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 23, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1903 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 (Bill 7). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

Section 1 –– 1903

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Rose

On the amendment to

section 2 –– 1907

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

section 6 –– 1909

Mr. Blencoe

Ms. Brown

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 26). Second reading.

Mr. Mitchell –– 1911

Mr. Lea –– 1912

Royal assent to bills –– 1916

Appendix –– 1917

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a very

active community worker from Surrey who is in the gallery today. Not

only is she an active community worker, she's one of the hardest

workers in the Surrey Social Credit constituency. I would like to ask

the House to welcome Joy Fisher.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I would like all members to bid

a very cordial welcome to Mr. James Midwinter, who is the ambassador

designate to Venezuela. Mr. Midwinter has had a very long and

distinguished record in Canadian public affairs, and we would like not

only to welcome him to B.C. but to wish him the very best in his new

posting.

MS. BROWN: I guess what I'm about to do is quite unusual, Mr.

Speaker, but I would just like to issue a very special thanks to the

person who led us in prayer and to say that I really was moved by that

prayer.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 7.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 1), 1983

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. NICOLSON: This bill amends many different statutes.

Section 1 amends the Assessment Act

"…by repealing subsection (7) and substituting the following:

(7) Land and improvements shall, for other than general municipal purposes,

be assessed at the percentage of actual value fixed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

under subsection (8), and by repealing subsections (11) to (20) and substituting

the following:

(11) Land and improvements shall, for general municipal purposes,

be assessed at their actual value."

Mr. Chairman, in theory this would be the law; in fact, many classes of property

are not assessed at actual value. An old hotel in Ainsworth, the first mining

town in the Kootenays, has been assessed. First of all they wrote down the replacement

value. If this building which was constructed in 1896 were to be reconstructed

today, there would be a replacement value, I believe, of $147,000. The assessment

is not $147,000; in fact the building portion of that improvement is assessed

at about $33,000. Mr. Chairman, I was rather curious to find out how they had

come up with the so-called "actual value," which is referred to here

section 1.

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman, for many classes of property there is no such thing as

actual value. So while the explanatory note to

section 1 says that this

amendment establishes actual value as the tax base for municipal

purposes while retaining the present system of establishing assessed

value for other purposes, Mr. Chairman, there is de facto for many

types of unusual properties no such a thing as actual value; so that

for municipal purposes there are people that are being taxed on the

base of a WAG. I won't explain the acronym, because it might not be

quite parliamentary, but I think that most erudite members of this

House would know what a WAG is. Sometimes a WAG is used in scientific

investigation in coming up with a conclusion. I will give you some

clues, however. W stands for "wild" and G stands for "guess," but I

will leave up to the imagination of hon. members what A stands for

because, Mr. Chairman, it could be ruled as unparliamentary if I were

to....

I would submit what they call the actual value in this case is a WAG

because there aren't many hotels of frame construction in somewhat

remote areas — not even presently being used as hotels — up for sale

with a willing buyer and willing seller.

That is the basis of property assessment and the way in which one

arrives at actual value. In fact the assessment process is one whereby

you look at comparable sales which have taken place recently, hopefully

in areas close by the subject property. The other thing is that you

make some correction factors for the square footage of the two

properties, especially when you are looking at the buildings. It is not

so difficult to find what the market value of a piece of land is worth

and thereby come up with an actual value, but finding out what some of

these old and historic buildings are worth does create quite a

conundrum.

I am convinced that on the assessment rolls of our province there

are many — and this is just one example of how this can come about —

WAGs that are really not true or actual values. It isn't too often that

a building constructed prior to the turn of the century for the purpose

of being a hotel, no longer qualifying as a hotel because it would be

almost impossible to bring such a building up to standard, yet the

owners are almost compelled by any sort of moral decency and

consideration to preserve the heritage of these buildings.... But

people who would undertake this responsibility on behalf of all British

Columbians find themselves in the position of being discriminated

against, or at least paying for the privilege of preserving the

heritage of British Columbia.

So that is something that I feel is missing in this particular

amendment to the Assessment Act. Here we're going to be establishing

actual value as the tax base for municipal purposes. I know exactly

what that does. Instead of the assessed value — because, of course, we

have assessed values which are sometimes percentages of actual values

for other purposes, like hospitals and other functions.... This whole

business is really quite a bit of flimflam because it goes back to the

days when we suppressed the concept of a true evaluation when we froze

assessments for years and years, and assessments got so out of line

with actual value that people got used to the concept of perhaps being

able to sell their property for three, four or five times what the

assessed value was. So while we have an assessment which comes down

from time to time, we note on our actual tax form, or even on our

assessment form, that while the actual value is rated at

[ Page 1904 ]

one thing, maybe $125,000, we'll see that the

assessment for school tax, and now for municipal purposes, will be at

actual value.

So, Mr. Chairman, once again we are tinkering with the system, which

is not on the whole a very healthy system. It needs a lot more

fundamental examination. We've had this system in effect now for seven

years or so — going to the 100 percent evaluation as the basis of

computing all the different assessment values for taxation purposes.

We're tinkering around with this. It's really a companion piece of

legislation with another piece that was passed in the House, allowing

flexibility, I suppose, to municipalities in other parts of this bill.

But the whole concept contained in

Section 1 is simply, in fact,

changing a base. But it's a factor of another thing. Really, it isn't

going to alter municipal taxation in any substantial way. What we've

been doing, and what we're now going to do, is say that, well, the

value with a willing buyer and a willing seller is a certain figure. We

have then factored this down and set a regulation. We factor it down by

maybe 20 percent, 15 percent or 22.5 percent — some figure like that —

so it doesn't look quite as high, quite as imposing. So people think:

"Gee whiz, I'm getting quite a break. My house is really worth about

$150,000 and the Assessment Authority, after I went, say, to the court

of revision, knocked it down to maybe $125,000. So I really got away

with something there. Now I'm getting a real break because they're

scaling and factoring this down. While I know it's worth that, I'm only

assessed for these purposes at the rate of $30,000." People are being a

little, supposedly, conned. I don't think they are being conned.

What we should be doing is not adjusting the assessment value or the

actual value, making this kind of change. We should be adjusting the

mill rates. Because what you come up with is: you have a budget and the

budget has to be met. What you do is you look at what that assessment

will raise in terms of a budget, and from that you compute your mill

rate. For a mathematician this whole process is absolutely ridiculous.

This particular amendment is absolutely unnecessary. You have an

equation in which you pump this into the equation in order.... In other

words, you divide this assessment into the budget, and you come up with

the mill rate. Then you apply the mill rate to people by taking their

actual value and then determining whether it's going to be a percentage

of the actual value or the straight actual value. You multiply the

actual value by the mill rate, and come up with what the local property

owner's tax bill is to be. So we've taken a constant A, put it into the

first formula, and multiplied the factor A by the total assessment to

the district; in the second instance we then divide by A. If you

multiply by A and then divide by A, as long as A does not equal zero

you come out with the answer 1. To multiply something by 1 is the most

futile, most useless and most unnecessary thing in terms of

mathematics, and that is really what we've been doing. What this

amendment proposes is that we stop dealing with A in this instance.

We're not eliminating that factor in other areas, just in the case of

municipal taxation.

MR. ROSE: What about A plus B?

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that goes beyond my realm of competence.

Mr. Chairman, with those comments I had hoped the minister would actually explain

section 1 from his point of view.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I'm delighted to take

part in this

committee stage today, because property taxation has long been of

particular interest to me. Anyone who regards the whole matter of a

property taxation system that is fair, equitable and reasonable, and

that is based on something which I think all taxes should rest on —

that is, the ability to pay — has got to be aware that no system or

formula is going to be fair to everyone. There is no end to the number

of proposals, some particularly exotic, that have been put forward to

solve particular problems. The variable mill rate is only one of many

approaches to taxation and assessment policy. We thought that when we

moved into the assessment authority system we would remove a lot of

anomalies from the system; that through the assessment authority system

we would have a province-wide system of equity, and not the kind of

economic distortions which had occurred previously — in other words,

where some of the rural property tended to be underassessed and the

cities bore a greater burden. Anyone who thinks or believes the whole

matter is a simple one is certainly going to be misled on that score.

The Danish system of assessment is kind of intriguing. They had an

experiment in Denmark a number of years ago — I don't know if it still

persists — in which there was a system of self-assessment. In other

words, everybody decided the value of their own property: what value

would it bring to the market? They assigned the equivalent in krone —

or whatever the currency is — of particular value on their land or

their house or their general real property. That had certain risks,

though, because rather than have some assessor from the outside come in

and make a judgment about the value of that property based on the sales

of neighbouring property, and no other reason.... Oh, I know, you could

put in a few little sophistications, like square footage and whether

you had bricks up, shingles on your roof or a tar-and-gravel roof.

Those are all minor adjustments. The Danish approach was to allow that

property to be assessed by its owner. The owner was responsible for

telling the assessment authority what he regarded as a fair price for

his property. He would then be taxed on that property according to what

he regarded as a fair price. If the state didn't like that assessment,

they had the option of purchasing it at that price, or putting it up

for auction. That is the real true test of market value. If someone

under assessed his property in the hopes of avoiding some kind of taxes

— and there are many ways to avoid even property taxes if you have the

right kind of property — then he risked his property through that

underassessment. If the true market value of that property was much

more than its owner had assessed it at, he ran the risk of having it

sold at auction for a value higher than he assessed it at. Therefore it

put the onus on the owner rather than on somebody from the outside, no

matter how skilled that person was at comparing numbers and figures,

how skilled in that particular field.

[10:30]

There have been other attempts to find equity in property taxation.

There's the famous single-tax proposal, sometimes considered rather

exotic, by one Henry George. His idea was to tax on the basis of the

economic rent; not what the thing could be sold for, but what it would

bring if it were put up for rent. That has certain appeals, a certain

allure. Henry George is considered a sinister figure. We had a tax

expert in the

[ Page

1905 ]

ministry of lands and forests for a number of years who tended to be a Georgist.

He was considered a very threatening person. I've forgotten his name; it

doesn't really matter because he's gone now. I think a lot of these

things are a sincere attempt by people to achieve equity in taxation. It doesn't

take very long to see that there are many anomalies in the taxation process.

If that weren't the case, we would have no need at all for courts of revision.

Courts of revision were established to deal with that sort of an amenity that

occurs constantly in our taxation system.

A fair-minded approach to taxation is one that has eluded us in

North America, and also in Europe, not just for years but for

centuries. There's another proposal that some people make. They say it

really doesn't matter what a lot sells for, what its market value is,

but what the property is used for. That should determine its taxation,

not what you could get for it if you stripped away all your rights of

ownership. Often people are forced to sell because they can't afford to

pay the taxes; they have a higher assessment that would be justified by

its use. If you use only market value, you run into a number of severe

limitations. If you use your property as a home, says this theory, you

should pay less taxes than someone who holds the property as an

investment. That principle is established in the Assessment Authority

now. Unused property, property that is not being used for some purpose,

including farm purposes or a residence, is taxed at a higher rate than

property for which there is a particular use. Idle land for speculation

is taxed higher.

There are many sound arguments against that one as well. Economic

value assessment, which is what I'm talking about, should be an

underlying principle. The distinction between that and market value as

the basis for taxation has the fairness associated with it that its use

determines its value. The assessment is not based just on what would be

received if it were sold on the open market. That has a built-in

speculation side to it. For instance, if you're lucky enough to own a

piece of property next to a large urban centre, and you're using it for

a particular purpose, then that should be the basis for its market

value.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I'll give you an example. Suppose someone from the member for

Dewdney's riding happens to have a farm, or some property that he's

used all his life perhaps a home and an acre; it doesn't need to be a

farm and that land is located close to what we used to call Haney —

beautiful downtown Maple Ridge. Because of the contiguity, the

proximity to a large urban centre.... He may have lived there for 50

years. His father might have homesteaded the land before him. But

because that land is close to that urban centre, it follows that it's

worth a great deal more than an equivalent piece of property with an

identical use which is perhaps four, five or ten miles away from an

urban centre on a poor road system. So there is some justification for

that.

Similarly, if you only judge the value of land on the basis of its current

market value, then you run into other anomalies. Let's take that old farmer

who lives in Matsqui. The minister points to himself. I wonder that he didn't

get up on a question of privilege when I used the term "old." A mature

farmer. He's not an immigrant attracted to this country because of its social

welfare schemes and a number of other things that weren't available to him

in Ireland or some other place. He came to this land of opportunity where we

not only have opportunity for people to be enterprising, but we also have safety

nets in case they get into difficulty and need the help of the state. Let's

go back to the example of someone who lives in an area in Matsqui. That person

has lived there all his life. He may be retired; he may not. He may have children

living on the land. It becomes an area that's highly desirable for hobby

farms. This pioneering landholder is not particularly interested in a hobby

farm; he's interested in operating his land economically, within whatever

use he determines. Maybe he's a pre-zoning auto-wrecker. He could establish

that. He might be able to do it again right next to Chilliwack, right on the

border. on this rural land between Matsqui and Chilliwack. Let's suppose

this is the case, and suppose around him are a lot of professional men: you

know, highly paid school teachers, perhaps, or doctors who make a similar amount

each year. Or MLAs or some other professionals or semi-professionals, or those

pseudo-professionals who have the kind of presumption, who have aspirations

to become professionals. But suppose this becomes attractive to rich businessmen

who own seed and feed companies, and they want to get in there, not to farm,

but simply to use that land and enjoy all of the benefits, the allure of rural

living, and they're willing to pay almost anything for that property. It

may have a nice stream on it. You could make a pond, have a few horses, get

yourself a little old tractor and maybe a straw hat and say "Oh shucks"

a lot, or "Aw shucks," depending on whether you live in Matsqui or

Abbotsford. The point is that this is a piece of property that has been used

in its traditional sense, and because a professional man, or several professional

and successful business people, want to purchase that land, it kites the assessed

value of that man's property. He hasn't changed its use one iota. He

may not even want to sell that property, but he's going to be affected anyway.

So I'm putting forward the idea that under equal value assessment

you should be assessing it on the basis not merely of its market value,

but its particular use, how it might be employed, and how its use might

be changed. Then I think you can change its assessment. In the

meantime, a traditional landholder who has done nothing at all to

change the value, the nature or the use of his property, is affected

because some doctor, or several doctors or lawyers, bought hobby farms

of five and ten acres in his immediate vicinity. It affects his

assessment, and therefore his taxes. It also affects his ability to

pay. Someone who is accustomed to an income at perhaps the level of,

say, $13,000 or $14,000 a year, which is really the poverty line for a

family, may be quite happy with that in perpetuity. But if his

assessment is kited, if his assessment....

In addition to this skewing of land values, and therefore of

assessed values and ultimately taxes. you also have the other concept

which I hold dear, and many other people hold dear: that taxes should

be based not on what you own, or what theoretically you could sell your

property for, but on your ability to pay. This kind of approach to

taxation ignores the ability to pay. That is one of the basic faults

with all property value systems based solely on market value. There are

sometimes attempts to overcome this. Suppose we force this man off his

land. I'd like it understood that I believe in the concept of private

property, and so do all social democrats. Look all over northern

Europe, look at Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Britain. Regardless of

whether or not they've had social democratic institutions and

governments in the past, or may have them now or will in the future,

they still believe in the

[ Page 1906 ]

sanctity of private ownership. That is what people

by the millions came to this country for. They came from all over the

world, and what were they looking for besides freedom and opportunity?

The big allure was land, and land they could own. So anything that

distorts....

Mr. Chairman, the member over there who is in the wrong chair is

shaking his head. I don't know whether he disagrees that people come

for that purpose. Certainly they did originally, those people who were

serfs on the large feudal holdings of Europe.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

But let me get back to the point, which is that if a person is

forced off the land because he's unable to pay his taxes, then he has a

problem — not because of anything he did, but because some rich

doctors, lawyers, teachers, businessmen established hobby farms near

his land and raised his assessment. He can't pay his taxes, he has to

sell his farm, so where's he going to go and live? You give him no

alternative.

There is some attempt to protect people like that if they happen to

live in rural areas. It doesn't help them if they live in urban areas,

because if you're forced off your family property in urban areas — even

if you get a terrific price for it — you've got very little option but

to go somewhere and buy or rent some other dwelling. That works

extremely well, provided that those dwellings are available and

provided that whatever rent you are charged is within your means. What

I am saying is that the use has changed.

[10:45]

No direct benefit accrues to a property once it is sold or used for

speculation. I think that if property is used for speculation.... If

you want to find some speculators, most of us have only to look in the

mirror. It's impossible not to have been a speculator over the last ten

years. The very fact that you held and lived on property didn't

determine its value at all. The very fact that you didn't even improve

your property didn't determine its value and didn't determine its

assessment. Property which I owned in Maillardville-Coquitlam 10 or 15

years ago, and which I purchased for $12,000, is probably worth

$100,000 now. I'm sorry to say that I don't own it anymore, but I

didn't do anything to deserve that. Whatever happened there was beyond

my control.

The implementation of the variable mill rate is really only

tinkering away at it, as is the farm exemption. If we're talking about

rural property, it used to be the case that you could run a few animals

— usually a cow per acre — and you could get your taxes lowered

immeasurably. My guess would be that it came out to about 10 percent of

the value. Who paid for that in the case of Langley, Maple Ridge, Pitt

Meadows or any other area? Supposing that this person had a farm

exemption — and I know people who had farm exemptions, because I was

one of them. I had cattle on the property I paid for....

So has doctor so-and-so; so has mister so-and-so, who owns the law

firm; lots of people do. If I should have been paying about $800 a year

and was only paying $150 because I had a few old cows scampering around

on the property, somebody else paid the share that I got away with. I

don't think that's fair, because all the other residents of Langley had

to make up the $600 or so that I didn't pay.

If it's important to the general well-being of British Columbia to

have food produced on these rural properties, even though they may only

marginally meet the test, then I don't think the rest of the residents

of Langley should have to make up the $600 that I got as an indirect

benefit because the right number of my cows happened to be running

around that field. Somebody is going to stand up — and I imagine the

minister's got an expert there — and say: "Well, that's not true. We

have to have so much money produced out of that property each year." I

know that. But the principle is the same. If I, as a member of a

community, am benefiting by a $600 tax exemption, it means that

somebody else is making that up. If the province allows a tax

exemption, as it does, through its legislation, then I don't think it

should be the municipalities of Langley, Maple Ridge or Pitt Meadows

that make up the difference. The $600 that I got is going to be made up

by the other residents of Langley.

If it's of general benefit to the whole province to have me produce

food on my farm — and I suggest that it is — then I think the total

amount of exemption given for farming by a municipality should be

spread over all the taxpayers in the province. It shouldn't be up to

Maple Ridge or Langley to finance and provide food for members of New

Westminster or some other urban area in which there are no farms or

farm exemptions. What I'm saying is that the residents of New

Westminster, Vancouver and other urban areas shouldn't make up the

difference. The total amount of exemption given by a particular

municipality should be made up out of general revenue from the

province. That, I think, will take a lot of distortion out of municipal

financing.

I see the member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton) listening very intently.

He is a former mayor and chief magistrate. He knows that what happens

in the case of his municipality and every other municipality which

allows and permits a farm exemption is that they've got to tax the

people in apartments and in beautiful downtown metropolitan Haney a lot

more than if they didn't have to make up this incentive for providing

food. I don't object to the farm exemption, but I do object to the

municipality, simply because it happens to be a rural municipality and

hasn't got as large a tax base, because it doesn't have the commerce

and industry and all the rest of the things which generate far higher

taxes....

I know his industrial development committee has been concerned about

this. The money given away by the farm exemption should continue, but

not at the expense of Haney, Langley or any other rural area. It should

be spread equally to all the population in the province and then

returned to the producers and those municipalities that are active in

the production of food. I make that assertion, and I don't make it

frivolously. I think it is extremely important.

The variable mill rate works fine. Everybody who is a speculator who

looks in the mirror and finds that his house is now worth $100,000 to

$125,000, when he bought it for $10,000, is going to be really happy.

But what happens when values go down? What we've been used to all the

time is values going up every year. What happens when they go down?

I understand that there is a three-year clause, if not in this bill

then the other bill, which will base the taxes over three years. I

think taking the peaks and valleys out of taxation is not a bad idea.

If you can justify a five-year income tax formula for certain kinds of

businesses and farms, it is a reasonable thing in terms of rapidly

escalating or de-escalating land values also to spread those over a

period. The only trouble is that if you happen to get nicked at the

peak, like the guy who has the mortgage.... You've got a particular

[ Page 1907 ]

five-year mortgage, and you're stuck with it for five years. There has to be some way to rule those out.

But the concept of basing assessments over a period is not a bad

one. I know it's in Bill 22, but it certainly bears on this bill,

because they tend to be companion bills. But it is not a bad idea. I

think, as a matter of fact, it could be said that it's a good idea; it

is a progressive idea, from that point of view. But I insist, in case

some of my other friends get up and say it's a bad idea, on saying that

you've got to have an escape clause, because everybody thinks it's a

good idea if they happen to have a particular date on which their

assessment is placed when market values are like they are now. Nobody

is buying anything and nobody is selling anything, particularly in real

estate, so market values are going to tumble. If you get your

assessment fixed at a low period such as now and it goes for three or

five years, as in Bill 22, that's good. But if you had had your market

value fixed when everything was going crazy two or three years ago, and

you are stuck for five years, then that's bad. I think you either have

to be lucky and pick a time for your assessment — take your assessing

officer out to lunch or something....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: My friend says maybe I'm out to lunch. Again, I say that I'm always more nervous about my friends than I am about my enemies.

Those are some of the concerns that I have. The other one is

rezoning. If my municipal council — and I don't even ask for this —

rezones my property by fiat, then I can be in terrible trouble in some

circumstances. I can recall, when I was a councillor in Coquitlam.... I

don't remember whether it actually occurred while I was on council, but

I remember many horror stories of rezoning in advance of use. You've

got to, but you've also got to be aware that people need to be

compensated somehow for that if they are frozen into a particular kind

of rezoning, even though they may ultimately benefit. I'll give you a

prime example, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes.

MR. ROSE: Three minutes? I haven't finished my introduction.

Let me conclude with this. If, in a particular municipality, you

have to zone in advance of use — because if you don't, by the time you

get around to it you've got another Kingsway or urban sprawl like they

had in Surrey, and they couldn't even meet their services or anything

like that....

Oh, you don't recall how difficult you were 10 or 15 years ago with

your ribbon development and your little developments all over the

place? You don't remember that?

MR. REID: New politicians fixed that up.

MR. ROSE: I know you fixed it up.

MRS. JOHNSTON: We cleaned it all up.

MR. ROSE: That's terrific.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I've only got three minutes, and I don't want

to sing about the joys and the beauties of Surrey or its

representatives in this House. What I would like to finish is the point

where Coquitlam zoned a lot of land "light industrial,"

"industrial-commercial" or some such figure along the Barnet Highway

and we had people who had been living there for years and who used

their property for agriculture and all the rest of it. We froze them

into a particular zoning, but it was in advance of use, and they

couldn't sell it. They couldn't sell it for the use which the council

prescribed, so they were there for 10 or 15 years waiting for the

warehouses and the Kentucky Fried Chicken places to come along so they

could sell it at its new higher- and better-use value.

I don't think that I'm a particular expert on taxation, and I don't

have all the solutions on this, but I think I've given you enough to

let you know that these are incredibly complex things. The best we'll

do, no matter what we do, is give it the old college try. But we should

constantly be looking for better ways to make taxation more equitable.

My view is not market value per se, but market value combined with a

formula that considers use and also the owner's ability to pay.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that the

amendments were introduced in the House last night at approximately 6

o'clock. Hon. members have had some opportunity, I suppose.... Although

it's normal that we would look at the order paper, normally we don't go

to the Clerk's desk and ask to see if something has been put in in the

way of an amendment. But let's say it's still our job to....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You should have been in the House.

MR. NICOLSON: The first time I saw these amendments was this morning on the order paper.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Please, Mr. Minister, I don't want to get into

some kind of heated debate about the propriety of this, but I'd like to

have a cool and reasoned debate. While we in the House have had a good

17 hours to consider these amendments, only by virtue of the fact that

we’ve been up all night, what about the Union of B.C. Municipalities,

Mr. Chairman? This amendment makes some very substantive changes, and

others further down on the list will make even further changes. I would

ask the minister for his response to the notion that because of these

amendments being brought in, might it not be prudent in terms of trying

to.... Well, we've had pretty heated exchanges on other bills in this

House. Maybe we're in disagreement on this bill, but I don't know that

we were in strident disagreement on it. I suppose we're against many

parts of it in principle.

[11:00]

In order that at least the Union of B.C. Municipalities might have

some opportunity, I would ask the minister whether he is prepared to

accept an adjournment on this, so at least they could have more than 17

hours. Would the minister respond to that?

[ Page 1908 ]

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wouldn't consider that, Mr. Chairman.

However, I think the member has pointed out quite clearly how time has

been wasted in this House. I was saying to myself, right along, that

there are other things that would be much more important, not only to

the House but to the people whom we represent. It would seem to me, as

one who sat through all of the last 17 hours, that had a lot of that

time been used to study the amendments introduced yesterday evening,

rather than what was done, you would be well prepared. No, I wouldn't

be prepared to accept that.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I guess this is an example of

what happens when an olive branch is extended in this House. It would

seem to me that there are people who are going to be very much affected

by these amendments. The amendments to

section 2 might not be the most

substantive of these amendments. We have had a bill before us since

July 7 — the bill to which the UBCM has reacted. Now, by virtue of this

amendment and amendments to

section 7, the whole tone of this

particular motion might really prompt the official opposition to

consider a baker's dozen. As a member of the opposition, I would

certainly be most interested in hearing the reaction of the UBCM. It

was only last week that the minister would have had a very good

opportunity to signal the introduction of these amendments. If they

were amendments he was proud of, he could have actually given some

indication of it to the UBCM.

A government that is in conflict with the opposition is one thing,

but a government that comes in conflict with all forms of local

government and seems to want to wage war with the entire professional

class, the middle class, the blue-collar workers, the unemployed, the

poor, the senior citizens and everyone else in this province should

really start — and I think a good positive step, right now, would be

for the minister to.... In a way, Mr. Chairman, I'm suppressing the

urge to get too carried away on this point, but I honestly feel that if

the minister wants to make a positive step for the province.... Maybe

we could pass even

section 2, and show some progress, and maybe even

sections 3 and 4 and 5, and maybe even get through

section 6 today, but

then

section 7 has some very substantial parts in it, and I would

really.... I see the minister is going to respond.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I want to draw to the member's attention,

Mr. Chairman, that, first of all, the variable tax rate is in operation

and was very well received and, I thought, widely supported by your

party. It has been introduced very smoothly, and only one municipality

is not on the new system now. The amendment is a very simple amendment,

and if I could explain it to you I'm sure you wouldn't have any fears

of it. The amendment merely converts the 1982 from the old percentage

of assessed value to the current and full market value for.... It gives

them a base. You see, the variable tax rate is now in, but it was in by

making that conversion. Now it's necessary to make that conversion by

law, and that's why this amendment is a very simple one, and I hope

that having explained it that way we can carry on with the....

MR. NICOLSON: The official opposition recognizes that the

taxation system is in effect and was in effect and was announced prior

to the election, and that we are now ratifying — and it's quite legal

to do so.... I rise on this first

section because it is the first

amendment that was introduced.

I might agree with the minister that this particular amendment, of

itself, is maybe not so much of a concern, although I don't know that

that's my decision to make. Perhaps people from the UBCM, given time,

might show a great deal of concern even about this one. Myself, I would

say that I don't see in this particular amendment grave cause for

concern. But looking ahead — and it's kind of out of order — to

section

7, I really do see where there could be very legitimate cause for

concern. Therefore I've risen on this particular one to test the

minister's will, and I would think maybe we could skip along and maybe

pass.... I'm not our municipal affairs critic, who is still here, but

maybe we could skip along and pass certainly probably 2, 3, 4, and 5,

but then there might be some debate on 6, and then.... But on 7 there

is a very substantive amendment, and that is really my area of concern.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

MS. BROWN: No. If the minister isn't going to respond....

MR. NICOLSON: Maybe if the minister would respond it would....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: To the member through you, Mr. Chairman, I

think that really we'd be wasting everyone's time to postpone this. I

think we do have all of today, possibly — and I don't know how long we

may go — but the thing is that should we decide to have this go back,

as you suggest, to the UBCM for consideration, and assuming that the

decision came back that no, this amendment shouldn't go through, can

you just imagine the chaos that would be created? It's a very simple

amendment. It's something that you mention yourself, Mr. Member,

ratifies what is already in place, and I would prefer to proceed as far

as we can, today anyway, and if we do come to the

section that you've

just suggested might become a very contentious one, we can deal with

that in that light.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, what I just want to say is that

there's a principle at work here which I'm in opposition to. The bill

has been on the floor for some time; it was introduced in July. The

minister has had a lot of opportunity to put his amendment on the order

paper. Instead, what we find is that the amendments were placed on our

desks last night, and we're expected to come in this morning and

approve them. We're not here on our whim and fancy and because we

decide we'd like to be here. We were elected to come here and represent

our constituencies. When a bill comes down that affects any part of the

constituency which you represent, you have to have some consultation.

That's something that we've been trying to get across to the minister.

He's brought in a package of legislation which affects the municipal

level of government, and we are going to speak on that legislation

based on our consultation with the municipally elected representatives

whom we represent. It has not been possible — and I have tried — for me

to get these amendments into the hands of my municipally elected

representatives, to have their response and advice in terms of whether

these amendments are in the best interest of Burnaby, or in fact in the

best interest of municipal governments. The member is saying: "Trust

me." That is hilarious, because if that were possible, you wouldn't

need elected members.

[ Page 1909 ]

All you would need is the cabinet to bring in bills and tell the community at large to trust them, and that would be that.

The opposition has a role to operate as watchdogs, and it's not

possible to do that job when the minister deliberately waits until the

last minute. These amendments were not on our desks prior to 8 o'clock

last night. The House has been sitting all evening and through the

night, through this morning. It has not been possible for us to consult

with our local representatives and be able either to support or to

oppose these amendments with any knowledge. It seems to me that if the

government is serious about really trying to do what is in the best

interest of the people of British Columbia, the minister would agree

that we should be given time to take back the amendments that were

introduced to the House last night. I'm not taking mine to the UBCM.

The critic is dealing with the UCBM; I'm dealing with Burnaby municipal

council. I've been on the phone all morning trying to get some sense of

what the amendment is going to mean to us in Burnaby. I'm trying to

speak to Vic Stusiak, who is the chairperson of this particular

committee for Burnaby Council, and to our municipal manager, Mr.

Shelley, and various and sundry people.

It just doesn't make sense that now we are told that if I understand

the amendment, then it's okay. I don't think that's good enough. I'm

not here representing myself. If I'm to do a good job of representing

Burnaby, then the people who understand what this means in terms of

that level of government have to have some input. Clearly, they're not

having their input directly with the minister. So they have to have it

through the three Burnaby MLAs who sit on the floor of this House.

While I'm standing here speaking, my colleague from Burnaby North (Mrs.

Dailly) is also frantically trying to contact the municipal

politicians. Have you ever tried to read the amendment to the

legislation and then the act which it is amending, which itself is

amending another act? We're dealing with three pieces of amendments

going on here. Surely the minister can understand what we're trying to

do. We're only trying to do a good job. That's the reason we're asking

that this be put aside until at least we have the time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall the amendment pass?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate a response from the minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I can only respond by repeating what I

said: that the amendment simply ratifies what is already in force. I'm

quite sure that the administrators at the municipal hall in Burnaby

fully understand that it is necessary to ratify something that has

already taken place, such as changing the 1982 methods to match the

1983, that being a percentage of assessed values which were used in

1982 to full market value in 1983. So it's a very simple one. I can

fully appreciate that possibly the next amendment that I have on the

order paper could be a little more difficult for you to understand and

you would want to have a little time on it. So I have suggested that if

this one, which is already operating — and it is a very simple one in

spite of the way it is written up in all the legal jargon — goes

through and we proceed on to Bill 7, then we will deal with that when

we come to it.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. BLENCOE: First, I want to say that

section 6 gives the

opposition some deep concerns. This particular

section and other

similar ones really impact upon local governments' ability to set their

own course in collecting taxes and setting their own priorities.

[11:15]

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, under subsection (1),

prescribe different tax limits, relationships or formulas for each

class of property, different municipalities or different classes of

municipality." Clearly there was a deep resentment expressed by the

UBCM last week, particularly by people like Mayor Thom who said that

they felt it was inappropriate for senior government to be making such

drastic inroads into local autonomy and local decision-making.

Local governments have always felt that they know all about

restraint and they are quite capable of determining how much they want

to tax their own people. They have serious reservations about a

government deciding to make those decisions for them. Indeed, this

particular

section is a violation of that long-standing autonomy of

local government, and the UBCM, in a very strong resolution, asked the

minister and the provincial government to please retain that kind of

autonomy and not make such serious inroads into their ability to

collect their own taxes or set their own levels of taxation. They are

elected to do that. That's our position. That has been a long-standing

tradition. I would, among other things, ask the minister why he feels

that it is so important — given the degree of restraint that local

government has been able to utilize over the years, given that they

don't run deficits and are not allowed to do so, and given the

provincial government's financial record in terms of over a 12 percent

increase in their budget — to say that local government cannot

establish their own taxation levels, their own rates, or how much taxes

they will charge. If the local taxpayer feels that taxes are too high,

then there is a process for the local taxpayers to indicate their

concern. That's at the polls.

I would like the minister, if this government believes in autonomy

of local government, to say why he feels so strongly that he wants to

take over something that virtually all local governments have said they

don't support and to centralize that kind of decision-making in the

hands of the provincial government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will forgive me

when I say that I am terribly surprised that that member, who over the

past few days has been ruthless in his criticism of my lack of

knowledge of municipal affairs.... Let me read

section 274 of the mill

rate limitations as it used to apply when you served on council, sir.

"A rate shall not be levied under

section 273 exceeding in a city or

district 50 mills, in a town 40 mills, and in a village 30 mills,

except with the approval of the inspector or in a municipality for

which a commissioner has been appointed by the supreme court under this

act."

MR. BLENCOE: Are you talking about the same section?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Why on earth would you be critical of a change in the system that gives the municipal council

[ Page 1910 ]

the full freedom to set the variable tax rate

whenever you have had those limitations in the past? Why is it, Mr.

Chairman, that this member, with all his experience, should pick on

this? The reason for this

section in this amendment is simply put to

protect the taxpayer. It is there in the event that there should be

some flagrant abuse....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You asked for an answer, but you don't pay

any attention when you are getting it. I would like you to pay

attention. Otherwise you'll never learn. I don't want you to waste my

time by asking a question and then wandering off.

The system that is now in place gives the council the full....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Do you want further explanation? Did you

get any of it? Through you, Mr. Chairman, do you understand that there

were limitations in the old system when you were on council? Under the

new system there are no limitations. I don't know how you get your

argument. However, we do say that as these rates are being set by

councils in order to give us the opportunity to protect the taxpayer,

should there be any flagrant abuse of the system we do have the

authority, under this legislation, to correct it. I might add that this

hasn't been necessary. All municipalities have acted very wisely indeed

in applying this new system. Rather than trying to throw out some scare

tactics we should give credit to all municipalities, and recognize that

we are not putting more controls on, we're taking controls off.

MR. BLENCOE: I wonder if the minister could then explain

subsection (2): "The Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council may, under

subsection (1), prescribe different tax limits, relationships or

formulas for each class of property, different municipalities or

different classes of municipality." Is that not indeed the provincial

government determining the formulas, the relationships and the tax

limits of local government?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You are difficult to get through to —

through you, Mr. Chairman. The member seems determined not to learn the

new system. If there is flagrant abuse of the system, then a move could

be made under this to correct that. But no limits.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to see, Mr. Chairman, if I can get into this discussion without having to suffer the insults of the minister.

I think the problem we're having, Mr. Minister, is that the bill

does not say, "in the event of an abuse by a municipality, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, under subsection (1), prescribe

different tax limits, relationships, formulas," and so forth and so on.

That is not what the bill says. That's the difficulty we're having.

Now is the minister suggesting that maybe he is willing to introduce

a further amendment that will say this is a safeguard

section which

will come into effect only when the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

recognizes that a municipality is abusing its powers? As it now stands,

that is not what this

section says.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Only if the council abuse the system.

MS. BROWN: I understand what the minister is saying. All I am

saying is that that is not in this

section of the bill; it does not say

that. The bill says, "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, under

subsection (1), prescribe different tax limits, relationships or

formulas for each class of property, different municipalities or

different classes of municipality." It does not say that this

section

comes into effect upon the recognition by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that a municipality is abusing its

powers. As it now stands, Mr. Chairman, if you will forgive me, it

appears to be an erosion of the autonomy of municipalities and a

usurpation of their rights in his area.

I believe the minister when he says that the only time the cabinet

is going to intervene is when a council abuses these powers. All I am

suggesting is that it is not in the legislation. No one who isn't here

and doesn't hear the minister making that commitment, no one who

doesn't read Hansard to know that the minister has made that

commitment, will understand that the only time this

section kicks into

force is on the occurrence of an abuse by a municipality.

This

section is not well written if it is to do what the minister

says it is to do. As the

section is written, we have the cabinet

usurping the powers and eroding the autonomy of the municipalities.

That is how it is also written here.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister has said he believes in the

autonomy of local government, and that this particular

section indeed

enhances that. I would like the minister to indicate to us how free he

believes local government should be to set their own tax rates.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The act clearly states just how free we

think they should be. They have those classifications to work within.

They have the freedom to set the tax rate. The amendment itself answers

your question.

MR. BLENCOE: If the minister believes that local councils

should be autonomous in this area, then why does the bill say that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations, and then go on to

say in subsection (1)(a): "prescribing limits on tax rates"? Why should

you have that power, if you believe they should be free to set their

own tax rates?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They have the freedom to vary it within the classification.

Let's pick a municipality. Let's assume that Terrace decides they're

really going to sock it to industry, which we feel would not be in the

interests of the taxpayers and those in need of jobs. It may be

necessary to ask for an adjustment there. That's one example. They do

have tremendous freedom to set those tax rates, more freedom than they

had under the old act.

You're shaking your head no, and that really surprises me, not only

in view of your experience in municipal affairs, which you think highly

of, but also in the face of the abuse and criticism that I get for not

having experience in municipal affairs. I read out the

section in the

old act which says there was a 50, 40 and 30 mill limit. The limit has

been taken away, and they'll now set it according to their requirements

within

[ Page 1911 ]

the classification; and only if they abuse that is there going to be a change.

I can't understand what the member is trying to do, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to tell

us — because this particular

section does take a high amount of

decision-making away from municipalities in terms of setting tax levels

— which particular municipalities were a problem and created the need

for the centralization of decision-making, taking away the power of

local government.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again, it was already said here, Mr.

Chairman. The member was told that all municipalities, with the

exception of one, have put the new system into place. It has been

smooth; they have been cooperative. There have been absolutely no

problems. I don't know how to get through to that member. He seems to

have his mind locked up and you can't enter it. I repeat, there are

none. It has gone smoothly; we have no reason to look at any changes.

[11:30]

MR. BLENCOE: The minister is not answering the question. He

is referring to the concept of a variable mill rate, which we don't

have any particular problems with. It does indeed give some degree of

flexibility, Mr. Chairman. I'm asking the minister why he feels it's

appropriate that the provincial government have such wide-sweeping

powers in terms of limits on tax rates that municipalities can

establish. I ask him again: which municipalities have spurred the

government to introduce such sweeping changes and control on tax rates,

which those people were elected to perform? They are the board of

directors for their electorate.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Member, I put you on notice that I don't intend to try another time to answer you. None.

MS. BROWN: I just wondered if the regulations were around.

Can we see them? No? This is precisely what the member for Victoria is

saying. We're being asked to pass a

section which gives the cabinet

unlimited tax rate powers.

Whereas under the present system the

municipalities have to stay within certain defined limits, the cabinet

can go to any extent they want. We're told that the council — meaning

the cabinet — may make regulations. Where are the regulations? We keep

getting all these pieces of legislation that are based on regulations,

we're approving them, and no one knows what's in the regulations. How

far along are the regulations? Are they ready? Can we see them?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: At this point we don't intend to have any regulations. It's quite specific as it's written.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: There was some discussion earlier about my

amendment to this

section on the order paper. It was suggested then

that in order to give UBCM and other interested parties an opportunity

to study the amendment, we would hold this one back at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT,

(continued)

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, in trying to sum up, some of the

concerns that we in the opposition have on this particular bill are the

dangers to the weaker unions and those who are unfortunate enough to

work in many of the service industries that are not unionized at all. I

think we all know of experiences in dealing with employees and

employers, that when you get into either.... The first contract is

sometimes rushed into without the detailed knowledge of employees on

the job. All the intricacies of various statutes that are available in

the past, especially dealing with such things as maternity benefits,

statutory holidays — holidays with pay.... The agreements that have

been written in the past, especially among the weaker unions, have not

been as strong as those of the larger and the more militant unions.

By changing the wording in this bill.... In the past where the

senior part of the agreement or the statutes provided better benefits

for the workers than some of the wording in some of the agreements,

then the statutes would prevail. There was one

section at that time

dealing with statutory holidays. For those who work in shiftwork, with

rotating days off, in many cases your Saturday and Sunday may fall on

Tuesday and Wednesday. They are your normal two days off. For those who

worked a regular Monday to Friday job, if by chance Christmas landed on

a Saturday or a Sunday, it was common practice that the employer under

the existing holiday

schedule would give Monday off as the statutory

holiday. So the employee who normally received his Saturday and Sunday

off also received the Monday as a statutory holiday. This worked very

well for those who worked on a regular shift. But for those who worked

on the rotating shift whose days off happened to fall in that

particular case on Thursday and Friday and Christmas happened to land

on the Friday, then they felt that they should get that additional day

off. This was the standard practice. If a statutory holiday landed on

your normal days off as a posted shift schedule, then you got an

additional day off. This led to a lot of problems in some of the

interpretation.

I know that in the police contracts it has caused a lot of concern.

In Saanich it has been before the courts for two years because of that

interpretion. Central Saanich police, for one reason or another, have

been forced to lay off a number of employees to cover up a deficiency

in their budget. When you start tampering with sections in the

statutes, the wording of the agreement shall take precedence over the

statutes even when the statute is more beneficial. You're reversing the

role of providing a minimum standard.

The second major concern of a lot of people on our side of the House.... I think every one of us has seen employees

[ Page 1912 ]

and employers in our own constituencies attempting

to negotiate an agreement or a standard of work system, and they have

bogged down on one or two particular sections of the agreement. Many

times a lawyer gets into it and a few of the employer councils get in

and they go into a holding system where it's negotiation by

confrontation. We all look at negotiations across the board between

employer and employees, but when you get into the third party,

especially employer councils or people who have been hired as

bargaining agents.... That also can work on both sides, whether you

have a strong union negotiator working with a smaller contractor....

You go into a holding pattern and the date of the agreement runs out.

You're going one and two and more months before you sign an agreement,

and negotiations continue. Sometimes they break down. Within the past,

and especially in essential services, the agreement that is presently

in effect stays in effect. The conditions do not change. There is a

certain amount of security and continuity of conditions on the job. I

think the

section that is coming into the agreement provides that after

an appropriate time has passed, an application could be made to the

director to have the minimum standards of this act applied. I think

this is going to be abused. I think if you leave these loopholes in

labour negotiations, you are going to allow these particular power

plays for unscrupulous negotiators. Basically, that is what it is: a

power play that you either sign up or we are going to reduce the wages

to the minimum wage of the province. This is a danger, especially in a

time when we are....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It has nothing to do with wages.

MR. MITCHELL: It has all conditions: wages, conditions....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Not with wages.

MR. MITCHELL: Wages and conditions, health benefits and

holidays are all part of a package. The Minister of Labour knows that

more than anyone. He is trying to change the power play. If you're

going to have free collective bargaining, you shouldn't give one side

an opportunity to drag out negotiations, so that this particular threat

can be brought into it. I think one of the dangers — and I deal with it

on a regular basis as a constituency MLA — is that you have to deal

with the collection of back wages, especially with companies that are

having in this particular economic time a cash flow problem. With the

particular

section which says that it is going to be limited to six

months, there are a lot of people who feel a certain amount of trust

that they have money coming in the way of holiday pay and severance

pay. They are in danger of losing it. I realize we are in economic

times, but once sections like this get into the statutes, they are hard

to get out again. In the restraint era that we're living in now, we

have to protect employees. As I said earlier on, you are literally

stealing money from employees who in the past had been guaranteed, and

felt assured that money they had earned is money that they are going to

receive. To have that six-month limit put in there now under the guise

of restraint is, I think, wrong.

These are the three major parts — eroding of conditions, the minimum

standards — putting those who are in the weakest condition — the

service industries that, with the new technology, are going to be our

biggest employer — those in the service industry in the next few

years.... I think this bill is going to endanger that particular group,

and I think the minister should give serious consideration to put this

bill before a legislative committee which would sit down and listen to

briefs and discussions from those people who are going to be affected

in the trade union movement and the employers organizations, because

it's going to cause confrontation, and I'm convinced that we do not

need additional confrontation in the workforce, and it should be

stopped.

[11:45]

MR. LEA: This piece of legislation is part of the

government's program to set a climate for economic recovery in the

province. In fact, a great deal of the legislation that we've been

dealing with is to do what the Social Credit calls "setting the climate

for investment in the province." That has been the theme of this Social

Credit government, and of the previous two governments, since 1976.

They say we have to set a climate in British Columbia so that we can

bring in investment. Only this session do we fully understand what that

climate is all about. "The winter of our discontent." The climate they

want to set, to make sure that investment comes into this province,

will probably result in a society that most British Columbians won't be

particularly fond of living in. How do we set the climate? Do we signal

to investors outside of our country: "Come on in, the weather's fine.

We've broken the trade union movement. We've made sure that people

don't have any access to consumer protection. We're going to make sure

that renters will have to take what they get." We're going to take away

all of those protections in society that help the ordinary citizen

fight people who have more power than themselves.

Go around the province — I'm sure you've all heard it and you'll

hear that trade unions are too strong. They don't tell you why they're

too strong; they just mouth the expression. If you want to counteract

that, don't go to the next place and argue that trade unions are not

too strong. What you do is go to the other end of town and start a

rumour that they're too weak; then come back in seven days, and you'll

find that that is what is being said.

The government is taking advantage, in my opinion, of misery, of a

recession. If you read back in history — and I don't think it takes too

much imagination to figure it out — you'll find that any time economies

are in the downturn, people feel vulnerable and threatened and insecure

about the future. When they feel that way, they are vulnerable, they

are frightened, and they have good reason to be. But it isn't just any

ordinary recession that we're going through now, waiting for good times

to roll again. What we're looking at is a complete change in the

economies of the nations of the western world, if not the whole world.

Let's deal with British Columbia, where we're going to be feeling

the same kind of changes. We can get into some industries such as the

minister of technology has talked about. We can get into the production

of electronic microchips, that sort of thing, but how do we compete

with those other production centres of the world that are producing the

same thing? How are we going to compete with South-East Asia in the

production of those commodities? There's only one way: you have to meet

the wages of South-East Asia in order to compete with South-East Asia.

What we have to ask ourselves is whether that's the kind of climate we

want. Do we want to match the lifestyle and living standard of

South-East Asia in order to compete? I think not. I don't think it's

too big

[ Page 1913 ]

a secret that one of the things we feel frightened

of is that we see the traditional jobs going down the tube. Blue-collar

jobs are not going to be available in any great numbers in the future.

The demand is going to decline. The kind of jobs we've needed, the kind

of jobs we've produced during the industrial era — which era, in my

opinion, we're just finishing — those jobs will no longer be around.

The proper climate, Social Credit say. But it is not looking to the

future and asking what we can do to maintain the lifestyle that I think

we all want to maintain, without ruining the environment and without

becoming too greedy. How can we just maintain what we have? How can you

hold on to your house? How can you hold on to your job? How can you

feel secure that you're going to be able to pay your hydro bill? It's

going to take a bit more imagination than returning to the nineteenth

century.

What does this bill do?

Section 2 states in part that when a

collective agreement is running out, after what is called an

appropriate time has passed without progress towards a new agreement,

an interested party can make application to have that collective

agreement made null and void and the provisions of the Employment

Standards Act would come into effect. An interested party could be the

employer. What incentive would there be for an employer to go to the

bargaining table to try to negotiate a new collective agreement when

that employer knows that all he has to do is wait the appropriate time

— whatever that is; I suppose it will be determined — until there's no

collective agreement, it's out the window, and you are now back to the

basic protections under the Employment Standards Act? What employer

wouldn't love that? I have to remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that to a

entrepreneur, wages are an unfortunate part of production, but to the

entire economy they are the stuff of social and economic stability.

I think it was Steven Leacock, economist and humorist, who said that

money is like manure: it doesn't work unless you spread it around.

We're going to see money concentrated in the hands of the few; we're

going to see quite a number of people working for very low wages, and

there'll be nobody between the high paid and the low paid; the middle

class is going to disappear. The blue-collar worker, for all intents

and purposes, is going to disappear rapidly in our society. I'm

reminded of my uncle, who said, "Do away with the middle class in a

democratic society and you end up in revolution, finally, of some kind

or the other," because the middle class is a social and economic buffer

in our society that helps keep peace, and surely we do want peace.

Probably the very thing that the Social Credit are trying to

establish — that is, the proper climate for investment — is in fact

going to do exactly the opposite. Imagine you are an investor thinking

about investing in British Columbia, and you say to one of your senior

people: "Bring me a report on what it's like to invest in British

Columbia these days." Can you just imagine the report? Let's think what

the guy would say. He comes back two weeks later and says: "Well, from

where we sit, certain favourable things are happening in British

Columbia in terms of investment. If we go there, the workers are not

protected very well, and that's good for us. If we go there, we're

almost guaranteed that we'll be able to pay very low wages, so that

makes it a good place to invest. There's a government that is very

favourable to big business and not too favourable to small business,

and that makes it a good place to invest, from our point of view. But,

chief, we've got some real problems. Even though we have the sorts of

things that may enhance investment in British Columbia, I think we're

probably looking at a lot of industrial unrest. I think we're going to

see a lot of problems between the trade union movement and management.

There are some things that are favourable, but overall I think I'd have

to say that it's a risky bet to invest in British Columbia. When a

government seems determined to set one area of the population against

another, surely that can only end in chaos; surely that can only end in

a place that's going to be, in the long run, a risky place to invest

our money."

Mr. Speaker, the government has always said that they wanted to set

the proper climate, and we used to ask what that meant. It's easy to

say: "We 're going to have a proper climate for investment." They could

never tell us, but I think they finally have. They've brought in this

package of legislation, and that's what they mean by proper climate —

that they're going to take the protection away from ordinary citizens

at a time when they should have even more protection.

Why has the Social Credit become the defenders of Big? They've

always attacked big government, big unions, big companies, but now

they're becoming the defender of one of those bigs, and it's big

business. At one time, if you'd asked anybody in this province who was

the friend of the small businessman, they would have said: "Social

Credit." Probably even our supporters.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's still true.

[12:00]

MR. LEA: No, it is not true; they do not say it today. The

Social Credit is not viewed in this province as the friend of small

business; it is viewed as the lackey of big business. They've sold out,

Mr. Speaker, in order to run the kind of political campaigns they've

had to run in the last few years, where they've had to reach down in

that bag and get lots of money. Because they're not running a

grassroots kind of campaign anymore; they're running the kind of

campaign that takes millions of dollars to run, and they're not going

to get that kind of money from the small business community. They've

got to go to the big business people, and the fact of the matter is

that when you pay you call the tune.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was a family of volunteers out there.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the volunteers out there were nothing

compared with the money spent to soften people up. That election

campaign cost millions of dollars. Some of it — a great deal of it —

was taxpayers', but the majority of the money that financed the Social

Credit campaign came out of the coffers of big business.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

MR. LEA: I don't have to prove it. You prove it isn't happening.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, they did. They stayed up all night and all day just to wait for you to come back, Mr. Leader.

Can I prove it? Yes. Can I bring in a witness? No. But I can present circumstantial evidence that can lead you to only

[ Page 1914 ]

one conclusion. People are hanged on circumstantial evidence, Mr. Speaker.

MR. R. FRASER: That doesn't make it right, though, does it?

MR. LEA: That doesn't make it right. I'm glad you agree with

me. If you take money from the big corporations, you pretty much have

to believe that they aren't giving that money to a political party

because of some altruistic motivation.

MR. CAMPBELL: How about big unions?

MR. LEA: Big unions the same. I would not be opposed to

seeing companies and trade unions not able to give money to political

parties — but only if both come under the same rules. The Social Credit

are always talking about trade unions giving money to political parties

without the consent of their membership; how there are Socreds and

Liberals and Conservatives in the trade union movement, and whether it

is morally right for a trade union to give money to a political party.

Why is it any more moral for a company to give money to a political

party when shareholders, which are the same as the rank and file of a

trade union, may not agree with the party politics of the officers of

that corporation?

You can't have it both ways. You bring in a piece of legislation

that says the shareholders have to have the final say in political

contributions, and I'll go along with a piece of legislation that makes

it okay to have the rank and file of a trade union okay it. That would

be fair, and we're not going to see it. But it is definitely

hypocritical to say that it's happening in the trade union movement and

it isn't happening in the corporate world — it is. Also, I'd be willing

to bet a dollar to a doughnut that much of the campaign funds spent by

Social Credit came from foreign companies. I don't think there's

anybody naive enough to think that that didn't happen.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Does that have to do with this bill?

MR. LEA: It has to do with this bill, because the major

corporations want to break a number of people: small business people,

trade unions, consumer protection, tenant protection — all of them.

It's to their benefit to break and discredit those agencies and

institutions in society that protect the ordinary person from powers

larger than themselves. What other reason is there for government? If

it were not to protect the weak from the strong, there would be no

point to government whatsoever. We could have absolute, crazy anarchy.

Everybody for himself; the strong will survive, the weak will perish,

and that's the way of Darwin. That's what the Social Credit really

believe. They believe that if you cut people off — $50 a month for the

handicapped — the mere fact that that money has been cut off from them

will give them the drive and incentive to pull themselves up by their

bootstraps and claw their way out of that to reach success.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: It is the truth, and if the Social Credit members

were honest they would get up and say: "Yes, we believe that." Then we

could at least deal with a bit of honesty on both sides of the House.

Don't you believe, Mr. Speaker, in the trickle-down effect? Isn't that

what you're all about? That's the theory they believe. They think they

can separate their economics from the social structure of the country,

or the province. They don't think the two are related. What they say

is: "If we will give companies the unfettered right to make profit over

every other consideration, that will be the best thing for the poor.

Because if that happens — if we allow the companies to make all that

money — they will reinvest in the economy, and there will be more jobs.

And the best way to help the poor, of course, is to create jobs and

give them a job." It's kind of a twisted argument.

If the hon. members on the other side are not conservatives, then

stand up and tell us. But I had assumed that the members on the other

side believed that they are a conservative party. You can't be a

conservative and not believe in the conservative economic theory, and

that is the trickle-down. The conservatives believe that there are only

two kinds of protection that government should afford its citizens. One

is that private property is sacrosanct; that you should be able to do

what you wish and what you will with your own private property

regardless of your neighbours. Private property is just that. That's

why they really would like to do away with zoning. That's why they want

to do away with planners. That's why they really want to take away

powers of municipal government and local school boards, because private

property is the essence of it all.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has listened very

carefully to the remarks of the member, and I must confess, with all

deference to the member, that I'm having some difficulty in relating

the member's remarks to the bill before us. Possibly, hon. member, you

might narrow....

MR. LEA: Yes, I can understand that. I think when I was describing how it all fits in you nodded off, Mr. Speaker.

It fits because what I'm talking about is the Employment Standards

Act and what the principle behind the Employment Standards Act is all

about. It just isn't

an act to do certain things. This is part of a

package to set the climate for investment in the province that the

government is always talking about. They've talked about it for years

but they never said how they were going to get the weather to change,

how this new climate was going to come into effect. We now know. You do

away with all the institutions in society that protect ordinary people

from power — power they have no control over. Then you have the proper

climate for the investor. That's what it's all about. This act, the

Employment Standards Act, is a large part of that package for setting

the climate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, how can they say "nonsense" to

something they believe in? All you have to do is look at, read or

listen to the statements of the minister of technology from Point Grey.

He says it. Don't the back-benchers and the other cabinet ministers

agree with the minister? When he was challenged on it he said: "Well,

I'm a maverick minister." In other words, he says what the rest of you

believe but haven't got the nerve to say. I'll give the minister credit

for that. He's got the nerve to say it.

A couple of years ago, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance

brought his budget in, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis) took his place, looked at the Minister of Finance and said:

"Well, I see you're a Keynesian now."

[ Page 1915 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: And still is.

MR. LEA: He still is, the member says. Well, I think you're

right. I think he's a combination of the classic economist and the

Keynesian. The only problem is, as the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour knows, that we need a little bit more than that now.

You might take a look at some of the pos-tKeynesian theories that are

around if you're going to come up with any answers that will work in

today's world. So when the former minister says he is still a

Keynesian, he's actually condemning him to an old-fashioned world. He's

trying to present solutions to problems in an old-fashioned way, when

in fact we're trying to look for new solutions to new problems. So the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour has, in his own way, condemned the

present policies of the government as much as anybody else.

So what we're going to be doing with the Employment Standards Act is

helping to pave the way to set the proper climate. I suppose if you

believe that the best way to have a society move forward is by making

sure that the ones at the bottom are literally starved to death so that

the incentive will be there to climb up the ladder of success, then the

government is indeed setting the proper climate.

Mr. Speaker, nobody's going to deny that there have to be certain

incentives in society for people to achieve. But can you tell me what

advantage there is in the long run to allow the employer, in an

industry that has traditionally been paying high wages, to put them

back to the minimum wage, to allow the employer to take away their

fringe benefits and take away their statutory holidays that aren't set

out by law in other sections in other acts? That's what this piece of

legislation is doing. I don't think anybody thinks we can take any more

than small, faltering steps into the future, because we're not certain

exactly which way we want to go. But I don't see why a government would

want to take giant strides into our past, running with big long strides

almost frantically trying to get back into the laissez-faire capitalist

world of nineteenth century Great Britain. What for? Was it good then?

How soon we forget, Mr. Speaker, the reasons for this act — not this

one, but the one it's amending. It's not that long ago. My grandmother

was part of the child labour scene in Great Britain. Ten years old and

working in the cotton mills. My grandmother! Your father, Mr. Speaker.

That's right. And how soon we forget and think that it's always been

like this. We think that we've always had the eight-hour day. There are

people in our history right in Canada who gave their lives trying to

achieve the eight-hour day for themselves and for their fellow workers.

Do people really forget that easily? How long ago is it that workers in

a peaceful demonstration were walking down the street in Saskatchewan

and the RCMP put a machine gun up on the steps of the post office and

shot them down? Not that long ago.

[12:15]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair]

AN HON. MEMBER: Farmers don't have an eight-hour day.

MR. LEA: That's absolutely correct. I was raised on a farm. I

know that. The eight-hour day, though, signifies a movement away from

the 14-hour day and the 16-hour day for no overtime for people like my

grandmother, Mr. Speaker, and your grandfather, who had to work in

factories for hardly any money. Ask my uncle. He says: "You know what

it was like? I remember getting up in the morning and living in the

rotten tenements in Great Britain and having rats biting at my mother's

feet when she was trying to get breakfast." Is that the good old day

that we want to go back to? Just what were those good old days that

we're all trying to get back to? Were they so great? I can remember my

uncle and my dad during the last depression when they went out to get

the dole and they had to shovel dirt out of one place and put it in

another, and the next day go back and shovel it somewhere else. It's

not that long ago. Do we honestly think that we've evolved so much that

those days couldn't come back? Do we think we can take away the

protection for consumers, that they don't need it anymore? Do we think

we can take away the protection for workers and health and safety and

all of a sudden the employer has turned over a new leaf and won't see

that the maximization of profit can be made on the backs of unhealthy

and unsafe workplaces? Do we really believe that human nature has

changed to such a degree that we don't need protections in our society

for the weak against the strong? Do we think we've evolved to a place

where those are no longer needed, Mr. Speaker? How long would it take

to take away the protections provided by government, that the

population would once again be subjected to it all?

The right-wingers are fond of saying — and probably it's true: "If

you were to divvy everything up equally, it wouldn't be too long before

it's all distributed unequally again, that some would have more than

others, some with more ability, some with more drive, some with more

greed." And it's true. But, Mr. Speaker, the only reason for government

is to offer the kind of protection that was offered and that this bill

is going to take away. The job of government is to bring around a

distribution, whether it's in the social areas.... For instance, who

would think it was okay if we should get some guy who's fairly frail,

obviously not a big tough fighter, and along came a big strapping guy

and was bullying him around, slapping him around? If it was happening

out in the hall, we'd all rush out there to help the little guy protect

himself against the unwarranted power and unwarranted use of power that

was being used. We would see that as our job as citizens. Do we not see

it as our job as citizens to protect an old-age pensioner who is

getting unconscionable rent increases from a power beyond his control?

Is that not the role of government? Is it not the role of government to

protect ordinary citizens against the power of big wealth? It is our

job. If it is not our job, then we do not have one. There is no job for

us. I reject the conservative philosophy that only three things should

be protected: property and body and character. Your body should have

protection and your property should have protection. After that, she's

just Darwin crazy. The strong take. In economics, conservatives believe

there should be no protection, because if you protect the weak in

economics, they feel, then the strong won't be able to provide the

things that we all want. It's a convoluted theory.

One of the things that has brought about the redistribution of

wealth in our society to a great degree has been the trade union

movement. It has also been acts of legislatures like this one. Every

piece of legislation that I pick up would heartily be approved by the

Fraser Institute: Walter Block, its chief economist, and Mr. Walker,

its director. They don't think that there should be a Human Rights

Commission. They state it in black and white. They don't think there

should be a minimum wage. They state it in black and white. They don't

think that the consumers should be artificially protected, as they put

it, by government. They don't think that tenants should be

[ Page 1916 ]

protected. They think that the marketplace takes

care of all that sort of thing. I said I would present some

circumstantial evidence. When you see the Fraser Institute and its

director sitting in at the planning of the budget with the cabinet, and

then you see everything that the Fraser Institute believes in coming

into the Legislature in legislative form, you have to believe that

there is some connection.

I think it's barbaric.

MR. REID: Talk about the powers of the trade union movement.

MR. LEA: Sure, I'll talk about it.

MR. REID: That's the problem of today.

MR. LEA: It's one of them. You see, there is the difference.

There's no doubt about it. There are warts on the trade union movement.

It isn't perfect. But what it does is play the same game as everyone

else. What it does is take out of the economy everything it has the

power to take out. There comes a time when the government has to temper

it too, and we did it when we were in government. But you can't point

to one group in society and say: "That's the problem."

MR. REID: You have to start somewhere.

MR. LEA: Then why don't we start with MacMillan Bloedel? A

company gets the union it deserves. There's a bit of truth in that. It

takes two to fight. In many ways I look at the trade union movement and

the corporate world as a bit of a marriage. When they're fighting, you

put your head in there and they might both clobber you. But if you're

going to deal with the problems between the trade union and the

employers, you have to come in with an understanding that there's a bit

of blame on both sides, there's a bit of good will on both sides, and

you have to be the buffer in between, as government. You can't just

pick up and attack one side. That's what this government is doing, and

it's a divisive thing in society. They believe that the companies are

wonderful and the trade unions are terrible.

MR. REID: That's not true.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there is to be no debate on the

floor of this House. The speaker has the floor. The second member for

Surrey and others are interrupting the speaker. I would ask you to let

him continue, and perhaps if the speaker would try to address the Chair

a little more, it might help likewise.

MR. LEA: I am addressing the Chair; I'm only looking at them.

I'll look at you too, Mr. Speaker. You're a much more receptive

audience anyway.

I think that's the problem. All the labour legislation we've seen so

far — and the labour legislation that's coming in — is directed at the

workers of the province, because Social Credit believes that the

workers are 95 percent to blame, and the companies are 5 percent. They

won't understand that the problem between unions and management has to

be equally shared by both.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Why don't you go tell that to your friends?

MR. LEA: I tell my friends that; why don't you tell yours?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I think I've touched a nerve, Mr. Speaker. They honestly do believe it. Do you know why I think the problem is here?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, will I have more time? Will this be

added onto my time? No? Then would you stop them? No? At least there's

an honest Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I'd just like to conclude by saying that I think the problem is that

most of the Social Credit MLAs are from the small business community,

and they've got no experience in dealing with trade unions. They

believe their own myths after a while and they think that trade union

people are terrible, greedy, divisive, rotten, stinking people and that

if we could only get rid of them, life would be wonderful. For

political purposes they say: "Well, the companies are not all right

either." But if you get them in the privacy of a little conversation,

it all comes out. They really think that the trade unions are the worst

thing in society and that big corporations are really the good thing,

and they see it as their everlasting duty to destroy and cut that evil

cancer, called the trade unions, out of our society.

It hasn't got to the point yet where they won't take the trade

unions' money in their stores, because they haven't reached that moral

plateau yet, but they do think that they are very evil things in

society and they're out to destroy them. And, Mr. Speaker, in their

desire and haste to destroy the trade union movement, they may very

well destroy all of society — no harmony, no peace, just chaos. The

climate that the government has been trying to establish will just not

be the climate we get. They're looking for blue, sunny skies; I think

we're heading toward stormy weather. Thank you, Mr. Speaker

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I

wonder if the Speaker would consider allowing that member to speak

again in the debate on this bill, because he just spoke for 40 minutes

and never spoke to the bill once.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. If we could possibly just keep

our places for a few moments, we will have him join us.

[12:30]

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT:

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1983

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1983

[ Page 1917 ]

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1983

Harbour Board Repeal Act

British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act

Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act

Regulations Act

Estate Administration Amendment Act, 1983

An Act Respecting Okanagan Bible College

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept

their benevolence and assent to these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Would the members please welcome Pat Carney, MP for Vancouver Centre and the next Minister of Energy for Canada.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:37 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

7 The Hon. W.S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 7)

intituled Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 2 , by deleting paragraph (

b) and substituting the following:

"(

b) by repealing subsection (8) and substituting the following:

"

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), in determining the assessed value

(

a) for general municipal purposes for the 1983 taxation year,

"the assessed value for the preceding year" means the assessed value

shown on the assessment roll for other than general municipal purposes for the

1982 taxation year multiplied by 10, and

(

b) for other than general municipal purposes for the 1984 taxation

year, ''the assessed value for the preceding year" means the assessed

value shown on the assessment roll for other than general municipal purposes

for the 1983 taxation year multiplied by 10."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada