[ Page 5785 ]

CONTENTS

Provincial — Municipal Partnership (Taxation Measures) Act (Bill 25). Committee stage

On section I –– 5785

Mr. Blencoe

On section 2 –– 5785

Mr. Blencoe

Division

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Mitchell

On section 3 –– 5789

Mr. Blencoe

On section 3.1 –– 5790

Mr. Blencoe

On section 5 –– 5791

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading –– 5791

Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 26). Second

Reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5791

Mr. Cocke –– 5791

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 5792

Division –– 5792

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates, (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 37: minister's office –– 5792

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Mrs. Dailly

Appendix –– 5795

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this morning are Mr. Bob Henderson from Telkwa and Mr. Keith Connors from Prince George. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Yvonne has a very special guest in the gallery today. That special guest is our grandson, almost three, Jay Douglas Hazelwood. He's come to see where his grandfather works.

MR. D'ARCY: In the gallery today are Mrs. Sharon Glendinning of Blueberry Creek, representing the Castlegar parents' association, and with her is Mrs. Marlene King of Castlegar, representing the Castlegar and District Teachers' Association. Mrs. King was my children's first primary school teacher. I'm very glad to have her in the galleries today in Victoria.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the order of business for the day, Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave of the House for permission for the Select Standing Committee on Health, Education and Human Resources to proceed with their organizational meeting this afternoon at 3 o'clock.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 25.

PROVINCIAL-MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP
(TAXATION MEASURES) ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Ree in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I would draw your attention to the amendment on the order paper in my name, a proposed amendment to section 1 –– I move that amendment. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm wondering if the minister could succinctly give us the rationale for this amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The rationale for this amendment is that should a property inadvertently be omitted from the roll, it could be covered.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

On section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: This is the section of the legislation that I wish to see amended, on behalf of our caucus. Our concern is, as I've already expressed in debate on second reading, that for municipalities to avail themselves of some of the more useful components of this legislation they have to get into a tax-relief or tax-giveaway system. I believe that is somewhat of a blackmail kind of clause. I think it would be very useful that that prerequisite of giving tax relief not be compulsory, and if this minister wishes to benefit those municipalities who are not in a position financially to give such tax relief — do not have the reserves — then I think it would be useful that this particular amendment be amended to take out that compulsion.

I have discussed this with many elected officials at the local level and, whereas they have some doubts and apprehensions about the downstream costs of tax relief in terms of putting the infrastructure in place — the ongoing maintenance costs for industrial development — they believe that some of the components, as I outlined before in this, whereby the province will cost-share the 50 percent on municipal and economic development officers or expenses of local volunteer and economic development committees, economic development promotions and market research on economic development, are something that we have been suggesting for some time in this Legislature. However, we don't feel that the prerequisite for municipalities to avail themselves of those aspects of this legislation should be tied to tax giveaways.

Consequently, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move an amendment to this section, the amendment standing in my name to section 2, by adding the following subsection: "(c) notwithstanding any provision of this or any other act, every municipality shall be eligible to participate in economic development programs of the government."

I will also be recommending that we strike section 5 of Bill 25. That is also included in this particular amendment to the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, Mr. Member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated the rationale for.... Oh, sorry. Does the minister wish to speak?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support this amendment for the simple reason....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a moment: was the member deferring to the minister?

MR. BLENCOE: I was going to speak to my amendment, which is usually normal under the....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Victoria had been recognized, Mr. Minister.

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: I won't take much time. I think I've already indicated why I think the amendment is a positive move for local government: it will allow municipalities to opt

[ Page 5786 ]

for participation in the various economic development programs without committing themselves to industrial tax cuts. I think such flexibility in legislation for local government is a useful tool.

The minister has already indicated he is not going to support the amendment. That's unfortunate, because nearly everybody I have talked to in local government over the last few weeks about this legislation suggest that they wish this flexibility. As I've already indicated, if the minister and the government are serious about seeing municipalities develop their own economic development strategies, or create economic development committees or economic development promotions, those municipalities who do not have the financial resources to consider tax relief on new developments, or new development on existing industry, should not be compelled to give tax relief. I think that's only fair.

[10:15]

Everybody I've talked to on this issue believes this is a positive amendment to the legislation. I would hope that the minister would see it as a process that will be useful. It has come through my extensive consultation with local government that they would like to see such an amendment, and it gives the flexibility that the minister says he wishes to give local government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept this amendment. First of all, with the exception of the northern part of our province, we have spoken to over a thousand people representing municipalities throughout the province, and there is overwhelming support for the program as it is written. It is true that one municipality has suggested that they are not bound to that portion of the agreement. That municipality, of course, is the city of Vancouver, and they have been advised that we are not prepared to change the agreement. The agreement has been well accepted throughout the province.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 15

NAYS 27

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I would be remiss if I didn't raise under this section a concern that has been expressed very vigorously by one of the municipalities within my constituency. It's all very well to have these programs introduced if the municipal councils involved can in fact afford to have them, but there are many municipalities.... I think the minister is aware of a letter that has come in from the village of Cumberland with respect to their views on this particular program.

The people in Cumberland feel that the program that has been announced by the minister is not going to benefit them in any way, shape or form. They have expressed great disappointment in the program in that they cannot participate, because they don't have the basic funding or the basic services in order to entice any industry, new business or new development into that community. Mr. Chairman, the minister, I'm sure, has received a plea from Cumberland saying that this program should enable municipalities, in partnership with the government, to develop the services that are necessary so that they can entice industries in at some time in the future.

What's the point of having a program like this when communities that are already financially strapped cannot hope to participate? This is the concern that I would like to bring to the minister this morning on behalf of my constituents in Cumberland. They need water lines, sewer programs, sidewalks built and roads repaired. They need all of these things, Mr. Chairman, before they can over hope to have any expansion of the industries and businesses within that community of Cumberland.

They had written to the minister saying: "Please take us into account. Please ensure that we will be able to borrow sufficient money in order to do the necessary things so that we can participate in this program as well." They're disappointed. They're angry. As they say, what new business, what new industry is going to come into the village of Cumberland and start putting in water lines, sewer mains, and everything else before they can even locate? I would like the minister to comment on that particular concern from that community. Because of the cutbacks over the years, that community is so financially strapped that it can't even consider participating in this program.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, there is something in this program for every community in British Columbia. I guess it's a question of what comes first, the chicken or the egg. Are you going to go ahead and borrow and spend in all of these public works ahead of doing something to stimulate the economy, which will generate the funds from which the municipalities all benefit through revenue-sharing? The thrust of this legislation is to stimulate economic renewal and development at the local level, and by doing so you start to generate income for the province from which that same municipality would benefit through the revenue-sharing.

I think a very good example of what has been happening out there is the community of Sechelt, where the representatives from Sechelt that attended the meeting in Victoria announcing the program went back to council and said, as this member has just said: "There's nothing in it for us. There's nothing in it for small communities." That same member was at a workshop meeting — I believe it was in Kimberley — and stood up and said: "You know, I feel just a little bit embarrassed because I went back to my council after hearing of the program in Victoria and I said there was nothing in it for us. Council decided that they weren't going to participate." She said: "Now that I have had an opportunity to hear from the minister and from his staff, I see now that there is indeed something for our community. I will be

[ Page 5787 ]

going back to my council to recommend that indeed they reverse that decision."

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I will tell Cumberland and all other municipalities, as I have told you just now in this House, that indeed there is something in here for them. Cumberland will be given the opportunity to meet with people from my ministry to help them discover the parts of this program that can be beneficial to them.

MR. MITCHELL: As our debate leader has indicated, we are going to be supporting the bill, but not because we really feel that it is a municipal partnership at all. It's really, as one of the aldermen in my riding stated, a form of blackmail.

Within the Esquimalt municipality there are a majority who want to vote against the bill, but they do want to participate in the economic development officers for the regional area. This is the important part. We cannot allow municipalities to start getting into a game playing one municipality against the other. The progressive idea of the Esquimalt municipality is that they want to go in and work as the Capital Regional District to develop economic potential in the area as a whole. They are more than happy to work with the Capital Regional District, and they want to make sure that the money that is available for the development officers is there. So they are going to support it, because they feel that they are being blackmailed into something that is political hype.

Now the amendment that the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) proposed was a positive amendment. I know I can't refer to that amendment, because that has already been voted on. But what it did was recognize the good parts, the positive parts of the economic development that is needed in British Columbia to diversify our industries. It's something that I have been saying in this House every year that I've been here: we must diversify and have economic development. These are some of the ideas that are contained in the bill.

I know it's one more number that will be on the list, and that the minister will say all these municipalities are supporting him. They are supporting him in parts, but they do have that gut feeling, Mr. Chairman, that they are being blackmailed, that they are being forced into something that they don't.... There isn't any real incentive or land available in a bedroom community that is going to bring in new industry that will not work in opposition to those industries that have carried the load when times were tough. And they don't want to go in.... They don't want to bring in a new organization or new industry that is going to run in competition with industrial firms that have held on, that have paid their way.

[10:30]

They don't want to see, as one lawyer friend of mine in municipal government said.... What it's doing is giving a lot of new business to lawyers who may be reforming or restructuring an existing company so they become a new company, so they can come under the benefits of cheaper taxes. You know, he says, "Maybe as a lawyer I should be supporting it, " but as an elected alderman he has to look after and speak for all those who are in industries — to protect all of them, and not to play games. This is our main objection: that the bill is not there for positive ideas. It is there as a kind of a forced media hype that we're going into partnership. We're not going into partnership. They're going into blackmailing.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, experience tells me that indeed there is limited negative response to this, but usually the politics come through. The member, of course, I would think, is speaking more for Esquimalt, where one alderman did come on the air while I was there and say that he was opposed to it for various reasons. But he admitted at the same time that he hadn't read it, hadn't seen it and really didn't know anything about it. So I cannot waste much time with those who are opposed to something they don't know anything about.

Now we're not talking about bribery here at all. We're talking about a volunteer program. There is not under any circumstances going to be a time when a municipality will be told that they must join. I have made it clear that it is entirely voluntary. If they don't wish to be involved, I will not take time to try and twist their arm, because we have too many — 87 up until Tuesday of this week — who have expressed interest. We have too many that really want to get on with the job.

Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about giving away taxes at all. Again, that's an indication of not understanding what the legislation says. We're talking about postponing additional taxes that will come on stream after this program expires.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that that member there will really look at this program, look at the volunteer part of it, look at the partnership role that it plays, and understand that we're not talking about asking municipalities to give any tax income away at all. We're talking about postponing taxes until the program ends, or they may decide to do otherwise. They may decide to phase in, phase out or whatever — tremendous flexibility.

MR. MITCHELL: I guess one who has negotiated many agreements.... An agreement is something that you mutually agree to. You take the areas that you are in agreement with and that you accept: that's a partnership. A partnership is not something that you either take all of or you get nothing. There are sections in the legislation that will cover one municipality 100 percent. But there are other municipalities that are still part of British Columbia that should be in a partnership, and that partnership should be that they are allowed to sit down and negotiate from their position, from their circumstances, from their land base. Remember that some of these municipalities, like Esquimalt, have been municipalities since 1912. They have carried the load, they have been the industrial base for the shipyard industry for British Columbia through two wars. We do have some industrial base; we do have some stake in British Columbia.

The minister comes along and says: "We know everything, and you either take it all or you take none." We say that a real partnership exists when the minister and the government will sit down and work and negotiate with each municipality, to give some of the benefits that are involved in this package, so that the local government can make the decision about what they want to utilize and what is going to be beneficial to that particular location. That's all we're saying.

A partnership is a partnership. A partnership is not something where the big guy says: "You sign this the way I've written it, or you don't sign at all." That's what we're saying is wrong with this particular attitude, and I think that the attitude of the government is what's lacking — the attitude of true partnership. True partnership is sitting down and agreeing on the issues that you agree on and signing those, not to be

[ Page 5788 ]

hoodwinked or to be pushed into going along with the government because they are the boss and they are the biggest. The worst part is that they have all the money tucked away in Victoria where they have centralized it, and no one else is going to get it unless they sing to their song-sheet and dance to their tune.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the agreement is an agreement of offer to enter into the partnership. The member fails to recognize that the province is also going to be committed to forgoing 50 percent of the non-residential tax. So you have an offsetting factor there. In addition to that, there are many other components to this program that will be provided by the provincial government.

The other component, and the one that this member seems to neglect to talk about, is the economics of it — the great potential for new job creation. Those are the things that you should be zeroing in on. Those are the things that you should be highlighting, not being negative and attempting to leave the impression that this has been imposed. No such thing; it's strictly voluntary. Considerable discussion took place with the community, with the UBCM, and certainly when the discussions first opened we had the proposed agreement all thought out. But we listened, Mr. Chairman. We have been listening and we have been talking; we have talked to over a thousand people. The reason for some of these amendments today is that we have been listening.

Let's not forget the real thrust of this legislation — to create new jobs for our people.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a number of questions, but it comes to my mind that if we are really developing what the minister wishes to call partnership and cooperation, part of that could be within this very legislative chamber. We have suggested what we think a very good amendment, which we think is supported by the majority of local councils and municipalities that may or may not participate in this legislation.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Where's your amendment?

MR. BLENCOE: I've already moved it. You got here late.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Victoria will please address his comments to the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps you have the same words for the member for Columbia River.

What I'm trying to say is that not only are we trying to develop a partnership with the municipalities and the provincial government, but let's not forget, in that atmosphere of trying to achieve some cooperation within this chamber, that this side of the House represents 750,000 people in the last election. Mr. Chairman, there is an opportunity here....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I rise on point of order. I realize that the young second member for Victoria hasn't been in the chamber all that long, but I wist someone would remind him that in committee stage we are dealing with a very narrow range of debate oriented specifically to particular clauses of the bill. Perhaps if he would understand that, he would confine his remarks somewhat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point with respect to the narrow range of debate specific on the section is well taken.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about a partnership act and municipal participation. What I am suggesting is that also, if we are talking about partnership and cooperation, there is a fact that can be made and even talked to in this section. That is that this side of the House represents 46 to 47 percent of the population of British Columbia, and I think it would have been in the interest of all British Columbians to accept suggestions for some changes to this legislation in an atmosphere of conciliation and cooperation. That's what we are suggesting...

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR.BLENCOE: ...and what do we have? We once again have a negative government that won't listen to any change from this side of the House. That is most unfortunate. I don't think British Columbians want to see that, Mr. Chairman. I think they would like to have seen some partnership between the two sides of this House on this legislation, given that we represent a considerable proportion of the population of British Columbia. But again we have a negative government that won't listen to change, won't listen to suggestions.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. The member had ample opportunity to carry on this type of debate during second reading of the bill. Surely, in the interest of the business of the House, he could obey the rules of the House and confine his debate to the section, which he has not been doing. He's been talking about a general political position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. You should confine yourself to the specific elements in section 2, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I think the points are well made and I think British Columbians understand the points that I'm trying to make.

I'd like to ask a specific question of the minister. He keeps saying that there is great interest, and he referred to it in his discussion of this section. I think he said 87 municipalities have expressed some kind of interest. Could the minister tell us this morning how many have actually signed? We've had this piece of legislation now....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. member, we're dealing with the specifics in section a 2. The Chair must remind you for the second time....

MR. BLENCOE: I would also remind the Chair....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order.

[ Page 5789 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there is no time for a point of order when the Chair is cautioning you. The Chair has asked you to deal with the specifics in section 2 — for the second time.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister mentioned how many had shown interest — he said that on section 2. I'm asking him how many have signed.

[10:45]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, doesn't that member realize that you cannot sign official documents without the legislation having been passed? That's why we're anxious to get on with this.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll rephrase my question. How many of those 87 have indicated to the minister that they are waiting at his door to sign?

AN HON. MEMBER: Eighty-seven.

MR. BLENCOE: How many?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, if we can have that member's cooperation and that of his colleagues today, and pass this today, our first official signing will take place in that great community of Trail on Monday. Immediately after that we will have 40.... We now have 40 who have passed the resolution. Some signed letters of intent. The first official signing will be Monday, and from there on we know that we have 40 ready to sign up.

MR. BLENCOE: Again on this section, I ask the minister: how many have requested to be able to utilize only those sections of the legislation that refer to economic development officers, local volunteers, committees, promotion aspects of this legislation. How many have asked for just those components?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Vancouver has not as yet indicated their decision. They have commended the Premier for the leadership that the program is giving. They are the only one that has clearly said they would like to enter into the agreement without that portion 1. We have possibly two or three others who have hinted that maybe it would be more acceptable to them if that portion wasn't there, but it's overwhelming that the agreement in its entirety is being very well received.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the order paper — to sections 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c). [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. BLENCOE: Perhaps the minister can give us the background and the rationale for these amendments — his interpretation.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The reason for these amendments, of course, is to add more flexibility to the program. Again we're talking about amendments that have been arrived at as a result of the communications we've been having throughout the province with municipalities. Only yesterday I received a letter, the last one received, requesting this sort of flexibility.

What this does is allow a municipality to enter into an agreement by parcel. It allows the municipality to have a variety of tax adjustments and to enter into an agreement for phasing out the tax relief. It just adds a greater flexibility to the entire program. It also covers an existing building within an industrial park that has been vacated — at least 50 percent of it — for the past six months.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm particularly interested in the last section. Is the minister saying that an entrepreneur who wishes to reopen a shut-down industry — it's a dormant industrial structure.... If it's been shut down for just six months, then this will allow them to reopen? Is that what he's saying?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I was slightly ahead of myself there. We will deal with that in the additional amendment that it is on the order paper — section 3.1.

MR. BLENCOE: That's what I thought, Mr. Minister.

Just a general comment on the amendments coming forward today. I think we've got the amendments before us because there has been lack of proper consultation — the partnership theme — beforehand. If the minister had worked it out.... I'm sure that all kinds of other things are going to come up as local councils look more closely at this legislation. There are also going to be all sorts of other unique and innovative ideas that this minister could have utilized. But because he did it in Victoria behind closed doors, with no consultation — or very little consultation — with those to be affected by this legislation, today we have amendments trying to band-aid this particular piece of legislation. If he'd entered into sincere and real consultation we would have had apiece of legislation that I don't think would have looked like this. Well, we probably wouldn't have had it because it might have been positive; we would have had some legislation that really reflects what local government desires and what they feel are the major components of real partnership.

What we have here are a few band-aids, because there was not the proper consultation with local government, I suspect that as local councils look at this legislation and try to convince the minister that there are other ways to go, they will have all sorts of other ideas. He is doing his consultation the wrong way. He said it in Newcombe Auditorium, quite categorically: "If you're not interested, we don't want to talk to you." Out front he stated that. That's the kind of attitude, the kind of treatment, this minister and this government have given local government. This process is the wrong way. It is reversed to the way it should be. We wouldn't have to have a number of patchwork band-aid amendments on a piece of legislation that was constructed by, I don't know who; but it certainly wasn't done in true partnership and consultation with local government.

That is why I have proposed some motions for real partnership and real consultation to rebuild local governments in British Columbia. We are concerned about this government's continuing attitude to local government and the process that it

[ Page 5790 ]

puts in place; and we'll continue to say that. We wouldn't have to have these last-minute amendments if the minister had done his job properly; if he had consulted properly and had really believed in and looked up the dictionary meaning of "partnership."

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke has indeed attended many of these meetings, including the UBCM convention. But apparently he totally missed the theme of the last UBCM convention, which was "community with emphasis on unity." This minister has spent considerable time out there communicating with municipalities. We have learned from that. We have learned that this is the approach that they want. They have been asking for the ability to give some tax relief. We have had requests from the communities for this opportunity to give tax relief. When we brought in the variable mill rate, that was at the request of municipalities. These amendments are not technical. These amendments are in here as a result of our communications, as a result of all the meetings that we have been having — and of the workshop meetings we have been having all over the province, at which, as I have already indicated, we spoke to over a thousand people. These were all very well-attended meetings, all very positive, and they were all very positive about the entire program.

The member, I am sure, would be critical the other way today if we hadn't had these amendments, some of which have been requested by the community. He would be lambasting us because we didn't bring them in. So I just want that member to know that there has been tremendous cooperation; there has been two-way communication.

The member forgets that many good things start with an idea somewhere. You put that idea together; then you take it out and you talk to the people about it. That is what we have done. As a result of that talking with the people, we have found the need for these amendments which further enhance the program according to their desires.

MR. BLENCOE: That makes my very point. If you had talked beforehand.... What you have learned is your lesson. You did something without consultation and now you've had to do some.... Because you listened you finally did some cooperation. Fine! Terrific! What I am suggesting to you is that in the future, when you bring in legislation that's based on partnership, you read the dictionary meaning of partnership.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, this member has been advised a number of times this morning that he should be discussing specific sections of the bill. He is standing here and lecturing the minister on his means of operation rather than debating the bill. Would you please bring him to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member will debate the specifics of the section.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, it's nice to see the Minister of Forests so concerned about the Minister of Municipal Affairs and defending him so, I might say, capably — but I don't particularly want to go quite that far. A few minutes ago the minister said "unity" — that's what this legislation is all about — and he was referring to this particular section. As I've already categorically said, this legislation flies in the face of unity. It's not going to create unity at all. It breaks up municipal cooperation — gets them fighting discount wars. We already know that some municipalities are having to say: "Well, one municipality is going 60; we'll have to go 65 percent" — or whatever. It's not a bill for unification.

The other point, Mr. Minister, is that you say these municipalities have asked for the ability to give tax breaks. Well, that's fine, but why make it compulsory for every municipality to give tax relief?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They have to to get the other components they may wish to participate in. Why not make it for those municipalities that wish to give a tax break — and so be it; they make that choice? Why not allow that to happen? Why make tax breaks compulsory for every single municipality?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I am having difficulty assessing the viability of you debating the principle of the whole bill. It's the amendment to section 3, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: I am responding to the minister's statement that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, two wrongs would not make a right. Please deal with the....

MR. BLENCOE: Well then, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Please deal with the amendment to the section.

MR. BLENCOE: I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you bring the minister up when he goes off the topic.

What I am saying is: why not allow municipalities that wish to give tax relief under municipal participation to do it? If they don't want to do it, that's the way to go. Let them choose; let them have their flexibility. This is not doing that at all, Mr. Chairman. It's compulsion, and that's not partnership or cooperation.

Amendment approved on division.

Section 3 as amended approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on the order paper introducing section 3.1. [See appendix.]

On section 3.1.

MR. BLENCOE: I am just going back to.... The minister stated that he jumped the gun on talking about dormant industrial structures. Perhaps he would give the specifics on that aspect.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm very willing to, Mr. Chairman. We have, again as a result of listening to our municipalities, realized that there are existing buildings in industrial parks which are standing vacant, and therefore we have been asked to consider an amendment that would indeed put those

[ Page 5791 ]

buildings to use. The amendment allows for the tax benefit on those where 50 percent of the building has been vacant for a period of six months or more.

MR. BLENCOE: I think this is a good move, and it's something that we have suggested; it has come through to us that it gives a break to existing industry that has struggled through the recession. Consequently, we support it.

I just wonder why the minister is really tying it down to six months. You know, the recession.... This government has been in office more than six months, and we've had some real problems in this province because of certain policies. Why would they limit it to six months? I think the scope should be a little broader. Maybe the minister could just expand on that.

[11:00]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It's very simple, Mr. Chairman. The building could have been vacant for 20 years. We say six months because we feel that it should be vacant for at least a six-month period. We have had suggestions made that some people could play little games by closing down and wanting to start up again under this program. We feel that by placing the six-month period in there we would prevent that from happening.

Amendment approved.

Section 3.1 approved.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. BLENCOE: On the proposed amendment to the bill, if you noticed, I also added that we strike section 5 of this particular piece of legislation. Again, I think the industrial electricity rate discount has some merit; however, again, I don't think a prerequisite to achieving the industrial electricity discount should be once again the tax relief or the tax giveaway. I think if this is a useful component of this partnership, Mr. Chairman, then it should stand alone. I don't think it should be again a blackmail sort of situation, where you have to give money away in one hand, and participate....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we note your amendment, and you were kind enough to copy us with it, but we also note that it would not be in order in that it would alter the principle of the bill. You would have to vote against that particular section if you wanted to oppose it.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 25, Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 25. Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill 26, Mr. Speaker

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ALLOWANCES
AND PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR, CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, Bill 26 is essentially an amendment. I guess it could be deemed to be an amendment to the amendment bill, Bill 46, which, of course, amends the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pensions Act. So Bill 26 was brought on on the basis of a careful review of the provisions contained in Bill 46. Really, after that careful review it has been deemed appropriate that there be a downward revision in compensation. The bill is a simple one, very clear, and I move second reading.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister is noted for his brevity, and I note his brevity again today. I suggest that this is a partial amendment to Bill 46. There is one aspect of Bill 46 that I don't see covered in this particular amendment, and that's the amending of section 9 that I suspected would occur. Section 9, I believe, in the old Bill 46 refers to parliamentary secretaries. I note that an order-in-council has been passed — illegally — on that section. But I guess that's a government prerogative under these circumstances.

The whole thing is a mess. What our leader asked for, suggested, and has been doing so since 1976, is a new system of formulating Legislative Assembly allowances and expenses, etc; that is with an independent tribunal at arm's length from the Legislature, appointed by the Legislature. Under those circumstances it strikes me that we would not be forever damned by whoever is critical of what an elected person earns or the expenses with which he or she is confronted. That's what we ask now. We say: "Let's get this whole question outside of the Legislature."

Three years ago, when we received a 10 percent cut, there was nobody out there on the parliamentary steps weeping and wailing. But when it goes the other way, then all heck breaks loose.

MR. ROSE: What's that "heck" all about?

MR. COCKE: That's a euphemistic statement.

Mr. Speaker, it's time now that we should review the whole process and get it out of the Legislative Assembly altogether. I can think, for example, who the tribunal.... It should not be name people; it should be name positions. For example, the Chief Justice of the province could chair it and

[ Page 5792 ]

possibly the president of the Chamber of Commerce, and the president of the B.C. Federation of Labour could sit on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Jack Munro.

MR. COCKE: I don't think he's president at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not here to decide or to suggest who they could be, but people whose positions are completely at arm's length could be empowered to come up not only with the suggestions but with the ability to implement. That could be provided in legislation. Then we would not only be properly looking after events with respect to our own allowances but we would be seen to be in that position.

Under the circumstances I can't see how we on this side of the House could possibly vote for this bill. Once again it is an arbitrary decision made by the government. I think the government would be better served, and so do my colleagues, taking the whole question right out of the Legislative Assembly. I believe that all assemblies should be looking at this particular direction. Some already do.

It's high time we were doing something different than what we've been doing, and it's high time that something different from what we've been going through occurred so that we needn't go through these kinds of situations again. It's unfair to the public. I think it's unfair to us, and I think that that's the way we could better serve the future respect of this assembly from the public perception standpoint.

Mr. Speaker, having said that, I think I've said all we on this side of the House can say, which is that we can't support this amendment based on the fact that it should be at arm's length from the Legislative Assembly.

[11:15]

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'll take the member's comments under consideration. I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 14

Bill 26, Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: May I ask leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have in our gallery today that great candidate in the last election for the Social Credit Party in Vancouver East. I do hope the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) is trembling in his boots today. I'm sure that all members would like to bid special welcome to Mr. Mario Caravetta.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Ree in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

On vote 37: minister's office, $206,025.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, the estimates for the Ministry of Health for the 1985-86 fiscal year would give a clear indication of the financial dimensions of our comprehensive health care system, which we consider to be among the best anywhere, and which we hold out as perhaps the most comprehensive health care system in Canada.

As members will note, the total amount that the committee will be asked to vote for the ministry is two and two-thirds billion dollars. When the amount paid directly to the ministry in the form of premiums in our medical services plan is added — that's about $347 million — the ministry's total budget in direct spending will exceed the $3 billion mark. Ten years ago $3 billion was the total amount of the provincial budget.

Managing a budget of this size imposes special responsibilities. With the Health ministry accounting for in excess of 30 percent of the total provincial budget, very prudent management is required to ensure that the demands of the health system do not take over and smother the legitimate demands of many other worthwhile government endeavours and programs. I can assure members that the ministry has a most capable management team.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention the appreciation of Peter Bazowski, who recently retired after four years as Deputy Minister of Health and a very long and successful career in the public service. The result of Peter's efforts as the top manager of the Health ministry is seen in the more efficient and cost-effective health care delivery system in the province. I'm confident there will be continuity at the top in the Health ministry, with the duties of deputy minister being taken over by Mr. Stan Dubas, who served as senior assistant deputy minister during the past four years and had a very important role to play in the significant changes which have taken place over the past number of years.

In its role as the principal manager of the health care system, the Ministry of Health is a partner of the many diverse elements of the system which directly provide care to British Columbians. There are certain services in which the ministry is a direct provider — preventive services and mental health programs. In other areas, such as hospital programs and physician services, the ministry's role is that of a funding agency and policymaker. In a system which directly employs about 75,000 people in British Columbia, a broad spectrum of professional and occupational specialists, there is bound to be conflict at certain times. Institutions and professional groups guard their jurisdictions zealously. Sometimes the minister is expected to act as referee between competing

[ Page 5793 ]

interests; at other times the group or institutions themselves may be at odds with the ministry.

Mr. Chairman, while I am outlining the scope of our ministry, I would also like to recognize the attendance today in the galleries of the Hon. Andrew Mensaros, who is a member of the legislative assembly for Western Australia. Mr. Mensaros is visiting Victoria, and I would like to recognize his presence here today.

Despite the impressions of permanent combat which appear frequently in the headlines, the reality behind the scenes is that these groups I've been speaking of are partners in a system which provides for nearly all the health care requirements of British Columbians. This reality is recognized by those partners. When you strip away the rhetoric and the public posturing, you'll find that the ministry and the various professional and institutional groups enjoy a very good and close relationship. The system simply could not function otherwise.

As I mentioned, one of the ministry's main roles is that of a funding agency for most of the health system, which brings us to this year's estimates. They call for an increase of $126 million over the comparable 1984-85 figures. That would be about a 5 percent increase. There are always demands for expansion of services — many competing demands — but in our current economic conditions, with the province rebuilding its economy to hopefully a full recovery from the tough years of the early eighties, I think to maintain current service levels is a very reasonable objective.

Careful management of the funds allocated for health services has been a significant achievement of the ministry over the past several years. With one notable exception the ministry has operated within budget. The exception has been the Medical Services Plan, which has operated on an open ended basis. The total amount spent has been determined entirely by the number of services provided to the plan's subscribers. Rapid growth in utilization of the plan has meant expenditures have consistently exceeded the amount budgeted.

There is every possibility that this situation may become a thing of the past. The ministry has negotiated an agreement with the medical profession which calls for government and the profession to share responsibility for future growth in the utilization of services. Under the agreement we've recognized that population growth will lead to some increases in the use of services, and we've allowed for a 1.5 percent increase in the budget. A further 2 percent increase has been allowed for utilization increases resulting from such factors as the demographics of the province, the aging of the population and some technical changes in medical procedures. In the event that the Medical Services Plan budget is exceeded, the medical profession will absorb increases of up to 4 percent. That will be done over adjustments in the fee schedule. We hope and believe the plan will remain within budget, making such adjustments unnecessary. We have some reason to believe we will not exceed that budget this year. But we do have a slight padding of 4 percent, which is a considerable amount of money. Estimates before the committee in vote 39, projected total budget for the Medical Services Plan of $936 million, include the 3.5 percent I mentioned.

In connection with the Medical Services Plan, I should mention that the ministry has profound concerns about the impact that British Columbia's considerable supply of physicians has on that plan and the budget. The ministry has attempted to come to grips with this phenomenon, recognizing that the province has, in our judgment, at least 300 more physicians than are required to provide a good level of care. Those 300 physicians would cost the plan approximately $50 million.

[11:30]

Attempts to reduce the oversupply through controls on medical practitioner numbers, which entitle physicians to bill the plan, were quite successful since we introduced that in late 1983. In fact, 135 fewer doctors received numbers in 1984 than in 1983. As members are aware, I recently introduced legislation which we believe would ensure that practitioner number controls will continue. I believe the process will play an important role in keeping our costs within affordable limits.

Mr. Chairman, preventive programs tend to have a low profile until there is a public scare about the possible outbreak of a communicable disease. Fortunately, that type of scare is almost without foundation, thanks in a very large part to the quality of preventive health measures and the people in the field. The use of preventive programs in B.C. has ensured that the vast majority of our children are immunized against serious communicable diseases, that standards of hygiene affecting our public water and food supplies are regularly monitored, and that the orderly development of our communities takes into account public health concerns.

Some of the traditional public health measures have served us well for some time, and they are becoming increasingly important as pressures on the environment increase. But along with these more traditional programs the ministry is working on other developments to promote better health. The ministry's health promotion branch is engaged in five pilot programs, each aimed at improving the health of a specific target group. By focusing on known health problems in these groups rather than taking a broad-brush approach aimed at the entire population, we hope to come up with some effective and cost-effective solutions dealing with those problems.

For the interest of the members, the five programs we are now working on, which are pilot projects, include reducing the incidence of low-birth-weight babies in high-risk groups who have not taken advantage of existing prenatal programs; improving the health and independence of senior citizens through increased activity and better health practices; preventing back injuries in hospital workers; encouraging junior high school students not to start smoking; and reducing obesity in students at the grade 6 level. All these projects ultimately rely on the concept of the individual taking more responsibility for their own personal health. They are designed for application in other settings throughout the province, after being tested in specific communities. The general approach is to develop programs that can be delivered through various existing community resources such as schools, senior citizens' groups and volunteer health associations. The groups would be assisted by the various instructional and promotional technicians, and they would be advised of the techniques and materials which would be available for them.

Vote 40 also covers a range of services grouped under the title of community care services. These include vital statistics, forensic psychiatric services, alcohol and drug programs and mental health services. Again, Mr. Chairman, the funding budgeted would allow the current levels of service to be maintained.

[ Page 5794 ]

The lion's share of the ministry's budget is found under vote 41, institutional services, at approximately $1.8 billion this year. Most of that, of course, is earmarked for the province's hospital system. It allows the hospitals to operate 11,400 acute-care beds, the same level of service as last year.

During the past year B.C. hospitals have coped well, although a few incidents created dramatic headlines — but we anticipate and expect that. For example, there was great consternation when Vancouver General Hospital announced the temporary closure of beds. There were predictions of dire consequences — the usual rather silly statement that seems to be standard, that people will die in the halls. In fact, there was very little impact on the level of services provided, and the waiting lists did not lengthen.

Vancouver General Hospital, by the way, has just been awarded a three-year accreditation, which is the highest possible evaluation by the hospital industry. St. Paul's Hospital recently received a similar rating, as have other major B.C. hospitals. I think that speaks highly about the ability of hospital management and staff to cope with resources when they're not as freely available as they have been in the past.

In fact, the ministry has enhanced its ability to analyze the performance of hospitals, and some of the resulting statistics really have brought certain matters to the attention of many and have been very useful.

During 1984 the ministry has asked hospitals to monitor the time patients have waited for non-emergency surgery. Hospitals are requested to do this once every three months by checking the waiting time for each patient who received surgery during a given week. The most recent statistics were gathered during February from 14 of the largest hospitals in the province.

Mr. Chairman, the statistics are most interesting. For inpatient surgery the statistics show that 76 percent of patients had their operations less than eight weeks after surgery was booked. That period is considered optimal for efficient booking of operating rooms, scheduling of staff, patients' convenience and the availability of the physicians involved. The figures are: four out of five patients waited less than eight weeks for surgery; 17.6 percent waited between eight and 16 weeks; and 6.5 percent had to wait more than 16 weeks. The statistics for day surgery paint a similar picture: 85 percent had their operations performed in less than eight weeks.

I would suggest that it's evident that the waiting periods are not what some of the headlines would suggest, but by focusing on isolated cases and presenting them as typical, the argument that certain situations are desperate sometimes appears to be reasonable. Such is not the case. There will always be exceptions, of course.

But these so-called crisis situations are inevitably accompanied by demands that the whole problem could be solved by throwing more money at it — a great deal of money. I think almost without exception those cries for more money can often be traced to people who have absolutely no idea where the money even comes from. Money is by no means a panacea for health care problems.

One approach which we are gratefully borrowing from our friends in Ontario, while not costly, will probably prove to be very beneficial. I'd like to just fill the members in on this. Perhaps you have seen some information. In Ontario they experimented with computer terminals at each of major hospitals in a given area. They regularly update the picture on the availability of beds in the emergency operating rooms in each facility. The local ambulance centre also has a terminal.

The ambulance crews, then, communicating by radio with emergency physicians at the designated hospitals, can be informed of the most appropriate hospital immediately available to these emergency patients. They can then head to that specific hospital.

Mr. Chairman, the ambulance dispatcher coordinator is aware at all times of where a bed and a position suitable for the services required by that patient would be, rather than perhaps going to the wrong hospital and then being diverted. This approach was first tried in Hamilton in a network of five hospitals. Prior to its introduction, the Ontario Health ministry heard the same complaints others had had that the only solution to these crowded emergency rooms was more and more beds. The computerized emergency admission system was such a success in Hamilton they were able to reduce the congestion without having to add any beds. In fact, it was so successful it's being spread to six other major cities in Ontario, including Metro Toronto.

The same system is being adapted for use in British Columbia. The first installation will be open next month in Victoria. It'll connect Royal Jubilee, Victoria General and Saanich Peninsula Hospitals. Once the system is operating smoothly we will introduce it in other areas: New Westminster, Coquitlam and the downtown Vancouver core. Interestingly enough, the total cost for the three systems will be about $50,000. The cost of operating one acute-care bed year round is $120,000.

A story for the media, if they're listening: waiting lists for open-heart surgery have been a high profile issue for many, many years. After an analysis this past year, the statistics tell an interesting story. The number of open-heart procedures being performed is steadily increasing. In 1983 the figure had reached 1,722 operations, which was up from 1,501 in 1982; there was a steady average in the 1,400 range for several years before that. At the same time the waiting list has dropped from 417 patients at the start of 1984 to 190 by the end of the year. At St. Paul's Hospital and Royal Jubilee the waiting time for open-heart surgery has been reduced to about two weeks. Hospitals have been able to respond to the needs of the acutely ill by focusing resources to meet specific demands such as open-heart surgery.

A steadily increased emphasis on day surgery has been another approach. This was introduced in our hospitals in 1968. Now more than a quarter of all surgery in B.C. is performed on a day basis, with the patient discharged within 24 hours of admission. It relieves the patient of the inconvenience of a hospital stay and costs approximately one-third to one-half of a single day's in-patient stay.

A couple of other comments. During the past year I had the pleasure of participating in the opening of two exceptionally fine hospital facilities. One was the Eagle Ridge Community Hospital in Port Moody. Another was the A. Maxwell Evans Clinic in Vancouver, which is the main facility of the B.C. Cancer Control Agency. Among other things, the increase in funds in vote 41 will provide full-year budgets for these hospitals, which came on stream partway through the year.

Funding will also be provided to increase the number of extended-care beds operated by our public hospitals to more than 7,000. Ten years ago we had 4,000. The continuing care program is also within vote 41. Funding for long-term care facilities will be increased to accommodate the addition of two new intermediate-care facilities: a 50-bed unit in Oliver and a 130-bed unit which will open on the B.C. Place site —

[ Page 5795 ]

not associated with B.C. Place, but on that site, False Creek. Both will be operated by non-profit societies. Since the continuing care program was introduced in 1978 as the longterm care program, it's grown to a point where its budget is $300 million a year, serving more than 55,000 British Columbians.

In both the facility care services and those services provided in the home, about 85 percent of the clients are senior citizens. The program is going to be even more essential as the age continues to increase in our population. Seniors comprise approximately I I percent of the population, but that group consumes approximately 35 percent of the health care budget. Increasingly, the emphasis in continuing care is toward the home support programs where care can be provided without disrupting the client's life through institutionalization. The services are less costly to provide than facility-based programs, which means more clients can be served with the funds available.

I am confident that the funding allocated to the health ministry in these estimates will enable the many providers of health programs in B.C. to continue to offer a high standard of service to our citizens. While the occasional controversy regarding a particular facility or an individual patient is often allowed to overshadow the unsung, day-to-day service provided through the province, I am convinced these are the exception and not the rule.

[11:45]

There can be very few British Columbians who do not require one health service or another during the course of a year, and I am sure the overwhelming majority are very satisfied with that service and grateful to the health professionals and workers who provide it.

Mr, Chairman, I look forward to remarks by members with respect to the estimates. I will try to provide them the best answers available. I would just like to say that we are very proud of our health care services in the province, and that we are most fortunate in having a very competent group of people offering these services to our citizens. We are indeed a very fortunate people in British Columbia.

MRS. DAILLY: I would like to thank the minister for giving a fairly detailed rundown of his ministry. That's always helpful to the critics over here — or debate leaders or whatever we wish to be called — when we have to reply.

I'll be starting off with some general remarks as the debate leader for Health. Then I'll move into the area of hospitals, with some specific remarks and questions for the minister in that area.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:48 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

25 The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 25) intituled Provincial-Municipal Partnership Act to amend as follows:

SECTION 1, in paragraph (b) of the definition of "eligible improvements" by deleting "entered on" and substituting "entered on or eligible to be entered on".

SECTION 3, (a) by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following:

"(2) The exemption under subsection (1) shall be a percentage of the taxes that the council sets by bylaw, but

(a) a bylaw shall not set a percentage of less than 50%, and

(b) in respect of any eligible improvement for which the council does not set a percentage in accordance with this section, the percentages is 50%.",

(b) by adding the following subsection:

"(2.1) A bylaw under subsection (2)(a) may do all or any of the following:

(a) set a uniform percentage in respect of all eligible improvements,

(b) set a uniform percentage for each year,

(c) set different percentages in respect of eligible improvements situated on different parcels of land specified in the bylaw, and

(d) set different percentages for different years,", and

(c) by deleting subsection (4) and substituting the following:

"(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of an eligible improvement where

[ Page 5796 ]

(a) the tax that would be payable in respect of that eligible improvement if this section were not in force is less than an amount prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or

(b) the assessed value of the eligible improvement is less than an amount prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

SECTION 3.1, by adding the following as section 3.1: "Relief for vacant industrial buildings

"3.1 (1) In this section

'industrial building' means a building in the industrial class of improvements prescribed under section 26 of the Assessment Act;

'tax' means tax payable under section 273(a) and (b) of the Municipal Act or section 373 of the Vancouver Charter.

"(2) Where a municipality has entered into an agreement, the council of the municipality may by bylaw reduce the tax payable in respect of an industrial building where, during the entire 6 months immediately before the enactment of the bylaw, not less than 50% of the floor area of the building has been vacant and unused.

"(3) The percentage by which the tax on the industrial building may be reduced under subsection (2) is a percentage of not less than 50% nor more than 100%, set by the council for all vacant buildings or for the particular building.

"(4) A bylaw under this section applies only in respect of the calendar year in which it is enacted, and has no effect unless it is adopted not later than May 15 of the calendar year in respect of which it applies."