[ Page 12729 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Private Members' Statements

Distribution of public lottery dollars. Mr. D'Arcy –– 12729

Mr. Long

Tourism and music. Mr. Reid –– 12730

Ms. Pullinger

Voter registration. Mr. G. Hanson –– 12733

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Zirnhelt

Legal aid for who? Mr. De Jong –– 12734

Mr. Barnes

Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1991 (Bill 4). Committee stage.

(Hon. J. Jansen) –– 12736

Mr. Clark

Third reading

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations estimates.

(Hon. J. Jansen)

On vote 31: minister's office –– 12740

Ms. Cull

Mr. Peterson

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber

Mr. Miller

FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1991

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Private Members' Statements

DISTRIBUTION OF
PUBLIC LOTTERY DOLLARS

MR. D'ARCY: I want to discuss lotteries in British Columbia and give a brief overview, first of all, of the history of lotteries in B.C.

You will remember that when the program was first set up in 1974 the purpose of lottery moneys was to support amateur sports, heritage activities and culture in British Columbia. As we all know, the Lottery Fund earnings for the province, after winnings, grew quite modestly from less than about three-quarters of a million dollars in the first year to around $200 million today. But whenever you're dealing with public moneys, particularly large amounts, the need for much closer accountability grows with the amount. Some would argue that accountability should be there even for small amounts of money.

Back in 1981, ten years ago, when the lottery program was seven years old, the ombudsman responded to a complaint by the Downtown Eastside Residents' Association. Their application had been rejected, and they had reason to believe that they had met all of the published guidelines; nonetheless, it was rejected. The ombudsman recommended, in his response to the complaint that procedures and guidelines be formalized, that grant programs must be clear about their goals and decisions, and that guidelines need to be adequately publicized. He also recommended — and this is a key recommendation, Mr. Speaker — that a lottery advisory committee be appointed pursuant to section 3 of the Lottery Act already in place. The minister rejected the idea of a committee on that day ten years ago.

Even today, in 1991, we still do not have an arm's-length advisory committee. For this amount of money, public funds — some would argue, voluntary tax contributions to British Columbia — there is more than ever a need not only for justice and fairness to be done and openness to happen with the disbursement of these lottery funds, which after all belong to the communities whence the money came, but for fairness to be seen by the people of British Columbia to be done. It does not help the image of the government of the day or indeed of the Legislature in general to have the feeling out there that there are hundreds of millions of dollars of lottery funds annually being disbursed one way or another without any public scrutiny, really. It's a "trust us" situation on the part of the provincial government.

The problem of perception increased significantly during the term of the present government, Mr. Speaker, when the government introduced the Growth and Opportunities B.C. program. This is essentially a capital program for large grants. It was essentially the same as the original lottery program, but rather than being restricted to small grants It followed roughly the same guidelines as the basic lottery program but allowed for very large grants in the event that they were applied for and the organization met the guidelines. Since that time, of course, all grants, large and small, have become Growth and Opportunity grants.

By the way, there were some fairly high-sounding purpose statements surrounding it. The idea was "to enrich the quality of life in British Columbia and to build on the strong feeling of pride in B.C. communities by supporting social, cultural, environmental, recreational, health and economic projects in local communities" — in other words, Mr. Speaker, virtually anything that was applied for by a public organization to which the general public had access and where the organization itself would put up the remaining two thirds that was not covered by the Lottery Fund.

We all know the entire system became somewhat besmirched in the public eye by a grant to Semiahmoo House Society a few years ago for which no application had been put in, at least not until after the grant was placed. I'm not suggesting that at the time there was anything illegal, immoral or unethical about the grant. What happened, though, was that the public saw an extremely large grant given out with no review, no knowledge that the organization was a public organization — that there was public access — and that the other two-thirds was going to be met by public donations and volunteer labour. In other words, there was no evidence at all that they met the guidelines of the program or that the very competent staff of the lottery organization had indeed recommended that this grant proceed.

Once again this leads to a question that has often been asked in this House — really, on the order paper — and that is: how many grants have been recommended for approval by staff and turned down, and how many others have been approved which were not, at least not initially, recommended by the staff who receive the applications from community groups throughout British Columbia? This question has never been answered and it is a concern that everyone still has in British Columbia. I would hope that the government of the day, in the latter months of its term in office, will see fit to put in place a sunshine policy — if not a sunshine act — relative to the approval and disbursement of funds from the lotteries of British Columbia. It's way overdue.

MR. LONG: In responding on the Lottery Fund in British Columbia and the member bringing accountability and trust forward, all the members in this House know what the Lottery Fund and GO B.C. are about, and that there are procedures, rules and accountability that have been shown by this government. For the funds to be allocated, the criteria on the application forms must be followed. The staff of the lottery grants branch puts forward, with a recommendation to the minister, any amounts up to $150,000. In most cases, unless the guidelines are not followed,

[ Page 12730 ]

these are approved. Anything over $150,000 must go to a ministerial review committee, which takes a look at the project's impact on the community.

I notice that it's up to individual members to bring forward the programs they want to back up for their own communities. The members opposite must remember that they have to get on board with their communities and work hard for these funds.

I have one in my own community for the Sechelt Indian band. He talked about the quality of life The Sechelt Indian band received a large amount of money — $819,000 — to build their building and to put in theatres. It is integrated with the rest of Sechelt and is a good example of how to work together with GO B.C. funds for the good of the community.

I'd like to see us open up the GO B.C. funds to the possibility of capital costs for organizations that want to raise money for equipment, such as we did with the bone marrow equipment. We bought the computers through GO B.C. funds on a matching-dollar basis. That gives us 50-cent dollars for medical equipment here in the province. I would like to see that carried on for all organizations that raise money for hospitals for capital equipment, such as mammogram equipment, therapy pools and x-ray equipment. We can enhance it by people getting involved and understanding exactly what drives the health care system. They and we can show some participation through this fund and get on with enhancing our quality of life here in British Columbia through the participation of people working together with government through a fund such as this, so that everybody is a beneficiary of it.

[10:15]

The member opposite indicated that Victoria didn't get its fair share. When going through the figures, I noticed that Victoria received over $3,330,000 of GO B.C. funds, and we do not have a sitting member from this area. I think if you check the record, they're pretty well balanced out, and everybody in British Columbia has the opportunity to receive these funds and enhance the life of everyone.

But I go back to my pet project — that is, to see that in the future we open up GO B.C. funds to those organizations. I'll give you an example. A pet project in Powell River is a therapy pool for the new hospital Everybody in town is working hard for the money. I would like to see them match the funds raised by these people for the capital equipment going into those hospitals. It's cheaper for us and for the people of British Columbia, and it gives everybody an understanding of what it takes to make this province work.

MR. D'ARCY: I enjoyed listening to the comments of the member for Mackenzie. The member, though, still does not understand the point that I've attempted to make this morning. I'm not contending that there is skulduggery in the granting of lottery funds throughout British Columbia or even that there is unfairness or favouritism between one constituency and another.

I find myself in the position of an opposition member giving political advice to the government which, if they take it, may help to improve their image with the voters. The fact is that when it comes to lottery money, the general public does not trust politicians. So what was the government's reaction a year ago when there was a perception that there was a major problem and the auditor-general was making recommendations? Their response was to set up a committee of four politicians who are going to make decisions and do reviews in the back room — not out in the open. That is the political problem the public has with the disbursement of lottery funds.

I, like the member for Mackenzie, don't feel discriminated against at all. In fact, if anything, I would like to suggest to the House that the numerous worthy organizations within my riding have always received a very sympathetic ear from the staff and also the minister involved when they have submitted a lottery grant application. Of course, those were the organizations which always had wonderful causes and which always totally met the guidelines and even well beyond. But the fact is that the government still does not understand it's going to have to open up the process.

I'm not even aware of who the four government politicians are on the committee right now. The Attorney-General used to be one; I don't know whether he still is. The Energy minister from South Peace used to be one; nobody knows if he's still there. My colleague from Nelson-Creston, the Tourism minister, was one of the members of the review committee, and I can't even think at the moment who the fourth one was.

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: That's right — the first member for Saanich and the Islands. I presume that was when he was Minister of Finance.

Nobody knows who's reviewing these right now. Before we leave this topic — and I hope the government will seriously consider reviewing their approach to this — I would note that the auditor-general early this year asked for an update status report. He has yet, three months later, to receive that report.

TOURISM AND MUSIC

MR. REID: I take pleasure in standing in my place, following some friends on the other side raising that issue. It's appropriate that I raise the issue this morning about tourism, entertainment and music, because it is the result of some discussions that this House had a couple of years ago, raised by the other side of the House. The member who raised it — and I'm sorry he's not here today, as I commend him for raising it — is the former member for Vancouver East. He said that when he was the minister dealing with those issues...if there's anything this government doesn't do, it's that it doesn't do enough for music in British Columbia.

I want to commend that member. I wish he was here, because he raised it. He raised lots of major issues here. We miss him dearly, but I can tell you that this government took up that issue and initiative in saying that if, in fact, the music, the festivals and the music community out there are not addressed often enough with lottery funds, we should put a program in place which does that. So we did that. We put in place

[ Page 12731 ]

the most dramatic tourism, music and festival initiative in the history of the province since Expo 86. It's called Music '91.

Mr. Speaker, it's important because Music '91 is designed to draw in all the amateur artists, the Canadian artists and the people who deal with arts and music in British Columbia in order to bring them together in the times of the year when other people across the province and from other areas can visit and appreciate the artistic component and the musical ability in the province of British Columbia and allow that to be displayed. At the same time, it will allow an opportunity for the second-largest industry in British Columbia, which is tourism, to expand.

Secondly, it will encourage the expansion of tourism by British Columbians seeing British Columbia and British Columbia artists performing in communities like Nelson, Trail and Castlegar, where just last weekend there was a tremendous reception for Music '91's. They had an attendance of 10,000 people at the event in Castlegar, because tourism and music came together to draw people into the little town of Castlegar — a tremendous little community. Lottery funds provided a major swimming facility for Castlegar, which that member skipped over, but I'm sure he would have related to that.

On the subject of tourism and music, this year we have the opportunity to address the concerns of the former member for Vancouver East, who said this government doesn't care about the music community. I can tell you that we do care, and it has proven out already in a couple of centres. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could read off the list of areas in the province where these people.... I won't read it off, because I know it's against the rules, but I will try to glance over my shoulder and take up a couple.

1 know there has been a charge and a challenge by the members from the other side of the House, who have said: "Oh, you know what's going to happen this year. It's just like everything else that happens in government. All those ridings that the members over there represent are going to get special treatment." Well, I can tell you they're wrong again, because this is a fair government. When this government looked at the communities that have artists and that will benefit from tourism and music, that was every community in the province of British Columbia.

I want to point out that the most recent example was right here in downtown Victoria, where Music '91 showcase was kicked off two weeks ago on June 1 and 2. The most dramatic music event in the history of Victoria kicked off out here. What happened? We had artists from all across the province coming to perform in Victoria. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? There weren't many artists from Victoria participating. Do you want to know why? The B.C. Teachers' Federation and the music teachers' association didn't want a government program to have their blessing. So lo and behold, the participants were from outside the community of Victoria.

Anyway, the success of it is important, because it drew people in from Anacortes, the lower mainland and Victoria for that weekend. It drew people in from the upper Island, Chemainus, Duncan, Nanaimo and Port Alberni — you name it — who wanted to have a nice, happy weekend watching performers born and raised in British Columbia performing for British Columbians. It happened right here. And isn't it surprising...?

Oh, there is a member for Nanaimo here. What's happening in Nanaimo this year? Is that member going to stand up in her place and talk about the great things that Music '91 and tourism together are going to do for downtown Nanaimo — brought on because of the foresight of this government? What are the community artists in that little town going to do to promote themselves in my little community of White Rock? They could tell them: "Come on over to Nanaimo and see some of the Nanaimo artists; we will be there."

But the important thing is that we're keeping British Columbians seeing more of British Columbia — not only the natural components we have, but also the artists' performances in the small-town communities that have some artists who don't get a chance to be shown around internationally. We will show them to our own people. We will keep the people at home and keep the tourist dollars in British Columbia. We will get a chance to pat our artists, performers, local festival people and local music people on the back. Mr. Speaker, that's so important. And it's going to happen in every community, not only in Nanaimo and Victoria but also in White Rock, Steveston, Kimberley and Tumbler Ridge. Believe it or not, it's going to happen in Prince Rupert, where they have trouble getting any artists at all. But it will happen in Prince Rupert, because we're going to send some high-quality people from around the province into that nice community of Prince Rupert — and into Queen Charlotte City.

You name it, it's going to happen in 150 communities where they are going to have a chance to promote themselves. They're going to have a chance to be proud of their community artists and the headliners that are going to come in there. Funded by lottery money, the headliners that come to these communities are going to be another major draw and will fill up all the venues like Castlegar and Victoria with 10,000, 12,000, 14,000 and 15,000 people.

MS. PULLINGER: I'm delighted to respond to the member's statement on Music '91 or the Year of Music. As I said last year and I've said again this year, we think the concept of Music '91 is a good idea. Of course, as we all know, it's original mandate was one of regional economic development. It was to draw people out of the lower mainland and into the regions of British Columbia to counteract the negative effects for the regions of Expo 86 and the GST, both of which are significant. It's worth noting that this government supported the GST until the polls showed it was not a very popular tax.

So we've supported that part of the mandate; we also supported the original mandate of Music '91, which was to add culture to British Columbia's "super, natural" image. Sadly, both of those mandates have changed significantly over the course of Music '91.

[ Page 12732 ]

It was worth supporting the idea that we could promote British Columbia's home-grown cultural base to add to the "super, natural" B.C. image. After all, we have many very unique and interesting cultures around B.C. We have rodeos, we've got the Peach Festival, Klondike Days, local fairs, agricultural exhibitions, B.C. music festivals and hundreds of B.C. musicians and artists. We have a lot of talent in British Columbia and a lot of events that are unique to this province. I say unique, because uniqueness is important in tourism. In fact, uniqueness or differences are one of the best-selling things of tourism. That's why our "super, natural" image works. It focuses tourism, publicity or advertising on what's unique and different in B.C., which is our spectacular scenery and clean, safe and natural environment. We ought to be able to promote our uniqueness in culture to add to that image.

However, the problem with Music '91 — and there are some problems — is that it's a great idea in the hands of a bad government. Let's hope that the Year of Music succeeds, and it most likely will. But I would like to suggest that it will succeed in spite of these people, in spite of this government and because of the many people around B.C. In communities who will work hard to make it happen.

As we know, Music '91 is already sounding a few sour notes. For instance, I have noted several times in the Legislature that the $12-million taxpayer budget, the $12 million of lottery funds, has become $19 million — $7 million over budget — in spite of the fact that this government is not about to admit that, nor come clean and tell us where that money is coming from. That's deplorable.

[10:30]

I understand that corporate donations are down $6 million. We've also seen an exodus of the top executives: the president has left; the chair of the board some other board members and the vice-president of marketing. There's an exodus of people from the top of Music '91, and it's not surprising to hear that the board has asked to be indemnified so that those individuals aren't personally responsible for any losses. A number of communities around British Columbia are frustrated because there is no confirmation of big name bands, and yet we all know that it takes some time to promote these things.

The member for Prince Rupert was on CBC yesterday talking about some of the problems. The real problem is twofold. There has been no consultation with the existing cultural community, musicians or communities in the planning process, and the bottom line is that this was a politically motivated Year of Music, which lasted two years and which was supposed to create a party atmosphere to help get these people on the other side of the House re-elected. It could have worked; it should have worked. It probably will work for the communities; I don't think it will work as a re-election plan. The taxpayers, Mr. Speaker, are not going to be fooled again. They know the government's motive, and I think it's fitting that in this Year of Music this government is going to have to face the music in a general election.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, on the subject of music, I can tell you that this government will go to the public at any time, because we've taken That member said that this government doesn't care about music. I can tell you, this government cares about music. We took some direction from the other side of the House in dealing with the question, but the interesting thing is that she talked about festivals and events and not being fully organized or timely. I have a list of 150 communities to do with the little berry festival in Abbotsford.... I could read them all off, but I've got some other things I'd like to say.

I wanted to talk about the community groups, for instance, that we had involved with the Victoria one. Victoria had local groups such as the Killarney Strings from Vancouver, the Maple Leaf Singers from Vancouver, the Mount Baker Secondary Musical Review from Cranbrook — all on the Spirit of B.C. bandstand — Skywalk, the Dots, Paul Hann, Gay Delorme, David Gogo and the Persuaders — all British Columbia groups, here in Victoria doing a tourism initiative, bringing the people together. I can tell you that if that's the winning way to pump up the public, to get them excited about what British Columbia has to offer and why British Columbians should believe in a government that believes in them, a government that believes in their own artists, believes in their own people and puts their money where their mouth is, puts $12 million out there.... With that $12 million the government put out we raised another $12 million-plus from companies such as Labatt, Molson, Pepsi, Air Canada, Air B.C., Lotto B.C., B.C. Telephone and B.C. Hydro — all companies that wanted to be part of a positive music event called "Tourism and Music."

Mr. Speaker, what I want to do today, if I can, is take a moment on behalf of this House and all the people involved with Music '91 and all the other neat initiatives that happen in B.C. to pay special recognition to the president of the B.C. Pavilion Corporation, who instituted Music '91. In my capacity as Minister of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, I had the privilege to work with Mr. Mike Horsey, who served as my deputy minister. He was directly involved with Expo '86 and was an initiator for the positive reaction to it. He implemented and brought into this government Partners in Tourism, a program which has been endorsed internationally. He brought in SuperHost in British Columbia, which this year is expanding to a program called SuperHost Japan so that 3,000 people in British Columbia can be trained on the niceties of the Japanese visitor and how to handle them in relation to tourism.

I Luv B.C. was a promotion brought on by Mike Horsey in his role as deputy minister and senior civil servant, as were improvements to the Summer and Winter Games and to the Whistler convention complex. The Molson Indy would not be a reality in British Columbia today if it hadn't been for the initiative of that man. The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre success, Music '91, "Something's Happening Here" — that was one of his.... "Yes we can" — that's the kind of attitude.... I want this House to pay special recognition to the retiring member, Mr. Mike Horsey.

[ Page 12733 ]

VOTER REGISTRATION

MR. G. HANSON: The subject that I want to cover in my statement today is voters' rights in the province of British Columbia. The first speech I gave in this Legislature in 1979 was on the same subject. I've been consistent in my support for the right of British Columbians who are eligible to vote to exercise their franchise.

I'm very concerned that the methods in place today in British Columbia are disfranchising an inordinate number of young people. The voter registration enumeration was carried out in 1989. Because of the long delay leading up to the provincial general election, a large number of young people who were 17 and 18 years of age at the time enumeration took place are now not on the list. Mr. Patterson, the chief electoral officer, estimates that currently there are 94,790 people in the age bracket of 19 to 29 in B.C. who are not registered to vote. Using Stats Canada data on the age category of 19 to 29, it's 131,340 — and that's just those people in that age bracket.

Using Stats Canada's numbers, the total number of people eligible to vote not on the voter list today is 586,100 individuals. Mr. Patterson estimates that number to be 423,000, by using a population figure of 2,173,900 versus Stats Canada's 2,336,100.

What is the point of my remarks? My remarks are intended to advise this House that in my view and in the view of this side of the House, a high voter turnout in the general election is healthy and good for British Columbia. The cynicism we see in the electorate towards the behaviour of elected officials will only increase if young people and citizens at large do not participate in a provincial general election.

Only two other provinces in this country disallow a citizen who is eligible to vote from arriving on voting day and exercising his or her franchise. Only Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, two of the smallest provinces in this great country, do not allow a citizen to arrive at a polling station and swear an oath, register and vote.

This province is being done a disservice by the registration practices of this government. The chief electoral officer will be holding some sessions in shopping malls to try and sweep up as a result of the shoddy and ineffective electoral enumeration practices of this province. I don't know if Social Credit thinks that there are malls everywhere in this province; there are not. There are people who want to vote; they want to exercise their franchise. They want to register a report card on Social Credit, and they're going to be denied. Even using Mr. Patterson's best estimate, it will ultimately leave 183,000 people eligible to vote off the list after he's done his blitzes.

Can you imagine what the scene is going to be at the polling stations with 500 or 800 people in a poll turned away by someone saying: "Didn't you know that the government took away your right to register and vote on voting day? Weren't you aware of that?"

Even in municipal elections people can arrive at the polling station, sign a declaration and be eligible to vote. Every province in the country.... I'm particularly interested, though, and concerned about young people, because if we are cavalier with the most fundamental element of our system, which is the citizens' right to choose the representatives that best represent them, then we're going to have a society that is much different than the one we have today.

The United States has a very low voter turnout in their federal elections. In Canada the federal government has one of the best systems in the world. They have a full enumeration after the writ is dropped. They enumerate people in their new residences. They make sure that over 90 percent of those eligible end up on the list. It's one of the best systems in the world.

In British Columbia we have among the worst systems in the world. This is a banana-republic system. What government could justify leaving off 180,000 British Columbians after Mr. Patterson has done his blitzes in June?

My colleague from the Cariboo is going to follow me on a response and talk about how shameful your practices are in affecting rural British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Members should read standing order 25A(5), which deals with private members' statements. It indicates that the proponent has a maximum of seven minutes and any other members a maximum of five. The proponent must reply with three minutes. If there's an agreement of the government side to split the time, that's fine, but otherwise the proponent must be the one that goes forward.

HON. MR. FRASER: I too want everyone in the province to be able to vote and eligible to vote, and I too want a high voter turnout. That is exactly why I'm pleased to respond to the member opposite, because British Columbia has the best registration system anywhere in the land. Nowhere else in Canada are there more opportunities to register to vote than in this province. One can register on any business day of the year by applying in person or phoning or writing to any one of the 66 government agents or elections branch offices throughout the province.

During an election, Elections British Columbia undertakes an aggressive voter registration campaign using newspapers, radio and television to inform the electorate that they must be registered before election day and to let them know the opportunities available to make registration easy and convenient. Over 600 registration centres are open throughout the province.

During an election, two registration periods are available. For the first ten days of an election, any qualified elector who has not done so leading up to the election has the opportunity to register or update his current voter registration records. The second registration period of an additional six days is made available to those who have not yet become registered. Therefore two registration periods totalling 16 days, or 55 percent of the entire election campaign, are available for people to register; and I encourage them to do it, Mr. Speaker.

Also, Elections British Columbia conducts periodic voter registration campaigns; storefront registration

[ Page 12734 ]

centres are set up throughout the province and people are encouraged to register.

What we don't want is a huge amount of confusion in the polls on election day. What we want is registration prior to that.

I can say without hesitation that our registration opportunities, with continuous registration between elections, enumerations three years after every election and a full 16 days after an election call is made, are the best in Canada.

There is voting in the office of the returning officer. We have more opportunities and more options to vote, by the way. In addition to election day there are four days of advance polls — Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. If you can't make it to your advance poll you can vote by absentee envelope. There are many other advance polls in the province. On election day, if you live in the interior but are in another part of the province, you can have an absentee vote from there. If you're homebound due to physical disability, you can vote through the use of the postal ballot.

Nowhere else in Canada are all these voting options available. Not only are we at the forefront, but no other jurisdiction can produce voter identification cards. These cards will save the taxpayers over $800,000 by eliminating the need to mail out confirmation-of-registration cards. The British Columbia system is recognized as the best in Canada. The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform is currently examining our system in British Columbia as a model for elections for Members of Parliament, incidentally, Mr. Speaker. British Columbia's system is recognized internationally.

In short, we have the most open and accessible voter-registration system with the most open and accessible voting options available in Canada. We have an internationally recognized system. Mr. Speaker, we have the best election registration system in Canada.

[10:45]

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to allow the second member for Cariboo to have the remainder of my time.

Leave granted.

MR. ZIRNHELT: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its generosity in allowing me to speak on this matter.

I have looked at this with some thoroughness. While I appreciate the theory propounded by the government that this is the best system, in practice it doesn't work that way. I think we have to bear in mind that in some of the rural polls, of which there are many in the Cariboo, the voter turnout often exceeds the number of people who have been registered. For example, at one poll I can think of, there's been 115 percent turnout, which indicates that a lot of people came in and used section 80 on voting day to register and exercise their franchise.

I think that's really important in the rural areas where people do not regularly get newspapers, some don't get television transmission and often the radio reception is poor, if there is anything on the radio. So if we're trying to encourage people to vote and it's not something that they are used to doing or have ever done before, then we have to give them every possible opportunity. In theory there's a voter registration drive that goes on now, but we're talking about people who live up to 100 or 200 miles from a centre. People need the opportunity to exercise this most precious of rights. I say that in practice this government is denying thousands of people in the rural areas of British Columbia the opportunity to vote.

I think about how cynical people will become if when they arrive on voting day — hopefully having some interest because there's an election on — they aren't able to get registered. It seems to me that all you need to do is stream those people who aren't registered to a particular spot in the polling area. If they have to line up, then they have to line up. Let the other people who are duly registered go through. That can be done very efficiently and would be very cost-effective compared to attempts to register people in the rural parts of British Columbia.

I think you'll find that people will not turn out to these voter registrations in the numbers you predict. As a result, you'll have on your conscience all those people who will be again alienated from the system.

LEGAL AID FOR WHO?

MR. DE JONG: My topic for today is entitled "Legal Aid for Who?" I've chosen this topic for several reasons. This coming week will mark the forty-fourth year of our departure from the Netherlands, only a couple of years after a five-year, hard-fought war that was fought so that freedom for the individual would be preserved and recaptured. Many young lives were lost in order to retain and recapture that freedom for countries as well as for individuals. Freedom for the individual is something which has been cherished by people throughout the ages. Canadians took a very active part in the fight to liberate the European community, for which 1, along with all people of Dutch descent in particular, will always be grateful.

When we as a family of ten arrived in Mission on June 30 in the early morning hours, we stood in awe at the sight of the snow-capped mountains and the rich farmland of Matsqui and Sumas Prairie. We could never have imagined the majestic sights our eyes were to see. We could never have imagined the warm welcome that we received by Canadians of all walks of life — the baker, the banker, the grocer and all people with whom we made contact. The feeling of freedom to move, to enter into business and to live with unlocked doors was something unheard of. It was an experience which is difficult to translate into words.

Nevertheless, like any other country, Canada — and British Columbia in particular — also has its laws to be obeyed. Knowing human beings for what they are, regulatory laws are necessary primarily for the purpose of retaining and enhancing freedom for the individual within society. Contrary to many people's belief that laws are there to restrict people's freedom, they are not — provided, of course, that the lawmakers believe in freedom for the individual and that those

[ Page 12735 ]

engaged in maintaining law and order are given the proper tools to do so.

Generally speaking, I believe that our Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as well as municipal police forces, collectively have done a most creditable job. Through their organizations they have worked and are continually working with all levels of government to protect society and the security of the people of this province and country.

They have from time to time expressed frustration in doing that. They have very little ability to deal with a number of problems that many in society are relying on legislators to resolve. More and more I and people in my community feel that the laws today are less effective in protecting the freedom of law-abiding citizens and more protective of the criminal.

However, I acknowledge that the population growth in many parts of this province also poses its problems. Through cooperation, community — watch and blockparent programs have been established. However, can we blame the increasing number of crimes on population growth and on an insufficient number of policemen? Or should we take a closer look at the protection of the criminal and the assistance now available for the criminal? Or has society changed so dramatically over the last ten to 15 years? If so, what has contributed to these changes? Is it perhaps the type of literature now available and the type of entertainment on television and videos and in theatres — or a combination of any of these?

Mr. Speaker, there has to be a reason for the increase in numbers of crimes. I am worried — as, I'm sure, are many on both sides of this House — about the increase of crime, particularly crime against women and children. I shudder to think what goes on in the minds of the people perpetrating these violent crimes. But I shudder more to think that many of these people, obsessed for one reason or another with committing these crimes against women and children, are entitled to receive assistance through Legal Aid provided by taxpayers' money to help them through the justice system. That this is available to them under the great umbrella of human rights is absolutely absurd.

From an ordinary citizen's point of view — people who take pride in raising their families and taking an active part in community and social affairs — it is mind-boggling. Ordinary citizens frequently ask whether the laws of today are for the protection of society trying to live within the law or whether they are created for the criminal — instead of discouraging these violent crimes which make it unsafe for women to walk down the street or for children to be in playgrounds without constant supervision. This a far cry from freedom for the individual and from the environment many people once enjoyed.

I am very pleased, however, with the actions of government through the office of the Attorney-General for the provisions for the victims of crime. These changes will, without a doubt, assist the victims a great deal and are appreciated not only by those involved but also by society.

MR. BARNES: The member raises a subject that requires and provokes some pretty serious thought, because it's not only a question of legalities and the responsibility of the justice system. When you get into the question of violent crimes and the kinds of offences we're experiencing today and the emotions involved, one has to think very carefully about the essential principles involved for a democratic society to address the grievous and extremely painful criminal acts taking place in our society today.

I want to say unequivocally to the member from the beginning that I share his concerns. I too am appalled at the degeneration in society today in terms of the undermining and erosion of institutions that have stood us in good stead for so long. Unfortunately we haven't found a solution — or an adequate solution — to the problem. We are a democracy made up of people from all over the world; we are a diverse society with various interests and values, beliefs, practices and customs. All of these things are the composite definition of a multicultural, democratic society such as ours. It's complex indeed, and a real challenge when it comes to addressing problems in terms of what is the common good, what is in the best interest of society and how we should deal with criminal behaviour.

I think that we have to keep in mind that as our society evolves, it has to be built on pretty sound principles that at least attempt to address fundamental concerns and the protection of each and every one of us on an equal basis. This is why I think the member should keep in mind that, for all its faults, the idea of the criminal justice system is to ensure that individuals receive equal opportunity, due process and fairness, and that fundamentally no one should be found guilty until they've had this opportunity and their day in court.

As for the availability of legal aid, which is one of the means by which our system attempts to ensure that everyone gets an equal opportunity, we have to keep in mind that we are not an example of what should be. We are attempting to become; we are trying to achieve an ideal. There is a great deal of disparity in this society, certainly in terms of dollars. Many people can't afford their day in court. For instance, we in this chamber are probably better able to defend ourselves should we run into difficulties and have to go to court than some of the people, for instance, in my constituency who are on the street and who may for various reasons be unable to afford to retain legal counsel. But should these people be any less entitled to legal representation than anyone else? This is a challenge; this is a problem; this is what we're attempting to address.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

I just want to read for the record a report to the Attorney-General by the Task Force on Public Legal Services in British Columbia, 1983, in which it was stated by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association: "We support the recommendation of the criminal justice section that legal aid be available to any eligible applicant charged with a criminal offence. The Crown,

[ Page 12736 ]

be it federal or provincial, is always represented by counsel." That is important: the Crown is always represented by counsel. I'm sure the Attorney-General would be able to expand on that, because he recently introduced a bill ensuring that individuals will not have the privilege in the future of bringing actions on their own. That puts the individual at a great disadvantage in many respects, especially those people who cannot afford the dollars themselves.

[11:00]

"The risk of an unfair result, we submit, is too great if the accused, by reason of impecuniosity, is denied representation. By unfair result...." Mr. Speaker, I just have a very short part to go.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: With leave, perhaps I could have an opportunity.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I'm sorry about that, because it would support the cause.

MR. DE JONG: I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite. In many respects we share similar feelings; we may have a little difference as to how we get from a to b.

As I mentioned in my speech initially, I'm extremely pleased with the availability of help and assistance to victims of crime. I'm equally pleased with the comment of our Premier who stated on a number of occasions that she wishes to introduce measures improving law and order. I trust that the comments from the Premier would be aimed at restoring a greater sense of security for society in general. It is high time that those who govern this country realize those living within the parameters of the law should have their rights protected as a first priority — those who live within the law and those that protect the freedom of society, and in particular the individual and freedom for women and children who can least defend themselves. Those are the key principles that any law should contain. Those who choose to one way or another distort the lives of those individuals should simply not have access to legal aid paid for by tax dollars, unless they are cleared from the charges laid against them.

In a very simple way I've tried to describe how I see this freedom eroded simply because many politicians of the past decade or two, particularly at the federal level, wanted to be all things to all people. It's time that all of us as politicians recognize that our first priority is to retain that freedom to which law-abiding citizens are entitled; that this freedom which we cherish will be retained at all costs; and that those who disturb that freedom of the individual have to face the consequences at their own cost and not at the cost to society as a whole.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time, hon. member. That concludes private members' statements.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: On behalf of the Minister of Forests — the government House Leader — I'd like to introduce a group of students from Beattie Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher Mr. Goddard and several parents. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 4.

PROPERTY PURCHASE
TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

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

On section 1.

MR. CLARK: I support this section of the bill, and I don't mind saying it, but I would like a little bit of information if the minister has it available.

First of all, how prevalent was this practice of using trusts to escape the property purchase tax and, secondly, did it apply to single-family homes, apartments, office towers and the like? Was it becoming a tax planning technique, and was it for single-family homes or larger buildings? Give me at least a qualitative sense of the prevalence of this technique or way of avoiding the property purchase tax.

HON. J. JANSEN: It's a pleasure to be here.

The aspect of the section being changed relates to a court case that just happened. It would have led to future transactions taking this action, so the concern was that we had to deal with this matter now to prevent future transactions creating this beneficial interest and avoiding taxation. To my understanding, there weren't any cases prior to this court case actually taking advantage of it.

MR. CLARK: I guess this isn't right on points, and I won't belabour it. It seems to me that closing this loophole is a good idea, but there are several other loopholes in existence. One is the vendor take-back nominal ownership, but not re-ownership. The most prevalent one — and increasingly, I think — is the use of shell corporations to transfer shares in the corporation rather than actual title, which effectively does the same thing.

I know it perhaps is not as simple as it sounds to close that loophole, but I am persuaded that there are at least several ways of trying to do that. One, of course, is the same way we collect sales tax at the end of the year when we file income tax. Corporations file income tax, and they have to list asset sales and the like, and the sales tax is collected at the time of filing income tax. I think that could be done when it comes to property, particularly when the property is the sole

[ Page 12737 ]

thing that's owned by the corporation, I think there could be an attempt to use a similar clause like this to try to avoid it. I think you could simply make it illegal.

In a similar piece of legislation, Manitoba had a section which attempted to deal with it. I know there was some difficulty with it, but I think it's well worth reviewing. It's clearly a growing area of tax avoidance in this area. More importantly, it's an area of tax avoidance that has an equity consideration. The average person doesn't use that kind of technique; it's for large purchases of very valuable property. So property in the tens of millions of dollars is traded every week in Vancouver and British Columbia, and no property purchase tax is paid. If we have a tax system and a tax like this, I think it's absolutely critical that it be fairly applied and be perceived to be fairly applied. This loophole is a gigantic one which the government has chosen not to try to close.

I support this section. I think it would have been nice to see some attempts to deal with those other tax avoidance loopholes which have been employed increasingly in British Columbia so that large corporations can avoid the property purchase tax but the average people can't. I know it's not quite in order to discuss something that's not in this bill or this section, but it's a similar kind of point. I think people would have appreciated it much more if the government had seriously tried to close those other loopholes as well.

HON. J. JANSEN: Regarding the coverage and taxability that the member for Vancouver East brought forward, using Manitoba as his example, in fact, Manitoba abandoned that legislation because they couldn't enforce it.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: No, the frustration in terms of trying to enforce the legislation is simply impossible. If you want to check that out, you can, but that's what in fact happened.

We have a number of problems that relate, first, to income taxation and, second, in terms of what a corporate entity means. On the taxation side, our limitations are that we can only tax, as you know, income tax as a percentage of federal basic tax. We are looking at asking the federal government to change the concept of taxation collection to mean taxation based on taxable income, which would enable us to effect some changes for both social and economic reasons. So that is in process, of course. It is not enabled currently, but it certainly can be done.

A corporate entity has a legal status as an individual. The owners of that corporate entity can change and indeed do change all the time. For example, if you had a large corporation such as MacMillan Bloedel, which would have vast holdings of land, and if there were changes in shareholder structures — and it happens every day — the problem is how to start to track the beneficial ownership of that company in terms of their share structure and translate it into titles of land. So that's a very difficult area to address. It is a concern, obviously. As you've indicated earlier, where it is a problem we try to catch it. But that is the situation.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. CLARK: I'd just like the minister to explain the purpose of this section if he could.

HON. J. JANSEN: Section 2 is a new definition of "fair market value," which constitutes an additional measure to prevent the erosion of the tax base requiring that people registered on title as a fee simple owner be considered as the owner of all legal and beneficial rights of the property. This ensures that the separate beneficial ownership of property cannot affect the tax payable when transferring registered ownership of land held in trust.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: Section 2 is the new definition of "fair market value."

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of trying to make a point of this, but we're on section 2 of the bill. The minister was describing — and I appreciate it — section l(b) of the bill. I understood that section. I'm really interested in the reason and the rationale for the second section of the bill.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, section 2 is related to section 1. It follows through with that new definition of market value. It now talks about the beneficial ownership of the property. It can't affect the tax payable.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. CLARK: I wonder if the minister could explain section 7. It deals with changing the definition of "family farm corporation."

HON. J. JANSEN: The situation as it currently stands is that you can transfer a family farm to a family farm corporation, but the family farm corporation must have more than one shareholder. If you're a single farmer who wishes to transfer to a family farm corporation, you can't do that, because you don't have more than one shareholder. It enables single dairyfarmers or single farmers to effect what is now also allowed to couples and families.

[11:15]

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. CLARK: I'm just curious as to the rationale for this as well. Obviously you're reducing the maximum area of a principal residence. Was this another area of

[ Page 12738 ]

— I don't like to use "abuse" — tax planning, I suppose you could say, by individuals? Again, what's the rationale for it, and how often was it being used previously?

HON. J. JANSEN: This actually broadens the coverage to enable these types of transfers to happen. What previously happened was that where the size of the parcel was greater than 2.03 hectares, you could not apply for an exemption. The problem became particularly apparent on Lasqueti Island, where this was the case. What we said is similar to the Income Tax Act, where instead of denying the entire exemption, you determine a portion of the property that is the principal residence — we're saying approximately 1.25 acres — which would enable the exemption to take place without automatically excluding or precluding it when the parcel size is greater than 2.03 hectares — five acres.

MR. CLARK: I know we have an amendment under section 16 to get to, but in the rest of the bill, which I have no problem with.... The major guts of the bill is the conservation covenant. That is dealt with in section 12 and again in section 16, and then I have a few comments, not surprisingly, on section 17. For the sake of the Chair and the minister and staff, I am quite prepared to deal with the conservation covenant as a body and that one last section, and then we can move on.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, as I said, sections 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 are all part of the same subject area, so I don't have any....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can discuss those as if they're one item.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Chairman, I draw the minister's attention to a letter I received from the West Coast Environmental Law Association — a copy of a letter sent to him. I should be upfront about that so we know what we're talking about, It strikes me that they made some excellent points.

These sections deal with exempting conservation covenants from the property purchase tax, which I think is a very progressive move. It should mean that individuals who choose to conserve their land or purchase land for the purpose of parks or recreation don't have to pay the property purchase tax. That's something I think we would support; I strongly support it. I thought that's what the bill did.

The West Coast Environmental Law Association has pointed out that that's not quite what it does. In fact, it means that only the Crown is exempt from the property purchase tax, and with the amendment, it means that municipalities are exempt. Surely — at least I would have hoped — the main purpose was to exempt individuals who want to donate land for the purposes of conservation. I don't want to get into more detail on it right now. The minister has the letter there. Maybe he, through his staff, could comment on whether in fact they're right in terms of their interpretation of this section and what the government's views are on it.

HON. J. JANSEN: In fact, the letter is incorrect. The environmental exemption is available to all purchasers, providing the requirements that the covenant must be approved by the L-G-in-C and registered against the title to the land in the land titles system are met. So it's all purchasers, not some. The conservation covenant must be registered in favour of the Crown. This is to ensure that the Crown is aware of and can review all covenants on which property purchase tax exemptions are claimed. The covenant may not be amended or removed without the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and if removed, property purchase tax is payable to the registered owner of the land at the time the covenant is removed. So it is all-inclusive and, I think, covers it off fairly well.

MR. CLARK: So if Ducks Unlimited — which is, I guess, a common example — were to purchase land for the purposes of conservation it would be exempt from paying property purchase tax, provided that the Crown approved the exemption. I don't have any problem with registering it against the Crown, but I guess there's a slight concern about the approval process.

Say an individual chooses to preserve an area for environmental or aesthetic purposes that has a potential mineral property on it — but the individual who owns it or who is purchasing it wants it for the purpose of conservation. If they have to get approval from the Crown, the Crown may have other interests and may not give approval. In other words, it seems to me that if individuals choose from their own value base or their own criteria to donate land for conservation purposes, one would hope, and it seems to me reasonable, that the property purchase tax would be exempted from that, regardless of whether the Crown thought it was a particular piece of property that was worthy of protection, for example.

I'm not saying that the minister or the government would turn down a request for an exemption for preservation for this purpose, but I guess that's there. It seems to me the act allows for that. You could say: "Well, we don't think there should be a park there, so we I re not going to give you the exemption." Maybe we could clarify that. Or is the exemption granted by the Crown automatically if the covenant is in the right of the Crown? In other words, if you register it as a conservation covenant and it's in the right of the Crown — I'm not sure of the quite technical jargon for that — is it essentially automatic that they would be exempt from the property purchase tax? Or is there a review done by the Crown to see whether it's worthy of protection and therefore worthy of exemption from the property purchase tax?

HON. J. JANSEN: A number of things; the first respecting the example that the member used — Ducks

[ Page 12739 ]

Unlimited. Because they're a charitable organization, they wouldn't attract the tax in any event.

Putting that aside for a moment, the other aspect is that you can register a conservation covenant on your property if you wish. Anyone can do that. If you wish to attract relief from property purchase tax, I think it's in the interest of the Crown and the people of the province that there be some discipline or some guidelines respecting that process. That's why we have this in place. Anyone can register a conservation covenant on their property; that's what they can do as individual homeowners. Where you want to attract tax relief, we ask that this process be approved, obviously to prevent misuse.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

[Section 16, by deleting the proposed section (1.2).]

MR. CLARK: Just so we're clear, Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate the rationale for this, given that it seems to broaden it to municipalities as well. Given the remarks the minister just made, I want to know how that works.

HON. J. JANSEN: What happened with the previous section 16 was that in error we eliminated the original intent of section 215 of the Land Title Act, by allowing municipalities and other Crown agencies and entities to approve and hold conservation covenants. The amendment really restores the original intent and doesn't affect the requirements of the property purchase tax exemption.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

On section 17.

MR. CLARK: When we do Bill 3, I'll debate this at some length; but I can't resist the unique and novel approach of the government in having a section like this. This is a sort of "notwithstanding" clause. This is the section that says that if any provision in this act conflicts with the Taxpayer Protection Act, this act applies. It just shows how ludicrous it was to bring in the Taxpayer Protection Act a month or two ago, claiming to freeze taxes, and then to bring in legislation which increases taxes — or which, in this case, actually relieves taxes in some cases — and then have to have a section like this, which exempts this bill from the provisions of the Taxpayer Protection Act. It would have been much more fruitful if the government had just come in and abolished the Taxpayer Protection Act — eliminated that legislation, which clearly was designed for an election that didn't happen. It would have been much more honest to do that.

This is not good public policy. It is not sound government to have legislation and clauses of legislation which override other pieces of legislation. Frankly, it's silly, Mr. Chairman. It's not good public policy. I think it makes a mockery of the Legislature when we can debate at length here, and minister after minister can get up and defend the Taxpayer Protection Act, and then a few months later we can bring in all kinds of legislation which has to have a clause that exempts it from the legislation we just passed.

Mr. Chairman, two short months ago we passed that legislation with much fanfare on the other side of the House. Now they're reduced to "notwithstanding" clauses to try to get around it. It would be much more honest if they simply repealed it and admitted to people that it was a cheap political stunt engineered by a Premier who they previously supported and now don't want anything to do with. I think this kind of legislation and clause cheapen the process.

As I say, I have absolutely no problem with the intent of the bill or of the clauses. There have been some positive moves with respect to conservation trusts, so I don't propose to hold up the legislation.

HON. J. JANSEN: I don't think the member for Vancouver East would think that I would allow that comment to go unnoticed. First of all, if the member wishes to eliminate that section, he would have to also eliminate section 1. Section I was an opportunity for us to close a loophole, and to do that we need the assurance that we're not in conflict with the Taxpayer Protection Act. So if you don't want to do one, then you don't do the other. But the bigger issue is one of....

MR. LOVICK: So you're an innocent victim, you mean.

HON. J. JANSEN: Innocent victim, the first member for Nanaimo says. Well, Mr. Chairman, I always like to listen to the comments from the other side of the House about taxation matters, because they're great in talking about expenditures, but they're very quiet when it comes to identifying how to pay for expenditures. And you know, time and time again in this House we hear about more money to be spent here and more spent there, and this is what we should do in terms of programs, and why aren't you spending more on colleges and universities, why are you doing this and why aren't you doing that. But they're always very silent about taxation. I guess it gets back to what I've said in this House many times, that they have either of two solutions: one is called a money tree, and the other is called deficits. And money trees don't grow anymore; I haven't seen a money tree in a little while. Maybe they've got them in Prince Rupert. We call it forestry, and we're committed to reforestation. But I won't dwell on that, because it probably gets back to my supply bill, and I'm sure we'll have lots of comment to follow up — very creative, good and well-disciplined comment — and that you'll be challenged as chairman, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 17 and 18 approved.

[ Page 12740 ]

Title approved.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 4, Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1991, reported complete with amendment.

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

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 4, Property Purchase Tax Amendment Act, 1991, read a third time and passed.

[11:30]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE
AND CORPORATE RELATIONS

On vote 31: minister's office, $317,593 (continued).

MS. CULL: I want to bring up an issue that is peculiar to a number of areas in the province — my riding, for certain, but it also affects Burnaby and may in the not too distant future affect Prince George — and that is the issue of grants in lieu of taxes for universities. This is an issue that has been raised a number of times in the Legislature. I raised it last year with the former Minister of Finance, and in fact it was raised in 1979 by the former MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Brian Smith.

The situation is this. There are now three universities in the province, and they serve all the people of British Columbia. Two of those universities, the University of Victoria and Simon Fraser University, are located in municipalities. They don't pay property taxes to the municipalities, but those municipalities of course bear the cost of providing all of the services to them, transportation being one of the biggest ones, but also fire and police services and the other normal services that a municipality provides to all property within its district. The University of British Columbia is unique in this case, because they're located on the University Endowment Lands, which are in fact provincially funded, and therefore it doesn't have the same kind of impact.

The government, for many of its buildings throughout the province, does pay grants in lieu of taxes. It does not do it for universities. The argument has been made in the past by the mayors of Oak Bay and Saanich, and also by former MLAs representing the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head — which has all of Oak Bay in it and part of Saanich — that grants in lieu of taxes should be paid to assist the municipalities to bear the cost. Saanich, for example, estimates that they are losing about $1.5 million in revenue to the municipality as a result of there being no taxes paid by the university. Oak Bay estimates a lesser amount; I'm afraid I don't have the precise figure for Oak Bay in front of me right now. The costs are significant to the municipality

Let me give you one example that I gave last year, but it was to a former Minister of Finance, so let me put it out again. In upgrading the intersection at McKenzie and Quadra, Saanich municipality estimated that 10 percent of the $2.6 million cost was directly attributable to university traffic. There are a number of instances like that which I can cite — and I can bring figures to the minister's attention — showing that the university does in fact impact those two communities.

The university does provide benefits, there's no denying it, and the municipalities of Saanich and Oak Bay are pleased to have the university located where it is. But the costs of the university are borne just by those two municipalities, whereas the benefits certainly are directly available to all of greater Victoria and to the province as a whole. Because there are only these three institutions right now, it seems that there are three municipalities that are in fact taking more than their fair share of the cost.

In 1979 Brian Smith raised this in the Legislature, and he said at that time:

"The equity of this proposal, I think, is already acknowledged in government policy and I'm very hopeful that within the next year these payments of taxes for services to university buildings will be extended."

Last year when I raised it with the first member for Saanich and the Islands, the member said — and I quote from Hansard:

"I can say that, as a matter of basic approach, it should be addressed by government and it should be debated openly.... I can only say to the member that the issue is worthy of continued discussion and that I suspect all affected MLAs would appreciate having a wider public discussion about it."

Since that time, Mr. Chair, I have made a number of approaches to several Ministers of Finance, as they rotated through the portfolio, and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I've met with both councils a number of times. I know that some discussion has been taking place. But I would like to hear from the minister: does this Finance minister support the comments of the former Finance minister, and of Mr. Smith when he was talking about government policy ten years ago? Could he also tell me where this matter stands and what progress is being made in terms of trying to provide some equity to these three municipalities which, as all have acknowledged, bear a rather larger burden of the costs than might be considered fair?

HON. J. JANSEN: First of all, let me say that I understand some of those concerns; although we should understand, too, that there is only one taxpayer.

[ Page 12741 ]

Whether we tax as a provincial government and turn around and give it to the local community, or whether the local community taxes, the taxpayer remains the same. We can only spend what the people send us.

The question of transfer of payments to different levels of government is one that has attracted a lot of attention because the federal government cut back significantly in transfer payments. I know that communities — I was a mayor of one for a while — are also trying to ensure that their transfer payments keep on increasing.

Some of the transfer payments that are received by communities are from the Revenue Sharing Act, and are to some extent calculated on the expenditures of the community and on the population of the community. So while you don't have a direct attribution to the university, obviously, the university does attract all the other things that are with the placement of that facility in a community, such as population growth and enhancement of the economy. To some extent, there is a relationship to that transfer. But the biggest benefit to the community should be recognized as the economic generator side. No one will disagree with the significant extent of economic contribution a post-secondary institution gives to the community.

I can say to you today that if the university of the Fraser Valley was offered to Chilliwack, Chilliwack would not be asking for a grant in lieu to enable that to happen. Without any equivocation, I can tell you that Langley, Abbotsford and Matsqui would love to have a university in their community; and we would think it would be the best thing that ever happened to us. There isn't that situation where you say that in order for us to have this benefit, we want you to pay more to us to enjoy that benefit. Prince George has not asked for a grant in lieu. Prince George is cognizant of the tremendous value the University of Northern B.C. gives Prince George and the surrounding area, and no one has even brought up the question of a grant in lieu of taxes.

To some extent, we should focus on the bigger picture and the more important picture, which is enabling education to happen close to the people who live in the area. They're not subject to the costs that I am to send my children to university in British Columbia — the expense to my family. There is a university close by. It's available. It's a great economic generator. It induces further economic expansion. Let's look at it that way.

AN HON. MEMBER: We should have one in Chilliwack.

HON. J. JANSEN: We should have one in Chilliwack, and that's where I would like to have the support of the NDP to stand up and say let's put a university in Chilliwack. I wouldn't ask for a homeowner grant. I wouldn't ask for a transfer payment. I would say that that's wonderful news. So that's the situation on....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes. It wasn't paying particular attention, but somehow it doesn't see the relevancy of homeowners' grants to section 1. Probably the members can be more relevant on section 1.

MS. CULL: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it very clear that this is not a partisan issue. And for the minister to suggest that I am getting up and raising this because I am an NDP MLA, and that someone from Chilliwack would not do that, I think is really twisting what is happening here.

The mayor of Saanich has written to the minister and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The mayor of Oak Bay....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are talking about section 1; the 10 percent tax on high income.

MR. CLARK: No, we're not. We're in Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On Bill 3.... I apologize.

MS. CULL: It's all right, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that we're in Committee of Supply, and I will continue on with the questions here. Sometimes things move so quickly in this chamber that it's hard to keep up with what's going on, I know.

The fact of the matter is that there are two communities in greater Victoria which are in fact bearing the cost. I would not deny for a moment that there is great economic benefit to any community that has a post-secondary institution in it. But the benefits in greater Victoria do not extend only to Oak Bay and Saanich; they extend probably to a greater or lesser extent to all 11 municipalities in this geographic area. The city of Victoria, I would suggest, is probably equally benefiting from the university through the associations that build up with the university, but it bears none of the cost.

Just to continue that comparison, the city of Victoria houses the parliament buildings, which presumably benefit all the people of British Columbia. The government pays grants in lieu of taxes to the city of Victoria for the parliament buildings.

We recently had an announcement from the government that, as a result of the Commonwealth Games, 181 units of housing will be built on the university campus. These 181 units are needed; there's no doubt about it. We need more affordable housing in this community, but they will not be paying taxes to Saanich or to Oak Bay, depending on where they're located. From what I understand, they will be in the Saanich municipality. But they will bring all the costs that these units would bring if they were built just on the other side of the university property boundary.

I think that is the issue here. It's a question of equity; it's a question that there are only three municipalities in the province which currently find themselves in this situation. I think that Chilliwack and Prince George, which have not yet raised this question, after a number of years of being home to such an

[ Page 12742 ]

institution and recognizing the costs that an institution places onto the taxpayers in that community, will be at your door as well suggesting that there may be a fairer approach.

We are asking that the minister have a look at it. It has been raised by a number of people on both sides of this Legislature since 1979 at least. I would think that by now we might have had some progress on the matter.

[11:45]

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't bring it up as a political issue. I didn't once mention Social Credit. I love to mention Social Credit. I didn't once mention NDP; let everybody else talk about the problems with the NDP. But you were the one that brought up the NDP. I didn't say anything about political, I said about communities. I was the mayor of a community, and I knew the problems in post-secondary education. I can tell you and the three members from the Fraser Valley in the House that getting access to post-secondary education in our part of the world is very problematic. We would really appreciate having a fine facility like the University of Victoria located on our doorstep. We wouldn't be coming to government for grants in lieu of taxes or for more handouts; we would just appreciate the tremendous saving that we enjoy in terms of our children not having to drive hours to university and the great economic benefit in our community — looking at it positively, because there is a lot of positive about it.

You talk about those subsidized housing units coming into the University of Victoria, and you’re saying they don't pay any property tax. Are you saying now that on one side we should subsidize them and that on the other side we should ask them to pay for that subsidy? We've got to understand that there isn't a magical taxpayer out there who has not yet been identified. There's only one taxpayer. All we're doing is taking money out of the pocket on the left side of his jeans and transferring it to the right side. That's not how it works. Look at things from a broader perspective, as the member for Nanaimo does sometimes.

I understand full well the cost pressures communities face. We're going to continue with this issue and the whole question of provincial-municipal financing — it's always under review. It's an appropriate question, but perhaps when the budget for the Minister of Municipal Affairs is under discussion, you should also bring that question forward to him. I'm sure he may want to offer some of his comments as well. I give you my comments in terms of the positive minister that I am — upbeat in terms of the economy, and very intelligent.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: And humble.

You may want to put that question forward to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is the appropriate person for that entire question.

MS. CULL: The minister appears to be somewhat confused about how this actually works in terms of equity. But just to conclude this, the Finance minister said last year that the matter was worthy of further discussion in the community with the people involved. Would this Finance minister undertake to pull together the three mayors involved at this point, who represent Burnaby, Saanich and Oak Bay, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs to continue this discussion and see if something can be resolved that does not take money out of one pocket and put it into another, but ensures that everyone's pockets are treated equally?

HON. J. JANSEN: I would ask the member again to bring the matter forward when the estimates for the Minister of Municipal Affairs are under discussion. That's an appropriate time to bring it forward. I don't intend to become involved with this issue; it's not an issue that I should, as Finance minister, become involved in until I know where the Minister of Municipal Affairs stands. He'll be standing in his place very soon and you can have a good discussion with him.

MR. LOVICK: I suspect he wants to talk about gas.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd be pleased to speak about natural gas any day in this House. But I really want to visit the corporate relations side of the minister's portfolio. What I'd like to do is refer to an article that I read with great interest in the June 10 report on business in the Globe and Mail, where it speaks about groups mobilizing to lobby the NDP government in that province.

I know that members on the other side of the House are starting to get a little nervous. I see the member for Victoria's face getting a little red, and the member for Prince Rupert is getting a little twitchy in his seat. I can understand why, because their leader is very proud of the fact that they sent this transition team made up of three or four of their caucus members to assist the present Ontario government in establishing their policies. Their opposition leader said that. Yet the opposition Whip, the member for North Island, stood up and said: "Oh no, that wasn't us. We never sent anybody down. Maybe they got a few documents, and maybe one of our members went down there but...." We really can't get the correct story out of them.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: I also hear the first member for Nanaimo. Perhaps he was part of that transition team. They won't tell us, but gee, we would like to know. However, Mr. Chairman, let me get back to what I was going to speak about, since I see you're getting a bit twitchy in the chair also.

What I wanted to talk about was the concern that many corporations in Ontario, both large and small, have with the plans of the NDP government with regard to labour legislation, taxes, pensions and other matters that affect the operation of business in that province. Let's not forget that quite often we're asked why we are talking about Ontario so much. Ontario

[ Page 12743 ]

generates 40 percent of the Canadian economy, and that has a direct effect on all Canadians and a very large effect on what happens in British Columbia, so we must be concerned.

At any rate, I thought it would be worthwhile to point out the concerns. I'll name a few of the corporate entities which are concerned. There's Jannock Ltd., Price Waterhouse — of course, everybody knows them — Molson, and Towers Perrin Forster and Crosby.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: I know the opposition members.... There, you see — concerned about big business. What about the small person? Fair enough, that's true.

The small business people are concerned. Let me quote from Brien Gray, who's vice-president of legislative affairs at the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in Ontario. He cited other problems — occupational health and safety, and again pensions, taxes and legislation. He said: "There's a hell of a lot of agonizing going on behind the scenes."

It would appear to me that this might give a window of opportunity to our Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations on behalf of British Columbia to start putting the word out that B.C. would welcome these businesses. B.C. would welcome them, both big and small, and we would welcome their expertise. We do have an environment in which we understand the complexities of running a business, how taxes affect that business and how we do have a fair tax system in this province.

1 would suggest to the minister that we should be developing some sort of envoy to go there and put out the word that we welcome these people to British Columbia because we have had years and years of strong fiscal management in this province. After the next election, when the Social Credit Party wins, as they will, we will continue to have it. I would perhaps ask the Finance minister if he would wish to make a few comments with regard to that matter.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, it's always a pleasure to listen to the member for Langley in terms of his keen insight into some of the situations respecting the corporate side of our business community. The concerns reflected by him are concerns apparent in other parts of Canada, and he mentions how they will impact on British Columbia. They're of concern to us as well, obviously. On a number of occasions I've very quietly in this House brought forward the issue of the influence that Ontario has on our business community. I will reinforce that by saying that the situations respecting changes in labour and corporate law that impact on the business community in Ontario tend to also impact on us. Ontario legislation many times has a notwithstanding clause to some extent. That would mean that businesses that want to operate in Ontario must, rather than deal with a compromise regulation, deal with the regulation that is in effect in Ontario. We don't look at regulations as being the catalyst for a positive business environment. We think that we have to provide less regulation, less taxation, less onerous burden on our economy in order for the economy to start to become more competitive. If we don't do that, Mr. Chairman, we will start to see some of things that are happening now with cross-border shopping because worse over time. We'll see that our business community can't survive. With that, of course, is the loss of jobs.

The business concerns that those in Ontario have are concerns that we have as well. The extent of the problem in Ontario can be seen all the time. Yesterday I met with the business community. It was referenced to me that to effect a meeting with a cabinet minister in Ontario you must first phone the Ontario Federation of Labour and arrange for them to make the contact.

Interjection.

HON. J. JANSEN: The member shakes his head. You may want to check your facts before you shake your head. That is indeed the procedure now happening. It you want to effect a meeting with a cabinet minister, please ensure that your union officials are with you and make your call first to the Ontario Federation of Labour to ensure that it's approved.

We think that's fundamentally wrong, Mr. Chairman. I know I've haven't spoken very strongly on this issue in my debate thus far, but I intend to speak very strongly on this issue and raise it as a concern that the corporate community is now facing. Unless we address our business environment in the context of ensuring that they remain competitive, we will lose our business community.

So in respect to the concerns that business have.... Even in an article in the paper that.... I flew over Ontario, actually, coming back from P.E.I., and I looked down and didn't see any people there; there were none there. I saw some of the articles.... The Treasurer from Ontario was there, we had some good discussions. I saw some of the articles that were quoted by Ontario business. One was about when they had a big demonstration on the lawns of Queen's Park in Toronto. The comment was made by one of the minister's aides: "Boy, with this big protest from the business community" — 3,000 people on the lawns of the Legislature — "we must be doing something right."

[12:00]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, we could do something right if we would debate within the ambit of your estimates, please.

HON. J. JANSEN: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your admonition. What we have to remember is that the Finance ministry prepares a philosophy when budgeting. When we discuss the estimates of the Finance ministry, I believe that philosophy and its comparison to other philosophies is an item for discussion and needs repeating, because it's important. A question was raised on the corporate side, respecting the business environment and our philosophy on budgeting — how it impacts on them. That's why I raised the question today in a response to the member for Langley.

[ Page 12744 ]

We'll just move to the next item. I think my colleague wants to speak.

MR. LOVICK: I'm going to resist the temptation to respond to the set speech of the Minister of Finance and the other members of the Social Credit caucus, who have obviously all had their marching orders. The marching orders, of course, read very clearly: "For heaven's sake, don't talk about B.C. Talk about Ontario, because it's the only weapon we've got against the opposition in B.C." That's their problem. I'm going to resist that temptation. I'm not going to talk about that — though we could have that debate at some point. I think it would be worthwhile.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

I want to talk about something quite different, something that sadly we haven't heard much from the Minister of Finance about: efficiency, value for money, how good a job this government is doing in terms of managing its resources vis-à-vis....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More!

MR. LOVICK: It's nice to know that one is appreciated, especially by members opposite. It's nice to perceive that.

I want to focus specifically on what is clearly one of the largest items of expenditure for government: the cost of personnel. I want to open up this large area under the aegis of the fact that the Minister of Finance has responsibility for the government personnel services division. I think that what I am talking about is also entirely relevant and in order, given the reality of STOB 20 — okay within any government ministry.

Those are my focal points. I want to open up particularly the area of what is loosely referred to as privatization or contracting out — or contracting in. I'll have occasion to draw some clear distinction between those terms as we proceed. I note that we are apparently going to have, by prearrangement, an early adjournment of the House today, Mr. Chairman. So I anticipate that I am only going to open this door a slight way, but I shall probably return to the subject later on.

I want first to focus on the magnitude of the problem. I shouldn't say "the problem," because I'm willing to hold off judgment for the moment on whether there is indeed a problem. I'm going to give the Minister of Finance an opportunity to tell me whether there is or isn't a problem. The magnitude of what we are discussing, however, is significant.

I want to refer to the pattern of development that this government has undertaken with regard to its hiring practices — with regard to the way the work of government gets done. I'm referring specifically to the fact that the government's total expenditure has gone up very significantly between 1985 and '91, but the budgetary allocation for salaries and benefits has not gone up significantly, and the full-time-equivalent classification — in other words, the number of people employed by government on a full-time basis — has indeed gone down.

Let me for the record, Mr. Chairman, simply put a few statistics on the table. Between 1985 and 1991 the total government expenditure has gone up by a factor of 96.2 percent. The total salaries and benefits of government — that particular budgetary classification — have gone up by a factor of 18.1 percent. The full-time-equivalent classification has gone down by some 22 percent. The consumer price index, at the same time, has gone up 30.2 percent. The amazing figure, though, is in standard object of expenditure 20 — and the minister and his staff are certainly more familiar with that than I am. STOB 20 refers to professional services — i.e., those services that government contracts; work that government hires, done by workers. STOB 20 has gone up between 1985 and '91 by a factor of 367.7 percent.

It's quite legitimate for members opposite to say: "So what?" Maybe the figures I have quoted don't mean anything. Maybe it's the case that we have achieved some cost savings. Maybe the public interest is being well served. The problem, however, is that we don't know. We don't know whether the government is saving money by that transfer of employment from public sector workers to private sector employees. As you know, Mr. Chairman, that has been a question posed by people on this side of the Legislature, certainly me among them, on a number of occasions for at least two years. It's also a question, I'm happy to note, that is being picked up by media and other analysts of the provincial scene and the provincial economy.

I'd like to quote one brief editorial that captures the fundamental question. The burden of its message is essentially that if this government is proud of its record on privatization and contracting out, and if it claims that financial savings have been realized, then show us — the same point that we on this side have been making. Give us the evidence that you have saved money; demonstrate to us that you haven't in fact cost us money. With all due deference, Mr. Chairman, in the last two years plus that this debate has been raging, no minister of the Crown has ever succeeded in giving us hard evidence to show that we have indeed saved money. I think I can argue that case.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Somebody across the way — a defrocked Highways minister — is now telling us that he tabled that information. Other information was also tabled at the time, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest to you that my contention stands very well. Any objective analyst of that debate would agree that the proof has yet to be delivered. I would argue that case.

What I want to refer to, though, is specifically the government's claim about saving money. The government has said that by contracting out, by reducing the number of government employees and shortening its payroll, it has indeed saved us money. What I want to argue is that we have not seen that evidence, and I

[ Page 12745 ]

want to give the opportunity to present that evidence to us.

Just a specific bit of information that the minister may wish to respond to. "The Elimination of Government Jobs and Their Transfer to the Private Sector" reads the editorial that I alluded to a few moments ago. It makes the following point: "That is the important element. In July 1989 the government reported its payroll had been reduced by 4,382 civil service jobs and another 1,232 in Crown corporations, for a total of 5,614."

The next paragraph is a fundamental one to the question: "If these were redundant jobs, the potential savings are enormous — at least $15 million a year. But if most of the work was simply turned over to 'private sector consultants,' there may be few savings. In fact, the cost of the equivalent work might well be higher than before." That's the fundamental question that I want to address and ask the minister about today.

I said earlier that we don't know, because there are apparently no mechanisms that government has revealed to show us that kind of cost saving. Given the dramatic quality of the information I presented and given the magnitude of that situation — we're talking, as I say, about a reduction of 22 percent in terms of full-time government employees and an increase in STOB-20 expenditures of 367.7 percent — it seems to me that this government has a very clear obligation to answer the question, to show us where indeed the savings come from.

Now I know that it's going to be difficult to answer that question; it's a complicated one. But if the minister believes even half of what he's saying about efficiency and value for money, he will indeed have all kinds of good information. In fact, he will probably want to give me some detailed briefing notes that I can take away, analyze and do some number-crunching with to find out if indeed they do make sense.

Without further ado then, I am prepared to yield to the Minister of Finance, who is going to give me his assurance that he will talk about these questions and not some will-o'-the-wispish issue 3,000 miles away.

MR. REID: With leave, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Chairman and members of the House, we have with us this afternoon a delegation from the Cloverdale Catholic School: Mrs. Desjardin and 60 grade 4 and 5 students from the fine community of Cloverdale. Would the House give them a very special welcome.

HON. J. JANSEN: I thank the member opposite for the good question. But I want to say that I take a little offence at the suggestion that what is happening in Ontario is a will-o'-the-wisp situation that is inconsequential to what's happening in the country. I can tell you that the impact in Ontario is devastating to British Columbia. To wipe it off the slate and to just say, "No, that's nothing. We shouldn't worry about what's happening 3,000 miles away...." Let me tell you that it is very significant in terms of the future of this country. It's a difficult matter, and you know my feelings on it. So I don't want to spend more time on it. I'm sure other members of this House will be spending time pointing out the incorrectness of your argument.

We talked about value-for-money government and the need to ensure that it happens, because our stewardship is to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We must return to them a service that is the most efficient, focused and credible. To do that, we have an obligation to look at all aspects of that service.

We also have a responsibility to our employees to ensure that they have a good, positive working environment, where there are opportunities for them to look at economic activities that have resulted as part of our privatization initiative — because 75 percent of our privatization initiative was taken on by our employees. They were a very large and very positive part of that process.

I can give you some detail on the various aspects of privatization and how they benefit the people of the province. I want to do that next week, because every story is a good-news story and tells you what great managers we are of the public purse. Every one of them indicates the expansion of service that has happened as a result. It's all good news. It's very difficult for you to listen to, because they're good-news items.

Let me give you one: Griffin Laboratories, which was sold for $140,000. I know my colleague here wants to say a few words, so I'll just restrict myself to this one. I can tell you that there were 40 FTEs involved in that particular transfer of sale. The savings to the taxpayers of the province — not to the government but to the taxpayers, who fundamentally we're responsible to — was $300,000 a year. Now in the context of a deficit in Ontario of $9.7 billion, $300,000 doesn't sound like a lot of money. But let me tell you that $300,000 is a lot of money. It's an important saving to the province and a very positive situation. If you ask those 40 employees, you'll find that every one of them will say that what has happened is very positive and that they agree with the process.

[12:15]

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: In response to the second member for Langley, the Minister of Finance noted that when he flew over Ontario the lights were out. I would suggest to him that he should have looked at the highways, because he would have seen lots of traffic — most of it moving businesses and people out of Ontario, and a lot of it to British Columbia. We're delighted and pleased about that, but unfortunately a lot of it is going to the United States as well. That's a real concern.

There is action and activity in Ontario — a lot of it on the highways. There's also a business opportunity that the moving companies will undoubtedly take advantage of, moving folks back to Ontario who want to take advantage of the very generous new welfare rates the NDP government brought in. You've got to make $35,000 a year for a family of four in order to be

[ Page 12746 ]

better off than you are on welfare in Ontario. There should be a little business opportunity there with folks who want to move back to Ontario and take advantage of the magnanimity of the Ontario government.

I want to address a question this morning to the Minister of Finance in his role and responsibility as Minister of Corporate Relations. I know that you spend a lot of time meeting with business investors who want to move to British Columbia or who have businesses, here now and want to expand and create new job opportunities here. I'm wondering what kind of assurances the minister can give those businessmen and investors that they will continue to see the kind of stable economic environment they've enjoyed in British Columbia over the last 20 years or so. Perhaps the minister could just spend a few minutes telling us how he goes about assuring those business folks that they aren't going to run into the same difficulties in British Columbia as they may have encountered in Ontario.

HON. J. JANSEN: That's a good question, and it's one I can spend a little time answering. I understand the concerns the business community has. As I indicated earlier, yesterday I met with the business community and talked about some of their concerns. It comes down to one aspect that is fundamental to the whole question of good government: whether we have special interest groups that we take our orders from. I raised in the House that the budget was delivered by a Social Credit government not taking its orders from a national or provincial organization or from special interest groups, but being fundamentally concerned with one purpose: the taxpayers of British Columbia.

It was just a little while ago that the Leader of the Opposition — I don't know who he is; we don't see him here very often — rose in the House and asked me whether it's fair to the taxpayers of the province. I ask you the question: why would he want to ask that question? What gave him the kind of conflict that would cause him to ask whether the initiative we were undertaking was going to be fair to the taxpayers? He was part of that transition team. The interrelationship between that side of the House and Ontario was very clearly revealed a little while ago when a transition team was talked about and announced by the Leader of the Opposition. To this day we're still waiting to know who was part of that transition team. I suppose the member for Vancouver East and perhaps some other members who are ducking their heads. were part of that team. But I can tell you that the reason we raise the question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MILLER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, although it's rather amusing to see this discussion between two members of cabinet — and one must wonder if they do not talk about these issues at the cabinet table — the estimates are really for MLAs to ask questions of the minister. I happen to have some real questions from real taxpayers in British Columbia about a very important issue, and I wouldn't mind having the opportunity to ask the minister for some answers, rather than listening to this rather foolish debate — not debate, speech.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would inform the House that every member has the opportunity to ask questions, particularly during the estimates debate. Any minister is entitled to that same privilege.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your point is absolutely correct. I raised the point because businesses in my community and businessmen I meet in my responsibility as Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources are raising concerns to me on a regular basis about what's happening in Ontario. They are seeing headlines in the newspapers and financial magazines of this country which are causing some real concerns. The Financial Post, June 4, 1991, reads: "NDP 'Scaring off Jobs, Investors'." It goes on to say that a major legal association in Ontario — the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario — is reporting that businesses are moving out of Ontario and deciding not to invest in Ontario, because of not only the $10 billion deficit, which is causing a great deal of concern in the business community, but also new legislation being proposed in Ontario that is causing investors and business executives some real concern.

To be more current than June 4, Maclean's magazine of June 10 quotes Mel Lastman, veteran mayor of North York: "We're fighting like hell to keep people here, but it's hard. You can't lobby or talk to the NDP — they speak a different language. Their idea of government is to spread poverty more evenly across the province." I think that bears repeating. This is a mayor from Ontario, Mel Lastman: "Their idea of government" — the NDP — "is to spread poverty more evenly across the province."

Joseph Taylor, vice-president of capital markets for the Wall Street brokerage firm of Merrill Lynch Canada Inc., says: "The provincial government has introduced a number of policies that will have a dampening effect on its economy. The perception down here is that the measures are well intended, but the government is completely oblivious to what appropriate economic policy is."

On that same day in the Globe and Mail, the headline reads: "Avoid Competitiveness with Queen's Park — Caution: Dangerous Word Ahead. The word is 'competitiveness,' and the caution signs are up at Queen's Park." For those of you who don't know, that's the Legislature of the NDP government in Ontario.

"There's a growing belief in Ontario's business community that competitiveness...."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I recognize that one person needs a little longer introduction to make a point than another. However, I think you're stretching it a little at this point in time. I would like to see you comply a little closer with the rules of the House.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Chairman, your point is well taken.

The point I wanted to make was that this growing concern in the business community... In Ontario it's a

[ Page 12747 ]

problem, but the real problem is with the business community here in British Columbia, which is concerned about these activities and how they can have some comfort from the minister that they won't see the same kinds of regulations and legislation introduced in British Columbia.

MR. MILLER: Normally when a government spends a lot of time talking about an area outside its jurisdiction, I guess it's because they're trying to shift the focus away from themselves.

I have a question with regard to the application of the property purchase tax in an area that I consider to be very unfair; it's happening in my constituency. Where individuals who are leasing Crown land have built improvements on that land — houses, particularly — and they come to an agreement with the Ministry of Lands and Parks to purchase that land, they are charged a price which is the fair market value of the land. That's the way it should be.

But when the property purchase tax is applied, it's applied to the total assessed value of not only the land but the improvements as well. In other words, people are being charged a property purchase tax on a building that they have already built and paid for and which they are not, in fact, purchasing. It seem to me to be patently unfair — the notion that we are going to tax people for something they haven't purchased. This issue has been around for a long time. I'm sure it's in other parts of the province as well as in my constituency.

These people have been advised that there may be a solution to this problem, and in fact I had anticipated that the ministry would deal with this much sooner Back in March I talked to people in your ministry and was given some indication that there may be a solution at hand. It has gone on far too long. In my view, these people have been taxed unfairly, and I'd like to know what the minister is proposing to do — if anything — to rectify this unfairness.

HON. J. JANSEN: The problem that the member for Prince Rupert brings forward is a problem that we are looking at right now. Simply stated, the law means that if you build an improvement on leased property, the value of that improvement goes to the lessor; that's the common-law situation. On the face of a legal interpretation of common law, the situation is that the value of that improvement is to the account of the Crown, not the lessee. That is the legal situation. I understand the concern that that places on many of the recreational property owners. We are looking at that. It is difficult to deal with it in the absence of legislation, but it is being discussed and has been looked at. It has taken a little while, because of the complexity of the issue.

Mr. Chairman, given the hour of the day, I would move that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:30 p.m.