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 )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2169 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Fire suppression crews. Mr. Mitchell –– 2169

Railway passenger service. Ms. Sanford –– 2169

Committee on operations of ICBC. Mr. Macdonald — 2169

Ambulance service at Manning Park. Mrs. Dailly –– 2170

Low-income housing. Mr. Blencoe –– 2170

Use of lottery funds. Mr. Stupich –– 2170

Amendments to Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr.

Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 2171

An Act To Provide No Smoking Areas In Public Places (Bill M205). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2171

An Act To Provide For Adequate Motor Vehicle Insurance (Bill M206). Second reading.

Mr. Barnes –– 2171

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2174

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

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2175

Mr. Skelly –– 2176

Mr. Macdonald –– 2180

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2184

Division –– 2185

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

Mr. Lauk –– 2186

Mr. Lockstead –– 2190

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1983

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a special look at

today's horoscope, and I find from it that we have in our midst an

individual who is sensitive, psychic, emotional, a natural psychologist

and a teacher. He is creative and could have unusual ability to work

with women. I understand that this is the president of our press

gallery, Mr. Charles LaVertu, and a happy birthday to him.

MR. PELTON: In the member's gallery today are two friends of

mine of very long standing, Jeff and Verna Trant, who are visiting

Victoria from Soames Point on theSun shine Coast. With them is a lady

with whom I've been having an affair for over 40 years, my wife Louise.

I would ask the House to welcome them all here today.

Oral Questions

FIRE SUPPRESSION CREWS

MR. MITCHELL: The Minister of Forests is shutting down the

Langford forest office and will be moving it to Duncan. In the past the

suppression crews for those areas in the Western Community that are not

serviced by volunteer fire departments have worked out of that office.

Now that the office will be working out of Duncan, can the minister

assure the people in the Western Community in my riding that there will

be adequate fire suppression crews provided next year when we get back

to the fire season?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There is absolutely no way that the

Ministry of Forests is going to abandon its responsibilities relative

to firefighting in the province of British Columbia.

MR. MITCHELL: A supplementary. As the minister well knows,

Duncan is on the. other side of the Malahat, and providing a crew to

attend the Sooke-Jordan River area is 40 miles or better. Has any

consideration been given to coordinating the fire suppression crews

with the volunteer fire departments presently situated throughout that

area and to having these suppression crews maybe attend the Sooke,

Langford or Metchosin area so that they can attend the fires without

being dispatched all the way from Duncan?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Minister of

Transportation and Highways. On September 13 the minister indicated

that the government had not as yet made a decision whether it would

intervene before the Canadian Transport Commission hearings into the

CPR's application to abandon passenger service on the E&N Railway.

In view of the fact that these hearings commence next week, has the

government decided now to intervene?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the government hasn't made any decision.

MS. SANFORD: In May 1981 the government released a discussion

paper on Vancouver Island transportation policy, and in that paper it

states that by the summer of 1982 the government will have in place

transportation plans for Vancouver Island. Will the minister advise

what steps have been taken by government to develop and implement

transportation policy on Vancouver Island, or has that study merely

been set aside to collect dust, like so many other studies?

HON. A. FRASER: I recall the study. I think the government will keep on working on it.

MS. SANFORD: I am wondering whether there are any plans in

place now in terms of transportation for Vancouver Island. Part of that

study refers to the E&N passenger service. Is there anything at all

in place at this stage as a result of this discussion paper way back in

May 1981?

HON. A. FRASER: No, Mr. Speaker.

COMMITTEE ON OPERATIONS OF ICBC

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. It relates to the committee headed by his deputy

minister that is reviewing ICBC and its possible privatization. Would

the minister confirm that that committee includes the following: his

deputy, Jill Bodkin, Patrick Kinsella, Jake Brouwer, Tom Holmes and

Michael Burns?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the minister know the names of the people on his own committee?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, would the minister be so kind as to give the House the names of the people on this committee?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver

East is a persistent little devil, but the answer is no. It's an

internal committee doing a job for the minister responsible for the

corporation. In due course I will advise my colleagues of their

recommendations, if any.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, notwithstanding the vein in which

the response was no doubt given, the Chair must ask that that

particular expression be withdrawn.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. He's not a little devil.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh! Well, I'm not objecting, Mr. Speaker. I may need all the friends I can possibly have some time.

Does the minister only have people on that review committee who are

against public insurance, like Michael Burns, Socred bag-man, who

recommended the destruction of Autoplan in Manitoba; Jake Brouwer, who

is a good person, but he is running a competing business with.... Is it

not a firing-squad loaded against ICBC? Yes or no.

[ Page

2170 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, it's not a firing-squad loaded against ICBC.

AMBULANCE SERVICE AT MANNING PARK

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks

and Housing. The parks department's policy of privatizing operations at

Manning Park has caused the ambulance operator to be terminated without

cause. Because there is no ambulance operator, the ambulance has now

been moved to Princeton, which is one hour away from the park facility.

What action has the minister taken to restore much needed ambulance

service at Manning Park?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the final state

of the negotiations but attempts are being made. The new operators who

are taking over the ski hill operation will be providing a form of

ambulance service. We do not plan to leave the area without ambulance

service.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister then giving assurance to the people of that community that ambulance service will be restored very shortly?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker, because I am not aware of the details of the negotiations. I

don't know, for instance, if the ambulance service has actually been

taken away.

LOW-INCOME HOUSING

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands,

Parks and Housing, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister responded to my

question about housing for low- or middle-income families with a rather

cheap personal reference. I again ask him what action he or his

government have taken to provide sufficient housing for low- and

middle-income families.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I generally try to respond to questions in

kind. There is ongoing action that the ministry has taken through the

B.C. Housing Management Commission — our seniors' housing projects,

providing lots, and that sort of thing. There is quite a bit going on

to try to provide housing at a low and affordable level.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The

executive director of the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia

estimates the minimum monthly rent of new units to be approximately

$600 per month and that sufficient rental stock for moderate- and

low-income renters can only be provided with significant levels of

government assistance and government intervention. Has the minister

decided to reinstate the first-home grant because of the damage its

elimination has caused the development of new cooperative and

non-market housing?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; that got to be

fairly convoluted. Would the member like to try to put down the

question that he is asking.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll try to simplify, Mr. Speaker. The

government, in its wisdom, cancelled the first-home grant. That grant

was used by non-market housing groups and cooperative groups as an

equity build-up, and has damaged the cooperative housing system beyond

belief. Has the minister decided to recommend to his cabinet colleagues

that that grant be reinstated?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Provincial Secretary — may I say, welcome back; we've been waiting for some time.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Your colleagues are glad to have you back so now they can take off on some junket.

On August 24 I asked why financial statements for the Lottery Fund

were omitted from the first quarterly statement, thus denying this

information to the public. In view of widespread concern that lottery

funds were used as a campaign tool of the Social Credit Party during

the recent election, has the minister now decided to table a special

report at some early date?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, thank you very much for the question.

I missed the last part of your question; I was busy attempting to get

some material out of my desk. I'll respond to it this way. There was

some information sent to a particular constituency by an MLA saying:

"The greatest misconception voiced to me is that because I am not a

government MLA we aren't getting our share of lottery grants. A recent

independent study of lottery grant distribution in nonmetropolitan

areas ranks Nelson-Creston the second-highest in British Columbia. All

grants since 1979 are put through a computer study. The $328,071

received in Nelson-Creston was second only to Yale-Lillooet riding. The

listing at left shows the highest and lowest ridings in grants

received." That was a report sent by Lorne Nicolson, MLA,

Nelson-Creston — "working for you in Nelson-Creston." [Laughter.] I've

been waiting a long time to use that one.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the minister missed

not only the last part of the question but also the

preamble. The

question was based upon the fact that a report of the lotteries branch

was not included in the first quarterly statement. The question was: in

view of the concern about how these funds are being spent in ridings

other than Nelson-Creston, has the minister decided to issue a special

report at some early date?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am giving it serious consideration.

Would the member want me to bring the report to the House or just send

it out through the media? Which way would you prefer it?

MR. STUPICH: I thought I was supposed to be asking him questions. I want the information and I want it as early as

[ Page

2171 ]

I can get it for the whole of the lotteries branch. That is my answer.

My next supplementary question, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The

government has announced plans to start an instant scratch-and-win

lottery to add $12 million annually to the Lottery Fund. What assurance

will the minister give that these funds will not also appear to be

committed to election purposes for the Social Credit Party?

MR. SPEAKER: That question, hon. member, does not fall within the ambit of being in order.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask leave to deal with an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Today is the twentieth anniversary of two members

of this chamber. Twenty years ago today two members of this chamber

were waiting with palpitating heart and desire to get to this august

chamber, because 20 years ago today was election eve. One of the two

members has become a recidivist politically. We are glad to see the

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) here in that capacity. I wonder if the

House would join me in extending our congratulations to the member for

Nanaimo and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who were just

rehearsing for tomorrow.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We certainly join in those sentiments. I did

note that the hon. member for Skeena referred to this as being an

august occasion; I think it is more of a September occasion. Best

wishes to both of these members.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce two

constituents who made the overland journey from their riding of Oak Bay

to the Legislature. Mrs. Gloria Homer and Phyllis Carter are in your

gallery. Will the House make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AMENDMENTS TO GASOLINE (COLOURED)

TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

amendments to Bill 14, intituled Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message

and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the

committee of the House having in charge Bill 14.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I hear a no. I observe that the member for Skeena seeks the floor.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think leave should be

granted, because that runs over the top of private members' business

today, and there is an adjourned debate of a bill in the name of a

private member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A simple no is all that was asked for and it does not then allow a member to enter or engage

MR. HOWARD: Unlike the government, I'm just trying to be cooperative and helpful.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the answer is no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M205.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE NO SMOKING

AREAS IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. GARDOM: The bill is printed, and my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) adjourned the debate.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced by

the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) some time back. I would

like to say that I've had adequate opportunity to review it in detail,

but I must say that I haven't done so. Therefore I would adjourn debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is with great pleasure that I now call second reading of Bill M206.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE

MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

MR. BARNES: Being the designated speaker on my bill, and

inasmuch as I must say that I am thoroughly pleased, I am nonetheless

shocked to find that the bill has been called without warning. We are

not accustomed to having the government cooperate on such matters as

routine business and following the orders of the day.

I think that this is a subject of vital importance to the motoring public of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll take an adjournment if you want to adjourn.

MR. BARNES: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should take an

adjournment as yet. I would like to explain that the question of

third-party liability in the province of British Columbia is one that

should concern all of the motoring public. I might state that my reason

for presenting this bill....

[2:30]

Interjections.

[ Page

2172 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some difficulty in getting the attention of the hon. members in the Legislature.

I'm sure that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Mowat) will want to speak to this bill as well, because unfortunately

under the present automobile liability insurance system in the province

of British Columbia we find ourselves with contradictions as far as the

principle of third-party liability insurance is concerned — and by that

I mean the fact that liability insurance is compulsory.

The public liability insurance is by law a mandatory order that all

motorists will carry a minimum amount of liability insurance. As you

know, the present minimum is $100,000.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: As the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. R.

Fraser) states, Mr. Speaker, it is the option of the purchaser of the

insurance to select an amount of insurance that he feels would be

adequate to deal with his insurance requirements. My concern with the

system is not the mandatory, compulsory principle. Surely all of us

recognize the need to protect the motoring public from an injury which

could be quite severe, with consequences that could affect them for the

rest of their lives, if indeed they were fortunate enough to walk away

from such an accident with their lives. But the system as we now have

it is the remnants of the marketplace insurance system whereby the

public was free to purchase insurance by choice from the various

insurance companies. In other words, they were left to make a decision

themselves as to how much insurance they required. They were able to

purchase that insurance and take their chances, and if they guessed

correctly they would never suffer the tragic results of having

mistakenly purchased an inadequate amount of insurance.

I have suggested that the system is well motivated. The concept of

compulsory insurance is an idea that is well understood and well

appreciated, and no one denies the need for all motorists to carry

adequate insurance. The problem with our system in British Columbia is

that we provide the opportunity for people to purchase insurance

ranging from a $100,000 minimum to $10 million unlimited. If a person

were able to determine in advance of an accident the exact amount of

insurance required, then there would be no problem. Unfortunately,

that's not possible, unless you have some kind of crystal ball and are

able to anticipate through osmosis or some kind of extrasensory

perception just what the accident will involve, how many people and the

kinds of judgments a court is liable to determine are necessary in

order to satisfy the consequences of an accident.

So I'm suggesting with my bill that the government review the

present system of selling insurance to the motoring public, with the

objective of making the insurance options applicable to the intent and

purpose of mandatory insurance. Obviously the reason for mandatory

insurance is to guarantee that should an accident occur there will be

sufficient insurance funds available to deal with that problem. I don't

have before me the details of some of the studies, but from memory I

can come pretty close to suggesting that the insurance minimum

available a few years ago through ICBC was $50,000, as I recall.

personally experienced an unfortunate accident in September 1976, when

the minimum available to the public was $50,000. I happened to have,

unfortunately, a second car which my daughter was operating, as she was

a student going to one of the schools here in Victoria. She was

involved in an accident while transporting a classmate home after

celebrating her sixteenth birthday, and the accident was of such

magnitude that her friend was permanently injured to the extent that

she was confined to a wheelchair. The prognosis is not very good; she

is likely to remain in the wheelchair for the remainder of her life.

Now, I had a first car that happened at that time to have $1 million on

it, but by accident, or whatever you may suggest.... I certainly

don't mind having those people admonish me for not having the foresight

to have anticipated that accident and bought the maximum insurance on

the car. Nonetheless, being human, or whatever the reason, all of us

may make mistakes in judgment, or perhaps not even give it a second

thought.

What I'm saying is that the compulsory system which was available

and which is available today still allows the same error in judgment to

occur. We need only look at the statistical facts of the sale of

insurance in this province through ICBC's records to know that people

are still opting to buy the minimum amount of insurance, although in

the last ten years court awards as a result of bodily injury in motor

vehicle accidents are on the increase. They are becoming higher and

higher, although I understand the costs are about $10,000 on the

average. Nonetheless, there are great ranges in certain settlements,

and some of them certainly exceed the amount of insurance that some of

the motorists carry. At the time that the accident happened to me

personally, it was common for motorists to be opting for the minimum

amount of insurance. In other words, something like 30 to 40 percent of

the motoring public were purchasing $50,000 or something in that range

of minimum insurance.

MR. REE: Eighty-five percent buy over $500,000 now.

MR. BARNES: Today, as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano

is pointing out, the public has become aware of the trend toward higher

court settlements, and that figure has increased substantially,

indicating that the public is becoming educated to the dangers of

opting for what the government still allows — a minimum, which is

certainly not wise. I am suggesting that the government give serious

consideration to removing the option for the motoring public to play

Russian roulette with their lives and the lives of innocent persons who

may be involved in an accident and who could find that the funds are

insufficient to deal with the settlement, whatever it may be. The

situation as it stands is one that certainly has been studied not only

by ICBC, which is constantly surveying and analyzing its policies.... I

know that ICBC is looking at the possibility of a new minimum of around

$500,000, I believe. They are considering recommending that to the

minister responsible for ICBC and Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt). They have the benefit of a committee from the Law Society

of British Columbia, which has a committee studying the costs of

third-party liability insurance as well. I think that they are also

making a similar recommendation.

They are still trying to play with the old concepts. They are still

trying to make a case for so-called free enterprise or privatization

and the competitive element of purchasing something as important as

public liability insurance. The danger with allowing the public to make

these decisions about how much insurance they require is that they are

not competent to know in advance what is required. This is why we have

compulsory insurance: to ensure that it be adequate.

[ Page 2173 ]

If a motorist has $500,000 minimum coverage and has an accident

involving $1 million, that person is $500,000 short. It is just a

relative problem, whether you have $50,000, $500,000, or $1 million or

even $10 million, which is the maximum amount of insurance that is

available through our current system. There probably could be a

hypothetical case where even $10 million would not be sufficient. I am

not suggesting what amount would be sufficient, because I don't think

there is an amount of money that any human being can safely say is

adequate.

This is why it is about time we recognized the fault in our system

and recognized that although most people will be actuarially safe by

purchasing $500,000 or $1 million worth of insurance — the odds are

quite good that they will not be involved in a serious accident that

would require more than that amount of money to settle — there are

those exceptions. Those exceptions are the ones we should be concerned

about, because it is beyond most wage-earners, which most of us are in

this province.... The several hundred thousand people who drive

automobiles, I am sure, could not personally pay the shortfall in an

automobile accident.

I would like to say that even people who regard themselves as

economically independent and well endowed with financial resources and

economic means would not themselves have available the amount of hard

cash needed to settle an excessively high automobile insurance claim,

because their income or their capital would probably be working for

them in one capacity or another, and if they were to withdraw it to pay

a lump sum to an unfortunate victim of an accident, they would probably

find themselves dangerously close to going bankrupt themselves.

It is really a matter that involves all motorists. The system should

be one that allows everyone to pay the cost with a premium, which could

be established and which probably would only be modestly higher than

the current cost of purchasing minimum amounts of insurance. Because of

the unlikelihood of having these excessive claims happen, the cost is

not that much. It's quite insignificant in terms of the benefits and

the protection that the public would have if a system of no minimum

insurance were introduced. I know that should such

an act take place,

it would be a precedent setting initiative in this province and in this

country — in fact, in North America.

Nonetheless, it should be looked at seriously. I don't think costs

are a concern, but I think the protection of human life and limb is, as

is being consistent with the concept of mandatory insurance — taking it

out of the realm of Russian roulette and straw-pulling occasions where

one simply takes his chances by purchasing the insurance. I feel that

we should follow the example of England, where, I understand, they have

had a system such as this in place for a long time. Just as we have

come to appreciate and respect the importance of universal medicare and

a public school system which all of us can benefit from equally, I

think we should take a look at the need to have an automobile insurance

scheme that recognizes the importance of protecting individuals who,

through no fault of their own, may find themselves involved in an

accident that could affect them for the rest of their lives.

[2:45]

Of course there are some problems with lump-sum payments, and I

would like to comment on that as well. While I am recommending that

there be an unlimited system in order to satisfy clients.... For

instance, in my case a judgment was made that was very close to half a

million dollars. For those of you who have been following that

particularly unfortunate situation, my minimum amounted to, with a

reinterpretation of the $50,000, something like $100,000, which was

still a shortfall of well over $200,000. So what hope has anyone in

this Legislature, let alone me, of paying that amount of money in a

lump sum? What hope has anyone of even servicing the debt on carrying

that amount of money? What hope has anyone such as me of getting any

lending institution to underwrite that amount of money on my behalf

with the promise that I will pay through whatever means I can? It's not

possible; it's not rational. It is a fault in the system. I'm not

suggesting that anyone in this jurisdiction has deliberately left it

that way; it's just a process of evolution.

We've only had ICBC since the New Democratic Party became the

government in 1972. It's a new concept in this province. It's an

attempt to begin to recognize that there are some things that are best

not left with the private sector, just as we would not rely entirely on

private practitioners to handle medicare, hospitalization, education

or, for that matter, any number of services that are essential.

Certainly automobiles are a major part of transportation in our society

and in our system. They are also a main part of our economic survival.

They touch upon the lives of everyone, one way or the other, in the

province. It's about time we recognize that we can do a lot to improve

the atmosphere in the field of transportation where the private

automobile is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of lump-sum payments, there is a

problem. When a victim is subject to an award through a court, there

have to be certain criteria to determine what that victim should

receive. Ages are involved, to determine future earning capacity; their

education, field of work and overall ability are involved on some kind

of scale that anticipates their future years and lifespan potential. In

any event, a formula is arrived at which is calculated month by month,

year by year or whatever, to come up with a lump sum based on what is

required for that person to be able to function.

Again, the problem with paying that lump sum is that there is a

danger that that person.... Once the money is paid into a trust, or

however it is paid, it may disappear through speculation or some manner

or means that perhaps a victim may not be able to defend against or may

not understand, because it takes a fair amount of ability to manage

large sums of money, as we all know, in such a way that it would fulfil

the objective of the award. If an award is paid to a person, say, of 17

or 18 years of age, with a view that that person has to live a normal

lifespan, say, for the next 50 years, the only way you can ensure that

is to have a system that will guarantee that the formula will be

followed through the life of that person.

The danger of the lump-sum payment is that there is a possibility

that that won't happen, because of our view that the person has to

receive this money at one time. But it is incongruous; it doesn't

relate to the objective of the formula. The formula is based on a

50-year period. We give it to them at one time, and they go and blow it

on sweepstakes or whatever.

The point is that they have that option, and that option is not

written into the legislation. It's just another fault with the system.

It's a mistake. We should be looking at revolutionizing the whole

concept and guaranteeing that the objective and intent of third-party

liability insurance are effective; that the

[ Page 2174 ]

mandatory system is effective, and that it achieves the objective.

The objective is to protect the person who has a just due to receive

the amount of money that a court awards him, and the only way that can

be guaranteed is to have a system whereby that money will be guaranteed.

There are those who say that unscrupulous lawyers and other

practitioners will be anticipating an opportunity to get a large

windfall fee for providing service in litigation of such cases, but due

process of the court system, as I understand it and see it, I think,

will continue in any event, whether there is no fault or no minimum or

an option for people to purchase insurance as they are now doing. The

court process would not be changed in any way. The only problem right

now is that there simply is not a guarantee that after a court has gone

through the long process of trying to determine what a just judgment

should be — and as you know, these cases can go on for years — the

funds would be available.

So I think there is a great need to look into the question of

third-party liability insurance with a view not only to ensuring that

the funds are there, but to ensuring that the funds will remain there

over the years. This suggests that the victim will have no special

privilege or right to use that money for speculative purposes other

than within his own prudence and saving as he receives his monthly or

annual amount from that judgment. But the amount of that judgment

should be in place so that there is some guarantee that under the

formula used, which involves a printing out of costs over a long period

of years, when that person is ten years older he will not find himself

again destitute due to faulty judgment in making investments or having

had someone undermine him and relieve him of his lump-sum payment.

I hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been

listening to the remarks that I have made, because I think that they

are remarks worthy of study by all members of the Legislature and all

concerned people who believe that we can do a great deal to encourage

safe driving and responsible operation of motor vehicles. Also, keep in

mind that any of us at any time could find ourselves a victim of an

automobile accident. I think it would be worthwhile for the House to

consider the justness of the laws as they now stand, because you may

not have detected, when I was making my remarks earlier, that while I

was the registered owner of the automobile, my daughter, who was 17

years of age at the time, was the operator. I was not operating the

vehicle. That again is an interesting twist of justice: the owner has

to take responsibility for the operation of a vehicle, whether he be in

it or not. In fact, I received a phone call at midnight that my

daughter had been involved in an accident while driving her classmate

home, and I suddenly had my whole life changed, as a result of that.

The point is that that is happening regularly to people in this

province because of the system, and it is an unfortunate trap. It's a

trap because even though my daughter was a minor at the time, she was

on the highway legally. She was driving with the right to drive, having

been licensed by the Motor Vehicle Branch. She was not charged with any

violation of any acts or bylaws; everything was perfectly legitimate.

There were no criminal charges, and the only thing is that it was a

disaster for everyone involved. Now, there's something wrong with the

system, because none of us would want that to befall any one of us at

any time. The system seems to have some faults.

I would hope we will keep in mind that the automobile is quite

analogous to.... The owner of an automobile might well compare

himself to the owner of a revolver. Or let's say a shotgun. Someone

wants to go hunting and he borrows your shotgun. That person could find

himself using that weapon in a way that would be criminally negligent

and would involve a charge of some sort. Whatever that person does with

that shotgun should not reflect upon the owner of the shotgun for

having loaned it to him, even though he may have been wise to carefully

study whether that person was capable of borrowing the shotgun. The

point is, an automobile has to be operated by someone, and the someone

driving it has to be responsible. It just happens that that's a

throwback in our system, whereby the owner has to take responsibility

for the operator. I think that is an unfair

interpretation of

responsibility. Ownership does not necessarily equate with guilt, but

in this instance ownership is guilt. I think we would want to look at

that as well.

Mr. Speaker, those are the broad parameters of my remarks. I

appreciate the attention of the House in allowing me an opportunity —

I'm quite surprised, I might say — to express my interest in seeing

that the question of liability insurance be raised, perhaps in a

special committee of the Legislature; certainly the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs will want to reflect on my remarks. I

would move that my bill be adopted, and I would now move that it be

read a second time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, I want to compliment the

member opposite for stating his case. He quotes a personal example, but

we can all appreciate that he does not seek relief but is concerned

about others who may experience the same situation. We can also

appreciate that there is a mandatory level of insurance of $100,000,

which is deemed to be the mandatory level needed to protect the

motoring public; the consumer is left with the choice of buying

insurance above that mandatory level. If my memory serves me right,

approximately 80 percent of the drivers in this province have in excess

of $500,000 liability insurance. I appreciate the comments of the

member opposite; however, at this time I would move adjournment of this

debate until the next sitting of the House.

[3:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 14

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

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

[ Page

2175 ]

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

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. D'ARCY: Before we become totally relevant on Bill 4, I

too would like just very quickly to offer my congratulations to the

jovial member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the gentlemanly

member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) on 20 years of distinguished service

in this chamber. I wonder whether they would do it any differently if

they had to do it over again. In any event, just in passing, I also

would like to recognize that along about today the two members from

Vancouver East are on their twenty-third anniversary in this particular

chamber. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) had recently

left jail when he came to this chamber, courtesy of the then

Attorney-General, Mr. Bonner. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr.

Macdonald) had recently arrived from Ottawa, where he went for I

believe one term; he learned his lesson and came back to British

Columbia, where he has been ever since. I congratulate those four

members for the efforts they have put in on behalf of British

Columbians.

On to Bill 4. One of the groups of what are usually working poor,

and very hard-working poor, is students. I think any member of this

House who has ever worked his way through any kind of post-secondary

training will relate to these remarks. Students, especially those who

are not fortunate enough to come from comfortable homes in residential

districts near to one of our three universities, or those who didn't

have the opportunity when they are young — I think the euphemistic term

is "mature students" — have to work very hard to get their training and

their degrees, and they are terribly affected by Bill 4. Many people

both in and outside of the chamber have asked that the government

please consult with the people affected by their legislation. I doubt

very much that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who I hope

thought a bit about this bill before he brought it in — I hope he gives

it some more thought — really thought about students. I really doubt

whether he consulted with the student population of this province,

particularly those who do not live at home, who are on their own and

making every effort, in many cases as working poor, to prepare

themselves to make a significant contribution to the economy of British

Columbia.

Students who looked at the government's priorities, at the Finance minister's

priorities, would see that a lot of money, usually borrowed, was expended on

capital facilities during the two fiscal years — the last two — immediately

covered by Bill 4. One of the areas of borrowed money that I am sure those with

some insight must wring their hands and shake their heads about is the area

of borrowing to expand the educational institutions they are going to. Of course

all students would like to have bigger and better university and post-secondary

training, but when students see $80 million borrowed in each of the last two

fiscal years to go into new institutions, I suspect a great many of them would

be prepared to trade off some or all of that if they could keep their tax credits

and their renter's grants; avoid unconscionable rent increases; avoid unreasonable

fee increases; avoid cuts in student aid. We have talked before about the Finance

minister's rather strange sense of the government's ability to pay.

Clearly he doesn't mind borrowing large amounts of money which, even if

he should be able to borrow these funds at 10 percent interest — and I am only

speaking of post-secondary education here — would add in this fiscal year, along

with the previous year, $16 million to the interest costs that have to be made

up through the taxpayers of B.C., once again affecting the ability to pay.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

How do other parts of the population view this kind of bill? I

mentioned earlier today that by the minister's own statement, some 40

percent of the population of B.C. is affected by the loss of these tax

credits. Back in the previous fiscal year — the

part covered by the

retroactivity

section which we have already dealt with — it is very

important to note that the same Finance minister we are dealing with

borrowed an additional $272 million to expand the size of the plant

facility for the B.C. government. The B.C. Buildings Corporation

borrowed that much money additional in fiscal 1982-83. This was at a

time when it was quite clear that the government should already have

been downsizing. People on this side of the House were asking that the

government cease expanding in the exponential way it had for the

previous two years and that it stop borrowing money; that it did not

need to have these tremendous increases in the size of government in

that fiscal year. The government likes to pretend that it invented

restraint in 1983-84. The fact is that the opposition was calling for

restraint, especially in the expansion of the government into what

amounts to the commercial real estate market, in the last fiscal year.

There is no point in the government's having borrowed those kinds of

funds on top of $93 million in the previous year. Even this year, when

we have before the House an array of 26 bills — I think it's up to 35 —

bills that by the government's own boasting involve downsizing and

privatization of government, we find once again that the British

Columbia Buildings Corporation, under this minister, is borrowing an

additional $40 million. As I mentioned, even if we get a very

favourable interest rate, which I'm not sure we would due to the loss

of part of our credit rating – we’re still in pretty good shape, but a

loss of part of the province's credit rating — that still would

deteriorate the government's ability to pay by $4 million this year

alone, even in this year of downsizing.

Is it possible that the government's borrowing is simply out of order?

[3:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this

member most recently but certainly not exclusively has, in the course

of debating Bill 4, related to virtually every aspect of the provincial

financial picture. In particular, the member now is speaking about

borrowing for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation; I am not the

minister responsible for that corporation. I think we are dealing with

an income tax amendment act, and I wonder if the Chair is inclined to

permit the degree of latitude which has characterized most of this

debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The

particular bill is quite specific: personal income tax credits,

renter's tax credits and political tax receipts. I'm sure the member

can relate his remarks to those principles contained in this bill.

[ Page 2176 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, we are speaking of a bill which

involves close to $100 million that by the minister's own statements

will not be available for the people who need it most. When I'm talking

about borrowing by various government agencies, which may or may not be

under that minister's immediate jurisdiction, I'd like to point out

that we're quoting directly from the minister's own budgetary

statement, page 32. That comes directly under his jurisdiction. He, as

Minister of Finance, ultimately approves borrowings and interest

payments.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if

the member feels he can relate borrowing for British Columbia Buildings

Corporation, then surely any member could, as an example, discuss more

provincial funding for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, or for

some other ministry or agency of government. This is not the budget

debate, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point is extremely well taken. Although

this is the minister's bill, this is not budget debate; it is a

specific bill. It is also not the minister's estimates. It is the

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we'll deal then

with the British Columbia Systems Corporation, which is under that

minister's....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be appropriate in estimates, but not in this bill.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, there has been a wide-ranging debate

on this particular bill. What people on this side of the House are

attempting to do, I think with a great deal of effectiveness, is point

out that when the minister speaks of the government's ability to pay as

a justification for bringing in legislation such as Bill 4 —

retroactive, I might point out, by 21 months — he refers constantly to

the size of government and the amount of money that the government has

committed to various projects, not on a pay-as-you-go basis but on a

borrowing basis. The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot bring

in those reasons as justification for this kind of legislation, which

is entirely based on discretionary decisions that he and his cabinet

colleagues made over the last several years; and then when we get into

debate say: "We're sorry, that is not strictly relevant." He cannot

have it both ways.

In any event, I see that I'm coming near the end of my time. What I

would like the minister to do.... He has three months before the

new taxation year starts, as far as individuals filing their income

taxes are concerned. Surely he will consider the working poor of this

province, including the students, the 40 percent he talked about when

he was introducing this legislation. Surely he will give that some

consideration.

MR. SKELLY: Special thanks to the Minister of Forests (Hon.

Mr. Waterland) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and

occasionally Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet). It's good to see that they

are both awake. I never count on the minister of consumer and corpulent

affairs being awake. Actually, I wouldn't blame them if they were

sleeping. I suppose they do feel a little foolish debating a measure

that has been in effect for the last taxation year. Sometimes the

opposition will debate a piece of legislation in the hope that some of

their comments will reach the ear of the government and that the

government will take some of the suggestions into consideration. I

think we saw the crushing end of that suggestion when closure was

invoked on the hoist motion earlier this morning when B team was here

fighting the battle for the good.

So we have very little hope that the government is prepared to

listen to suggestions, prepared to hear our comments. Of course they

are critical comments, but generally you would hope the government

would respond to the criticism in a positive way, given the way the

criticism is intended. You do feel a little foolish making these

comments across the floor, knowing that the government, in its

bull-headed way, is going to pass this legislation regardless. On the

other hand, the opposition has a duty to make its points and its

arguments regardless of the bull-headedness of the government,

regardless of their refusal to listen. To sit down in the face of a

bull-headed government would be bowing to tyranny, and that would be an

abandonment of principles, something we do not intend to do. So we have

to present our arguments in the hope that someday, somehow, the

government, seeing the opposition to its measures, will finally have a

change of heart and listen to those criticisms, and perhaps change its

course a little to ameliorate the harsh measures that it has brought

into the House.

The government talks about the powerful mandate that it won on May 5, 1983, with less than 50 percent of the popular vote.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, there are people here who are

capable of counting chairs but not counting votes. Less than 50 percent

of the popular vote.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as with the

previous speaker from the opposition benches, I would suggest this

speaker too is straying somewhat from the intent of the bill. It is all

very interesting to hear the stories of the member for Alberni, but I

would ask that you bring him to order because they have absolutely

nothing to do with Bill 4.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the other thing I think you

should enforce is that there is room for only one member to stand at a

time in this House. When a point of order is taken on, I don't see why

the member involved — in this case the member for Alberni — keeps on

standing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. A member

should always take his seat while points of order are being raised. I'm

sure the member is aware of that.

Back to Bill 4. As was indicated to the previous speaker, Bill 4

discusses the principles of personal income tax credit, renter's tax

credit, political party and income tax receipts and the income tax

collection agreement with the federal government. If we can relate our

remarks to those principles the Legislature will be well served.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in response, I am perfectly willing

to sit down on the point of order. I must apologize to the member for

Omineca, but when the Minister of Transportation and Highways stood up

he didn't say he was on a point of order. I thought he was just up

ventilating. If the minister

[ Page 2177 ]

had said he was on a point of order I would have crouched in my chair immediately.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I would have hunkered down; that's for darn sure.

However, we are taking up my 40 minutes, Mr. Speaker, which means

I'm going to have to ask leave of the House at the end of this speech

to continue, and I don't think leave would be granted.

I think it is important, in the discussion of this bill, to know who

and how many are being affected by this legislation and how the votes

broke down in the province during the last federal election. We're

dealing with a tremendous number of people here, and the opposition

does have an obligation to present a case on this bill, whether the

government chooses to listen or not. I suppose the object of presenting

our arguments here is to persuade the government to take its famous

Socred second look. I have been around here for 11 years and I've never

really seen that happen. I don't know how that myth about the Socred

second look grew up. Some people tell me that under the W.A.C. Bennett

administration it did happen once or twice. So we do have an obligation

to present these arguments with respect to this bill, in the hope the

government might be struck, wake up and hear the weight of our

arguments, and possibly change their minds and find out what damage

they are doing with this type of legislation.

You have to wonder what type of economic philosophy brought forward

this legislation. Over the past few years we've seen a large swing to

the right in Canadian politics, and especially in political economics.

There's now prevalent in this country a view based on a myth that is

propagated by the rich and the powerful, and not based on any kind of

economic laws that come out of the observed economic behaviour of

individuals in society. I think this myth comes out of the need of the

rich and powerful to rationalize their personal greed and desire to

take more out of the economy than they deserve.

Often we on this side criticize Michael Walker, who appears to be

the Premier's new economic guru. I went to lunch with Michael Walker

once, and he appears to be a very nice guy. He told me at that lunch —

I paid for mine, he paid for his....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder) says: "Remind me not to go to lunch with him." I guess that

gives us an idea of the minister's policy. Michael Walker himself said

— he told me this at the luncheon — that greed is the engine of the

economy. It was the first time that I had heard....

[3:30]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I stand on

standing order 43. Clearly this member in this debate, as he has in

many others in this House, makes a mockery of the rules of this House

in regard to relevancy. Mr. Speaker, I clearly heard you chastise the

member about seven minutes ago for not being relevant, and for the last

seven minutes I have heard nothing in that member's debate that has any

relevance at all. I have the bill before me. I would ask that you bring

that member to order.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know

time can go slowly or quickly in this debate, depending on one's

feelings, but earlier today — or perhaps it was earlier yesterday — the

member for Omineca was giving a speech and he raised the same kind of

wide-ranging discussion. He was the one, in fact, who first raised the

question of provincial government debt in the debate. We welcomed his

injecting that into the debate. In fact, speakers wondered whether the

Minister of Finance was really happy that he had brought the question

of burgeoning government debt into the debate at the time. No one on

this side of the House complained, and Your Honor did not complain, did

not see it out of order at that time.

We are very concerned on this side of the House that the member for

Omineca, in raising points of order regarding his view of relevancy,

will have a double standard — one that applies when he and his

colleagues are speaking, but that will not apply even to the same type

of material, let alone the same scope, when the other side of the House

is speaking. Mr. Speaker, when you're considering the relevancy of the

point of order raised by the member for Omineca, I hope you will take

into account his own remarks in debate.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, I would suggest that

if the member for Rossland-Trail was concerned about my debate

yesterday, or whenever it was, he should have stood at that time. What

I'm talking about now is the relevancy of the member for Alberni in

regard to Bill 4. Again I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you bring that

member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All the points of order are well taken. Of

course, the Legislative Assembly is well aware that it really is at the

discretion of the Speaker to decide whether or not a member is

relevant. But other members can bring points of order to the attention

of the Chair, and that's encouraged as well. As I've told the member

for Alberni, this bill is quite specific in the three provisions that

it offers. If we can relate our remarks to those provisions, then we

will be well served.

MR. D'ARCY: On a further point of order, just as a correction

to a perhaps well-intentioned point of order from the member for

Omineca, I do not now nor did I at the time have any objection, or

question in any way the relevancy of the remarks of the member for

Omineca. The unfortunate part, from the member's point of view, though,

is that I perhaps have a longer memory than he would wish me to have,

and I recall exactly what he said. It was he, Mr. Speaker, I want to

reiterate, who opened up the debate on the question of government debt

and the wide-ranging aspects of a financial nature, and the minister's

justification for the need for Bill 4.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Alberni continues — in order.

MR. SKELLY: In order, as I have been, Mr. Speaker, but now

I'm totally confused with all these relevant points of order. I was

told that the member for Omineca brought up a point of order seven

minutes ago and I've been speaking for seven minutes and still wasn't

relevant. I know time flies when you're having fun, Mr. Speaker, but

how much time do I have left?

[ Page 2178 ]

In any case, I think it is important that we discuss the economic

ramifications of any change in government tax policy, because those

changes have a tremendous impact on the economy, the direction in which

the economy moves, how the economy of the province impacts differently

on certain people and certain groups, and how tax policy favours

certain groups over certain other groups in society. I think we have to

work out in debate what the rationalization is for these various

economic and tax changes. That's why I asked the question initially,

before going into this part of the debate, Mr. Speaker. What economic

philosophy brought forth this legislation?

I'm relating this directly to that one or two lines in Bill 4 which

I've read, as well as the member for Omineca. I'm relating this to

those two lines which wipe out, in a stroke, the refundable tax credits

granted to renters and to low income earners in the province of British

Columbia. I'm questioning why the government brought in this measure,

which was so widely accepted and widely praised back on May 19, 1981,

when we all voted for it, and why it's being changed now after less

than a year in operation.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder)

says it's because the government's gone broke. I say that that's not

true, because in the same legislation here, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing

with a political tax credit. We're not told exactly how much money is

being expended to donors to political parties under this political tax

credit, which is being retained. There's no election, possibly, for

another four years in this province. We could probably eliminate that

political tax credit and save another $91 million or $100 million, very

possibly — maybe $400 million, who knows? Because unfortunately, the

one thing about the political tax credit, which is also included in

this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that unlike legislation granting

political tax credits in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country, there is

no requirement for disclosure. That's a real problem, because we're

spending the public's money under this political tax credit system, and

yet we're not being honest with the public as to the amount and where

that money is going.

That's why that disclosure provision is included in the federal tax

legislation. As I pointed out in the debate on the hoist motion — and I

won't repeat the full debate — that's how we're able to find out that

Canadian Pacific donates to the Liberals and Conservatives, and most

probably to Social Credit. That's how we found out that Litton

Industries donates to those political parties, because there is that

disclosure provision, which is not in....

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, going to standing order 43, please remind the member to talk directly to the bill specifically about the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the member for Vancouver South that political contributions to political parties as a tax deduction is in the bill.

MR. SKELLY: I appears that the back-benchers have been

ordered to disrupt speeches on points of order. I think that it would

be wise to instruct, as you have done — and thank you for that, Mr.

Speaker — those back-benchers to read the bill prior to rising on

points of order.

MR. PARKS: Point of order. I think that last remark of the

hon. member for Alberni is totally unwarranted. It suggests a lack of

honour and decorum in this House that is suspect. If in fact all

members of the government wish to rise on points of order, his speech

has been so constantly and tediously repetitious that it would take

more than the members we have in the full ranks....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point I must interrupt.

I don't believe you have a point of order. Secondly, the member has

moved into new material on this bill, and I'm finding the speech quite

relevant and not repetitious and very much in order.

MR. PARKS: Not tedious or repetitious?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The member for Alberni continues.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you for coming to my defence and to the defence of the rules, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to give it my best shot here.

In any case, as I was saying before I was sidetracked into the whole

issue of political donations, which is also strictly relevant to the

bill.... I regret being sidetracked into that area by the Minister

of Agriculture, although it's an important area that I'd like to

discuss, because it gives the bill an element of unfairness right on

the face of it. On the one hand we're taking away tax credits from the

poor, and on the other hand we allow tax credits to go to those who

donate to political parties. You and I, Mr. Minister of Agriculture,

both benefit from that provision. We're not told how much money is

being spent through that provision in terms of tax expenditures. Yet I

would rather see this government, if they're complaining about being

broke, give up that provision — the political tax credit provision —

than take the money away from the poor.

Mr. Speaker, in our society it's very unlikely that the poor make

that many donations to political parties. Those donations generally

come from people who are fairly well off — I would say that in general,

because some people who have very little income feel it's extremely

important to change the political system regardless of how much money

they have, and they make a tremendous sacrifice.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I think the unions are willing to disclose, as

they do and are required to do under the federal legislation. We have

never hesitated to support the kind of legislation that shows that

we're not only supported by individuals but also by trade unions, which

are only democratic collections of individuals. Shareholders of

corporations don't have the opportunity to vote, Mr. Speaker, on

whether that corporation donates to Social Credit. How many Canadian

Pacific shareholders were asked during the last annual meeting whether

they wanted to donate to the Liberals or the Conservatives or to the

Socreds? My recollection of that annual meeting was that the question

was never asked. The motion was never put to the meeting, so there

wasn't an opportunity to determine whether the members wanted to

support that political party or not. But that's not the issue here.

We're perfectly willing to see those campaign donations disclosed

regardless of who

[ Page 2179 ]

makes them. We may be embarrassed. There may be some corporate donations in there to the NDP.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I doubt it. I don't think we'd be embarrassed by

union donations, because those are groups of workers, their executives

are democratically elected and the question is generally put before the

members as to which and whatever political parties they want to donate

to. No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be embarrassed about that at all.

But to get back to the economic rationale for bringing in the

refundable tax credit for renters and the provincial tax credit in the

first place. You know, Mr. Speaker, it probably dates back to what was

almost an economic and social revolution that took place in North

America and western Europe in the 1960s. You will probably recall, as a

person who matured, maybe I should say during the early sixties, that

the world and North America were in a state of ferment and that there

were a number of changes taking place in our economic approach. There

was the war on poverty. There were organizations like the Company of

Young Canadians and the VISTA program in the United States, and a

number of organizations that went out to Third World countries, like

Canadian University Service Overseas. The whole world was in a state of

economic change. I think that that change was taking place, that people

were looking outward more, that people were more concerned about the

poor as a result of the fact that we were living in relatively

comfortable and relatively prosperous circumstances. That was in the

pre-OPEC days, Mr. Speaker, and there's no question that OPEC

significantly changed our view of the world and that we became more

inward-looking.

As a result of this economic change and the social revolution that

took place during the sixties, we became more concerned about those who

were without those who were poorer, those who were downtrodden, those

who were denied access to the political process. We sought methods in

the tax system to change their economic state in life. That's where the

whole idea of refundable tax credits came into vogue. We felt that one

of the ways that we could make our fiscal system, our tax system, work

for those people was to implement tax credits that benefited the poor

directly.

[3:45]

There were other programs, Mr. Speaker, that more or less brought minority

groups into a state of equality with the dominant majorities of the time: the

civil rights movements in the United States, Ireland and Canada; the concern

about black and Hispanic minorities in the United States, all of which rubbed

off on Canada; the concern about the French speaking minority in Canada. All

of these brought worthwhile and substantial changes and progress. At that time

new governments sprang up in Canada. Three of the western provinces had NDP

governments. At that time in the 1960s the Liberals became liberal; they lived

up to their name. The Conservatives were even progressive.

But times have changed, and I think that we've seen those changes in

political and economic outlook exemplified by the Fraser Institute, by

the changes in tax legislation, and by the current theory that what we

should be doing is levelling all taxes so that they impact the same on

the poor as the rich. Part of the idea of levelling the taxes and

freeing the rich from paying taxes is supposedly that the rich will

invest in the economy. There's been some interesting scholarship done

on that, Mr. Speaker. especially an

article done by Neil Brooks. Mr.

Speaker will know that Neil Brooks is a tax expert who is a lawyer from

Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. Mr. Brooks, in an

article in

Saturday Night magazine in July 1981, talked about this change in tax

policy that's reflected here in this bill that we're dealing with in

the Legislature at the present time. He says:

"Remarkably, there is now a growing opinion that

government tax subsidies for business should he increased. Some

commentators, taking their lead from Ronald Reagan, have argued that

taxes on income from capital should be reduced even further so that we

will make the rich richer and thereby encourage them to take risks,

save money and invest. In the end, the argument goes, the larger

economic pie will benefit everyone. This trickle-down theory — now

appearing under a new name, 'supply-side economics' — is put forward as

a major change in direction for Canadian tax policy. But it is not new.

Almost every tax-amending bill since 1972 has contained an array of

incentives designed to liberate the entrepreneurial spirit, and there's

not a shred of evidence that they work."

Again, in the same article:

"Many investors who take risks — and thereby profit

from the government's tax expenditure — do so in ways that benefit no

one except themselves: gambling on the commodities market, for

instance."

So, Mr. Speaker, some of these tax measures which favour the rich

and take from the poor do not do what they are designed or intended to

do, and that is to improve the economy so that the benefits of that

economic improvement among the rich will trickle down.

There is evidence that some of these tax expenditures that assist

the rich and corporations actually distort the economy in such a way as

to make the rich richer and to destroy the entrepreneurial spirit. To

quote Mr. Brooks again: "...has shown that in the case of tax

incentives to corporations, in fact these actually are

counterproductive in encouraging an expansion in business."

Let me read another

section from Mr. Brooks's article:

"There is astonishingly little evidence that these tax

breaks are effective. Although it has been estimated that corporate tax

incentives in manufacturing alone have cost the government some $2.5

billion between 1972 and 1975, several recent studies have found that

the additional investment generated varied from $340 million to $846

million."

The manufacturers had, in effect, another windfall. So tax measures

designed to encourage the rich to invest and to encourage corporations

to invest.... In fact, we only receive a very small percentage of

that tax encouragement back in investment. What we should be doing is

not encouraging the rich to invest but encouraging the poor, as was

done on May 19, 1981, through this tax credit and the renter's tax

credit.

Another way in which those incentives to the rich thwart the entrepreneurial

spirit, Mr. Speaker, is also covered by the Neil Brooks article:

"Since the incentives favour corporations with the

highest effective tax rates, they help existing profitable firms as

against smaller or more marginal firms attempting to enter the market —

and thus they encourage domination of various industries by a small

group of large corporations. Since many of the firms

[ Page 2180 ]

are foreign-owned, tax expenditures find their way out of the

country or encourage control of the Canadian economy by foreign companies."

So here we're looking at two sides of the coin. The government is

pulling back on tax benefits to the poor. They've increased tax

benefits and direct government expenditures to the rich and to

corporations, and experts have demonstrated that that's actually

counterproductive to economic recovery in this country,

counterproductive to improving and changing the structure of our

economy so that more people can be effectively employed. One of the

tremendous advantages of that provincial tax credit and renter's tax

credit was that it increased the disposable income of lower- and

middle-income people so that they could buy more durable consumer

goods, provide a direct incentive to production in this country and

thereby provide a direct incentive for increased manufacturing and

increased growth in the retail and service industries, which would

result in the increase of jobs. Here we are, pleading poverty and

taking away this $92 million tax credit, where that tax credit is

actually one of the methods that we should be encouraging on the demand

side to increase manufacturing enterprise and retail and service

enterprise, thereby increasing jobs and vitality of the British

Columbia economy.

There are other ways by which the tax system as we have it in effect

in Canada today, by allowing certain deductions which are more

available to the rich, distorts charity and the growth of the arts in

the country. This is an interesting sidelight to the debate on this

bill. Again, it's commented on by Mr. Brooks in his

article in Saturday

Night . He uses the example of the 100 percent tax break for people who

invest in movies. He showed how,

whereas before money would have gone

directly into the arts or movies through direct Canadian or provincial

government payments, when the new tax provision took effect, the

quality of Canadian films took a nosedive, because people were more

interested in the tax subsidy than in the quality of films. So we can

see how that tax subsidy distorts and actually thwarts the growth and

improvement in the quality of the arts in this country.

The tax system is extremely important as a fiscal policy measure. It

can make this country more humane; it can make it less humane. What

we're saying is that this measure makes this province less humane by

taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The tax system is

important because it can make this country more productive. It can make

this country provide more jobs by effective tax relief measures or by

direct government expenditures, or it can make this country more and

more dependent on outside sources and economies, and create less and

less employment. We're saying that this tax measure, being put forward

by this government, does precisely that by destroying demand among

those 450,000 citizens of British Columbia that are affected by this

measure. It actually thwarts investment in the economy of British

Columbia, delays economic recovery, prevents the creation of jobs in

the retail and service sector and, particularly, longlasting jobs in

the manufacturing sector. So it is definitely a counterproductive

measure. As I pointed out, there are other ways in the tax system.

There are other things we could eliminate, in order to have both equity

in the tax system and encouragement of our economy. Unfortunately, the

government, because of its hidebound economic thinking and because it

follows to the letter the new economic gurus in the Fraser Institute,

simply cannot see the value of changes which would make the tax system

that much more equitable,

There was a particular problem in my riding as a result of the

elimination of this tax credit back in 1982 made in a press release by

that minister. Many of the people in my constituency — in fact by far

the majority — work in the forest industry. There was a strike in that

industry in 1981 and then an economic downturn which shut down many of

the plants in Port Alberni well into 1982. Many of those people, as a

result of structural changes in the industry and the fact that the

company was transferring some of its manufacturing capability down to

Alabama and Brazil, ended up out of work for 18 months. Earlier in the

year they had filed their TD-1 forms on the assumption that they would

be allowed the provincial tax credit and the renter's tax credit. As a

consequence, they underpaid their income tax and were left with a tax

bill of roughly $500 when these people had ended up on welfare and

unemployment insurance through no fault of their own.

This measure is directed against the poor and places a heavy burden

on them. It is an attack on those who are unemployed and causes

additional burdens on those who are unemployed in trying to change

their status to look for work because of that extra $500 they were

forced to pay on their income tax. It is unfair both in its application

in principle and in its application in some specific areas where people

lost their jobs. The government should be listening. There is no real

imperative to pass the legislation at this time. They should reconsider

the legislation, withdraw it and look at ways that they can make the

tax system in this province much more equitable and demand less of a

burden on the poor and a slightly greater burden on those who have the

ability to pay, which the government claims is one of its guiding

concepts. I intend to vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I would

hope that the government would do so as well.

[4:00]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is a with a sense of sadness

that I find I am the last speaker from the opposition benches who can

speak against this bill. I know there are members opposite who say we

have been obstructionist in terms of this bill, that we have spun it

out and have repeated ourselves. It is true that we have been debating

Bill 4 since about 25 hours ago. With brief respite, in terms of some

debate on Bill 11 and one other matter, we have debated this bill

almost continuously since that time, with very little sleep.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I see the Premier is in his seat at this particular moment, and I

want to stress the significance of the bill in terms of Premier Bennett

II and Premier Bennett I. I make no apologies for the fact that we on

the opposition side have done everything within our parliamentary power

to block this little Bill 4 and to force the government to take it

back. What we are doing in this bill is repealing more than just a

grant to two of the low-income groups in the community — usually the

same people, the renters with low enough income and the income-tax

recipients of the credit. We are really repealing much more than that;

we are repealing the humane side of government, We are rejecting the

beginning of the advance that Premier W.A.C. Bennett made in 1972 when,

recognizing the inequities and seeking to help those in the lower rungs

of society, he began with a $50 allowance to those whose economic

circumstances justified it and who were tenants. The present

government, in a callous, inhumane way, is

[ Page

2181 ]

turning back on that beginning of a gesture to humanity extended to these

groups who have very little income.

There has been a debate that directly relates to Bill 4, in terms of

philosophy, between Bishop Remi de Roo, the Roman Catholic Bishop of

Victoria, and Premier Bennett of this province. Bishop Remi de Roo,

speaking of budget legislation, but speaking particularly of this kind

of bill — Bill 4 more than any other — had this to say. He said,

speaking of the government: "They don't realize that their narrow,

conservative approach, now obsolete in the light of economic history,

is creating suffering." We have been trying, with all of the ability

that an opposition can muster, to get that message over to the

government. They are rejecting the humane side of governmental activity

and pursuing this bottom-line philosophy that can be very heartless in

its application. That statement of Bishop Remi de Roo is interesting.

He says this kind of bill is not only creating suffering but in the

light of economic history it is not working. You may ask what Bishop

Remi de Roo knows about economics.

We have heard a very eloquent speech from the member for Alberni

(Mr. Skelly), who has just taken his seat. He has pointed out that this

business of talking about augmenting the profits of the well-to-do in

order to create investment capital to create jobs and wealth is not

working. In the United States it has been tried under President Ronald

Reagan, and the queues of the unemployed at the soup-kitchens are

longer than they have been since the very depths of the Great

Depression in 1933. This so-called trickle-down theory of making the

rich richer regardless of any humanity or justice extended toward the

poor has been weighed in the scales in Great Britain too, under Prime

Minister Margaret Thatcher. Instead of the unemployment rates

decreasing there, they have crept up, particularly in terms of

unemployed young people. It isn't working.

We on this side of the House are not against high profits, provided

they are directed in terms of socially useful investment — directed

investment planning into job creation and wealth creation projects and

manufacturing, and all of the things that help to create additional

wealth in this country. Do you think you can rely on the super-rich to

direct their savings that have come from the whole community back into

what helps the community in terms of job creation? They have not and

will not. They are more interested in the merger of companies,

takeover, quick profit, paper, income tax and tax shelters for the rich

instead of shelters for the poor, in terms of homes.

The

article continues: "De Roo said no one argues with the need for fiscal

restraint." He added that it is wrong to abolish one social program after

another — and that includes Bill 4 — and "erode the social consensus and

the safety net we have build up for the less powerful elements in society."

He uses the word "wrong," which is a moral judgment. It is amazing

how many of the political decisions we are called upon to make, whether they

are in the field of economics or anywhere else, are really moral judgments.

I don't subscribe to the theory that some Marxist mechanism can decree what

is right or wrong to do in terms of the economy and promoting justice. There

are moral decisions that are being made in Legislatures such as this and in

the Parliament of Canada. That moral concern for the poor, which we are rejecting

by Bill 4, dates back in the history of our civilization at least 3,500 years.

The prophet Isaiah may not have been a socialist. Maybe he was, but it was long

before that word was invented. He would have been against this bill, and he

said this: "But with righteousness shall he judge the poor and reprove

with equity for the meek of the earth." That is a message directed right

at Bill 4. It is directed at our tax system. It is saying "reprove with

equity" — correct with equity — those who suffer at the bottom of the scale

through no fault of their own, because they have never had the opportunities

in jobs, health or education.

We are doing the very opposite, Mr. Speaker, in this bill that we

are debating today. At the very most the bill gives a low-income person

making $11,000 a year — and this is the best example in terms of

receipts — $459 a year combining the tax credit and the renter's

credit. That is the optimum; for most it is far less than that — a

renter's credit of up to $150, and things of that kind. Those sums,

small as they are, are terribly important to those who have less than

enough in our communities. What difference would $300 or $400 make in

the kind of household that I am speaking of?

There have been some studies on the effect of poverty on future

generations. Everybody knows the effects of lack of means to

participate directly in the good life for the parents. What about the

children? What does the denial of these sums within that household mean

for children? The studies of places like Birmingham University in Great

Britain indicate that in a poor family without sufficient means, the

job and health opportunities and the educational expectations of the

children suffer a decline. Someone who comes out of a home that is

reasonably affluent, where the children can participate in good food,

have support in terms of their educational achievement at school and

have a better health background, are the children who have a very

significant advantage in future life in terms of getting a job, getting

promotions and a longer life through having better intrinsic health. So

with this bill we take $50 or $100 out of some home of the kind I'm

speaking about, and we say: "What's that?" And the government says: "We

have a debt and we must concern ourselves not with these bleeding-heart

notions of humanity but with balancing the budget." The member for

Alberni and the other speakers have said it eloquently enough: there

are all kinds of ways of balancing the budget and at the same time

moving toward social equality in the province of British Columbia.

The savings on this bill are said to be $91 million a year. What we

lost by the abolition of death duties on the estates of the very

well-to-do and millionaires was, at the time of the abolition of those

duties in 1976, about $50 million a year. But it would be more.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I would be out of order to debate that subject in detail with the hon. member, but I'd be glad to do it on any other occasion.

There has been pressure from the greedy and the moneybags and the

Lougheeds and the Bennetts — the Premier of the province of British

Columbia — to wipe out any death duties. It's remarkable how a lobby of

the rich can speak in the corridors of power while the poor can barely

whisper. They've got what they wanted; and the member said the other

day: "Well, they have to pay a capital gain of 25 percent." On what? A

maximum 25 percent on their unearned income — their speculative

profits. That's a justification for eliminating succession duties,

which you have even in California? Yes, the lobby of the rich has

spoken through this government, and this government is their servant,

and it's their servant in Bill 4.

[ Page 2182 ]

Let nobody say that this kind of program of $91 million per year

could not be financed in British Columbia without a budget deficit if

we really graduated taxation according to ability to pay or if we

taxed, for example, the speculative profits of the land-flippers, who

do not create a new job, who do not improve the real estate, but simply

buy and sell it and make a huge unearned capital gain and walk away and

pay a capital tax to Ottawa. There's a whole area where the provincial

government could be taking speculative capital gains.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is debating....

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I suppose the real estate flippers do

occasionally have losses, and that would be written off in terms of a

land tax. Of course it would. But let's not make any mistake about it,

Mr. Speaker. You could name names quite easily. In the last five or six

years huge unearned fortunes have been made in the province of British

Columbia by speculation in real estate — homes, businesses, shopping

developments, takeovers of companies — not by useful, creative job and

wealth creation enterprise but by speculation.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they won't. The Spetifore lands, the hon.

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) reminds me, made paper profits that

enabled them to make mortgage loans at the bank of up to, according to

the registered mortgages, $100 million. But we don't tax that kind of

thing. We don't tax the unearned income on the transfer of the licences

for neighbourhood pubs and things of that kind, which is a valuable

franchise given by the public and a piece of paper that leads to

speculative profits that could pay for this kind of program. But we

don't do it.

Bishop Remi de Roo goes on to say, in summing up: "The legislation favours the rich and powerful."

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: And the Premier disagrees. The Premier is

listening, I think — or half-listening — to what I'm saying; I'm glad

to have that much attention.

"The legislation favours the rich and powerful." I

wonder what W.A.C. Bennett, who initiated this program, would have

thought about it. Would he kill it? Would he commit infanticide with

one of his own programs to create some greater opportunities for those

at the lower end of the scale who pay rents? I doubt it very much, Mr.

Speaker,

The Premier's answer, as given in the Vancouver Sun of August 17 this year:

"'Bishop de Roo has a different economic philosophy

than I have,' Bennett said. 'He does not trust the private sector. He

does not believe in profits!" Well, there is a divide here.

There's a

very real divide in philosophy and moral judgments between that side of

the House and this. He goes on:

"'He believes the answer is to be found in larger government, and I respect his right to hold that view. I disagree with it.

"When we talk about jobs in the private sector, it

isn't to favour the rich; it is so investment, which can be anyone's

investment, from the worker that's worked hard all his life and had his

savings and makes it as an investment, to those who have larger

savings...to give them a climate to invest, create business and

jobs,' Bennett said."

That is precisely what has not been working in the economies of

Canada and the United States. That is the voice of the Fraser

Institute: if you make the rich richer and the poor poorer, augment the

profits that are already high....

Profits. The bank profits from 1977 to 1983 rose, in periods of

privation for many, from $700 million to $1,700 million a year. Did

that give us a greater measure of full employment? The record isn't

there. Unemployment has crept up in these times of rising profits.

Should those profits be even higher?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm answering the Premier, who believes in

profits, and I'm telling him some of the profits that have been made in

the last five years and how they have not benefited those in the lower

ranks, how they have not produced jobs.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the losses?

MR. MACDONALD: There are some businesses that have had

losses; you can't tax that. But sometimes you think in terms of the

businesses that have had losses and then you ask yourself: have the

individuals, the wealthy people who owned those businesses, had losses?

Not necessarily. The Spetifore thing that we are passing in another

bill is going to go bankrupt, but that doesn't mean that the insiders

who got that franchise to get out of the agricultural land reserve are

not going to walk away with a heck of a lot of money. It'll be other

people down the way who suffer.

Increasing profits, making them ever higher and higher, is not going

to help us produce jobs throughout the economies of Canada and the

United States, and that is amply evidenced by the unemployment figures

and the hungry outside of church doors waiting for something to eat.

We have, therefore, a fundamental disagreement with this kind of

legislation. It's the legislation of the radical right which is at the

present time held in pretty high esteem. It's the legislation of the

Fraser Institute which has been bought by this government. I thought it

was interesting that Peter Pocklington is a director of the Fraser

Institute. Peter Pocklington, who made a very presentable run for the

Conservative leadership, is now having a little difficulty. He's in

court; he hasn't paid his psychic.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: As the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

says, always pay your psychic. Don't end up in court with your psychic

and have that psychic reveal what you said, because Peter Pocklington

told his psychic — and this is court evidence.... He went even

further than Premier Bennett in terms of "enlarge the profits of the

rich." he nominated himself as the greatest of the rich, and told his

psychic that his ambition is to own the whole world.

[ Page 2183 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Everybody has their ambition.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a legitimate one. At least he left the rest of us the stars and the moon.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a quote from.... Do you remember that

play The Little Foxes — that eat the grapes — of Lillian Hellman? The

avaricious. The ones who say: "If they're richer and richer it's going

to trickle down and benefit all of us in this economy." I would rather

trust the democratic socialist planning, through governments, of the

economy in directing the wealth of the country where it is needed,

rather than where it will make more money for the avaricious few.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's what this bill is about. There is

not a socialist in North America who would approve of this bill.

There's not a member of the Fraser Institute who wouldn't get up and

applaud it.

Mr. Speaker, we're turning our back on the humane application of the

tax system in this legislation. I don't know what more I can say,

really. I pretty well defined what I feel about this bill — and this is

the second occasion — but I do want to refer to the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. That declaration of

human rights was largely inspired by Eleanor Roosevelt and was accepted

by the United Nations three years after its birth, on December 10,

1948. It has been adopted by Canada.

Article 22 of that declaration says the following: "Everyone, as a

member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to

realization, through national effort and international

cooperation...." Mr. Speaker, I think we're violating that

section of the declaration of human rights with Bill 4. It's more than

turning a back on philosophy; it is stripping away a very modest amount

of income from those in the poorer ranges of society.

We're not helping the economy. The $91 million that the Minister of

Finance is taking away from the poor, by this legislation, would be

quickly circulated back throughout the economy and the small stores,

because there is no surplus in those families. They are not going to be

able to put that — say it's as high as $459 — money in a bank or invest

in a bond; they're going to spend it, because they have to spend it.

They need the money. That's the kind of money, circulating throughout

the economy, that helps small businesses and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, retroactive legislation is a very sad feature of it. I

spoke on that sometime in the wee hours of the morning, and I'm not

going to repeat what I said, but it's viciously retroactive

legislation. It strips away a right of 1982 that was vouchsafed to

people by law. Here we are in September 1983, retroactively stripping

away what they were lawfully entitled to in 1982. Would the Premier

dare to have done that with his rich friends — pass this kind of

retroactive legislation to strip away their tax credits? Never would he

have done it. But these are the voiceless poor. When have you ever

stripped tax credits from the rich as you're doing to the poor in this

bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: The mining industry.

MR. MACDONALD: The mining industry. He's diverting me. I know what he's referring to. It's got nothing to do with the point.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, you're just trying to throw sand in the gears here.

Mr. Speaker, this government is in the hands of the rich lobby of

the province of British Columbia. The Social Credit government of

W.A.C. Bennett came up as an anti-establishment, populist party. We

fought them, because I was a socialist. But they were still

anti-establishment; they were not the rich lobby who, all through the

decades, controlled the province of British Columbia and wrote its

legislation. But the Social Credit Party of today, under the present

Premier Bennett, is in the pocket of the establishment of the province

of British Columbia. They would never in their wildest manoeuvres

retroactively — two years after the event — strip away tax credits from

the rich as they are doing under this legislation for the poor.

Mr. Speaker, we're turning our backs on humanity and on a philosophy

on economics that says that the economy is better if you don't have a

subclass of very poor — people with poor opportunities and no spending

power. That's what we're developing in Canada: we're developing a

subclass with children who may never work and have the opportunity to

find that kind of sense of self-pride and fulfilment. We're developing

a subclass of very poor families whom we deprive of that most basic

right of all human beings, which is hope. That's what we do in this

bill: take away $91 million a year of their lawfully accrued credits

from the very poor; deprive those families of hope; deprive their

children, very directly, of the kinds of opportunities that everyone in

a civilized society and democracy should be able to enjoy.

[4:30]

It's against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's against

the whole moral philosophy that was expressed by the prophet Isaiah.

It's a morally retrograde step that we're taking with this kind of

legislation. Bishop Remi de Roo is absolutely right when he says that

this government is benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor. It's

legislation that we have no shame whatsoever in opposing for 24 hours

in this House. And if we had any opportunity to oppose it further, we

would.

MR. KEMPF: You'll have lots of opportunity.

MR. MACDONALD: We will have no further opportunity. But I say

this: the tide will turn. This radical turn to the far right of the

government is not going to be accepted by the humane, civilized and

thinking people of the province of British Columbia forever. That tide

will turn.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we lost a battle on May 5, and poor

people are suffering because we lost. I feel badly that we lost. The

appeal was out there from Social Credit, very cleverly monitored to

appeal to fear and greed, and they won. I feel badly about it. But they

will not win forever. They will not close the book on democratic

government exercising its powers in a humane way towards social

equality.

[ Page 2184 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members that under standing order 42 the hon. Minister of Finance closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief inasmuch as I

spoke at some length in introducing second reading of Bill 4, the

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983. I think that one could summarize the

comments made by the members opposite, from the first speaker on behalf

of the socialists through to the most recent comments, as really

following one central theme.

This was not a decision to be taken lightly by the government. I

said that at the time. I said that very clearly in November, and I

would like to speak about the press release that has been mentioned by

several of those who have participated in this rather protracted

debate. It was a decision we viewed in the harsh reality of the late

fall of 1982 as we saw our revenues declining at a very alarming rate.

It was one of several measures we took in expenditure control. Mr.

Speaker, I don't want to transgress the rules, but those have also been

debated in the course of the budget debate through this summer.

So let no one suggest that I wakened one particular morning and

thought, "Aha, this seems like a good day to cancel a couple of tax

credits," one of which had been in place for several years and one of

which had been in place for a relatively short space of time. I trust

that notwithstanding the heat of some of the debate that has surrounded

this portion of the bill, no one will attempt to suggest that it was an

act of spitefulness, as has been suggested, or that it was

an act of

insensitivity. Rather, it was one of a series of acts of absolutely

essential character in order that we correct the serious situation to

which I have referred.

Fundamental to that which we took reluctantly in November, when we

notified Revenue Canada at the last possible moment after considering

this for quite some time, was again, Mr. Speaker, this government's

commitments to the permanency, the essential nature of a variety of

programs which have been in place, which remain in place and which form

the real, the legitimate, the absolutely fundamental safety net about

which we hear so much.

Again, that is the safety net that we have worked to protect, that

we have striven to keep in place through this worst period in some 50

years. And again, as I have said in my place through the course of 1982

and thus far in 1983, we had the unfortunate task of identifying those

programs which were desirable as opposed to those that were essential.

When we applied that test calmly and carefully, and with a great deal

of thought and sensitivity, we knew that inevitably programs such as

these two credits fell into the desirable category rather than the

essential category.

A few days ago the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) spoke

about — and I paraphrase, but I think I have it pretty clearly; Hansard

will correct me if I am wrong — the lack of information during the

election campaign: that there was a great deal of election material and

electioneering, and therefore somehow this wasn't noticed in the course

of the campaign. Reference to that particular aspect of the campaign

also relates, I think, to comments made in this House and outside in

the weeks since the budget, to the effect that there were many

surprises following July 7. I indicated the press release. Here was a

government which quite likely within the next several months following

November would face the electorate of this province with the truth of

our situation, and with a statement of the economic reality of the time

and a willingness to extend our best efforts to see us through this

period. No surprise about the cancellation of these credits. November

10: the day has been mentioned repeatedly by the members on the

opposite side who have taken their place in the debate, as if the press

release was somehow negative. It spoke about something which was

negative, but it was an upfront statement to the people of the province

of British Columbia. It is a public document. I won't read it in its

entirety, but on November 10 last it announced the suspension of the

provincial personal income tax credit and the renter's tax credit for

the 1982 taxation year. It indicated that legislation would be

introduced at the next session of the Legislature to ratify the

cancellation of these credits. That's the way in which, with respect to

this issue, we faced the people of British Columbia, the Premier and

our candidates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "And the only one," the member interjects. I would be reflecting on Bill 11 if I answered that interjection.

Nonetheless, we said these tax credits must of necessity be

suspended. We were hopeful that at some time in the future similar

credits, or credits of some similar nature, might be reintroduced. I do

not, I cannot today make that commitment in terms of time or form, but

I do express the hope that at some point, as our economic situation

improves we will be able to examine this form of assistance in one way

or another. So please, Madam Member for Burnaby North — who is not in

the chamber at the moment — do not suggest that this was somehow lost

in the rhetoric of an election campaign, because each one of us and

each one of you knew it was a matter of concern to the electorate. They

knew exactly that it was a matter of concern to a segment of the

electorate, and each of us was obliged, as candidates for this party,

to explain the reasons why the credits were suspended. We did that.

That is one of the most honest aspects anyone could ask of an election

campaign: to explain the bad news. Not to cover it up, not to run away,

as the NDP did in 1975 — to rush to the electorate before the news was

out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Confusion? There was no confusion with

respect to the government's decision on November 10 and reiterated

through the early part of 1983, particularly in the period leading up

to May 5, 1983 with respect to the two credits which are suspended by

Bill 4.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) spoke about confusion. I

think one of the most unfortunate steps taken by any group of

politicians in British Columbia was that taken by some NDP candidates

with respect to these two credits. What did they say to the elderly,

the disadvantaged, those who had expected, prior to November, to have

this credit? They said: "File it anyway. Go ahead, put your claim in.

Put it on your form." What tragedy was created for individuals! What

difficulties created for thousands of British Columbians who were

confused! The government of the day....

Interjections.

[ Page 2185 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: They don't like to hear that, Mr. Speaker.

But that is an unfortunate and an unfair treatment of seniors and

disadvantaged individuals in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tried to buy their votes. Right.

MR. HOWARD: You're a desperate man.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, if I want to identify desperation I refer to the member for Skeena.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I did hit a nerve again, I think, with that particular member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What are you inferring?

Mr. Speaker, there are questions rather than interjections. The

member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has shown an interest in where I had

lunch. I had it in the legislative dining-room.

Nonetheless, there was confusion abroad in the province of British

Columbia as a result of the desperation of the NDP. "Ignore what the

government has said, because we'll reinstate the tax. Go ahead," they

said: I wonder how many hundreds, indeed thousands, of tax application

forms claiming refunds of varying sizes were held up as a result of the

confusion created by NDP candidates in the period leading up to May 5.

"Go ahead and claim it," they said. "Mark it in, even though it's not

on the form." A cruel trick on the people of British Columbia who were

benefiting.... A cruel trick on the people, who were confused as a

result. When does one say to fill something in on a tax form, Mr.

Speaker?

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Leader of the Opposition delivered what has to be categorized....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would all hon. members please come to order. The minister will continue, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to

conclude debate with all the interjections, except that I understand

they know about which I speak: that is, the confusion which was

created, and the uncertainty.

[4:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member, what nonsense, what garbage you

offer in an interjection, when on November 10 the government of the day

said that the credits were being suspended; and we did so — I don't

know if the member was here earlier — in order to avoid all

possible....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's have order please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We did so in order to avoid the kind of confusion which that group fostered through the first part of 1983.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The interjections in this particular few

minutes are reassuring to me because what we had in April 1983 was a

crass election promise: "Elect us and we will restore the grants." On

the other hand, here is a party which said: "The grants must be

suspended indefinitely. That is the way it is, that is the way it must

be." And the people of British Columbia, insofar as those with whom we

had contact were concerned, understood the necessity.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are other parts of the amendment act which

a couple of members have touched on relating to political party

contributions and tax deducibility. I would be more pleased to deal

with that, if it's satisfactory to the chamber, in committee stage.

With respect to Bill 4, I move second reading now.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 11

Macdonald

Howard

Stupich

Lauk

Sanford

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

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

Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983, 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 adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, before we proceed, Your

Honour, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

moved to adjourn the debate. Doesn't he want to speak on it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm relinquishing my place to my colleague. He's

quite prepared to close.

[ Page 2186 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of this

government's lack of commitment — without any disrespect in referring

to this group of people in this way — and attitude toward the voiceless

and the helpless in society. Over the years in Canada's great economy,

we've seen — and particularly in British Columbia — that large

corporations, rather than make profits by grinding up and spitting out

the people who work for them, have had to deal with large trade unions

to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of those workers. It is

always a surprise to some people in British Columbia to find out that

less than 40 percent — I think it's now 36 or 36 percent — of the

wage-earners in British Columbia are organized in trade unions.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I wouldn't think it's as high as 48 percent, as the Minister of Labour....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll even accept that figure for the sake of

the argument I'm trying to make. It's still less than 50 percent, far

less than it should be. But even among those who are organized in trade

unions, we must recognize that some trade unions are stronger than

others. A great many trade unions are quite weak in their ability to

negotiate even first contracts for the people in their bargaining units.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's true, and that's the way it has to be

in the free collective bargaining system. Any interference with that

would be perhaps shifting the goals and the direction and the way our

economy has been going at least since the war. At least 55 percent, the

Minister of Labour concedes — I'd say it's probably a little higher — of

British Columbia's wage-earners are not in trade unions, and have to

bargain as individuals for their own salaries. If you take into

consideration those unions that are embryonic, that are starting out

with very little power and very few members, and if you take into

consideration those trade unions that, for reasons mostly of the

industry in which they are involved, find themselves unable to conclude

collective agreements to bring their members up to a reasonable

standard of living — certainly reasonable in their view and in the view

of more objective viewers as well — then a much higher percentage of

the workforce of British Columbia — I'd say well over 65 to 70 percent

— is struggling, if they're lucky enough to have jobs. They are

struggling for a very minimal standard of living in this province.

I was indeed pleased and gratified — and I said so at the time —

when the current Minister of Education, the former Minister of Labour

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich) brought in amendments to the Employment Standards

Act to create minimum standards and quasi-judicial remedies for those

unorganized people in our society to gain a minimum standard for

themselves and their families. I did not consider it an unreasonable

interference in the marketplace, and neither did he; and he said so at

the time. His reward for his progressive thinking was to be shifted out

of the Ministry of Labour and into the Ministry of Education.

I think the amendments made to the Employment Standards Act in Bill

26 are a reflection of a philosophy and really a blindness on the part

of the government towards the vast majority of British Columbians and

their needs. At least 70 percent of the workforce has a minimal

standard of living.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, compared to other jurisdictions in the world

British Columbians don't have much to complain about, and in a relative

way are really well off.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to discuss for a moment what the goals of an economy are.

Many members on the government side and their supporters — mostly

businessmen and so on, big businessmen — argue constantly that....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Seventy percent of the workforce are taxpayers too.

They all are, but the 70 percent I'm referring to which from time to

time will be affected by this legislation are taxpayers too. It's a

mistake for politicians to refer to an identifiable group as if those

people are motivated in all things by being either a trade unionist or

a small businessman and so on. They think on their own. They make

decisions because of a variety of reasons. I'm not suggesting that

because people belong to, for example, a trade union, they're going to

vote along with the trade union leadership. Obviously they don't. I'm

not saying that because people are poor that they're going to vote in a

particular way, and likewise that because people are rich they're going

to vote in a particular way. You can't identify groups of people like

that.

[5:00]

What I'm saying is that insofar as the principle of this Bill 26 is

concerned, at least 70 percent of the workforce, the wage-earners of

this province, are being affected. This government has a philosophy

that deals exclusively with the concept of the free marketplace —

exclusively. Except on the rare occasion when the Employment Standards

Act was introduced by the Minister of Labour's predecessor, and a few

other rare occasions, this government has not dealt with the realities

of economic life in British Columbia. I say the reason they have not

dealt with it is that it's not part of their philosophical

understanding. Although they know it's there, and they know the needs

are there, they choose to ignore those needs and requirements of an

economy, and discuss only the goals which fit nicely and precisely into

that rightwing philosophy. And that right-wing philosophy of the day is

the free-market system. Everybody's expected to be able to negotiate a

fair price for goods and services on the freemarket system, when in

fact not everybody can, and not everybody is expected to in the

free-market system, which does not have the structures to allow them to

do so. Seventy percent of the workforce in this province have no access

to the free-market system. Now, in a situation of recession and high

unemployment, what little power they had in terms of their service,

their labour, and the price they were to receive for it is gone. They

are as desperate as they have ever been in their lives for work and for

income.

[ Page 2187 ]

It is in those circumstances that this cruel and unfeeling

government, through a blind, inflexible ideological approach, has

brought in amendments to the Employment Standards Act. They are such

mean-minded amendments, and I'll tell you why. They're mean-minded

because you don't save any money. You're just appealing to the crass

greed of a few people in society by bringing in these amendments. You

are ignoring 70 percent of the workforce who may come under and need

the protection of this act, and certainly the 55 percent who will most

certainly, from time to time, in these times at least, come under the

provisions of this act.

By eliminating the minimum standards, which is clearly what they've

done, in the face of a collective agreement, many — not just a few, and

certainly not the majority, but many — employers in these times will be

tempted and will negotiate what I would call collective agreements that

are employer collective agreements, which will undercut all if not part

of the minimum standards of this bill. You'll find, as soon as this

bill becomes law, that all over this province unscrupulous — and I say

they are — employers will negotiate collective agreements that will

undercut the minimum standards of this act, by the simple fact alone of

this meanminded government introducing an amendment saying that if

there's a collective agreement the minimum standards of this act will

not apply.

If I were a lawyer acting for the employer I would reluctantly have

to tell him that that was possible under this act. Most employers can

afford lawyers, but most of the unorganized and the working poor who

I'm talking about, the people who will come under this act, do not have

lawyers. They don't even have access to a lawyer. It's an ironical

thing, indeed, that we're manufacturing more lawyers every year from

the two law schools, but the working poor — the wage-earners of this

province — have less access to lawyers today than they did last year

and the year before.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, well, the hon. Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr.

Rogers) is talking about lawyers' fees. I'll tell you, and I say with

great unfortunate humility, that lawyers' fees have not kept abreast

with inflation. If his lawyer's fees have, then I suggest that he shop

around, because there is a lot of competition out there. If I wasn't so

darned good myself I wouldn't have any clients at all.

Even in a sense of good humour, I don't want to diminish in any way

the import of this mean-minded amendment to the Employment Standards

Act. Seventy percent of the workforce do not even have access to

lawyers. Yes, they can't afford it, first of all; and secondly, they

don't even have the encouragement or support in fighting for their

rights under any statute. We've got to realize the reality of ordinary

people in society. They are not well aware of their rights, and even

those who are are not sure about pressing their claims, and quite often

are afraid to. Yes, that's a responsibility of society generally, but

one of the reasons why the Employment Standards Act provided minimum

standards of employment was to deal with that reality of life. Now,

when times are bad, we need those minimum standards more than ever.

And we need the quickest and most efficient judicial or quasi-judicial remedy

for back wages. What could be more justified than the family of the working

poor demanding of an employer their back wages? It's been 100 years since

the Parliament of Canada and all legislatures of Canada have recognized the

priority of back wages. You see it in the bankruptcy statutes, in the receivership

statutes and in the building lien statutes. Wherever there is a priority to

be made, in decency, the politicians of this land have ordered the priority

of back wages. So I was shocked, disappointed and very saddened to see Bill

26 introduced.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The collection of back wages is in the bill; I wish

the minister would read the bill. Let me deal with that provision, and

I'll draw the point clear for the Minister of Labour; and I'm certainly

relieved that unlike a lot of his colleagues he's at least listening to

some of the debate on his bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm listening to them all.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm sorry. No one said your job would be easy. Take a milk of magnesia and bear with me for a minute.

This bill would allow employers, in bad economic times, in high

unemployment, the biggest stick they've had since the war: labour

negotiations to force a weak collective agreement. As I say, what I

would call unscrupulous employers will force a collective agreement on

their employees. It's relatively easy to form a

sweetheart-employer-type union and have a kind of collective agreement

forced upon those employees, because there's a reservoir of unemployed.

There are people just dying to get in and get those jobs, and the

competition is hot and heavy. How easy it is for an employer to force

that collective agreement and totally undercut the minimum standards in

this Employment Standards Act. There are thousands of industries out

there that are working on this kind of margin, where it's worth it to

them, as unscrupulous as it is, to move to a substandard situation as

far as their employees are concerned.

Again I say, what are the goals of the economy? Is this Social

Credit Party so blinded and so caught up with their own rhetoric and

their own buzzwords that they're forgetting the people as a whole? Deal

with the realities of an economic system, not with dreams, not with

some theoretical reference to the free mark