meeting with the gentlemen I introduced to this chamber a little earlier.

In answer to the hon. member's question, I have already met with the federal Minister of Fisheries, with the processors, and will meet with the members of the union. It's not restricted to just the province of British Columbia, as I'm sure the member knows. This is going to require action of both our own and the federal government.

However, I can assure the member that the problem is very much on our minds, and we intend to make recommendations in the very near future. I'll report to the House when we are able to do so.

MR. LEA: Is the minister saying that in the case of process licensing, and the requirement of those licences, it is not the sole jurisdiction of British Columbia?

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't think there's any question, Mr. Speaker, that the government has the right to license processors. The more vexing question is the purpose for which that licence is required. If we require that licence for a purpose which is within our constitutional powers under section 92, that poses no problem. If, on the other hand, we do through the back door that which we can't do through the front door, or if we do it for purposes that are not constitutionally within our rights under section 91, then we run into trouble. That is the reason it is most important that we and the federal government get together and come forward with a common program and a common policy.

MR. LEA: Is the government willing today to place a moratorium on the issuance of any new process licences in the B.C. fishing industry until the problems he's talked about are sorted out?

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 254 ]

MR. LEA: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, does the government have any figures to show what portion of the fishing industry is now owned by offshore investment — in other words, Japanese money, American money, foreign money?

HON. MR. MAIR: The answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is yes, we do have figures. I don't think that anybody, however, would be prepared to authenticate their veracity, for a number of reasons. First of all, it is difficult to keep up-to-date records.

Secondly, there's a very large question as to what constitutes control. On the one hand it may be the ownership of shares; on the other hand it may be a debenture giving the right to ownership of shares and control of shares under certain circumstances arising. It certainly is not the 90 percent or more that the member opposite said in the campaign. However, it certainly is enough to cause us some alarm and some concern, and it is enough for the government of this province to have refused to license any more processors unless they happen to be British Columbia residents and Canadian citizens.

MR. LEA: On a final supplementary, can the minister tell us why it is dangerous — as I assume he means — for us, the public, to have these figures, when it is not dangerous for the government to have them? Why aren't the figures that you have as a government made public?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, in the first place, I thought I had made it clear that the figures are relatively meaningless, because they can't be authenticated as to their accuracy. Secondly, unless I have missed something along the line, I don't recall the member asking me specifically for the information that I do have. I'm not suggesting by that that I'll give it to him; but if he wants it, I think he should ask for it.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary to that, Mr. Speaker. Since the minister has indicated this might be a matter for federal-provincial discussion, I would like to ask him whether or not it was on the agenda for discussion between our Premier and the Prime Minister of Canada at their recent meeting at 24 Sussex Drive. I would note that the Premier emerged from the meeting full of support for the new Prime Minister and his ambassadorial shifts; I wonder if they discussed the fisheries problem.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I haven't the faintest idea what was on the agenda for discussion between the Premier and the Prime Minister; but I can say, if the member would permit me the opportunity of answering, that it certainly was on the agenda for discussion between the Hon. James McGrath and myself yesterday afternoon.

PREDATOR CONTROL

MRS, DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. According to a radio statement this morning, the minister is planning to start a program of wolf poisoning. In view of the fact that several months ago — prior to the election — the minister said that he was going to delay any such program of wolf poisoning until further documentation came before his ministry — and this was not expected until the fall of this year — my first question to the minister is: why then are you proceeding with the poisoning of wolves?

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, it would be a gross overstatement to say that we are embarking upon a program of wolf poisoning, and it would be very misleading if anybody were to draw that conclusion from either the remarks I made or something that was said by the press.

What I did say — and I'm glad to say it again today — is that there are certain areas of this province where the predator-control problem is particularly acute relative to domestic animals, mostly sheep and cattle. In those areas it has been impossible to control predators without contemplating the use of poisons, at least in limited times and in limited areas.

The member asked why we were doing this without giving it study, or words to the effect. May I say, Mr. Speaker, we have given it considerable study, and the extent of those studies we will be releasing in the next few days to the public, and, of course, to the House. I think the member will be satisfied that we have given it a great deal of thought, a great deal of study, and had a great deal of public input before embarking upon what will be a very minor use of poisons in certain specified areas against specified animals at specified times.

MRS. DAILLY: I have a supplementary question. Now that the minister has confirmed that his government does condone a policy of wolf poisoning, I wonder if you could tell us, Mr. Minister, why you did not embark on the use of lithium chloride, which, as you are aware, is used to create an aversion in the wolves. Apparently they do not then have to be poisoned, and yet they do not continue being predators. I wonder if you could tell us why you did not embark on this program.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I want to once again say that the government does not condone wolf poisoning. The government of the province of British Columbia recognizes that from time to time, in a limited way, poisons must be used for the control of predators in areas where domestic animals have become the food for the wolves, because man has moved in and moved out their natural food supply.

Now the member asked why we have not tried lithium chloride, which is an aversion program, and I want the member to know that we have. We have a program ongoing on the Bonaparte Plateau now where that is being tried. I regret to inform the member in the House that unfortunately the results have not been particularly encouraging vis-a-vis the wolf. They have as far as the coyote is concerned, but not the wolf. However, we will continue that experiment. Hopefully, as science progresses — and science and technology being what it is, Mr. Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — perhaps we will reach the day when that will supplant other methods that we now have to take for predator control.

MRS. DAILLY: On a final supplementary for this time on this matter, Mr. Speaker, the minister must be aware that the U.S. wildlife branch has never endorsed the poisoning program for wolves. I wonder if he has contacted the American wildlife branch and whether he could explain to

[ Page 255 ]

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

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'm very glad that the member asked that question because except for the state of Alaska, the continental United States of America virtually has no wolf problem. You might just as well ask me why they don't poison wolves in Sweden. I'll tell you, Madam Member: because they don't have any wolves. So it simply is not necessary in areas where the wolf population is as minimal as it is in the continental United States from which the member has got her figures. It is simply not necessary to use poison under those circumstances.

The poison that we will use, I want to emphasize again, will be minimal. We'll be talking about a very, very few animals indeed, and only under circumstances where we cannot control predators in other ways. Mr. Speaker, I suspect that the member opposite is trying to distort this out of all context so it appears that we have embarked upon a massive poisoning of wolves. We have not, and I want to emphasize that.

MR. HOWARD: I would like to ask the Minister of Environment a supplementary question, and ask him if he will table in the House a paper or a document indicating the areas within which this limited poisoning program is going to take place.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I'I take that under advisement. I'm not going to give an undertaking in the House today to table documents when I don't know which ones the member refers to, but I will answer questions in this House. When documents come into my possession which I think the public ought to know about and particularly this House ought to know about, I'll be very pleased to table them.

ALERT BAY MEDICAL FACILITIES

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The chief coroner, Glen McDonald, said his jury in Alert Bay called for an inquiry with a big "I" and a full-scale public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act, with a judge as chairman. Will the minister now agree to set up such an inquiry?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible to ask the member for North Island a question at the same time as I attempt to give him an answer. Would he agree that what we should do in this case is follow the direction given to us by that inquest jury? Would that be a fair assumption of your position, Mr. Member?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. It is unusual to be asking questions across the floor the other way, but perhaps the member for North Island has another....

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the minister will now, as the chief coroner has urged, set up a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act? Yes or no.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I can only assume in his answer that the member does agree that we should take the advice given to us by the coroner's inquest. You can nod your head if you agree with that.

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

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. If we permit each member the very same latitude that certain members are presuming, we will have anarchy in this room. Let's have order, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I had a question from the member for North Island relating to what the chief coroner is alleged to have said in a newspaper article in the Victoria Colonist this morning. I think it only fair that I read to the House. In answer to that question, part of the document signed by Glen McDonald, coroner, on the certificate of cause of death as determined by the coroner's inquest. That's really the only official document that we can go by in terms of what the coroner's inquest said. We can't go by some report in any newspaper or on any radio station.

The document signed by Coroner Glen McDonald read:

"We, the jury, recommend that an investigation by the B.C. Ministry of Health and Welfare and the College of Physicians and Surgeons be held to look into the medical practices of Dr. Pickup and the general standards of medical services in Alert Bay.

"Furthermore, that the appropriate B.C. nursing association inquire into nursing care at St. George's Hospital, and make recommendations."

I want to repeat very quickly what I said yesterday. Prior to this inquest, we had had a request from the St. George's Hospital in Alert Bay that the hospital committee — which is a standing committee of some ten years' duration in this province — be dispatched immediately to look into the very things that are recommended here. We agreed to that; however, Coroner McDonald, as is his right, at that time asked us not to activate this committee while an inquest was in place. Of course we acceded to that request.

As soon as the inquest was over and the recommendation was made to us, I recommended to the chairman of that committee that the investigation which was recommended on February 8, I believe be held forthwith. In order that we might fulfil the terms of the recommendations of the coroner's inquest jury, I sent an invitation through the chairman of that committee to the Registered Nurses Association of British Columbia, requesting they be part of this investigation. That is being done at this present time. We are following to the letter and more the recommendations made by the coroner's inquest jury in this case.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

LOWER MAINLAND STADIUM FUND ACT

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

[ Page 256 ]

On section 1.

MR. PASSARELL: I have some concerns about section 1 and the allocation of the $25 million to the lower mainland stadium fund. Not a penny of this $25 million is going for the youth of the north for playing fields. As I reiterated last week, many of the schools in the Stikine school district do not have playing fields. I would like to see the government allocate some of this surplus revenue to build playing fields, instead of building another football stadium in Vancouver.

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

The flowers will grow,
The weeds fill up the holes.
We need a playfield to give us joy.
When it comes to May,
We like to play,
The birds will sing,
The fish will swim,
For our playfields will be king.

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

In the Year of the Child, I would like to see 1 percent of this lower mainland stadium fund go to build playfields in the north — maybe a satellite field for the youth, so one day they might be able to go down to Vancouver and play in a football stadium. Accordingly, I move the following amendment, which would change section 1, line 8, to add after the words "British Columbia" the following words: "with 1 percent of the $25 million being allocated to provide playing fields for the children living in isolated communities of northern British Columbia."

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

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the section doesn't say where this multiplex is to be deposited. But some people in the NPA — and some people, I hope, not in this government — have thought about dumping it in the PNE grounds. Vancouver East has already become the dumping ground for heavy truck traffic. They've widened Boundary Road; the situation around Cassiar and Hastings is a nightmare. The residential areas are being destroyed by on-street parking, in spite of the residential preference.

The traffic congestion around the PNE is simply unbelievable. All right, you are doing something here with some public money, and you are just getting your foot in the door. Don't think that this is all you're going to have to cough up to create this $100 million — and much more multiplex.

The Attorney-General is nicely ensconced in an area where he doesn't have any traffic problems, and the rest of the city does. You know, we live in the kind of society where the basic essential social necessities — and one of them is transit and the transportation of people — are ignored and given no social priority whatsoever, while we think in terms of the franchise owners of the sports clubs. We think in terms of the spectators, which is fine; we think in terms of the athletes. And we destroy, by distorted social priorities, residential areas around the PNE and the northeast section of Vancouver. What is this Legislature really doing about public transit? What are they doing about commuter traffic to the games at the PNE and to the spectacles at the PNE? What are they doing for light rapid transit? They're talking about it, but they are not beginning to apply anything like the funds that are in this bill for a multiplex.

Now I'm not against the concept of a sports stadium, but I am against it being deposited where you are going to destroy a residential area. You have already largely destroyed that area with traffic strangulation. The hon. member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) knows exactly what I am speaking about because it slops over into her riding too. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) knows what I am talking about, and the chairman of this committee has witnessed the widening of Boundary Road, with heavy trucks coming in from the Fraser Valley, coming in from south of the border, coming in from the whole Fraser Valley. They're streaming through the residential areas of Vancouver East. Well, it's time we got our priorities straight, and if that means a social approach to the social problems, so be it. But social priorities ought to come first, not second. Time after time the basic amenities for people are ignored in favour of the franchise owners of the big clubs and all these spectator sports.

I say pass this bill. Give your support to sport, if you will, but don't dump it in the PNE grounds, at least until you've solved — and totally solved — the very serious traffic problems that are destroying that neighbourhood.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I spoke on this problem of where this stadium is going to go during second reading. The member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has certainly expressed the feelings of all the people in that area, in Vancouver East and in Burnaby North, who are going to be very adversely affected if there isn't any proper transit system or attention paid to the traffic needs. So I don't think there is any point in having to reiterate this, except, once again, to ask the minister if he will give this House and those of us who represent those areas that are going to be vitally affected a commitment that the money will not be forthcoming from the provincial government until a proper study is made of the right place for that stadium. I wonder if the minister would comment on this. During second reading I made this point, and I don't recall the minister commenting on this aspect of great concern to the members for Vancouver East and Burnaby North.

HON. MR. WOLFE: With relation to the member who spoke first who had concern over playing fields and so on, I just want to point out that there are several other items in the surplus appropriations which are province-wide: acceleration in highway programs; the $14 million for B.C. Rail, which, you could say, is more in the direction of the area you represent than, perhaps, any other; in addition, I might mention the $10 million supplement which has gone to forest management. As a reminder, I want to mention that I'm very much aware of the problem you face.

There were other comments from the member for Burnaby North and from the second member for Vancouver East with relation to the location of the sports stadium. As the bill very clearly indicates, no procedure has been established for a location. You can be sure we're going to require input from local officials of municipal areas before any decision is made as to where it's going to be. There is

[ Page 257 ]

no predetermined indication in this bill, or from the government, where such a stadium might be located. We'd rather arrive at that through input from the local areas.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 46

NAYS — 1

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

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

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. member, you might take the opportunity to review some of the standing orders so that when you choose to rise on a point of order you have a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: My remark was not a facetious remark. I looked back and saw this member rise and saw these people standing, and I was under the very definite impression — and I say that very candidly — that there were people voting against it on the other side. Since they seemed to come from the north, I made a very logical assumption.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's the observation of the Chair over lo these many divisions that we have witnessed that some members are tardy in rising and a little tardy in taking their seats again. Perhaps we will all be a little more punctual in not only rising and taking our place, but also in appearing for divisions.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. HALL: During second reading of this bill, I made a number of suggestions to the minister, and waited for some response from him regarding what he might consider to be an effective policy on the part of the government to ensure a real British Columbian component in this project. I didn't find any response from the minister. I made a number of suggestions to him that he might want to suggest to those people in charge of the project that the payment of public moneys should be met with an assurance that we will use British Columbian companies, British Columbian workpeople, and make sure that the multiplier effect, the good economic effect, the first-class impetus that this scheme may have will indeed take place in the province. If this is a good idea to spend public money upon, then the public should receive the maximum benefit from it.

I read the unemployment figures to the minister, and he didn't appear to understand them. I should perhaps have read the car-sales figures instead. Nevertheless, I didn't get any response. I'm now asking in committee if the minister will give us some assurance that he and his advisers will meet under the payment section when satisfactory arrangements are made — as it is in this subsection — to make sure that that preference is increased, that instead of the usual 5 percent preference for British Columbian products and British Columbian companies, a higher percentage may be used. There's no point in spending this public money, there's no point in applauding ourselves and patting ourselves on the back for this good work, if the effects of it are felt only in the States, or in Alberta, or in Ontario.

I would like to pursue this point with the minister — and I'd like him to respond, as he didn't respond under the convention centre one — and find out what his ideas are to ensure that the multiplier effect will indeed stay at home.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I thought I did respond and comment on the matter raised by the member. I guess he didn't hear, or perhaps he was out of the House at the time — I don't know. But I commented on the fact that we have announced a purchasing preference policy in British Columbia, which came out about a year and a half ago. The member suggested at the time that we had a preference policy of 5 percent for B.C. products, and he recommended it should be 10 percent. Our policy is already 10 percent, Mr. Chairman, and you can be sure that we've made this policy known to all public bodies in the province and recommended they follow it, and we shall certainly remind them of that fact in terms of the expenditure of these funds.

MR. HALL: The second point I raised in second reading of the bill, Mr. Chairman, was the guarantee by the government that there would be fair wages paid on this project. I reminded the minister that for years in this House there was a Fair Employment Practices Act, which saw to it that fair wages were paid when public moneys were expended in the form of grants or subsidies, or in any way were transferred to a private operation. That Act was repealed, as you will no doubt remember, Mr. Minister, and was substituted by another one, which was repealed in its turn by this administration; and I'm not now aware — although I may be incorrect — of legislation that will assure fair current wages being paid. I would like the assurance of the minister that that will indeed be the case, and to have him tell us under what statute it may be done, and what his

[ Page 258 ]

advisers will be recommending to the foundations or corporations charged with the administration of this $25 million, plus all the public money that will be coming in, we presume, from Ottawa and the business sector. In sum, Mr. Chairman, I would like to know what guarantees the presently unemployed working people will have, if there is indeed a 10 percent preference for British Columbia workers and British Columbia companies, that fair wages will be paid on the site.

I know we can't insist on an answer, but I think it's of reasonable importance when one sees not only the $25 million from this government, but also possible money from the federal government — and we presume that the business sector will be paying some money in. I wonder if the minister would indicate — and maybe he could even find out from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — what we can expect to see in the way of policing the fair wages and good working conditions that should surround this kind of operation.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

SPECIAL PURPOSE APPROPRIATION ACT

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 10 allots $42.5 million of the 1978-79 revenue surplus to programs and projects to assist the British Columbia economy and to continue the high level of health care which has been provided in this province. These programs and projects are, in addition not only to funds set aside for the Vancouver and Victoria trade and convention centres and the lower mainland stadium, but also to any amounts provided in the regular estimates. Specifically the $42.5 million is proposed to be spent as follows:

First of all, $25 million is to be paid for health and hospital costs throughout the province as determined by the Minister of Health. Secondly, there will be $7.5 million to purchase shares of the British Columbia Development Corporation. Thirdly, $5 million will go for a small business assistance program in the lower mainland and greater Victoria areas to be administered by the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development. Lastly, there will be $5 million for the purpose of industrial research to be administered by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology. These expenditures, as I say, will assist the economy of this province and therefore deserve the unanimous support of this Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in second reading we're discussing the principle of this bill, and I note that the major aspect of the appropriation is a $25 million sum for health care. I note that a major mistake was made back on November 19, 1978, when the Minister of Health sent a memorandum to hospitals, the hospital board chairmen, indicating at that time that they must live within a budget increase of 5 percent. At the time, of course, he was begging the question, as he is now, as to how you live within a budget increase of 5 percent when all aspects of care in the hospitals have gone up much in excess of 5 percent: wages around 8 percent increase; cost of medical surgical supplies an increase of 20-plus percent; increase in food costs for hospitals around 14 percent, etc. At that time many responsible people in the community warned the minister that he was on the wrong track. I think most people knew where the order came from; it was treasury board, that hasn't seemed to show too much evidence of concern over health care. But in any event, it was the minister who had to carry the responsibility for sending the memorandum.

When we approached the session of the Legislature last March and into April, there was a deathbed sort of response to what had become a very ugly situation within most of our health community. That was one of the hospitals starved for funds, with no seeming assistance on the horizon. So the deathbed repentance, so to speak, came with the determination of the government to throw an additional $25 million into the situation to try to clean up some of the mess that had been caused.

This, according to the minister, has raised the across-the-board sum to hospitals on an average of about 7.5 percent. That 7.5 percent — by just reviewing in percentage terms some of the numbers that I went over a moment ago — is still grossly inadequate. I'm not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that anyone on this or any side of the House should suggest irresponsible expenditure of funds on behalf of the taxpayer. However, an irresponsible lack of funds is just as earth-shaking to the health community as would be an opportunity to spend high, wide and handsome.

This bill is certainly a part of the bail-out proposition for the health care community, but it's not enough under the present circumstances. The Economic Council of Canada in their report last fall — as a matter of fact, I think it was the last quarterly report of last year — said that the cost of health care is not growing in this province at a rate that would exceed their expectation, nor is it growing at a rate that is harmful to the economy. The cost of health care in Canada is running at roughly 7.2 percent of the gross national product, which is probably one of the best situations in all of the free world, including that great country to the south of us, where it is substantially higher despite the fact that they have neither universal medical care nor a hospital-care plan. Nonetheless, the overall cost in the United States, and in most European countries, is a greater percentage of the gross national product than it is here. That's not to say: well, let's not worry about it. But it is to say that under these circumstances we should not be placing our hospitals in jeopardy, which we have done and do now, even with this increased expenditure. And if the minister who says we don't happened to be on a long list waiting for surgery, he would not be of the same mind.

I certainly applaud this token gesture toward our health care scheme in the province. I certainly recognize that it's a far cry from the 5 percent determination that was made last

[ Page 259 ]

fall. Heaven knows how that determination could have been made, other than as some kind of desperate response to a demand of the minister by his colleagues on Treasury Board, because there's no way a minister in the face of having to meet increased costs could do that kind of thing on his own with the advice of his own staff.

I've been reading some very interesting materials — and I want to go into this in much more detail in the estimates — on this vast shortage of nurses, and that's one of the reasons why we're closing down wards. I tell you there's always a shortage of personnel if conditions for those personnel are not posted. I have gone from place to place, from facility to facility to find out if there really is a concerted effort to secure staff, and, Mr. Speaker, in most instances I found that the administration is very wary of hiring staff because their budget is just too tight.

I hope against hope we can have within our hospitals a kind of budgeting system that will tend to create a better program of budgeting and accountability. I was once charged with the responsibility of Minister of Health, and recognize it's a very difficult proposition. The kind of incremental budgeting we have is very difficult to deal with.

You could see, for example, where it would be in the best interests of a hospital laboratory to get rid of much of their supplies prior to the end of a fiscal period. If they didn't, by next year they wouldn't be able to demand that same increase in budget. Those are technical aspects, but they have to be dealt with.

Right now we have a crisis within our health care scheme. No amount of discussion or debate in this House is going to change that crisis. I know many of the administrators of hospitals are scared to death. They talk one way off the record, and another way for the record, sitting quietly in one's office, or one's living room, and one can hear a response of: "Oh, my God, I don't know how we can carry on."

On the other hand, when approached by the media, and worried about any future considerations from the ministry, under those circumstances administrators tend to be very quiet about their needs. Let's make no mistake about it; the headlines began some years ago, and will continue. Until it can be shown not by words but demonstrably by the priorities served by this government on health care, that situation will prevail.

I hope we can all look forward to seeing a better situation. Under the circumstances the $25 million is inadequate. I don't know how the minister is going to handle it. Let me give you one example of its inadequacy.

The minister takes full credit, of course — or the government takes full credit — for completing the Royal Columbian Hospital. Heaven knows why, but at least that's what they were doing in the election campaign. In any event, regardless of where the credit lies for that hospital, we now have a super facility in New Westminster, and it's about time.

That super facility is fairly sophisticated, and the reason for that is that it attracts trauma all the way from the PNE to Hope. Because of its geographic location, that's where the ambulances go; that's where the severely traumatized victims go and that's where you have to have a very sophisticated facility.

Having said that and having completed a pretty sophisticated facility there, what do we find? No consideration in the budget for the additional expense that you are faced with when you do have a sophisticated or a more sophisticated facility. It's as though at one time the Royal Columbian was a community hospital with little in terms of intensive care, trauma units, et cetera, with a very high cost, but nevertheless very important in a regional basis. That fact of life was not recognized in the budgeting.

They were given the same kind of incremental increase as were most of the other facilities in the province. These are the mindless approaches the opposition has difficulty dealing with, and if the minister is having difficulty selling his case to the Treasury Board, then I hope he can find some volunteers to assist him, because it is a very, very urgent situation in our province. I hope there is some kind of acknowledgement of just how urgent it is. We will go into far more detail when we get into the minister's estimates.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, this is one of several bills presented, arising out of this budget, which exemplify the results of the care that has been taken in the administration of public funds. In this case, it is primarily being devoted to the needed funds for attending to hospital budgets, the needed funds for the purchase of shares in the B.C. Development Corporation and, as I said, to accelerate the small-business development program, where there has been a vacuum in terms of the metropolitan areas. These moneys were not available to enterprises within these areas previously. Lastly, of course, there are funds for new needs described for the purpose of industrial research, to be administered by the Minister of Education.

As I say, it follows on this government's policy of immediately allocating funds which have been saved in the manner I described. I think that all members of this House, therefore, should support the objects of this bill and its principles. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to move second reading.

Motion approved.

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

Leave granted.

SPECIAL PURPOSE
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

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

MR. HALL: On a point of order, I like to straighten these things out as fast as I can. I think that is good parliamentary practice. I said in a previous debate that the minister did not respond to my remarks. I wish to apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, Hansard — and I just say this is a clerical error.... The speech which the minister made was not included in the Blues on Friday, June 15. There were two pages inadvertently missing from the Blues. I knew that you did not respond to my remarks on the Victoria and Vancouver trade centres, because I was in here for the whole of the debate, but I did leave the House shortly before you wound up second reading on the lower mainland stadium, and I missed your response to my remarks. As I say, unfortunately, when I did check the

[ Page 260 ]

debate afterwards — I do tend to do my homework — I found that these pages were not included in the Blues. Thank you very much.

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

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this is an appropriate section for me to say one or two more words on what I was talking about. I indicated in my remarks in second reading that the $25 million was inadequate, and I used a number of reasons and examples why. But one of the things that I feel is very important to further point out is that I have talked at some length to nurses and officials of the Registered Nurses Association, asking whether or not there is a real recruiting campaign going on. They say that at best it is half-hearted; at worst, there is no campaign at all. So I really, really hope that all of this summer holiday syndrome that is used each year to indicate that there is a vast shortage of nurses, and therefore people with a surgical problem that isn't acute have to wait in line, is not anything more than the fact that we are not paying enough attention to the funding of health care as a priority.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks and perhaps ask the minister a question. In my naivete of newness here, I wasn't sure how the minister goes about allocating the $25 million under section 1(c). The section reads: "$25 million to be paid for health and hospital costs in the province, as determined by the Minister of Health." I wonder if the minister would bring us into his confidence, since the section provides that these funds will be paid as determined by the minister. The first question I have is: will that be allocated with regard to deficits incurred by hospitals operating in the province? In other words, will that be allocated toward the deficits of any hospitals?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think it might be more appropriate for the minister to answer that question, perhaps during his estimates or even now if he returns very shortly. I'm sure he would be happy to.

MR. LEGGATT: I appreciate that. The difficulty is we will be past the section by the time he is here, and at that point my question would be out of order. Therefore I would like to make a couple more points in regard to the allocation of these funds.

My understanding is that at the present time there is approximately a $40 million deficit in various hospital boards across the province.

I see the minister returning, and I'm wondering, Mr. Chairman, if I might be permitted now to put that same question. section 1(c) deals with the allocation of some $25 million to be paid as determined by the Minister of Health. Will any of these funds be used to carry or fund the deficits that have been incurred by various hospitals in the province?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I thought that had been made quite clear in several public statements including a major press conference that was held with the various hospitals around the province. The formula basically is that the first charge on the $25 million will be to provide 2.5 percent on the budgets of the hospitals for certain costs. The first of these costs would be increased wages and benefits, and the second would be some non-salary increased costs.

That would take up about half of the $25 million. The rest will be used, along with other budgetary provisions and year-end adjustment provisions, to pick up deficits which have been incurred for the 1978-79 fiscal year.

MR. LEGGATT: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Can the minister advise as whether, after the expenditure of the $25 million in this way, there will still be deficits that have been incurred by various hospital boards in the province? In other words, these funds are insufficient, in the manner in which you're allocating them, to cover the existing deficits in the various hospitals in the province.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I've also said that this is not the only budgetary item which will be used to cover those deficits. Some normal year-end adjustments are being made; some have already been made to the tune of $8 million to $10 million. There will be further budgetary commitments. This is only part of the money that will be used to retire deficits. At this point I can't — because all of the information about the total amount of the deficits for the past fiscal year is not in our hands — guarantee that all deficits will be picked up through that procedure. But I have told the hospitals that it will come very close.

MR. LEGGATT: One of the difficulties that seems to be facing many hospitals now is a shortage — probably on a temporary basis — of qualified RNs. I understand, for example, that the B.C. Institute of Technology's midwifery program has been discontinued.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: "Midwifery" is the right word, and my colleague who originates from England knows what that means. We have a number of practical nurses in the province who are from abroad who haven't qualified because of the discontinuance of these specific programs.

I want to ask either the Minister of Education, Science and Technology or the Minister of Health — I'm not too sure which ministry this comes under — if there is anything allocated in this section to beef up the nurses' training program in any of the institutions in the province, so that those nurses can complete their qualifications.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I have a feeling that we're into the Ministry of Health estimates now or those of the Ministry of Education — I'm not sure which either. As I've just explained to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, it's all fully allocated at the present time. There would be none left from the $25 million for that purpose.

I'm a little confused about the member's reference to midwifery. I understand that according to the Medical Act of British Columbia, midwifery is not allowed to be practised. I don't know why they're training people to do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are straying somewhat from the scope. This would appear to be the estimates of the Minister of Health on this subsection of this particular section.

[ Page 261 ]

MR. LEGGATT: I just want to briefly advise the minister that midwifery is an acknowledged program in the nursing program. It deals with childbirth, and I'm sure the minister may know that. It is a program that has been discontinued, and so I would just like to give the minister notice to examine that and see if we can't get it underway again.

One last point with regard to this particular section. We have had some tragedies in our hospitals which deal with the lack of proper psychogeriatric provision in the province. I'm particularly referring to the Valleyview Hospital in my constituency, which was originally designed and still operates as a psychogeriatric hospital. We have had some incidents where patients who should have been allocated to that hospital have been, in fact, put into acute-care hospitals, and serious harm has come to them thereby. I would ask the minister whether there was any allocation with regard to expanding facilities in the Valleyview Hospital for psychogeriatric patients. That's my last question, Mr. Chairman. When he dealt with the general distribution of these funds, I wonder if he could be specific in terms of the Valleyview Hospital in my constituency as to whether any of these funds will be allocated to that hospital.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, again I hope this will take the time out of my estimates, when we get to them, so that we can get through them more quickly. The answer is no. I've explained for the third time where the money is going. It is for acute-care hospitals, and not for others. Particularly it is not for government institutions; we wouldn't take the money from acute-care hospitals away to transfer it to government institutions. So I'd just like to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the member has information about some tragedies — as he puts it — that have taken place, and he wishes information from me about them, I would appreciate it if he would come to me, because he certainly hasn't. I have not heard from that member about any concerns he has. If he has them, as a responsible member I hope he'd come to me about them.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I raise the question in this House, and I hope the minister does read Hansard, because it deals with the death of Jenny Alida Cherry. Glen McDonald was the coroner, and his recommendation was that this hospital was understaffed. That has been brought to the minister's attention. I hope now he will be again reminded to have a look at what happened in that particular case in terms of his own responsibility.

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

MRS. WALLACE: I, too, want to deal with this problem of the $25 million allocated to pick up extra hospital costs. Certainly it appears to be a way around increasing the regular budget more than the 5 percent by putting this kind of money in here when obviously the 5 percent was not adequate to carry the hospitals.

I'm very interested in the minister's comments when he says this is all going to acute-care hospitals, because those hospitals have at least been granted a 5 percent increase. I want to talk a little bit about the minister's long-term care program. I'm talking about money that you're allocating for health care, and I'm concerned about how that money is being allocated. I think I'm quite within order. If you feel I'm out of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you will call me to order.

In dealing with this allocation, I think we should have a look at how it is being spent. Certainly the Legislature should have some input into the directions that fund should go. A long-term health care program in this province has been instituted, established, and has been in existence now something like 15 months. At the time the rates were set for those people who were carrying on this care in the province, they were told if they would accept this rate those rates would be reviewed in 15 months. It was sort of tacitly agreed that the rates could very well be too low. They now have had an increase, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, with respect, on a point of order, the item she's raising is in a long-term program which is an item that has a vote in my estimates. We will have full opportunity to discuss it. In no way does it relate to this bill, and it should not be discussed at this time.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, the section where the minister's responsibility is outlined says: "Health and hospital costs, as determined by the minister." Is long-term care not a health cost? Just because he happens to proclaim that he's not determining that should not mean that he can have this section or this bit out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm sure all members would agree that the debate being carried on by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) would be more appropriate under the minister's estimates, rather than under this particular subsection. If that's not the case and we go down this list of appropriations, we can go through tourism, small business, education, science and technology. In fact, we could have a duplicate of the estimates with no limit on it. Our standing orders say "strictly relevant." In this committee, which is discussing this particular section, I cannot entertain the entire spectrum of estimates for all of the various ministries under which these appropriations are in order. It is in order to ask the ministers what they are planning to do with this particular appropriation, but to delve beyond that and go into other areas for which they have responsibility is something which will be much more appropriate in estimates.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, if we allow the scope of debate to widen beyond what we have already restricted it to, then we're in fact going to go through the estimates of all these ministries both on this section of this bill and in their estimates as well. What is appropriate to discuss now is where the funds are being appropriated to.

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the government introduced this bill. Included in the bill are all the areas that you outlined. We understand that we have the

[ Page 262 ]

estimates to look forward to. Certainly there isn't going to be that kind of in-depth work. But if we're restricted, and we set a precedent now that endangers the committee stage of a bill in the future, I think we're making a very, very bad determination here. I respectfully ask the Chairman to reconsider his position with respect to this whole question of being out of order in this case.

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

MR. LEA: On the previous point of order, obviously what we're doing here is talking about a specific amount of money that is going to be spent by the Crown in this bill. When we get to the estimates, we're going to be talking about a different set of moneys that are going to be spent by the Crown in health services. To preclude comments on this amount of money means that this money will go through with no comment at all from the opposition — that's what your ruling would mean.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is not so. As you know quite well, the estimates range over all ministerial responsibilities. It is absolutely the case that when the minister's estimates come up he must be responsible for all the questions. There is no limit on debate in estimates, as members know and as the Chairman knows all too well.

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

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

The $25 million we are talking about is being allocated for health care and hospitals. Hospitals have been allowed to increase their budgets by 5 percent. Long-term care has not had the benefit of that increase. On a trial basis for 15 months they started on what was agreed to be a very low per diem. At the end of that 15 months they received niggardly increases, to say the least, increases of something like 3 percent — 50 cents per day on $13.50 for personal care; it’s far less than 5 percent.

I would urge the Minister of Health to consider the plight of those personal-care homes, nursing homes and intermediate-care homes, and ensure that some of this extra funding is allocated to alleviate that situation, which is even worse than the situation that has developed in the acute-care hospitals — and that is certainly beyond description.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. I might point out that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), in raising his point of order said that the debate that you've just taken part in would not be appropriate under the minister's estimates. Of course, since there is no appropriation in this particular funding for long-term care, it would in fact be most appropriate to discuss it under the minister's estimates.

It's also appropriate to point out that once this section is passed and the bill is passed, it does become the administrative responsibility of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), in which case the entire area can be canvassed once again during his estimates.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I just wondered whether the minister has notified any of the hospitals which are going to benefit from this $25 million windfall of how much they're going to get. I'm specifically interested in the situation of the Burnaby General, where their budget came in $1.2 million short, the result of which, of course, is that they are in the process of laying off some of their staff and having to cut back on some of the programs which they had hoped to introduce. They've had to change their mind in that respect. I'm wondering whether the minister has been in touch with the specific hospitals which are going to benefit from this money and notified them exactly as to how much they're going to be getting, because I'd like to know whether Burnaby General knows that they're going to be getting some of this money, and if they are going to be getting any of this money. Maybe that should be my first question, Mr. Chairman: will Burnaby General be one of the beneficiaries of this particular Act? If so, has Mr. Barth, the administrator, or the hospital board been told precisely in terms of dollars and cents how much they will be receiving?

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

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

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would have hoped that the member had been listening when I answered this question earlier. Yes, the hospitals have been notified. I met with their boards individually at a large meeting to talk about how this $25 million would be allocated some time ago — well before the election, as a matter of fact — so they know that they'll be getting 2.5 percent added to their adjusted budgets off the top and that we would then look at their deficit positions with a view to covering as much of those deficits as we possibly could.

There is no way, Mr. Chairman, that we could possibly let the hospitals know what the deficit coverage will be at this point, because nobody knows yet. All of those figures are not before us from the hospitals at the present time, but once we know we'll be able to deal with them directly.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to digress for a brief moment from the Minister of Health's estimates to say that I'm going to support this particular section of the bill because it's generally such an excellent section, but also because it has a particular item in it which will provide funds to establish scientific research with industrial goals in the province. I wanted to let the members know that we have what we hope are exiting plans for the utilization of these.

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

[ Page 263 ]

seminar on science policy where we're going to bring together people from the universities, from industry, from government agencies like the B.C. Research Council, and from the ministry to discuss science policy in general and how best to use some of this money in particular. I extend a hearty invitation to attend that seminar, particularly to the members of the opposition. If we could find one who would care to stay all day, I'll stay myself; otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I'll just be there in the morning to give the keynote address.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: I don't know whether Dr. Suzuki will be there or not, but we have sent around the world a brochure on science and research in British Columbia, and with leave I'd like to table it with the Chair. It's available for the members.

MR. LEA: In how many languages?

HON. MR. McGEER: We've got an English edition out so far, Mr. Member, but the reception to it has been really quite positive from organizations around the world. I have high hopes that we'll be able to put the money allocated in this particular bill to immediate use for the benefit of all British Columbians through the development of new growth industries in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would remind the minister that during the committee stage it is not appropriate to table items. Perhaps the new members might take note of that as well.

MR. HALL: One thing, Mr. Chairman, that the results of May 10 have done.... I've seen a remarkable improvement induced in the attendance of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey on Fridays and Mondays. If nothing else. I was wondering when he was talking about his exposition whether or not he checked with the Whip, but he obviously has.

Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to see all the ministers who are involved in this Special Purpose Appropriation Act now in the House, and we can probably get through the business expeditiously by having the answers to the questions.

One of the troubles with the bill is that when these bills are presented they're good political documents, and when they're going through the various press conferences and they're part of the budget speech there's a great deal of political kudos involved in them. But what appears to be the sensitivity on the other side is that they don't want political accountability when the bill is debated in the House. That's part of the problem, and I think it would have been useful if we had more than just a press statement in front of us, because I'm not too sure that that is even an official document — we don't even allow questions based on press statements in this House. We might have had a statement from a minister as to what he was going to do with $25 million. And then, perhaps, the questions that you are asking this side to pointedly ask the ministers opposite would have been asked.

There are two or three questions that I have, if I may now ask them. The first is: could the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development tell the House whether or not the $5 million for the small business assistance program in metro areas — it's section 1(e) of the bill — is for a loan program only, or is any of the money for administrative purposes, for staff and so on? Is it going to be part of a program for advice and that sort of thing, or can we look forward to the entire $5 million being placed for loan purposes?

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

MR. HALL: Now we're getting somewhere.

The second question is: is the $5 million for industrial research — to be administered by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology — the B.C. Discovery Trust Fund that is mentioned on page 31 of the budget speech? I want to know if there are two programs or one program — they're often guilty of hyperbole. Secondly, are the proceeds the interest spun off by the investment, or are they capital itself?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, in the coming year we're going to require more than the interest. We're going to require a substantial amount of capital to do two things. First of all, there are a number of projects of outstanding scientific merit that can be undertaken now if funds are generated for the scientists to commence work. These programs have been identified by the Science Council in the past year or so since the council's been in operation. So if we're to take advantage of opportunity we're going to have to move to fund them now.

The second area where funds will be required is in developing suitable land for research organizations to establish their facilities here. We've got property identified for our Discovery Parks, but none of it is developed to a state where a firm could actually build its research facilities on those lands. So we need up-front capital to get that started. Those are the two areas that we have so far identified where we're going to need additional funds.

We've also had a preliminary report from a consultant we've engaged to take a took at the situation with the B.C. Research Council. Some areas have been identified where the B.C. Research Council needs to strengthen its scientific base in order to be able to offer consultative and scientific services to whole industrial sectors. There are four or five of them — the fish-processing industry is one particular example — and we may have to spend miss ion-oriented money in the next year or so to build up research capability in specific areas.

I mention the fish-processing industry as one, because our fish processors here in British Columbia have no research capability of their own. We've extended the limit to 200 miles, which is going to make it possible for our own fishing boats to extend the area from which they take a harvest much farther. By the same token, it takes them longer to get the catch back. Therefore we're going to have to be looking at the technology of managing that catch and getting it to market before it spoils.

So we've got a more important reason than ever for developing a research capability: we haven't got any at all. As a matter of fact, — there was a limited group at the fisheries technological station at UBC, and the federal government terminated funding for that group as of the end of May — it's broken up. So we've got nobody in that area

[ Page 264 ]

at our time of greatest need. That's a possible third requirement for funds to go into specific programs related to the B.C. Research Council.

MR. HALL: Thank you for that explanation, Mr. Minister. I take it then that the $5 million industrial research — lower case printing — is indeed the $5 million — upper case — British Columbia Discovery Trust Fund. It's one and the same fund.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes.

MR. HALL: Could the minister tell us if this is the only piece of change being sent away from this place under the Special Purpose Appropriation Act that is going into a trust? Could he tell me if the directors of the trust have been appointed? Who is going to be on the trust? Are there some names we could have a look at?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, at the present time we are developing the terms of reference of a beneficial trust, and that process has not been completed yet. So we are not at the stage where we could name any trustees. But up to the present time, the work of negotiating for land has been done by Discovery Parks Inc., which is a subsidiary organization of BCBC. No leases have been signed although negotiations have taken place. But it would be our intention to have these leases managed by Beneficial Trust, and we are just in the process now of drafting the terms. So we are not at the stage where we could name any trustees.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this bill represents a major step forward toward the fulfilment of the government's stated objective of taking school taxes off farm and agricultural land. We are not there, but we are taking a step in that direction. What this bill does is amend section 203(a) of the Public Schools Act. This section presently provides $1,000 land exemption per farm unit in determining taxable values on all classified farms for school and other local government purposes.

The $1,000 exemption is going to be replaced by one which amounts to 50 percent of the land assessment value for school purposes. It has been extended to include not only land classified as farm under the Assessment Act, but also most properties lying within boundaries of the agricultural land reserve designated under the agricultural Land Commission Act. This exemption, according to this bill, will begin in 1980. Owners of 100,000 parcels of land will benefit. As the opposition well knows, the owners of these lands have been denied development rights, and therefore, because of severe land restrictions.... That was a matter of attitude on the part of people who were elected. Some thought they did and others thought they didn't. But whether or not you think they did, or whether or not you thought they didn't, the fact remains that as of now, under the agricultural Land Commission Act, they don't have the rights, but they're being taxed in many cases as if they did.

Since it's agricultural land reserve, then they're going to be entitled — if this bill passes — to the advantages of farmland with respect to assessment for school purposes. Reductions of about $150 million in assessments are expected to occur when this exemption is implemented.

Mr. Speaker, because the school tax rate base is used for levies made under other Acts, there's going to be some effect on the distribution of levies for hospitals, regional districts, improvement districts, libraries and other local government purposes. As far as school taxes are concerned the base is so widely distributed it's not considered that this will have any particular effect on the redistribution of taxes. The Assessment Authority has not yet been able to identify the major problems as far as the amendment of these other Acts will be concerned, but these studies are continuing.

The Assessment Act provides for a phase-in of certain types of assessment increases, and these will continue on agricultural land reserve properties, notwithstanding that the taxable value comparison between 1979 and 1980 is materially affected by the application of the new exemptions. Does everybody understand that clearly?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

HON. MR. McGEER: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: We in the opposition certainly support the principle of this bill. We support the principle; we have for a long time supported that principle. But we have some very grave concerns about the method that is being applied in an attempt to move that tax burden from agricultural land. I think that the minister would have done well to have met with the officers of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture and discussed their long outstanding recommendations with them where they have said: "Look, we're quite prepared to pay school tax on our home site the same as anyone else, but we want that other area of land removed from that tax base." That would be a much more equitable arrangement and a much more simple one, because the bureaucratic nightmare that's going to result from this particular piece of legislation is really beyond comprehension.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly this is going to keep him in business for the next 20 years if this Act passes, Mr. Member.

[ Page 265 ]

The home site concept would have been a much fairer way to go, a much better route, because there are too many inequalities that are going to result from this particular piece of legislation. First let's talk about the inequality that will result to the farm community itself, the various types of farming people. Let's talk about ranches, for example.

We have a great amount of land and very little improvements. I think they must have lobbied the minister, because they're going to get the real result. They're going to get the biggest return from this particular piece of legislation, because those large expanses of rangeland, some of which are in the ALR and some of which aren't.... We'll talk about that kind of problem when we get into the bureaucratic problems that are going to develop when you try to figure out how much of a proportion of a particular beef animal was raised on agricultural land, and how much of it was raised on land that's out of the ALR, and try to figure out how much that non-ALR land actually produced to see whether or not it qualifies for the farm assessment rate. You're just beginning to get into the tip of the iceberg on this whole thing when you try to sort it out. But those are the people who are going to benefit most, the people who are involved in ranching.

Go to the tree fruits people. They tell me that their present tax rate is approximately $20 per acre on their land, so they're going to get quite a little increase. Cutting that in half, that's $10 an acre reduction in tax for the tree fruits people, who again have a large land base and not too much in the way of improvement. But when you get into some of the other agricultural industries, you have a different situation, The dairymen, as you well know, Mr. Speaker — there are many of them in your constituency — have a minimum amount of land and a high expenditure in improvements.

I have taken the trouble to put together a few figures which give you just a little bit of an idea of the proportion of tax that the dairymen pay on their land as related to what they pay on improvements.

Now, for example — the dairyman's figures that I have here are from my own constituency — there is one dairy farmer that I talked to who has 149 acres of land. His tax on that land is presently $93.18, but on his improvements he pays a tax of $1,144.33. Now if you cut the $93 in half, you give him $46 or $47, and he's still paying a tax bill of well over $1,200.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, not his house. Those are his improvements, his buildings. This particular farmer has a very large building where he houses some 400 or 500 cattle; he doesn't pasture them out at all. He has a very high improvements bill, but a very low land bill. So he's getting a very, very minimum kind of return from this as compared to the fruit farmer, for example, who is getting a $10-an-acre reduction.

There are other examples. Here's another one: he pays $84.30 taxes on land, and his improvements — this is an even heavier one, Mr. Speaker — are nearly $3,000. His tax bill is $2,962.11 for his improvement tax.

Now this is a farmer, the third one, who has a slightly different type of operation. He pastures his cattle out. He has more acreage and not quite as much in improvements, but even he, Mr. Speaker, pays $1,540 land tax and $2,590 taxes on improvements. So this bill is going to do little or nothing for the dairy industry. I suggest that it is not fair to approach it on that basis, because every sector of agriculture production should be considered on the same basis.

I'm sorry the new member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), isn't in the House because while I don't have figures on turkeys, I have figures on broilers, and I know he would be interested in those. I talked to some of the broiler growers when I was preparing my notes for speaking on this bill, and I find that they have the same situation. Their land has a very high value in the Fraser Valley. The assessment of one grower that I talked to was $1,040. Some of these I get some way and some the other, depending on how the municipality sets up their billings, or on which particular form the farmer happened to file his tax notice or assessment notice. But this was the assessment and the story is just the same. His land assessment is $1,040, and his buildings are assessed at $17,017 — 17 times more for his buildings. So his tax, based on that reduction of some $580 on his assessment for his land, is not going to do anything meaningful for his tax bill.

Grower number two experienced a very similar situation: $660 land assessment, $6,017 for improvements. So, you see, they are not going to benefit in the same ratio, certainly, as the ranchers or as the tree fruit grower, who has a high proportion of agricultural economic base in land.

There's another inequality in this bill too, and that rests on the average taxpayer, because if you reduce the assessment by cutting in half the agricultural land in any given school district, then it follows that to maintain the same standard of education, the mill rate is going to have to go up. So while the farmer will get some small benefit, I think when it comes to a broiler farmer in the Fraser Valley, it's quite probable that his mill rate will go up more than his assessment goes down, and he, in the end, will be paying more land tax than he was before.

It's the ranchers who are going to benefit from this, and those school districts where those rangelands are located are going to be facing some pretty serious problems because they will have their assessment cut practically in half.

There's a difference, just the same as there's a difference in the types of farmers. There's a difference in the make-up of the various school districts. Certainly I don't think this is going to affect Point Grey very much, because I don't think there is much farmland in Point Grey. But areas like the Cariboo and Kamloops and Williams Lake are going to be highly affected by this because there is such a great percentage of their assessment base, their tax base, that is agricultural land. They're going to find themselves in a very untenable position.

That's very unfair to the taxpayers who will have to pick up this burden, or else they're going to be put into the position of cutting back even further on the educational standards in this province. We're already in a position, Mr. Speaker, where the portion of the school costs that's home by the local taxpayer has escalated beyond reason. In the three or four years that this minister has been responsible for the portfolio of education, we in my constituency have seen the school tax portion go from 55 percent to 70 percent — that is, the portion that's borne by the local taxpayer. I suspect that is probably one of the lower areas. When I talk to some of my friends from other areas I find they are paying an even higher percentage at the local level. That is where I have very grave differences with the Minister of

[ Page 266 ]

Education in the attitude he has taken in withholding funds from the school districts and putting that excessive burden on the local taxpayer. This will just compound the problem, Mr. Speaker. This bill simply compounds the problem. That's why I object so much to the way this thing has been done.

I've spoken about the bureaucratic nightmare. I can't believe that a man with the degrees and the background this minister has could come up with such a bureaucratic procedure.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe that's why.

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe that's why. Certainly it boggles the mind how this thing is going to work.

All farmers received a notice from the Assessment Authority in June 1979. It says: "Dear Sir or Madam," and it has attached a big long form here which has the legal description, the type of farming operation, time spent in active farming, number of parcels in the farm unit, assessment number, total acreage cultivated, irrigated, pasture, rough, cleared, not cultivated, not arable — all kinds of things. It would take a week to fill this out. With it, a letter says: "We will be reviewing all properties classified as farm to determine if they meet the standards for the 1980 assessment."

I don't know if the minister neglected to inform the Assessment Authority about this bill he was bringing in. They didn't need to prove the fact that they were producing on ALR land to qualify for school tax. Anyway, this is the letter they got: "We will be reviewing all properties...to see whether or not they meet the standards for the 1980 assessment."

It goes on to say: "The standards have not been finalized but will likely be similar to the standards sent to all owners of farm properties late in 1977, and based on the income from primary agricultural products raised on the land." If we're going back to 1977, Mr. Speaker, we've got problems. They never did get that one resolved. They finally postponed the whole thing, because they couldn't resolve it. What is farm classification? What do you have to do to qualify for farm classification? A section of the Assessment Act says you have to do certain things; you have to have $1,600 on the first four hectares, 5 percent of the actual value of land for all that exceeds four hectares. If you're going to be a developing farm you have to come up to a standard that meets the requirements of the assessment commissioner — all kinds of rules and regulations.

Do you know that every assessor and every authority in every area of this province has a different interpretation? In Nanaimo they talk about "cultivated land." I have friends who have pasture that was out of the agricultural land raised cattle on reserve. It was very poor land, but they raised cattle on it. But there was no farm classification way they could get agricultural or farm classification because the assessor we've had other at there said it has to be cultivated. We've had other assessors who talk about "capital and labour input." I have a letter here from someone who for some time has been trying unsuccessfully to get farm classification. They followed all the rules that were set down in this letter from the Assessment Authority about the $1,600 and the 5 percent — everything that was there. They were told they didn't qualify because they weren't sufficiently labour- and capital-intensive. This particular family paid $45,000 for that piece of raw land, but according to that particular officer they weren't sufficiently capital-intensive. They have employed two people full-time, one person half-time and one other person who is full-time employed but also working on the property. That's not sufficiently labour-intensive; they were refused farm classification as an emerging farm.

The thing is a complete shemozzle, Mr. Speaker. I had one person come to me and ask about various things that he could produce and what the price would be. He was selling retail at a roadside stand, but he was told by the Assessment Authority, or by one officer of it, that the productive value of the land is not related to the retail price. It's only related to the producer price. Even though they're getting retail for their product, they have to account only for the producer price.

We have one person saying that you don't have to have sales slips, and we've got others saying — and I have it in writing — that you must have sales slips in order to qualify. The classic example was the farmer who wondered whether the selling of manure off his property would be considered productive income. He was told yes.

But then he asked: "If I put the manure on my property, can I claim for it?" He was told no.

Ultimately one farmer sells his manure to the other farmer, and the other farmer sells his manure to the first farmer. At that stage, Mr. Speaker, everything begins to stink a little bit.

It is a bureaucratic nightmare, and it hasn't been resolved. In June 1979 we're going back to the same thing that was issued in 1977 which was a complete failure. Because of these kinds of loopholes in this Act, we in the opposition are concerned.

We agree that we should ease the burden on agricultural land, but when the minister stands up, in introducing the bill, and talks about developers, I think we're at the crux of the thing.

I have changed my opinion. Anyone who owns land in the agricultural land reserve deserves the same consideration, but only as long as that land stays in the reserve. There should be a provision to prevent taxpayers' dollars going to accommodate those people who have land in the reserve and who later get that land out of the reserve. There is no provision in this bill to prevent that from happening.

We can reduce our assessment base, our tax base. We can bring down the tax base and supplement it with other tax dollars. But those very people who are getting the advantage of that reduction can turn around and get that land removed from the agricultural land reserve, make windfall profits and not have to pick up those back taxes. That, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely unfair and unjust.

While we support the principle, and we'll vote for the principle in second reading, we have some amendments which we intend to introduce in committee stage. If those amendments are not accepted in all or in part by this Legislature, we will have to oppose the Act in third reading.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I think that it would be fair to this House if it were pointed out to the member for Cowichan-Malahat that she was getting two areas on the farm mixed up. I noted with interest that you weren't sure whether this would apply to turkeys. I believe it applies to all forms of agriculture.

[ Page 267 ]

We're talking about two cost areas here. One is land tax and the other, of course, is the improvements. Now this bill will give the necessary relief to those people who are locked into that land freeze. The taxes on improvements have to do with the operation itself. Without straying too far from the bill, I think that our Minister of Agriculture. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) has indicated that agriculture will have the opportunity to cover those costs from the marketplace where they should come from. I don't believe it's fair that we should get these taxes mixed up. We're talking now about the land tax and land within the agricultural reserve.

This is something that should have come in when the freeze came in. I am very pleased that we're now making some headway in this direction. The farmers and those people who are in the freeze will also be pleased.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat was talking about two different things. She was talking about taxes on land, and she was also talking about improvements. That should be paid for by the sale of the product that they're producing.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I believe what the member from Central Fraser Valley said applies, because what we're dealing with here is land that is in the ALR but is not being farmed, and people have no intention of farming this land. But the people who are locked in in some way in the ALR are performing a service by protecting agricultural land for future generations of British Columbians. They should be compensated in some way for keeping that land in agriculture.

Unfortunately a lot have suffered because taxes have increased over the years, but these people have not seen an increase in the development potential of their land. People in the agricultural land reserve should not pay a penalty in taxes for protecting farmland for all British Columbians and for future generations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you when the original legislation was brought in?

MR. SKELLY: That's the reason we passed the bill in the first place and one of the reasons we provided in the original legislation an allowance for the Land Commission to make recommendations and changes in taxation in order to soften the blow for those people....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, we wish that all of the province could gain advantage of your remarks. Perhaps you could try the microphone next to you, to see whether or not it is working.

MR. SKELLY: Where was I? I support the government in their effort to compensate the people who are protecting land for future generations of British Columbians, and that was always our intention. It was, for the information of that member, who used to be a land commissioner.... If he read through the Land Commission Act, he would find out that he had the power to make recommendations to government on that very issue.

Now the thing that concerns us, Mr. Speaker, most of all, is whether or not this bill is actually going to meet that need or resolve that problem, and there is the difficulty that our opposition finds with this bill. We found during our term of office and during the term of office of W.A.C. Bennett that it created more problems when you began tinkering with assessments to compensate people who gave up certain land values and certain land rights. It is not in the best interest of the province to tinker with assessments. The thing you should be doing is going to tax credits.

One of the ideas of setting up the Assessment Authority and going to full market value as the basis of assessments was that everybody would be assessed on an equal basis. If you wished to compensate senior citizens to assist them in remaining on the land or in their houses, you gave them a tax credit. If you wished to protect farmers against the high cost of school taxes and local taxes, you didn't drop their assessment or change the basis on which you calculated their taxation, you gave them a credit to taxes. That's the way to do it. This one goes back to the old way, unfortunately, by exempting a certain level of the assessed value for taxation, and it's going to cause a lot of confusion, as my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) stated.

Now I'm wondering if the minister has done a study of the effect on each school district, the district-by-district impact, because I know a large number of the districts on Vancouver Island.... I'm thinking of School District 69, for example, at Qualicum Beach, where there is a large area of agricultural land reserve. They have a fairly low assessment base upon which to impose their mill rate. This is going to further decrease their assessment base and cause them additional problems. They have timberlands which are poor revenue generators for school districts. They have rural residential lands, which are also poor revenue generators for school districts, and now they have a large area of agricultural land reserve. As far as the assessment goes in that area, it will be cut in half and reduce their revenue from that land even more.

I am wondering how the minister is going to compensate those school districts for their loss in assessment base and for their resultant loss in taxation revenue. It is going to be pretty difficult. What is actually going to happen, if the school districts have the legal right to do it, is that they are going to have to raise the mill rate, increase the tax revenue from their lower assessment base, and that defeats the purpose of what you are trying to do here.

Perhaps I have this wrong; perhaps the minister has done a detailed analysis of the school districts. You didn't publish that before you made the bill available to the Legislature, unfortunately.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member. If you would address the Chair you would not invite interruption.

MR. SKELLY: I am sure the minister would agree that it would have been far more helpful in debating this bill if members of the Legislative Assembly had circulated to them beforehand a list showing the impact that this would have on those school districts. I'll give you the examples of School District 70 and School District 69. By how much is the assessment in those two school districts going to be decreased? By how much will they have to raise their local component of the mill rate in order to make up what they will lose as the result of a decreased assessment base? In other words, Mr. Minister, how much of the tax relief that is given to agricultural land reserve is going to be transferred to homeowners and businesses in the Alberni

[ Page 268 ]

Valley and in the Qualicum-Parksville area of School District 69? I'm concerned that the bill is self-defeating because it simply takes the tax burden off the agricultural land assessment and puts it on homeowners and businesses, who are already suffering from high taxes under the Social Credit government and who, in the case of some businesses, are having difficulty surviving with the high level of taxes, costs and other impositions which this government has delivered upon them. I'm sorry that the minister has not made this information public and available to the members of the Legislative Assembly in order to improve the quality of debate. I hope he will make those figures available to us before he continues with the bill.

Has the minister considered the possibility that we could run this legislation in much the same way as we run the homeowner grant legislation, that a school district be allowed to calculate its tax revenue based on a mill rate imposed on 100 percent of the assessment in the ALR and on farmland? Then, subject to the terms of this bill, you would calculate what their tax revenue would be, using the same mill rate imposed on land that has been 50 percent exempted. Then certify the difference, send it to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and have that money refunded to the school district out of general revenues, rather than forcing the school district to make up that additional amount out of increases in taxes on residential property and businesses. That's one of my concerns.

The other concern is that I hate to see the land that is owned outside the province or outside the country taxed on the same basis as land owned by Canadian farmers, Canadian homeowners and Canadian businessmen. Why should we allow this tax credit to non-resident landowners in the province of British Columbia? If some of those changes could be made in the bill, we would find this bill acceptable.

There are other things we would like to see in order to reduce the burden that is put upon people whose job it is to protect farmland for the future. Where a parent wishes to give part of an agricultural land reserve property to a son or daughter or blood relative, right now that is permitted under section 11(4) appeals under the Land Commission Act. Unfortunately it's impossible to get the homeowner grant on the new home that is built on that parcel under section 11(4) of the Land Commission Act. I wouldn't mind seeing the homeowner grant allowed to taxes on that additional home in the agricultural land reserve. It's something the minister should have considered.

I would also like to see some government guarantees or assistance for mortgages for homes that are built where a blood relative is building a home on his parents' property within the agricultural land reserve, allowed by the Land Commission Act, section 11(24). The banking community will not lend money for mortgages to those homes, because they don't have a separate certificate of title against which encumbrances can be registered.

We should have looked at this in a total way, rather than in a piecemeal way. I don't think this Act really resolves the problem for all those people who are in the agricultural reserve and who are protecting that land for future generations of British Columbians.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to re-emphasize some of the points raised by my colleague for Alberni with respect to the overall effect that this legislation will have within given school districts in the province. I would like to see the provincial government reimburse the school districts out of general revenue for any revenue that they would otherwise have received as a result of the changes we are debating here this afternoon.

The minister indicated some time ago, when he made $9 million available to the private schools of the province, that it wouldn't affect the education budget of the province, that it would come out of general revenue. Now whether it did or not, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure, but he indicated to us that there was money for this kind of thing in general revenue. It seems to me that the school districts themselves could be reimbursed for whatever revenue they might lose as a result of the reduction here today in assessment on land which is in the agricultural land reserve.

You know, it's unfair to ask the homeowners of the province to bear an increasing burden of the education tax. Homeowners are going to have to do that as a result of this, Mr. Speaker, if the minister cannot guarantee today that money will be forthcoming out of general revenue to ensure that the tax money coming into school districts will not be reduced. The school districts have no alternative. If there is less money coming from one source, they're going to have to get that money from another source.

Mr. Speaker, we've been aware over the years that the Minister of Education has had no compunction about putting an additional tax burden on homeowners in the province for educational purposes, but I think just for once it would be a gesture of goodwill to the homeowners of the province to assure this House that the lost revenues will in fact be reimbursed out of general revenue to each of those school districts affected. I'm sure some of the school districts will be affected. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned School District 69. School District 71 also has a good deal of agricultural land, as I'm sure your school district does, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that this is a very small consideration that should be given to the homeowners in view of the huge increases that they've had to face as a result of the Minister of Education putting an ever-increasing load on the backs of the homeowners of this province.

In areas like School Districts 69 and 71, there is no huge industrial base. Where there are timberlands, as in the case of School District 71, the revenues were severely affected when the new Assessment Act came into effect, because those timberlands dropped significantly in assessed value. There again, the school board had no alternative but to place that burden onto the homeowner.

But the other issue which the member for Alberni touched upon is one that I've taken a great interest in over the years, and that's the matter of foreign ownership of land in this province. Mr. Speaker, I am almost positive, although the government has certainly not been helpful in this, that there is some land which is now in the agricultural land reserve which will benefit in terms of assessment and taxation as a result of this bill today, and which is owned by absentee foreigners. We don't want to give them the tax advantage that the minister wishes to extend to those people who have land in the agricultural land reserve. I have attempted time and time again to have the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) do some research on the number of absentee foreign owners of land in British Columbia. The Attorney-General has not been able to find one or two staff

[ Page 269 ]

people, or to hire one or two staff people, to do that research.

In 1974 the government accepted an amendment which required that people who are purchasing land in this province state their citizenship. We can find out how much of this land which is now in the agricultural land reserve is actually owned by absentee foreigners. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure if the Minister of Education prevailed upon the Attorney-General, that research could be done and, as a result, we would not be giving this kind of tax advantage to absentee foreigners who own land in this province that's within the agricultural land reserve. In fact, I wish he'd go much further and prevail upon his government to put an end to the sale of land in B.C. to absentee foreigners.

But I know that this government has not been concerned about foreign ownership. All you have to do is look at Cargill and the sale of the bus line. That's been sold to a firm in Seattle. There was no compunction there. We had the Premier make the statement, "B.C. is not for sale " and I'm sure he had the interest of British Columbians at heart when he made that statement. He made that statement in spite of the actions he took. But here, the Minister of Education has a chance to show that the people of British Columbia who have land within the agricultural land reserve can benefit from this particular reduction in assessment. But for heaven's sake, let him stand up in the House and say that he's not going to grant that same privilege to foreigners who live outside of this country but own land which is in that ALR.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would just like to make a comment as Minister of Agriculture.

The bill recognizes two things: one is those properties classed as farms and the other is agricultural land, or the land locked into the agriculture land reserve. It deals with lands; it doesn't deal with improvement. It identifies the lands that are involved, and the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) recognizes that.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) mentioned the interference with assessment rolls and the problems that could occur. The effect, I think, was also mentioned by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) — the negative effect on the other landowners because of this reduction in assessment.

The numbers in most cases, although I haven't looked at these figures regarding the effect on the assessment roll.... If we talk taxation the numbers are not that great. In other words, the effect would be minimal on the rest of the property owners in a school district.

But let me say this: in regard to the farmer, his farm property, his outbuildings, et cetera, are exempt; his residence, the actual building, is assessed for school purposes, and the large land base is assessed and has been up until now for school purposes. So I would suggest to you that the farmer, when you talk about the person going to be affected by taxation changes and the shifting of the taxation, has been carrying quite a load in regard to school tax over the years. So we are now bringing it down to a more equitable situation where we're really looking at a fairer concept for the farm rather than having the farmer, you might say, carry more of the load than he should.

So that is the concept of the bill where you identify.... The farm home, of course, pays the school tax and a share of the agricultural land, but not the total agricultural land. The effect on the assessment roll.... All things would still be assessed at 100 percent and then classified for farm purposes at the 50 percent of assessment.

So it won't be a major administration problem but it does recognize the farm community and the fact that large land bases shouldn't have to support the school operation. If you agree, I suggest that you should have done it some three or four years ago, You know, you talk a lot about it but you never do anything.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were here three years ago.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I said three or four. Now if you want to count days, I'll get to three and three quarters or four.

This does recognize, first of all, the properties in the agricultural land reserve that are non-productive. First of all, you find where a person has property locked in to the land reserve, it's not making any revenues and you compound the problem by assessing him for school purposes. So it cleans that problem up and it also goes further in classifying farm land and making a fairer deal for the agriculturists in this province.

All that I suggest to you — and I'm sure you're aware of it — is that I'm surprised that you'd get up and argue the point when I know the member for Cowichan-Malahat has been stating the fact that we should have a fairer deal for the farmer in regards to property taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill basically goes a long way — and has the support of the agricultural industry in this province — to rectifying an error that's been in place for a long time.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite asked for details with respect to how the assessment base would be shifted. The members agreed that it was appropriate that people who had land locked in the agricultural land reserve should be compensated in terms of taxes but were concerned that the shift would be so great that it was going to throw school budgets out of whack.

When I introduced the bill, I mentioned that the total reduction would only be $150 million. That's against an assessment base of about $13.5 billion that's growing 5 percent to 10 percent a year.

Now if you take individual school districts, the reason why I didn't provide details is because it's so small. As for the specific districts that were asked about, School District 70 will make less than half of 1 percent difference in the assessment base; School District 69, 3 percent; School District 66, a fraction of 1 percent; School District 65, less than 2 percent...

MR. KING: Of their total budget?

HON. MR. McGEER: ...of their assessment base. Of their total budget, it's going to be less than that, Mr. Member, because this principle of equalization means in theory that, for the bulk of school taxes, all of that which is contained in the basic education program is shared by the province as a whole. Therefore the only reason why the local rate base would have a bearing on the taxes of a given school district would be its enrichment over the base.

Interjection.

[ Page 270 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: The member says that it's nonsense, but there is no reason why.... School districts set their own budgets, and therefore they're permitted access to this assessment base, to tax at any level that they wish. All that we do for the province as a whole is to equalize; that's the principle.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I didn't devise the school financing formula. If the members opposite are, dissatisfied with the school financing formula, they had three years in power in which they could have done something about it. Since we've got dissatisfaction, now that they're in opposition, with what they did in government, I think that, when the members of the opposition start criticizing a bill like this and saying that we're tampering with assessment in British Columbia, they should be aware of the fact that this is one thing that this government has not done.

When you people were in power you wouldn't let the assessment base reach full market value; you were afraid of the votes it might cost you. It was this government that allowed fair assessments to be applied. We're the ones who took away tampering. When you were in power you were the ones who were in charge of tampering.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Premier, he brought down a bill and as soon as it was laid down on the floor of the House he whisked it away faster than...it made your eyeballs spin. I tell you that he was in charge of tampering when he was the Premier.

So what happened? We brought in a bill — not this particular one, but one last year — which allowed fair market value to be the assessment base. It took away tinkering with the taxes — and that party accuses us of tampering! The one thing we didn't do was to interfere. And similarly with this bill, it's the essence of fairness. All it does is to reduce by 50 percent — and the members opposite agree with this — the taxes paid by people on their farmland and on land that's locked in the agricultural land reserve.

It's going to be no administrative nightmare, as the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) suggests. It's something which has been discussed in detail by the taxman on my left here and his associates, the land commissioners, and there have been consultations through the land commissioners with the agricultural industry. I can only say that you agree with the principle that there should be consideration; we've applied it in the fairest fashion possible. The impact on any given school district is going to be vanishingly small. Every school district, Madam Member, will have an increase in their assessment base this year far beyond any reduction of the agricultural land reserve part. The assessment base is growing at 5 to 10 percent per year. This is going to reduce the land base by 5 percent maximum, and in most districts by a fraction of 1 percent.

The overwhelming majority of the adjustment that's required is going to be covered by the assessment equalization, the financing formula for schools, whether you agree or disagree with how much provincial revenue is thrown into the pot for total education. There is equalization in the provincial grant as well as the basic levy that takes care of the vast bulk of these expenditures.

I'm pleased that the opposition will support the bill on second reading, Mr. Speaker, but it should be done with the full understanding that this is a bill that's fair and has been given careful thought. If your support is conditional on your subsequent ability to tamper with the bill in committee, please don't support it, because there's no point in undergoing any kind of flip-flop while you're in opposition. Either you are for something or against it; so please support the bill and see it through. If you want to duck out halfway through, why don't you duck out now? I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when this group was faced with an important bill on schools they walked right out of the House. They wouldn't even vote on second reading. If you haven't learned to accept your responsibilities as an opposition, leave now and don't vote on this in second reading, and then come back and be against it on third reading.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I observe that the Leader of the Opposition is far less disruptive when he's in somebody else's chair.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, on this note of tranquillity I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 13 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 13, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to circulate the material he has, on a school-district-by-school-district basis, prior to debate in committee on these sections?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not permissible to table documents in committee.

MR. SKELLY: No, I'm talking about having a recess and circulating the material.

One of the problems that we have in this House, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this is an overly secretive government. They tend to keep all the materials to themselves. One of the reasons this House is considered such a poorly controlled House is the fact that the information that is legitimately available to all members of the House, information that was compiled by public funds and by public officials, is never circulated to the people who own that information — and that's the people of British

[ Page 271 ]

Columbia. If you want effective debate on these issues, if you want informed debate on this issue, then have the decency, if nothing else, to circulate the information, so that all members will be able to debate the issues in an informed way.

My question is: would the minister consider circulating the information he has to other members of the Legislature?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm informed by the surveyor of taxes that the information is not at the present time in a form in which it could be circulated. And with respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would serve any useful purpose, inasmuch as the principle of the bill is well stated, and all of the details flow from the principle, which we've agreed to. Amendments would only interfere with that general principle. But I would be very happy to supply rough figures to the member on any given school district that he is interested in, as we have them here now.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, this is the problem, time after time, with every bill in this House. It is going to be a problem with Bill 11 when it comes up — we have inadequate information to discuss B.C. Hydro.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Which is just as meaningless as everything else you table, Mr. Minister. But to give the Minister of Finance credit, he did circulate, prior to last year's borrowing bill on B.C. Hydro, a document which outlined a number of the issues that were going to be dealt with under that bill, so that the members of the Legislature could study that expenditure document, and at least debate in an informed way what we were talking about in second reading and in principle. It's a shame....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Yes, and I talked to the minister before, and he promised that it would be circulated again, and I thank the minister for that assurance.

But every other minister in the Legislature seems to feel that it is to his political advantage to keep all this information secret in order to skew the debate in this House, in order to score cheap victories in the House. It is unfortunate that he Legislature has to be conducted in that way and that the government of the province has to be conducted in that way.

On section 1.

MRS. WALLACE: In second reading my colleagues and myself have spoken about some of our concerns about this section. One of the concerns that was raised was the certainty of people who are non-resident and non-Canadian benefiting from this piece of legislation. My colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) mentioned that she had been trying to get the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to prepare a list of absentee landowners. When the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture from last session were travelling around the province holding hearings, I recall we met in Fort St. John. At that time we had a brief presented to us which detailed the number of foreign owners who had been purchasing land in the Peace River area. There were owners from Germany, Switzerland and the United States. Great quantities of land were purchased and held in the name of foreign corporations. Much of that land is now in the agricultural land reserve, and those owners will benefit from this legislation as it now stands. For that reason I would like to move the following amendment to be added as subsection (5) under section 1: "This section shall only apply to land owned by Canadian citizens."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. However, for your next amendment it would be an assistance if you could sign it.

On the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh, I'm sorry. I will sign it at a later date.

I think we have made our case, Mr. Chairman. There is no reason that we should give non-resident owners the kind of tax break that this bill will give them. Many of the non-resident owners are corporations; many are holding it for speculation, and many will be successful, I'm sure, in getting that land out of the agricultural land reserve. There is no reason that those corporations which are looking for windfall profits based on the resources of this province — our basic resource, our land resource, our most scarce resource — should be allowed to have a tax break to encourage them to hang on to that land. They should not get into land investment for the pure purpose of speculation, but that's what's happening. That's why we have moved this amendment and are supporting it. I urge the members of that side of the House to think very carefully about this suggested change in the bill. This is a principle to which we could all give our support. It's a principle that deserves the support of both sides of this Legislator, and I urge all members to support the amendment.

HON. MR. McGEER: This is not an amendment that the government can accept at this time. but it's a proposition that can certainly be studied and we could undertake to do that.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McGEER: The Leader of the Opposition groans at the thought of studying anything. It bothers him that people would want to consider something carefully before they leap into legislation. That's a disturbing way for people to approach government. That's the way it was when he was the Premier, as the province learned to its regret.

I think the amendment is something which deserves thought. You must acknowledge, though, that this is something that would have to be considered in terms of federal law, in terms of international tax agreements and in terms of our own innate fairness here in British Columbia. Those people who are investors in our province have come here on the basis of equal treatment, and, surely in fairness, if you wish to discriminate against them in the future, you should give notice before you introduce that discrimination and not in effect make it retroactive. It's offensive to me that people should have the ground rules changed on them after they've come into the province on a good-faith basis. That might not be something which would be shared by the government as a whole or the Legislature, but I think it

[ Page 272 ]

would be irresponsible to act suddenly on something which has national and international implications — quite apart from the inability of the administration of the province to implement such an amendment. These are the very obvious reasons — even to the opposition — why the government couldn't accept an amendment of this kind at this time, though certainly I could give the undertaking on behalf of the government that we would consider the principle very carefully.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am amazed at the minister's logic. He says we can't have any change because these people came in on the basis of something that was already there. What he's proposing is change; he's going to reduce it. What kind of logic is that — that we can't have any change — when he's proposing a change? He's proposing to reduce their taxes, and he says we can't not reduce their taxes because that would be change. I don't understand, your logic, Mr. Minister, I really don't.

I'm surprised that this is a new idea to the minister. This concept is something that has been around for a long time, and now, all of a sudden, he's going to think about it. Well, he should have thought about it when he was drafting this piece of legislation. He should have thought about it then, because it is completely unfair to give this kind of tax relief to non-residents. He should have thought about it before.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the minister says that he wants to study it. We'll give him five minutes, because it takes him longer to figure out than most others. You're reducing taxes, and you are now going to give a reduction in taxes to non-resident Americans, British, Germans, or anyone else who were paying a level of taxes before you brought this bill in. Did you send them a notice telling them: "Folks, we're going to reduce your taxes."? You did not. You stand up here and say: "Oh, this would upset the equilibrium and international tax agreements and everything else, and it would be unfair to let them know." Have you written them a letter that said: "Folks, we're going to cut your taxes."? I bet you haven't.

Then he's opposed to the innate unfairness of it. I've never thought of any other guideline that propelled legislation ahead under Social Credit than the innate unfairness of it.

Mr. Minister, tell us about other agreements that you say exist. What tax agreement do we have with Washington state? What tax agreement do we have with Idaho or California? Tell us about it. You mentioned these international tax laws that we're upsetting. Name one.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: It's not true that he's been sniffing formaldehyde. It's not true, but one wonders where there's a breakdown in the logic when that minister stands up here and tries to tell us it would be unfair to change the taxes for those people. That's exactly what my friend from Cowichan-Malahat is saying. It's unfair. Leave the taxes where they are for the Americans and reduce them only for British Columbians.

Oh, he hadn't thought of it that way. Well, he's trying to say it would be unfair to reduce it for British Columbians and leave the taxes high for the Americans. Now you explain to the taxpayers of British Columbia how you arrive at that conclusion. Only somebody who spends their whole life buried away in the welfare institutions known as universities could come up with that conclusion. He's trying to tell this House that if we're reducing the taxes for British Columbians, they must be equally reduced for Americans as well. Why don't we not even mention to the Americans that a reduction is taking place, and tell them that they pay the same tax they paid last year? Do you think that would offend them?

I think you are the only supporter of Howard Jarvis outside of California. You've gone overboard. You've brought Proposition 13 in for the Americans who own property in British Columbia, tax relief for the Yankees, and are apologizing for not letting them know a change was going to take place before it happened.

The trouble with you, Mr. Minister, when you say you don't want to act without studying, is that you talked without thinking, and now you are caught in your own illogic. The member clearly points out that this is a tax reduction. Why should we give the same tax reduction to non-residents who don't pay any other taxes in British Columbia that we're finally giving to some British Columbia farmers? Tell me that.

What study did you have presented to you that made sure that Americans and other non-Canadians owning land in British Columbia deserve a land-tax reduction? You don't want to do anything hasty. Tell me what study you had done to prove to you that Americans should have their taxes reduced in British Columbia. Would you tell me? Did you have a study done? I won't ask you to nod your head, because it is being supported by your hand, but just a wink of the eye or a twitch of the eyebrow.

It is so embarrassing for this minister. Here is the first piece of legislation I've seen introduced in this House that says to U.S. citizens: "We're going to reduce your taxes without notifying you. You deserve this tax break because we haven't studied it."

Do you know the other thing he said? He said: "We don't want to disturb international tax arrangements."

Then he said: "It wouldn't be fair." Do non-residents have socialized medicine benefits in British Columbia? The minister has said that it would be unfair. Is it not his government that has regulations saying that medicare is not available for non-British Columbians? Is that so? Ask the Minister of Health, but not in question period, because we might get an answer this way.

If you live in California can you have Mincome in British Columbia? The answer is no. Do you pay provincial income tax if you earn your living in California? The answer is no. So what are you giving the Americans a tax break for?

How is my good friend the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) going to go home and announce that the member for North Peace River is saying that there will be a tax reduction not only for British Columbians, but for Americans as well. Can you justify that? I challenge you to go on a platform. Call up the North Peace River News and tell them: "One of the happiest moments I've had since I've been elected is an opportunity to reduce taxes for Americans who own property here in the Peace River country." If you don't tell them, I will. I'm going to get on the phone and tell them how you voted on this amendment. Ed Smith will go around telling them what was the first

[ Page 273 ]

thing you did when you got down here, and if Ed doesn't, we'll remind him to.

Talk about packing a nominating convention. I can see about 100 farmers getting on one truck and getting in there to say: "How come the Yankees got a tax break?"

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has finally figured out how this is going to bother him in Smithers....

MR. KEMPF: Look after your own farm and I'll look after mine. Don't give me "Smithers." You'll have to talk to the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard.)

MR. BARRETT: Even the people in Houston can make mistakes; look at the results.

What we are now going to see the government vote on is an unpronounced, unnotified tax reduction for American citizens who own property in British Columbia. Did they once campaign in the election saying: "Vote Social Credit, and we will reduce land taxes for American citizens."? Did anyone hear them make that promise in the campaign?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: All right, so you didn't make that promise in the campaign. As soon as you vote against this amendment, I will tell the people of British Columbia that one of your driving interests was to reduce taxes for American citizens who own land in British Columbia.

MR. BRUMMET: They don't believe a lot of it.

MR. BARRETT: If I was a Yankee, I'd sure believe a lot of it when I saw my tax notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought you were. You got educated there, didn't you?

MR. BARRETT: Certainly I was educated there. That's why I was able to figure this out faster than the minister did. I know when the Yankees are getting the benefit. I got educated there. You're absolutely right. If I were a Yankee I'd be happier than heck.

My good friend, the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), do you know what they're doing here?

MR. MACDONALD: I do.

MR. BARRETT: You know what they're doing here. They're saying to every Yankee who owns farmland in British Columbia: "We're reducing your taxes. We're doing it without even giving you the courtesy of (a) a study, or (b) notice to you. We hope you're not upset that we're reducing the taxes for you, but please don't tell British Columbians that they're getting the same break."

AN HON. MEMBER: B.C. for sale.

MR. BARRETT: B.C. for sale, and when you buy it, we guarantee to reduce your taxes as well. Boy, oh, boy, Dr. Pat, you were more logical when you were a Liberal. You've been a victim of your own analysis of Social Credit. You've been reading Politics in Paradise backwards; that's why you came up with this argument.

You get up there, wave your arms and tell us we're going to offend international tax notices. In this bill you're reducing taxes for Americans. You haven't given one good reason why non-Canadians, non-British Columbians, should be getting an overnight tax reduction of 50 percent. Tell us why they deserve that break, Mr. Minister.

Interjections.

MR. HYNDMAN: I think it's an important point that's been made by the minister this afternoon. I congratulate him for undertaking to look at this question, but it does not have the neat and simplistic solution some people would suggest.

I wonder if the minister in the course of his study would consider these factors. The topic seems to be the wisdom of providing a discriminatory tax policy vis-a-vis foreigners in British Columbia. I'd appreciate the minister, as he studies this, indicating in time how many working people in British Columbia, for example, own mobile home pads in Washington State; how many working people in British Columbia own recreational property in Washington State. I hope the minister also will consider that, as he knows, our forest industry is our largest employer in British Columbia. A number of our Canadian, British Columbia forestry firms have operations in other countries. I'd appreciate him considering the impact on British Columbia jobs if there should be retaliation in other jurisdictions.

I'd appreciate if the minister also would look at the province of Saskatchewan and indicate there, Mr. Chairman, how the government of the province of Saskatchewan has looked at this difficult problem.

Mr. Chairman, let the record simply show that I think a number of members in this House. on both sides, have a sincere concern about the question of foreign ownership. It is not one admitting of simplistic solutions. I think it will be interesting, Mr. Minister, when you have done that important research to let us know how many working British Columbians who own a little piece of property across the line would be affected by property tax discrimination, what the impact would be on British Columbia jobs if there were a foreign policy of commercial property tax discrimination against B.C. firms operating outside the country. It's an important question, Mr. Chairman. It's one not to be laughed at, and I congratulate the minister for undertaking to look at it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I wasn’t going to speak on this. However, I do feel compelled just to say a few words because it is in the Peace River area where a lot of investment has taken place in agricultural land.

Of course, the NDP brought in a policy when they were government which guaranteed an income to the farmers, a good policy. We've taken it from being a contract where there was instability in the agricultural industry to bringing it as a policy of government the same as MSA and the rest of the policies that are here.

MS. BROWN: MSA?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Health insurance, whatever you want to call it. It's now a policy of government, instigated

[ Page 274 ]

and made a firm policy of government by the Social Credit government because of the economic development, of course, that is taking place in the province. And with a sound economy we can make it a policy because there'll be the taxes to pay for that great insurance policy for our agricultural community. So that's why there is stability now.

But we have emanating from the benches of the opposition this afternoon a typical ploy on the part of the socialist benches over there to take a very simplistic view of a very complex problem. You know, when they were government — this is typical of them — they bring it in and never take an overall view of what the side effects will be. We used to call it, when they were there, government by bombshell. That's exactly what they're trying to bring in this afternoon, an amendment by bombshell. Never study the effects. We have the Leader of the Opposition, and I'm glad you're back in the House, because I want to tell you that you're best when you're the comedian, making fun of a very, very serious matter that affects the lives not only of the agricultural community, but of everybody in British Columbia. I'll tell you, you want to do a little study on the effects of land and businesses that Canadians own in the United States.

There's, the man over there who while he was the leader of the government drove hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment out of this province into the states of Washington, Oregon and California, and now he wants us to discriminate against them.

Looking at the effects and reducing or not reducing a particular tax for all people who are involved in paying that tax at one time is tantamount to the Americans raising tax on land owned by Canadians.

MR. KING: Are you going to discriminate against them on BCRIC shares?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking about BCRIC shares. I'm talking about....

You know, you fellows are right where you belong and where I used to think you were good, in opposition. But you're not even good opposition these days. You're taking the same simplistic view of this legislation you took on the legislation you introduced when you were government; very narrow-minded; never worry about all the implications of how it will affect the total package, of how it will affect Canada.

I'll talk about the Petroleum Corporation. You built up a bureaucracy that cost the citizens of this province millions and millions and millions of dollars.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The minister may wish to talk about the Petroleum Corporation, but the Chair does not wish to entertain discussion on the Petroleum Corporation. We're on an amendment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When they brought in farm income assurance, did they discriminate about companies? Did you discriminate against companies that were owned by foreign investors in the farm income assurance? Did you say they weren't going to get it? No, absolutely not; you didn't. You gave it to everybody that was producing up to a certain limit whether that farm was owned by foreign investors or by Canadians. You certainly did and now you stand up all quiet and say: "Oh, we're giving a tax break to the Americans."

You give tax breaks to many, many companies and many farms in this province that were owned by foreign investors. When you brought in your income assurance you didn't discriminate against foreign-owned farm corporations; absolutely not. But you stand up this afternoon and, oh, you wax and you laugh you make big fun and you're going to do this and you're going to do that. I'll tell you, the people understand you; that's why you're over there, my friend, and that's why we're here. That's why you're going to stay over there, and that's why we're going to stay here. Government is a very serious matter. Yes, I know you didn't realize it when you were government, but it's a very serious matter. You can't take a tunnel view on a very serious matter like this without thinking about all the implications.

I'll tell you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, I enjoy you standing up here and I enjoy the clown act, but I'll tell you this is very serious business. Yes, I know he does very well. I told him years ago he should be in Hollywood. He'd be better in Hollywood than he is here; he'd get paid for it.

People seem to forget, Mr. Chairman, that many, many farmers went to the Peace River area. They came there from Saskatchewan, when the NDP drove them out of Saskatchewan, and tilled the soil and put the blood and sweat into developing agricultural land. They did it so that someday they could sell it and retire. Discrimination of this kind without careful thought as to how this is going to be implemented is really in essence working against the pioneers who built up the Peace River country, my friend.

And you, who have such a great heart for everybody, seem to forget that, don't you? You tried to break it once, and now you're trying to do the same thing again.

MR. BARRETT: In Los Angeles?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: What are you talking about, "Los Angeles"? I know you've got your mind on Los Angeles because you want to be that close to Hollywood, and that's where you should be. But I fail to see how the word Los Angeles relates to my speech. You know, I have never seen such a happy group; they're happy to be in opposition because they don't have the responsibilities of government. I've never seen them so happy. They were afraid they were going to win this election.

MR. BARRETT: So were you.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, as a matter of fact, so were all British Columbians.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please relate this to the amendment?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There are a great deal of implications with regard to the foreign ownership of farmland. We have to take a look at it, but we have to do a general study and determine what is going to happen and what all the implications will be, not for all Canadians. No, we're not going to pull the bill at all. We're not going to break promises as you used to do to people — make promises and then break them. I'll tell you, we can reduce taxes on farmland. Because of the economy of this

[ Page 275 ]

province, now that it's rolling again that we're government, we can pay for it. That's why we can reduce taxes on farmland. We've got a strong and growing economy, and investment is coming back to this province instead of leaving as it was when you were over here. That's how we can reduce taxes on farmland. And that's how we can give added services to people, because we have a strong and growing economy; and investments are coming into this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members who wish to make comments from the floor, please ensure that they're sitting in their chairs.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Finance, what the Leader of the Opposition or the member for Cowichan-Malahat is proposing here is similar to when you reduce the sales tax — that you reduce it only for British Columbians and only for Canadians, and if Americans come in here you leave it at 7 percent. It's the same identical situation. If you have a company in here doing business, when they go to buy something they should pay the 7 percent sales tax and not have it reduced to 5 percent. That group over there who talk equality are really the most discriminatory group we've ever seen in British Columbia or Canada. You try and create discrimination. We'll take a look, we'll do our study, and when the time comes we'll make the decision. But we're not going to accept an amendment like this which is, as I say, legislation by bombshell, which you're experts at.

I should say before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, that that's the group over there that doesn't want anybody to own land in British Columbia. The member who's going to stand up over there is one of the proponents of having the state own all the land. The state will pay all the taxes so there will be no taxes; we will be serfs in our own province. Well, this government doesn't believe in it, and we will try and reduce taxes for everybody in British Columbia — not only the farmers and homeowners — and we'll do it through a sound economy based on private enterprise and individual enterprise, not through serfdom.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps, hon. members, the debate would be a little better if it was directed at the Chair rather than, as in recent minutes....

AN HON. MEMBER: Through the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Through the Chair would probably more appropriate, or over the Chair, as the case may be. [Laughter.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy my good friend from the Peace River country, who gets the minister in more trouble than he needs to be in. For example, take the comment he made about sales tax. If someone comes in from a visiting country and buys, he pays the sales tax; quite right. Now explain to me about the homeowner grant. If an American owns a home and he lives in Los Angeles and he rents it out here, he owns the home but he can't apply for the homeowner grant. You're discriminating against that American citizen and his investment here in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's based on residence.

MR. BARRETT: Based on residence! Thank you very much.

Now what we're saying is that time-studied principle, established by Social Credit, thoroughly studied beyond politics, says that you can have this program based on residence. Today we're going to reduce taxes, and I say take the same standard, thoroughly studied under the homeowner grant, and say: "If you're a farmer living here in British Columbia, you'll get this tax reduction, and if you don't live in British Columbia, you don't get the tax reduction."

It was they, Mr. Chairman, who rudely interrupted me to explain that the homeowner grant is based on residence. Shocked as I was by that interruption, I accept their logic and say if the residence regulations for a homeowner grant are good enough for non-resident property owners in terms of housing, then the same regulations should apply to non-resident farmland holders. There is no reason why we should give foreign farmland owners tax reductions at this rate of over 50 percent. You may laugh, my good friend from Peace River, but you go up north and you explain to the people why the homeowner grant says there must be a residence clause, but a manner doesn't get the same protection, and an American who owns land will have a tax reduction under this legislation.

MR. BRUMMET: Give us a hand; we couldn't do it nearly as well.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, give us a hand. Well, a lot of Americans own property in the Peace River area. Is that not correct? A lot of Americans have been farming almost on an absentee-owner basis. Is that not correct? If you own a home and you don't live in it and you're an American, you don't get the benefit of the homeowner grant. That was pointed out to me by your side of the House. And if that residence qualification has been studied, has been examined, is not bombshell legislation, has worked for years under both Social Credit and NDP, then you tell me why in the world, if the non-resident exemption for homes can apply, it can't apply to farmland as well, and you explain to me why American owners of farmland are being given a tax reduction here today. What have they done for you lately? Is it campaign funds? What do you owe them?

The whole argument in this debate was started by the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr, McGeer), who glibly fobbed off the amendment brought in by my colleague for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). He said it would have a terrible impact on international tax agreements. He didn't name one — or three.

We're not asking for an increase in taxes; we're asking for the Americans to pay the same level of taxes they paid up until today. This amendment says that British Columbians and Canadians should receive a tax reduction, and it's about time somebody got some benefit out of Social Credit, considering the way you shove taxes on the ordinary people of this province.

Why in the world are we giving American citizens a tax reduction on the same basis? The residence restrictions on the homeowner grant can be applied for the use of farmland as well.

Interjection.

[ Page 276 ]

MR. BARRETT: Never mind all your fancy excuses, Mr. Member; you're just getting him in more trouble, and he's got enough of his own. Just because he came from the Liberals, you don't have to make his life miserable. You stay out of this; you've caused enough trouble today.

Mr. Chairman, we ask the minister to answer this question: why should the Americans get a tax break on farmland that they do not get on homes that they may be renting out in British Columbia?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I just want to be very brief and point out to the House that the Leader of the Opposition still doesn't know the difference between a residence and a business. I want to tell you that agriculture is a business, farming is a business, and there is a big difference between running a business and owning a home. But unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand it. I can understand that, because there are a lot of things that he doesn't recognize that are realities in this world.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair did not see which of the two members rose first. Have you an agreement between the two of you as to who might proceed? Page 399 of the eighteenth edition of May would be the appropriate....

MS. SANFORD: I thank the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) for deferring. I think he was on his feet first, Mr. Chairman. I have to admit that.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), as well as the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), indicated this was a complex issue and that it needed further study. There is nothing complex about it at all. We do not want to give absentee foreign owners of land in British Columbia special tax advantages. It's very simple. There is no need for that; there is no justification for it. I was wondering why the Minister of Education, Science and Technology did not respond to the questions that were asked in second reading on this issue. Now it's quite clear: he was hoping the issue would go away, because he has no intention of accepting this amendment, according to his statements.

That is ridiculous. Why should we, as British Columbians, give special advantage to absentee foreign owners of land in this province? There is no need for that. There is no justification for it, and I don't know how anyone in this province can justify a move such as that. What they're doing, Mr. Chairman, by not accepting this amendment, is ensuring that the province of British Columbia will be sold out to foreigners. When they hear about the special tax concessions that are being granted to them, they will flock in here to buy all of the land that is in the agricultural land reserve. Wouldn't you, if you had money to invest and you knew that you were going to get all these tax advantages? After all, a lot of the investment that is here already is because the people hope to make a buck on it. If they can save money on taxes in the process, they will swarm here. I think this government is not concerned about the sell-out of B.C.

The other thing that they've talked about relates to tax concessions and businesses. For years and years the federal government has granted tax concessions to businesses. Look at Inco. They gave them tax deferrals; they gave them interest-free loans. They kept deferring the time in which they would have to spend any money in order, I to improve the pollution equipment on their plant. The tax deferrals that have been given to companies by the federal government over the years have been phenomenal. What have we got in return? We got a company like Inco that takes that interest-free money — money that should be paid in taxes to the government of Canada — and invests it in other parts of the world, and they lay off 3,200 people in the process.

Mr. Chairman, this relates specifically to what we're talking about: tax deferrals to absentee foreign landowners and, as the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) pointed out, to businesses that are held by absentee foreigners.

We know what happens when you give these kinds of tax deferrals. The problem is not complex, and for the member for Vancouver South to try to point out to us what is happening with British Columbians buying land elsewhere is completely irrelevant. We're talking about B.C. land; we're talking about B.C. taxes and we're talking about the fact that this government is encouraging the se out of land which is in the agricultural land reserve. We're talking about special arrangements for absentee foreign landowners.

Mr. Chairman, we can't support it.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, first of all we had to listen to the illogic of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when he introduced this piece of legislation. He said that it would be unfair to retroactively let people know something that they were doing now. But they didn't have any problem doing that when they wanted to bring in a little bit of tax relief for their own members who paid for a Social Credit campaign. Are these not the same kind of principles being put forward under both of these pieces of legislation?

The opening statement by the minister was so illogical, Mr. Chairman, that I'm afraid what you're looking at is Alfred E. Neumann grown up. That's what you're looking at. It's absolutely mad, this thing.

Now what do we have down here in the corner, Mr. Chairman? We have the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), and he has good reason to speak during this debate, because it's not the first time that you Social Crediters spoke about this. You talked about it in a convention at the Vancouver Hotel, I think it was. Social Credit actually had a resolution in front of their convention asking that the Social Credit Party adopt as part of their policy an impediment to selling out our land to foreigners, in order to keep the land registered in the name of Canadians. Guess what happened to that resolution? It was defeated by the Social Credit Party, and that's why they can't accept this amendment, because they'd have to go back and face the party. It's their party that's against it, and this government and that party are opposed to stopping the foreign takeover of our land. That's what they're opposed to, and they did it at their convention.

Every once in a while as we go along on these debates, the second member for Vancouver South gets up and gives us a bit of.... What is it?

MR. BARRETT: Tory logic.

[ Page 277 ]

MR. LEA: No, it's not. Well, is he a Tory now?

MR. BARRETT: No, he used to be a Tory.

MR. LEA: Was that when he was the president of the Social Credit Party?

MR. BARRETT: No, he's the Liberal, and that's the Tory. Don't get it mixed up.

MR. LEA: Every once in a while he thinks that he should lecture us. Every once in a while he thinks he should bring just a hint of sanity into the chamber. Every once in a while he thinks he should remind us that we not only have an obligation here, but a much larger obligation to the chamber of commerce, the investors from New York, the investors from Singapore, and the investors all over the world. That member wants to remind us that, for gosh sake, we should use common sense when dealing with these problems. He's not only lecturing us; you're in for it too. You probably get it in caucus; now you're going to get it here. You know, he couldn't get through one speech without making another bid to the minister who's going to hand out portfolios, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. He couldn't resist it.

But the real problem that we're facing here is a government that belongs to a political party that is absolutely for foreign ownership of land in this province. They voted for that in their convention. Let's hope that a few more members of the Social Credit Party get some common sense, put the resolution on the floor at their next convention, and let them have another go at it so that we can bring in an amendment like this that means something to Canadians, that means something to British Columbians, that that government can accept without having to go whining back to their party to get approval. That's what they're doing.

Or maybe, Mr. Chairman, it would be different if the Premier were here. But the Premier is in Ottawa having intellectual musings with Prime Minister Joe Clark. They're discussing their favourite authors, be it Plato, Socrates and Mickey Spillane, and musing whether they're going to take their holidays in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem and worrying about the affairs of state.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please relate it to the amendment.

MR. LEA: This is to the amendment. The Prime Minister says he can't use the swimming pool because his head sinks; he does some of his best thinking when he's swimming. Maybe the Premier is going to come back to this province with some brand new ideas on how he can really get you guys going to accept some amendment, because the Prime Minister says he's going to — he says it's going to be a new dawn of cooperation. But, Mr. Chairman, that's what they said when they almost lost the election. They said they were going to cooperate; they said they were going to be a new kind of government, that they were going to listen to the opposition. But I guess that's what they mean: they'd listen, but they wouldn't accept any constructive criticism whatsoever, because they're too small to do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BRUMMET: When it gets constructive we will.

MR. LEA: "When it gets constructive," says the body transplant to the old brain from North Peace.

Mr. Chairman, the government cannot accept this amendment, because they are the slaves to a political party that has said: "We don't care who owns British Columbia; a buck is a buck is a buck."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

Mrs. Wallace requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, if I might just make one observation, I understand the lady member has some amendments. They don't appear to be on the order paper, and I think it would be much more convenient for all members of the House if we could take what has been the historic route. There have always been amendments moved in committee, not necessarily upon the order paper; but if they are ready and prepared, I think it would be a convenience to all members.

MR. KING: I appreciate the House Leader's comments, Mr. Speaker. I would also appreciate if he might reciprocate and notify the House what the order of business will be tomorrow.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would inform the hon. House Leader that the order of business will proceed with this bill, and then we will proceed with bill number 11, B.C. Hydro. It has been the practice, and will continue to be the practice as much as possible, to inform hon. members. through the Whips, of the House business in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.