1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7633 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 22). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7633

Mr. Lea –– 7633

Mr. D'Arcy –– 7633

Mrs. Wallace –– 7634

Mr. Leggatt –– 7634

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 7635

Mr. Howard –– 7638

Mr. Stupich –– 7638

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7639

Division –– 7639

Motive Fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 23). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7639

Mr. Stupich –– 7639

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7640

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 9 –– 7640

Mr. Levi

Mr. King

TUESDAY, MAY 18, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I understand there was a tragic loss

in the family of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) last night,

when he lost a son-in-law in a tragic car accident. I would ask you, on

behalf of the House, to extend our deepest sympathy and regrets.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that the wish of the House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: I will do it.

MR. KING:

I see we have in the gallery this morning a distinguished visitor from

the city of Revelstoke. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming

Mr. Fred Bervschi Jr., who is a proprietor of the Regent Inn in

Revelstoke.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In rising to speak to and move second reading of Bill 22, I should

observe for members of the House and you, sir, that this is one of the

significant tax measures announced in the budget speech. It deals with

the exemption of compressed natural gas and propane from provincial

fuel tax in the province of British Columbia when used to propel a

motor vehicle. One

section of the bill amends the Gasoline Tax Act to

implement this exemption. This measure will have the immediate effect

of reducing the price of compressed natural gas and propane by 5.06

cents per litre. This represents about a 20 percent saving in fuel

costs, and for the average automobile it will amount to a $160 saving

in the first year. The amendment also ensures that these fuels will

continue to be exempt from social service tax and the Gasoline

(Coloured) Tax Act, although no longer taxable under the Gasoline Tax

Act. CNG and propane — as others more knowledgeable than I will be able

to tell you — are safe, clean-burning substitutes for gasoline. This

move can also make a major contribution to reducing British Columbia's

dependence on external oil supplies. Clearly British Columbia has an

abundant supply of natural gas and there is a substantial propane

surplus in Canada. The federal government, as part of its program to

reduce our dependency on oil, is now providing grants for the

conversion of vehicles to either CNG or propane. The province has

announced that it will also be providing a conversion grant. I'm sure

these measures, in combination with the provincial tax exemption for

these fuels, will substantially encourage conversions. However, I must

point out that even in the absence of these incentives, it is

financially attractive to convert high-mileage vehicles to CNG or

propane, and some individuals and fleet owners have already done so. In

the case of CNG, this results largely from the government's very

favourable pricing policy for natural gas.

Nonetheless, the conversion of many more vehicles is being hindered by the

lack of an available distribution network for these fuels, CNG in particular.

It is the government's hope — and I know it is shared by a number of my

colleagues — that these two additional incentives will be seen as a commitment

by the province to further the use of these alternative fuels and the private

sector will respond by gradually establishing the required distribution network.

Mr. Speaker, knowing the innovative spirit of British Columbians, I'm confident

that within a few years a significant share of cars and trucks in this province

will be utilizing these fuels of the future, if I may use that phrase.

Other

sections also increase the urban transit authority levy under the

Gasoline Tax Act for municipal transit purposes to 95 cents per litre

from 66 cents per litre, effective upon proclamation of these sections.

There are also amendments to increase the fines under this act to a

level which will provide an adequate deterrent to persons who do not

comply with the legislation and a level which is consistent with other

taxation statutes. However, those are details, Mr. Speaker.

Again,

the main thrust is the recognition — and I think I would be remiss if I

did not acknowledge the persistent urging of my colleague, the Minister

of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I could

not tell him when he had made his case, because it was a tax measure.

Nonetheless, without his enthusiasm in this particular regard, we might

not have been in a position to undertake this measure this particular

year, I think it is a move forward in terms of motive fuel in British

Columbia, and I have great pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 22.

MR. LEA:

We agree with the government that it would be desirous if we could get

more people to use those natural products from British Columbia that

are in abundance, and that are cleaner. I suppose everyone — or at

least lay people — has a little apprehension about whether or not it's

safe in all cases. I know this is being brought through the House by

the Minister of Finance, when indeed it is really the brainchild of the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications.

One of

the things that concerns me is that we have had, in the past five

months, a 26 percent increase in fuel taxation through the provincial

government. This increase affects fishermen, which means many people in

my riding, and farmers throughout the province. This 26 percent

increase for fishermen and farmers is a horrendous increase and is

really cutting into the profitability of fishing and farming. I know

the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications is going to

speak during this debate, and I wonder if he will tell us if the

government has done anything in regard to researching whether this is

also adaptable for fishing vessels. Is it still safe? And has the

government any plans whatsoever for moving into that area, because it's

an area that not only would help the fishermen but the economy

generally. We could keep fishermen and farmers economically healthy. So

when the government speaks through its Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications, would he let us know what the government

has done, if anything, in regard to adapting this fuel to the fishing

and agricultural industries?

MR. D'ARCY: First of

all, I'd like to indicate, if the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

has not, that we will be supporting this bill. It's an excellent

change. I'm glad the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications is in the House. I would like to note that a year or so

ago, when we in the opposition made the suggestion that the tax on

propane and compressed natural gas for motive vehicle use be reduced

[ Page 7634 ]

increase its competitive advantage over gasoline at that time, the

Minister of Finance reacted by noticing, for the first time, I think,

that there was a price and taxation advantage for propane. Instead of

reducing it, the government reacted by raising it to the same level of

taxation as was placed on diesel fuel and gasoline. I'm glad to see

that, possibly at the urging of the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications, the government has now seen the error of its ways

and has removed the tax. I commend the government for that.

also commend the government for the conversion grant. I think that's a

positive step. I'd like to note, Mr. Speaker, that this is not

something new. Twenty-five to thirty years ago propane was very common

in industrial fleets in the private sector, especially those in

warehouse service. That was back when gasoline was 25 cents a gallon.

It was desirable even at that time for warehouse service vehicles in

industrial fleets to be using propane. So it's not something new; the

advantage has been there all along. We as a society, perhaps because of

very effective lobbying by the petroleum industry, didn't really cotton

on to the fact that propane and compressed natural gas were available,

were cheap, were efficient and had numerous other advantages in terms

of avoiding tune-ups and compared to the length of life of other

internal-combustion engines. With those remarks, I want to repeat that

we will be supporting the bill.

MRS. WALLACE: In

introducing the bill, the minister indicated that this bill was

related, in effect, to the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, and I note that

in the explanatory notes it refers to the fact that natural gas will

also be taxable under the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act. I note in

another piece of legislation, which will come before this House at a

later date, that there is provision to include natural gas in the

Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act.

The question that I have for

the minister is this. Under the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act there is

provision for farmers who use gasoline to get a reduced rate. As my

colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has indicated, that reduced rate

has been drastically increased over the last few years. Farmers in fact

do pay tax, and it seems to me that this act, combined with other

pieces of legislation that we're going to be looking at, is going to

put the farmer in the position of paying tax on natural gas if in fact

he uses it for farm purposes, but if he uses it for other purposes he's

not going to be liable for tax. I wonder if the minister has looked at

this possibility, because it seems to me that this is the thing we're

getting into here with these various pieces of legislation. I'm raising

it under this act in the hope that sometime down the road we'll see an

amendment on the order paper that will ensure that that doesn't happen.

I would like the minister to consider that particular aspect.

don't think anyone can be opposed to using our own natural product,

which is in plentiful supply here in British Columbia, and to

encouraging its use. I am concerned, though, that the cost of

conversion is estimated to be in the range of $1,000, and the

assistance is going to be a very small portion of that. How many people

are actually going to be able to take advantage of it? How available is

the supply going to be in outlying areas? There has to be an available

supply of natural gas, if in fact we are going to go to this major

conversion. Are there any plans or has there been any consultation to

ensure that it is available?

It's difficult to talk about

this bill, because it has a lot of varying things in it. The third

point I have to raise is that once again in this bill we're into

increasing minimum fines. I think there is a real danger there. It

imposes upon a judge a limit below which he cannot go. Very often it

will be absolutely unrealistic because of circumstance. Surely we have

to rely on the judiciary to use good common sense. Certainly if it's a

flagrant breaking of the law, then it should be justly punished. But as

long as the maximums are there, you're okay. I think it should be left

with more discretionary power in the hands of the judiciary, because

you can't heavily penalize someone who really shouldn't be so heavily

penalized. That's another point in this act about which I have some

very grave concerns.

As for removal of tax from natural gas,

I think that's a step in the right direction. I'm concerned about the

techniques of how it's going to work. I am certainly concerned about

whether or not a farmer is going to have to say he's not using this

particular gas for farm purposes, if in fact he's going to be exempt

from tax.

With those remarks, I would ask the minister to respond.

MR. LEGGATT:

I welcome the bill. As other speakers have said, it's a useful piece of

legislation. It is really a tiny little crack of light, though, in

terms of the total legislative package. Nevertheless, the principle is

good.

What I think concerns me from a sort of industrial

strategy point of view is why we should have to go through the

conversion process. Why is the auto industry itself so inflexible that

it has yet to produce a motor vehicle that we can buy which burns this

product that we have in the west? The answer, of course, lies in the

Autopact and in the disastrous decision that was made years ago to

integrate our auto industry with the United States. Of course that

brings up the whole question of how we in Canada should have handled

our industrial future. It has long been my belief that by now we could

have been producing a Canadian vehicle for sale in the northern

climates of the world using natural gas as a fuel. But, of course,

partly because of the regional nature of the country and also because

we have tended to allow our industrial base to be so completely

dominated by the United States, we have never been able to grow up as

an economy and produce a motor vehicle in Canada for Canadian

conditions. If we had done that, we would have been able to produce a

motor vehicle using natural gas without the necessity of intervening in

terms of conversions now. I certainly welcome the efforts the

government has made to encourage conversions. Like most people in the

opposition, we wish it were more, but in any event it is useful.

The

second point I want to make about the bill deals with the question of

offence and penalty, which my colleague has referred to. Again we are

getting into minimum penalties. The offence that

section 7 of this

legislation is attempting to change is this: "A vendor who in violation

section 6...fails to furnish any return or keep any records that may

be required under

section 7...commits an offence against this act."

That is the heinous offence that we are going to impose on a small

businessman failing to turn over a record. What we are now saying is:

"You have a minimum fine of $200. You have no choice; you have no

discretion." If the guy loses a piece of paper out of his office he

gets a $200 fine, no questions asked and the judge has no discretion.

It seems to me that we've got to stop this business of imposing

minimums on non-criminal offences — offences that are not venal in

nature and inadvertent offences.

[ Page

7635 ]

Here we have a minimum fine of $200. What we're amending is the old section,

which had no minimum at all. The old

section provided that the fine was not

to exceed $500 but the magistrate could impose any fine that he felt was appropriate

in the circumstances. What, are we imposing a minimum fine on somebody who may

have forgotten to file a record? For God's sake, we're getting out of

hand here. He may have been sick; he may have been in the hospital. There may

be a hundred excuses.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Yes, maybe he didn't get his mail. But he faces a bureaucrat who says:

"No, you haven't got the record there; it's too bad, you're charged,"

and suddenly the guy is facing a $200 fine. It could be more; it could

be a minimum of $200 for every charge, and they could lay five or ten

charges on the same businessman.

AN HON. MEMBER: And they will.

MR. LEGGATT: And they will.

ask the minister to have a serious look at this provision in the bill,

and in the other bills that are coming down. We don't need minimum

fines for inadvertence. We don't need minimum fines for people who

don't commit crime, who just happen to do something inadvertently. And

if it's not inadvertence, if it is some kind of conspiracy to prevent

the government from receiving their fair share of tax, the maximum

gives the magistrate all the discretion he wants, and he can nail the

guy.

We have the bureaucrats running rampant, with the

minister under total control. The minister hasn't spoken up when his

bureaucrats have come in with these minimum fines. I don't believe the

minister is sympathetic to this kind of legislation. I really don't

believe the minister wants to see minimum fines imposed. I believe he'd

rather leave it with the magistrate, but I don't think he has stood up

to his officials. He's got to stand up to his officials. The minister

should be the boss of this department, but he's not. He's letting those

bureaucrats dictate to him what those minimum fines should be.

I'm

glad he's making notes about this. I hope he'll take the bill and go

after those bureaucrats and say: "Wait a minute, are we really going to

nail every little businessman out there who forgot to file his records,

who lost a sheet of paper, who maybe didn't get his mail on time, who

maybe was sick?" There are a hundred different reasons for this, and I

don't trust the bureaucrats to be judges in these things. They'll lay

the charge.

You have our support on the bill, but serious

consideration should be given to not imposing minimum fines for the

inadvertent, little offences that can occur under this kind of

legislation. Let's stop the bureaucrats from imposing a standard

penalty on people where it could be inadvertence. A small businessman

could be bankrupted by a series of these kinds of charges. We don't all

have Touche, Ross & Company doing our books, you know. Some of

these poor fellows have to do their own books, and they do them in a

scribbler or on a tiny piece of paper, and they make mistakes; now

we're telling them they're going to have minimum fines? That's unjust,

unfair, wrong-headed.

I'm urging the minister to seriously consider amending this provision in

the bill in committee so that we do justice to the small businessman who's

having terrible problems right now in a recessionary time trying to make ends

meet. He can't hire chartered accountants to do his books and make sure

that everything is great, and here you are imposing minimum fines on him. It's

wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the minister will reconsider.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I want to thank the Minister of Finance and the government for bringing

in this particular measure, and I want particularly to thank the New

Democratic Party for its support. I can assure the members that what

we're doing here in British Columbia is being watched closely around

the world. This is the most advanced, significant and determined

program to be embarked upon since the initial OPEC crisis of 1973.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

No, Mr. Member, it isn't world-shattering, but it's extremely

significant, and I'd like to explain how I first became interested and

concerned about our vulnerability in Canada and in British Columbia.

members of the British Columbia Hydro board, one day during the second

oil crisis at the time the oil allocation board was formed in Canada,

we were informed that if restriction of supply were to continue as

anticipated, there would be gasoline rationing in Canada and our oil

would be allocated to the east. The particular concern of B.C. Hydro

was that such a shift in oil allocation would not only bring gas

rationing to British Columbia, but would leave us short of power,

because the shift from oil energy to electricity could not be met by

the current availability of electricity reserves in our province.

mention that because the fundamental circumstances have not changed

since that time. Canada is every bit as dependent on OPEC oil as it was

during the time of the second oil crisis. If Saudi Arabia were to shut

down its production, we in British Columbia and all consumers in Canada

would be on gas rationing within three months. What has happened during

the previous oil crises is that we have experienced price shocks. We've

paid the price, and we've got the oil. That's because the vulnerability

in supply has never quite reached the point where we've had to take the

next step, which is to restrict our usage of oil and thus remove what

we in North America, without realizing it, consider to be our greatest

freedom: freedom of mobility, based on personal transportation. That's

really crucial to our commerce and our lifestyle in North America.

People

may talk about the need for rapid transit. Of course that exists. But

the very essence of the way our society is built in the twentieth

century depends on mobility and transportation, in boats as well as in

automobiles. Over the years, we've allowed ourselves to become

dependent on the world's most successful cartel — that cartel, of

course, being OPEC. In response to the moves of the cartel, we have had

a proliferation of energy departments being struck in most countries of

the western world. Unfortunately, few of these ministries and

departments have clearly seen what lies ahead in the world.

The

person that possesses the greatest and most effective weapon in the

world today, and the person who sees the energy situation more clearly

than anyone else, is Sheik Yarnam of Saudi Arabia. He has spoken quite

frankly of the "oil weapon." He has said that what the OPEC cartel

nations

[ Page 7636 ]

must

do is never to raise the price of oil to the point where western

nations seriously consider alternatives. To do so would not be in the

interests of his country and would remove the oil weapon. Those are

Sheik Yamani's words — not President Reagan's, nor those of any member

of this Legislative Assembly or anybody in Canada.

What

we're doing, and why it is significant, is taking the only steps that

will make it possible for the western world to relieve its dependency

on Sheik Yamani and his friends. Of course, in British Columbia, a mass

conversion to methane would not do anything. It won't persuade the

automobile manufacturers and it certainly won't terrify Yamani. What

would terrify Yamani and remove the oil weapon would be to take away

the dependency upon OPEC, because we have the capacity in our hands in

North America to achieve that objective and because this is the only

direction in which it could be done. Then, of course, this program

remains of interest because it is the only solution to the problem.

North America's automobile fleet were to operate in the same fashion as

my ministry car, which is to have gasoline in the tank but, by pulling

a lever on the dashboard, to be able to switch to an indigenous North

American fuel, one which we have in abundance in British Columbia, then

if Sheik Yamani and his friends wanted to charge too much for oil or

wanted to shut down the production, people would pull the lever and be

free. On the other hand, if the OPEC nations said: "We will make the

price right," one could push the levers in and use OPEC oil and

conserve our supply of what, in terms of cheap availability, is a

limited fuel.

One should understand that methane is

something that can be made from biomass, from coal, and from other

renewable and nonrenewable resources. The significance is simply this:

if we are successful, at least to the extent of building a

comprehensive infrastructure here in British Columbia, then the oil can

be allocated across Canada, as it will. OPEC may shut down its

production, either willingly or unwillingly, as it will. Our citizens

of British Columbia will be protected and our transportation fleet will

still move. That won't do for the rest of Canada and the rest of North

America if they fail to follow our lead. But if they do follow our

lead, then the OPEC cartel is finished. Not only that, we would then

begin to see the logical solution suggested by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). Of course, the automobile industry

should be producing at the factory automobiles that will run on a

Canadian fuel, rather than an OPEC fuel or a North American fuel rather

than an OPEC fuel. Because of the massive commitment that the

automobile industry has to the United States — I might say the lack of

insight that has developed in the Department of Energy in the United

States, and of course the pressure of the oil companies themselves —

there has yet to be a significant move on the part of the automobile

manufacturers.

It was my pleasure just last Friday to be in

Washington addressing a second world conference on methane as a motor

vehicle fuel, sponsored in this case by the American Gas Association.

Very significant forward steps taken had been taken since we held our

world conference here last September.

In the United States

people are beginning to realize that, first of all, they have enough

natural gas to serve their purposes. Of course, that's why the Alaska

gas pipeline was cancelled: they've discovered enough in the lower 48

states.

Secondly, the gas companies have realized that since

conservation has taken place their pipelines are no longer running at

capacity. They have the overhead, but they don't have the customers.

Now an automobile uses about the same amount of natural gas as would a

three-bedroom home. Every time they convert a car, they've got another

home as their customer. They are beginning to realize in the United

States the need to develop both new markets and the assurance of their

own supply. If you throw in on top of that the relief of dependency

upon OPEC, even the automobile manufacturers are beginning to get the

message. That's why the Ford Motor Co. came for Washington and

announced their willingness to produce a methane-only car.

The

problem, of course, with the methane-only car is that the

infrastructure is not in place. The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) said: "What about availability?" This is part of the

chicken-and-egg problem. You don't want to convert until you know

there's a service station there to till up your automobile. The man who

runs the service station doesn't want to put the equipment in until he

knows you've converted. Because of that chicken-and-egg situation,

we're going to have to move step by step to get people converting as

the service stations are opened.

Here in British Columbia,

our first public service station will be open next month. We hope to

have as many as 50 planned or in operation by the end of the year.

That's an unlikely target to reach.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you make a deal with PetroCan?

HON. MR. McGEER:

Yes, we've had many discussions with PetroCan, and we're moving them

along. But the unfortunate

part is that it's an oil company and it

really takes a little while to penetrate the thinking of an oil company

about gas as a fuel.

Until this lock-step conversion can

take place, it really is necessary to have a dual-fuel automobile. And

this is the thing that we have yet to get across to the oil

manufacturers. As far as Canada is concerned, what we paid for foreign

oil last year was $13 billion — equal to the increase in our national

debt. Half of that — $6.5 billion — went in a direct subsidy of $20 a

barrel, and you get about 20 gallons of gasoline from that barrel. In

other words, Canadians have been paying $1 a gallon subsidy for OPEC

oil all this time. It's been hidden. We've got nothing to show at the

end of the year for that except exhaust fumes, and at the same time

we're shutting in our own Canadian fuel.

Worse than that,

the federal government taxes our own Canadian fuel. I don't know how

many members realize this, but natural gas is subsidized by this

Legislative Assembly to about $1 per thousand cubic feet. It's taxed by

the federal government to about that extent. So what we're doing in

British Columbia is paying a horrendous tax on our native fuel, which

then gets spent abroad for OPEC oil to run the automobiles.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The tax is $1.20.

HON. MR. McGEER:

The federal tax is $1.20, and our subsidy is about a dollar, Mr.

Minister. So that gives you some picture of the massive insanity that's

going on in Canada today with respect to its energy policy.

[ Page 7637 ]

MR. HANSON: Liberals.

HON. MR. McGEER:

Sure, you supported them in the House of Commons to defeat the

government. And it was over 17 cents a gallon. How many price rises

have there been since that 17 cents? I'll tell you, I wouldn't support

those Liberals, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, what we're trying

to do in our small way and with the support of the opposition is get

some common sense introduced into the global energy situation and our

role in it in British Columbia. It's a step-by-step business. The first

is to recognize that we've got our own Canadian fuel at prices that we

can set for ourselves, except for the federal tax. Even with the

federal tax, the cost to the consumer is about half the cost of

gasoline. So there's going to be a big saving for those who convert.

sympathize with the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who

complains about the high cost of conversion. It is costing too much.

Essentially what you and I are required to do as consumers in order to

use our own Canadian fuel in a so-called Canadian car is to spend a

couple of thousand dollars correcting a congenital defect in that car.

Because it has been designed for OPEC fuel, it's made more for the

southern United States than it is for Canada, and therefore we deny

ourselves a cleaner, superior — and cold-starting I might add, to bring

in the Canadian weather conditions — fuel.

We should say

just a word or two about propane and methane, because one of the great

myths that exists in Canada today is that we have a surplus of propane

and somehow this is what we should do for our automobile fleet in order

to relieve our dependency upon OPEC and OPEC oil. Propane is about 2

percent of a gas field. There is not enough propane in North America to

run the cars in the city of Montreal, much less all of North America.

We don't have a surplus of propane here in British Columbia; in cold

winters we need to import some. Propane is a minor constituent of an

oil refinery. To the extent that we have a propane surplus temporarily

in Canada today is because of refinery runs, not because of utilization

of natural gas from our gas fields. There isn't enough of it.

to all of those who look to propane as the answer to our oil problem, I

merely say beware. If there is a shortage of oil, it's my firm

conviction — I don't like to be a pessimist — that we can't get

long-term stability out of the Middle East. There's too much money

going into countries that simply can't handle the distribution of such

wealth, but that's a personal opinion and each of you would make your

own judgments. But I do say that if there is another oil crisis — if

there is a shortage — then we will be pinched for propane just as we're

pinched for oil. Vancouver Island depends on propane, because there is

no natural gas pipeline. All of the isolated communities of the coast

depend upon propane, because they don't have natural gas. Therefore

we're not going to have enough for fleets that could otherwise run on

gasoline and diesel, and if there's a shortage, the people who have

cars or trucks that run only on propane are going to find that there

simply isn't any of that commodity to go around.

Methane is

a different question altogether. Some of the members have raised

concern about safety. Methane is compressed in a thick-walled cylinder

under pressure. If there's release of the gas, it's lighter than air

and it goes right up, it doesn't puddle like propane. Therefore there

isn't the danger of explosion in the basement, garage or the hold of

the boat. There is a danger with automobiles. Members may

have remembered seeing a sensational headline just a few weeks ago

about seven people who had been killed in a tunnel in Oakland because

of a rear-end car accident that caused gasoline to catch flame. You

don't have that with methane. It is said that if we had started with

methane or even propane as our fuel for automobiles, permission would

never ever be given to use gasoline. So it's the safest of the fuels,

and with proper management — less care than we have to exert with our

current gasoline stations — all will be safe.

I can't resist

making one comment about the Alsands oil project, about which there has

been so much weeping in Canada. A projected cost of some $13 billion

would produce, in approximately a decade, about 140,000 barrels of oil

— sufficient to operate less than a million vehicles in Canada. For the

cost of that Alsands project it would be possible to give away to every

automobile owner in Canada a methane conversion kit. There is enough

methane in Canada to drive all our automobiles, guzzling as much as

they can, until the end of the next century. We've already got it.

Therefore, if we gave every Canadian citizen a conversion kit, instead

of building an Alsands plant, we'd be exporting oil to the United

States and not engaging in the kind of polemic that's taking place

today where the Americans are saying to Canada: "You're more dependent

on oil than you ever were, and if you get into trouble we should let

you freeze in the dark." We've been overconfident. We've been prodigal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER:

In theory methane would be a far superior system to propane or to

gasoline. What you need to do for fishing boats is to install a

cryogenic system and therefore have liquid natural gas in the boats. It

would work extremely well. The Beech Aircraft Corporation has got a

system they use in cars that would be perfect for putting into boats.

If you had a small liquefying plant in Prince Rupert, then I would

highly recommend to the fishing fleets that they convert to LNG, and I

would also highly recommend to the Minister of Finance and the

government that they give incentives to the boat-owners to do that. It

would be a super fuel.

MRS. WALLACE: What about hydrogen?

HON. MR. McGEER: The problem with hydrogen is how you are going to make it.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps under another bill this discussion would be okay.

HON. MR. McGEER:

I can compare hydrogen and methane as fuels under this bill, may I not,

Mr. Speaker? Methane is cheaper and it's available. Hydrogen has to be

made by some method. A method for making hydrogen is electrolyzing

water, but we don't have power development in British Columbia to do

that. You can make it from oil, you can make it from methane, and you

can make it from coal. We don't have the oil and as far as coal and

methane are concerned, it is cheaper to use the methane straight or to

make the methane from the coal. That will be cheaper and better for us.

That is why hydrogen is not practical for us now, although it is being

talked about as the fuel for the future for airplanes. Possibly that

will come. If you go from oil to

[ Page 7638 ]

electricity and then to hydrogen you have really introduced a lot of inefficiency, and in so doing you've raised the price.

would like to thank the minister and thank the New Democratic Party for

their support. It is small. It's not going to overturn the world by

itself but if it's successful and if we can only get the rest of North

America to copy us — that was essentially the challenge I took to the

Reagan administration in Washington last week — OPEC is finished.

MR. RITCHIE: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. RITCHIE:

It is certainly my pleasure, on behalf of our Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) and the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) to introduce to the House 13 Girl Guides from the first Surrey

troop of White Rock. They are accompanied by three adults and their

leader, Mrs. Peelo. Would the House please welcome these people.

MR. HOWARD:

I listened with tremendous interest to the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), as I always do when he

discusses subject matters with which he is thoroughly familiar. He does

a very good job of fully explaining and discussing the ramifications of

matters under his expertise. The only time he got into trouble was when

he started to refer to his buddies in Ottawa, his friends in the

Liberal Party; he stumbled and felt a bit embarrassed about that. In

any event, I thoroughly enjoyed his explanation of things.

This

is the type of bill in which there is an acceptable feature. That was

the one discussed by the minister. There are a couple of unacceptable

features, as far as I'm concerned. One was dealt with by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), with respect to the imposition of fines

and restrictions placed upon the courts regarding their flexibility

with respect to transgressions under this act.

One of the

principles that I want to deal with relates to an increase in the tax

on gasoline for purposes of the Urban Transit Authority Act. The way I

read the bill in relation to the act which it seeks to amend — and

perhaps the minister can correct me from his point of view — is that

every person in British Columbia will be paying an increased gasoline

tax for the purpose of subsidizing urban transit functions. In my view,

that means that the bill proposes to further discriminate against

people in rural areas, who don't have any urban transit authority

applicable to them. For instance, everybody who lives in Atlin, where

there is no urban transit system, who buys gasoline in Atlin will be

paying an increased tax on gas in order to subsidize the urban transit

system in the lower mainland and in other communities where it exists.

People in my own constituency — in Smithers, Hazelton, Kitwanga and in

all the small communities — who buy gasoline from any retailer will be

paying this subsidy to the Urban Transit Authority. I think that sort

of discrimination should not be contained within the act. I realize

there is some difficulty in trying to confine it, for argument's sake,

to the residents of the lower mainland.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not correct, Frank.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister says I'm wrong. If I am wrong, I'd certainly appreciate

the minister pointing it out to me in his closing remarks. What he's

saying is that under sections 4 and 5 of this bill rural people are not

required to pay the proposed tax increase on gasoline. If that is what

the minister is saying, I would very much appreciate his full

explanation of it, because people have asked me about it. I would also

appreciate it if he could tell me, for argument's sake, how it is

confined and how you are able to differentiate between the owner of a

vehicle who lives in a rural area and one who lives in an urban area.

In other words, if a person from a rural area drives into the city of

Vancouver and buys gasoline, he will pay the tax, but if he buys it,

say, in Chilliwack — I don't know whether there is an urban transit

system in Chilliwack; I've just picked it as an example — then he does

not pay it. Is that what the minister meant when he said I was wrong? I

would appreciate it if he would identify the sections in the act where

those exclusions exist.

MR. STUPICH: I think it's

been a longer discussion than most of us had anticipated, but generally

interesting. I must say that when the Minister of Universities, Science

and Communications entered the debate and told us that the purpose of

this bill was to make Sheik Yamani shake in his books, I wondered what

bill was before us at this point. That certainly that wasn't the

purpose announced by the Minister of Finance in introducing the bill.

also have some real concern about one remark by the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications that was thrown in near the

end of his presentation. He assured us that there is enough methane to

drive all of the automobiles, wasteful as we are, until the end of the

next century. It reminds me of the same arguments that were used by the

Liberal government — at the time when he supported that government as a

Liberal member of the Legislature — when they told us it was quite all

right for us to export all our cheap oil. Because we had unlimited

supplies, we exported it at $4 and $5 a barrel to the Americans. We're

now buying it back, as he says, at a subsidy of $20 billion a year. If

we were to use all our methane gas that rashly, then I think we would

have other problems long before the end of the next century.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, the minister is continuing his arguments now, and he's

advancing the same arguments as his Liberal cohorts used to do some 15

years ago: export it, get rid of it, because there's lots of it. He

says we'll never run out of methane. We'll, that's fine, Mr. Speaker,

and I hope that I'm not here to prove him wrong some day in the future.

any case, this idea of conversion is a good one. I don't think there is

any question about that. Certainly we oppose the doubling in some cases

of the minimum fines, in other cases of instituting minimums when there

were no minimums before. But with respect to conversion, the NDP

administration tried to get something going in a very small way by

reducing the tax on propane used in automobiles. That didn't work. The

present administration has been talking about this for several years.

They have been trying to persuade people to convert. This, I suppose,

is the largest step forward. I am curious as to whether any progress

has been made to date. I don't know whether the Minister of Finance is

able to tell us anything about progress to date.

A friend of

mine here in Victoria converted to propane recently at a cost of

$1,700. As I read this bill it won't help him, because he has to use

propane. He drives on Vancouver

[ Page 7639 ]

Island,

and this particular bill will not help him in any way, as I understand

it, at least for some time to come. The Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications told us that his ministry car has been

converted. He also told us that he can use either. I don't know whether

his car is being driven on Vancouver Island or on the mainland. I don't

know whether it's a fancy feature introduced into that particular

automobile at great cost to the taxpayers, and yet is seldom used

because the car is driven on Vancouver Island and has no access to that

gas. I just don't know these things.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He drives it through the tunnel.

MR. STUPICH:

I wouldn't even ask him about the tunnel. I think the time to ask him

how much it cost to convert that particular automobile, and how often

he uses the gas part of it, will be during discussion of his estimates.

But

is the minister able to tell us anything at all? Has there been any

progress made to date in conversions? I've told him of one. It's the

only one I've ever heard of, and I must say that the person who told me

about his own conversion is very pleased with it. The performance is

excellent. He believes that even without the help that this bill would

have given him, had it extended to propane as well, and if he gets the

government grants that he's still hoping to get — after several months

he's still hoping — as he drives a lot of mileage he will be able to

pay for it in two years. That's some progress, but I wonder if the

minister can tell us about any further progress.

I also

wonder whether the minister would comment on this idea of why in so

many pieces of legislation, this one in particular, the fines are being

increased, leaving no freedom.... Not that I'm always ready and

willing to put my faith in the hands of judges under all circumstances,

but I think in this instance it might be better if the judge did have

some freedom to have no minimum at all if he felt that way.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I appreciate the comments which have been made with respect to this new

measure. In answer to the member for Nanaimo, who has just taken his

seat, the program is very new. Tomorrow we are graduating our second

class of those trained in the conversion process. It is extremely new,

and I think all hon. members recognize that. That is why the bill is

before us at this time: to give full effect to what is happening in the

private sector and the interest shown by individuals throughout British

Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of points without getting into section-by-section debate.

The

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) spoke about farm vehicles,

and I would like to assure her that on matters of this nature, in

conjunction with my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt), we are embarked on discussions with the executive of

the B.C. Federation of Agriculture. We have discussed this kind of

process, and certainly the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the

minister in particular, are very supportive of seeing this developed,

refined and expanded. In specific answer to her question as I recall

it, farmers can now use compressed natural gas and propane, exempt of

any provincial tax, in a farm tractor or any other motor vehicle used

on a farm. I think that was the point she made. Further discussions

will be required and further amendments will come before this House,

I'm sure, in time to come with respect to these fuels on farms

throughout the province.

My colleague the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications has spoken about distribution.

It is a chicken and egg. We have decided to start with the egg, I

think, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)

accepted my quiet interjection across the floor when he spoke of one

aspect of this amending act which deals with the tax for UTA purposes.

I would refer the member, without straying too far from the debate, to

the Urban Transit Authority statute and the regulations which flow from

that. Quite clearly it does not apply outside the designated area of

the Greater Vancouver Regional District or the lower mainland. As an

example, here we do not pay a tax on any fuel. With respect to Urban

Transit Authority purposes, the Capital Regional District opted for

another option. That was on our power bills. With respect to the hon.

members for Atlin, Skeena or other areas in the interior and northern

part of British Columbia — anywhere, in fact, but the Greater Vancouver

Regional District — there is no change resulting from this review. It

applies only to the purchase of fuel in that area. As I would expect if

I were in another province, I pay the taxes that are appropriate in

that province. In the case of an automobile in Vancouver, whether it is

converted for these fuels or not, I will pay the tax that is levied in

that area, notwithstanding the fact that my car is from Saanich, Skeena

or whatever may be the case. I trust that assists the member in that

regard. I refer him to

section 5 of the Gasoline Tax Act.

had a considerable debate yesterday on minimum fines. On this point,

members opposite and members on this side disagreed. We are altering a

number of fines in a number of statutes. I think we had an interesting

debate yesterday, with participation by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams). It certainly applies in precisely the same way to the act

which is presently before us.

One member who is not in his

seat — and it was a lawyer who yesterday observed that lawyers make

their point and then take off, or words to that effect — is the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). I hope that he will hear this or

will read it later, with respect to who is in control of the Ministry

of Finance. He spoke specifically of this. I have no doubts about that.

I understand that the buck stops with the minister. If the federal

Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, had one-fiftieth of the control

that I have here over the Ministry of Finance in Ottawa, this country

would be in a hell of a lot better shape. I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill

22, Gasoline Tax Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 23.

MOTIVE FUEL USE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I would hope that the members will agree that this bill is more

appropriately debated in committee. There may be some sections with

which members agree fully and others with which they disagree. I have

some second reading comments, but I would suggest to the House with

respect that committee debate on this bill would be more appropriate.

Therefore I move second reading of Bill 23.

MR. STUPICH: The opposition agrees.

[ Page 7640 ]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move that the bill be referred to a committee of the whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

Bill

23, Motive Fuel Use Tax Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 9.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I defer to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

if he wishes.

have some questions to answer from yesterday. Among the questions posed

yesterday — I think in this particular case they were from the hon.

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) — were some concerning

the degree of consultation which occurred and the communication which

was held with a number of organizations. I had earlier referred — in

order that we have this in context — to the number of briefs which had

been received following the invitation. Then on February 22, some four

days after the announcement of the compensation stabilization program,

meetings occurred with a number of representatives present. I make it

clear that I was not present for those meetings. I believe there are

very valid reasons why I should not be in on these discussions. The

program was explained in some detail. I am as satisfied as I can be

with respect to the organizations I am about to mention. If there is an

error or an omission, it is not intentional and I trust the committee

will understand. Attendant on February 22 in this building were

representatives of: the International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers; the B.C. Federation of Peace Officers; the British Columbia

Firefighters Association; Teamsters joint council, local 36; the

Workers' Compensation Board Employees Union — actually there were two

groups representing the WCB employees; the Camosun College Faculty

Association; the BCIT Staff Society; and the Professional Employees

Association, otherwise known as the managers in the provincial

government. Others were contacted on an individual basis dealing with

individual aspects of the program. I would not want to leave the

committee with the impression that this consultation all took place on

February 22, but I did indicate those organizations which were

represented on that date. Subsequent to that, however, there were a

number of telephone calls and a number of meetings of one kind or

another.

I don't know if yesterday the member was interested

in the meetings with employer groups or employer representatives. Very

briefly they were with representatives of the University of Victoria,

British Columbia Hydro, the Greater Victoria Labour Relations

Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, British Columbia Ferry

Corporation, British Columbia Assessment Authority, British Columbia

Systems Corporation, the British Columbia School Trustees

Association, British Columbia Buildings Corporation, the Public

Employers of B.C., the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and

then some regional education and municipal organizations such as BCSTA

in the Okanagan, the Okanagan Mainline Municipal Labour Relations

Association, the Greater Vancouver Regional District Labour Relations

Department and the Government Employee Relations Bureau, among others.

Those meetings occurred in the days just following the announcement by

the Premier on February 18. While some members of the committee may

still have concerns, I'm satisfied that a number of consultations did

in fact take place. I could carry on with additional examples, but I

trust that will satisfy the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam, who

mentioned this in a somewhat critical sense yesterday.

MR. LEVI:

I wonder if I could just go back to the minister. When I spoke

yesterday, I asked about the consultative process. All you've told us —

and I know you've said you were not there.... But what did you

actually discuss with them? The point we've been making is that the

Premier made the announcement and presumably set the guidelines. What

did you tell these people? What kind of things were discussed? After

all, the majority of the people you listed submitted briefs which were

two pages or less. Perhaps the minister can tell us, if he's heard from

his officials, just what the nature of the discussions was. It is my

impression from talking to some people that they simply had the

guidelines laid out because of what the Premier said. Now what was the

discussion all about then? That's really what we would like to know.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I recall my briefing following those meetings, and the

discussions related to the program and how it would be implemented.

Some of the discussions, particularly one which I think occurred the

day following the Premier's announcement, would have been more of a

listening situation with respect to the individuals who attended. I

speak of the meetings with employers' representatives, but I think by

February 22, some four days later, there was an opportunity for the

kind of interchange between the representatives of various trade unions

or union groups and the officials who are charged with the

administration of this measure. I can't cite book,

chapter and

verse — precisely what occurred — for the member. It's not that I

decline, but as I have observed and as he acknowledged, I was not

present. But there was general discussion of the need for public-sector

stabilization, public-sector restraint and the kind of give and take

which would flow in a meeting such as that.

MR. LEVI:

I just draw the minister's attention to one letter that he got, in

which there was a fairly detailed brief. That was from the health

association. I covered that yesterday in my speech. Yesterday, when I

quoted from that brief, that association was warning the minister, in

no uncertain terms, that the application of the guidelines was going to

have a serious impact on that association and all of the

health-delivery systems. From maintaining the senior staff, they said

it could

very well lead to a lot of people leaving the province. I'm talking

about senior administrators. After all, the impact of what the Premier

announced was that there was going to be restraint, which we now

interpret on this side, on

[ Page 7641 ]

the basis of the evidence, as cutbacks. And here we were dealing with the health-delivery system.

Can the minister recall whether he dealt with that one? That

was a very significant brief that they put forward, in which they

cautioned the minister; and the very things that they said would happen

have in fact happened, particularly to the health system. That was sent

in March; that was not done in February. That was a very significant

brief, Mr. Chairman.

Does the minister recall that? They gave some very significant warnings, which evidently have not been heeded.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, throughout this process, following the evening of

February 18, there were concerns expressed on a number of occasions

with the freeze imposed on senior officials. I think that may have been

the case in the brief to which the member has referred. I recall that

through March and into April — I don't say it critically, but it is a

fact — considerable concern was expressed by groups of officials or

individual officials, regarding the vast number of employees that would

be affected not by the CSP but rather by the freeze which

was imposed immediately, and the review of which is still underway. I

offer that for the committee's consideration and for their own

interpretation of that sort of dialogue that did occur. I admit that it

did occur. It occurred on a number of occasions, but it was not to do

with large groups of employees but rather the officials whose salaries

were frozen as of the announcement.

MR. KING: I have

a little difficulty with the process which the minister has just

outlined. It seems to me that it's a bit difficult for people to

respond and engage in any intelligent or meaningful dialogue when there

is a lack of any clear enunciation of the guidelines that are to be

imposed upon them. The statute itself is totally flexible, as I read it. The

minister can say it is the intention to proceed with the guidelines

spelled out by the Premier back in February, but that's not what the

statute says. The statute says in

section 9: "The executive council shall issue compensation

stabilization guidelines to stabilize the compensation plans of the

public-sector employers and public-sector employees." That is totally permissive. That empowers the minister, as the representative

of cabinet, to establish guidelines at any level he chooses. That is what the

statute provides for.

Section (

a) simply refers to the period of time the guidelines

will be in effect, and

section (

b) contains the methods for introducing them.

There is another

section of the bill, yet to be debated in committee stage,

which provides that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations

respecting the stabilization of compensation in the public sector, and I wonder

why the difference.

Section 9, which is before the committee now, says the executive

council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines unrestricted, unspecified,

which means the minister is asking the Legislature to vote him the authority

to arbitrarily set the guidelines, in the secrecy of his office, at whatever

level he may deem appropriate. Under this permissive legislation, it is not

necessary to be consistent. The

minister may set guidelines at one standard for one group of

public-service employees and employers, and at quite another for a

different sector of public employees and employers.

That is

the kind of sweeping, unrestricted power that no minister of the Crown

should come before the Legislature and ask for. He is asking us to

write a blank cheque, to give him the authority to arbitrarily set the

standards of compensation for thousands of public servants and their

employers in the province of British Columbia. Aside from the philosophy

behind the bill generally, I submit that it's totally inappropriate for

any minister or any government to ask for the kind of blank cheque

authority that is contained in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, it's

not only the opposition that is confused about the government's

intentions. It's not only the opposition and those people who will be

affected by this particular section. Daily headlines and comments are

made by colleagues of the Minister of Finance and by the leader of the

government and his staff, which come into conflict with what the

minister's stated objectives are. There is a headline in the Province

today saying: "Bennett Says Rollback Men Won't Have to Touch Pacts."

"Premier

Bill Bennett said Monday the man who will rule on public-sector wage

increases will be like 'the Maytag repair man — the loneliest man in

town.'

"Bennett suggested that Ed Peck,

commissioner of the government's compensation stabilization program,

won't have any contracts to deal with, because they'll all be under the

government's guidelines for wage increases of 8 percent to 14 percent.

"Bennett

said in an interview: 'What I see developing in the community, both

from the public-sector employers and amongst the workers in the public

service, is a real willingness to settle responsibly and keep their

colleagues employed and not see any deterioration in services.

"'I'm confident now from what I see that a responsibility and challenge has been placed on them, and they will respond to it.

"'I think now that the commissioner, Mr. Peck, will probably not have

any contracts to deal with. The job will be done by the people who

should do it on a voluntary basis.

"'I think he will be like the Maytag repairman — the

loneliest man in town.'

"Peck later laughed at the 'good line' — but said he'll stay open for business. In the Legislature...."

Well,

I won't read the whole article, but the point is, we are being asked to

vote moneys to the commissioner and his office to the tune of

approximately $883,000 for a function which is not clearly specified in

the statute before the House, for a function which now the Premier of

the province says will be of no value. There will be nothing to refer

to him — he'll be like the Maytag salesman with no work or activity to

undertake.

This is the government, Mr. Chairman, which is

advocating restraint. This is the government which is advocating

curtailing foolish public spending, and here we have a proposal before

the Legislature costing $883,000 — close to $1 million — for a

function that the Premier now says is totally useless, totally

irrelevant and without any useful function to perform.

What

kind of madness have we got before us? What kind of nonsense is this

when we have the Premier and the sponsor of the bill — the Minister of

Finance — openly fighting in public about what the guidelines are? The

Premier, on the one hand, is saying the guidelines will be 5 percent or

less. The Minister of Finance is saying: "Oh, no, the statement of February indicating

a 10 percent to 14 percent level is the operative statement." We now have

the Deputy Minister of

[ Page 7642 ]

Intergovernmental

Relations, who is seconded to the Minister of Finance to develop and

try and advise him on this bill, in open conflict with the deputy

minister from the Premier's office, Mr. Spector. Mr. Spector is saying

one thing and the architect of the bill is saying quite another. What

utter and absurd nonsense for the minister to insist that this bill be

shoved through the House, with the majority the Social Credit Party

holds, without the responsibility to outline clearly what the purpose,

the function and the guidelines are. There's no coherence to this

program whatsoever. It's not only making a mockery of the

collective-bargaining system; it is not only threatening and

undermining the confidence of the total industrial relations community

in the impartiality of the government's role in collective bargaining —

particularly with respect to arbitration. The Premier of the province

says: "If we don't like the arbitration award, we'll override it. We'll

call the Legislature back and we'll override any arbitration award that

we do not like, if it exceeds the guideline that is unstated." It's

totally absurd — and the minister can surely recognize that.

The

final absurdity and the final irony, I think, is contained in the

statement in the minister's estimates with respect to the compensation

stabilization program. Here is the vote description: "This vote

provides for the introduction and administration of the public-sector

compensation stabilization program and allows for" — listen to this,

Mr. Chairman — "the establishment of an independent administrative

agency to interpret and administer policies and regulations developed

under the program." How can it be independent when the Premier says:

"If we don't like the arbitration we're going to call the Legislature

back and we're going to override that arbitration"?

The

arbitrators recognize that this is an unwarranted intrusion into their

independence and impartiality. Statements have been made by many highly

qualified arbitrators whose integrity and professional qualifications

are impeccable, such as the recently retired chairman of the Labour

Relations Board, Don Munroe, who clearly indicated that interference

with his independence is not welcome from the Premier, the government

or anyone else. The whole theory of adjudication, whether in labour

relations or in a court of law, is that there be an independent

adjudicator with impeccable integrity and credentials. What this

government is clearly doing, apparently oblivious to the need to ensure

that justice is done — and is also seen to be done — is chipping away

at the credibility of that adjudicative process. It is sheer madness.

Under

this bill the independence talked of the administrative staff of the

stabilization program is eroded and removed. How can Mr. Peck be

independent when the Premier calls him a Maytag repairman and says

there'll be no work for him? What is he paid? "B.C. restraint czar

'loneliest' but comforted by $325 a day," says an

article in the

Victoria Times-Colonist this morning. To quote briefly from it:

"While

British Columbians are staggering under the burden of Premier Bennett's

restraint program, the government is spending $882,000 for its own

Maytag repairman.

"Ed Peck, the restraint

commissioner, who now receives $325 a day, has a budget of $882,000

this year to review all public-sector settlements and ensure that they

don't surpass the 8 to 14 percent limits imposed by Bennett last

February. Peck already has hired several employees at more than $50,000

a year.

"He will have power to roll back

contracts that exceed the guidelines, and Bennett has threatened

legislative action against any contracts that threaten layoffs or loss

of services, even if they honour the limits."

Mr. Chairman,

we have to believe the Premier. He's already cut back on employees in

the health industry in the province of British Columbia. Hundreds of

hospital beds are closing and over 2,000 hospital employees have been

laid off already, and this is as a result of cutbacks imposed not on a

new contract but on the existing contract from last year. What a state

of utter chaos and confusion the Premier and the Minister of Finance

have introduced into health care in this province and into industrial

relations by the conflicting fuzzy-headed policies that they are trying

to introduce in this Legislature.

It's totally absurd, and

we don't know who to believe. The Minister of Finance says the

guidelines are going to be those enunciated back in February. The

Premier makes a different statement every day; and, after all, he is

the leader of the government. We have to believe that the Premier, as

confused as he is, has more clout within his own cabinet than does the

Minister of Finance. So we have to believe that the Premier is correct

when he says there'll be nothing for Mr. Peck to do; there'll be no

business referred to him for his $325-a-day salary. We also have to

believe the Premier when he says that the guideline may now be 5

percent or it may be no increase at all.

All the

opposition can do is scrutinize the statutory authority provided in the

bill before the House, and that particular statutory authority leaves

it wide open as to what the guidelines will be. Indeed, it may be the

intention of the Minister of Finance to say it's a basic 8 percent, 10

percent or whatever, with an additional 2 percent available for unusual

circumstances or for demonstrated productivity increases, but

absolutely nothing in the statute restricts the level to those numbers.

The statute is permissive, it's wide open; it allows the cabinet and

the minister separately, in two different sections, to do any darned

thing they please. Under this particular statute, the government could,

once the bill is passed, come in with a regulation providing for a 10

percent cut in pay for all public servants. That authority is there; no

question about it.

I have to wonder what the Premier's

intention is when he talks about calling back the Legislature to

scrutinize and to amend any ruling that the commissioner makes. He

talks about calling back the Legislature, but he already has the power,

as contained in this bill, to do as he chooses. I have never before, in

all the years in the Legislature, seen such an utter state of chaos and

confusion surrounding any statute introduced in this House. Perhaps

there is one exception, and that was last year when the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) introduced amendments to the electrical

inspection or gasfitter's bill, or whatever. He was totally unfamiliar

with the contents of it and, under questioning from my colleague for

Comox (Ms. Sanford), uttered an expletive and abandoned the bill on the

floor of the House. I suppose that's all right, but it doesn't really

do a great deal to instil confidence in the people of the province that

this government knows where it's going, knows what it's doing, or has

any coherent policy at all. I suggest that the same kind of problem

exists with this particular bill that's before the House.

[ Page 7643 ]

Perhaps

Allen Garr put it best in his column today, when he presumed to

intercept the message to the Premier somewhere in outer space. I think

it was taken from the Mork and Mindy show, and I can't think of a more

likely stand-in for Mork than the Premier of this province.

It's

totally unacceptable. If the Premier or the minister were prepared to

amend this

section to give specific guidelines, then at least it would

be reasonably fair to the employees affected. At least they would know

what the standard is. They would know that the goalposts are not going

to be changed during the middle of the game. At least the members of

the Legislature would know that we're not giving the blank cheque to

that government that very few people trust these days, but that we are

voting on a specific authority for a limited purpose. Under this

section there is no such limitation; it's carte blanche and it's a

blank cheque. No government — leastwise a discredited administration

such as this one — should come before the Legislature asking for this

kind of power.

The Premier is agitated. His colour is high. He's obviously under a great deal of stress and pressure.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 9, hon. members.

MR. KING: I appreciate that we're on

section 9, but I have someone piping away at me — someone who seems highly agitated, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've been ordered to oppose the bill.

MR. KING: There's that artificial giggle again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Section 9, Mr. Member.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I know the Premier is agitated. So he should be, because

he has an obligation to clarify the government's intention. He has

repudiated his Minister of Finance, the sponsor of the bill. He has

impaired the credibility of the commissioner, Mr. Ed Peck, who has an

impeccable record of integrity in terms of his record with the

industrial relations community. Now the Premier refers to him as a

"Maytag salesman."

Mr. Chairman, it's rude and it certainly

casts questions as to the function and the purpose and the worthwhile

objective to which Mr. Peck has been assigned. I think that's

regrettable — indeed, I think it's unforgivable.

The Premier

has destroyed the credibility of his Minister of Finance already by

repudiating what the Minister of Finance told us in the House. He

disagreed with the figures publicly. He's got his own Deputy Minister,

Mr. Spector — the phantom. He's got him disagreeing publicly and

repudiating the architect of the bill, Mr. Matkin, who at least knows

something about industrial relations. Everyone on that side of the

House surrounding this particular bill and this specific

section is in

a state of total disarray, yet they are too stubborn to admit that they

have erred on this provision. At least the Premier's father used to be

willing and flexible enough to take a second look. It is unfortunate

that we have a very stubborn, hidebound government today which insists

on going blithely ahead, even though it is obviously heading into

troubled waters without the understanding and sensitivity to heed any

advice whatsoever.

We can't support this kind of

authoritarian power for this government. We have to have clarification

from the Premier and his Minister of Finance as to who was right.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're afraid to vote on it.

MR. KING:

No. we're not afraid to vote on it. We have always stated our position

quite clearly, and we've been true to our position. We have never fled

our party in an opportunistic way in order to get on a coalition

bandwagon. The bill is authoritarian and arbitrary, and until....

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've never fled? How about the debate on independent schools? You ran so fast!

MR. KING: I think they made an error when they sent Bill down here instead of Russell. I think Russell had the most to contribute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Please address

section 9.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

am just amazed that the government is asking for this kind of awesome,

arbitrary, unbridled power without being able to identify precisely

what the purpose is, what the guidelines are and how they are going to

be enforced and administered. We have had nothing but conflicting

statements. We have had the Premier repudiating and undercutting his

own Minister of Finance, the architect of the bill. We have had Mr.

Spector, who came out here from Ontario to shore up the Premier's

image, sneaking out of his office into the corridor every once in a

while and making a statement which conflicts with that made by Mr.

Matkin — I assume it is Matkin, the architect of the bill. This is a

totally unsatisfactory method by which to introduce a statute in this

House and guide it through the legislative chamber. No responsible

opposition can grant that kind of authority to a government which is in

disarray, or to a government that apparently can't even get its own act

well enough together to agree on what the guidelines should be.

If you're going to regulate and restrict people, surely they have a

right to know precisely what the regulations and restrictions are going

to be. How do you comply, otherwise?

The Premier said: "I'm

satisfied that these cooperative people in the public sector are going

to comply voluntarily." Comply with what? Is it 10 percent, 14 percent,

8 percent, 5 percent or, as the Premier himself said, in some cases no

increase at all? They have a right to know what it is. Does the

government have any idea? Can they come up with a coherent and mutually

agreeable guideline? It's totally unacceptable. It's just another

indication of the ineptitude of this government that apparently strikes

out, each in his own way. It's not good enough to put this kind of

measure before the House, to ask for this totally unacceptable and wide

power, without very carefully outlining to the people affected and to

the Legislature just precisely how it's going to be used.

Three

weeks ago the minister's adviser, Mr. Matkin, indicated that the

guidelines would be ready in a week or so. Well, if they're ready,

let's see them. Better still, why not

[ Page 7644 ]

write

the guidelines into the statute, which would ensure that in the secrecy

of the cabinet room the government are not going to have a change of

mind tomorrow and alter the goalposts? That's what we're concerned

about. If they know what they're doing, if they are dedicated to a

guideline, for goodness' sake include it in the statute, so everyone

knows where you are going, and you are committed to it by law. That's

what we're asking. To give you this kind of unbridled power, which can

be wielded in secrecy, is totally irresponsible and totally

unacceptable.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I did

not want to rise on a point of order, although it would have been

appropriate a couple of times while the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

was speaking. I would draw the Chair's attention again to our standing

order 61(2). It seems to me that sections 3 and 6 of the bill, which

have already been approved in committee, covered a number of the

remarks made by the member.

Having said that, there are a

few more comments I could make. I would assume they would be more

appropriate later on this afternoon. I move the committee rise, report

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada