[ Page 2789 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 2789

Ministerial travel. Mr. Lea –– 2790

Forestry waste assessment. Mr. Lea –– 2790

Ministerial travel. Mr. Skelly –– 2790

Beautiful British Columbia magazine. Mr. Cocke –– 2790

Rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 2790

Ministerial travel. Hon. Mr. Waterland replies –– 2791

Hospital funding. Mrs. Dailly –– 2791

Programs for women. Ms. Brown –– 2791

Public Sector Restraint Act (Bill 3). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Municipal Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 9). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Report.

Third reading –– 2792

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 14). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 15). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 26). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 28). Report.

Third reading –– 2793

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 35). Committee stage, (Hon. Mr. Smith)

On section 5 –– 2793

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mrs. Dailly

On section 8 –– 2794

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Rose

On section 9 –– 2796

Ms. Brown

On section 10 –– 2797

Ms. Brown

On Section I –– 2797

Ms. Brown

On section 12 –– 2798

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

On section 13 –– 2799

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

On section 14 –– 2799

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

On section 25 –– 2800

Mrs. Wallace

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Ms. Brown

On section 14 –– 2802

Hon. Mr. Heinrich

Mr. Rose

On section 28 –– 2802

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

On section 29 –– 2805

Ms. Brown

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

On section 30 –– 2805

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

On section 33 –– 2805

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Barnes

On section 48 –– 2805

Mr. Blencoe

Hon. Mr. Ritchie

Hon. Mr. Brummet

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 1983

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, there are four outstanding civic legislators in the members' gallery today, from the constituency of Kamloops. I would like the House to welcome His Worship Mayor Mike Latta and aldermen Kenna Cartwright, Patricia Wallace and Dr. Tony Milobar.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, Eileen Bevan of the Hansard staff would like the House to welcome two special friends who are in the Speaker's gallery today: Mr. and Mrs. Leland Dollar from Durban, South Africa.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Visiting us in the House today we have two very fine constituents of mine from Powell River: Mr. and Mrs. Axel Nord. I would like the House to join with me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is Mr. Dick Canney from the city of Toronto. He is a special projects officer with the Ontario government. I would ask the House to bid him welcome to beautiful B.C.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Visiting Victoria today is my assistant from Prince George, Marilyn Hinton, who is very active with the party and assists me in my ministry. I would like the House to bid her welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are a number of students from the Avalon alternate secondary school in the company of Mr. Ames. I ask all members to bid them a cordial welcome.

MR. STRACHAN: In the gallery today from Prince George South are Gordon and Patricia Pickering. Would the House please welcome these constituents of mine.

Oral Questions

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Tourism. Will the minister advise whether the government ordered B.C. Hydro to confer a benefit valued at about $200,000 to officials of Mainland Magazine to circulate promotional material regarding the sale of Beautiful British Columbia magazine subscriptions to all B.C. Hydro customers?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is no.

MR. COCKE: Interesting. Will the minister advise whether the government undertook free mailing of Beautiful British Columbia magazine promotional material as part of the terms of sale?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, again, the answer to the question is no. I would like to elaborate a little. I am pleased that the member has asked the question, because it does give a chance to clear the air and say exactly what happened.

The Hydro promotion of mailing out subscription renewals is a long-standing tradition between the magazine and Hydro. The agreement to do this was an agreement reached between the purchaser and B.C. Hydro. It was done to assist in the transition of the magazine from the public to the private sector, and it was done on the proviso that there would be absolutely no additional cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia. Any additional costs were to be borne by the magazine.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point out that there was no condition of this arrangement in the agreement for sale. It was only an undertaking that it would be requested of Hydro by the purchaser and that Beautiful British Columbia magazine would make such a request. The decision was made by B.C. Hydro.

MR. COCKE: Very interesting. When a government appointed board have a request made by a government, I would gather that the answer would be in the affirmative.

Mr. Speaker, why were the other prospective buyers not given this opportunity?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I would like to point out that the request was not made by government. Secondly, all the other applicants to purchase Beautiful British Columbia magazine had that in their submission, including, I might add, Maclean-Hunter, the vice-president of which phoned me this morning to apologize profusely for statements made by one of his staff. In fact — to clear up the matter, since there has been some doubt cast by the member — clause 9 of their submission asks that government agree to this mail-out from Hydro for five years. Mr. Armstead assures me that Hydro would have agreed to the same conditions if they had been the successful purchaser.

MR. COCKE: It sounds pretty profound to me. But in any event, the minister previously took on notice the question of why the government has also mailed out at its own expense subscription renewal notices to all Beautiful British Columbia magazine subscribers. Will the minister explain why this action was taken and whether other interested parties were advised that the government would provide this service?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Yes, I will. I am glad that the member has re-asked his question of October 6, because I have the answer to the question I took as notice. In his question the member made an assumption that the cost of sending out the renewals was being borne by the taxpayers, and I would like to point out that once again the member is totally wrong. The cost of the renewals mailed out by Beautiful British Columbia is being borne by the new publisher-owner by prior agreement.

[ Page 2790 ]

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. It is a time, the government informs us, of government restraint, and normally the expenses that a minister would incur this year would not come up for public scrutiny in public accounts until the following year. But because I know that the government is very interested in showing the public of the province that they're putting their money where their mouth is, or not putting as much money where their mouth is — I wonder if the minister has decided, so that people can see this government as practising what they preach, to make the expenses of his trip to Europe public in the Legislature at this time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would suggest that my estimates will be on the floor of the Legislature within the next several months, and that my hon. critic, the member for Prince Rupert, will have during that time the opportunity to question me about anything to do with my department that he wishes. But I want to tell the member for Prince Rupert that I'm glad this government has undertaken an overseas merchandising trip, and I'll be quite happy to discuss that whole program during my estimates.

MR. LEA: I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that anyone on this side is saying that ministers, even in bad times, don't have to travel. What we're asking is: did the minister direct his staff to put him up in hotels or accommodation on this trip that may not be as expensive as on previous trips? We'd like to see that tabled in the Legislature. Did he stay in the best hotels, as he usually does, or did he ask his staff when making his arrangements to put him into places that were clean and reasonable?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd be most happy to inform the member for Prince Rupert that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development always stays in clean and reasonably priced hotels, even when I travel to Prince Rupert,

[2:15]

FORESTRY WASTE ASSESSMENT

MR. LEA: A while ago, in question period, the Minister of Forests took an endeavour that when he received from Macmillan Bloedel the waste assessment sheets coming in he would make them available in the Legislature. I wonder whether the minister has those sheets now and whether he will make them available.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The waste assessment sheets would be received from the ministry, not Macmillan Bloedel. As a matter of fact — I think it was last week — I sent another note over to the ministry asking where they were, and as soon as they arrive I will be more than happy to share them with the member for Prince Rupert.

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL

MR. SKELLY: Has the Minister of Forests obtained Treasury Board authorization for ministerial travel to China at public expense?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I certainly know that the request for travel has gone to the Minister of Finance, and as I go through my mail here today I will probably find the approval from that minister. As soon as I do I'll be very happy to interrupt proceedings and so advise the member.

MR. SKELLY: Can the minister advise what amount he requested from Treasury Board for that travel?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We requested sufficient funds to do the business which we have to do in China, and I'm sure that our request was not for any more than the absolute minimum required to do it in a very frugal manner, as is my normal custom, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Forests, in his response, said he was expecting the approval would be on his desk. I would ask the minister if it is not the policy that they must get prior approval that is the understanding I have from the auditor general before travelling outside of the country.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, if I don't have that approval on my desk before 11:00 o'clock tomorrow, I assure the member I won't go to China.

BEAUTIFUL BRITISH COLUMBIA MAGAZINE

MR. COCKE: I had another question for the Minister of Tourism but I'll ask him this: would the Minister of Tourism care to contemplate tabling the agreement with Mainland Magazine?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: The answer is yes.

MR. COCKE: When?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: In due course, Mr. Speaker.

RENT CONTROLS

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a series of questions for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will the minister advise what investigation, if any, he has conducted into major rent hikes which have been inflicted upon tenants since the government abolished rent control by order-in-council in conjunction with the July budget?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have not instituted any major investigation into major rent hikes, if there in fact have been a number of them. I am aware of a number of examples that were brought to me, some showing substantial increases and of course some showing reductions in rents, or level rents, over the past year or 18 months. But I think the member is aware, Mr. Speaker, that where there is an increase of 15 percent on those rents that are still under $500, they have the opportunity to have the rent reviewed during the next year, up till October 1984.

MR. BLENCOE: This is not a question, but is the minister aware that many tenants are very afraid of going to the rentalsman for review because of the eviction without cause which is going to come in with Bill 5? I think that is something you should take into consideration when you're advising tenants to appeal, because they are very scared to do that.

[ Page 2791 ]

A supplementary question: has the minister decided to investigate a rent increase of 112 percent at 115 Haro Street, Vancouver, British Columbia?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member has identified an example. If he would send the information to my office, I'd be quite pleased to investigate it and report back to him.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister, I am not about to do your job. These applications are all on file in Vancouver....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The second member for Victoria repeatedly abuses the privileges of question period I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks in question period to questions.

MR. BLENCOE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake to investigate a 60 percent increase at 809 Denman Street in Vancouver following the cabinet decision to lift rent controls?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, what really disturbs me in this House is that that second member for Victoria has never come to my office to raise the issue of concern regarding....

MR. BLENCOE: You're the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, questions and answers are what this period is for. Debate is for another forum in this House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, then can I say to you that I would hope that the member opposite or the MLA from the area concerned would go to my ministry offices, where we have people employed to deal with this type of issue, and give them that information. If they do give them that information, I am confident that my staff will carry out an investigation. I also extend to the members opposite that if they wish to come to my office with any particular item of concern, I will be pleased to investigate it forthwith.

MR. BLENCOE: That information is on file in the office of the rentalsman, which you are the minister for. On a supplementary....

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Forests.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I don't know if the member thinks he is a ventriloquist or what, Mr. Speaker....

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member indicates a supplementary question.

MR. BLENCOE: Has the minister decided to investigate a 48 percent increase in rent imposed on the occupants of 1345 West 13th Street in Vancouver?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a supplementary. That is a new question, The Chair had taken the Minister of Forests' place in order that the member be afforded a supplementary.

MINISTERIAL TRAVEL

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a followup to the question just asked me by the member for Alberni, as soon as they heard this question my staff. being the normal, efficient staff they are, sent down the approved travel authorization form to me. It happens to have been dated October 6, so it is in hand long before my departure on the trip. The amount requested for the trip was $4,150.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health. The B.C. Hospitals Association alleges that the 3.9 percent increase in this year's budget does not provide enough money to finance current operations. Has the minister decided to review this information, and has he decided to reconsider an adjustment in this year's grant levels?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know to whom they have made that allegation. I don't know whether the member suggests they have advised my ministry of this or they are talking among themselves. I would have to know who has made that statement and to whom.

MRS. DAILLY: In the interest in assisting the minister in answering the question, the president of the B.C. Hospitals Association has stated that hospitals have not been allocated enough money to finance current pay levels let alone consider a 3 percent increase next year and a 1 percent increase after that. Will the minister comment on that statement?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if perhaps we could trouble the Clerk to ring the bell to end question period, which actually ended about two minutes ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour and has to do with a memo which went out under the signature of the deputy minister. The minister issued a news release on July 19 stating that women's programs were never considered a direct order for cost-cutting measures. Can he advise why his deputy minister responsible for women's programs is now writing government officials to determine which government cutbacks affect women?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2792 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC SECTOR RESTRAINT ACT

Bill 3 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 18

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

[2:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 6 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 18

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 9 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 11 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 18

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

[ Page 2793 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE (COLOURED)
TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1963

Bill 14 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 15 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 17

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 26, Mr. Speaker.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT,
1983

Bill 26 read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 17

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

[2:45]

MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

PROVINCIAL TREASURY FINANCING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Bill 28 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 35, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 5.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, it may be of assistance to the committee with respect to section 5, which redefines "chiropractic," that the previous definition of "chiropractic" under our act restricted the area of involvement by a chiropractor to that of the spinal column. The new definition permits the chiropractic adjustments to take into consideration articulations of the human body other than specifically the spinal column. The new definition is in line with the definitions allowed for "chiropractic" in other jurisdictions in North America and it permits chiropractors in British Columbia to perform similarly to their fellow chiropractors elsewhere.

MRS. DAILLY: We had that explanation from the minister who was in charge of this bill when the Minister of Health was away; we appreciate the further explanation on that. At the time we were debating this we did expand outside of this particular amendment to ask a question of the minister in charge at that time — I can't remember which minister. Anyway, he did say he would discuss it with the Minister of Health. Our question was: seeing you have expanded this area with the chiropractors, could the minister comment on the possibility of allowing x-rays to be used by the chiropractors? I know the minister is well aware of the problem. I'm sure he has had chiropractors appeal to him about it. Our concern is primarily the extra cost to the patient and to medicare, which has to be charged with the cost of paying for another x-ray. Could the minister comment on that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the question of x-rays for chiropractors and others has been an ongoing argument or discussion between the two associations for some

[ Page 2794 ]

time. We have not made any modification to it. This amendment, of course, doesn't have any effect on that. It is not a simple problem, depending on which camp you listen to, because there are some very strong disagreements with respect to the use of x-rays. The Medical Services Plan at the moment does not cover x-rays as offered by the chiropractor, as it is not part of the overall program. We have not yet resolved the disagreement between the Chiropractic Association and the BCMA or the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

So we really have nothing new with respect to x-rays. We are still endeavouring to find some middle ground.

Sections 5 to 7 inclusive approved,

On section 8.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I have some real concerns about this section. This section is the one that deals with the disposal of documents, and it does a couple of things. One which I have no objection to is that it expands the definition of a document. That's in subsection (a). What happens is that now a document becomes books, documents, maps, drawings, photographs, letters, vouchers, papers and any other thing on which information is recorded or stored by any means, whether graphic, electronic, mechanical or otherwise. That's fine. If they want to expand the definition of a document to include these other things, I don't really see anything wrong with it. But the section goes on to introduce a new concept of "records schedule." It says that when a document is first introduced.... It's stated right at the beginning that we're going to be told how long that document is going to remain active, at what point in time it is going to become dormant and when it is going to be legal to destroy it.

I fail to understand why we need this amendment, because presently under the act we have a section which says that documents remain alive and well for seven years. After that a decision is made as to whether to dispose of them or not. This amendment means that, for example, vouchers which are used by cabinet ministers to go to Broadway shows or whatever can, when they are introduced, have a time-span built into them that will say, "This voucher is only going to remain active for six months, then it is going to become dormant and then it should be destroyed," rather than have that voucher available for the legislative committee on public accounts to look at for up to seven years.

So I am opposed to this, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce an amendment to section 8(b).

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, you need two copies? I only have one. I can write another one quickly for you. Did you find it? Okay.

The amendment is to delete subsections (a) and (b). Those are the additions which would describe a document's lifespan from the date on which it was created until its final disposition. It means that we would go back to the lifespan which is outlined in the existing legislation under the Document Disposal Act, chapter 95.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, it would seem that the amendment takes us back mostly to the earlier legislation. You may want to consider whether it's in order or not. If you rule that it is in order, I will respond a little more fully to the member's concerns.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee appreciates the fact that it's a negation, but not a total negation. I would like to see the amendment first. We'll allow debate on it.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, based on previous rulings, I was very careful not to negate the whole section because I realize that that would be out of order.

As I said, I want to expand.... We have legislation which already says that documents can be destroyed when they are deemed not to be of sufficient public value to justify their preservation, and an officer in charge of having custody of the document, blah, blah, blah, etc., so forth and so on. But now we have a new concept being introduced; that is, that the government is going to specify when a document is introduced exactly what the lifespan of that document is going to be. For example, there's absolutely nothing to prevent a government deciding that the lifespan of every document introduced during its term of office comes to an end and should be destroyed once that government's term of office comes to an end. It's another centralizing kind of thing which the government is doing. In addition to that, it really is impairing our access to information. It is interfering with the opposition's and the public's right to know what's going on inside these documents.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you that the definition of the document was expanded to include everything. It's not just the old definition of books, maps, schedules and those kinds of things. It has now expanded to include anything that is graphic, electronic, mechanical or otherwise; everything can now be designated a document. At the time a memo is written, it can be put on the memo that this document remains active for ten minutes, then it becomes dormant and then it's time to dispose of it. Or the document can remain active for 24 hours, or whatever. That is going to curtail and interfere with access to information at a time when the government and everyone should be making information more available to the community at large, and certainly to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. We find the government building this kind of protection into its legislation, and I think it's dangerous.

Interjection.

[3:00]

MS. BROWN: That's right. Vouchers, expense claims and all of those kinds of information can have their life shortened. The access of Public Accounts, which now does not have access to a document until it's over a year old, can be tampered with. So I'm hoping, Mr. Chairman, that you are ready to rule that my amendment is in order so that I may debate it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Please proceed.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: I would like to give the minister plenty of time to get up and say that he is accepting the amendment, naturally in good faith. You have seen it, have you? Or you certainly have a pretty good idea what it says.

[ Page 2795 ]

We're a bit suspicious in this particular area, and that's precisely why we've moved the amendment. We can't see the urgency for the destruction of all these documents, particularly in such short order as we can visualize in our mind's eye.

HON. MR. SMITH: I guess the member's reasoned argument deserves some comment. I appreciate that she may see some Orwellian significance in the extension of the definition of documents and the advance designation of the lifespan of a document. But the designation of the lifespan of the document isn't going to be done in a self-serving way by the minister who has possession of it; it's going to be done in categories by regulation which will be published. So that if you take the ordinary kind of memo that passes in government offices — simple memos — you might have a regulation that gives them a lifespan of a year, and then after one year they move into active designation and after three years they're disposed of, or something along that line. It wouldn't, be individually based, it would be category-based; it would be done by regulation in categories, and there would be a person or an officer who would be in charge of that.

But in an era where I think everybody is trying to bring about more efficiencies in government, to bring forward masses of documents every five years, every seven years or whatever it is to a committee to sort of look over and then give the okay to as to whether these should be disposed of, seems highly bureaucratic. I can also tell you that I doubt that documents and the destruction of them will be extended to the desks of members or past members or pieces of furniture or that sort of thing. I don't think this can be used in an Orwellian way even though it may be capable of an Orwellian construction.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the minister should mention Orwell. It just happens that I'm halfway through once again reading 1984, and the only thing I am finding of course is that most of 1984 has come to pass — came to pass, anyway, on July 7, 1983. But the explanation terrifies me even more than my original thinking on it. I think it's even more dangerous, Mr. Chairman — what the minister has outlined is going to happen to documents once this section goes through and makes it absolutely clear that we're going to have a shutting down of even that very tiny window on information which we now have. For that reason I hope that the minister will at least accept the amendment in good faith and let us go back and continue to work with the act on document disposal as it now stands, as imperfect as it is.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to extend the designation to areas other than what we perceive as documents today, I think, is within reason. But to provide that the opportunity to make sure that certain categories are destroyed at the will of the government.... That's what we're talking about when we're talking about that it's going to be done by regulation. I perceive that as a dangerous proposition, because those regulations can be made or destroyed. You're going to find a later section in this bill that talks about how the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may make regulations including regulations, whatever the hell that means.

Mr. Chairman, our bone of contention is that there should be the same kind of time disposition as is presently in place, or let them legislate it so we know what we're voting for.

Right now we're voting for the government to make the decision behind the closed door. That's what we worry about, because we've seen some of the decisions that have come out from behind that large oak door called the cabinet door.

HON. MR. SMITH: There is the safeguard under the amendment which is 9 on the bill but the amendment to 3(2), which has the effect of providing that a document won't be destroyed before seven years unless.... It has to be a document, under the amendment, that's listed in the records schedule approved by the select standing committee. So there is the opportunity for a committee of this House to approve the record schedule, and the record schedule is the document that will set out the timetable. I appreciate the concern, but I think this is an amendment that has been genuinely introduced to try to eliminate bureaucracy and the cost of moving and storing documents, and it is not designed in any way to prevent access to information.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you didn't rule the minister out of order even though he had moved on to another section, because that gives me the opportunity to comment on his comment, which is that the safeguards built into the other section are going to be abrogated by the amendments covered in section 9. We're going to have the public accounts committee, which has an overwhelming number of government members on it, ruling on the value of a document that may be condemning or damning in some way in terms of the government or one of its members. His explanations make things worse. Every time he explains, I become more alarmed by what he is saying. In fact, the act as it now reads says the documents can't be destroyed except after seven years unless certain things happen. And then when we go to section 9 we'll discuss the amendments introduced under section 9 which will gut those "unlesses" — if there is such a word.

What we have is that any document or record, by electronic media or mechanical or otherwise, that the government — either with the cabinet or individual — will now have access to when they introduce that document....

Mr. Chairman, a statement went out from the Ministry of Labour dealing with women's programs today, there wasn't any reason why that document with that information in it could not have had a timespan attached to it as outlined by these amendments. The definition says: "includes any other thing on which information is recorded or stored by any means." They've expanded the definition of document now to include everything, and then they have introduced this new section, which they call the record schedule, which says that at the time the document is drawn up we I re going to get a schedule which tells us the lifespan of the document. What, I am saying to you, is going to interfere with our access to information.

We should be expanding the opportunity for us to have access to information, not shrinking it — and certainly not centralizing it in the hands of the cabinet. As it now stands, that document lives for seven years, Now an amendment is being introduced which is going to tamper with that and bring that to an end. I think that that is very dangerous.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether the minister wants to respond to that before I ask a question. It seems to me that these clauses under the Document Disposal Act amendments

[ Page 2796 ]

are distinctly out of place in a modern, computer-based society. I think the government is trying to create the view here that these documents are so bulky that they're going to require great warehouses to store them; whereas we know that today, through the aid of the chip, you can store documents forever, and even though you might destroy the original document you can put that information through a computer. It's electronic storage, it doesn't take any space or bulk at all, and it's just a matter of course that all these things could be preserved for a lot of reasons. One is that they could be significant heritage material. They could be archival material of the type that could be extremely valuable for future scholars. The other side of it is that we should be able to have this on microfilm or on chip or on computers or in some other way, so that we can have this stuff on the basis of freedom of information alone. The temptation to destroy material that might be a bit controversial or iffy is certainly always going to be present.

[3:15]

I have had some experience in the business of document storage. I left office twice in Ottawa, once voluntarily and another time because I was fired. The archival material was requested by Archives Canada, all of the correspondence of that whole period of being a back-bencher — an individual back-bencher, his letters and all the rest of it. If that kind of material is of potential value for some future scholars, or for whatever other reasons, certainly the documents issued by cabinet ministers must, after a time, be made public and useful. I would hate to see any valuable information suppressed that might be of some historical or scholarly significance.

That is why I am a little concerned about this. I admit I haven't heard all the debate, but it seems to me unnecessary. If you can't defend it on the grounds of bulk or on the grounds of the difficulty of retrieval or storage, then the only way that I think it can be defended is on the basis of some information being so sensitive that we need that stuff destroyed after it has had its limited usefulness or circulation.

MR. COCKE: I wonder if I could put a little historical significance on this whole thing. Right now the archives are almost bursting with a bunch of irrelevant material that has been there because the Social Credit majority onPublic Accounts last year and again this year decided that they didn't want to have the documents disposed of, but they didn't know quite why. Therefore there is great pressure down there. Then we come up with this as an alternative to that situation. The documents that I'm describing are seven years and older, some of them a good deal older. That's the genesis for this little piece of legislation. In any event, I think the minister is overreacting to the screams and hollers. If he would only go to his own colleagues and say: "Look, let them dispose of the documents that should be disposed of...." MaybePublic Accounts , if they ever get another opportunity to meet, can pass a resolution to that effect. In any event, there are two years of documents that haven't been disposed of by virtue of the fact that somebody suspected that maybe they should take a look at them. But nobody has, so they sit there. I think we're just overreacting, and I support the amendment.

MS. BROWN: I think the Document Disposal Act is one that is too important to treat in a cavalier manner. It's not just, as my colleague from Coquitlam said, that there's stuff that's of interest to archivists as part of our heritage. There are also very important vouchers and documents which the whole assembly should have some control over, in terms of if and when it is ever to be disposed of. The decision under the original act to put the date of seven years on each document is a good one, and the minister has not explained why a decision is being made to change it. As my colleague from Coquitlam said, saying that it's too much paper to be piled up in one spot is just not good enough. Information can be put, as he said, on microchip or microfilm. There are many ways of reducing information and storing it so that it doesn't take up much space. The minister knows that. He is really not serious when he gives us an explanation to the effect that it's too much paper using up too much space.

I would ask him to consider seriously, if he doesn't want to accept the amendment, at least pulling this section and referring it to a legislative committee. Let us have more discussion about this and about why it is that the government at this time needs to do two things. Why does the government need to expand the definition of "document," and why does the government now need to curtail the length of time a document is protected and therefore available for public scrutiny either by this House or by the community at large? We need to talk about this, because I think it's just not good enough to slip it into a Miscellaneous Statutes Act and through the Legislature that way. It's just too important a thing in terms of a democratic society for us to treat it in this cavalier manner.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to call a division on section 9 too, in case anyone wants to hang around, Mr. Chairman.

Section 9 goes on to amend section 3 of the original act, which says: "No document shall be destroyed before the expiration of seven years from which it was created unless...." It gives two reasons why a document can be

[ Page 2797 ]

destroyed. In addition to that we have a new section which now allows the document to be destroyed based on the schedule which we just passed in section 8 and which I was opposed to. What I'm suggesting we do is amend section 9 and accept the fact that section 3(2), as it is in the Document Disposal Act, should stand, but where subsection (c) is added — to list the record of schedules — that that be deleted and that subsection (2), where it said "be destroyed in accordance with instructions in the record schedules," be deleted too. In actual fact what will happen is that section 3(2), as it now stands in the Document Disposal Act, is a section which will stand if my amendment succeeds.

Speaking in support of the amendment, I want just to accept that I lost the amendment on section 8 and that in fact there is now going to be a prescription, with all documents and records, saying exactly what their lifespan is going to be, and when they're going to be active, at what stage they're going to be dormant and when they can be destroyed. I've accepted that fact even though I disagree with it. What I would like to see, however, is that the original rule, that the document should live for seven years, be operative and that the only exceptions to those rules be the rules outlined in subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the original act. That is, two years have expired from the date on which it was created, and there is available to the officer who would, but for the destruction, have charge or custody of the document microfilm copy — which is what my colleague from Coquitlam mentioned — or the recommendation has come through the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs. I think those two criteria have worked — as I said, imperfectly, but they have worked — and I think they should stand.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, this amendment as proposed for this section is too much of a negativity, and I have to rule the amendment out of order.

MS. BROWN: What do you mean, too much of a negativity?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a direct negative, hon. member, and the amendment is out of order.

MS. BROWN: Okay.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 15

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 10.

MS. BROWN: Can the Attorney-General explain the significance of the comma? A whole section has been written just to put a comma in. Or should I ask the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) that?

HON. MR. SMITH: For greater grammatical certainty and composition of emphasis and being a very cautious draftsman, this section was recommended in that form with a comma.

Section 10 approved.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

On section 11.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, sections 8 through 11 all deal with the Document Disposal Act. Section 11 deletes the section of the act which says that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations about the disposal of documents under this act. Then it goes on to add: "designating and establishing classes and series for the purposes of section 3(3)." As you know, that is the one we tried to amend earlier. Then: "respecting the transfer, destruction or other disposition of documents or classes or series of documents...and" — this is the insidious part — "prescribing the form and content of records schedules."

All of the arguments that I used earlier, when I introduced the first amendment which was ruled in order and the second amendment which was ruled out of order, apply here. We have the government expanding the definition of document and throwing out a net so wide that nothing is exempt. It includes every single thing. Then it says that the decision to dispose of these documents is going to be based on a certain record schedule. Then in this amendment it says the cabinet is going to sit down and decide what the schedule is, what classes of documents, how they're affected, what their lifespan is, which one is active for how long, which one is dormant for how long, etc.

We presently have a piece of legislation which clearly states seven years, unless we find that it can be put on microfilm — after two years you can destroy the document because you can now put it on microfilm — or unless the Public Accounts and Economic Affairs Committee of the Legislature says: "This document is no longer significant, so go ahead and destroy it." That's gone now. This new amendment to that very important act centralizes all action about what happens to every voucher and document under the expanded definition that this government issues. I insist that this is not in the best interests of the general public. It is curtailing our access to information. It is an insidious and

[ Page 2798 ]

dangerous amendment, and the opposition stands unalterably opposed to it.

I'm not going to try to amend this section, because it should be deleted, and to do that would be to be ruled out of order. You can't delete the entire section. I see the Clerk is agreeing with me. But if it were possible, I would like to have seen sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 all deleted and the existing Document Disposal Act (1979) be the document disposal act that stands. It just does not make any sense, Mr. Chairman, if the government is really committed to freedom of information to the community at large and everyone knowing what it's doing, that it should start tampering with its documents in this way.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) described it as Orwellian, and I certainly agree with him that it goes beyond Orwell. It's a dangerous thing that we're doing here, Mr. Chairman. We're opposed to it and we'll be voting against this section.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Chairman, I described the member's fanciful interpretation of the sections as Orwellian, not the bill. But I know that as a student of Orwell she would understand that I was referring to her interpretation.

Section 11 simply makes clearer the major purposes of the regulations rather than leaving them in a blanket form as it was previously under the act. It makes very clear what the intentions are in designation of categories, gives specific designations on the transfer and destruction of documents, and also sets out the forms and contents of the schedules. It seems to me that it's a better form of draftsmanship than the previous section, which left us no guidance and very wide discretion.

[3:45]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, it does make it clearer. As I said before it's the clarity that makes it even more frightening, because the Attorney-General is very open and honest about what this amendment is going to do, and it is what the amendment is going to do that we are opposed to.

As to his comments about Orwell, Mr. Chairman, I want to say it may be my imagination that this document is Orwellian, but I think that history will bear me out that it will be found to go even further than Orwell thought of in 1948, when he wrote his predictions of the future. So we still remain unalterably opposed to this section, Mr. Chairman.

Section 11 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 16

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 12.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I have two basic questions on section 12. Why are we doing this? The second question, the supplementary to that, is: who asked for it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, we are doing it really to assist taxpayers. It's a meting out of justice, to be honest with you, because where assessments are made and it becomes apparent that the assessment on a particular piece of property is too high, the assessment could be under appeal, in court of revision to the Assessment Appeal Board, or it could eventually end up in court. By law, the taxes which have to be paid are those which are based on the assessment which is under appeal. Now it may very well be that another assessment will come in at a lower level. This gives the taxing authority, and in fact the Minister of Finance, the authority to make the adjustment in that year.

As I understand it, the law is now such that the taxes which would have to be paid on the higher assessment must be paid, and it's really nothing more than that. It allows the amounts to be collected for school tax purposes to be adjusted in the current year, and under the existing legislation — should this amendment not pass — it can only be done in a subsequent year. I cannot speak on this first-hand, because this particular amendment is sponsored by the Ministry of Finance, but there obviously were a number of concerns and representations of those concerns made to the Assessment Authority. Where an injustice was in fact being perpetrated the law is such as to preclude the taxes being paid at a lower level if in fact the assessment is too high.

MR. ROSE: I'm not quite clear on how this works exactly. Suppose someone's appealing his taxes. Under this situation I assume if the appeal is won during that current year, the taxes can then be adjusted — not retroactively, but there can be some adjustment and perhaps even a payback. Does the minister foresee a reimbursement to certain aggrieved taxpayers provided they win an appeal? Or is the adjustment in the hands of the assessment board under its power to be able to grant that appeal without having it go to the appeal board?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: For example, if it did go to the court of revision, as a result of the hearing at the court of revision.... Of course I'm not now talking about the Assessment Appeal Board or a court of law. But let's say there was a reduction given by the court of revision. That allows for an adjustment to be made in that year. The law as now written would say that it would have to be in a subsequent year. So the taxpayer gets the benefit of the year in which the court of revision has made a decision that the assessment notice is

[ Page 2799 ]

incorporating a value on the property which is higher than it ought to be.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. ROSE: These are perhaps all rather housekeeping things, but I'm not certain about that, so I ask the same questions about this section: why, and who asked for it?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The amendment on section 13 is rather interesting....

AN HON. MEMBER: Section 20.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, on section 20; I appreciate that.

Let me give you an example of something which occurred in British Columbia last year. One particular municipality was going through the depths of recession, and the taxes were not being paid. In fact, the percentage of unpaid taxes was very high. The law now states that the municipality must remit by December 31 those taxes which are to be paid, and in fact the assessment notices went out in July of that year. The tremendous burden placed upon the municipality in the case of school taxes which have not been paid by the taxpayers within that municipality is, as I've mentioned, quite onerous. The municipality would have to borrow those moneys from a bank and remit them to the provincial government for school purposes. What we have suggested — and it's incorporated within the proposed amendment — is a provision for municipalities to pay taxes to the province when the tax revenue is received by the municipality. It eliminates the current required payment by December 31.

[4:00]

There are two alternatives which are given to municipalities: either full remittance by February 15, permitting local governments to retain all penalties and interest associated with taxes.... So the municipality, if they in fact did pay by that date, would retain the penalties which would otherwise be payable to the provincial government, and that of course involves interest as well as the penalty. Or, in the alternative, if they defer the remittance which has not been collected, then the penalties and interest which otherwise would be payable would accrue to the Crown provincial. So we've given them an alternative. Remit the full tax bill, and then when you do collect those taxes in the municipality for school purposes you retain the interest and penalties which are provided for. If in fact you do not wish to pay, you eventually will collect them and remit them to the Crown, but the Crown then collects the interest and the penalty.

I can assure you, my experience with this particular town was that it found an exorbitant burden placed upon it for school purposes. They were entitled to some measure of relief.

MR. ROSE: I missed part of what the minister said, and it was so detailed that I'm not sure I understood all of it. Nevertheless, for clarification, the municipalities now have the right, if there are unpaid taxes, not to remit the full amount, or if they do remit the full amount, they have a grace period of two months, I think the minister said. There is a possibility, if they remit by February, of getting the penalties back or retaining the amount that would have been the penalty. But what is not clear to me is how this helps them, except perhaps in the case of the taxpayers being delinquent for more than two months.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will repeat: the law states that taxes are collected by a municipality for municipal purposes which it uses itself, but it is also the collecting vehicle for school taxes. Those school taxes are remitted to the Crown by December 31. What happened was this: the taxes were not collected, but there was still a burden on the municipality to remit those taxes to the Crown. Because the municipality had not collected those taxes, it had to borrow funds from its banker in order to pay the Crown. We as the Crown were using the municipality, and still do, as a collection agent, but we placed upon that municipality an additional burden. It was acting as our agent to collect school taxes but couldn't collect them. Because they still had to pay them under the Municipal Act, they were then incurring a tremendous interest burden. So we thought we would look for a couple of alternatives which would reduce the impact upon the municipality. The first alternative as proposed in the amendment is that the municipality will still remit by the due date. However, for those taxes which are not paid — and you eventually do collect, or through tax sale sometime down the road — you're entitled to the interest and the penalty which would otherwise have gone to the Crown. That is what happens....

MR. ROSE: Where do they get it? Do they get it back from the Crown?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, they collect them from the taxpayer when they are remitted.

The other alternative was this: municipality, we realize that you are our collection agent, and we recognize that you, as a municipality, should not suffer the burden acting as our agent. If you have not collected those taxes, you remit them when they come in, but we, the Crown, are entitled to the interest and the penalty. So they have an alternative. It's meting out a measure of justice.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. ROSE: I would like a similar explanation on section 14.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: This amendment clarifies that the first $5,000 of assessed value of farm outbuildings is deducted in assessing farm improvements. It was to coincide with the provision under the Municipal Act.

MR. ROSE: You mean $50,000?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Pardon me, it should be $50,000. The first $50,000.

MR. ROSE: It's up from what?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Up from $5,000.

[ Page 2800 ]

MR. ROSE: I would like to ask the minister whether or not he has a calculation of what this means in revenue to the province — forfeited revenue.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I cannot answer that question. I believe the question is: what, as a result of increasing the exemption from $5,000 to $50,000, is the amount of revenue which is to be forfeited by the Crown? I cannot answer that question. I would respectfully suggest, though, that it would probably be a negligible sum.

MR. ROSE: It's of some significance, because if some group, whether farmers or industries or commercial groups, are paying less, and the bill remains the same, it means other people are paying more. Exemptions given to commerce or business or farms or industry for buildings and machinery which are not remitted by that particular segment of taxpayers are going to place the equivalent burden on the others. I'd like to know what those figures are.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I repeat my earlier comment: I cannot give you the exact figures. To assist the member, I will raise this point. Remember, the $5,000 was $5,000 of assessed value. We're talking $50,000 now; that means $50,000 of actual value, That's the first item. So the amount which is forfeited, if in fact there is some — and I suspect there may very well be — will then be mitigated or reduced.

I might also say that this particular amendment is in accord with the Municipal Act and reflects the change of assessed value to actual value basis. We've already done that in the Municipal Act. I do not see any reason why those who pay school taxes should not have the opportunity for the same benefit. So the only way I can help the member is by drawing the distinction between assessed and actual value — assessed being $5,000 and actual being $50,000. Also, it is already in the Municipal Act, and there's no particular reason why it should not be in the Education (Interim) Finance Act. As to the actual amount which is forfeited, I still cannot answer that question.

MR. ROSE: Well, would the minister agree to provide me with that information when he has it? He can go to Finance and get it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes. Whatever I can find to help out.... I'll have to go to my colleague the Minister of Finance, whose particular amendment this is, but I'd be glad to accommodate the member for anything like that.

MR. ROSE: As to the parallel between that and the Municipal Act having to do with actual value as opposed to assessed value, I have just one small problem with it. That has to do with — I know it's nice and neat — the wording of the end of clause (b) here: "farm improvements exclusively used to operate a farm, other than (i) a dwelling house, and (ii) fixtures, machinery or things referred to in subsection (4) to the extent that their assessed value exceeds $50,000." But the minister made quite a point that this really deals with actual value, not assessed value, and I just need a little clarification on that one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You've got me.

MR. ROSE: I know. Well, will you find that out, too?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the remarks going back and forth, but to be recorded in Hansard we have to get you through the microphones.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, what we're attempting to determine is the following. In the Municipal Act, we want to know what the definition of assessed value is. References then refer to the Assessment Act, and.... The question really is, right now, whether assessment under the Assessment Act means actual value. I would tell you that I suspect it probably does, but I cannot be sure of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I suggest that it would depend on whether the assessed value they are referring to there is the assessed value for actual taxation purposes or the assessed value from the assessment board.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, is there any provision in this House, as there exists in many others, to stand a particular clause and proceed with the others until the information is...? It's quite a common practice in other legislatures.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It makes a lot of sense to me, hon. member. If we can achieve unanimous consent of the House, perhaps we can go ahead.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, because of the technical nature of this question, although it may be somewhat unprecedented in this chamber, if we have unanimous leave perhaps we could permit this section to be considered not immediately but perhaps in 15 minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall leave be granted, hon. members?

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 15 pass?

MR. ROSE: No, wait a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Well, I didn't wish to speak to it, but I don't want 15 to pass until our critic has an opportunity to decide whether or not he wishes to speak to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, so ordered. The critic obviously doesn't wish to speak to it. Shall section 16 pass?

Sections 16 to 24 inclusive approved.

[4:15]

On section 25.

MRS. WALLACE: I guess I should begin by asking a question: what is the Human Rights Act? I don't see it anywhere in the statutes, and I note that there is a bill on the order paper which has had first reading only and has not progressed any further than that. I'm wondering whether or

[ Page 2801 ]

not we're within our legal rights to be passing a motion referring to an act that doesn't exist.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: We have asked the same question of our legal counsel and are advised that we are within our legal rights to do so. In the event that the Human Rights Act were not to become law in British Columbia, then the amendment would have no effect. It would not be in force.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, it would have no effect, but it would have an effect because the reference to the Human Rights Code would have been wiped out of the B.C. Hydro act, if in fact there was no Human Rights Act. I just have a feeling that we should perhaps let this sit, the same as we have done with the other legislation, until such time as there is a Human Rights Act, if there is.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, section 77 of this act provides for proclamation by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and in the event that the Human Rights Act had not been processed through the House, then that section would not be proclaimed and would have no effect. It would not be proclaimed, because it would have no effect in law.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, there is no such thing as proclamation. That's been wiped out. There is a new bill that deals with regulations. We don't have proclamation any more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Regulation.

MS. BROWN: Let's get some clear explanation about what's going on here, because there is no such thing as proclamation. Maybe the Attorney-General can explain what's going on.

HON. MR. SMITH: Yes. The passage of the Regulations Act has already taken place. The Regulations Act will shortly be brought into force. Once that act is brought into force, then a regulation will be required in place of proclamation under section 77 to bring this act into force. That will not occur without a change as set out in the sections that replace Human Rights Code with Human Rights Act. If the Human Rights Act in some form did not pass, then a regulation would not bring that consequential amendment into force. That's what will happen. You're not going to delete a reference to a concept. It's going to be under one act or the other. It will be under the new act if it passes, and it will be brought into force by regulation and made applicable to that. Or if it isn't passed, it will not be brought into force and the old Human Rights Code will be there.

MRS. WALLACE: This section is presuming that the Human Rights Act is going to pass. As I pointed out, it has only been introduced for first reading. That was on July 7. It has never been called for second reading. It has never been in committee. Whether or not it is ever enshrined in the laws of this province, I am still hoping that that will not happen. To presume it is going to happen by passing this section seems to be jumping the gun. I know I'm not supposed to refer to previous decisions, but we did get unanimous agreement to leave that last section, because the government didn't know what an assessed value was. We had the bill pulled before because the Minister of Health wasn't here for another section. It seems to me the government doesn't have its house in order for dealing with this bill, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 14

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 25 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 17

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[4:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, a few moments ago the Chair, with consent of the committee held over section 14 pending the acquisition of some information by the minister on a question posed by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose). With the committee's permission, we can go back and deal with section 14.

[ Page 2802 ]

On section 14.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to compliment the member on pulling this out and looking for an explanation. There is an explanation for it. The eyes of the hawk over there did a superb job.

I would like to make reference, Mr. Chairman, to a provision in Bill 7, the Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), which has been passed. If I make reference to that particular bill....

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Look, this is difficult enough without struggling with this.

There's an amendment to Section 1 of the Assessment Act. The explanatory notes read as follows: "Establishes actual value as the tax base for municipal purposes, while retaining the present system of establishing assessed value for other purposes." As an example, Mr. Chairman, I make reference to section 9 of the Bill 7 where section 398(m) is amended by striking out "$5,000" and substituting "$50,000." With respect to why it went from $5,000 to $50,000.... The rule was that assessed value is equal to 10 percent of actual value. So if $5,000 is at 10 percent, obviously 100 percent is $50,000. Actual value equals assessed value. There's now no percentage rule.

Going back to the use of the words "assessed value," I make reference again to the Assessment Act, which I referred to when I made my opening remarks this time around. The marginal notes state: "...while retaining the present system of establishing assessed value for other purposes." Obviously the choice of the label would appear to retain the expression "assessed."

MR. ROSE: Is the minister, Mr. Chairman, saying that it's consequential to bring it in line and that there really is no difference now? Is he saying there isn't a particular advantage to a farmer over what he had before because he was assessed at 10 percent of its actual value, and he had a $5,000 exemption? Now he is assessed at full value, and he's got a $50,000 exemption, so it's a sawoff and he doesn't gain anything?

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the member is correct on that statement. Of course we don't need to worry now about the original concern which started this — that is, the amount which the Crown may very well have forfeited as a result of the change. Using actual value, it would appear to be nothing.

MR. ROSE: I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I want to make absolutely certain that since there is no money accruing to the Crown and since there is no loss of it because of these exemptions, what is happening here under the amended section 25, or section 14 in this bill, is a distinction without a difference. It merely brings the thing in line with these bills — I think they are 7 and 12. So in that sense it's a housekeeping amendment.

I have one final question. Subsection (a) says: "farm improvements exclusively used to operate a farm, other than (i) the dwelling house" — which is nontaxable — "and (ii) the fixtures, machinery or things referred to in subsection (4)." If you look down to the end of subsection (4) they are exempt from taxation for school purposes. "Fixtures, machinery and similar things located on the farmland and used exclusively to operate a farm, which, if erected or placed in, on, under or affixed to land, or to a building, fixture or structure in, on or under the land would, between the landlord and tenant, be removable ...." In other words, if the landlord and tenant agree that these things can be removable and they're physically able to be removed, they are exempt from taxation for school purposes. If you add that to all the things above in subsection (a) and (b) and (i) and (ii), what is taxable if you exempt all those other things? I can't think of very many. The well, perhaps. It is located under the ground, but it can't be removed by the tenant.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that the whole purpose of this is to exempt farm outbuildings up to a value of $50,000.

MR. ROSE: So the outbuildings, barns and that sort of thing — are really the only improvements that are taxable under this section — those buildings that exceed an actual value of $50,000?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is yes.

Section 14 approved.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

On section 28.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps we need a little bit of help here, Mr. Chairman. We have no opposition to subsection (a) of this particular section. Subsections (b) and (c) we oppose most strongly, of course. They bring in the amendments to Bill 9 and their application to the Islands Trust. So if we can, we would like to break down this particular section. We would support (a), but would like to go on record against (b) and (c).

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee would be willing to accept an amendment — I think it would be in order — if we amended this section to delete subsections (b) and (c). I think that my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) would be willing to explain to you in more detail the kind of damage that really could be done to the Gulf Islands if these subsections are not deleted. The whole concept for the Islands Trust originally started with the original Social Credit Party — not this one, but the one led by W.A.C. Bennett. He was the person who recognized the fragility and the specialness of the Gulf Islands, and he was the first person to move the idea of protecting them. If you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, he was the person who put the freeze on and said that property on the Gulf Islands shouldn't be subdivided below ten acres.

When the NDP became government in 1972.... The reason I'm so familiar with this is that I travelled with the municipal affairs committee, as did the member for Chilliwack (Hon. Mr. Schroeder).

Interjection.

[ Page 2803 ]

MS. BROWN: No, I didn't stay in any big hotels on the Gulf Islands. There weren't any.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That was on a minesweeper.

MS. BROWN: That's right. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was there too, as was the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). We were all part of the committee that established the concept of placing these islands in trust because of their very special nature.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[4:45]

MS. BROWN: This amendment is going to say the islands should be treated exactly the same as any other municipality in British Columbia. That is not true, because they are unique. Even the government members on that committee — the member for South Peace River, the member for Saanich and the Islands, and the member from the Fraser Valley — recognized the unique and special nature of the Gulf Islands, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it would seem that you are speaking to the amendment, which hasn't come forward.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not speaking to the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you an amendment to bring forward?

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes. But I thought that before you had an opportunity to rule on the amendment I should explain to you why I feel moved to move an amendment.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Is it in order? Okay. I just have to sign it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that section 28 be amended to delete subsections (b) and (c).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is correctly written. Would the hon. member like to speak to the amendment while we are deciding on a ruling?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think that the development of the Gulf Islands has to remain the responsibility of the Trust and the locally elected Trust representatives. There is a kind of community government now existing under the Trust which obviously has had the support of this government until now, Mr. Chairman, because they have made no move to wipe out the Trust. And what it is based on is that people living on the islands, through their locally elected representatives, develop community plans and decide what should happen to the islands.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is interrupting, so there isn't any point in my going on any further. Is that okay? The Attorney-General has indicated that he is now willing to listen to me.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There is a kind of protection which exists in the people living on the islands themselves having a say as to how they should be developed. What kind of zoning, what kind of development, whether it should be multiple-family or single-family, the size of the lots, how far from the water's edge, whether it should be commercial, residential — those kinds of decisions are made at the local level, Mr. Chairman, of course under the supervision of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. For the minister to move an amendment which would see that responsibility treated in exactly the same way as it is by municipalities is to place those islands in jeopardy.

I don't think it's necessary, Mr. Chairman, for me to go into a long dissertation about how special the islands are and why we should protect them, not just for us but for future generations. I think if the minister just went back and read the report brought down by the municipal affairs committee — in 1974 I think it was — he would have all of the arguments there why we would be opposed to this. I am hoping the minister will accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, of course I speak against this amendment. It's meaningless and unnecessary. The sections referred to are consequential. However, the member should know that there will still be settlement planning taking place on the islands as there has been in the past. So really, Mr. Chairman, there is no need for this amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to go into the specifics or the details and the problems of Bill 9 in terms of implications of removing regional planning from municipalities, but I would like to just go on record as saying that if there is one area in British Columbia that is a sensitive, delicate, very important island environment, it is the Gulf Islands. I think most of us are aware of their beauty and their uniqueness and indeed the strength and the determination of those residents to ensure that this area was planned properly and is planned in a regional kind of capacity.

Mr. Chairman, again the minister — perhaps it's lack of knowledge of certain areas — has not really thought through the full implications of removing the regional concept as applied to the Gulf Islands. Maybe he has and maybe he can clarify that for us this afternoon. But my initial request or overture to the minister is: has he thought more seriously about this particular island environment and the fact that over the years they have indeed planned on a regional level — all the islands — taking into consideration a special environment and physical attributes? Has the minister thought that through, and is he concerned that this island environment might be jeopardized by these particular sections?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, to that member who claims such high qualifications — whether it's through ignorance of Bill 9 and what it does or innocence I'm not about to judge. That member knows quite clearly that Bill 9

[ Page 2804 ]

removes the regional plan as it applies to municipalities. This is in reference to the Islands Trust, and as you know, regional districts will continue to do settlement planning, and no doubt settlement planning will continue on the islands. So I am really surprised that you should continue on this front.

MR. BLENCOE: You really shouldn't be surprised, Mr. Minister. If there is one piece of legislation that has virtually total opposition of 1,400 elected officials across this province, it's your particular piece of legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise all members of the committee that we should return to the amendment currently before us, to section 28 of this act.

MR. BLENCOE: Has the minister had any discussions, correspondence, communication or special meetings with the Islands Trust since his term of office commenced about the particularly unique problems of planning in that area? What concerns have they expressed about his approach to planning, and particularly vis-à-vis section 28 in this act?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, my first official meeting immediately after my appointment was with the Islands Trust. Since that time there have been absolutely no concerns expressed to me by them over Bill 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the bill before us, please.

MR. BLENCOE: The question, Mr. Chairman, was not to the specifics of Bill 9. I was asking him if he has had any discussion with them over the particular sections in Bill 35. That was my question.

I'd like to pursue this because this is to do with the Islands Trust and amendments to the Islands Trust Act, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister for his thoughts and ideas per se on the Islands Trust Act. Here we have some amendments which are fairly substantial and important to the Islands Trust. Is this the start of some major alterations to that concept of the Islands Trust Act and all the things they have managed to establish there in the Gulf Islands?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No, this is not the start of any great alteration to the Islands Trust Act. The amendments are consequential.

MS. BROWN: I wonder if the minister knows the meaning of the word "consequential," because he is really using it in....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Don't what?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Don't lecture the House.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not lecturing the House. I am asking the minister for a statement. Really, what we have is not just an amendment to the Islands Trust Act but a section of the act that calls into place the Municipal Act, which has to do with regional plans. The whole point of the Trust is that the planning for those islands should be done in a certain way by special people who are committed to the protection of those islands. What this amendment does is to strike out sections 807 and 808 of the Municipal Act, one dealing with regional plans and the other dealing with the official regional plans. It also strikes out section 812, the one that says: "A regional board, or the council...may not enact a provision...which would impair or impede the ultimate realization of all or part of the objectives of an official regional plan." Also the regional plan section as well. This is not just a little something that is going on here; it's the whole concept of the Trust itself being involved in the development of the plans for those islands. That's what he's wiping out.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, those sections have been repealed, and as a consequence they have to be lifted here.

MS. BROWN: No, they don't.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Otherwise you would be referring to something that isn't there.

MS. BROWN: That's precisely what the second member for Victoria said — it's Bill 9 revisited. As an aside to the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser), you shouldn't have to be municipal critic in order to appreciate the special nature of the Gulf Islands. It's that kind of tunnel vision over there that we have to live with which is creating such havoc. If the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and other members cared about the islands, maybe this amendment wouldn't be going through. But in fact, because they're not....

MR. KEMPF: I know more about those islands than you do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee will come to order.

MS. BROWN: You see? The member for Omineca knows more about these islands than I will ever know. That's what he said.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: He's being attacked by his colleague from South Peace, Mr. Chairman, who is saying that that's not very much.

I want to give the member for Omineca a chance to stand up and fight for those islands. I think they are at risk if this section goes through and if my amendment fails.

[5:00]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 16

[ Page 2805 ]

NAYS — 26

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 28 approved.

On section 29.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to know why section 6 of the act is being repealed. That's the section that says that where doubt exists as to whether a matter relates to general or local affairs the chairman of the general trustees determines that. Why was that repealed?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the member to repeat that. I have some competition here, and I didn't hear.

MS. BROWN: Subsection (b) repeals section 6 of this act. That section is the one that deals with where doubt exists as to whether a matter relates to general or local affairs, the chairman of the general trustees determines that matter. Why is that section being repealed? Who then determines whether it is local or general?

I have found my own answer.

Section 29 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 16

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[5:15]

On section 30.

MR. STUPICH: May I ask the minister whether or not this was requested by the Islands Trust?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: As you know, Protection Island comes within the municipality of Nanaimo, and there is agreement on both sides that this change be made.

MR. STUPICH: Did the minister ever consider doing it the other way around, taking it out of the city?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Does he mean that the city of Nanaimo go into the Islands Trust? I didn't consider that.

MR. STUPICH: It wasn't meant to be that much of a joke. The question is whether or not you considered taking Protection Island out of the city of Nanaimo.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No.

Sections 30 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. D'ARCY: Once again we find a reference to the Human Rights Act, which has not even been called for second reading debate. This section further shows the government's contempt for the parliamentary process, and we're going to be voting against this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that point has been well canvassed, and the answer has been given.

MR. BARNES: I think it rather presumptuous of the government to move in this way. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the previous speaker. I hope that we will win the division on this one.

Section 33 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 12

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 34 to 47 inclusive approved.

On section 48.

[ Page 2806 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity the opposition has had to ask some questions about this decision by the government to bail out the Whistler municipality and allocate considerable public funds to bailing out a ski resort. It gives us the opportunity to ask some particularly pertinent questions of the minister who is responsible for this particular section. Who is going to be taking responsibility for this?

First, I would like to ask the minister if he could perhaps give us some background to the current state of the art in terms of the Whistler situation. We understand that there was to be an interim group to take responsibility for this. My initial question to the minister is: what is the position at the moment of the government's role? Who is actually running the operation at this time? Perhaps we can get a report on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we're a little beyond the amendment here; the amendment is exemption from real property taxes. We will allow some latitude, but I am sure there are items that the member is trying to canvass that would be better and more appropriately canvassed during the estimates of the minister. I will have to ask all members to abide by that. We must be specifically relevant in committee debate.

MRS. WALLACE: Point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would draw your memory back to the time when this bill was introduced. The government House Leader indicated that it would be treated more or less as in second reading during committee because there was no general principle. I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that what the member for Victoria is saying under that particular interpretation is quite in order

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your Chairman remembers that agreement well and also the commitment that was made during the second reading. However, I still must advise that we are speaking to exemption of property taxes. Other discussion about the subject matter would be far better discussed during the minister's estimates. Can we speak to the section itself, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, obviously in this section we're talking about exemption from taxes. That has to reflect on the nature of the business the government has decided to transact, and this particular corporation and this particular setup. What we and the public of British Columbia would like to know, because millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars have already been spent and now they are going to be exempt from taxes as well, is exactly how the government is planning to pay for all this. Is the public going to continue to foot the bill for a very expensive resort for the rich when at the same time you are cutting very essential services in this province? I think the people of British Columbia are entitled to some answers about this particular setup, Mr. Chairman. I will continue to ask. My first question to the minister is: could he give us a report on the actual operation as it is right now — the running of this development corporation and who is actually in charge? We'd like to have a little report about that before I get into some further detailed questions.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I can only respond to questions as they would directly relate to this amendment.

It is quite straightforward here that properties held under this Crown corporation will be exempt from tax until the property is sold.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Why?

MR. BLENCOE: A very good question. I have many questions, Mr. Chairman, but a very simple one, given the minister's response, is: why should they be exempt from taxes? To back that up, you know that many municipalities in the province of British Columbia would love to have such exemptions and such special privilege. Give us some reasons why, Mr. Minister. Or do you have any?

All right, I'd like to ask either that minister or somebody in this government responsible for this massive bailout: how much money has the province committed to Whistler in terms of grants — total dollars committed in terms of grants, taxes, borrowings, interest charges, free land grants and tertiary services like the massive investment in Highway 99? What is the total dollar investment by the public in this ski run?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first questions were in order. I believe the second questions are straying somewhat from the principle of the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: I want some answers, Mr. Chairman.

[5:30]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we have other lands held by levels of government that are not subject to property tax. I am surprised that the member would be asking such a question.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Absolutely no answer, Mr. Chairman. I have asked the minister or somebody.... Maybe the Premier should come out of his office and answer some very serious public questions. I want to know how much money the province has committed already to this particular project, how much they are prepared to commit in terms of grants and total taxes.... How much exemption are you going to give, Mr. Minister? The people of British Columbia demand an answer. What are the borrowings and the interest charges on these millions and millions of public dollars you are using? Let's have some answers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as they apply to exemptions, the questions are totally in order. As they apply to other dealings, they would best be discussed under the minister's estimates. In terms of administrative actions the questions are out of order. I am certain the committee can understand the distinction. Does the minister wish to answer?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, first of all, the member should realize that before the takeover of the Whistler Village Land Co. Ltd. that property would all be exempt from property tax, and this is simply transferring from that company to this development company. Once the land is sold, property tax would apply. I repeat, we have situations in other municipalities where land is owned by the municipality

[ Page 2807 ]

and no property taxes are being paid. However, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to that member that if he wishes to explore this entire question of the Whistler development, he do so in the minister's estimates, when that time comes.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, we're certainly not getting any answers, and it's quite obvious that there is an attempt to cover up this particular scandal in the province of British Columbia. There's no question about that. We have a scandal in British Columbia, and the minister is covering up.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, no!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The second member for Victoria will withdraw that statement.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the reference to scandal, but I don't withdraw the reference to the fact that we're not getting answers in this House today. I think that's a fair statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm sorry, but the term "coverup" must be withdrawn without qualification, immediately.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: What am I being asked to withdraw, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Coverup.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw the term "coverup."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BLENCOE: However, I would like to say that I'm most disturbed, as our party....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The term has been withdrawn. Is the member now participating in debate?

MR. BLENCOE: I am indeed.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw reference to any offensive term that might suggest there might be some underhanded....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: Well, there might be, I said. Mr. Chairman, we can only assume that when neither the minister or anybody else on that side of the House is prepared to answer factually and honestly the things we're asking about this particular development....

Let me go on. I would like the minister or the Premier to answer: how can the government take over a company with more than $27 million in liabilities and nurse it back to health at a minimum expense of $10 million without a single cent of taxpayers' money, as it was claimed at the time? Now, you tell me how you can do that, Mr. Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is beyond the scope of the section before us.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there has been an awful lot of latitude allowed in debate during this bill because of an agreement that was made in another forum which your Chairman and all members agreed to and which was graciously accepted. However, we cannot stray into ministerial estimates simply because we happen to see a certain term or proper noun mentioned in a specific section which deals totally and specifically with land tax exemption. The minister may wish to answer questions with respect to land tax exemption. Please proceed.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would indeed....

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, I don't mean to interfere with the minister's desire to clarify the situation, but you indicated your recollecting that an agreement with respect to the bill was made — something that at least would assist us to talk along the lines as though this were second reading. Could you repeat exactly what the agreement was, for clarification?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The record will show that during second reading debate the members participating in that debate agreed that since this was a miscellaneous statutes bill with many different sections and no specific contained principle, the debate would be better covered during committee stage. This is a common agreement during miscellaneous statutes amendments in their second reading stage. What I have simply said is that although that agreement is listed in our records, it does not allow us to proceed into debate which would be better covered in a different forum, specifically the minister's estimates.

MR. BARNES: Could you give us an example of the parameters? You've indicated only that you recall that there was an agreement. Give us an example of what is allowed under this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has been quite specific. If one reads the section, he will note that it refers to land tax exemptions. That is the type of debate that can be allowed. The member for Victoria has pursued some questions along those lines but has strayed to other matters which would be better contained in the minister's estimates. In fact, if pursued in this forum, it would offend the rule of anticipation and other members' rights to speak on this subject during the minister's estimates.

MR. BARNES: So then the agreement doesn't make any real distinction between what is the normal procedure...? Is that what you're saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The reference to an agreement is standard practice and is so stated in the records of this House. It is standard practice when we are in second reading debate on a miscellaneous statutes act.

[ Page 2808 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wanted to draw the attention of the second member for Victoria to the fact that we're dealing with property tax exemption. I repeat that whenever the minister responsible for this particular Crown corporation comes in with his estimates, you will have an opportunity to get those questions answered.

For one who has had so much experience and claims to be such an expert in municipal politics, I am quite surprised that you do not understand that there are many municipalities in this province that have land-development or holding companies — land being held by municipalities where no property tax is being paid. But I would hope that now that that has been made clear to you, you will understand that this situation is simply a transfer from one level of government to another. What you are telling the House is that simply because the government, through this move, is helping this thing succeed for the benefit of that community, they should have different rules. How ridiculous can you be? Should we have one rule for one level of government and one rule for another?

MR. BARNES: You should know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Certainly not, and I'll repeat that there is land in this province held by municipalities from which there is no property tax obtained, and that this is a transfer from one level to another.

MR. BLENCOE: Again, the minister is trying to steer around the questions the public have been waiting for some answers to for a long time. Let me rephrase my thrust, Mr. Minister. In the particular area in question, as I've already said, the government is taking over a company that has $27 million in liabilities, and there is going to be a minimum expense of $10 million to $15 million to try to bring it back. What I would like to ask the minister — and it relates to exemption — is: how is the public going to be assured that there is going to be some public payback if there are tax exemptions? Where is the revenue going to come from? You're already giving millions of dollars to British Columbia's playground for the rich, and now you are going to do away, through tax exemptions, with what might ensure that the people of British Columbia, the majority of whom cannot enjoy those facilities and cannot afford them....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: That's right. You are now going to say that there is going to be no tax system to ensure it's paid back. Who are you trying to con, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Also, I find that an improper reference to an hon. member. The second member for Victoria will withdraw the last reference.

MR. BLENCOE: Withdraw the reference to what, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The reference to the minister.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BLENCOE: But I would like him to answer the question about a huge debt, giving more money and then exempting them from taxes. How is the public going to recoup its investment?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I just recently visited Whistler and spent a long weekend there, and I can assure that member that every walk of life is enjoying the Whistler village. The wishes of the people I spoke to — and I spoke to many as I roved around there — were: "Keep her going. Get this thing finished. This is great; it's close to the city and we folks can really enjoy it." The convention centre is being finished now, a great plus.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll advise the minister that he is now straying from specific relevancy. To tax exemptions, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think that the results of the last election and how we had our member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) elected is the answer in itself of how successful we are in Whistler.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll try another tack with the minister. Here's a very well-known quote from a well-known Socred back in the summer of 1982: "Whistler is no different than anywhere else. We cannot bail them out any more than we can bail out a private development." That was the former minister, Mr. Vander Zalm, who said those very things.

MR. MICHAEL: He doesn't know what he's talking about. That's why he's growing bulbs.

MR. BLENCOE: Is he really getting to the Premier that much, that you have to attack him in the House? Boy, he really must be getting to you. Little Billy's boy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the tax exemption, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I would like the minister, in his terrific defence of this massive bail-out by the public of British Columbia, to give us....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The members will come to order.

[5:45]

MR. BLENCOE: I would like the minister to try to give us some rationale in terms of the policies of this government of restraint. Maybe the minister can give us some intelligent rationale as to why in the difficult times we face today major cutbacks in essential services like human services — services for children and.... I think it's important, because this tax exemption is going to cost the people of British Columbia a lot of money, and because of that other services can't be maintained. I would like the minister to say how he can see this as a major priority in terms of the dollars this government

[ Page 2809 ]

is going to spend on a ski resort when at the same time you're restraining the handicapped, the poor and....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. BLENCOE: It relates to this, Mr. Chairman. I would like to hear the minister's defence of that kind of restraint policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, I will advise the committee that we're entering debate which would be better discussed under estimates of ministers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, it would be difficult for that member to understand, with his socialistic philosophy, that the greatest threat to those who require services such as health, education and so forth is winding down projects that create jobs. As long as this government can move in the direction of creating jobs, then those people requiring those services will be assured of getting them.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to try and explain to the member that all of the questions he is asking, in his eagerness, he can ask me during estimates, I will give him a full answer at that time regarding finances. In his eagerness to sling accusations and to raise things that were well explained to the public earlier, he's forgotten to read the section, particularly the last phrase, which says: when the WLC "ceases to be the owner." The WLC took over these lands which were owned by the Whistler Village Land Co., which was a creature of the municipalities. In effect, they were municipal lands, and the municipality did not charge itself taxes on lands until it sold the lands. It was a very simple thing in the agreement. In taking over those lands and holding them the WLC, a municipality, would hardly pay taxes on that land until it was sold. As soon as it was sold the taxes go into effect. It's a very simple explanation. The rest of the accusations the member is making are completely incorrect. I would be glad to explain that to him during estimates.

MR. BLENCOE: We now have a minister who seems to have a little more knowledge of what is happening. I ask the minister: because we're talking about tax exemptions and there's going to be more lost revenue to the province, can the minister give us a total dollar figure on how much the government has spent on this particular project in terms of grants, taxes, borrowings, interest charges, free land grants and services? Will you give the House and the public of British Columbia some answers on those things?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that question is totally out of order, and so would an answer be. That question would be better....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The question would be best addressed during the estimates of the minister, which the minister has already agreed to. In fact, we would preempt the rights of members to speak on this subject if we entertained that type of questioning now. It would be totally unparliamentary.

Shall the section pass?

MR. BLENCOE: No. I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. How much revenue is being lost by this tax exemption?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: How much potential revenue is the province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia losing in this tax exemption for their rich friends in Whistler?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The company, Whistler Village Land Co. Ltd., was not collecting property tax before. Therefore, there is no loss.

MR. BLENCOE: How much potential revenue is being lost to the people of British Columbia so they can assure that this property is paid back and is off their backs? How much?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is becoming repetitive, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: I will try another tack.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, again we are talking about the financial arrangements and the exemption, and therefore the ability of the taxpayer to try to recoup some of its massive losses on this particular project.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the tax exemption.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, a recent announcement by the government that the provincial government would move in and directly complete the convention and community centre at Whistler....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is totally outside the scope of this section.

MR. BLENCOE: No, it's not, Mr. Chairman. What we are doing is relating to a financial arrangement, and the province is giving away any opportunity to recoup some of the losses for the people of British Columbia in this particular section. I think that is important.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the questioning now is totally outside of the scope of this section before us. I am sure the committee understands it. Numerous answers have been given by both ministers concerned, and I think that unless there is a new line of questioning with respect to the section before us, we must continue on....

Interjections.

[ Page 2810 ]

MR. BLENCOE: You don't like these questions, do you? You know this is an embarrassment to your government. You know that. You're well aware of that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. To the section.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The minister will come to order. The member is reminded of standing order 43.

MR. BLENCOE: We on this side of the House would like to get to the bottom of some of the financial implications of public involvement in this corporation. Giving them property tax exemption is a major shift in policy, and we have to question the rationale and wisdom of making such a move. I would like to ask the minister....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: You're waiving a potential revenue for the province at the taxpayer's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the ministers not to interject. Does the member have a new line of questioning?

MR. BLENCOE: I have a new line of questioning. If the provincial government, in its wisdom, is not going to collect any revenue from Whistler, how is it going to pay for the convention centre? How is the money that they're shelling out going to be returned to the people of British Columbia? Because of this announcement and because of these financial arrangements that are being talked about, it would be very useful if the minister or the government would table the agreement on the convention centre.

MR. REYNOLDS: On two points of order. One is under standing order 43 on tediousness and repetition. You've warned the member a number of times. The other point of order is that this member is persisting in asking questions of the minister under this bill. Whistler really falls under Lands and Forests. The Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has been up a number of times and has told this member that he would be quite pleased to answer these questions under the proper estimates. He keeps on asking questions and making statements that are inaccurate and misleading to a number of people. He's got people who might believe some of the stuff he's saying. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is time to ask the member to stick to the questions of this minister. Municipal Affairs is not the minister to be asked the questions. It's the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment who is prepared to answer them. Speaking as the member for that constituency that has Whistler, this member is damaging a great tourist area by making inaccurate statements, and I would ask you to ask him to stop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. The members of the committee have been advised many times that when in committee we must be strictly relevant to the section before us. Latitude has been allowed, but this section deals specifically with real property tax exemptions, and that is the scope of this section and is as far as we can go.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I draw to your attention that there's nothing in here that identifies this as being the responsibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) has the jurisdiction, as I understand is the case, then certainly he should be the one accountable for what's going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee or parliament cannot decide on which minister will be responsible. Nevertheless we cannot entertain debate that is not contained in the section. That's the underlying rule.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would agree with the member for Skeena. He's exactly correct, and if his member would stick to the questions pertaining to this bill, they would be fine. But my point of order was that he's straying into areas that are covered by the other minister. He keeps on doing it continuously, and that's why I would ask you, under standing order 43, to ask him to desist.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we have a very strange arrangement before us in section 48: total tax exemption. That doesn't happen very often in the province of British Columbia — and, I can tell you, a lot of municipalities and a lot of people would like see that happen. So I think it's very important that we try to get to the background of why this government particularly wants to see this happen. I think it's incumbent upon the government, at this opportunity, to give some real examples, some honest background on the dollars of public expense gone into this particular proposal, to back up the fact that they want to give tax exemptions to these particular corporations like WLC Developments Ltd. So I think that whoever answers — I don't care if it's the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing — it's appropriate that somebody in the government give the public of British Columbia some answers which would rationalize such a section as 48. Obviously we're not going to get that today.

I would like to continue with some questions to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, because I think it comes under his jurisdiction in terms of the investigator of municipalities. I think....

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. We're really beyond the scope of the section. I will advise you once again that section 48 of Bill 35 deals with real property tax exemptions: when they come in effect and when they cease. Questions which relate to the administrative actions of a minister will be better discussed during ministerial estimates. Is that understood?

MR. BLENCOE: It's understood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now perhaps your line of questioning can relate to section 48.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, we are trying to get to the bottom of why the government in its wisdom would like to give such an amazing exemption, and what the background to that is. So I would ask again the general question of that minister: is he prepared at this time to give the potential revenue lost from this exemption? Is he prepared to tell the people of British Columbia how much public money has already been spent on this...?

[ Page 2811 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister would not be allowed to answer the second part of your question. It would be out of order, as well. With respect to the first part of the question, it is in order, and if the minister wishes to answer....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, for the last time, I will attempt to answer if that helps the Chair. He is repeating himself over and over again, playing political games, We are dealing with property tax exemption. As has already been stated, the Whistler Village Land Co. Ltd., being owned by the municipality, had tax exemption on this property. With the changeover that same exemption is being transferred over until the property is sold. The benefits to the community will be enormous, and already we are seeing signs of success for that entire development. The community and its people will benefit immensely.

Sections 48 through 50 inclusive approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.