1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament
HANSARD
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1992
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 2, Number 24
[ Page 1335 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Hon. L. Boone: It is my pleasure to introduce two visitors in the members' gallery this afternoon. With us is Ambassador Bai of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. His Excellency is accompanied by Mr. Hai, the third secretary at the embassy in Ottawa. Would you please welcome our visitors to British Columbia.
G. Janssen: I would like to introduce some special visitors in the members' gallery today. Visiting from Ottawa are His Excellency Godert W. Baron de Vos van Steenwijk, Ambassador of the Netherlands to Canada, and Baroness Clara van Pallandt. The ambassador is accompanied by Marnix Baron van Aerssen, consul general of the Netherlands at Vancouver. Namens de B.C. government heet ik U van harte welkom in British Columbia.
R. Kasper: I'd like to introduce John Doyle, from New Westminster. John is the editor of Truck Logger Magazine. Will the House please make John welcome.
L. Stephens: I would like the House to welcome today some very good friends of mine from the city of Langley, Alderman Gayle Martin, her son Gregory, and her mother, Doreen Howard. Would the House please make them welcome.
W. Hartley: Many of us today had the invigorating and enjoyable experience of riding on a motorcycle. I'd like to have the House welcome Rob Fenton from the B. C. Coalition of Motorcyclists in Vancouver.
Hon. J. Smallwood: I'd like the House to join with me in welcoming a group of people who are working with my ministry. I announced a while back the appointment of an advisory committee on multiculturalism issues in my ministry. I've had an opportunity to meet with them for the first time today. I'd like to individually welcome the chair of the committee, Mr. Charan Gill, Mr. Berhane Semere -- I'm feeling a little bit embarrassed here in that this is going to be a difficult introduction -- Jag Sidhu, Lorraine Podovelnikoff, Margaret Lau, Pindy Gill, Gabriella Maio, Suresh Kurl, Bica Gomes, Walid Chahine, Alfredo Sepulveda, Wilma Clarke and George Johnston.
We have a virtual UN sitting around the table now advising our ministry on cultural issues. These are all ministry staff, and we are very proud of the work they are able to do for us as a government.
K. Jones: I would also like to welcome the member of my constituency who was just introduced, Charan Gill.
I would also like to introduce a group of students from the Pacific Academy School in Surrey. Twenty-five grade 5 students and their teachers have spent part of this afternoon in the halls of the Legislature. Would the House please join me in welcoming this group to our precincts.
S. Hammell: Hon. Speaker, I rise to introduce Frank Warwick, a constituent of mine. He's a long-time member of our party as well as a practising poet. I have just received an excellent poem from him on the prospects of an elected Senate. Would the House please make him welcome.
R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery is a long-time resident of my constituency, Mrs. Emma Shevkenek, who is a former teacher and an active member of the horticultural society in Chilliwack. She is joined today by her daughter, Kathleen Cossom, from Victoria. Would you please make them welcome.
M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, in the gallery today are a number of students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary, my former junior secondary. They are accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Morassutti, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, my question today is to the Minister of Tourism. Would the minister agree that it's important, prior to commissioning any contract to a company, that that company has a long and proven track record of service in the area of performance they're being asked to examine?
Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.
G. Wilson: Is the minister aware, or was the minister aware, that when her ministry awarded a contract to Pradinuk Advertising it was to a company that was incorporated only on April 10, 1992 -- less than a month ago?
Hon. D. Marzari: I'd like to take that question on notice and bring back information to this House. During the estimates process we discussed this, and I have promised to bring back to this House, through estimates, a full disclosure of the nature of this company and its principals.
G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, let me address a new question to the Minister of Tourism. Could the minister confirm for this House that a principal of this company in fact is the failed candidate for North Vancouver-Lonsdale -- at least he failed to get the nomination; that the address for this company is Turco Moscovich Sabatino and Aikenhead; that this is the same Ian Aikenhead who is currently the NDP president; and that the other principal registered in this company is Mr. Paul Sabatino, whose patronage appointments in the 1972 Barrett government were well celebrated in this House? Can the minister confirm that she had knowledge of that when that appointment was made?
Hon. D. Marzari: As I said, I will take the question on notice and return to the House with a full disclosure of this contract.
[ Page 1336 ]
CROWN CORPORATIONS SECRETARIAT
J. Weisgerber: The question today is to the minister responsible for the Crown corporations secretariat. Given that the secretariat is planning to take about $2 million a year out of Crown corporations for its operations, I expect by now that the Crowns would each know how much they've been required to ante up to pay for the operations of the secretariat. Can the minister explain the formula used to determine the amount that each Crown corporation will be required to contribute to fund the Crown corporations secretariat?
Hon. G. Clark: In order to ensure accuracy, I'll have to take that question on notice as well -- but I'd be delighted to give you that. I can say that it is, of course, a rational process.
J. Weisgerber: A new question to the minister. Will the minister provide the House, before his estimates are tabled, a complete list of the sources of revenue for the secretariat and also a list of expenditures? We are particularly interested in knowing how many full-time employees there are, how many employees on contract there might be and the salaries they're earning.
Hon. G. Clark: First of all, I would be delighted to tell you exactly where the sources of revenue are. There are some questions on the order paper, which we're endeavouring to answer. We will provide that information. As you know, it's public information, but it's usually accounted for.... After a year we can give you a full accounting of all the expenses -- we'd be delighted to do that -- and some of the work, I hope, of the secretariat. It's hard for me to take a point in time and say exactly who's there and how much has been spent. But I'd be delighted to give you as much information as we can.
[2:15]
The Speaker: Final supplemental.
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister can confirm for us that at least one of those people employed was one Marvin Shaffer, a pal of Bob Williams from the NDP days. Can the minister confirm that Mr. Shaffer has been hired by Bob Williams? Can he confirm the salary that he's earning? Can he indicate whether or not his salary is the $600 a day that now appears to be standard for patronage appointments by this government?
Hon. G. Clark: Marvin Shaffer is retained by the Crown corporations secretariat. He's an outstanding individual, a consulting economist with a long track record, who, I might add, worked in a consulting capacity for the previous administration and worked for B.C. Hydro and has worked in the field. I'm not sure if he has started full-time yet or not. He will be -- I don't have any hesitation in saying that. The salary will be an ADM-level salary -- I'm not precise on that, but that's what the position will be.
PROPERTY PURCHASE TAX
G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Minister of Finance. On June 11, 1991, he blasted the Social Credit government for putting a homeowners' tax in place that is "raising hundreds of millions of dollars on young families and on people trying to buy a first home." If it was wrong for the Socreds to implement this tax, why is it okay now for the NDP to break its election promise and continue to tax the young working families of British Columbia?
Hon. G. Clark: It's interesting that every day in the House the Liberals ask for more money for health care or more money for education, they ask for cutting taxes on business, they ask for a flat tax, which is regressive, and they complain about the size of the deficit. They should get their act together and decide. As they're asking for us to provide a $60 million tax relief for individuals, I'd like to know, from the opposition, exactly where they would like us to cut spending. Would they like us to cut spending in health care by $60 million in order to do that? Would they like us to cut spending in education in order to accomplish that tax cut? If I can, hon. Speaker....
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, hon. members, and could the minister wrap up his response.
Hon. G. Clark: It's obvious that we inherited a financial mess which is, of course, bigger than any in the history of the province. It's very difficult to get on top of. We would be delighted, and I would be delighted, to eliminate the property purchase tax for first-time homebuyers. We're working to do that, but we have to get our fiscal house in order. We have to deal with the financial mess we inherited from the previous Social Credit administration.
G. Farrell-Collins: I can tell the minister that he can find well over $60 million in his fair wage program. Perhaps he could repeal that.
Hon. Speaker, my supplemental is for the Minister of Finance. The now Minister of Municipal Affairs said in this House on May 1, 1990, that he believed that the prestigious accounting firm of Peat Marwick was correct when they said that we had a deficit of $2.5 billion. Will the Minister of Finance stand by the statements of his cabinet colleague in 1990?
Hon. G. Clark: I'm sorry, hon. Speaker, I'm not sure of the context of those remarks. But I know my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs has an outstanding record of service to this province. I'm quite sure that any comments he made were fully accurate, but I haven't seen the details to which the member refers.
The Speaker: Is there a final supplementary?
[ Page 1337 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Once again we see that the Minister of Finance has failed to do his homework.
My second supplementary is to the Minister of Finance. It is clear now that the NDP did indeed know about the state of the province's finances and were aware of that, and the Minister of Finance said in this House on June 11, 1991 -- not even a year ago -- that if the Socreds would clear up their accounting mess "the deficit would be $2.4 billion." I would ask: will the minister now come clean and admit that all his promises and the promises of his Premier and his party made to the people of this province prior to the last election were nothing more than cynical attempts to buy the votes of the people of British Columbia? You knew.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, the line of questioning is, of course, surprising, because it's obvious to anybody who has followed politics -- perhaps members opposite weren't interested in politics in those days -- that the previous administration distorted the truth when it came to the finances of the province. We engaged Peat Marwick, the largest accounting firm in the country, to do an independent financial review so we could get a handle on the province's debt and deficit picture. That is the review we are now working from. I think all British Columbians know the financial picture, as a result of that review. That picture is different from that which all members on our side and the opposite side of the House, and the members of the public, were working with.
Surely when information is tabled in the House which purports to be the truth, all members of the public and members of the opposition expect it to be the truth. That was not the case in the previous administration.
SUPPLEMENTARY HOMEOWNER GRANT
J. Tyabji: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The mayor of Richmond, Greg Halsey-Brandt, is blaming the provincial government for a 24.7 percent increase in school taxes in his municipality. Did the minister warn the mayors -- and I'm not talking about trial balloons -- of the cut to the supplemental homeowner grant, and was there any consultation with them prior to the elimination of the program?
Hon. G. Clark: The member opposite should read the front page of the Vancouver Sun for some very instructive information about what's happening with municipal property taxes.
Members should know that, in the past, school boards levied school taxes on property. The provincial government provides a homeowner grant to try to offset some of that. That homeowner grant was increased in this budget by this administration. The supplemental homeowner grant, which was varied on the basis of the value of one's property, is quite within the realm of tax decisions made by the provincial government.
I might say that no one takes any pleasure -- believe me -- in making reductions in the supplemental homeowner grant. It's pretty clear that it would have been easier for me to retain that program. But when we're trying to deal with the financial mess left behind by the previous government, we have to make some tough choices.
J. Tyabji: In light of the massive tax increases facing British Columbians, will the minister now commit to implementing the recommendation of the UBCM and delaying the elimination of the supplemental homeowner grant for a one-year period to allow for consultation and an alternative method of school taxation?
The Speaker: The hon. minister for a brief reply.
Hon. G. Clark: Always brief, of course, hon. Speaker.
The supplemental homeowner grant is roughly $80 million to $90 million. We could have chosen to raise the sales tax. We could have extended the sales tax on restaurant meals. We chose not to do that. The budget is balanced and fair, and in this particular case, while it's a very difficult tax measure -- and we don't take any joy in it -- it was a way in which we tried to fund essential health and education services in this province.
The Speaker: A final supplemental.
J. Tyabji: Across the province people are opening their tax notices and experiencing shock. In light of his comments, can the minister tell us why municipal taxes are rising in some cases by as much as 31 percent?
Hon. G. Clark: I don't want to get into a situation where we can inflame our relationship with the municipalities. I'm not going to take the opportunity to do that. Let me say that roughly 40 percent of homeowners will see no change in their tax bill as a result of our changes. The average increase as a result of the elimination of the supplemental homeowner grant is about $120 a year. We could have raised medical premiums by ten dollars a month, as the previous government would have had us do. We chose not to do that. Municipalities have to deal with a difficult situation, as we all do in British Columbia. We'll try to work together to solve that problem. I look forward to working with municipalities in the coming months and years to try to deal with the costs and find an equitable way to get a handle on the situation.
FUTURE OF BEER COMPANY MASCOT
C. Evans: My question, like the Leader of the Opposition's, is for the Minister Responsible for Culture. As all members may be aware, there are rumors of an uncertain future for the great TV star Brew. Brew is the dog that represents Kokanee beer in the Creston Valley. This is probably Canada's only non-sexist advertising. What is the minister prepared to do? Has she given thought to the government doing something to assist bringing this star back to represent British Columbia?
[ Page 1338 ]
G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker....
The Speaker: If the member is rising on a point of order, perhaps we could raise it after question period.
Hon. D. Marzari: I had the opportunity, last week, at Movie Magic, of discussing the issue with Brew, the party in question. Although we did not shake on the deal, hon. Speaker, I did put forward to Brew's agents that perhaps we should consult with the Minister of Economic Development to see whether or not we might be able to incorporate Brew onto the membership list of the Working Opportunity Fund, where he would be properly recognized as a member of WOOF.
The Speaker: The bell ends question period, hon. members.
G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. While it's very entertaining to have these types of questions come before the House, and it was certainly intriguing to see the Minister of Tourism finally answer a question, I assume it's because she had advance notice. If that's the type of important thing that we need to spend time in question period on, then I would be glad to have the minister comment on what Brew's membership number is. Is he in fact a member of the NDP, and will he be going on the patronage list?
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 33, the Golf Course Development Moratorium Act.
GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT
MORATORIUM ACT
(continued)
H. De Jong: It is indeed a pleasure for me to stand up and speak on Bill 33, the Golf Course Moratorium Act. I believe it is appropriate to go into a bit of history on this bill, because the land commission, the agricultural land reserve, was established back in 1973, I understand. At that time, golf courses were in fact an allowable use in the agricultural land reserve.
This act, of course, was established during the previous time of the NDP government, when they were in government during the period from '72 to '75. Two years ago this was again an allowable use. Apparently in between that time there was some restriction on that particular use. The minister referred, in his comments this morning, that two years ago a certain bill claimed it was an allowable use to allow a golf course if it's in the agricultural land reserve. It's interesting what may have led the government of that day to make that decision. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons. The period between 1973 and 1988, it was 15 years of considerable growth -- population growth, growth in the economy, growth in activities and certainly growth in the Ministry of Tourism in the province.
[2:30]
There has also been a complete change on the aspects of health and healthy living. Physical exercise has been mentioned on many occasions by health officials; that the people of British Columbia, and perhaps elsewhere, needed more physical exercise for good health reasons. Golfing used to be a rich man's sport. It's no longer a rich man's sport; it's everybody's sport. In fact, there are young people's groups that have golfing as one of their sporting activities. It's not the sport it used to be 15 or 20 years ago. Obviously when a sport becomes so important, you need a place to do it. Not every community has a lot of land that is not within the agricultural land reserve. There are communities that are surrounded by agricultural land, but those communities are growing. They have the same growing pains as many other communities throughout British Columbia.
During these fast growth years.... I recall when I became a member of the Matsqui council, back in '72. That was only three years after a zoning bylaw was implemented in the district of Matsqui. Matsqui was a very quiet place before that. But in the late sixties, yes, certain activities were occurring. Like any other municipality in the lower mainland, the requirement for a zoning bylaw was essential. The zoning bylaw of that day had.... If you look at it in detail compared to a zoning bylaw of today, it's quite different. It's much more explicit nowadays. On top of that, community plans have been the order of the day over the last ten years, which was a requirement. The provincial government certainly has assisted many communities, municipalities and regional districts to form community plans.
Within all of these plans and zoning bylaws was a strong stress for more land for uses like golfing, playgrounds, parks. It has become normal in British Columbia to have more land available for people's enjoyment. It's not a bad idea; it's a good idea. People need to play as well as work, and so it all goes together.
I also think that tourism has a great impact on the need for golf courses. Tourism has formed a very important part of British Columbia's economy, not only for the people who are directly affected by tourism -- such as the hotels, motels, restaurants, etc. -- but also for the farming communities as such. During that same period of time that golfing is enjoyable -- during the nice weather -- most of the crops are ready -- for instance, berries, cherries, apples, pears and a host of other products. So the farmer does have an increased home market.
It's not just because people come here for golfing or to enjoy a few swims in the lake or a bit of fishing; it's a total package. That's what makes British Columbia so attractive for tourists. It enhances a host of other things, like the old craft sales that we see when we travel the Okanagan. We see many places where there are crafts for sale as well as native materials. So for the tourist coming from outside British Columbia, there is obviously a lot to see, to participate in and to purchase.
Having said that, I must now go into more detail as to what this bill is all about. I would like to make a comparison between the procedures that are proposed in this bill and a local government zoning application. When the local government has established its community plan, and within that has defined certain areas for residential, commercial and industrial development.... Those are the three main areas usually identified within a community plan. When a person makes an application
[ Page 1339 ]
for a highrise building in a residential area, the staff of the municipality evaluates the application. Eventually it comes to the local council for the initial approval of first reading, and then it goes to public hearing.
The public hearing process gives the public -- particularly the surrounding neighbourhood -- an opportunity to review the application and decide whether they want this highrise in a residential area. Sometimes these applications proceed, and other times they fail after a public hearing, because the public has spoken and the council listens. The applicant, of course, realizes from day one on that he takes a chance if he wishes to build a highrise building, which is allowed under the residential category. But it may have been a predominantly single-family residential area for a long time, and people may have objections to a highrise.
The point I want to make is that if the applicant gets a refusal from council for the highrise to proceed, there is no compensation paid. But if he gets the approval to proceed, there is no time-limit or stipulation as to who is involved or who shall be involved in the project. So the applicant has received his approval on the basis of land use, and that is the key for the rezoning application. That is also the key on which the applications mentioned in this bill have proceeded. Most of them have had their municipal approvals. There are a few that perhaps need a little more to go through, but there seems to be a general intent for most of these under this bill to proceed with sufficient approval from the local authorities.
I have no problem with those that have been declined, unless there were intended approvals or approvals in principle given at the start of these applications, so that the people could count on, after due process, their application approval. Otherwise I have no problem with the fact that there is no compensation paid in these instances, because developers take those chances. I believe we all take those chances in life. But I have serious reservations about the fact.... I believe that putting in the stipulations that are contained in this bill is a heavy-handed approach by the government. For instance, if an owner encounters financial difficulties or other problems that could possibly delay the construction beyond the legislated two-year limit, he may lose his right to build that course, and the land will basically revert to agricultural use.
I strongly disagree with this type of legislation -- we all do on this side of the House. This is purely a socialist philosophy. You want to give the approval, but you want to tie the guy's hands and feet. That's exactly what this bill does. It doesn't give him any opportunity. It gives him no leeway, you might say, to look to his financial people, in case there is a problem with the financing. He can't change the financing on the property. He cannot take on partners in the property to any degree. He can't sell the property. What government on this earth would want so much power as to not allow the sale of a property that has had a proposed land use approved? This bill is one of the worst that this government could bring forth. It certainly does not go along with the thinking of the free enterprise British Columbians we all know, who have made this province what it is today.
The government will regret having put these types of restrictions in this bill. If they're prepared to do it in this bill, what are they prepared to do on many other things? This, again, shows exactly the same socialist trend that provided 1,200 dark days in British Columbia during 1972-75. We will perhaps see that again for the next 1,200 days, when the government will be back in the pockets of taxpayers who have made this province what it is today.
B. Jones: I rise to speak on the Golf Course Development Moratorium Act as a golfer. I understand that the member for Delta South is a president, or was a president, of a golf club, and perhaps we'll meet some day on the course.
It amazes me -- and I can't imagine why -- that the subpar opposition, which is green with envy after the last election and wouldn't know a fair way if it jumped up and bit them, is so teed off about this particular bill. This is an excellent follow-through that this government has taken following the last provincial election. Item No. 33 from "A Better Way" stated: "We will restore the integrity of the agricultural land reserve after years of Social Credit attacks. We will once again put the interests of agriculture ahead of the self-interest of developers."
This piece of legislation is not about golf courses as much as it's about greed and endangered spaces. The history that the previous speaker mentioned very briefly is much broader than what he talked about. What we had in 1973 in the landmark Agricultural Land Commission Act was a very prescient and courageous piece of legislation. Although this legislation at the time was perceived as black by some, it was excellent legislation that set about preserving farmland that produces food we have all enjoyed the benefits of. It was controversial, and the government of the day paid a heavy price for being forward-thinking and understanding of the future needs of British Columbia in terms of food-producing land areas. The purpose of that piece of legislation was preservation and the setting up of an Agricultural Land Commission to take decisions around agricultural land use out of the hands of politicians and put them into a commission that had the expertise and the ability to look at the food-producing land in this province and decide whether or not it should be preserved as agricultural land.
[2:45]
The history that the previous member neglected to mention was two heinous attacks on that piece of legislation. The first one occurred in 1977, when the Environment and Land Use Committee was given the authority to do an end run around the Agricultural Land Commission and allow appeals to members of cabinet. Four members of cabinet could make decisions on land use against the advice of the experts that they had set up in the Agricultural Land Commission. What did this do? It jeopardized the integrity of the Agricultural Land Commission, the stability of farmland in this province and the food-producing industry.
[ Page 1340 ]
The second heinous attack occurred in June of 1988 with order-in-council 1141. It was this order-in-council that permitted golf course and ancillary buildings on agricultural land in this province. And what did that do? What was the impact of that? What we saw after order-in-council 1141 was an incredible flood of applications for farmland -- not to produce food... Farmland is a tremendously rich asset that this province has in a very small percentage; something like 4 percent of our land base is capable of producing food. We had an assault on that land base by a flood of applications. Since that order-in-council, we've had three times the number of applications we had in the previous ten years. We haven't all discovered the game of golf; we haven't all decided to spend five hours out on the fairways.
Interjection.
B. Jones: Some of those golf courses are busy.
What happened, as a result of that tremendous flood of applications, was a tremendous increase in land prices and, again, tremendous instability to the food-producing land areas in this province. This particular order-in-council was not for farmers; it wasn't to aid agricultural production. It was for developers and for speculators. A small community like Delta received, within very short order, 18 applications for golf courses. Those weren't from farmers. Seventy percent of the farmland in Delta is owned by non-farmers. They are waiting for that farmland -- which we and future generations of British Columbians need for food production -- to be taken out of the agricultural land reserve. When that happens, the prices go up, and there are tremendous windfall profits to be made by those developers.
This piece of legislation puts an end to that kind of speculation and greed, and it gets us back to the stability we need in the prices of farmland in this province. The order-in-council, which is being rescinded and wrapped up as part of this legislation, was criticized widely. Some members of the opposition suggest we need more time to consider this. The political world in this province didn't start on October 17. This is my file on order-in-council 1141; it's about three inches thick. There is a long history in this province to do with the crimes against agricultural land that were committed by what is now the third party.
C. Serwa: Name names, figures, percentages.
B. Jones: Well, I'll name a name: Ian Pyton, chairman of the Agricultural Land Commission -- not a particular friend of this side of the House. He took a courageous stand at that time and jeopardized his job in the process, because he said that this order-in-council threatened the future viability of farmland in Delta in particular. He wasn't just worried about farmlands; he was worried about the morality of this order-in-council.
He said: "I'm worried about the hidden agenda, because it isn't about golf courses; it's about housing, it's about spas and it's about racquet courts. It's about development of land for values much higher than agricultural land." He said, in particular, that 1141 should not have been passed in the absence of municipal guidelines, and he wasn't alone. The 700 members of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists voted at their convention to rescind that order-in-council. It was criticized by the Delta Farmers' Institute.
The members opposite seem to think that golf courses somehow enhance farming. It was opposed by the municipality of Langley. The member for Langley should be aware that her municipality did not see fit to support this order-in-council. Nor did the B.C. Golf Association or a variety of community groups at the time.
I think it's very clear, Madam Speaker, that once we lose the ability to feed ourselves, we can then be held ransom for food of whatever quality, of whatever source and at whatever price. It's time this government took the kind of courageous step that was taken in 1973, because once that land is lost, it's gone forever.
This bill is a fair bill. It's a good attempt to strike a balance between the need to protect farmland and the rights of developers who operated under the misguided -- but at that time perfectly legal -- policies of the previous government. It's fair, it's balanced and it restores the integrity to our food-producing land in this province. I know that all members, if they search their conscience, will support this bill.
J. Tyabji: I rise to speak against this bill. I'm in an interesting situation in that I support the principles behind it. I do believe that agricultural land should be preserved for agricultural use, and that we should maintain the integrity of the land reserve. However, I question some of the comments of the previous speaker with regard to the commitment to agriculture, specifically noting that the Agriculture portfolio received a 16 percent cut during the budget. He was talking about priorities. I'd like to talk a little about process. I'd like to remind the other side of the House that there was a fairly good awareness that the situation would exist; that they would have to be the decision-making authority following the election campaign. They should have then sent out some kind of warning that they would be proceeding with a moratorium shortly following the election, so we wouldn't be in the situation we're in today, which sees us dealing with specific developments around the province being affected.
People who have invested money.... And yes, when you invest money in a business venture there is some chance that you will not succeed. However, given the game plan they were using at the time, I think it's unfair to change the rules halfway through the game without any forewarning or consultation. I don't think it's fair to say that because you have a platform initiative that says you're committed to agriculture, therefore people should assume that you will impose a moratorium that is retroactive to the extent to which it needs to be for effect. That's what I find a little dangerous. This is a dangerous precedent in that if we can as decision-makers pass legislation that can be retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect, it then leaves us in an unstable position. Anything that's on the books cur-
[ Page 1341 ]
rently could be gone tomorrow, and it could be retroactive to the time the original bill was introduced.
I stand here in opposition to this bill on a point of principle. Although I agree with the objective, which is to maintain the agricultural land reserve's integrity, I disagree with the process which has resulted in many individuals.... I know that in the Kelowna area there are some very good projects on the table by people who have spent years and years trying to make money as farmers. These are people who grew up on the farm and they watch their profits going down the drain. They watch the farm go down the drain. When they finally finished yanking up the trees, and when there wasn't any money left to be made, then they thought that perhaps they could turn it into a golf course and maintain it as a green space. They scraped up as much money as they had, and they put it toward making a golf course out of it. They're now in a situation where the rules have been changed halfway through the process. They're sitting on land that they find is again valueless, in that agriculture has not been made enough of a priority to be viable enough that they can actually make money at it. The project they thought would finally save what's left of the family farm is also gone. They were playing by the rules. These are good, honest people who just think: if those are the rules, then maybe that's where we will go so we can continue to make some money.
With some regret, I say that this bill is not going to be received very happily by those people in particular. It does lead to a great deal of instability in terms of how secure we can feel with any acts that have already been passed. I would urge the minister to at least discuss with the people who have been most affected by this moratorium some of the alternatives now available to them in terms of returning the land to good, productive agricultural use. They are now in a position where this moratorium has denied them the last avenue of revenue on that land, and yet the agricultural industry is no healthier -- and some might argue, less healthy with the North American free trade agreement on the books. If the minister is going to impose a moratorium like this, I would suggest that he contact these people and tell them what they should do now that they've lost their investment. They still have the land, and the land isn't worth anything to them in terms of agriculture.
J. Beattie: I rise today to support Bill 33, the Golf Course Development Moratorium Act. I feel very strongly, as do many members on both sides of the House, about the principle of the protection of agricultural land in this province.
I feel some concern about the words of support that I hear from the opposition benches. I hear a lot of pseudo-commitment to the difficult issue of protecting agricultural land, particularly the question of maintaining agricultural land only if, in a certain period, it's a viable, money-making enterprise. We all recognize that the prime purpose of agriculturists is to grow food at a profit. We recognize that as a principle. When the Agricultural Land Commission was struck and the reserve was formed, there was a recognition that the economic aspects of maintaining the land could not be a prime consideration in the maintenance of that reserve.
The most recent speaker, the member for Okanagan East, was alluding to the fact that there were farmers who made the decision, in support of the agricultural land reserve, to put their farms into golf courses, and now that they're not going to be able to make money on their golf courses, they should be able to have this land put into a special circumstance. That is just not consistent with the direction of the Agricultural Land Commission. Both sides of the House recognize that. The third party recognizes that, and so does the opposition party.
It's a bogus point that's being raised. The real issue here is process, as the member for Okanagan East was talking about. The process that was in place for the Agricultural Land Commission was a valid, publicly supported process. If it had not been, the Social Credit Party would have removed the agricultural land reserve and the commission in their term of office. They recognized that it was strongly supported in all areas of this province, and they would have removed it at their own peril.
[3:00]
The member for Okanagan West comes from an agricultural area in the Okanagan, as I do. He knows that there are a lot of conflicting opinions about the future of farming and agricultural land. Even in these hard times for agriculture -- nationally and internationally -- a very small percentage of the population is willing to see agricultural land disappear under any kind of development.
The member for Chilliwack, on the Liberal side, made some very strong statements about his perception that this is draconian legislation that indicates a deep-seated dictatorship mentality -- some kind of far-left-wing socialist attitude. That's so far from the truth that it's laughable. For one, this is not expropriation, and to compare what this bill says to expropriation is really a misuse of the term. What this government has opted to do is take 181 applications.... A full two-thirds of them will stay in their present situation and have their wants met, to become golf courses. The other 60, which have not been approved by local government, will not go through. That's very straightforward and clear.
The question of compensation was raised by the member for Abbotsford. He seemed to think that the question of compensation was fair as long as it was an open-ended process, or if the person who owned the land at the time could sell it to someone else and they could build the golf course. The second part of his concern about the land being transferred to some other owner is rather simple in its approach. If that was all that was needed, all of these locations would become golf courses one way or the other. If it's just a question of money, that money is available.
The fact of the matter is that our intent is to keep as much land agricultural as possible. We don't want to see land become golf courses when it is prime agricultural land. There is plenty of land throughout the province for golf courses -- you can see examples of golf courses built on side hills, up on the rocks -- so I don't think that this window of two years is unreason-
[ Page 1342 ]
able. If the intent was there to move forward with the funding in place, by all means go ahead. In fact, if you need two years to get the funding in place, then you can take that time.
Once this bill passes, we'll be back into a situation where golf courses will not be approved if it's not compatible with the farmland use. That's the prime driving motivation of this piece of legislation: to return integrity to the Agricultural Land Commission and to maintain agricultural land for this and future generations.
One of the deep concerns that I have had as a politician is in speaking to people about what it means to say "in perpetuity." When one says "in perpetuity," one is talking about as far as the eye can see.
C. Serwa: More than 60 years.
J. Beattie: Exactly. More than 60 years. It's for a long time, and it takes something very major to change that perception. We'll all have to grow food for our children; our children will have to grow food for their children. People have said to me, "Let's keep the land reserve in place for at least another ten years until the housing situation becomes so difficult that we have to build housing," or "Let's keep the agricultural land reserve in place in its pure form for agriculture until we need another golf course." That's not in perpetuity. That's a reductionist way of thinking about things and shows no value for the true intent, which is the maintenance of land to grow food.
I think this is a strong bill. I wish to commend the Minister of Agriculture for making it very clear very soon after the election.... In fact, I think it was in the first ten days that he got up and said: "This is what we're going to do, and this is the fulfilment of our commitment." The member for Okanagan East should be clear on the fact that we spoke about changing the order-in-council that was put in by the previous government. We spoke of removing that order-in-council and getting the process back onto an even keel.
I would like to close by saying that I've been impressed with the way the Agricultural Land Commission has functioned over the years. There is a need to regionalize to some extent the input that comes in. We need a closer look at the land so that every agricultural area protects the best land. In general, the Agricultural Land Commission, as supported by the previous government, as instituted by our government and maintained by this present government is a work of art in terms of the preservation of land.
L. Stephens: I am pleased to rise to speak to second reading of Bill 33, the Golf Course Development Moratorium Act. I share the pleasures of golf, along with my friend from Langley, where we have spent many enjoyable hours on the course, and also the member for Burnaby North and my colleague for Delta South, who is also an avid golfer -- and, I'm sure, a great many other members of the House.
My constituency of Langley and that of my other colleague for Fort Langley-Aldergrove is home to many fine golf courses. Langley is also a farming community. Because I'm a farm girl from southern Saskatchewan and I've lived in Langley for some 20-odd years, I'm very well aware of the importance of agriculture to our very existence. However, as a former realtor I am also well aware that the highest and best use of our land is also an important consideration. Bill 33 has very important implications for farmers, business and recreation in our communities in every part of our province.
I remind the government that the Liberal Party very firmly believes in good agricultural land being used for agricultural purposes. In committee I will be asking for the reasons why 60 applications for golf courses were rejected, and I will also be asking for the new guidelines for future golf course applications.
Hon. E. Cull: I rise to speak in favour of this bill. In the 1970s British Columbia led the way in understanding the pressures that urban development has on sensitive environmental land. People from all around North America came to see what was going on here in B.C., to look at the Agricultural Land Commission as a model of how to preserve agricultural land and to recognize that in the face of urban development, it was a critical and very necessary task to get on with. Development -- whether it's for housing, industrial or commercial use, or for recreational uses such as golf courses -- has a voracious appetite for land that is flat, fertile, valley-bottom land that is, of course, the land that is best for agriculture. It's the cheapest to develop for all of those reasons, but it's also the land that we need for growing food for future generations. Obviously you can't grow food just anywhere, and that's where the conflict comes in here.
I'm a relative newcomer to Victoria; I've only been living in this community for 11 years. As a resident of Victoria, I appreciate the fact that I can, within 15 minutes of my home, go into the Saanich peninsula, visit the farming communities there, and buy fresh produce during the summer. That's a real advantage to me as an urban dweller. I have a particular recognition of that, because I grew up in the north end of Toronto. As a young girl, I used to be able to look out of my living-room window and see farm fields north of Steele Avenue. I can tell you now that you have to drive for a long way before you come to anything that resembles a farm. I can see the members opposite, who obviously know Toronto as well as I do.... You probably have to go to Barrie now before you can find anything that resembles a farm. But I know that the people in my community who've been here for many years have seen changes going on here in Victoria. They are very concerned as they see the appetite that urban growth has for agricultural land.
Sometimes I feel a little bit vulnerable as an urban resident entering into these discussions that have far more to do with the rural parts of our province, although they are certainly close to home. I have within my riding part of the Blenkinsop Valley, which is still in the agricultural land reserve and is, of course, an active farming area. I want to make it quite clear that the concern isn't only one of open space and aesthetics from the urban point of view. It's not simply a question of needing to have that kind of mental health space that
[ Page 1343 ]
rural areas often provide for those of us who live in the cities. It's really a question of our long-term future as a community, whether it's the community here in Victoria or, if we look at it in the broad sense, as British Columbians.
A society that cannot feed itself is in very serious trouble. That is a statement that is true today as we look at what is happening not only here close to home but in the places that we have come increasingly to depend on for our food supplies -- California and other parts of the United States, and countries overseas. They are facing the same kinds of pressures we see here, and some of them are facing them to a much greater degree. So it becomes that much more important that we look after doing everything we can to protect our own farmland so that we can feed ourselves to the greatest extent possible.
This bill isn't attacking developing. It's not a bill that attacks golf courses. This is a positive bill that's in favour of agriculture. This is a bill that recognizes that agriculture is so important that you can't consider it in the narrow confines of any particular local community. It requires a broader view. That's why the agricultural land reserve was brought in in the first place -- so that we could take a provincewide view of this very important natural resource, and so that we could manage this resource not only in the interests of those who happen to live adjacent to those farms, as I did as a young girl, but also of those of us who may live very far from them right now but who have come to depend upon them for food for our families.
If you think about how we treat other natural resources in this province in that big way, whether we're looking at forests or environmentally sensitive lands or parks, you realize that it does require this rather broad provincial view to ensure that we do protect those important lands for future generations.
I want to bring this just back home again to Victoria and the region that my riding is in, and talk a little about the Georgia basin. From my constituents' point of view, urban pressure is of the most concern. Some of the members in the House who have been here for a number of years have heard me speak before about the Georgia basin, which is that populated area around the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Strait of Georgia and Puget Sound. We have about five million people living in that area around the Georgia basin right now. At current growth rates, I don't think it's inconceivable to see that double within the next 30 years. That's ten million people living on some very environmentally sensitive land. It's the city of Los Angeles. You only have to look at the environmental and urban growth problems they have there, and then try to imagine them here, and you'll get as concerned as I am about this.
[3:15]
I think that we have to start to put our management of agricultural land into that larger urban picture. Here in Victoria alone there have been 1,500 hectares of agricultural land removed from the ALR since 1974. That is a very critical loss to us here. It's critical in the context of how we manage our resources, both urban and rural, in this entire area called the Georgia Basin.
What has this got to do with golf courses? What does it have to do with this particular bill? It has everything, because since golf courses have been allowed as an outright use on agricultural land, we have been gobbling up more and more of this agricultural land for golf course use.
Interjection.
Hon. E. Cull: "So what?" the member opposite is asking about this. He's asking whether this land disappears. It is actually a very good question, because I think most of us when thinking of golf courses think of green fairways, trees and all the rest of that. We think of open space that perhaps could one day be agricultural again.
What we don't think about when we talk about golf courses in the agricultural land reserve are condominiums and the housing development that goes with it -- and that's the lucrative part of the development. It's not the fairways; it's the development that goes along with the golf course. This land, once it is taken out of agricultural use and goes into golf course use, is lost for all time. It is never going to be returned to agriculture.
For too long in this province the government that preceded us took a short-term view, looked at immediate gains and saw planning as a socialist plot -- as the member for Abbotsford was referring to it just recently. I think it's about time that we started taking a long-term view of urban development and growth in this province, and I am proud to be part of a government that is willing to stand up for agriculture and the environment, and that is willing to protect agricultural land not only for our use and our children's use, but for the use of generations for many years to come.
F. Gingell: It gives me pleasure to rise to speak about Bill 33. Bill 33 is, of course, like that famous old Punch cartoon I referred to once before -- the curate's egg -- because it's a very good bill, but there's one item in here that I believe is a matter of major concern. It is section 3, the one that calls for no compensation to be paid to any person for a reduction in the value of an interest in land or any loss or damages.
During the process of the committee debate, I hope that the minister will be able to answer questions that deal with legal opinions relating to how all-encompassing that particular section is, because it is a very all-encompassing section. The principle of the bill I have no problem with.
I'm affected by this bill, I think more than any other member in this House, in that I have had a record number of applications come into my constituency -- eight of them. That's eight out of some number that looks like it's in the thirties of the ones that have been turned down.
Of all those in Delta there is one that is different. I'm not for one moment suggesting that it should be allowed to proceed as a golf course. The problem with this particular one is that it went through council, was approved and did receive third reading. A group of local citizens took the municipality to court on the process that had taken place in going through the
[ Page 1344 ]
reading and public hearing process, and they won. The decision in third reading by the council of the municipality of Delta was overturned. That decision has been appealed. The appeal hasn't come through yet, so it's all sitting there in limbo. It seems to me a rather blatant and heavy-handed attitude if the position on that particular application is dealt with in the manner that paragraph 3 brings in: no compensation.
"No compensation" seems to be a favourite statement or buzzword of this government. They take away the doctors' pension plan: no compensation. There is a process by which people with mineral rights in park areas.... All that's held up: no compensation.
I can appreciate that anybody applying to a municipality and to the agricultural land reserve to develop a golf course runs a risk. I don't have any problem with that; it's a perfectly reasonable risk. The risk, though, should be whether the agricultural land reserve, the local council or the public hearing process allows the development to proceed. If you suddenly come along and say the rules have changed and nothing can be done, then you shouldn't put in a section that deals with no compensation.
I can appreciate that if I was the government, I would not agree to a suggestion that because I was planning on building a golf course, my $3,000-an-acre land is now worth $10,000. That's not what I'm talking about. But if they have legitimately and properly spent moneys in the development of plans and in various fees and costs of moving through the application and approval process, then this government should consider at least the refund of those moneys.
We keep asking people to join in our game, help develop the province and invest time and money, and all of a sudden it's "heads they win, tails you lose." It simply isn't fair, and I ask the government to reconsider the consequences of section 3 of this act.
N. Lortie: Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in support of this bill. We all understand that as a consequence of this bill, the agricultural land reserve was under great pressure in British Columbia. There were 181 applications for golf courses in that short time. By this time, if we hadn't put a moratorium on them, there would probably be 400 or 500 applications. Those 181 applications represented a possible loss of more than 20,000 acres of the agricultural land reserve. I think that's something we should take very seriously.
In the community of Delta that I share with the hon. member for Delta South, we had a large proportion of those applications -- I think there were over 30 applications -- to our municipal council, and they represented some of the best farmland in all of British Columbia. It's a big industry in our community. It represents $50 million to the local economy of Delta, and I think that's something that we have to guard very carefully.
Golf courses are not an agricultural crop. I think the best thing we can do with agricultural land is to use it for agricultural purposes. Once agricultural land goes into a golf course, it can never be put back into agriculture. It's a fallacy to think that we're saving agricultural land by making it into a golf course. There has only been one instance in Canada where there was even an attempt to put a golf course back into agricultural production, and that was, I think, in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. It became too expensive to put that land back into agriculture, and it failed. Now it's neither a golf course nor agriculture. It has never been successful anywhere else. So let's not fool ourselves about thinking that sometime in the future, when we need that agricultural land, we can convert it from golf courses. It just won't happen.
I'd like to address the matter of compensation, which my friend in opposition was addressing. He seems to think that somehow the government owes these people some money. Well, I view it a little differently. As a person who has been in municipal politics and who sat on the Delta council for nine years, I understand that there are people who will buy land and attempt to change the designation.
One of the frustrating things about the zoning process is that if you zone some land agricultural, somebody wants to buy that land and rezone it into residential, or use it for some other purpose. If you have vacant land zoned residential, they want to buy that residentially zoned property and make it industrial. The up-zoning process frustrates the municipal council.
The people who buy that land and try to up-zone it to create wealth are called speculators. Speculation is an honourable business, but as the name implies, there is no guarantee; it implies risk. These people took a shot at making money out of agricultural land by converting it into golf courses and it didn't work. That was the risk they took. I see no reason why the people of Delta and of British Columbia should compensate these people because their risk didn't quite work out the way they wanted it to.
Agricultural land is too valuable, especially in Delta where, as my hon. friend knows, we have the most hours of sunshine of any area in British Columbia. We have some of the best soil of any area in British Columbia. I'm sure the hon. member from Delta South will agree with me. The land is not just worth protecting; it's absolutely essential that we protect it. This bill, which I'm proud to stand up and support, goes one step toward protecting that land and protecting farmers. Making farming a viable business is the next step, which I'm sure this government will take in the near future.
C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to rise and speak in opposition to Bill 33, the Golf Course Development Moratorium Act, in second reading.
I used to have a friend.... I'll have to spiffy up the philosophy of my friend so that it's acceptable in the House. It went something like this: "Baloney baffles brains." Perhaps that's acceptable to the House. I've heard a great deal of baloney from the government side of the House -- perhaps because of unawareness of the actual picture or perhaps because the minister in this particular case acted on a very hasty and impulsive type of a decision, and now the government members seem to be compelled to support that decision. I suggest that the government will find themselves in very hot water with this particular course of action.
[ Page 1345 ]
Let's explore this matter a little bit, hon. Speaker. Have we been fed baloney by the government side of the House, or have they misinformation? Let's explore this myth of the erosion of agricultural land capability in British Columbia. That, I think, is the foundation of the concern of members opposite. There are all sorts of startling things like starvation, feeding yourself, being held for ransom and terms like that that tend to frighten the public. Let's take a look at it.
The program certainly has been attacked, and my government, the former administration, has been attacked on the basis of a myth propagated by members now on the government side. In 1974 the agricultural land reserve contained approximately 4.72 million hectares of land. At that time the population of the province was a little over a million people. We're a little over 3.2 million at the present time. They have to have places to live; they've got to live somewhere. That's one of the fundamental rules. So we've used a lot of the land.
[3:30]
But how much has been lost since 1973 when the land reserve was put in? At the present time we still retain 99.6 percent of that original land area which was put into the agricultural land reserve. We've lost four-tenths of 1 percent, and our population has more than trebled in British Columbia. Are we short of land for agricultural production or capability to feed the hungry mouths of the future? Are we desperate because we're concerned that we're going to be held to ransom? By whom has never been explained to me?
You have to be familiar with the geography of British Columbia; you have to be familiar with the geography of other jurisdictions. Just across the line in the state of Washington is the Columbia River basin; relatively level terrain, even soil, not heavily glaciated, and abundant water supplies because of the dams on the Columbia River. Land values are relatively inexpensive. No urban conflict for agricultural production. We have many Third World countries in the world where their only opportunity for economic activity is agricultural production.
I would suggest that the members opposite are slightly paranoid on the one side. The other thing they're playing with they consider smart politics. The reality in British Columbia is that 2 percent of the population own agricultural land; 98 percent of the population, obviously, do not own agricultural land. The 98 percent who do not own it like the green space. When the present Minister of Agriculture was the critic, he kept referring not to the agricultural land aspect of it, but to the greenbelt legislation -- preserving that.
That's fine, but when this legislation was first brought in and introduced in the province of British Columbia by a former socialist government, again representing the politics of envy, they didn't make any effort whatsoever to compensate those people for the land they owned. At that time freehold land had all the rights and privileges of freehold land anywhere, and subject to zoning you had the right to develop it. The development rights were part of the property rights. This is simply a zoning type of bylaw imposed by a Big Brother type of government on the people who own that land. Imposed unfairly, I might add, because if they were genuine and sincere that it was for the public good, then surely to heavens they could have appreciated the fact that the public should have paid for the development rights of that land.
The fundamental basis of this discussion is not the preservation of land that is available for agriculture; this is an extension of the politics of envy of the government of the day. That's what it is. There is an envy and a greed in that government today. From their statements there is obviously a sin in profit. This is a government that is opposed to anyone succeeding in any particular field. How you are going to look after your social concerns amazes me. That's the sickness that prevails in this particular government. The minister made an impassioned but very unrealistic presentation in support of this bill. I say it's unrealistic because the greenbelt, the preservation of agricultural land, in spite of the last member who spoke....
If the need is there, hon. member, I can convert this building site into agricultural land, and I can convert it much faster than you would believe I could. We have that capability. In Germany and many other parts of Europe during the First World War and the last World War they required more land for agricultural capability. The population density is enormous compared to British Columbia. They used all of the land. The individual lots of the homes were utilized for the production of agricultural products: vegetables, potatoes, etc. Railroad rights-of-way and powerline rights-of-way were used for agricultural production.
I wonder how many of the members opposite keep large gardens. I'm pleased to see that a couple of them put up their hands. My family consisted of six children. We kept approximately half an acre in garden and produced our own fruits and vegetables.
Most people want cheap products. Their loyalty is not to the domestic producer of those products; their loyalty tends to be to price in the supermarket. What this legislation tends to do is remove even the slightest bit of optimism for the utilization of land for other purposes. Cheap agricultural produce.... The minister and members opposite know full well that in this jurisdiction we probably pay the smallest percentage of our disposable income, approximately 14 percent, for foods. We're doing that at the expense of the farmers. We're enslaving the farmers to their land. We're not giving them an opportunity to create an adequate cash flow for survival.
Interjection.
C. Serwa: The Minister of Finance makes a good point. If you want to preserve agricultural land, you have to make certain that you preserve the farmers. This government has no commitment to preserving farmers. The Minister of Agriculture has taken a substantial reduction in that budget without a murmur.
The unwillingness of this government to accept the fundamental responsibility of a democratically elected government is that they are the ultimate arbiter of controversial decisions. They have to reach decisions and accept the responsibility for them.
[ Page 1346 ]
There was a great deal of concern with respect to the Environment and Land Use Committee that was set up. Why was that set up, and why does this government want to hide behind a commission to make decisions that they themselves want to evade the responsibility for? ELUC was set up to take other factors into consideration. The Minister of Agriculture knows that the Agricultural Land Commission is restricted to making a determination of whether land stays in or out, based on the agricultural capability of the specific parcel. Only four factors come into that decision. One of the factors is climate; one is the slope of the terrain; another is drainage; and the last and final factor is soil classification. That is the only thing that the Agricultural Land Commission can make a decision on, and those factors evolve into the agricultural capability of the land.
So an appeal process has to exist. To foist it off on bureaucracy without the ability for the electorate to get to their elected representatives for other concerns to be addressed, I believe, is inappropriate and shortsighted.
One of the members opposite mentioned that a group of agrologists rose in opposition to the thought of land going into golf courses, parks or whatever. Well, I can understand that, hon. Speaker. Agrologists all have agriculture degrees from the various universities, and naturally their forte is in agriculture. They would like to see it all stay in.
Where is the land being gobbled up? Where does the land go? That's one of the statements and obviously, as the Minister of Agriculture indicated, that was a major concern. There's the erosion of land. The Minister of Health talked about the land being gobbled up, and others have talked about preserving land. I'm at a loss to know how much of this land has been skidded out of the province or moved somewhere else. It's all here; the climate and all of the other characteristics are here.
Our problem is not a dearth of agricultural production. Our problem, in order to get the prices the producers need, is that we have the capability of an abundance of production. We're also limited by the type of climate we have here. In most cases, in agricultural products, we can get one crop a year out of the land or in some cases two. In the central Okanagan, in alfalfa hay production, we get three crops. If you look at competing areas in the United States, they will get seven or eight crops; they will get four or five crops of various vegetables. We really can't compete economically with that. You cannot expect a farmer to sharpen his pencil so sharp that he can face all of the high, inflated domestic input costs, faced with the limited quantity of production simply due to our climate, and to compete nationally or internationally because of that. So there are real problems there.
The Minister of Health spoke on this matter with respect to concerns about growth in urban areas. One of the things that confronts my constituents who are involved in agriculture is the urban-agricultural conflict. If you don't have some form of buffer zone or greenbelt opportunity, there's a direct conflict. The reality is that as our population grows, we will continue to make more and more room for that growth. There were a number of negative things with this particular bill. One of them is that we recognize that a wide variety of individuals participate in the sport of golf -- people of all ages, from the very young to very old. As far as health concerns are addressed, we keep active and healthier and are less of a burden on the health care system. That may be small, but for the physical and mental health stated by individuals it's a substantial asset.
The economic development aspect of golf courses is very strong. We have a number of golf courses in my constituency, and we are now sort of a destination centre for golf. Over the long period of time -- in the summer when individuals can play golf -- it accounts for a substantial amount of income for those businesses involved in tourism, be they restaurants, hotels or motels. There are many direct labour-intensive jobs related to golf courses. There are suppliers involved in producing materials and equipment required for golf courses. It's really a strong economic development opportunity. Ultimately, we in this Legislature are collectively concerned about jobs for people. These are full-time, well-paying, meaningful, fulfilling jobs. That's also very important, especially -- as the members of the government continue to say -- in these very difficult economic times.
Most of the agricultural land reserve to some degree is already alienated. It is already developed in farmland. While we talk a great deal about preserving that agricultural land, I think we have to understand that the greatest environmental threat in British Columbia is a loss of our forest cover. The agricultural land reserve is moving people and development off land that we've utilized for many years -- in some cases more than 100 years -- and moving them to the higher elevations. I see that in my constituency of Okanagan West. In order to preserve that agricultural land -- a lot of it is glacial-type moraine with a wide diversity of soil types from very good to very poor -- we're moving the development higher.
We're impacting on the environment. We're removing the trees, and we're removing the opportunity for the ungulates that require that area for their winter feeding grounds. We're removing that opportunity and potential. While we try to get Brownie points -- as the government is doing in this one case -- there are also costs incurred in the environment, especially to wildlife habitat.
[3:45]
What should control the development of golf courses? At this stage of the game, surely we should understand that the market has a great deal of play with the demand for golf courses and the control on the number of golf courses. You are not going to get anyone investing in golf courses if they do not deem it financially viable. They invest in golf courses as the population increases and the number of participants in that sport increases, and the intent is for economic viability of that particular operation. Here we have a government that is quite confident that because they have been elected by about 38 percent of the people, they have the right....
Interjection.
[ Page 1347 ]
C. Serwa: Thirty-eight percent, hon. minister -- and you can't speak when you leave your chair.
Thirty-eight percent of the population has elected a government, and that government has somehow been cloaked in a mantle of wisdom that all of a sudden gives them the opportunity, the power and the knowledge to make decisions on behalf of all of the people.
Part of the philosophy of this government is that big government knows best. I guess the bigger the government, the better the quantity of knowledge. But it doesn't work in actual fact. Russia is certainly a splendid example. When we're talking agricultural land preservation or agriculture itself, Russia has failed miserably with centralist-type planning. It didn't work at all. That country at the present time can't even feed itself, and it's a massive country.
The type of planning that has to be developed has to be sensitive to realistic demands and market forces. To get up on a white horse and go tilting at windmills is really unrealistic and for naught.
The land, if the future ever requires it.... I say if, because when I look at the density of population that is possible in this province, when I look at the land area in the province and recognize how little of it can be utilized for population growth.... The population here will never exceed the ability to produce adequate and abundant food.
We're not at the mercy of anyone. If there was any genuine concern, we could buy 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 acres of land in the Columbia River Basin and secure it for agriculture in perpetuity -- no urban conflict, because as soon as you cross the border, the land starts to flatten out; the rocks and ridges flatten out, and then all of a sudden it's just like the prairies. There's lots of agricultural land. It's not in short supply.
Make no mistake about this: the bill has very little to do with the preservation of agricultural land. This bill has a great deal more to do with the socialists' attitude towards individual rights, private enterprise...
Interjection.
C. Serwa: Yes, that's right, hon. member. ...and property rights of the individual. The members opposite have never believed that anyone should own property. By impoverishing farmers, I suppose it's their ultimate objective that the Crown would own all of the land, and perhaps this is what it's all about.
This bill isn't worthy of any support from any member in this House. I've quoted the figures with respect to the myth that the members on the government side are striving to promote: that there is an erosion. There has not been erosion of agricultural land capability in British Columbia. So that myth is demolished, with 99.6 percent of the original amount of land that was contained in 1974 still within the agricultural land reserve. There is no justification for this bill. The market and local government -- local planning -- should determine whether the zoning is changed so that golf courses can go ahead.
For this Big Brother, paternalistic type of government, which knows better than anyone else, to go on initiatives such as this is doing nothing but thwarting growth and economic development in the province. It will cost the people, it will cost all of this, and I think most of all it will certainly cost the credibility of the government of the day.
U. Dosanjh: Some of the points raised by the member for Okanagan West are extremely interesting, the most interesting one being that in the last 19 years we have lost 0.4 percent of the agricultural land reserve. If you take into account the fact that cabinet has been taking land out of the reserve through order-in-council and the commission has been adding other lands to the reserve, we still lost 0.4 percent of the agricultural land reserve that was set up by the previous NDP administration for future generations of British Columbians. If you calculate that with the reducing reserve, we would lose the reserve in just over 200 years. There would be no agricultural land reserve if we reduce it at 0.4 percent over every 20 years. We would lose that agricultural land reserve, and that's an asset that we want to preserve for future generations of British Columbians.
Philosophically, sometimes it's difficult to deal with taking power away from the elected representatives. The elected representatives ought to have the final say in many of these issues. Because of the abuse of trust and power by the previous administration in the last many years in this regard -- and in many other regards -- what this bill does and what has been done previously in the last few months is that the ELUC regulation has been rendered null and void. That is so the politicians would not be able to assist their friends in making money on the destruction of the agricultural land reserve that was set aside 20 years ago for future generations of British Columbians.
What gives an elected politician...? I would take my friend's example. What gives my friend or anyone else in cabinet the right to override the commission's rulings? The commission is an independent body. Nothing gives cabinet the right to override those rulings of the commission. They didn't have degrees in agrology; they didn't have degrees in agricultural science; they weren't all farmers; they weren't all experts in how long this agricultural land reserve might last the future generations of British Columbians. What this act does is redress the wrongs that have been arbitrarily perpetrated over the last few years by the previous administration. It's a pleasure for me to stand up in support of this bill, because in British Columbia, it is a treasure; the agricultural land reserve is a legacy that we as parliamentarians can ensure remains intact for the many centuries to come -- for eternity.
If we don't act now and if we do what the previous administration did -- let land out at the behest of friends and supporters -- we would be doing damage to the future of British Columbia and to the future of our society; we would be doing damage not only to our province but also to the entire world. Earth is a very small place; the universe is a very small place. It's increasingly a smaller place. We may not only have to provide the food for our province or our country; in years to come we may have to provide food for other people on this globe -- on this earth -- who don't have
[ Page 1348 ]
the luxury of such large tracts of land, who have overwhelming numbers in terms of the population growth.
The world is becoming an increasingly smaller place in terms of pollution and the problems that we have internationally -- the international migrations. The world is becoming an increasingly smaller place. Let's not be myopic. I stand in support of this bill, and it's my privilege to be able to stand up and say that.
K. Jones: It's a pleasure to be able to speak on this bill, because it is of great importance to all of us. I have absolutely no disagreement with the previous speaker in regard to his concern about the world's need to be looked after on our agricultural land capabilities. There's a definite need for us to be generous on the world scene. We're all very caring people, and we want to make sure that there are not starving people in this world. But we have to look at the realistic facts of this, and I would like to just look at some of them.
I'd like to look at a statement in a press release produced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, dated November 7, 1991, with regard to the rescinding of the golf course order-in-council. It states: "This government promised to restore the integrity of the agricultural land reserve."
In attempting to look at that, we have, in previous opportunities to speak with the minister, requested that we get some of the details. We asked specifically what percentage was in the agricultural land reserve, and what percentage was out of the agricultural land reserve, for each project. The minister at that time took it on notice that he was going to give us that information. He promised us that information, yet today we still haven't received it. It would be very helpful to this debate to be better informed as to the details of that. The minister obviously has that information, or if he hasn't, he has the capability of bringing it from the commission that reports to him -- the Agricultural Land Commission. It is their mandate to know what is in the agricultural area, because under their objects and powers it states: "It is the object of the commission to (a) preserve agricultural land; (b) to encourage the establishment and maintenance of farms, and the use of land in an agricultural land reserve compatible with agricultural purposes...."
Now those are two very good and important objectives. But this proposal, which in the press release was what this moratorium was originally called for and established under, isn't following through on the basis of this bill. This bill relates to the establishment of an arbitrary decision that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the land was agricultural or not. It really has to do with whether it received third reading at a municipal level. This whole decision was made on the basis of third reading. If you got third reading, you got through; if you didn't get third reading, you didn't get through. It didn't matter whether you were taking in 99 percent of the golf course within the agricultural land reserve, or whether a tenth of it was within the agricultural land reserve. So the whole philosophy of the statement of the press release is misleading, because it is not restoring the integrity of the agricultural land at all. The agricultural land is being decimated because of the ones that were approved, not the ones that were removed. The ones that are approved are still taking big chunks out of the agricultural land, and that's not acceptable.
[4:00]
In my riding, in Cloverdale, some of the prime agricultural land was approved for development for a 36-hole golf course -- not just an 18-hole or a nine-hole, which were rejected not only in my riding but in many parts of British Columbia, but a 36-hole. It is a big development that will in future, as it proceeds, enhance the residential land immediately adjoining. In fact, the prices on those adjoining lands have already gone up because of the potential development value of those lands over a golf course. The minister was fully aware of this, but he did not take that into consideration. He took into consideration only a nice, easy way out: blame it on the municipalities. Let them take the heat for it, because whether it got through them or not is the deciding factor of this whole bill. I think this is totally reprehensible and lacking in leadership in protecting our agricultural lands.
I know you're a very sincere person, and I know that this is not your intention. I'm sure you were probably guided by people who were more concerned about lawsuits than actually preserving the agricultural land integrity. We have to take better leadership, Mr. Minister, and this House needs that type of leadership. I think we have other examples where people have tried to operate it as agricultural land -- very sincere people -- who have been farmers all their lives and who found that there was really no other alternative for them than to turn to some other form of development. They saw -- as the least of all developments -- a golf course development in that area as being that which would not take away from the environment as much as other types of development, such as housing and other types of industry.
That type of development, where the farm is near bankruptcy and the farm family is having to make a decision between selling it off and leaving it or else.... They're stuck right now. They were trying to develop it. They have problems with the type of land. They have problems with bugs -- or something like that -- in the ground that make it very poor for growing certain crops. They felt that they had tried everything, and now they want to and are proceeding to get this type of development -- not as a major development but as a sincere family proposal. The fact that they didn't get their third reading is precluding them from getting this golf course approval, while the immediately adjoining property -- almost within a mile and in much better agricultural land -- gets approval. There seems to be a total discriminatory basis here.
I think this bill is the wrong type of bill to be bringing forward. It should be reconsidered. Come forward with a much better one that is more helpful to the preservation of agricultural land in British Columbia.
M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise and speak on this very important bill this afternoon -- a landmark
[ Page 1349 ]
piece of legislation that is going to have an impact on British Columbia for years to come. In fact, if this bill were a golf score it would be an eagle, and the arguments of the opposition would be a triple bogey, at best.
Over the last few years one of the problems has been the debate between golf course location and development and the whole issue of the agricultural land reserve. What has happened is that under the loose and lax rules that we used to play by, golf courses were eating up prime agricultural farmland in British Columbia.
A golf course by itself isn't so much of a problem, because there is that spurious argument that a golf course can always be turned back to food production. Too many times these days it's not the golf course that's important; it's the condos and clubhouse that go with it and the commercial development around it that determine the success or failure of that golf course. Speculators don't want to pay fair market value for land outside the agricultural land reserve; they want to get cheap land in the ALR and then get it out. That's the problem. That's the danger to the ALR, particularly in the lower mainland and in the Okanagan.
Thousands of acres in the lower mainland are suitable for golf course developments. In my own riding of Coquitlam there are developments going in on the Westwood Plateau -- land suitable for houses and golf courses; that's all it's there for. It doesn't even grow good trees any more. On the lower flats there are areas outside the agricultural land reserve that are suitable for golf courses. But, no, the speculators want to go in and pick up cheap land. They spend thousands and thousands of dollars, then they go to councils and say: "We've spent so much money; you've got to approve it." They put a great deal of pressure on with this economic argument. The councils would often say no. So they'd bypass the councils and public will, and they would go to ELUC. ELUC would say yes, and you'd get a golf course on prime agricultural land.
That's not what the ALR is for. It's for protecting land for agricultural purposes. The opposition may think that you can eat golf balls, but you can't.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: I'm sure you've tried.
As I said before, it comes down to speculators who want to bypass the system -- bypass community plans and land reserve rules and regulations -- so they can make a quick buck. That's wrong.
I've heard members of the opposition talk about third reading. Once it has received third reading, you can't stop it. So of course they have to be approved. Because then the municipality would be on the hook, or the provincial government would be on the hook. But I guess the opposition way is to spend, spend, spend and waste taxpayers' dollars. That's what they'd like to encourage.
An Hon. Member: Shame!
M. Farnworth: Exactly. Shame!
This bill is a piece of legislation that is going to ensure that communities such as Delta, Richmond, Surrey, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows will continue to contain ALR land that will not be continually pressured by those who are looking for a fast buck. This is an important campaign commitment, an important campaign promise, fulfilled.
I'm surprised at the opposition for being opposed to such good legislation. It's obvious to me that they're lost in the rough, they're driving in the wrong direction and they can't see the green in this bill for the condos that they want to build around every golf course application. If they'd just take the time to get a better grip on this bill, maybe they wouldn't be slicing all over the place. It's obvious they don't understand that in politics, as in golf, a good grip is essential. They're not just below par; they're not even up to scratch.
Interjection.
M. Farnworth: I've never heard any golfer complain about playing below par. It's obvious he's never played golf.
Anyway, hon. Speaker, this is a landmark piece of legislation, which I would urge all members of the opposition to support, because it's going to have a tremendous positive impact on British Columbia land use planning for years to come.
D. Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I'm going to have to reply, as I said earlier, to that subpar performance.
I'm not 100 percent against this bill, but there are a few basic things I do not like about it. Again, we have here a travesty by this government, and in that sense I mean the lack of consensus. Here we have a House Leader trying to push through another bill. They are again rushing through legislation with only a couple of days' notice, and there's no possibility whatsoever for individuals who are directly involved or affected by this legislation to have any input into it. So on such short notice, there is no consensus whatsoever.
There's a portion of this bill that is retroactive legislation. It denies compensation from the government for those who have played by the rules in the past. Does the government not realize -- or does it forget -- that Bill 82 was the retroactive legislation that they basically won this election on? They were so anxious to get rid of it, but as soon as they arrived in government, they reversed it. It appears that in the next four years, with all the retroactive legislation they're putting in, this Liberal government will have to throw them out again.
I was thinking that I would move an amendment to this bill. However, I didn't want to get the House Leader too petulant or upset about it. So I think I will close at this time by saying that this is not a bill of consensus. It's socialist legislation. For your information, Madam Speaker, socialists are those who believe they can plan people's lives better than people can plan their own lives. I hope that there are some reasonably intelligent people on the other side of the House who really truly do not believe that statement.
[ Page 1350 ]
An Hon. Member: You keep hoping.
[M. Lord in the chair.]
D. Jarvis: I keep hoping, that's for sure.
In any event, Madam Speaker, I'm going to close by saying that speaker after speaker has talked about agriculture and what this bill is going to do for agriculture. I would like to ask the minister: if he's so concerned about agriculture, why did he cut his budget by 16 percent for Agriculture?
Hon. B. Barlee: Hon. Speaker, first of all, I rise with considerable pride. The bill is not perfect, but it is fair-minded.
I've very carefully looked and listened to each speaker from the opposite side of the House give lip-service to the bill. But when it comes right down to it, who are they trying to defend? They're trying to defend compensation, and they're trying to defend not developers but speculators on agricultural land. Not much doubt about it at all. I think that's flawed reasoning.
Let us examine the myths. This is one of the myths: the member for Chilliwack said that the public did not have ample warning. We made statements in the House in 1989 in this very chamber, in 1990, in 1991, all the way down the line. It was part of our election platform. We said we would rescind order-in-council 1141 at the earliest opportunity, which we did.
[4:15]
It's kind of interesting. What does the public think about it? Let's examine what the public thinks about it. The former government had a number of polls. These polls are in my possession. They polled thousands of people right across British Columbia in all aspects, in all parts of life. Hon. Speaker, 87 percent of the public said they valued the ALR. People have said that the farmer needs a chance. We also polled the farmers, and 83 percent of the farmers said that they valued the ALR. You have 87 percent from the public; you have 83 percent from the farmers. That's a pretty consistent answer from the farming side and the non-farming side. They place a high value on the agricultural land reserve.
It is hallmark legislation. People are insinuating this is unusual legislation. Nonsense. Virtually every civilized country in the world has equivalent legislation. Let's look at Hawaii for an example. Hawaii passed Bill 187 in 1961, 12 years before we passed the agricultural land reserve act. What did they do in this bill? They cut the islands of Hawaii into four different areas: urban areas, development areas for industrial use, parks and recreation and agricultural land reserve. That was 31 years ago. They've virtually kept that intact. Why have they kept it intact? Because they value the farmland. Not only that, that piece of legislation is the second most important document in Hawaiian history, after the constitution. They've been very careful. They've been farsighted.
[The Speaker in the chair.]
When you look at other jurisdictions, we have the finest land act not only in North America but in the Americas as a whole. We have the finest land act in North and South America. There's one other jurisdiction that's fairly close to this act: the province of Quebec. But you know where they got it from? They got it from us. They came over here and copied our act. It's a good act. By the way, the state of Oregon, which is one of the foremost states, wishes they had our agricultural land reserve act, and they're right.
Members from the Liberal and Social Credit side of the House made the grandiose statement that we need more room for golf courses. There was a report in 1990 done by the Argyle outfit. This report said that there was 100,000 acres available for golf courses outside of the agricultural land reserve in the greater Vancouver area and the lower Fraser Valley. You don't have to dip into the agricultural land reserve. The reason they dip in is that it's cheaper. In the Okanagan there are several hundred thousand acres available.
The statements of the members for Okanagan West and Okanagan East both gave minimum lip-service to the concept of preserving our land. You know what they were really trying to do? They were trying to defend the speculator again. That rather surprised me. Let's take a look at the Okanagan. Both of these individuals live in Kelowna. The member for Okanagan West lives just across the lake in greater Kelowna in Westbank, and the member for Okanagan East lives in Kelowna. What has happened to Kelowna?
Let's examine Kelowna. Our family has been in Kelowna for 100 years. We were big ranchers in the area. We had hundreds and hundreds of acres right where the main centre of town is now, which is called Orchard Park. That belonged to my old namesake great-uncle, Uncle Billy Barlee. He owned hundreds of acres. What did the speculators do? This was fine land, but what did the speculators do? Well, he had that land for 50 years, and the speculators didn't care about the city of Kelowna. By the way, the city of Kelowna, when I was a kid, was a gem; it was a jewel of the Okanagan.
Compare the city of Kelowna in 1992 to 1942, and you will see what the so-called developers did to that part of British Columbia. They virtually destroyed the heart of the city. And how did they destroy it? They cut into the agricultural greenbelts. Not only that, what else didn't they do? They didn't have a long-term view. The city of Kelowna right now -- outside of Knox Mountain Park -- has a grand total of 0.5 percent in parks. That's not the regional parks; that's the city. Half of 1 percent: that's almost unbelievable.
Any city with any ambience or any farsightedness has.... In the city of London, one of the oldest cities in the world, the real estate values are staggering. But in a square mile of London, what do they have? They have 12 percent in parks: Regent's Park, Queen's Park and Hyde Park, and they've kept it intact. That land is inviolable; you don't touch it.
The problem is that I really don't think you've got the foresight. You will give it lip-service, but when it comes right down to it, you want to fall back on the side of the speculators again. What's the difference between
[ Page 1351 ]
a speculator and a developer? There's not very much difference, really.
I think of some of the other small towns in British Columbia -- some of them represented by members in the House. Would Langley look any better if they destroyed the agricultural land reserve? I doubt it very much. Would Chilliwack look any better if they destroyed the agricultural land reserve? I doubt that very much.
C. Serwa: Would it look any different?
Hon. B. Barlee: It would look a lot different. We would have a ghetto in greater Vancouver, and that's what we're heading for. We've got to look down the line; there's lots of land. What we are trying to do is this.... Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: It's very hard to drive through that wall over there.
What we are trying to do is this. We have 11,700,000 acres. That's one acre out of 20 in British Columbia. That's all: one acre out of 20. Oh, I see 1141 dipped into that meagre reserve to take out 20,700 acres. Now, 20,700 acres is a band of grain one mile wide from Vancouver out to about Abbotsford. That's what they were going to take out of the agricultural land reserve. Frankly, I don't think that's good enough. That doesn't belong to us. That doesn't belong to this generation; it doesn't even belong to our kids; it belongs to our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. It should be there essentially in perpetuity.
I know that a lot of you have been speculators, and you've dealt in real estate. Well, you have my sympathy. That's all right, I can accept that. That's part of the entrepreneurial system. You're not exclusive to entrepreneurial systems. We have a number of people here on the front benches who are entrepreneurs and many in the other parts of caucus who are also entrepreneurs. I find it interesting.
R. Neufeld: What's the percentage?
Hon. B. Barlee: I'll tell you what the percentage is. It's five out of 18 in cabinet itself, and that's not bad.
So the ALR is essentially civilized legislation. It should be here, and it's going to be here. I have no problem defending it. I have no problem at all.
An Hon. Member: You're going to have problems.
Hon. B. Barlee: I don't think so. I think the public will back us on this, and I think they'll back us right down the line. I think the farming community will back us on this. I think the public that is thinking in the long term, with a more holistic view and with a broader perspective, will say yes, despite its flaws, the agricultural land reserve is worth keeping, and the Agricultural Land Commission essentially should not be interfered with. That's why ELUC should not be there. Eventually we will change that. It won't be too long.
Interjection.
Hon. B. Barlee: Not the point. The member for Okanagan West says that it doesn't do much harm. Let's take a look at Okanagan West. I know that area quite well. One of the finest orchards in Okanagan West was the old Reese property, ten acres of beautiful orchards -- considered one of the finest orchards in the area. That went through the process. That was withdrawn from the agricultural land reserve. Do you know what it is now? Out of those ten acres, nine acres are paved.
Let's go right next door. Let's go to the Maxon property, which belonged to the Pritchards. The Pritchards are an old family; they've been there since about the 1890s. That was 25 acres. By the way, that got through the ELUC process -- the Environment and Land Use Committee process -- of the previous government. They took those 25 acres out -- mainly class 2 and class 3 lands, good lands. So something else was destroyed.
I'm saying that we can't go down that path. This is sound legislation, and I'd go to the wall for it. It's legislation that we are proud of. We brought it in in time. Fortunately we prevented 60 golf courses from going through.
An Hon. Member: As a speculator, you have to earn a living.
Hon. B. Barlee: I'm sorry. If you're a speculator, you do take a chance. Whether you speculate on land.... I don't care what you speculate on. If you're a speculator, you're a speculator. We don't owe them any compensation. They'll find out that we do not.
There's nothing wrong with retroactive legislation at all. There are councils all over the province that change the value of lands. They rezone left, right and centre. Sometimes they zone up; sometimes they zone down. No compensation at all.
I have great pride in this bill. I think the public will back us right down the line.
[4:30]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 32 | ||
|
Smallwood |
Clark |
Cull |
|
Zirnhelt |
Barnes |
Pullinger |
|
B. Jones |
Copping |
Farnworth |
|
Evans |
Farrell-Collins |
Tyabji |
|
Wilson |
Gingell |
Warnke |
|
Stephens |
Lord |
Streifel |
|
Hartley |
Doyle |
O'Neill |
|
Dosanjh |
Jarvis |
Chisholm |
|
Anderson |
Janssen |
Brewin |
|
Kasper |
Garden |
Randall |
|
Krog |
Reid |
|
[ Page 1352 ]
| NAYS -- 5 | ||
|
De Jong |
Neufeld |
Dueck |
|
Serwa |
Hanson |
|
Bill 33, Golf Course Development Moratorium Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 9.
SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT. 1992
(continued)
L. Stephens: I'm pleased to rise to address this House on the second reading of Bill 9. There are both revenue and administrative measures in this bill. The revenue measures are the extension of the social services tax to all legal services except legal aid services and the extension to cover non-voice telecommunication services such as fax transmissions. The administrative measures seem reasonable.
The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. Would the House please come to order.
L. Stephens: I could not completely follow the rationale for putting in a retroactive exemption for aircraft parts and for aircraft that flew less than 80 percent of their total hours in British Columbia air space. I understand it may relate to a Supreme Court of Canada decision in May 1989. I would hope the minister would explain the rationale for this exemption a bit more fully.
However, the official opposition has a lot of difficulty with the tax increases. If you look at each tax individually, including the others before this House and in this budget, they're not on their own substantial, but they all add up to a large tax bite out of all British Columbians. These two tax measures are really taxes on business and the ordinary citizens of British Columbia. This tax is not on lawyers. It's going to be on the likes of elderly couples seeking to prepare wills in order to arrange their affairs; on single working and non-working mothers striving to maintain or enforce child maintenance agreements or court orders; on young first-time homebuyers, whose resources are already strained by the purchase of their home; on small-business people, whose cash flow is tenuous in this economy but who still need to consult about their business problems.
The Minister of Labour, in his budget reply, justified the extension of the social services tax to legal services by saying that he is pleased about the levy "because lawyers have the ability to contribute to the taxation system." We know that lawyers might be able to pay more in taxes, but does the minister truly believe lawyers will absorb this tax as a cost of doing business? Of course not. It will be passed on to the people who use the legal services. This is a tax on clients, not on lawyers. The consumers of legal services will bear the burden of the tax. This is a regressive tax that will impact most severely low-and middle-income people and may discourage people from seeking legal help. Legal services are essential services, not luxuries. People need lawyers' advice and assistance to protect legal rights and remedies.
Even though legal aid is a general public responsibility, the suggestion is that the government will use these funds to support legal aid. It has been noted that the proceeds of the tax go into general revenue. While the government projects some $32 million to be raised by this tax, it is estimated that it could generate well over $50 million per year. The legal aid plan needs $92 million in 1992 just to provide its current level of service. The government has committed only $72 million, leaving a $20 million shortfall, regardless of how much money the new tax generates. No rationale has been given for singling out lawyers' services when no other professional services are taxed.
This tax will hurt small business especially. Many large firms have benefit of in-house counsel; small business people do not have this option. Many business people will also have to pay more for legal services. This will make it much harder for them to survive in already very difficult times.
It seems also that with the tax on fax transmissions, the government intends to punish people for becoming more efficient in the way they do business. In general, placing tax on legal services and fax transmission will make it more difficult to compete. The cost of doing business in this province will go up again. This will mean fewer jobs for working men and women in this province.
As the official opposition, we are also concerned that the government seems to be choosing to harmonize the provincial tax base with the federal GST, bit by bit. This is the beginning of an NDP GST. This government is trying to sneak in harmonization, instead of coming out and being upfront and announcing that it wants to broaden the tax base as much as possible. We want to know whose services will be taxed next. Accountants? Engineers? Architects? Dentists? Who's next?
In sum, we think the administrative measures are good in this bill. But we oppose the bill because of the harmful effect these new taxes on legal services and fax transmissions will have on the economy of British Columbia.
G. Wilson: I rise to speak against this bill, because of all of the bills that we've had come before this House to date, this seems to be the one that is least thought through, and is least substantive in the policies that it's trying to enunciate with respect to the proposition of revenue generation for government.
This bill, as it has been put forward, is simply an extension of taxation against the people of British Columbia, in many silent ways. It is a bill that has been introduced without the thought required in terms of the impact that the bill may have, especially on legal services and the provision of legal services for the people of British Columbia.
As we start to look at this bill, and as we start to dissect its intention and meaning, I believe that the hon.
[ Page 1353 ]
member for Langley is quite correct: this bill is step one in the blending of service taxation which would provide for this government the ability to blend the GST and the PST, and would in effect put in place a greater degree of taxation against the people of British Columbia.
We can't support this bill, because it would seem, through the reading of the documents that are before us now, that this government has not clearly understood the impact that this bill is likely to have upon people who require legal services. Furthermore, it doesn't appear as though the revenue that is projected out of the gain on this can be realized.
We are not opposed to putting in place a fiscal framework that addresses the needs of government in terms of revenue. We are not opposed to saying that if we're going to look at new and different ways of funding legal services in British Columbia, there will have to be a degree of consultation and negotiation with those involved in legal practices. But we are strongly opposed to the introduction of a bill without negotiation, without any consultation, that is going to negatively impact on the legal service provisions to people in this province. Those that provide the legal service are unlikely to reduce their fees as a result of these increased costs. They are much more likely to simply put these charges onto those seeking the service.
If you look at the proposition of a lawyer who is billing and is going to have to pay tax on what is billed, there is no guarantee in here that there will be a proposition to recoup for those accounts receivable that essentially are in collection. Many of the people that lawyers have to deal with are financially strapped, people in financial positions where they are unable to meet immediately -- and are sometimes unable to meet at all -- the costs of the legal services that are put before them. Yet this bill says that lawyers must essentially pay tax on amounts that are billed.
What this tax also means is that there has to be a new set of accounts kept, a new set of books established, to be able to properly and adequately record the tax that is being placed upon lawyers. Those additional costs are going to be either carried by the lawyer, and a lawyer and legal firm, or they're going to be passed on to the client. If lawyers are like most people in practice and in business in this community, they are not going to see what profits there may be diminished as a result of a tax grab from this government. They are going to have to at least maintain the same level of fee structure they have now, and, where additional costs are incurred, they're going to pass them on to the client.
This tax grab -- that's what this is, pure and simple; a proposition that is a tax grab -- indicates to the members of the Liberal opposition that finally we are starting to see the philosophical direction of this government, a government that simply sits down and says: "Let us look to those who we believe are the fat cats in this society -- the rich ones, the people who are in the upper-middle-income and upper-income brackets -- and let us see how we can put in punitive taxation against the incomes of those people so that we can have greater dollars available to general revenue."
[4:45]
There is a suggestion that the money raised -- as again mentioned by our opening speaker, the hon. member for Langley -- will be put into the provision of legal services. We know that this government is looking toward a proposition that will greatly change the way in which we finance and fund the Legal Services Society in British Columbia, and that it will look at a different way to fund legal aid. We recognize that this government, in the same way that they have attacked the doctors of British Columbia, are now focusing their sights on the lawyers of British Columbia, because they see the fee structure that is in place as one that they simply cannot accept. It becomes a question of philosophy. It becomes more a question of wanting to go after those who this government believes are in a position to pay, without clearly thinking through what this tax is going to do -- not to the lawyers, but to the clients who require legal services in terms of the costs that will be incurred against them.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
This, of all the bills that have been brought through, demonstrates a lack of proper development through consultation with those it will be affecting. This is a government that promised over and over again that there would be adequate compensation for those people who required it in terms of the provision of legal services. This is a government that promised open and honest consultation with professionals in British Columbia. They have demonstrated clearly in the matter of doctors that they weren't prepared to, and now we see the first assault on another professional service -- the legal service -- with the introduction of this tax.
As I have just pointed out, this tax, in the structure and in the way that it is developed, is not even a sensible way to go about trying to raise the money. If this government was seriously trying to look at a better and new way to fund legal aid.... The members on this side of the House fully concur there has to be a better and proper way to fund legal aid services in the province. We fully recognize the rising cost of that service. We recognize that those rising costs in legal aid services are not necessarily due to rising legal costs but are due to the fact that there are many more clients who are requiring legal services because of the downturn in the economy. Those clients who are going to legal aid do not have the capacity to pay the additional costs that are going to be passed down to them because of this onerous and punitive tax that is directed philosophically from the government to go after those who they believe are the rich fat cats, the lawyers.
We cannot support this bill, not so much because this bill in itself does a hardship to lawyers.... It is our contention that it will not do hardship to the lawyers, because the cost will simply be passed on. We find that this bill is offensive, because it has not been clearly and properly worked through; there has not been clear thought to what this bill is going to do in terms of the actual cost of legal services in British Columbia. We believe that there should be full, proper and adequate consultation with professionals so that we can work together toward putting a proposition in place that
[ Page 1354 ]
would not only provide the kind of revenue that's needed for the province to provide the services we choose, but also take into account the deleterious effect of this kind of bill in terms of the legal profession in British Columbia.
This bill is so flawed that it would take a long time to go through. We hope, once this bill gets into committee, that we will have an opportunity to go through it in some considerable detail. This bill is so flawed that the Liberal opposition would be negligent if we did not stand up, speak out against it and vote against it. This has not been clearly thought through; it has not been clearly worked through with respect to any form of consultation. We see that what is intended in this bill is a revenue generator for the province, but it will not even be realized in the dollars that this government thinks it's going to gain.
I hope that the members opposite -- those members who are not sitting as members of cabinet but who are backbenchers on the government side -- have taken the time to actually read this bill and to make a very clear assessment of the effect that this bill is going to have with respect to those clients who require legal services in British Columbia. If the backbenchers on the government side sit down and look at this, they will convince the minister that this bill needs amendment, because it is badly flawed. We do not want, as legislators, to put forward legislation that is poorly drafted, poorly thought through and badly flawed.
Let me say in closing that, while we cannot support this bill, all members in the Liberal opposition would be most anxious to sit down and discuss in detail with members opposite and with members of this government how we think this bill could be amended to direct the kinds of issues it tries to direct more fairly and more adequately in the form of a new piece of draft legislation. We hope that all members in this House are going to give serious consideration to how badly drafted this bill really is. We hope that all members will recognize that, without substantial amendment, this is going to be a tremendous hardship on the clients who require legal services in the province.
I hope this is not step one in the graduated taxation against services in British Columbia -- doctors today, accountants tomorrow; all manner of legal services being taxed this year so that all manner of accounting services and architectural services can be taxed in the next year. If this is step one in the blending of the PST and GST, if this is step one in the introduction of an NDP GST, then I hope the government has the honesty to stand up and tell the people of British Columbia what it really is, because it is the only logical conclusion that we can see to introducing a piece of legislation so badly flawed as the one that we're being asked to support today.
I urge all members to read it and to think about it long and hard so that we can sit down and amend this document so that it can provide the kind of legislative authority to government that it may require in order to look after the interests of those people who require legal services in British Columbia.
D. Schreck: It's with some amazement that I hear the opposition benches essentially arguing that the deficit in British Columbia should be increased by $35 million. No one on either side of this House wants to see taxes increased. No one supports any tax, but manna does not fall from heaven. We have to pay for the services we have, and we have a financial crisis in this province.
My government and my party has consistently opposed the integration of the goods and services tax and the provincial sales tax. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that this tax measure -- this necessary revenue-generating measure -- has nothing to do with the integration of those two taxes. The Leader of the Opposition says that he'll watch, and he can watch a very long time and see that this government takes its fiscal responsibilities seriously; that we are not prepared to increase the deficit for the people in this province by another $35 million.
This is a necessary revenue-generation measure, and we need to straighten out the economics of it. Why this particular service? There's considerable confusion on the opposition benches as to who will pay this tax. No one wants to pay the tax, whether it be the consumer or the lawyer, but who ends up paying the tax is not always going to be that consumer, because the members on this side of the House believe in competition.
We believe that the marketplace will be of some assistance, and we understand the concept of elasticity of demand. We understand that the market for corporate legal services is considerably different than the market for consumer legal services; that the market for doing legal documents -- property documents -- is considerably different than the market for legal aid. The impact of the tax on each of those markets will differ according to the properties of that market.
It may well be that in the case of the corporate legal services market more of the tax is passed through to the consumer as there is more loyalty and less competition; but I can assure members opposite that as competition is present in those other consumer legal service markets, it is not at all clear that any portion of that tax will be passed through.
The members opposite have shown a fundamental lack of understanding of the most fundamental principles of economics. They have shown that they want to tax less and spend more and don't really care about the deficit of this province. They have shown that when it's time to make tough decisions, they aren't prepared to deal with their responsibilities.
[E. Barnes in the chair.]
I don't like to stand here and support a tax, but I will never stand here and support a bigger and bigger deficit. So I am proud to say that rather than running from my responsibilities, I'm prepared to bring fiscal responsibility to British Columbia.
A. Warnke: I want to rise on opposing Bill 9, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1992. There are a couple of reasons, and I will not be too lengthy in outlining them. Essentially the first is that this tax is intended to raise
[ Page 1355 ]
revenue, and if the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale does not mind, he sees it as a necessary revenue-generating measure. Indeed that is an honest way to put forward this particular bill -- that it is a necessary revenue generator. Governments these days seem to be searching for new revenue sources, and this attempt to look at the services has been sort of a boon for both the provincial and federal governments everywhere. Yet what I find interesting, hon. Speaker, is that despite all of this attempt to tax services, it comes after federal and provincial governments promote a service industry. Federal and provincial governments want to promote a post-industrial society. They want to promote the tertiary sectors of the economy. They want to promote the quaternary sectors of the economy, which depend on service industrial equipment, fax machines and fax services, and so forth, and which are going to be taxed.
It is interesting that the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale suggests that we in the opposition haven't taken into consideration some fundamental economic principles. Let me outline a couple of fundamental economic principles. Businesses, particularly small businesses, calculate how to make profit in the future, and this means: what kind of technology am I going to buy? What kind of advanced technology is available, so that I can incorporate it in my business? That's how people think. Businessmen, whether they're large or small -- but particularly small business people -- do think in terms of what advanced technology is available to remain competitive.
[5:00]
We, and the federal and provincial governments, want a service economy. Because we want clean money and all the rest of it, we promote a service economy. Yet on the other hand, we zero in on those particular sectors of business, which happen to be efficient, that depend on the use of advanced technology. Fax machines, everyone knows, are increasing in use, and they're increasing in use because businesses calculate that this will increase their business. When government directly intervenes in taxing the usage of such machinery, taxes those services, there is a fundamental principle here that by definition this will decrease. This will provide a disincentive for the use of those technologies, the industrial equipment, and so forth. It's interesting that this particular government assumes -- and indeed, premises a whole strategy around it -- that people and business would continue to spend, consume and engage in capital expenditures in the tertiary industries as if nothing would happen, as if there would be no tax. It doesn't matter, in other words, whether we're being taxed or not in businesses. We will still utilize new fax machines; we will still utilize the technology at a rate as if there were not taxes. That is fallacious. It is a fundamental principle of economics that everyone knows: taxes applied to businesses are extra expenditures for those businesses, so business persons all have to calculate how they are going to respond to increased expenditures.
The member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, our leader, eloquently stated that one problem, one implication of this, is the possible blending of the GST and the PST. It's worth repeating very briefly. Although he was very eloquent on that particular note, it's worth emphasizing over and over that we will fundamentally oppose any introduction of a GST � la the provincial government.
Hon. Speaker, in the 1988 federal election, I was a candidate. I had three basic problems.
D. Lovick: Which party?
A. Warnke: You know which one. The hon. member for Nanaimo has a very poor memory. Perhaps he has been away from the House for too long.
D. Lovick: How did you do, Allan?
A. Warnke: Actually, I did pretty good.
The fact is that one of those three fundamental principles was my vociferous opposition to the goods and services tax, because I thought it was fundamentally wrong.
Fortunately, things worked out that I have been proven right; but it was unfortunate, because of the consequences. We all know the consequences of the goods and services tax. We know, therefore, what kind of impact a new services tax might have on our economy, and I hope that this government seriously takes that into consideration.
There is one other point I would like to raise with regard to the surcharge on the legal profession. I'll try to be brief on this. The tax has been described by other members as somewhat discriminatory. Perhaps it is discriminatory as we look at it prima facie, but perhaps lawyers are the first profession to be afflicted by this particular tax. Perhaps other professions might eventually be affected as well: accounting services, brokerage services. Is this possibly a door to many other services being attacked at the same time? I have reservations about that.
I also have to raise one point. When the executive council -- that means the cabinet.... Obviously the cabinet discussed this. Or I hope they discussed it; we really don't know, I suppose. When the executive council actually contemplated Bill 9, who spoke for the legal community? Who speaks for the legal community in the executive council? I can't help but think that on this particular theme certain professions were not hit the same way as the legal community. It's very fashionable to pick on lawyers and think that they're fat cats and all the rest of it.
Interjection.
A. Warnke: I notice one member agrees with that. To a certain extent the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by my colleague from Langley, that in the last analysis perhaps lawyers -- especially in the bigger law firms -- will make sure that the extra surcharge will be inflicted on the client...I'm sure that will probably occur. At the same time, much like small businesses, they will be put in a very awkward situation, and they will have to calculate accordingly. So will certain members of the legal community. I suspect
[ Page 1356 ]
the member for Vancouver-Kensington might be one of them. Whether it's a small legal firm or a small business, the fact is that with the imposition of this particular tax, small businesses -- people trying to develop a profession for themselves -- will have extreme difficulty. And when we talk about the surcharge on the legal community as well....
There is a fundamental principal here, and that is the cost of justice to everyone. I'm always reminded of the very famous case of Gideon v. Wainwright. That particular case, called the Gideon case, made it fundamental that all people, if a democratic society and government means anything, are entitled to justice. That is the fundamental base upon which everything else rests. The economy is secondary, and certain aspects of the social structure are secondary. Justice is utmost. Having looked at legal advice programs, many in this country have actually noted which people are more inclined to be involved in do-your-own legal services because they're poor. This has been examined through legal advice programs. Of the people involved in doing their own programs, 79 percent have been female, 63 percent have been those who need and do receive financial assistance and 42 percent have children of a marriage...and so forth. This prejudice of the justice system against the poor single mother is somewhat disturbing.
It is very fair to say, as I believe the Finance minister said at the outset, that this surcharge does not apply strictly to legal aid programs. But that is if you look at society as being composed either of the very rich or very poor. Society isn't like that. The distribution of wealth and income is not along that scale. There are a lot of people in a grey area. As a result of being in a grey area, if they do not quite qualify for Legal Aid, then they are extremely vulnerable under the justice system. I would ask the government to really reconsider that.
There are many other aspects of this bill that are offensive. Perhaps the implementation of the time-line is somewhat questionable. As a matter of fact, it would be interesting to see one aspect of it being constitutional and enforceable. We'll examine that in the future.
I would recommend that the government re-examine Bill 9. Certainly we will be vigorous in our examination of Bill 9 along these two fundamental aspects. The imposition of this tax on small businesses and the tremendous implications on small businesses -- especially using the latest technology and so forth, which I believe small businesses are so dependent upon -- is one fundamental area where the government has to take a look. In terms of providing legal services or the impact of the surcharge on legal services, I believe this is sufficient for the government to reconsider Bill 9. Indeed, I would invite all members of the Legislature to defeat this bill.
F. Garden: I rise to support the bill. I have heard the opposition for a couple of months now telling us not to tax people, and to let free enterprise have its way and they'll look after things. Just within the last few minutes I've heard the same opposition members say: "But if you tax the legal profession.... We can't trust them; they'll put this tax immediately onto the clients." As a matter of fact, I heard one remark: "Every cent will go to the clients." That is not necessarily so. The legal profession -- and they're no different from any other small business -- is faced with costs. There's competition out there. They will have to look at the impact of this on their particular profession and decide accordingly.
Many of us have been in small business. I personally had a business that was subject to increases in costs from many sources. For instance, when leasing in a mall, if the mall rent goes up and you're selling a product, you can't always turn the cost over to the customer. You've got to look at your product and say: "If I raise this to the point where people won't buy it, they won't come near the store anyway." So many small business men have to, in the light of that, decide whether they're going to pass this on to customers.
I'm looking forward to the day when there aren't so many people needing lawyers, when legalese is put in plain language so that individuals could -- without having to cross the street -- grab a lawyer. We'll work on that in this Legislature, I presume with the help of the opposition.
What I'm saying here is that we've had to find revenue to finance the programs that we've increased revenue in, to help social services, education, the medical profession and the provision of health services. We were faced with a deficit situation, and I applaud the Finance minister for this initiative.
[5:15]
I do deplore the intimation from the opposition that we can't trust the legal profession, that that group of people is not like the rest of the business people, that they're going to immediately take this tax and thrust it on the consumer. I don't believe that. People in the legal profession have got shingles up all over this province, and they'll do the same as any professional in the province. They'll weigh the costs and the services that they're giving people, and they'll do the right thing with this extra cost. It doesn't necessitate increased costs to the individual.
V. Anderson: The last speaker tried to persuade us, as others have done, that this will not be passed on. One of the realities of the business world is that if this tax was only going to apply to half of the lawyers, they might not pass it on, because they would be in a competitive position with others who weren't having to charge that. But when all lawyers are having to receive this 6 percent, it doesn't change their position, because they're already in a competitive position. They'll simply add it on to the competitive price equally, right across the board, to everyone else.
There's another area, though, which I'm not sure has been mentioned here. I raise it particularly for this present government, which has put itself forward as protecting people most in need. This bill certainly does not do that. It does protect a few people who go for legal aid. But all of the others who are in a very low economic position will be directly affected by this. Those who are called the working poor, who are not eligible for legal aid, are the ones who will be directly affected.
[ Page 1357 ]
Let me just refer to a letter that highlights this point. It indicates a working mother who intends to seek counsel to assist in the resolution of the issues attendant on the separation from her husband, including a division of assets and support for the children, will now be required to pay this additional 6 percent tax to obtain a just determination of the issues. These are the kinds of situations which this bill does not take into account, unless there are many loopholes in the bill which give the authority for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make exemptions by regulation. There are loopholes in this bill which enable the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to exempt certain specified groups from legal services. If they had spelled out these possible exemptions, perhaps they would have taken care of some of our objections.
Other groups that are going to be greatly impacted by this are the many kinds of volunteer community service groups. This government has undertaken to support and encourage them and to give them a green light to go ahead and expand. Nearly all of them are involved in legal services from time to time. This bill will create extra costs, which are implied by this bill, for their legal services. The extra costs of the fax tax will also fall heavily upon groups that have been using a fax machine to save money and time and to avoid postage. They're now faced with a tax on their very programs that benefit the community. These programs, by the way, save the government a great deal of money because they're done by volunteers rather than by the government having to pay staff. The community of volunteers, the low-income community, is being taxed again and again by this government -- the very government that prides itself in being for the people and with the people.
I challenge this government, when they put forward these kinds of bills, to write them in a way that is beneficial to the people that they say they are trying to serve, or to change their philosophy and policy and say that balancing the book, as important as it is, is more important than meeting the direct services of the people that they say they are working for. It isn't a question of balancing the book today or tomorrow. They said that they would do it over a period of time; they are now trying to say that they will do it overnight so they will be able to prove they're fiscally responsible, even though countless thousands of people will have had to bear an unnecessary burden along the way.
Deputy Speaker: On Bill 9, the hon. Minister of Finance closes debate.
Hon. G. Clark: I'll be very brief. Members, particularly the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, made some excellent points in the debate. No one likes to see taxes increased. I certainly don't like to see taxes increased. However, we have some difficult choices to face when dealing with a deficit that is about three times as large as the record deficit in British Columbia's history. Those choices are difficult.
I know that members opposite in the Liberal Party will oppose every tax increase and will demand more money for every government program. I appreciate that. But don't complain, then, that the deficit is too large. I know consistency in opposition is a challenge, and I know that it's difficult to support tax increases. But I think that most British Columbians would agree that we've tried to be fair and balanced, both on the spending side, in terms of being tough on spending, and on the tax side. We've been as balanced and as fair as we possibly can be.
This is a tax which is certainly not supported by the legal profession; we understand that. It certainly does increase costs to some people for legal services. We are hopeful that because of a large supply of lawyers, the competitive market will restrict the ability of lawyers to pass this on.
In addition, I might say that a little more than 50 percent of legal services are consumed by business, and of the remainder the largest proportion is consumed by those of higher incomes. When you try to deal with these difficult tax questions, you try to do it in a way that is progressive, is based on the ability to pay and is modest.
This will raise significant revenue for the government. The choice of cutting spending on health care, education and social services further was not a palatable one for this administration. This is one measure by which we've tried to deal with some of our revenue shortfall. The direct link to legal aid is not particularly there, except to say that legal aid costs are so dramatically increased that it has placed a greater burden on the government. We chose not to cut the tariff for legal aid; we chose instead to find more revenue. This is one of a variety of revenue sources that we've tapped.
With that, I move second reading of Bill 9.
[5:30]
Motion approved on the following division:
| YEAS -- 33 | ||
|
Marzari |
Boone |
Priddy |
|
Edwards |
Barlee |
Jackson |
|
Pement |
Schreck |
Lortie |
|
MacPhail |
Conroy |
Evans |
|
Farnworth |
Lovick |
Copping |
|
B. Jones |
Zirnhelt |
Cull |
|
Clark |
Gabelmann |
Smallwood |
|
Dosanjh |
O'Neill |
Doyle |
|
Hartley |
Streifel |
Lord |
|
Krog |
Randall |
Garden |
|
Kasper |
Brewin |
Janssen |
| NAYS -- 14 |
||
|
Farrell-Collins |
Reid |
Wilson |
|
Gingell |
Warnke |
Stephens |
|
Hanson |
Serwa |
Dueck |
|
De Jong |
Neufeld |
Anderson |
|
Chisholm |
Jarvis |
|
Bill 9, Social Service Tax Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 19.
[ Page 1358 ]
FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
Hon. G. Clark: In moving second reading of this bill, I'd like to make a point to members opposite that this is essentially an amendment bill to a very complex act, and as such, the individual amendments are most appropriately debated in committee stage. There's no sort of principle of the bill to be debated, which is the normal routine in a second reading debate. Members opposite don't have to accept my view, obviously, but I'm sincere about saying that when you have a miscellaneous bill, the most appropriate place to have the debate is at committee stage.
Having said that, if I could just go through with members the most significant changes here, there are, I guess, two significant changes. First is that we are providing certain services, essentially banking services, to the Commonwealth Games Society. Technically the Financial Administration Act does not allow the government to conduct banking services for quasi-government agencies, so this essentially legalizes what, to be honest, we are in fact doing, which is providing some services to the Commonwealth Games Society. This allows the government of the day, any government, to.... In effect, the Minister of Finance can authorize the Ministry of Finance -- the treasury of Finance -- to, as it says here, "...provide investment and financial services to designated publicly funded organizations." So we're not going into the private sector or anything. It's only for publicly funded organizations that we can provide advice. It requires this amendment, and specifically to deal with the Commonwealth Games, I'm advised.
Secondly, there is also an amendment which allows us to reduce money that's credited in a special account. We have had debates in the House about these special accounts, and I would like to just briefly canvass that again with you. Special accounts are essentially bookkeeping accounts. I know my critic, the spokesperson across the way, understands that. I must confess that I didn't really understand it until I formed the government. Essentially they're bookkeeping accounts, and they require....
An Hon. Member: Did you form the government?
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: Did I say "I"? I apologize. Until the New Democrats formed the government, and I was privileged enough to serve in the executive council. Essentially the government created dozens of these special accounts to demonstrate a political commitment to a certain area, bn a certain political decision. But the special account authorizes spending up to the maximum amount in the special account. Because of budgetary constraints at any given time, including even when the government was increasing spending by 12 and 13 percent, some of the notional surplus started building up in special accounts. Any money spent out of the special accounts increases the deficit. There's no actual cash in them; they're really bookkeeping devices. What happens is that we have a whole variety of special accounts which have a notional surplus that people feel they can access, and you get demands on the government to spend. They say: "Well, there's all this money in this special account." There isn't. There is authorization to spend up to the amount in the special account, but any money spent out of it increases the deficit.
What I think should concern members opposite is that the government has the discretion then to spend without authority of the Legislature. They can spend up to the maximum in the special account without coming to the House. In general, I think that's not good public policy, but there are some sound reasons for doing it. If you want to carry over spending authority from one year to the next, it allows multi-year funding.
We're trying to go through the special accounts and eliminate them. As you know, I think we've eliminated about ten of them. We'll go through the rest and try to eliminate more, because I think we want to restrict the use of them. And this gives us the power to reduce the notional surplus -- it's a real surplus in the special account -- but to reduce the ability to simply spend up to the amount that's in that special account. That's the purpose of this.
Those are essentially the two key changes in this bill, which is, again, very complex and has several specific amendments which I think we could have any detailed discussion on with my staff present in committee stage.
F. Gingell: I certainly believe that an appropriate place for us to deal with understanding a bill like Bill 19 is in the committee stage.
Certainly I personally support the portions of section 2 that will allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make sensible arrangements for the collection of some questionable debts -- funds that were loaned out by the previous government.
I really don't have any problems; those are all subjects we can deal with in third reading. Indeed, the only comment I would make.... I'm really not trying to be flippant, but I do think that the Queen's Printer should make an effort.... All of these things cause us to cut down trees. It's time that this government started to set an example, and the Queen's Printer is one of them. There are four empty pages with just one line. All that paper could have been saved. How many of these have been printed? How many of them have been circulated? We just need to be a lot more careful, and I'm surprised that a government that speaks so strongly in support of the environment, that is so concerned, hasn't had the time yet, in the six months they've been in office, to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen.
C. Serwa: I would just like to state that we concur with the recommendations of the Minister of Finance with respect to second reading.
In dispensing with debate on second reading as to the philosophy and principles of the bill, what we would like to do is perhaps have some latitude in the clause-by-clause debate, because otherwise we're missing an opportunity here. We won't abuse that privilege, I assure you, hon. Speaker; but we would like to have a
[ Page 1359 ]
little bit of latitude. With that, we heartily agree and support the motion to pass second reading of Bill 19.
V. Anderson: I'm probably in the same place as the Finance minister, who said that before he became Finance minister, he didn't understand some of these things. I'm in the same place at the moment.
I just have to raise the question that I see in the first section, which I didn't hear him comment on. It was the question that one may designate the persons by whom a debt or obligation to the government may be forgiven. It seems to me that in passing this, as I read it, it is simply giving the government the authority to forgive all debts. I have difficulty with that interpretation and would be hesitant to support it until I understood even in second reading what that means.
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Finance closes debate on the bill.
Hon. G. Clark: I didn't catch all of the remarks of the member opposite, but I would just say -- and I don't mean this in a derogatory way -- that it is up to members opposite to determine.... This bill was introduced some time ago, and it's up to the members opposite to determine the understanding of the bill. My staff would be delighted to assist you in any way possible, and I make that offer to you.
Just one minor point. The member opposite made a point about the pages and wasting paper. I'm advised that the main reason for that is some time ago, when they did it differently and saved some paper, the government of the day passed into law all of the footnotes and the explanatory notes to the bill because of the confusion that arose. As a result of that unfortunate circumstance, they changed the rules to make it clear and simple, so that explanatory notes were on one side and the bill was on the other side, and everybody knew what we were voting on. We've inherited that, and I think it's probably sound public policy.
With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Bill 19, Financial Administration Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.
[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada