1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1421 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act To Provide For Adequate Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance (Bill M206), Mr. Barnes.

Introduction and first reading –– 1421

An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College (Bill PR401). Committee stage. (Mr. Campbell).

Third reading –– 1421

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading.

Mrs. Dailly –– 1421

Mr. Lockstead –– 1423

College And Institute Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich).

section 15 –– 1426

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Rose

On the amendment to

section 15 –– 1429

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

section 16 –– 1432

Mr. Rose

Third reading –– 1432

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading.

Mr. Lauk –– 1432

Mrs. Wallace –– 1436

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1983

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE

MOTOR VEHICLE LIABILITY INSURANCE

On a motion by Mr. Barnes, Bill M206,

An Act to Provide for Adequate

Motor Vehicle Liability Insurance, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today

a visitor who was a resident of our province and has returned for a

vacation. He is a former intern of this House and he is now the

Clerk-Assistant of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan. I would

ask the House to give a warm welcome to David Mitchell.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill PR401, Mr. Speaker

AN ACT RESPECTING

OKANAGAN BIBLE COLLEGE

The House in committee on Bill PR401; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 to 23 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill PR401,

An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MRS. DAILLY: I know that yesterday afternoon everyone was

listening with great enthusiasm — all three of you who were in the

House at the time I was speaking on the Income Tax Amendment Act.

Therefore, because so many were not here, I would like to repeat a few

of my points, Mr. Speaker.

The Income Tax Amendment Act, which the opposition cannot support —

and for many reasons — to my mind certainly gives lie to the words of

the Premier of this province, who stood in this House just a very short

time ago in the first and only speech he's made in this session, in

winding up the budget debate, and used a phrase which has been repeated

in a number of places. His phrase was: "We are a lean government, but

we are not mean." If any bill shows that a government is indeed mean,

it is this bill. In trying to get the opposition to move with them on

this bill.... If we did support it, we would be abrogating our

responsibility to the poor, the underprivileged and the senior citizens

of this province, because it is indeed a mean bill. I say that because

it affects those who can least afford to have money taken out of their

pockets.

The Minister of Finance, who brought in this bill, has been quoted a

number of times in the press as saying that it was absolutely necessary

at this time to bring in this heavy, punitive measure on those who can

least afford it, in order to save other programs. That was repeated by

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). As you look as

those words, yes, it sounds as if there may be some logic to that. If

those words came from a government which is indeed attempting to make

sure that other programs are saved and money is not wasted in the wrong

areas, perhaps we could accept those words. But as I pointed out

yesterday, it's most difficult to accept penalizing and punishing the

poor, those on low incomes and the senior citizens of this province,

when at the same time we read in the paper just recently that the

Social Credit government is considering yet another edifice to itself.

Recently we saw a discussion in the press about the possibility of

erecting a $30 million edifice on the site of B.C. Place. I mentioned

that yesterday, but I think it bears repeating; no one on the

government side has repudiated the fact that this is being considered.

How on earth can a government which takes away a very small amount of

money as compared to its budget today, and as compared to, say, a $30

million edifice, sit there and so callously ask us to support this

bill? When I say callous, that is not only my word; it is the word of

many other people across the province.

[10:15]

I have in front of me a statement from the Vancouver Sun ,

dated November 23, when people first heard about the possibility of

this happening. Here is a letter to the editor, and it says: "Callous

and disgusting are about the mildest words I can find to describe the

latest Social Credit attack on low-income British Columbians. Contrary

to anything Finance minister Hugh Curtis says, the government's

decision to eliminate the personal income tax and the renters' tax

credits will take several hundred dollars away from those who need it

the most." This is signed by a Bill Tieleman on West 3rd. I've never

heard of the gentleman. I have no idea what his party policies are, but

surely it doesn't matter what party you belong to; one can understand

that it is a callous move to take away from the people who need it

today.

[ Page 1422 ]

He refers to the fact that the Finance minister claims that the tax

credits are not essential, because they do not give people cash on a

day-to-day basis when they need it most.'' Mr. Speaker, it's a pretty

specious argument for a very unlean and mean bill when it is suggested

that it's just because they didn't get the money day by day. That was

one of his arguments for bringing in this terrible bill. I can assure

you that the poor, the underprivileged and the senior citizens of this

province will be glad to accept money in any form, whether it comes day

by day, yearly or whatever, because they need the money.

If any bill shows how out of touch the Social Credit cabinet

ministers — and I guess the back-benchers also — have become with the

needs of the people today, it's this bill. They don't seem to realize

that the people being made to suffer by this bill are also the ones who

are suffering from other punitive Social Credit policies. User fees in

hospitals, the removal of the denticare program, increased basic health

costs and utility prices — all these compound to make the people in the

lower bracket in our province suffer the most. Therefore it is almost

unbelievable to think that the government would now compound their

problems by bringing in this bill today.

There's an editorial from the Victoria Times-Colonist . It

dates back to November 13, 1982, but it's still applicable. It says

that, yes, the government is facing a billion-dollar deficit, but

surely the people who need it the most should be defended the most, and

this is what is not happening.

Mr. Speaker, most of the time I don't find it at all difficult to

speak in here with noise, but I find I can't even hear my own words at

this moment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You're right, hon. member, it's a little loud.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MRS. DAILLY: I know my words, unfortunately, are not

significant to the Social Credit government. They are a mean

government. They don't care.

Interjections.

MRS. DAILLY: You are. If they had any concern at all for the

poor and the underprivileged in this province, they would not be

sitting there talking through this bill and treating it as something

that is just a lot of talk from the opposition. I'm very proud that I'm

here in this House and have an opportunity to defend those who need

defending. Someone has to give them a voice, and the NDP has taken that

responsibility today.

The whole problem we have with the Social Credit government is that

they keep asking: "But where are we going to get the money? Tell us

where it comes from." That is the basic problem that we face with this

government. They always seem to be able to find the money for their pet

projects. It's interesting that they can find money to build huge

edifices and they can find money so that Doug Heal can build up a

massive propaganda machine, but there's never a cry, "Where are we

going to get the money?" That is the difference between the Social

Credit government and the New Democratic Party. We know the problems

today. We don't have our head in the clouds. But one thing we do know

is that our party has compassion and believes in the humanity that

everyone in this province who needs it most should be getting it.

This is a fallacious argument about wasting money. If you were

trying to suggest, through you, Mr. Speaker, to some of those who are

calling across the floor that this is a waste of money and where are we

going to get it, I feel very sorry for the citizens of British Columbia

who are going to have to continue to be oppressed by this mean

government, which doesn't seem to see that they have a responsibility,

particularly today, to look after those who have the least.

Back to the Victoria Times-Colonist editorial, which says:

" Loss of the provincial income tax credit means a

loss of up to $107 in cash this year for a single tax filer; $220 for a

married taxpayer with one child; and up to $267 for a married

pensioner. These credits deliver the most effective kind of help — cash

— to the poorest, allowing them to use it where they believed their

need was greatest. An estimated three out of four of our elderly would

have collected something from the personal tax credit this year.

"In both tax credit plans the assistance was tied to income.

The poorest got the most, and nothing could be fairer. When the personal income

tax credit was introduced in 1981, Finance Minister Curtis said it would help

about 40 percent of the province's families and bring relief to those who

need it most."

That was true. At the time we applauded the government that they recognized

the fact that those who needed it the most were going to get some assistance

from the government. Now we have this government who think that because they

have a mandate now, they can actually bring in any kind of punitive measure

they want and it will be accepted.

Mr. Speaker, no matter how massive the Social Credit propaganda

machine is, no matter how many fancy brochures go out, and no matter

how many very slick television programs are imposed on the people of

British Columbia telling how great this government is and how

everything they are doing is for the benefit of all, it will not wash.

All one has to do is point out in detail to the people of British

Columbia some of the punitive measures of the Social Credit government.

I can assure you that the New Democratic Party members will take that

responsibility very seriously. We will point out to the people, without

the massive use of taxpayers' funds that the Social Credit government

has, how truly mean and callous this government is.

The Victoria-Times editorial goes on, and I quote: "This week Mr.

Curtis defended the scrapping of the two tax credit schemes by claiming

that they were inefficient." I'll tell you that the senior citizens,

the poor and the people who are underprivileged in our province today

didn't care about the inefficiency; they just care about the fact that

there was a government that was going to try to alleviate some of their

problems.

He goes on to say: "Tax credits do not provide people with cash on a

day-to-day basis when they need it most." I referred to that very

specious, foolish argument a few moments ago, so I won't go over it

again.

The editorial continues with these words, "In other words, a cheque

is somehow not so helpful if it comes once a year rather than in daily

dribbles. The Finance minister should have said nothing at all rather

than offer this kind of

[ Page

1423 ]

inane — in fact, downright insulting — rationalization. Dropping the tax credits

is a decision which cries for a second look." That's what we in the

official opposition are doing here today. We are asking the government to take

a second look at this very mean bill.

It's interesting when the minister in charge of the bill has to

stoop to arguments that even the editorialists find insulting to the

poor and the underprivileged. When you have to stoop to those kind of

arguments, it shows that you don't have a very good case. The minister

who brought in that bill is very eloquent and quite able to debate

exceptionally well in this House, but his debate and introduction on

this bill has been one of his weakest presentations. As Finance

minister he must be well aware, in taking away those few little grants

from the poor of this province, that it's better to say very little,

because he really has no substantive argument in defence. I would still

ask that government to please look carefully again at what they're

doing, and to realize that they have a responsibility in this province

today to help particularly the poor and the needy, and not to punish

them.

The people who are responsible for many of the groups and who work

together — for example, the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. —

were simply stunned. They couldn't believe it when this was first

announced. To quote Gus Long from the Vancouver Sun of November

12, 1982: "They're not going to cut back on their megaprojects. They're

not going to cut back on the $6 million that they'll spend this year on

advertising." At that time that's all he thought it was. "They're only

going to cut back on those who can least afford it." Long pointed out

that the maximum credit for 1982 is $107. I have mentioned that before

so I won't repeat it. Noting that the credit is eliminated when gross

income exceeds $12,200, $22,400 and $28, 050 respectively, Long says:

"Curtis's department estimates that about 40 percent of all B.C.

families and 75 percent of the elderly, a total of 200,000 people,

would be receiving the benefit." That was in 1982. I've put those

figures on record again, Mr. Speaker, because I think it tells us much

about the bill.

Long also noted that the provincial government has already cut back

on welfare payments, denticare and legal aid, which are programs used

only by the poor, and also on hospitals and adult education, to name

just a few. Poor people have more health problems, particularly the

elderly. So they use the hospitals the most. The working poor and the

younger workers desperately need adult education, he points out. These

things are all going. "With the scrapping of the tax credits, there is

no other area by which they could attack the poor in British Columbia.

They've cut everything else, as far as I can see," said Long.

Mr. Speaker, I think the people who are in that bracket can speak far more

eloquently than I can. As I said in the House yesterday, all the MLAs in this

Legislature, including cabinet ministers, are the ones who can perhaps put up

with these kinds of cuts. I don't understand why we have a government in

British Columbia today who cannot see that what they are doing is indeed very

hard on the poor, the underprivileged and the senior citizens. I simply want

to conclude my remarks on this bill by saying to the Social Credit government:

will you not, please, on behalf of the underprivileged and those who are suffering

most today in this province, take a second look at this bill and withdraw it?

[10:30]

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should say a few words on this bill.

I might tell you — and the government is very much aware of this —

that well prior to the last provincial election the government did, in

fact, in this particular instance, announce its intention to remove the

personal income tax credit and the renter's tax credit. In all

fairness, I think this may be one of the very few bills before this

House at the present time where we can say the government did announce

its intention to do this, to remove those tax credits.

(Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I might add that a lot of confusion could have been avoided in all

of British Columbia — in areas such as my own riding, which I hope I am

reasonably familiar with — if we had had this budget session at the

normal time, usually starting at the end of January, in February or

even March.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I know we had an election. What I am

respectfully suggesting to that member is that, in my view and the view

of many of us and many people in British Columbia, the budget session

we are now holding should have been held at the proper and traditional

time and the policies of the government spelled out at that time. But

I'm not getting into that. What I'm saying is that this measure is one

of the few measures that the government did announce prior to the

session going into effect.

It did cause a lot of confusion. In my constituency offices we had a

great many phone calls. People came into the office and asked if they

should apply for the tax credit or not. The advice we had to give — our

people in the office and myself — to those people in regard to this tax

credit and its proposed removal was yes. Now it may delay — we were

quite frank with these people, and by the minister's statement....

The minister did pose the question in

part 8 of his statement on

this matter: "What happens if you do claim for the 1982 renter's or

low-income tax credits?" The answer was: "Tax forms which include a

claim for those 1982 credits could be delayed because the tax computers

are unable to accept forms which include data other than official tax

requirements for 1982." That's fair enough and, as it turns out,

happened to be quite correct. So for all those people who came into

our constituency office, or phoned us, or whatever, we did tell them

that if they applied for that tax credit — and said that we did not

form the government of this province, which we didn't....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There was an election; the member's quite right. I remember the election very well.

MR. LAUK: They got in under false pretences.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right, in a sense. The member says

"under false pretences," because the government did in fact not

announce most of its policy decisions prior to the provincial election

last May.

[ Page 1424 ]

The net result was that when people then asked, we gave them his

advice, but we suggested they apply with the understanding that their

tax returns would possibly be delayed. And, in fact, they were delayed.

I understand that most of these people have now received their income

tax returns.

However, into the meat of the subject: obviously we.... Now we're up

to the last provincial election, and I just want to say that part of

the policy of our party during the course of the election campaign was,

of course, that we would retain these tax credits.... These tax credits

were brought in by the Social Credit government. It was to be,

hopefully, not all politics in order to win an election; I would like

to think that there was some compassion involved when the government

brought these tax credits in in the first place. Nonetheless, we said

we would retain these tax credits should we win the last provincial

election. Of course we didn't, and the government is now keeping its

announced plans, policies or promises on this particular bill and

wiping out these tax credits, which in fact — as has been stated

previously in this House by other speakers, but I feel that I'm going

to have to repeat some of these things because they affect people in my

riding as they do everybody else in British Columbia....

So it is once again the underprivileged, the low-income people and

the senior citizens who are being directly affected. The added hardship

— and I'm going to get into that a little bit later — that these people

incur.... It is beyond my comprehension why the government should pick

on this particular group of people once again. It just seems like bill

after bill in this House.... Things like the increase in the sales tax,

a measure which was, in fact, denied by the Social Credit government

and their candidates during the last election; they said they would not

increase it but they did increase the sales tax. As a net result of

that, once again it's the lowincome people, the senior citizens and the

unemployed who have to bear the brunt of that regressive tax.

Other taxes have been increased. You don't get much sympathy from

most people for increasing the tax on tobacco and alcohol, but

nonetheless those taxes were increased. Regressive taxes, which hit the

poor again — the underprivileged, the low-income and poor people, the

unemployed....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: It hits all the people, the minister says

across the floor, and he's quite correct. However, I would suspect in

the case of the minister, who is receiving a fairly respectable salary

for his job, that if he was a smoker — and I know he's not — he wouldn't

feel that extra five or six dollars per month. But I'm not talking

about the minister specifically, Mr. Speaker; I'm talking about anybody

who's in a higher income group — fine. It's really not that much of a

burden. But if you're a low-income person living off, say, the minimum

amount of welfare — and you have no choice because there are no jobs

out there — or you're a single parent with children to support.... That

kind of tax hits those people very hard because it's a larger

percentage of their total income, as compared to someone who's perhaps

making $100,000 a year or much more.... Mr. Minister, you have to admit

that it's a larger percentage of those people's incomes when they have

— particularly single parents or elderly people living on the minimum

pension....

They might be receiving a maximum.... I have the exact figures here,

and I'll quote them later, but it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of

about $461 a month. So when you add all these regressive taxes together

— the legislation that is now being debated before this House; and

these tax measures are in effect now in any event — they take a larger

proportion of those people's incomes than they do for the people who

are making quite a bit of money in their vocations and careers, and who

are lucky enough to be working.

(Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It hits the young people as well in some ways. They also are subject

to these taxes. We know that the unemployment rate among young people

in this country, and in this province, is simply horrendous. I may not

be quite accurate on this figure, but just going from memory I think

the unemployment rate for people between the ages of 18 and 26 is about

24 percent — recorded for that group. I suspect it's somewhat higher

than that. Those are Statistics Canada figures, and they were well

publicized just a short while ago.

Another aspect of this legislation — proposed legislation at the

present time, but it will pass, because the government has a

substantial majority in this House.... We're going to speak and vote

against this legislation, but it will pass, I presume, eventually. I

would hope that the government would reconsider this bill, or amend it.

I don't know what you could amend in this bill, actually. I think it

should be withdrawn. But at least half the bill, perhaps the

section of

the bill dealing with political parties and returns, is probably fair

enough. That is a privilege given to recognize political parties across

Canada, and I think people who make donations to political parties

should have a portion of that money returned. But we're not dealing

with that.

What we're dealing with here is the effect that this legislation is

going to have on the poor and low-income people in this province.

What's appalling to me, Mr. Speaker, is that while the government is

regressively taxing the low-income, the underprivileged and the

unemployed in measure after measure before this House, the government

itself is not practising restraint in any way. This bill was brought in

as a restraint measure, but the government itself is not practising

restraint. I'm appalled, if this figure is correct — and the estimates

book that we received on budget day would indicate that this figure I'm

about to give is approximately correct — that the government has

budgeted $18 million for advertising alone. Okay, even if the

government had reduced that to half, how about...? Surely the

government, four years before an election, could get by on, say, $5

million for advertising. I agree that the public should be made aware

of the types of legislation...be informed of what the government is

doing. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, $18 million is just a little bit

much. Five million dollars for non-political advertising to inform the

public could easily do. The balance of that money could have gone on

this program alone. That's only one measure.

Many of the ministers of the government have got up in this House on

numerous occasions during the course of this session — three or four in

particular, and I won't name them, because that's not the point.... The

point I'm making is that they have stated in this House that when this

session is completed, or even before, they are going to travel all over

the world promoting British Columbia. That in itself would probably be

acceptable to some extent, but the budgets that they've allowed

themselves over the last several years — and we've gone through those

budgets

chapter and verse many

[ Page 1425 ]

times in the House, and I'm not going to do that this morning.... I

want to say that even if they took $4 million of that travel budget,

surely they could put that $4 million towards the renter's tax credit

for the poor, the underprivileged, the people on welfare and the

unemployed. That could go towards this and other programs.

[10:45]

The government's use of jet planes: how much does it cost every day

to fly cabinet ministers back to their homes in the lower mainland

every evening and back over here every morning? Most of us don't have

the opportunity to travel in jet planes, period; we take the ferry. In

my case I have to take the ferry to get home, and other people drive.

We don't travel in taxpayer-subsidized jet planes every day. I would

like to go home every night. I wish I could, but I can't do that — I am

stuck here. I have to pay for a second apartment, and living expenses.

This is not the place to talk about that, but what I am suggesting is

that the government could use the ferries like the rest of us, and save

literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions. I don't know what it

costs — because I don't have these figures in front of me — to run

those aircraft. I am quite serious about this. I am suggesting ways to

the Minister of Finance where dollars could be saved on one side and

put towards a renter's tax credit. I am going to make another point

along the same vein regarding an announcement made yesterday morning by

the government regarding the pricing of natural gas. I read the

minister's statement very carefully yesterday, and again this morning,

because I have to do a little thing on radio. The bottom line is that

the natural gas prices to domestic users in British Columbia are going

to increase and double by the end of this decade.

People in the higher income brackets probably won't even notice the

extra $4, $5 or $10 — depending on their home and the amount of gas

they use — added to their bills next year, and the following $10, $20

or $30 a year after, but it is going to double by the end of the

decade. Those people on low incomes who rely on that cheaper, cleaner

source of energy will have a larger part taken out of their incomes.

Once again, it is those people who are going to feel the impact of that

policy statement made yesterday. It seems incredible to me that every

time we turn around it is the people who can least afford it who get

hit the hardest, yet some of the multinationals have received major

concessions and will be receiving them this year.

Legislation before this House will, in effect, reduce the water

licence fees to B.C. Hydro and many large companies. I'm tying this

into this bill; it directly affects the people I am talking about. They

got a big break. There are going to be millions and millions fewer

dollars paid in revenues to the government of British Columbia by those

companies this year, while it once again is the poor and low-income

people who are losing tax benefits under this legislation. I don't

understand that kind of thinking.

I referred to the natural gas policy just a few minutes ago. It

would appear, if I read the minister's statements correctly, that the

large multinational oil companies are once again going to get a huge

tax break. Why them? Some of those companies have made windfall

profits; not all have — I know sales are down. I don't want to get into

that with you, Mr. Speaker, because that's another debate we are going

to have in this House at some time, hopefully in the near future.

Nonetheless, the point I am making is that while a very small upper

layer of people in our society are receiving these huge tax breaks, the

low-income people are once again getting hit, time after time, by

legislation which directly affects them. How are they to survive?

When people in this income category receive, through GAIN or the tax

credits we are discussing here in this bill, that extra $50 a month,

$200 a year or whatever, they are not taking that money and hiding it

in their mattress, stuffing it away in a sock. They are not doing that

with the extra funds.

MS. BROWN: They're buying Beautiful British Columbia .

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Exactly. I'll tell you what they are doing

with that money. Those few extra dollars that mean so much to those

people.... I was surprised how many people there are in this

category because of the minister's announcement earlier this year about

these tax credits and the representation I have in my constituency

office. I'll tell you what they do with that money. Talk to a

community, chamber of commerce group, business people down the street,

family business, the small stores, people who are just trying to

survive. So many have gone broke over the last two years, particularly

in the last year. Those people were taking the extra benefits they were

receiving under this tax credit and spending it in the small stores

downtown or down the street, usually to buy food or clothes: once a

month maybe they got to go to a movie or see a play or even — horror of

horrors — I know several people who even went into a beer parlour on a

Saturday afternoon for a couple of beers. Isn't that awful? That's what

they were doing. Generally speaking, they were spending that money in

the local community, not stuffing it in their mattress or away

somewhere in a sock.

In an indirect way this bill is having a direct effect on some of

the small business people in the community. There's no question about

that.

Mr. Speaker, I have some figures here. I know it's dull and boring

stuff, but I want to get this into the record because a number of

people in my riding certainly read Hansard . I would like you,

Mr. Speaker, to have some idea of what people are receiving. Let's talk

about seniors. I'm quoting. A single person, an old-age pensioner, gets

$256 and S67 a month if he's getting GIS: add $257.68 plus $33.88 from

GAIN, for a grand total of $553.23 per month. For a couple under the

old-age pension and GIS it comes to $455.34 per month, plus GAIN,

$49.83, for a total of $505.70 per month.

Mr. Speaker. I would like to know if you think you or I or a cabinet

minister could live on that per month. Frankly, I don't know how they

do it. I have people coming into my office — lots of elderly people — with

an itemized list of their expenses: how much it costs for rent, food,

and perhaps a telephone; sometimes they may add $10 or $12 a month for

a tin of tobacco and papers and that's about it. In some cases the

rents have been increased, which is another topic — there's a bill to

abolish rent controls now before this House, and the people in this

category are going to face a great deal of further difficulty. They

come to me and say: "Look, I'm $40 a month short because of the rent

increase. I simply can't live." I'll go through Human Resources, GAIN,

the whole thing for them. I get cooperation, but the final result in

many cases, not all.... Well, if an emergency allowance is needed,

we can let this person have $15 a month extra this one month, but they

have to go in next month to prove it again and again. There's nothing

left for anything else, not even clothes, really. Now the government is

removing these personal income tax credits and the renter's tax credit.

The

[ Page 1426 ]

renter's tax credit is quite a serious item to many of those people with whom I've discussed this.

I don't think the government is doing itself a favour. The money they think they're going to save in the short run....

I don't think they're going to save money at all in this matter. The

government is doing itself a great disservice in this particular case

by singling out this particular group of people. Maybe they don't care.

I hope they do, but maybe they don't. I don't know. When you read

through these press releases and the information put forward by the

Ministry of Finance regarding the tax credits.... I've done a bit

of that, but I won't repeat it. They say that some of this money is

going to go to other programs. This announcement about tax credits was

put out prior to the last provincial election, but we now know, because

of the legislation before this House, many of the programs that the

government said they were going to apply this money to are in fact

themselves being cut. They are not being increased, but cut. They're

not applying the money, so where it is going? I suggest that the funds

which should be going to low-income people, the disadvantaged, the

unemployed, the elderly, will be going to help pay off the interest on

the huge debt incurred by that government sitting across from me here

this morning. That's where that money will be going. The government

borrowed left, right and centre and squandered special purpose funds

that perhaps could have been used for the tax credits.

I know we're in time of a recession. While we're talking about that,

I resent the government's use of the words "restraint package" on every

bill. This bill has nothing whatsoever to do with restraint. This is a

direct, regressive tax. It's a privilege that applied to the poor

people of this province and I resent the government's saying that this

is part of their restraint package, that has nothing whatsoever to do

with this bill.

[11:00]

Mr. Speaker, I'm just about finished. I don't feet like sitting down

because I'm truly angry over this particular measure. I haven't lost my

temper, I haven't yelled at the members across the floor, but I am

truly, quietly angry at the government for introducing this measure.

It's a measure they didn't have to introduce, and I hope the minister

will have another look. He has the opportunity now. The government

could come out smelling like a rose. They could make some political

points at a very small cost to the treasury of the province on this

particular item. For goodness' sake, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr.

Speaker — please have another look at this legislation.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this bill until later today.

Motion approved.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, as you know, this Sunday, September

18, is the third annual run of the Terry Fox fundraising drive. I would

ask leave to move a very brief motion on behalf of all the members.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES: The motion, seconded by my colleague, the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose), reads as follows: "That this House

remembers with pride the courage and bravery of this young British

Columbian who inspired people the world over with his struggle against

adversity; that this House encourage full public participation in the

third annual Terry Fox Run, to be held on Sunday, September 18, 1983;

and that the Clerk convey greetings from the members of this House,

together with our best wishes for a successful event, to the Fox family

and organizers of the Fox run."

I now move that resolution, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

MR. REYNOLDS: I wish to add a couple of words to what the member has just said.

I had the privilege of interviewing Terry Fox before he started on his run and also many times while he was on his run.

MR. BARNES: I was on your show.

MR. REYNOLDS: Yes, the member was on my show. I just want to

add my words to the family and say that I really am in support of this

motion. I know we voted for it, but I wanted to add my own words

because of that tie-in with Terry Fox when he was making his run.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with business, I would ask leave to introduce someone.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In the gallery today is Gary Cross, a young

Richmond resident who is very active politically. Mr. Cross works very

hard on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 20.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

section 15.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the answer

yesterday to a question under

section 15, which is

section 57. I know

the member repeated it a number of times. I think we'll take some time

because you expressed a great deal of interest as to why reference

wasn't made to the comptroller-general, and why it has been changed to

"someone designated by," I think, a Minister of Finance.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not mysterious at all.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, it's not mysterious at all.

What happened was this: apparently, some time ago, when the auditor-general....

MS. BROWN: Is this one of those long tales?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You were interested and wanted to know the

reasons why. Some language came in, Mr. Chairman, and I thought that we

would, in the fullness of time, tell them.

[ Page 1427 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: He wants to know.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I know he does, and they were quite

insistent yesterday. So was the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown),

followed by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford).

MS. BROWN: Yes, she wants to know too.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: And you want to know; everybody wants to know.

I bring greetings to all of you from everybody at the UBCM in Penticton last night. They would like to have us all there....

MS. SANFORD: They love you.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes, I said all of us.

If I may continue, Mr. Chairman, the comptroller-general, when he

was also the auditor, looked after both internal and external audits.

Now they have different roles. Your research tells you that, doesn't

it? Also, the Minister of Finance requires the right to make a

designation as to whom he is going to appoint, whether it comes from

the Ministry of Finance or whether it comes from Treasury Board. This

particular amendment was requested by the Ministry of Finance — to

delete "comptroller-general" — since the powers of the

comptroller-general are now defined in the Financial Administration

Act, which was given royal assent on November 27, 1981.... As I recall,

there was unanimous support on that bill. I remember Mr. Hall was here.

The amendment of

section 59 is of a housekeeping nature, as a result of

the proclamation of the Financial Administration Act, and does not

alter the powers of the Minister of Finance — I want to repeat that:

does not alter the powers of the Minister of Finance — to direct the

comptroller-general to conduct examinations under the College and

Institute Act.

That is a full answer, and I hope that that is acceptable.

MR. LAUK: A full answer! You didn't even have a predicate in the sentence. What did you say?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Do you want me to go on all day about this?

MR. LAUK: Why not?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure, just for another hour.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Do you want to spend another $80,000 of the taxpayers' money?

MR. LAUK: Why don't you give us an answer?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, that is the answer to the inquiry for which the member for Burnaby-Edmonds led the assault on this member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, you will remember that just prior to

leaving the House yesterday I set this little assignment for the

Minister of Education, that he should go home and study this

section

and find out what it really means. I want to thank him for doing part

of his homework. He got it in writing. Now I need to know that he

understands it. I know that he read it, but I need to know that he also

understands it. I'm wondering whether he can assure the House that he

does.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Yes.

MS. BROWN: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Let's reflect a moment on the....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Stand up, Gary.

MR. LAUK: I'm a foot taller than you are, even with your elevator socks.

You see, where there is smoke, there is salmon, and I read

section

59's amendment as taking out of the hands, as specifically legislated,

such audit of a bureaucrat of the highest level under oath to Her

Majesty and allowing the Minister of Finance, who, with the greatest

conceivable respect, has not been able to encourage that degree of

confidence most common in other Ministers of Finance, to designate a

person by this amendment to carry out that audit. Now I want you to

consider, Mr. Chairman, why the opposition is somewhat concerned about

this. We had, over the past three or four years, the centralization and

takeover of the community college system. We had the destruction of the

concept of the community college. It's now controlled by the czar of

education over there. There he is sitting on his throne. He doesn't

even dictate anymore; he just nods his head as a sign for execution or

reprieve. He is obviously delighted with such power. He's giggling.

He's intoxicated with power.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You're hilarious.

MR. LAUK: I may be hilarious, but this

section is sobering

indeed. I'd like to sober the minister, because we're quite concerned

about the idea that the same government that can reappoint McKim

Advertising, which is under criminal investigation, may appoint anyone

it likes to investigate a centrally controlled college system — each

council, each corporation or each institution — with reports either

being made public or not. There's no provision that the audit reports

are to be part of the ministry's report to the Legislature, and we're

concerned about that. The comptroller- general, however, is answerable;

he is a high-level, career civil servant who is under oath, and he was

given this solemn responsibility in the past. I don't think the answer

the minister gave — which he apparently thinks was a technical one — is

the total answer. I think that the comptroller-general's duties could

include, and be regarded as part of, the audit of the councils and the

other corporations involved — by corporations I mean councils and

institutions under the college system. We are concerned about this and

I think we should oppose it. And that will obviously bring down the

government.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to speak very long on

this particular section, but I'd like to echo the concerns of my

colleague on this very subject. Yesterday in a lead story in the

Vancouver Sun there was an item having to do with an external

audit agreed to by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who is

sitting here in the chamber, having to do with certain contradictions

between the attitudes of the minister and that particular hospital,

which is a semiautonomous institution.

[ Page 1428 ]

We used to have autonomous institutions in the colleges because

their boards of directors were elected indirectly — at least some of

them were — by the school boards. What this

section says is that any

person can be designated to examine and report on the financial and

accounting operations of an institution. Supposing there were, as a

result of a completely politically appointed board, pals of the

government or friends of the minister — possible puppets — and suppose

that under their jurisdiction and administration, or policy level at

least, and under their legislative powers, certain practices that might

become embarrassing were ignored. What we expect might happen is that

all of the negative or critical remarks which might have been directed

toward policy decisions by indirectly elected board members would now

be removed, because we would have removed the indirectly elected board

members.

[11:15]

What I am suggesting here is that this item gives power to the

minister to proceed to name any person to do that particular audit job.

I don't suppose that under this minister there would be any cause for

alarm over hanky-panky. But it is at least conceivable that if matters,

directives and directions are not made public — and I wish to bring

this up when we start to deal with Bill 19 — if directives to school

and college boards from the ministers are not made public or published

anywhere in an annual report, under a closed system of government there

could be a possible coverup.

We are not comforted by the fact that this change has been made in

this portion of the act. As a matter of fact, we're deeply concerned

about it. We think it lacks the kind of definition we need. We are also

concerned that in the future the administration of colleges can be

operated through the minister, through directives to a nice, quiet,

complacent board appointed by the minister, and that we will lack

opposition, if you like, to policies and management arrangements, and

all kinds of negative opposition will be shut off. So that concerns us.

And when the minister gets up, as he did a little while ago, and starts

to shout and scream and never completes a sentence, that worries us

too, because we think perhaps he's got a little note on his speech

notes that says: "Argument weak here. Shout louder." So I'm not

comforted by the explanation the minister gave, and neither are my

colleagues.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, earlier I asked the minister whether

he understood what he was reading on that piece of paper. He assured me

that he did. I'm wondering if he's ready and willing to respond to the

concerns raised by the member for Vancouver Centre and the critic, our

member for Coquitlam-Moody, because he has to make a decision as to

which is the greater of the two evils. Is it more important that the

minister have this power to appoint all of the members to the board

and, as well, appoint an independent audit to be done, leaving the

elected members, either the government or the opposition, no real

recourse to question any of these people? None of them are accountable

to us, because they are appointed by the government in one instance and

by the Minister of Finance in the other. As my colleague from Vancouver

Centre said, at least with the comptroller-general there was some

accountability. There is no accountability if the minister should

decide to use an outside firm to do this job.

I notice that the minister has two of his bureaucrats with him and

they are mulling over that piece of paper. I'm wondering whether the

minister is now ready to give us a clearer explanation as to why he's

not prepared to repeal this section.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to repeat, and

this is going to be for the last time, because I think the same

questions are coming. I thought it was made clear. The Financial

Administration Act was brought in. That piece of legislation did come

in subsequent to the College and Institute Act. This bill before the

House now — nothing more is being done than to have it blend in with

the Financial Administration Act. I gave you the reasons why they made

the change as to whether the minister shall designate, dealing with the

auditor-general, or if he's dealing with the comptroller-general. Now

he must have that freedom. This House gave him that freedom. It

approved unanimously the Financial Administration Act. All we are doing

is following what the Ministry of Finance requires so that there is

consistency between the bill before the House and the Financial

Administration Act, the bill everyone approved.

Now, what the Minister of Finance does with respect to the

designation of appointment for outside auditors of national accounting

firms to do work, I have no idea.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, it's not. As a matter of fact, I think

that appropriately should be asked in the estimates of the Ministry of

Finance or in my estimates if you're concerned about the audit or the

books of some particular college in British Columbia.

I repeat, and I'm not being facetious about this: it is a technical

amendment tailored to the existing legislation under the Financial

Administration Act. I really can't say anything more or anything less.

MR. LAUK: Well, as I understand the Financial Administration

Act and the Auditor General Act, and this College and Institute Act and

its proposed amendments, it does a number of things, possibly, to

trouble us. One I've already mentioned. The other is.... I'll wait

for the minister to finish. I know he's interested.

The second point that should be made about this

section is that with

the comptroller-general, at least the auditor-general has some

jurisdiction. With an appointment of any person the auditor-general is

not involved any further, because the auditor-general does not have

direct access to colleges and institutes and boards.

So I'm going to suggest an amendment. I think the committee should

consider an amendment in this case. I move that

section 15, line 1 be

amended by deleting the words "a person" and substituting therefore the

words "the auditor-general," and by deleting the word "may" and

substitute the word "shall" therefore. The

section will then read: "The

Minister of Finance shall designate the auditor-general to examine and

report on the financial and accounting operations of an institution."

It seems to me that the public is entitled — especially when there are

non-elected people on these boards who are not answerable to the people

in the community — to have full and complete financial information from

a source with which they have publicly and apparently been satisfied,

and that is the performance of the auditor-general.

[ Page 1429 ]

It seems to me that if the government is sincere — that's a big "if,

" isn't it? — and has nothing to fear and nothing to hide, this kind of

amendment should be accepted by the minister. Because he was once a

Liberal....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He's still a Liberal? He moved over to the Social

Credit Party when he was told that he would definitely not get that

appointment to the county court in the Northwest Territories. In spite

of all that travel, I suggest the minister accept that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would rule that that particular amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: That's a very reasonable amendment which my

learned colleague has just submitted. I would like to congratulate you,

Mr. Chairman, for finding that the amendment is in order. It is a very

reasonable amendment.

Mr. Chairman, maybe we should explain in more detail to the minister

what our concern is. Each of these pieces of legislation in isolation

may not be that bad. If you look at each one by itself, it doesn't seem

to be particularly sinister. It's like the pieces of a jig-saw puzzle:

when you put them all together — the fact that the minister and the

cabinet have the right to appoint all the members of the board, thus

eliminating any accountability to the community at large or to the

Legislature — with the power given to the Minister of Finance to

designate an independent audit, you're talking about concentrating more

control and more power, frightening power, in the hands of the

government and locking out the community. You're saying that the duly

elected members of the Legislature have no access — because these

people are not accountable to us. You're saying that the students and

the staff and the people who use the community colleges, the

communities in which these colleges exist, have no access or control.

These people are not accountable to them. The board members can ignore

their wishes. What do they care? They're appointed by the cabinet.

They're the only people they are accountable to. For how long, one

never knows. It's the same thing with the company or corporation

designated by the Minister of Finance. There is no place here for the

community. There's no way in which the community can have input or

access or demand accountability.

My learned colleague from Vancouver Centre has, I think, come up

with an innovative, reasonable and unique solution to the minister's

dilemma: that is, allowing the Minister of Finance to turn over this

responsibility to the auditor-general. The auditor-general is

accountable to this House. The auditor-general's report is tabled in

this House, and we can look at what the auditor-general is doing. Both

sides of the House have been very satisfied with the work done to date

by the auditor-general.

I notice the minister's mike is up. I hope the minister has had some

time to confer with his assistants and to think about this matter for

himself. I know he will rise to his feet and agree with you, Mr.

Speaker, that this amendment is not only in order but that he will also

agree with me that it's a very reasonable amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I rise to speak against the amendment. I'm

just waiting for a copy so that I can have a look at it. But as I

recall, you made it mandatory by the expression "shall." Those great

advocates opposite, who have been lambasting the government for being

centralist, are now here advocating true centralism — appointment of

the auditor-general to go into each of the communities in British

Columbia and do the books of a college.

I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that all we have to do is look at

sections 58 and 59 of the College and Institute Act, and you want the

long arm of the auditor-general thrown in? What is wrong with the

college board and its administration making some decisions on the use

of a firm of auditors?

I'll read

section 58: "The accounts and financial transactions of a

corporation shall, at least once in every year, be audited and reported

on by an auditor appointed by the corporation." The corporation, which

is defined in here, obviously refers to the college.

Section 59 says:

"The Minister of Finance may, at any time, direct the

comptroller-general of the province to examine and report to him on any

or all of the financial and accounting operations of a corporation."

My first comment in explanation of

section 15 of Bill 20 is that the

auditor-general and the comptroller-general operate two totally

different functions. At one time they were one and the same.

Consequently, the Financial Administration Act was passed in the House,

acknowledging that the comptroller-general and the auditor-general are

two individuals. That was clear, and so the Minister of Finance of the

day has the ability to designate who will be used. That's all there is

to it. What you want to do by your amendment is to put the

auditor-general in every nook and cranny in the province, in our

community colleges. when in fact the Minister of Finance already has

the right to have the comptroller-general, who is a public servant,

which the opposition seems to be concerned that we're straying from. I

don't quite understand the significance of your amendment, because the

government already has the power to do what you are suggesting. You

want to turn around and put them in the Victorian era, and we don't

agree with that.

[11:30]

MR. LAUK: I think the minister's inadvertent ignorance of the process is breathtaking.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I think you should at least be kind in your comments.

MR. LAUK: I said "inadvertent."

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You know, you can get your point across, Gary, without the bitterness and the malice.

MR. LAUK: Now don't get upset. Listen carefully.

Mr. Chairman,

section 58 allows for an audit. This amendment does

not in any way intervene in

section 58. The bill proposes to eliminate

section 59, so the minister's statement that the comptroller-general

will be appointed as that person-designate is clearly wrong.

Interjection.

[ Page 1430 ]

MR. LAUK: You weren't thinking about what you were saying, but that's what you said so I'll correct you. You know it's not correct.

The new

section as proposed by the government is: "The Minister of

Finance may designate a person to examine and report on the financial

and accounting operations" of the corporation." We're saying that

having centralized the college and education boards, having put your

political people on these boards, centralized control and removed any

concept of a community college system, the very least you can do is

provide financial accountability to the people of that community and to

the province generally.

The words by which we propose to amend this

section are: "The

Minister of Finance shall designate the auditor-general to examine and

report on the financial and accounting operations of an institution."

The

Interpretation Act clearly indicates what the amendment means in

that section. It doesn't mean that it's compulsory to appoint the

auditor-general to go into each and every situation. You're getting bad

advice, Mr. Minister. I sentence you to another six months of law

school. I know it was a squeaker at first, but your second try will be

much easier.

Look at it again. "Of an institution" is obviously enabling

legislation. All the amendment will mean, Mr. Chairman, is that if the

minister does appoint an auditor, that auditor will be the

auditor-general. That's what the

section means as the amendment is

proposed. I would ask the minister to consider these amendments. It

doesn't mean it's compulsory in each and every situation. When you say

"of an institution," it's an enabling section. The "shall" refers to

the appointment of the auditor-general and not to the examination of

the books in each and every case. That's fairly clear, so you could

take advice on that and then respond to see whether the government will

accept the amendment.... You won't.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The government does not accept the amendment.

MR. LAUK: There you go. Once more from the throne the czar of education shakes his head, and the execution will take place.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, we've had an absolutely

astounding explanation by the minister. Having brought forth this bill,

in which he is centralizing every aspect of what were hitherto known as

community colleges and should now be known as government institutes of

post-secondary education.... Having set out the forms of reporting,

and the financial forms of reporting as well, having set up a uniform

system of curriculum, so that we now no longer have community colleges

but we're back to the old senior matriculation — except it's now

two-year senior matriculation with unified programs everywhere....

Having done all of these centralist steps, he's now proposing that we

should have a decentralized approach toward the auditing process. This

is absolutely mixing oil and water.

Obviously, having voted for the

principle of this bill on second reading, we are now trying to pull

this mess together — we don't support the bill, but if it is going to

be centralist, then it will be a stronger bill if it does at least have

a uniform method of investigating the auditing practices in the bill.

We have supported the auditor-general in this House; we have looked at

the performance of the auditor-general for the past six years and

unanimously endorsed her reappointment after two very short,

perfunctory meetings of the standing committee. Now the minister is

trying to paint the auditor-general as some sort of a spectre, someone

to be feared, as if the auditor-general was anything else but a civil

servant — one of, I think, only two public servants appointed

unanimously not by cabinet but by the Legislature.

So, Mr. Chairman, this motion simply is in keeping with the spirit

and the principle of the bill approved by this Legislature, albeit on a

divided vote. If we are going to go one direction, what the official

opposition is saying is: let's see, at least, that you get the

advantages of that. But the minister seems to be selectively picking

out all the disadvantages of the centralized approach — something that

would perhaps work if the approach were decentralized — and now he

wants to have a whole bunch of different systems of auditing all over

the province.

The other thing I don't like about this system, Mr. Chairman, is

that it does give cabinet the power — and the Legislature, by accepting

this, is giving cabinet the power — to distribute a little bit more

largesse. We have accounting firms.... I'm not slighting chartered

accountants, or anything like that, but we have seen that you do have

from time to time tame experts. There is the term "tame expert," and I

think the Clarkson Gordon report was an example of the abuse of a tame

expert from the chartered accounting ranks. I wouldn't want to see —

and I notice that Clarkson Gordon appears with some regularity in

audits of various government agencies — that as the "person," because

definition of a person certainly is a corporation, right?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or anyone like Clarkson Gordon.

MR. NICOLSON: Right. So, Mr. Chairman, we have the chance to

put some dignity into this bill, to at least pull this bill together so

that — and, Lord knows, even the opposition can be wrong.... It

turns out we weren't wrong about the university hospital; it turns out

we weren't wrong about a potential deficit being revealed after the

election was called. But we can be wrong, and we have been wrong about

some things. We could be wrong about this. But I'll tell you that one

thing we are right about is this amendment. Since the rest of this bill

is going through as is, this amendment will at least help to unify this

particular approach that the minister has chosen to take. I wish him

well, but I fear for the results.

This particular amendment, I think, will certainly help to bring to

attention a way in which the whole province can have some confidence in

the practices that may be going on in various community colleges.

Everything else is centralized, so for the minister to get up and say

that this is a centralist approach — if I concede to him that it is,

and I don't know that I do — I can't see why he should object to that,

because in every other instance in this bill that is the approach that

has been taken.

MS. BROWN: I know I'm not very conspicuous, Mr. Chairman, but....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: This is not a red dress; he's colour-blind. I always wondered about that. He thinks this is a red dress I'm wearing; it's not.

[ Page 1431 ]

Mr. Chairman, speaking in support of the amendment, I think maybe we

should remind ourselves of some of the other pieces of this puzzle that

when put together give the minister so much power that it really

concerns us. It's one of the reasons we're introducing this amendment

at this time.

The College-Institute Educators Association of B.C., in their July

1983 newsletter, "The Synoptic," had this to say about the bill;

"The governance structure for colleges and

institutions has been fundamentally altered as to vest all significant

decision-making power in the government. The three funding councils —

the academic, occupational training and management advisory — have been

abolished and their powers have been transferred to the ministry."

That's already happened in this bill.

"All college institute boards' duty to determining

courses or programs to be offered or cancelled have been made subject

to the policies and directives of the minister. This provision is to

override collective agreements. All members of college institute boards

are to be appointed by cabinet. School board and community

representatives" — another

section which we dealt with — "are removed.

Moreover, the cabinet appointments are without term and thus are held

at the pleasure of the cabinet. Limits on reimbursement of appointees

are removed. The ministry centralized control is also strengthened by

its power to fine each board member $2,000 per offence for failing to

follow the ministry's directives on compensation of managers."

You know, when you take all of those things into account, Mr.

Speaker — not just a matter of centralizing power but actually being

able to punish the members of the board who do not carry out the

instructions of the government — that's the reason we are concerned. In

addition to that, the ministry is now giving the Ministry of Finance

this additional power in terms of appointing outside corporations or

individuals to do this audit.

I think the amendment at least gives a little bit of protection,

because what it says is when the Minister of Finance decides not to use

the comptroller-general, then the Minister of Finance has to use the

auditor-general. Somehow we have some accountability then to the

Legislature by these two individuals. There's no accountability in

terms of Clarkson, Gordon or any of the other outside firms that the

Minister of Finance may decide to use.

[11:45]

I agree with the Minister of Education that really this is an issue which we

are going to have to raise again under the estimates of the Minister of Finance,

because clearly the Minister of Education has lost this round. The Minister

of Finance has intruded on his jurisdiction and has taken away from him the

power to make final decisions in this particular area. We are continually being

concerned about the way in which the Minister of Finance has been kicked around

by his cabinet colleagues. If there is anything at all that we can do to sustain

the Minister of Finance, that's what we would like to do. And that's

the reason for this amendment. What this amendment does is give the Minister

of Education something with which to fight back. The Minister of Education can

say to the Minister of Finance, "Okay, if you want to intrude on my area

of responsibility and take responsibility for appointing an independent audit,

it has to be the auditor-general," rather than be in a position to accept

whoever the Minister of Finance, in his fancy, should decide to give the job

to.

I am hoping that the Minister of Education will recognize that the

opposition is on his side and trying to be supportive and helpful, and

is attempting to protect him from his colleagues in cabinet. At the

same time, we are protecting the people of British Columbia and the

communities, in terms of ensuring that the person doing the audit is

accountable to somebody — to either the Legislature, the minister or

the communities themselves.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I don't expect to speak long on this

part of the amendment, and that will probably comes as good news to

members of the government.

Yesterday I tried to offer four reasonable amendments: one about

consultation — a definition; one which protected certain course

offerings of institutions against the power of the minister to change

the offerings of particular colleges, making certain that course

offerings were determined, to the largest possible extent by the

community and according to community needs; another in which I asked

for continuation for the indirectly elected school trustees; and

finally, one about broadly representative, public-at-large people

representing faculty, students and other consumers and people involved.

It was quite obvious that there was intransigence. Even with these

rather mild amendments, there could have been a signal from the

minister that he was prepared to accept things which were part of our

tradition — that is, appointed and indirectly elected boards. It became

obvious yesterday that he wasn't going to do that. He was going to bull

it through, no matter what happened, and let the chips fall where they

may. There was a signal here that he was....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are still speaking to the amendment to

section 15.

MR. ROSE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your advice on that matter.

What I was attempting to say was that we're dealing with an

amendment appointing the auditor-general as the audit person — to

replace

section 59. Because of the activities of the minister

yesterday, and his refusal to allow anything reasonable, I wouldn't

expect him, even if this were the perfect solution to all his problems,

to accept it now. Somehow accepting an amendment from the opposition

would make the minister look weak. I'm concerned about the way he's

operating here. We have the members for North Vancouver–Seymour and

Omineca (Mr. Davis and Mr. Kempf) over there, and they are certainly

well known for sometimes expressing their independent-mindedness. I

can't believe that there are no members on the other side who harbour

doubts about the way this whole Bill 20 is going through.

We find it unacceptable and we're not going to vote for it. I would

hope that there might be somebody somewhere who would get to the

minister and say: "What you're doing here is not a very good idea in

various spots." A few mild little amendments which might have given a

little bit of democracy back to Bill 20 have been turned down. Any kind

of reasonable thing would have been a signal, but all they signalled

was stubbornness and intransigence. I think that is probably going to

be regretted by the minister, because instead of

[ Page 1432 ]

having a cooperative constituency to deal with in the colleges, he's

going to be faced with a group of men and women who feel they've been

hammered by his legislation.

I won't say any more about this proposed amendment, but I think it

will ultimately suffer the same fate because the minister rejects it,

as he did the four which I put forward yesterday.

Amendment negatived.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. ROSE: There is a wording change that has occurred earlier

in the act and subsequently as well, and I would like the minister's

explanation for the fact that the word "corporation" has been removed

and "institution" substituted. It occurs in a number of sections. It

also occurs in 16.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: In explanation for that, since we have

removed councils there is no need to make reference to institutions and

corporations, so the idea is to strike out "corporation" and just use

the word "institution" because the councils will no longer exist after

this bill is passed.

MR. ROSE: I don't understand the explanation of the minister.

He suggests that since councils are no longer there, there is no need

for the word "corporation." Does it have something to do with the

definition of a corporation in the original act?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear originally.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's new?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: That's very good, North Island.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I keep hoping that you are going to turn out reasonably well.

We had councils and we had institutions. We defined them as

corporations, Now we've got rid of councils so we refer to the colleges

as institutions and that is all that is necessary.

MR. ROSE: I would still like to get a legal opinion of why

"corporation" was used in the first place. Is the minister telling the

House that "corporation" in the original act was of dubious legality?

Was it a fuzzy definition in the first place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I really don't think the question posed is

relevant. The reason the word "corporation" was used in the first place

doesn't appear to me to be relevant to this new act.

MR. ROSE: It may or may not be, but we're trying to find out

why this was done. Was it because a "corporation" was considered an

autonomous body and since the colleges are no longer autonomous you

can't use the word "corporation" any longer?

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to answer the hon. member's question. The answer is yes.

Sections 16 through 36 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

MR. LAUK: Has leave been asked? Were there recorded votes last time to be reported to the House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, there weren't.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 20, College and Institute Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I wish I could say the same about the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), the original Grinch.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Isn't that parliamentary? I think he'd regard that as a compliment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Alfred E. Neumann.

MR. LAUK: The only time your eyes clear up is when you cut yourself shaving.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Come on!

MR. LAUK: I'm just waiting for the House to settle down.

As we started out the debate on Bill 4 this morning, on several

occasions it was pointed out that this dramatic reversal of policy on

the part of the government is not entirely based on restraint measures.

At the same time that this government has been introducing restraint

measures for ordinary people, it has increased incentives to wealthy

people. I think it can be argued quite clearly and honestly and fairly

that the people at the upper levels of income in this province — an

exclusive few — are benefiting from this government. They expected to

benefit from this government; that's why they donated funds to their

campaign, and that's why they worked in the campaign for the Social

Credit Party and are benefiting from the Social Credit Party.

[ Page 1433 ]

[12:00]

During the election campaign a false and deceptive fact sheet went

around — I think it has already been referred to in this debate —

claiming that to do away with the renter's tax credit and the personal

income tax credit was to preserve the treasury funds for SAFER, GAIN

and other payments to senior citizens and people on welfare. That

statement is false. It's totally and absolutely deceptive. It was

designed to blackmail the voter at the lower end of the income scale.

The minister has claimed that anywhere from $70 million to $82 million

will be saved by doing away with these tax credits. Whatever money has

been saved has been poured down the drain, for incentives to major

corporations on the one hand or for the very wealthy in the province on

the other.

The statement made by the Social Credit Party during the election

campaign was a deliberate lie and deception on the people of the

province to gain electoral success. It was a form of blackmail, where

senior citizens would be worried: "Well, if I'm going to lose any

increase on my GAIN...." Or a social assistance person would say:

"If I'm going to lose any chance of an increase in my allowance because

of the tax credit, I'm not going to be as concerned about them."

Therefore you could see that the manoeuvre of the Social Credit Party

was at least to neutralize the issue in the minds of the voter — that

is to say, that vast group of people who were concerned about it. As

the minister pointed out when he introduced the legislation in 1981,

these tax credits would be paid to almost 40 percent of the population

of the province.

I'm reminded of the statements by W.A.C. Bennett, who thought of

himself as a pioneer in terms of the guaranteed annual income. He

argued that the total welfare state was a mistake. He argued that we

should go to some form of tax credits on income tax and other graduated

tax legislation, which was progressive and reflected ability to pay,

and that we should move toward a guaranteed annual income, a sort of

negative income tax. This is the kind of move that was being made. We

started it with some of our legislation, and we thought that this

government would continue in that light, in the tradition of the old

Social Credit Party.

What has happened is that this new Social Credit Party has taken a

giant leap back into the early 1930s or late 1920s, when Simon Fraser

Tolmie was Premier of the province and R.B. Bennett was Prime Minister

of Canada. He said that "the only thing that can save us from this

recession" — as they were then calling it.... The word "depression"

wasn't used until the mid-thirties; you and I don't remember that, but

some of the older folks here do.

At that time, in answer to the recessionary problems of this

country, America and Europe, people like R.B. Bennett, Herbert Hoover

and Simon Fraser Tolmie said: "If you give incentives to the rich,

incentives to the corporate wealth, they will invest in the economy."

That was the theory, and any kind of "relief" as it became known later

on in the depression years, was really a disincentive that would slow

the economy. There was the argument in those days that a consumer-led

recovery was not possible. You had to have a trickle-down theory,

placing wealth in the hands of the very rich, and because of their

natural instinct for the good of the nation, they would create jobs and

wealth through their investment. It didn't happen, the depression got

worse, unemployment rose, families were poor, the relief lines got

longer, and the soup kitchens sprang up in every municipality and

village in the country. Was it because the depression was getting

worse, or was it because of the antiquated ideas of these men of the

time? I argue that it was because of the antiquated ideas, because as

soon as administrations came into power in those jurisdictions in which

these ideas had been tried, and some reversals in policy occurred,

unemployment went down, the relief lines started to shrink, and the

economy started to generate wealth and jobs.

By 1939 we were by no means out of the bad times, because the

band-aid solutions, if you like, even though they were reversals of

policy from the old antiquated idea of trickle down from the top,

weren't enough. In many cases it was too little too late, but at least

they were on the road back.

Part of that bridge in bad times between a good economy and the

recovery of the economy — in other words, that period of time when we

are in recession.... Part of the way to help ordinary

income-earners bridge that difficult time, providing them with a

bridge, a footpath, a little modest assistance, was the income tax

credit and the renter's tax credit. It is not a brilliant innovative

stroke of genius, although we supported the legislation of 1981. It

wasn't a brilliant idea, but it was a start, for two reasons. People

needed the money. I am not going to refer to them, as some of my

colleagues have — I think quite wrongly — as the poor and the needy. I

haven't heard expressions like that for a long time. I think they are

not the poor and the needy; 40 percent of the population were receiving

these tax grants. When it was introduced these were employed people.

I say to you, the people in the Social Credit Party: this isn't a

giveaway. I find it amusing that the minister, when he introduced this

amendment to do away with the renter's tax credit and the personal tax

credit, would say: "This will save approximately $82 million of the

taxpayers' money." I should point out that of the total number of

people paying income tax, 30 percent would have been eligible for one

or more of these credits, and one-quarter of all of the taxes paid to

this government is paid by that group of people who would have been

eligible for the tax credits. The argument that it will save the

taxpayers $82 million is nonsense. It will save only the very top few

who have received incentives from this government. The people who would

have been eligible for these tax credits were taxpayers too, the

majority of them, and paid a good percentage of the total taxes under

this income tax provision. You are not saving them money when you take

money away from them, because this is a tax credit, cash paid out of

the treasury to these people to supplement their income, as a negative

tax or, if you like, a guaranteed minimum income.

Clearly what has happened as a result of these policies is this: we

look across the country and we see that the economy is gradually

improving; consumer purchasing is up in other provinces; unemployment

is down in other provinces; job creation is up in other provinces — all

except in British Columbia. The only province in the country to have

increased unemployment has been British Columbia. That's as a result of

Bill 4 and all of the budget legislation.

Under Social Credit British Columbia has become like Brigadoon.

We're a jurisdiction that's fallen out of sight. We're frozen in time.

The only politicians in Canada that seem to want to go back to the days

of Simon Fraser Tolmie, Herbert Hoover and R.B. Bennett are these

financial wizards over here. They've seen the results in the first

quarter after the introduction of the budget: it's the only province in

the country where unemployment is up. I think there are only one or two

other provinces in the country that have a higher unemployment rate. We

used to be called the richest and most

[ Page 1434 ]

progressive province in Canada, and with some justification. We

could look quite proudly, being opposition or government members in

this House, and tell people visiting us that it was a great province.

We could create more jobs with resources and increased production. New

Canadian families were welcome to migrate to British Columbia. We

needed them; we needed their skills and contribution. We had the best

highway system, education system and we had the best this and we had

the best that. We had the highest participation rate in universities in

Canada. Since this administration has taken power we have the lowest

participation rate in universities. We have the third-highest

unemployment rate; in fact, probably the second-highest....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Second-highest? It's moving up every day like a

thermometer. We have the richest resource base in the country, in the

world, and the second highest unemployment rate in Canada. If you look

at it and say, "It's improving everywhere else but here," what are we

doing wrong?

This government tends to blame everybody and everything. They throw

up their hands and say: "There's nothing we can do about it. We're not

going to shovel money out of the back of the truck to try to create a

recovery in our recession." I'll show you in a moment where they have.

They're just not giving the money to the people who are going to spend

it in the economy to create jobs. They're giving the money to their

friends — to the rich and to the wealthy — whose tendency is not to

invest in bad times. The opposite of the theory occurs; it's always

done that. Yet these woolly-headed, fuzzy-headed, right-wing economists

— the government — are leading you around by the nose. The Michael

Walkers and Walter Blocks are fuzzy-headed economists. These people

have no basis in practical life or economic situations. We all know

that. You don't need a degree in economics to know that these

hare-brained schemes of the Fraser Institute are nothing but pure

fantasy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us about the Bank of Commerce and your philosophy on economics.

MR. LAUK: Are you here to clean the floors or what? What are you doing walking through like that? Keep walking.

Interjection.

[12:15]

MR. LAUK: What did that sparkling wit from North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) say? I'm sure they are upset, Mr.

Speaker. I'm sure they all want to walk out because I'm telling them a

little bit of home truth. It doesn't work. You failed badly; the facts

speak for themselves. You failed in your economic program. There's

nothing worse than the doctrinaire, inflexible, ideological approach

taken by a rightwing government. In the face of their failure they

refuse to step back for the sake of the people and the province. The

arrogant ministers sit in their seats unmoved by our arguments. They

are unmoved by the facts: unemployment and the violence of their

programs on ordinary people....

I've just received word that a group of 90 or so individuals are

occupying the Premier's office in the city of Vancouver. I don't agree

with lawlessness; these people must be advised to use a rational

approach and not break the law. But this government must understand the

strong feelings of ordinary British Columbians about the result of this

devastating and draconian budget, and the violence that it perpetrates

on ordinary, decent families. The cause of unemployment can be directly

related to the thirteenth-century economic views of this government. To

say that they had a mandate on May 5 for the combination of legislation

that has caused this devastation in the province is an absolute

travesty and totally untrue. They can spread rumours all over the world

about how the polls are showing them still strong with the people; the

truth of the matter is that there is a point in time when you must show

real leadership and courage.

The strongest political leader is the man

or woman who can stand back from a decision they've made and say: "It

doesn't work; we'll look at it again." With stubbornness and

unprecedented arrogance they sit and watch the violent struggle of

ordinary people to survive as a result of their policies. A theory that

doesn't work, in a process that leads to violence in the family, crime

in the streets and unemployment; an attack on the labour between

management and labour in this province that's unprecedented;

destruction of the social fabric of British Columbia and the economic

harmony between labour and management that was beginning to grow and

develop a history of labour peace.... It's clear that the people of

British Columbia, whether they vote Social Credit, NDP, Liberal or

Conservative, want peace in the world and peace at home. They don't

want the extremist policies of ideologues, right or left. They want

conciliation. They want reason. I say that the occupation of the

Premier's office in Vancouver, or any other step...

HON. MR. BENNETT: The cabinet office.

MR. LAUK: The cabinet office.

...in breach of the law, should not be encouraged. But the

government must understand their solemn responsibility, in that the

violence of their budget legislation has led to these kinds of

irrational actions by people so desperate they've been forced into some

kind of action to bring their plight to the attention of the

government. It's not enough for us to say the law must be enforced

against these helpless people. What we must say is that government must

with reason conciliate; must reduce the kind of fear, animosity and

violence in this society that this government has encouraged through

their legislation; must step back from this ideological, inflexible and

stubborn stand and take another look at what's happening. It is in your

hands, I say. It's in the hands of the government to conciliate. The

people of this province want peace on the international scene and they

also want peace at home.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Peace in our time.

MR. LAUK: The Premier jokes about peace in our time. I'll

tell you, the kind of violence created by this budget and this

legislation is a national disgrace and scandal. Families are splitting

up. Trade union leaders and management are wringing their hands at the

possibility — indeed, almost the inevitability — of the kind of

disruption this government's budget legislation has created in labour-management relations.

What do they do when they ask other people to restrain themselves

and when they cut off the renter's tax credit and the personal tax

credit from ordinary people? Do they restrain

[ Page 1435 ]

themselves? In 1979 this government had a solemn warning of the

inevitability of a recession in the 1980s. In 1981 the opposition moved

to amend their budget to trim it by $85 million. Isn't it a coincidence

that the saving that the hon. minister wishes to make by Bill 4 is $82

million? What did we ask them to trim? Any essential service, hospital

or education costs? No. We asked them to trim back the increase they

were asking for office furniture. We asked them to trim back the

increase they wanted for ministerial travel. Did they really have to

make that trip to New York to see a Broadway show? Did they really have

to make that trip to London to visit Buckingham Palace? Could they have

stayed home? Was it really necessary to send the minister along on a

trade mission to Tokyo? We moved to reduce their budgets in office

space, and we moved to reduce their budgets in advertising. We know how

they spent the taxpayers' money by the tens of millions to brainwash

and convince the ordinary people of this province to vote Social

Credit. Public funds. And that came to a total of $85 million in 1981.

In the next year we moved the same things. We didn't ask them to

eliminate their budgets. We asked them to eliminate the increases they

asked for from the previous year on those items: office furniture,

ministerial travel, office space and advertising. That came to about

$75 million. Well over $160 million was proposed to be trimmed from

those two budgets, which would have more than covered the tax

incentives and tax credits that are being eliminated by Bill 4. Somehow

they don't, in their narrow, dinosaur view of the economy, understand

what productivity in the economy means. When you provide hard-working

families who are on the lower end of the income scale with an extra

$150 to $400 or $500 a year, as these tax credits could do, every dime

of that is spent. That creates jobs. That circulates money in the

economy. When you've got 40 percent of the population with those tax

credits spending that money, you've got a consumer-led improvement in

the economic situation. It's quite substantial, because that $82

million multiplies itself through the system.

But that, to this government, is not a productive investment at all.

Somehow, giving an investment for Billy Bonds is productive. We've

reckoned that 40 percent of families are losing anywhere from $150 to

$500 by the elimination of the tax credits and that a handful of

people, 2 percent of the population, is receiving substantial gains.

For each investment in Billy Bonds they receive substantial gains and

incentives through this government, because the provincial bonds are

exempt from taxation to encourage people to buy them. I don't know

anyone who is eligible for a renter's tax credit and personal income

tax credit, because of low income, who can afford to invest in Billy

Bonds. The wealthiest 2 percent of the population are the ones who are

benefiting, proof positive that this government wishes to enrich the

wealthy few, and make to sacrifice and suffer the rest of us who are at

the low income levels.

Their recent announcement in energy policy is another move in this

direction. Take that window that the government had on the petroleum

and gas industry in this province and eliminate it, and sell out to the

major corporations in those areas. Enrich the huge, wealthy

corporations and reduce the revenue to government thereby.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we return to the bill, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: I'm pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that if you reduce

your revenue from those other areas, an even greater burden is placed

on the shoulders of ordinary people. As I pointed out earlier, the

people who would have been eligible for the tax credit make up to 40

percent of the population and, I think, 30 percent of taxpayers, and

pay almost 25 percent of all income tax. These people don't know these

things. They don't seem to understand. These are the people who must

pay more. These are the people who have suffered most through the

recession and who must suffer still more because of the

backward-thinking policies of the government.

Let's talk for a moment about the people who are really on the lower

end of the income scale. Here we have a situation with regard to BCRIC

shares — this government's idea of productivity. It's a paper game, Mr.

Speaker, a purely paper game. They thought that privatizing government

assets under the hybrid corporation BCRIC was somehow going to create

new and innovative forms of wealth. It's been a total and abject

failure. B.C. Timber is losing scads of money through incredibly stupid

business decisions.

MR. PARKS: Do you have proof of that?

MR. LAUK: Wasn't that alleged in the press yesterday? Are you

denying that has happened? Are you saying that B.C. Timber is not

losing money?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think we can avoid all the

crossfire and that type of thing if we return to the principle of Bill

4: tax credits and renters' credits.

MR. LAUK: I am, Mr. Speaker. B.C. Timber is not losing money? Am I wrong?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. LAUK: Oh, it's making money, then?

MR. PARKS: The Bank of Commerce is still with us, I see.

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see. We've hit a sore point with the

ministers here, have we? It's not sore with me. If it weren't for a

billion dollars of the taxpayers' money, the Bank of Commerce would not

be here. You and every Canadian know that. I find the members on the

opposite side breathtakingly ignorant of the banking system.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, once again, we are on Bill 4,

the Income Tax Amendment Act. It is quite specific, and I think we've

gone well beyond the scope of what would be considered rational,

reasonable and relevant debate for and during Bill 4.

[12:30]

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the idea of productivity of this

Social Credit government is really this paper chase — this paper money

theory. They've come full circle from Major Douglas and the A plus B

financial theory of days gone by. Do you remember that? They wanted to

print money in the basement and circulate it among people, not

understanding in the least that money has no intrinsic value of its

own; it must represent wealth within the economy — goods and services.

It took them two generations to figure that one out. It's the

[ Page 1436 ]

same with BCRIC. I know you're laughing, Mr. Speaker, but it did

take the Socreds two generations to figure that out, as hard as it is

to believe. Now week after week they're pumping out treasury bills in

the basement to pay for the groceries, for operating costs, racking up

the biggest deficits in the history of this province, their credit

rating in New York declining from triple-A to double-A, sliding down

the tube.

As the whole country is improving in its economic situation, British

Columbia is going up in unemployment and down in consumer sales.

British Columbia is suffering. All of the rest of the provinces are

beginning to improve. What's happened here? Are they still throwing up

their hands and saying: "My gosh, it's got something to do with the

world economy?" That's what they've been saying for two years. Do you

know what it has to do with? It has to do with this backward, negative

kind of thinking on the part of the Social Credit government — the

wrecking crew. They're wrecking labour-management relations. They're

wrecking the harmony within the social fabric of this province. They're

wrecking the economic system. They are a wrecking crew of a government.

Their legislation is designed to wreck the harmony and peace and

conciliatory attitudes of ordinary British Columbians in this province.

It's a scandal of the highest proportion.

I know of people who have worked very hard all their lives. I know

of one man, now retired and living in the east end of Vancouver, who

worked for 35 years for the Canadian Pacific Railway. He retired some

years ago — he's an old man — on a pension of $25 per month. That was

the company pension available to him at that time. It has improved, but

only slightly; I think it's now up to $50 or something, but it's a

gratuitous change in their pension structure by the railway itself. So

he has to rely on the various incomes provided through guarantees,

government grants and so on. Is he a bum? Is he the one we call a

welfare bum? Is he the one who is a drain on the economy? Is he one of

the people whom the Social Credit described as a drag on the economy,

dragging us all down, those who don't have the innovation to get out

there and create jobs and inherit a department store? Is he the one who

is supposed to be the villain in this piece?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam says: "What a cynic!"

MR. PARKS: What a disgusting cynic!

MR. LAUK: I say that insult by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam cannot go unanswered. How can he come in the

House, when a large proportion of the people he's supposed to represent

are in the very category I'm describing now, and say I'm a cynic?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: This bill is doing exactly that.

I can't believe the cross-comment from that hon. member. I know he's

a new member, but he's revealing a complete and utter misunderstanding

of this kind of program and legislation — and a complete

misunderstanding of the economic system. If this government were to

took intelligently at how to improve the economy, I think they wouldn't

be going through these processes. I'm convinced that these are

political moves based on a very narrow, ideological, inflexible,

doctrinaire political theory. I believe the Social Credit

administration has moved against ordinary people because somehow they

feel they are powerless in the democratic and economic system. The

people who would benefit, the very few who are the wealthiest in this

province, have the power and influence over the governing party of the

day, and I think that's a sad thing.

I think the arrogance and inflexibility of this government will long

be remembered by ordinary people in British Columbia. I'm not going to

bother to urge the Social Credit Party to withdraw this bill. It's

sufficient that we oppose it. They've demonstrated arrogance and

stubbornness to the extent where any appeal to reason or their sense of

leadership and responsibility is absolutely futile. I regret that very

much.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm surprised to find us here discussing this

bill today. I was certainly surprised a year ago when the Minister of

Finance, under the shade of a long weekend, made the announcement that

this particular move was contemplated by his government. I thought that

surely he had made a mistake. I couldn't believe that he would have

changed his mind so drastically from the time that he so proudly

introduced this piece of legislation that today he is attempting to

repeal. Those of us who were in the House when he introduced the

legislation will recall the pride with which he outlined his

government's plan to help people of lower incomes. May 19, 1981, was

the date, Mr. Speaker. He detailed what this credit would do. He talks

about tax-filers as opposed to taxpayers, which indicated that that

minister at least recognized the fact that there were people living in

this province who had such limited incomes as not to pay income tax. He

recognized that. He was talking about helping them. He said:

This is a very important distinction and one that has been generally

overlooked in the commentary.... The word tax-filer is used because the tax

credit is fully refundable. Therefore many British Columbians who do not pay

income tax, such as students and senior citizens with low incomes, will still

be eligible to receive the full amount of the credit in the form of a cash refund

from government. To claim the credit, all they have to do is file a 1981 tax

return.

He went on to tell how much it was and how much it was going to help

a family and how much it was going to cost the government. He estimated

that it would be something like $70 million. The cost of $70 million,

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest is somewhat less than the expenditures

that the opposition covered in that same fiscal year, which could have

been removed through simply accepting the opposition's amendments to

reduce the government's expenditures in the field of travel and

ministerial expenses, office furniture and so on.

But certainly, Mr. Speaker, when the minister introduced this

legislation into the House, he indicated that he did recognize that

there was a very great need to help those people of lower means. He

indicated that this would be fair, and in fact when he summed up the

bill he said:

No one likes to pay taxes. What we have attempted to do with Bill 10

is spread the burden as evenly and equitably as possible. I believe

that we have achieved this. I believe that the small business rate

reduction, the low-income tax credit and the higher-income tax

surcharge are designed to take us towards that equality which this

government seeks.

[ Page 1437 ]

Well, that equality lasted for one year, and then suddenly we hear

that the minister intends, without any legislative authority, somewhere

down the road — on the weekend of November 11, 1982 — to withdraw this;

not to withdraw the surcharge on the higher incomes, no, but to

withdraw the tax credit for the low incomes. That's certainly not in

the name of equality — the equality the minister talked with pride

about achieving back in May. The equality which this government seeks

didn't last very long.

I had sincerely hoped that, in fact, the minister was mistaken or at

least would recognize the error of his decision. We've heard a lot

about second looks. We used to hear a lot about second looks during the

years of W.A.C. Bennett. I had hoped that this minister would have also

had a second look — or a third look, really, because this is his second

look. He decided that the equality he talked about apparently was not

in the direction that government wanted to go, nor was it, according to

the minister, in the best interests of that government or of the

province. We certainly disagree.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I can't really believe that he meant what he said when he explained

his reason: that it wasn't any good because it all came in one lump

sum. It proves to me that that minister really doesn't understand what

happens in a low-income family. You make do; you get along with the

shoes that are run over and worn out. You get along with the sheets

that are worn to tissue-paper thinness, the blankets that are not quite

warm enough. You get along with the old electric stove that's really a

bit of a hazard or the fridge that doesn't always work. You get along

with those things because every cent of the only money you have is

needed to put food on the table, to pay that power bill, to pay the

necessary transportation costs, the rent — all of those basic costs

that come around month after month after month. There is nothing for

the extras. Nothing.

At the time that announcement was made, the Vancouver Sun of

November 16 surveyed some of the people who had been eligible about

what they were planning to do with this lump-sum payment. "Judy Kobza

was counting on the money from provincial government tax credits to buy

mattresses, clothing and linen for herself and her five children."

Surely those are worthwhile needs. She's a single mother on welfare,

living in Surrey, who now won't see that $270 she was expecting. So the

kids keep on sleeping on the lumpy mattress. They go on wearing the

worn, patched clothing, the shoes that are run over and have holes in

the soles. No more sheets, no warm blankets. Is that fair? Is that the

equality that minister talked about? Is that this government's idea of

equality?

[12:45]

The

article says: "Dorcas Wong, who lives in downtown eastside

senior citizens' housing, used last year's tax credit to pay her rent,

buy food and medicine." Now she will not receive that. Her income was

$400 a month at that time, and barely enough to get by on. Last year

she received a $235 tax credit. This made the difference between being

able to get by and not being able to get by.

Another Wong — same last name, different first name — who was a

coordinator of senior citizens' club operated by the Downtown Eastside

Residents Association, says that she knows at least a thousand other

people who will be in that same position, or would have been last fall.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: She fills out tax returns for the Chinese

community, and she said — and I think rightly so — that those people in

that low-income position were counting on that. They had it one year,

and they found it extremely beneficial. It was just that little bit

extra that made the difference, and now it is not there. A woman was

hired by the federal government to assist residents in filing their

income tax. She filled out 1,763 returns, according to this particular

press release, and her assessment was that you really are looking at a

tax credit for the poor, the disabled and senior citizens. She said:

"These people look forward to the tax credit rebate and many use it to

pay debts, for groceries, in dry-goods stores or to buy clothing. There

is no way that the people I filled out forms for would have any money

for extravagance." We're looking at food and shelter, and yet that's

now going to be gone if this legislation is passed.

That is certainly one of the difficulties with this bill. It is

unfair. It is striking at that one segment of the community. When the

minister introduced it, he apparently recognized that they needed that

assistance, but now it is to be withdrawn if this bill is passed.

Because I want to deal at some length with this relative to the

retroactive nature and the method the government has used in announcing

it — the confusion that has been caused, the delays that have been

caused and are still undertermined and still no legal authority — I

therefore move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of

the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:50 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada