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 8, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1255

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Rent controls. Mr. Blencoe –– 1255

Termination of volunteer coordinators. Mr. Barnes –– 1255

Dangerous toys. Mr. Campbell –– 1256

Insurance Corporation. Mr. Howard –– 1256

Mr. Cocke

Estate Administration Act Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill

M201). Committee stage. (Mr. Ree).

On the amendment –– 1257

Mr. Ree

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Division

Section 1 –– 1258

Mr. Cocke

Report –– 1259

An Act to Provide for No Smoking Areas in Public Places

(Bill M205). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1259

Property Tax Reform Act (No –– 2), 1983 (Bill 12).

Second reading,

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1259

Mr. Stupich –– 1260

Mr. Lea –– 1265

Mr. Nicolson –– 1269

Ms. Brown –– 1272

Ms. Sanford –– 1276

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery we have this

afternoon Mrs. Minnie Wilder from Fairmont Hot Springs and Mrs. Roe

Gasper of California. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming two guests who are in the members' gallery this afternoon.

They are two visitors from St. Paul, Minnesota, who have been touring

British Columbia for the past couple of weeks. Our geography impressed

them; I hope that we will impress them somewhat today. Keep your

fingers crossed. We have Larry and Deborah Barsden from St. Paul,

Minnesota. I'd ask you to welcome them and wish them a safe journey

home.

Oral Questions

RENT CONTROLS

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

and Corporate Affairs. Since July 7, when the government abolished rent

controls by the stroke of a cabinet pen, rental increases have

skyrocketed. For example, Mr. Speaker, landlords have issued rent

increases of 62 percent at 809 Denman in Vancouver. At 1956 Haro they

have gone up 37 to 50 percent, and at 843 Cardero they have gone up 25

to 35 percent. In view of the response to the government's initiatives,

has the minister decided to reconsider the decision to abolish rent

controls in the province of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, hon. member, we are anticipating

legislation that is before the House. The minister may wish to answer,

but I would....

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the abolition of rent controls has

nothing to do with business before this House. It was an

order-in-cabinet. That is business that could be answered.

MR. SPEAKER: There is an argument made.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The member opposite comments on some rental

increases that he has examples of. I would appreciate receiving copies

of any correspondence he may have. I can advise him that I met last

Friday in Vancouver with the Rental Housing Council, the association

that represents the majority of landlords in the province. They are

cooperating with my ministry and have advised me that rental increases

are certainly not in excess. In many cases the average that they are

talking about is 5 percent. In some cases an annual anniversary date of

a rent increase has gone by and the landlord has not made an increase,

mainly because of the high vacancy rates that they are experiencing at

the present time, and there is competition out there for rental

occupancy at this time.

MR. BLENCOE: Then how, Mr. Speaker, does the minister explain

these increases of 62 percent, 37 to 50 percent and 35 percent?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I have no intention of attempting o explain

increases and examples that the member refers to. As I said at the

beginning of my remarks, I would be very pleased if he would send that

information to me. I am in communication with the Rental Housing

Council, and I am sure they want to make this competition in the

marketplace work as well as I want to see it work. I would like him to

send hat material to me, if he would be so kind as to do so.

MR. BLENCOE: I will indeed pass on the source of that

information.

On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the government has proposed

eviction without cause as part of the new Residential Tenancy Act.

Under the current legislation tenants can complain to the rentalsman.

Many tenants now say they are afraid to complain to the office of the

rentalsman because of the imminent power of arbitrary eviction. Has the

minister decided to reconsider this proposal?

MR. SPEAKER: Clearly, hon. member, this question is out of

order.

MR. BLENCOE: It is a matter of urgent government business

that should be dealt with because tenants will not go to the office of

the rentalsman. They are scared to go to the office of the rentalsman.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I don't make the

rules; I only enforce them.

MR. BLENCOE: On a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, rent

increases are also a major problem in Victoria. I have been advised of

a 47 percent increase at 1233 Fairfield, a 50 percent increase at 314

Cook Street and a 20 to 50 percent increase at 2330 Cook Street. Is the

minister prepared to consider that this reaction to the new legislation

was not anticipated by the government and cannot be afforded by tenants

in British Columbia? Is he prepared to reconsider his actions?

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate the concern of the member

opposite and I will repeat my request. Would he be so kind as to

provide me with the material in order that I can evaluate it and

possibly look to see whether or not his comments are valid.

TERMINATION OF VOLUNTEER COORDINATORS

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the Minister of Human

Resources a question. The minister has stated that the government will

rely on volunteer agencies and church groups to provide essential

public services which have been slashed by the government. Will the

minister explain why she has fired all ministry volunteer coordinators

without cause?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The question is based on an inference and

false premise, because it leans on the assumption that we have cut out

essential services. The fact of the matter is that in order to preserve

the most essential services for people in need of assistance from the

government — those people who are needing assistance or income

assistance, or seniors who need help with their Pharmacare bills, which

we've preserved in full.... All of the programs that we

[ Page 1256

have for those people in real need have been preserved. The

essential services of my ministry have not only been preserved but

increased this year in order to meet the demands on the Ministry of

Human Resources, which has a larger budget this year than it had last

year.

MR. BARNES: I'm not sure what criteria the minister uses when

she defines "essential." I would hope that she will provide information

for the House as well on what criteria she uses to determine what is

essential and what is not, because many of the programs that have been

cut are considered essential by those people who no longer have them.

But the minister did not address my specific question with respect

to terminating the services of the volunteer coordinators within her

ministry. Does she not feel that there is a contradiction with respect

to her philosophy about the support for volunteerism and the use of

community resources? How do these people receive the training and

support they need as volunteers, especially in certain specialized

programs?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member asked the question regarding

the volunteer coordinators who have received notices of termination. We

have given them about four and a half months' notice, which is a very

much longer time than the private sector has been given in this

province when they have had to have their jobs terminated. I want to

relate to the concern that the member seems to be expressing on behalf

of these volunteer coordinators. One can relate the job that they did

and continue to do today and will until October 31 with some of the

other services. Choices had to be made. This is a service that can be

and has been well taken up by the private sector in many other areas.

The burden of training volunteers was not totally on the few

coordinators we have had in the Ministry of Human Resources; indeed,

many service clubs and social services organizations have historically

done a tremendously good job of that. We are very proud of the job they

have done.

I'm also very proud of the job that the regional coordinators have

done in the past, but if I were to make a choice of terminating their

employment above perhaps a social worker, who addresses on a daily

basis some of the problems that we need to address in this ministry in

this province.... I suggest to you that their efforts can be taken up

in the private sector quite adequately.

I thank you for the question.

MR. BARNES: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Victoria

Volunteer Bureau has suffered a cutback of 21.5 percent this year and

has been told that next year's grant will be cut by a further 21.5

percent. Will the minister explain the contradiction between her policy

of greater use of volunteers and the slashing of Volunteer Bureau

funding?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I can't specifically address

that because I am not aware.... The member should know that community

grants are based on decisions that are made in the regions; regional

managers make the decisions. I am surprised to hear that someone has

said that there will be a further cut in the following year, as I don't

think the regional managers know, nor do I, what will be available next

year. So I'm further surprised. I'll be pleased to check into that.

Those decisions are made on a regional basis; they're based on needs

and on changing social concerns.

Very often we'll have a community grant that will be cancelled

altogether, but the moneys spent will be placed in another area of

greatest need. That's the responsibility that we give to the regional

managers, and they carry that rather well.

MR. BARNES: Obviously I'm not in a position to debate what

the minister's information is, but I would be happy to supply a

document that points out the number of agencies that have had to cut

back as a result of shortages from your grants. I'll provide those for

you.

I have another question. The ministry has also cut back funding for

volunteer agencies in Delta, Coquitlam, Richmond, Surrey and White

Rock. Is the minister now prepared to admit that the policy of

volunteerism is simply a smokescreen for the elimination of programs to

assist and advocate the interests of the disadvantaged in our society?

Did you understand the question? I'll repeat it.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: You don't need to. I understand the

question.

On the broad question of financing for organizations, and all

organizations across the province, the community grants have been cut

20 percent across the board. Some have been retained at the same level,

some have been reduced 10 percent and some have been given more. It

depends on the service they do in the community. So the member should

know that throughout the province that's 20 percent on a general

across-the-board basis. Even though some are getting more, some are

also getting less.

The answer to the last part of the question is no.

DANGEROUS TOYS

MR. CAMPBELL: A question to the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. There is a water-snake on the market in British

Columbia today, and headlines in the Sheffield Evening Star are saying

that these toys may contain typhoid and cholera, Has the minister

investigated these?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's serious.

HON. MR. HEWITT: To the members opposite, it is a serious

question. I'm aware of the news

article and the toys that have come

into the country. There is some concern about the contents if those

toys are punctured, and I appreciate the comment and the concern raised

by the member for Okanagan North. I'd be pleased to investigate, with

my consumer offices, and find out whether or not some action should be

taken. However, I think a reference has to be made — and I will take it

up with the appropriate authorities in Ottawa with regard to the

importation of those toys.

INSURANCE CORPORATION

MR. HOWARD: I have a question I'd like to pose to the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Hopefully I'll be as

fortunate as the member who just asked a question. Can the minister

tell the House whether the former president of ICBC, Robbie Sherrell,

has met with the minister or with his secret task force, or has made

any proposals with respect to acquiring the general insurance portion

of ICBC?

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

[ Page 1257

MR. HOWARD: Can I ask the minister whether any group,

consortium or corporation that involves Mr. Robbie Sherrell has made

any proposals to the minister regarding the general insurance portion

of ICBC?

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister another

question along the same lines. You told us yesterday who was on your

special task force. May I ask you whether or not Patrick Kinsella is a

member of your task force looking at ICBC and how best to dismantle it?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, in order for my committee to

evaluate the policies and operations of the corporation, I've asked

them to proceed. I'm not about to divulge the names of the members of

that committee, other than to advise the opposition that it is headed

by my deputy minister.

I would like to clarify one response I made a moment ago, so that

the opposition are fully aware of my response with regard to Robbie

Sherrell. If the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is referring to the

present time, my committee at the present time and myself at the

present time, the answer is no, I have not heard from Mr. Sherrell for,

I would think, at least two years.

MR. HOWARD: That's the answer I was looking for.

Orders of the Day

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

the hands of private members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill M201, Mr. Speaker.

ESTATE ADMINISTRATION ACT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill M201; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment to Bill

M201 standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. REE: I would like to speak on the amendment, Mr.

Chairman, in that the amendment increases what was proposed from

$65,000 to $100,000 –– I think the member who has moved this amendment

had best read the bill and read the legislation that the bill is

amending. The particular amendment that he is talking about is to amend

only

section 18 of the bill.

Section 18 deals with the authority of a

court to dispense with a bond in the administration of an estate.

The practicality behind the quantum is that where the estate is of a

lesser value than that to which a spouse is entitled under

section 96,

the court will normally dispense with bond. The proposed amendment is

increasing the amount that a spouse would be entitled to as a first

gift under

section 96. So it will be $35,000 higher. Where the sum is

higher a court should not dispense with a bond, because there are

people other than the spouse who would be entitled to that sum in

excess of $65,000 — that is, the $35,000 up to $100,000.

If the member had looked at the legislation and at this amendment in

particular, he would have also proposed an amendment to

section 4 of

this bill. Since he has not done that, I cannot possibly recommend

approval of his proposed amendment at this time, and certainly no

notice has been filed of an amendment to

section 4.

MR. COCKE: This is the first of two amendments, If this were

acceptable.... I don't understand why the member himself wouldn't

support this. It's reasonable. I was talking about the increase over

the last number of years with respect to inflation. I said that the

$65,000 didn't really reflect the increase necessary for a spouse as

first charge on an estate. What I really said that day was that many

spouses are stuck by virtue of the fact that they have children. The

husband dies without a will, and she has first....

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may we have

debate relevant to the section? I believe the member is talking about

sections 4 and 96 of the original legislation.

Section 1 of this bill

is before us, is it not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on the amendment to

section 1. I ask

the member for New Westminster to relate his remarks to the amendment

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what I'm doing. If it

requires an attendant amendment to

section 4, we can amend

section 4.

I'm saying that this amendment would have to carry first in order to

establish that principle. If you accept it, fine, then we can amend the

other section; but this has to be amended first. We can't amend

section

4 and then come back and amend

section 1. If the government is going to

accept it — and we can move the amendment without notice — they're

going to accept it. If they're not going to accept it, I argue that

they're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

[2:30]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, he was about to rise to accept the

amendment. He was just stretching?

Well, I just want to echo the words of my colleague that one has to

be realistic about a surviving spouse, who, coincidentally, can be

male. Not all surviving spouses are female; a surviving spouse has been

known to be male, once in a while.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Not very often, that's true. All that bad living

catches up with you guys sooner or later. Everyone knows that the

stress and strain of being a male in a man's world kills men off much

faster. We're trying to change the world so they will live a bit longer.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It is a man's world. We're trying to change that,

but it's still a man's world. It is killing off the men faster;

[ Page 1258

that's one of the reasons we're trying to change that. We don't like

them dying so young.

In any event, when they do die.... The amendment on the order paper

to increase the sum of the estate which goes to the surviving spouse

from $20,000 to $100,000 is about as reasonable an amendment as

possible under these circumstances. We just have to look at the

inflation factor, the cost of living — housing, health, eating, raising

kids, if the surviving spouse happens to have children, and those kinds

of things. I don't understand where the government got that strange

figure from anyway. Maybe, in addressing this bill, he could explain

why the amount is $65,000. Sixty-five thousand dollars is not adequate

in a world in which we are dealing with inflation, where the cost of

housing is as high as it is, where the cost of living is as high as it

is. I don't understand the reluctance to accept the amendment to raise

it to $100,000. It's still going to leave the surviving spouse living

pretty close to the poverty line if that spouse has children to support

at the same time. What is this major concern in terms of other people

who may have claims on the estate? Why should they have first

preference over the surviving spouse? I think our responsibility is to

see to it that the surviving spouse gets a decent settlement first of

all, and then take care of those claims after. So I'm hoping that the

member will accept this amendment.

MR. REE: To answer the member's question, Mr. Chairman, in

1966, the last time it was amended, it was $20,000. The CPI on $20,000

till the end of 1982 brings it up to $62,960. So $65,000 is

equivalent, with the increase. I might also mention our western

provinces: in Manitoba it's $50,000, in Saskatchewan it's $40,000 and

in Alberta it's also $40,000 at this time. So we're going to be the

highest province in the four western provinces with this sum.

MS. BROWN: Well, it was inadequate to start with. It

shouldn't have started at $20,000. The Attorney-General is mumbling

under his breath, Mr. Chairman, after wiping out all of the legal aid

services that would make surviving spouses have the kind of legal

representation to fight this. However, what we're doing is entrenching

the poverty which existed in 1966. It was inadequate in 1966. Now that

it has been opened up to be amended, let us at least be realistic about

it. To tell us that Alberta is $40,000 and therefore we should be proud

of ourselves for raising it to $65,000 is nonsense. Everyone knows that

Alberta has the worst social legislation anywhere in Canada, for Pete's

sake. Now they have the second worst, because British Columbia has the

worst.

I'm not accepting his response. I am again asking him to seriously

consider accepting the amendment, which would be to raise it to $100,000.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the reason I stand here now is to

say that they're wrong, which is not unusual. They've been wrong

before; they'll be wrong again. As a matter of fact, they're wrong most

of the time.

To use 1966 as the base when everybody in 1966 knew that it was

inadequate.... It's interesting to me that the Attorney-General says:

"Why didn't you change it?" I ask him: why didn't you change it? You're

not changing it now. You haven't changed it in the last eight years,

and it should be changed so that at least it's going to meet the needs

of the future for a little while, in any event. You have an opportunity

to do it now. Why don't you do it to $100,000? Using Alberta as a base,

for goodness' sake! And Manitoba. What difference does it make? Why

don't you use your brains for a change, instead of using examples that

are typical lawyers' examples. Keep the dammed stuff in a mixed-up

situation so lawyers are going to make their bucks out of an estate.

And the Minister of Forests is supportive of that proposition! I'm

surprised at you. I'll bet your wife will also be surprised at you when

she reads Hansard on this issue.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 27

Chabot

McCarthy

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Veitch

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division

in the Journals of the House.

[2:45]

section 1.

MR. COCKE: At this juncture, I would ask a question, and I

would like to be asking it of a minister. Why was this put forward by a

back-bencher if in fact the government is going to instruct on what

would otherwise have been a very good idea? I said at the very outset

that it was a step forward, but obviously the government have told him

that they were not going to accept the increase to $100,000. I just

wonder why the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) didn't put this up in

the first place. He is calling the shot on it, and I think it is a

shame.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the question might have been

better addressed during second reading. You are reflecting on a

previous vote.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 1259

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

Bill 201, Estate Administration Act Amendment Act, 1983, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill M205, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR

NO-SMOKING AREAS IN PUBLIC PLACES

MRS. WALLACE: Here we are again. It is somewhat of a record

that a private member's bill comes up for discussion in this House at

all, and it's certainly a record to have two bills with the same

principle discussed in the same session.

The principle of this bill is very clear; it is to ensure that

people who do not smoke are protected from breathing smoke from other

people's cigarettes or other smoking material in public places. I have

spoken on this, at least in five-minute spasms, over the last eight

years, but one of the things that I haven't gone into too deeply are

specifics as to second-hand smoke. Certainly there is controversy over

whether or not second-hand smoke is as hazardous as is first-hand

smoke. I think that it has been proven without much question that that

is the case. I would like to read a few excerpts from an

article that

was printed some time ago on second-hand smoke and to cite some of the

statistics that they came up with. This

article indicates that

breathing someone else's stale cigarette smoke is a lot more than a

nuisance. It can pose serious health problems even for healthy

individuals. It goes on to talk about a U.S. medical research program

which indicated that non-smoking women whose husbands smoked regularly

— and therefore the wives breathed that second-hand smoke on a regular

basis — die four years earlier on an average than those whose husbands

did not smoke.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What about non-smoking husbands whose

wives smoke?

MRS. WALLACE: The same thing would be the case, I would

imagine. This particular study was done on non-smoking women. It was

done by a Dr. G. H. Miller in Pennsylvania. He studied the deaths of

some 8,000 women and interviewed the survivors about their husbands'

smoking habits. He excluded women whose life expectancy was altered by

alcoholism, obesity or accidental death. What he found was that the

average age of death for wives of non-smoking men was 78.8 years,

compared with 74.7 years for women married to regular smokers.

Therefore there is a four-year difference. In 1979 the World Health

Organization put out a report on the effects of second-hand smoke. They

said that they didn't feel that it had much effect on healthy

individuals, but it was nevertheless the cause of considerable distress

to individuals and may result in a loss of efficiency in the workplace.

This United Nations agency called on employers and governments to

restrict places where non-smokers may be exposed to second-hand smoke.

That was from the United Nations World Health Organization.

Dr. Roy Shephard, who is a professor at the University of Toronto in

the department of preventive medicine, did a study and noted that

frequent and long-term exposure to cigarette smoke can exaggerate

reactions to air contaminants, turning a harmless level of exposure

into an unacceptable one. In California, two United States

Surgeons-General.... Dr. Luther Terry, who did a report back in 1964,

was one of the initiators of the idea that second-hand smoke was

hazardous. He reported that second-hand tobacco smoke can cause

discomfort and disease in healthy non-smokers and is particularly

dangerous to those with heart or lung diseases. I'm sure you would be

interested in this statistic. Children whose parents smoke have one and

a half to two times as much lung disease as children of non-smoking

parents. That's a shocking statistic.

So I think the time has come, the time is now, that we in British

Columbia should let it be known that we recognize these statistics and

that we are prepared to do something about them. I'm sure that the hon.

House Leader will recognize that this bill, which has had many attempts

in this Legislature, has been revised to remove any possible area of

being out of order. There is no impost upon the Crown. It is completely

and absolutely in order so far as I and the worthy advisers of this

Legislative Assembly can ascertain.

I would certainly hope that the members on the other side of the

House who have expressed a lot of support for this particular position

will follow the precedent that has just been set.... I know I can't

reflect on a bill that has just been dealt with, but we did set a bit

of a precedent when we accepted a private member's bill just recently.

I hope that the government sees fit to accept this bill and that we can

start down the road toward preventing this positively proven health

hazard, and not having our citizens required to be exposed to that

health hazard by ensuring that we do provide no-smoking areas in public

places.

I move second reading.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who is not present today, I

adjourn debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 2), 1983

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move that the

bill be read a second time, but before doing so I have a few comments I

would like to make.

This bill is part of the government's major property tax reform

package. It extends the twin principles of actual-value base and

variable tax rates into all of the non-municipal property tax systems.

We are striving to achieve in both bills a simpler and more responsible

property tax system. For this reason we are establishing a uniform

tax-base concept for every type of property taxation. The concept is

actual or market value, free from any manipulation or mathematical

conversion.

The old concepts of assessed value with its accompanying apparatus

of ratios and options are gone. Besides being consistent in principle

with the rest of the package, this bill is the product of the same

consultative process headed by my colleague the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) and my predecessor, the present Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Heinrich). Once again, I want to commend those two ministers

as well as the many local government officials, private-sector

[ Page 1260

representatives and members of the general public whose

contributions helped to shape this legislation.

As I said initially, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the major

provisions of the Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1) into all of the

non-municipal property tax systems. The actual-value tax base and

variable tax rates will be used for the levies under each of these

statutes being amended by this bill. This list includes the property

tax levies for the following purposes: education, hospitals, rural,

regional district, Assessment Authority, Municipal Finance Authority

and B.C. Transit. Hon. members may be aware of some other minor levies

which may not appear to be on the list. These are usually run on a

requisition basis and will in fact be accommodated by the new system.

Mr. Speaker, this bill makes necessary provisions for smooth

transition to the new system. This is most apparent in the case of

regional district finance. Under the old system, costs were distributed

on the basis of assessed value. Plunging directly into a distribution

based on actual value would cause severe shifts in tax burdens.

Accordingly, we will use the regulations to introduce transition

formulas aimed at preventing unintended tax shifts.

Some members may be struck by the apparent volume of regulations

required under this bill and its companion, but there is less there

than meets the eye. My comments about regulations applies to both

bills. The first and most important reason for the regulations is

technical. We want a reasonable level of consistency among the

non-municipal levies. We want to avoid the trap of distributing the

hospital burden in a significantly different way from the education

burden. This responsibility could not be delegated to municipal

councils because they are not accountable for spending non-municipal

property taxes. The only solution was to proceed with parallel

regulations under each of the taxing statutes. The second reason for

the regulations is taxpayer protection. Under a variety of statutes,

letters patent and agreements there were mill rate limits. Under the

new system the old approach to limitation no longer works. We will,

therefore, be using regulations to introduce comparable types of

production.

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to move that the bill be now read a

second time.

[3:00]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, without intending to, I suppose

that the most damning thing that the minister said about the

legislation before us right now is that it is part of the total package

that was introduced on July 7 — budget day. He described it, indeed, as

part of the package that was introduced then, a package that has been

universally criticized — apart from the government itself and some of

its supporters — within the province, within the country and, indeed,

internationally. Unfortunately the bill before us now, while it may

help in some instances, has to be resisted since it is part of that

total package. Standing on its own, one might find some merit in the

legislation, but introduced as part of a package one has to treat it as

one would hope to treat the whole package, and endorse the requests,

pleas and arguments that have been made in so many circles as well as

in the Legislature asking that the government go back to square one and

withdraw the whole package.

It was described as a companion bill to other legislation the

minister presented at an earlier date, which is in the process of

second reading. For some reason or other the government decided not to

go further with it. We can speculate that the government is having

second thoughts about that particular bill — I don't recall the number

now. In deciding not to proceed any further with debate, having heard

the arguments advanced by the members of the opposition and outside

this Legislature, one can hope the government is taking a second look

at that particular piece of legislation, as it may be at a number of

pieces of legislation that have been introduced for second reading only

to be abandoned after a discussion in some cases lengthy, in some cases

relatively short. Certainly some of the principles in the legislation

before us now that are appropriate in the other legislation that brings

this total picture into line with what we discussed earlier.... Some of

those principles, being part of that other legislation, are sitting on

the table waiting, wondering: is the government going to proceed or is

it going to change its mind?

As he did in the other instance, the minister talked today about the

difference between actual value and the value that has been assigned to

properties in the past by appraisers. The arguments that we raised then

are just as appropriate now. What is actual value? Market value is

defined as what the property is worth when there is a willing buyer and

a willing seller. What is actual value? I have a lot that I will not

sell for any price, because to me that lot is worth far more than

anything the minister would consider if he were to look at the words

"actual value" as they stand; and certainly far more, I would hope,

than the assessor will value the property at when he comes to take a

look at it. I'm not going to suggest any figures; I will simply count

on the fair judgment of the assessor and hope for the best, and that's

really all we can do.

But to talk about "actual value" and "market value" and to say

that we're doing something different now.... From now on, instead of

depending upon actual and market value and then applying some kind of

formula to them to get the assessed value, we're going to deal simply

with actual value. In the end we have to come down to what the assessor

thinks the property should be assessed at, having in mind the kind of

property it is, the use to which it is being put, the use to which the

neighbouring properties are being put, the uses to which it might be

put, whether or not it's being held off the market artificially, or

whatever. There are so many factors that enter into it that it's really

speaking nonsense to say that there is a real difference between actual

value, market value and any of these values when you apply a formula to

them. When it comes down to it in the end, the assessor has to apply

judgment, and it makes no difference whether we bring in the kind of

legislation we have before us today, or whether we look at the

situation as it has existed in the past. Ultimately it comes down to

some person to take a look at it.

Legislation previously discussed — I think it was Bill 22, where we

talked about having a look at it every second year instead of every

year.... This legislation ties in with that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Bill 12, I believe, is the other legislation we discussed, where the

situation....

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill 12 is this one.

MR. STUPICH: Bill 12 is this one, companion to Bill 7, then;

Bill 7 must have been the one we discussed earlier.

[ Page 1261

They're so similar. If the government is, indeed, reconsidering Bill

7, then why not let Bill 12 wait until they've decided what to do with

Bill 7? I might raise the same arguments with respect to all the other

legislation. Are they really reconsidering their position with respect

to Bill 3? One would hope so. I can mention that in this instance and

be in order, because the minister himself said it's part of the total

package. I can mention Bill 4, which has been discussed at some length

in the House and is part of the total package that the minister said

was introduced. This is one small part of that package of 26 pieces of

legislation and a budget that were introduced in the House on July 7.

Bill 4 is sitting for further discussion. Bill 6: once again, one can

hope that the government listened to the arguments being advanced by

the members of the opposition, the arguments raised by people outside

of this House, the rallies that have been held when many of the

principles included in the 26 pieces of legislation — of which this

particular bill is part of the package....

One can hope that government is listening to the objections being

raised to this total package and is considering withdrawing them one by

one as they hear the arguments, and maybe with respect to Bill 6 as

well.

Bill 7, the minister's own legislation. He listened to the

arguments, but the House Leader or somebody did not proceed, and we're

certainly not discussing Bill 7 any more. Is it because they're

listening to the arguments and paying some attention to them? Are they

wondering whether the principles included in Bill 12, before us now,

which are so similar to the ones in Bill 7, may very well be discussed

briefly? The minister may listen and then let it sit on the table

alongside Bill 7 while he makes up his mind what to do with Bill 7 —

part of the total package.

Bill 9 is not so closely tied in, yet it's part of the package that

the minister talked about in his opening remarks.

MS. SANFORD: He is playing games with us.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that this

minister is playing games with us. Actually this minister isn't. He has

two pieces of legislation before us. It would seem to me that the

government is playing games with somebody in bringing forward one piece

of legislation after another; having them debated in the House,

listening to the members of the opposition, certainly not listening to

government members. That's no reflection on them. Perhaps they, too,

are listening, absorbing the arguments, and for all we know there may

be heated discussions in caucus to the effect that some of these bills

should be changed in light of the arguments, concerns and apprehensions

raised both inside and outside the House.

What are we waiting for on Bill 13? Have we given up on it? Are we

going to abandon it? Are we going to bring it in in its present form or

are we going to change it?

Bill 17: the minister talked about this bill being part of the

package. Bill 12. Bill 22. Bill 25. Bill 30.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bingo!

MR. STUPICH: The member made more of a contribution than he's

made in the House so far since he entered it on June 27.

All of these pieces of legislation are part of the same package, Mr.

Speaker. I would remind you that when the government did bring into

this House a piece of legislation that made some sense, it was passed

fairly quickly. Even then there was some concern in our minds as to why

we were dealing with a supply bill that provided nine months' supply.

Nevertheless, the idea, the concept and the principle of voting supply

won support in the House. There was some discussion, but it was all

done in one day. There was cooperation, because that Supply Act is a

reasonable approach, and it's accepted and done fairly regularly. We

knew that had to be done, and we supported it. But we have been opposed,

from the beginning, to what the minister called the "package" that was

introduced in this House on July 7. We've expressed that opposition

here, and the opposition has been expressed in many areas.

I've talked about the minister trying to say there's a difference

between actual and market value. What is market value? If I have a

piece of property and the minister wants to buy it, I may have one

figure and he'll have quite a different one. It's only when we meet

that we arrive at an actual figure. You can't determine the actual

figure until you have the willing buyer and seller. You can't appraise

property on that basis. How can you determine that it exists until you

find a buyer and a seller and they make a deal? From that day on there

is an actual value. But if the next day somebody builds a feed store

next to that property, it may have quite an effect on the value of that

property.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Why pick on the feed stores? Why pick on the

farmers?

MR. STUPICH: I was going to say something other than that,

but I thought of a feed store because perhaps the minister knows a

little more about them.

He says it is consistent with the principle in other legislation

included in the package, and that again is a very disturbing feature of

the legislation. This legislation, as we read it, concentrates power,

more than ever, in the cabinet room, taking the power away from the

Legislature and giving the cabinet the authority to make regulations

that will actually determine how the legislation is going to work.

Where are the regulations? Even if the regulations were tabled today,

and we knew exactly what the minister had in mind, we wouldn't know

whether that minister would still be there tomorrow. Even if he were

there tomorrow we wouldn't know whether he might change those

regulations — not by himself but with cabinet support — at a meeting of

the cabinet the following week. There's no stability in regulations and

no confidence that the regulations are actually going to stay the way

they are. There is no confidence in the minds of the opposition that we

can trust this particular administration, particularly in view of the

package that they introduced to the people of B.C. on July 27. How can

we rest assured that the regulations that will be produced, attendant

upon this legislation, will actually work in the interests of the

people of the province?

The minister said that he has discussed it with many local

government officials. I reminded him on the other occasion — and since

he has referred to the other bill and spoken about the comparability, I

think it's reasonable that I do — that there was no hurry to deal with

this particular situation. When we were government, we recognized the

need to do something. The Assessment Authority was established; that

was a beginning. But we also appointed a royal commission, because we

know that there is no tax that bothers people quite as much as property

tax — at least the ones who own property. The ones who don't own any

don't spend too much time thinking about

[ Page 1262

it, but certainly the people paying it know that it isn't fair. They

know that their next-door neighbour is getting a break, or is paying

too much. They know the system is wrong in every instance. I'm not

saying it is wrong, Mr. Speaker; I'm simply saying that people know

that it isn't right that property should be appraised at the figure it

is compared to other properties. They can all do a better job than the

poor assessor who's stuck with doing it. Often I've found myself trying

to stand between the person who had to go out and do the assessing and

the person who owned the property that was being assessed. There is

that difficulty. But for the minister to say that he has discussed it

with many local government officials....

[3:15]

As I suggested to him on an earlier occasion, rather than having him

alone do that work, why not take the approach that the NDP

administration took and have a committee travel around and listen to

some of the real concerns? One person, the minister, has so many

responsibilities that he doesn't have the opportunity to listen to any

more than what he calls "many" local government officials. I don't

doubt that he may very well have spoken to many local government

officials, but I would doubt very much that he spoke to 25 percent of

the local government officials in the province, let alone a majority.

He may have spoken to the ones who came to him and offered advice on

this particular legislation. He may have gone out to them. In either

case there is a process of selection; either people volunteered their

information or the minister chose the people to whom he would go, or it

happened by chance. There was no government effort to actually go out

and make an approach to local government officials all over the

province. A committee could have done that. A committee could have gone

out and listened to local government officials.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister is suggesting that I

talk to another minister and that he would know more about this. That's

quite possible. There have been several changes in that cabinet and

there may well be more changes before that cabinet is voted out of

office. But for the present time I'll have to speak to him, through

you, Mr. Speaker, and let him deal with what I expect other members of

the opposition will have to say about this as well.

The variable rates are being extended from the other legislation,

Bill 7 to Bill 12. I've expressed my concern about the variable mill

rate in the past. I know that this did get a good deal of support from

municipalities which are wrestling with the problem of how they are

going to deal with their political situation.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I think the minister said: "It's working." Mr.

Speaker, three years ago the minister would have said the existing

system was working, but two years ago he wouldn't have said it was

working. Last year he wouldn't have said it, and this year he can't.

Next year the system that he brings in may be appropriate to that

particular year, but if we have another year any time down the road

when property values — and I use the word "values" with quotation marks

around it — change markedly up or down in a relatively short period, no

existing system will work. The minister says the variable mill rate

will protect us from that. All that that means is that in the judgment

of the particular municipality, they may be able to say: "Well, this

year, because it's election year, the residential properties will have

a lower rate as opposed to the commercial and the industrial." The

minister shrugs his shoulders. He says: "That may well happen."

Previously it was up to the cabinet to set those percentages. We raised

the same objections to that — leaving it up to the cabinet to make

decisions like that, purely political decisions. Those percentages

might very well be changed from one year to the next by the provincial

cabinet or by any municipality, depending upon a strictly local

condition that might have nothing at all to do with the economy of that

particular community at that point in time, but purely for political

reasons.

Now the regulations can't....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister says: "That's up to

the council."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm having trouble. I can't respond to the

interjections unless I hear them. My concern....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: If I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that

someone else will stand up.

Everything passed by the council has to be approved by the minister.

The variable mill rate has to be approved by the minister. If the

minister thinks the variable mill rate adopted by a particular

municipality is not achieving what the minister wants to achieve in

line with his political purposes or his government's political

purposes, that mill rate will not be implemented. The minister knows

that. He's accepting that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: That's the worry about the variable mill rate.

It is flexible. It gives us that. But it's flexible to the point that

the minister has control, ultimately, as to whether or not it will be

imposed, implemented, changed or whatever. The municipality will have

to fall in line with what the minister wants, or it simply won't be able

to get its tax notices out on time. So in the end, the real authority,

as I've said with respect to this legislation.... I've spoken on some 12

pieces of legislation so far. As the minister has said, this is part

of the package. In every one of those bills that is part of the package

— and I think even in the budget — power is taken away from the

Legislature. Power is taken away from regional district officials.

Power is taken away from municipalities. Power is taken away from every

level of government and from Crown corporation boards of directors and

centralized in the cabinet room. Power in the whole province is being

drawn into the cabinet room. It's part of the package.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We're giving it.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says he's giving it. I thought that

he and I had reached agreement — he from his seat and I from my feet —

that the municipality has the right to adjust the variable mill rate.

But the minister has the right

[ Page 1263

to say whether or not it's the right figure. That's not giving the

municipality any authority.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I wouldn't do that. You're being suspicious.

MR. STUPICH: This minister says he wouldn't do that. I knew

that minister long before he was a minister. I'll have to accept his

word that he wouldn't do it.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: On an earlier occasion, as I've said before and

as the minister said, we were discussing Bill 7. This is Bill 12, a

companion to Bill 7. Yes, the minister agrees with me. He's listening

to me; the rest are not. They're simply interjecting. We were

discussing Bill 7. There was a good case made for proceeding with Bill

7 in that it has already been implemented. I talked to someone recently

who said we're holding up the government program. We're holding up

nothing. The government is proceeding with everything that it wanted to

proceed with as if the legislation had all been passed. Bill 7 was

implemented in May 1983. The municipalities have all acted upon it. So

I suppose they could have said: "Let's get Bill 7 through the House,

since it's already in effect. Let's get it through and make it legal

retroactively." There could have been some argument there. But there's

no argument for proceeding with Bill 12 today. Bill 12 is not intended

to be implemented until next year, 1984. Why have we abandoned

discussion of the rest of the government's legislative package, which

the minister talked about, and started discussion of a bill that really

is of no particular interest to anyone until 1984?

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: Members are wondering whether or not it's in the

bill. I would commend to them that they read the bill and see what is

in there. They will find out in the bill that it is not to be

implemented until 1984. That's part of it. That's why I'm asking why we

aren't dealing with things like Bill 7, which has already been

implemented, and other pieces of legislation that have been

implemented. One particular piece of legislation that raises a couple

of hundred million dollars in extra revenue has, I think, not been

discussed at all yet. The cigarette tax act, which is in effect, was

discussed and abandoned, and yet today we started discussion of a bill

that is not going to be implemented until 1984. If the government knew

what it was doing and were prepared to tell the opposition its plans,

perhaps there might be more progress than there has been in the past.

But the minister, by saying that this is part of the package that they

want to get through, is telling us that, indeed, they do intend to

proceed with the total package, including Bill 12. For that reason we

have to say: "No, we're not prepared to adopt this package", which we

believe is running counter to the advice given the House by the

Lieutenant-Governor on June 27 when he invited us to serve the

interests of the people of the province.

There are various sections in the legislation — sections 5, 12, 15,

20, 33 and 35 — which entrench this variable mill rate approach and

variable tax rate system in the Assessment Authority Act, the British

Columbia Transit Act, the Education (Interim) Finance Act, the Hospital

District Act, the Municipal Finance Authority Act and the Taxation

(Rural Area) Act. The minister said there may even be others not included

in that list. He's not sure himself just exactly what will be the total

effect of this particular legislation — what other changes might be

effected. But he did say that that was, if not a complete list, at

least a partial list of the other acts upon which this particular

legislation would have an effect.

The common feature in all of these sections is the power of cabinet

by regulation to prescribe limits on tax rates, to prescribe

relationships between tax rates, and to prescribe formulae for

calculating the limits or relationships between tax rates for any or

all classes of property. It gives the cabinet the authority to do all

that. The cabinet is the organization that deals with the regulations.

We don't know what the regulations are. At this point in time I expect

the minister has given little thought to the actual drafting of those

regulations, knowing that it is not going to be implemented until 1984.

I invite the minister to tell us, in closing second reading, whether or

not he has given thought to those regulations, and if he has, to tell

us something about the nature of those regulations. During his opening

remarks in second reading of this legislation, he didn't really tell us

anything about that. We'd like to know. We know that's no assurance

that the regulations will stand as though cast in stone, but it would

at least give us a better idea of the direction of the government with

respect to this legislation.

New powers are even more specific in some sections.

Section 12,

which entrenches the variable mill rate in the British Columbia Transit

Act, allows the minister "under prescribed circumstances" — which are

not defined in the bill, but which may be defined in regulations; we

don't know — "to vary by order the limits, relationships or formulae

established under the above section." Furthermore, cabinet has the

power under this amendment to establish geographical regions within

which different limits, relationships or formulae may be prescribed. In

every instance it gives cabinet more and more power.

That's the party that used to complain about the power that the NDP

wanted to concentrate in the hands of government. We were pikers

compared with them. We had no idea of what kind of power the Social

Crediters really had in mind when they formed their cabinet, the kind

of power they wanted to concentrate in the hands of cabinet. We were

prepared to have these things discussed in the Legislature. We were

prepared to send select standing committees into the community, where

people could have some input into the legislation, into the

regulations, and give us some advice and express their concerns. We

were prepared to give more authority to regional districts and

municipalities; and we did, after listening to arguments and

representations made to us by many people all over the province. We

moved in the direction of giving people more power, and getting some of

that authority out of the cabinet room. Since December 1975 the Social

Credit administration has been working in the opposite direction.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is saying that we gave it all away

in '75. Yes, we lost the power. And from then on they've been trying to

make sure that cabinet has absolute control over the lives of all the

citizens of British Columbia so that never again will they do anything

other than vote for Social Credit. That's part of the package.

[ Page 1264

[3:30]

The budget that was introduced and the 26 pieces of legislation, of

which this bill is one.... It is part of the package, as the minister

said. The purpose of that package is to hit the people so hard in 1983

that never again will they be able to get rid of that particular

machine that got that government re-elected in May 1983. That's why the

package includes legislation that does away with human rights and

puts....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, some latitude has been allowed

in relating one bill to another, but I think we're stretching it a bit

now. We should at least deal with municipal affairs legislation. On

Bill 12, please.

MR. STUPICH: Under this legislation before us, the Minister

of Municipal Affairs would be empowered to vary the limits,

relationships or formulas for calculating the limits or relationships

between classes of properties under

section 20, the Hospital District

Act amendment. The minister would have the authority to make those

changes at any time he chose. The minister didn't have that power

before. It is new. It is concentrating more power in the hands of the

minister and in the hands of cabinet; that's the reason we're opposed

to this and to the whole package that the minister talked about. In

every instance it puts more power in the hands of cabinet.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is suggesting that I supported it.

I think he said I supported it.

In the case of amendments to the Municipal Finance Authority Act, it

would be the inspector of municipalities who, under "prescribed

circumstances" again.... What circumstances? What do they have in mind?

The minister had an opportunity, when he opened second reading of this,

to tell us just what he had in mind with respect to "prescribed

circumstances." Under what circumstances would he exercise his

authority? He must have been thinking of something. Somebody must have

been thinking of something when they put that in there. Is it to cover

any eventuality at all, or do they have something specific in mind when

they say that the inspector of municipalities, under prescribed

circumstances, would be empowered to make these adjustments to tax

limits, relationships between tax rates or the formulae for calculating

the limits or relationships?

The minister said it gives more authority to the municipalities, yet

as you read the legislation you see in

section after section, line

after line, that it's the minister who really has the authority. In

this instance it's the inspector of municipalities who really has the

authority. The regulations are referred to.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Do you trust him?

MR. STUPICH: The minister is asking, I think, whether or not

I trust "him," meaning the inspector of municipalities. It may well be

that I might trust the person who is the inspector of municipalities

today, but there is other legislation before us that allows the

government to fire him without warning or notice. I might very well

trust the person who is the inspector today, and have grave

reservations about who that minister would appoint the next day. We

can't leave such things to trust. We can't write legislation that gives

the inspector of municipalities the right under prescribed

circumstances to do what is right for the people of the province simply

because the person who is the inspector today is one whom we can all

trust. I agree with the minister, with respect to the person who's

there today. We can trust the person who's there. We've known him; we

know him well. But we don't know whether or not he'll be there

tomorrow. We can't pass legislation that is going to be on the statute

books until another government takes office.... Because I don't expect

that this government will want to change it. They've concentrated all

the power into the cabinet already, so there's no need to go any

further....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: It's not a case of being suspicious; it's a case

of expressing concerns. Legislation should not be drafted in a way that

the members of the Legislature, in voting for that legislation, have to

count upon the kind of person who is in a particular position of

authority to know that that legislation is going to act in the

interests of the people of the province. That's not legislation. If we

were going to trust people that much, why not go all the way and simply

bring in one bill that says all power in the province to do everything

shall be in the hands of the cabinet, who shall appoint one person who

shall have all the authority of cabinet. We've done that in some

legislation; some of the phrasing of some of the legislation would

indicate that the power of the minister, even, has been turned over to

one individual not even in that minister's own ministry in some

instances.

As with Bill 7 — and the minister said that this is simply extending

Bill 7 — there's a tremendous reliance on the attendant regulations. I

have to say again that we just don't know anything about them, and we

don't know whether the minister knows anything about them. I think in

one of his asides the minister says that he has done some work on the

regulations. If so, I would invite him to tell us about that work when

he is ready to wind up debate on second reading. Given the lack of

information regarding the regulations and the scope of the proposed

regulations, it's impossible for us to vote in favour of this

legislation. We have to know something about what the government really

has in mind.

Legislation that depends upon us trusting the inspector of

municipalities and trusting this cabinet to draft regulations is not

legislation that anyone should be asked to vote for. Even government

back-benchers should have some question about legislation that's going

to be put on the books and that will still be there on the day there is

a change in administration. Whenever that may be, the day will come

when there will be a change in administration, so even government

back-benchers should have some concern for legislation that

concentrates power so much in the hands of the inspector of

municipalities, or the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or the cabinet.

Is that really how they see democracy working: that all they have to do

is find the right person to trust? If that person were like the

ombudsman or the auditor-general and were to be appointed by unanimous

recommendation from an all-party committee, then I think there is some

obligation upon all of us to trust that person. But in this instance

the person is being appointed by a member of cabinet with cabinet

support, and we can't be asked to trust anyone, any day, whoever might

be put in that position.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: We were elected to govern.

[ Page 1265

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. STUPICH: The minister says: "We were elected to govern."

And there is "Hear, hear!"

The minister said that it would be more convenient. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that it would be; there's no question about that. I suggested

that legislation could be brought in that would make everything so much

more convenient for cabinet, and cabinet members wouldn't have to sit

in the Legislature and discuss this legislation; it could all be done

in the cabinet. That in itself would be far more convenient. It may

well be done. Maybe the government is thinking about doing something

like that.

Mr. Speaker, it's part of a package that has been debated in this

House since the day after it was introduced. It was introduced on July

7, and on July 8 we started attacking the government's package. The

minister said this is part of the package. He has listened to arguments

in the House as to why the whole package is running contrary to the

interests of the people in this province — the interests that the

throne speech urged him to serve. There have been arguments that the

whole package should be withdrawn. This is one of the bills that the

minister said himself is part of this package, a package that is

designed to concentrate power in the province of British Columbia in

the hands of the cabinet, the minister and the inspector of

municipalities. This is part of the package that has been criticized in

this House as no government legislation ever before in the history of

the province or Canada has been criticized — within the province,

within the country and internationally. This whole package has been

universally criticized. The minister himself, by saying that this is

part of the package, is giving us the best argument of all for voting

against this legislation and urging the government to let it sit on the

table, along with the other 25 pieces of legislation that were part of

that package, and proceed no further with that package, to withdraw it

all and to bring in some legislation that will, as the

Lieutenant-Governor urged us, serve the needs of the people of the

province rather than the needs of the Social Credit Party of British

Columbia.

MR. LEA: At one time when the late W.A.C. Bennett was Premier

of the province, he got up to introduce second reading of a bill. As

all members know, second reading is where you discuss the broad

principles of the bill. The then Premier said, "The principle to this

bill is whether you're for it or whether you're against it," and he

sat down.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is pretty much that kind of bill. The real

principle in this bill that we're discussing is whether we want to

centralize or decentralize power. The Social Credit Party are for

centralization; the New Democratic Party is against it. It really is

quite that simple.

It's even more frightening when you look at the history of these two

great parties. Both had their beginnings in the populism that came out

of the 1930s and the big Depression; populism that grew out of a fear

of centralized authority, and a feeling of people wanting to take

control of their own lives, to make decisions affecting themselves

immediately and personally. That's when the great cooperative and

populist movements of this country and the United States began in the

1930s. I'm proud to say that my party, the New Democratic Party, still

has that populist feeling and populist movement, the desire for

cooperatives and for people to have control over their own lives. I

think it's a sad day that the Social Credit have taken themselves away

from populism and have joined the interests.

Social Credit today is no longer the party that represents the

cooperatives. It is no longer the party that represents people making

decisions on the ground. It no longer represents local communities and

autonomies making decisions that are going to affect them personally

and immediately.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I know it hurts, because any time you

start to mention something that they feel just a twinge of guilt about,

the heckling starts, then the guilt, then the heckling, then the guilt,

and it goes on and on and on. I don't expect those people who belonged

to the Liberal Party....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we could probably avoid some of

the heckling if in fact we could relate our comments to the bill before

us. I'm sure the member can do that.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the principle here is whether or not

we're going to have a more centralized bureaucracy. That's the

principle, and I don't see how you can speak about the principle of

this bill without talking about a centralized or decentralized system.

You have to. It is always the case, I believe, that political parties

that feel they're absolutely right start to take absolute power,

because there is no other course for them to go. The need for power

doesn't happen on its own. First of all, there is the must of feeling

that you're absolutely correct and that everyone else is absolutely

wrong, that you're within the group, everybody within the group's okay

and everyone without the group should be met with suspicion and

ridicule — take powers away from everyone outside the group that you

happen to belong to.

[3:45]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I happen to know members of the Social Credit caucus

who have been members of the Social Credit Party for some time — not

many of you, but some. I don't find it surprising that people who up to

a short time ago, who were Conservatives — and possibly still are

federally — would find no fault with this bill. The Conservative Party

has always represented the interests.... The Conservative Party has

never been interested in cooperation and cooperative movements. It's

not surprising to me that people who a short time ago were Liberals

would go for centralized bureaucracy. We've sure seen a good dose of

that at the federal level. One of the reasons, I think, the Liberals

lost so badly in Port Moody was the fact that they have become

synonymous with centralized bureaucratic power.

MRS. JOHNSTON: They're not the only ones who lost.

MR. LEA: We lost also, but I also think there is still a

feeling in the community that those people who are Conservative and

those people who are social democrats do not want the power taken away

from local autonomy. And so, although the Liberals only received 5

percent of the vote, the

[ Page 1266

rest of the votes were divided between the Conservatives and the New

Democrats, basically.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, those members of the Social Credit caucus who

are indeed Social Crediters, those people who have a background in the

cooperative and credit union movements, of wishing that the community

itself would make the decisions that are going to affect them, are not

going to stand by for political expediency's sake and watch the power

of the people being eroded. Every once in a while we hear a minister or

a back-bencher from the other side say: "We were elected to govern."

And that's very true. What the members over there seem to forget is

that this side of the House is called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

In other words, we are part of the system, we are dedicated to the

system, and we are a part of the process. That really hurts Social

Credit, because they resent the fact that there is an opposition. They

don't like it. They don't feel it's part of the game. They feel that

once they have the election over with, then all voices of opposition

should be stilled until the next 30 days of an election campaign three,

four or five years down the road.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does this have anything to do with the bill?

MR. LEA: It has everything to do with the bill, because bill

after bill after bill that comes into this House removes power from the

people, removes power from the Legislature, and concentrates that power

in the cabinet — not, I might add, a concentration of power in that

back bench; they are merely willing lackeys.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just

can't in any way, shape or form relate the debate to the bill. It would

help me if the member would do so, so that I could make some meaningful

response when I rise to close the debate shortly.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, clearly, when interjections cross

the floor, it tends to distract the attention of those who are involved

from second reading, which is very specific. On that basis, could I ask

all members to keep their comments....

MR. MOWAT: On a point of order, I take very strong exception

to the guy from Prince Rupert calling me, as a back-bencher, a willing

lackey. I'd ask him to withdraw that remark.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a term has been indicated that an

hon. member finds offensive. Would the member withdraw.

MR. LEA: I sure do. I don't think anyone would like to have

that sort of thing public. I do withdraw it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Clean up your act.

MR. LEA: You're the one who doesn't take a shower, by your

own admission. What do you mean "clean up my act?" She always wants to

raise a point of odour.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair has

allowed some latitude and some cross-comments from members of one side

to the other, but if we are to have orderly debate and act in the

parliamentary tradition, then it shall be my responsibility to ensure

that those rules are obeyed, or I will have to take the necessary

action. I would again commend to all members the rules of this House.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think that we would be remiss if we

didn't relate this piece of legislation to the feelings that especially

rural members — but I don't think it's exclusively rural members — pick

up from our constituents. There is a feeling of alienation between the

ordinary citizens of this province and their government. That feeling

of alienation probably reaches its zenith when they think of the

federal government — that unreachable, unfeeling government. At least

that's their opinion of that government, which is often three or four

thousand miles away from them in Ottawa. That feeling is not nearly as

severe when people think of their provincial government. I think they

feel a little closer to it than they do the federal government, because

we are physically closer and we administer a great many more of the

programs that touch people in their everyday lives. But I don't think

there's any doubt that the government that people feel most closely

united with is local government — their local school board, hospital

board and municipal government. I feel the people of this province have

a much closer feeling of mutual trust with those governments; it even

affects them more closely than the two senior governments.

This bill takes power away from local government. It takes power

away from the decision-making process that allows people to make

decisions for their neighbours. I think there's a great, growing

feeling of dissatisfaction among Canadians and British Columbians about

representative government. I think they're starting to feel that

representative government is not serving them the way they had been

taught that it would, or the way that their experience had led them to

believe that it would always do. There is a feeling of alienation. I

don't think that this centralizing process that's going on is merely

unhealthy for the New Democratic Party or for the Social Credit Party.

I think the feeling of alienation is going to be a dangerous societal

problem unless we start to deal with it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

For our two parties to make political points against one another to

see which one of us is going to be in power is, I think, going to bring

social unrest to our province in the long run. If you are a small

logger on the Queen Charlotte Islands and you go to the forestry

department for a decision and you can't get the decision because nobody

local is able to make the decision that affects you, you'll oftentimes

see business slip by, never to be regained, waiting for the

bureaucracy. When you go to almost any federal government department

and try to get some immediate satisfaction, it is almost unheard of

that you get that satisfaction.

I'd like to use an example, Mr. Speaker. In the airport in Prince

Rupert, the restaurant that served the people of the region has been

closed for approximately four years. No one that I know of has even

bothered to complain to the federal government: it seems too remote.

They are dissatisfied with the closure of the restaurant, but they feel

that it would be

[ Page 1267

pointless to bring their case to the federal government, because

they feel too alienated from them. If that were a provincial

government, I guarantee you that we would all be hearing about it. I,

as the MLA, would be hearing about it, as the government of British

Columbia would be hearing about it, and probably there would be some

action taken. But if it were local, that problem would have been solved

a long time ago. A solution would have been found because it would be

neighbour helping neighbour. It would not be going to a representative;

it would be going to their neighbour to get some satisfaction. I think

that unless we move to neighbour helping neighbour in government, peple

who really understand and share the problem, then more alienation is

going to come about.

I believe that this piece of legislation, Bill 12, is going to lead

to further alienation. It is not going to be the end of the world. It

is not a piece of legislation that is going to make the world of

British Columbia come to a grinding halt, but it is another straw on

the camel's back — further alienation through a more centralized

authority. I am not surprised that the Social Credit caucus as a whole

is going to back up this piece of legislation. I am surprised that some

people on the other side whom I consider to be personal friends are

going to back it, because I know offstage — and this is the stage in

here — some of those people have great reservations about the kind of

powers that are being concentrated in this province in the hands of the

cabinet.

I can also understand their reluctance to take their own government

on. It is never nice. It is never pleasant — that's for sure, as I

found out when I was in the back bench. It is necessary, because in our

system of government we do not have recall. In our system of government

there is no impeachment process. In our system of government we rely on

honour. We rely on the honour of the individual Members of Parliament

and the Legislature to make sure that justice is done. When a

government becomes overbearing, when a government takes powers unto

itself that it should not have, when a government acts immorally, we in

the British parliamentary system rely on the integrity, the honesty and

the intestinal fortitude of the individual members of our legislatures

and parliaments, regardless of political stripe.

[4:00]

To me, Bill 12 points out, as other pieces of legislation in this

package have pointed out, that that system of honour, integrity and

intestinal fortitude has broken down, and that's a shame. In our system

of checks and balances, that is a very necessary check to bring around

a balance of power and a balance of justice. When that goes, Mr.

Speaker, the British parliamentary system then becomes a dictatorship

for the length of office. Yes, the people will have a democratic choice

to make the next time there is an election writ dropped, but surely

that isn't all there is to democracy in our system. Surely the only

time people have a voice will not be at election time; surely the

people of this province have the right to demand individual integrity,

individual honesty and individual guts...

MR. REID: And action.

MR. LEA: ...and action from the people they elect. I would

welcome some action from government supporters in this House who would

see, along with us, as individual members representing the good people

of this province, a danger in the centralization of power. Surely none

of us want it. Surely none of us, deep down where we live, as

individuals, want to see the powers in this province centralized into a

small group of people who make decisions behind closed doors. Surely we

do not want the power stripped from our municipal officials, our

hospital boards or our school boards. If we do, vote and pass this

legislation; if we don't, vote against it. That's our choice.

It is not our choice to back a government that is becoming

autocratic. It is our duty and our right to vote against it — our duty

and our right as individual members of this House. I think the

government back-benchers would be surprised at the power they hold in

their hands. They would be surprised at what that government will do if

only that government back bench will get themselves together and start

demanding some justice and fair play and put an end to the arrogant

display being put on by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It is

arrogance. It's not even based upon intellectual arrogance. It's based

on the arrogance of ignorance. I am convinced that the Minister of

Municipal Affairs sees nothing wrong with Bill 12 and Bill 7. The pity

of it all is that if they don't see the danger of this legislation and

of government's taking away and stripping power from legislatures and

municipal councils and school boards, then, my God, we're in worse

trouble than even we thought.

We are in trouble in this province, because without the traditional

check and balance of a government back bench being willing to take on

its own government, there is no check and there is no balance within

the British parliamentary system. It is gone.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The new member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

Reynolds) says he likes what they're doing. The member says he actually

wants to see the power stripped away from the people he represents,

because the power that the people in that constituency of West

Vancouver–Howe Sound have in this system is embodied in that member.

It's the only power they have.

MR. REID: Losership, that's NDP.

MR. LEA: I would rather lose on principle than win without

it. We have come to a sorry state when we actually have members of this

House yelling out that they are in favour of a centralized system of

government. It seems strange that that particular member would do it,

because in reading his record in Ottawa, he was opposed to this sort of

thing. Every time the Liberal government took power unto themselves, he

squawked like a stuck hen.

MR. REYNOLDS: Quote one.

MR. LEA: I'll bring a whole pile in for you. Over and over

again, the Conservatives have been talking in Ottawa about the

terrible, awesome centralization of power and how they're against it. I

guess they are when it's not them doing it. That's when they're against

it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I'll tell you, if you bring a pile of that in,

you'll probably be the quickest to recognize it.

[ Page 1268

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I wish you'd speak to Bill. Ask Bill to withdraw

this bill. Raw, naked desire for power is a funny thing. When Premiers

keep their back bench in line by always dangling that little cabinet

post out there, it really seems to work. Even the old maverick would

settle right down and sock it....

MR. KEMPF: Don't you believe it.

MR. LEA: Come on, maverick, sure you would. You'd run up

there with your tongue hanging out. You'd vote for this bill if it said

that it would get rid of your whole riding if it could just get him in

the cabinet.

MR. REID: No, he has integrity.

MR. LEA: He has integrity, has he? In that case, I'll bring

in an editorial from his hometown newspaper which talks about the kind

of integrity he has. I'll bring that in along with your quotes from

Ottawa.

What we're doing with Bill 12 is saying to municipalities: "You're a

bunch of dumb-bells. You don't know how to run your own municipality.

You don't know what to tax. You don't know how much to tax it. You

don't know whether to tax the commercial sector more than the

residential sector, and you don't know what to do with the industrial

sector." We're saying that to regional districts and hospital boards.

What a presumption! We're going to sit down here on Fantasy Island, in

the crazy house, and we're going to say to people sitting at the local

level, who have to live and work with the problems: "You dumb-bells

don't know what you're talking about. Listen to us. We're even going

further than that. We're not even going to listen to the

representatives you sent to Victoria. We're going to do away with them

also, because they're dumb-bells too. We're going to take it into

cabinet and there are going to be 20 people in this province who are

going to make the decisions."

I have to admit that I'm fibbing a bit on that one, because the

Premier has made it very clear that even the cabinet ministers are no

longer responsible for their own ministries and that deputy ministers

will answer directly to the Premier's deputy. And puppets have been

made out of even the cabinet members and ministers themselves. So

really the power that's been concentrated isn't even concentrated in

anyone who has been elected in this province; it has been concentrated

into the powers of a political hack appointed by the Premier. That's

where it has been concentrated. Who is happy with that? Are the elected

members on either side of the House happy with that?

Interjection.

MR. LEA: [Whistles.] "Come on, boys. Come on, boys. Let's all

come down here and talk to the deputy minister and see whether it's

okay for us elected representatives to do anything, or should we just

go back to our offices and hide until Mr. Spector calls us down and

tells us what's up?" Everybody knows that's the way it is. We know that

if there are regulations that are going to be around Bill 12, those

regulations will not go anywhere until they've been approved by Norman

Spector.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Oh, they don't like that, Mr. Speaker, do they? When

there's no answer, then go on the counter-attack. The fact of the

matter is that we all know that it's true. If there's going to be a

regulation to Bill 12 passed, that regulation will only be approved or

disapproved by an appointed public servant: Norman Spector. Deputy

ministers are told: "You no longer report to your minister." Deputy

ministers and their staffs will draw up the regulations surrounding

Bill 12. They have been told in no uncertain words: "You bring those to

the Deputy Premier. Bypass those lame-ducks who call themselves cabinet

ministers." Mr. Speaker, it would be laughable if it weren't such a

bitter and cruel joke upon the people who send us here.

We know that those people who have come to the conclusion that

they're always right and never wrong hate opposition; they can't stand

it. They call us obstructionists. They call us negatives. Walking down

the corridor today, a present cabinet minister says: "I know how tough

it is for you guys over there. When we were in opposition they sent me

in there on an education bill and said: 'Talk for three days. We don't

care what you talk about, but hold it up.'" Why? I'm not saying it was

wrong for that now Social Credit cabinet minister to have done that.

That's part of the process. But we never denied the other side of the

House the right to do that. We never said they didn't have the right;

they did and still do. That's part of the process.

Bill 12 isn't the most frightening thing to me; it's the removal of

a time-honoured, tested and found-true process: the British

parliamentary system. If we are not going to go by the traditional

rules that hold us together as a nation, then let's go to

republicanism; let's go to the American system. I don't care what kind

of a system it is as long as it works democratically on behalf of the

citizens. But if this movement towards centralization continues and the

British parliamentary system, with its checks and balances of honesty

and integrity and intestinal fortitude within individual members,

breaks down, and I suggest it has, then the British parliamentary

system is no longer in force. It's gone. You can't keep just a bit of

it. It's like being a little bit pregnant, Mr. Speaker. You can't be a

little bit pregnant, and you can't have a little bit of the British

parliamentary system. You can't do away with part of it and expect the

whole to still operate. The only check that we have against an

aggressive government, grasping and drawing power to itself, is the

power of its individual members regardless of which side of the House

they sit on.

Mr. Speaker, there is one real test on a piece of legislation when

you're government. The test is the kinds of powers that you're bringing

in. Would you be happy if the opposition had those powers? Would the

government and its supporters be happy with Bill 12 if, after the next

election, the New Democratic Party was the government?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Absolutely.

MR. LEA: Oh, Mr. Speaker! Do you think she's really being

completely honest with us?

MRS. JOHNSTON: Absolutely.

MR. LEA: Well, that's not what the government said when they

were in opposition, Madam Member. We used to have a saying in this

House about the Gaglardi test: if you

[ Page 1269

didn't want Phil Gaglardi to be in charge of it, then don't pass

it. I think we should have some kind of test in this House. That's the

real test. Do you want to leave a piece of legislation for the

opposition to administer should they become government? I can tell you,

Mr. Speaker, we don't want it. We don't want this kind of power. If we

were in government we would do away with it.

[4:15]

When we were in government, we moved to decentralize the system like

it had never been decentralized before — resource boards.... An example

of decentralization is the Health and Human Resources Medical Clinic of

the Queen Charlotte Islands, in my riding, on an experimental basis.

I'll give this government credit. It has continued to this day,

although funding hasn't been up to scratch. The whole idea behind that

was that the per capita funding for health and human resources in the

Queen Charlotte Islands would continue, but that a locally elected

board would administer the policy of the government and be responsible

for the staff — hiring and firing, administration, personnel matters.

It has been an absolute success.

When that program began about ten years ago, we couldn't get

doctors, but we have doctors now; we didn't have any physiotherapists,

but we have physiotherapists now; we didn't have pharmaceutical

services, but we have that now. Do you know how effective that local

control was? The hospital itself was endangered because it didn't have

the funds to carry on, because the preventive health measures carried

out by the local group that was administering Health and Human

Resources was so effective that the hospital was in danger of not

having proper funding. That's how effective they were at the local

level. I am convinced that if we were to leave it in the hands....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have

attempted to catch the hon. member's eye by waving this book around,

but obviously to no avail. I would suggest that the history lesson

we've been receiving is very interesting, but it really doesn't relate

to the bill. Could I bring to your attention standing order 43, and

would you please ask the speaker to adhere to it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The speaker is dwelling at some length on the

matter of centralization or decentralization. It might be construed as

becoming somewhat repetitious, but it certainly relates to the bill.

Perhaps the hon. member could continue, and be more directly concerned

with the bill itself.

MR. LEA: You have it exactly. What I'm trying to do is to

point out that whether or not it's Bill 12, the principle of

centralization or decentralization is something we have to discuss in

order to know whether we want to centralize more power, as suggested in

Bill 12.

Mr. Speaker, it's always been the practice of the House, as you've

so ably pointed out, that we are allowed to use examples. I am using

the example of how a decentralized system is more effective in

delivering health care and human resources on the Queen Charlotte

Islands. Not only is it more cost-effective; it is delivering the kind

of services those people want, because local people are making the

decisions.

I'd like to close by saying that as long as a piece of legislation

comes into this House that would centralize power evermore, on behalf

of the people I represent in Prince Rupert, I will personally speak out

and vote against such legislation.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, once again we're given a piece of

illusory legislation. It's something that is meant to create fireworks,

sparkles, gossamer and various other types of deterrents to the

attention of people who are concerned with the ever-increasing burden

of property taxation in this province, which has been inexorably

increasing since Social Credit took office in 1976. We have gone from a

province which used to supply more than 50 percent of the local

services in terms of unconditional grants to local government from

provincial government, particularly in the school tax field, to a

province that provides about 30 percent in the school tax field. We

have the most sorry record of any province in western Canada and

including Ontario.

We have seen various bits of flimflam. The government has

confiscated industrial and commercial property tax for education

purposes and then given it back to the municipalities. Now they claim

that they're contributing some 60-odd percent. In fact, on a comparable

basis, which is always something that's written in on the letter of

transmittal by an auditor's report.... They always put in that the

books were compared on a comparable basis with the previous years and

that the accounting practices and so on are the same. This is another

bill to change the accounting practices of this province and to create

more confusion about the way in which we're being taxed. It is really

sad that people have been subjected to this sort of future shock — this

accelerated rate of change. Every year there is a new wrinkle brought

in, and this is the culmination. It is, I suppose, the second shoe

dropping, the first step having been taken with municipal taxation.

This is a companion bill, which includes property taxes collected under

the British Columbia Transit Act, property taxes collected under the

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, property taxes collected

under the Hospital District Act and, indeed, some changes under the

Municipal Finance Authority Act and the Taxation (Rural Area) Act.

I would first like to speak about this bill as a person who resides

in a rural area. I think that this is one area in which the House could

divide on a different basis than the political one that we see here. I

am sorry that my friend, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), is not in

the House.

The first house I ever bought and still own and reside in is not in

a municipality. It is outside of a village, town or city. It falls

under the Taxation (Rural Area) Act. For years and years rural property

owners paid a tax of a fixed rate of 10 mills, which has been increased

in small increments over the most recent years to 13 mills. Under this

act, because there'll be the ability to switch various classifications

of property and manipulate rates among various classifications of

property, I see in this Bill 12 the temptation of people.... This bill

is in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Ritchie). Normally people appointed to that portfolio come from the

ranks of people who have had some experience in local municipal

government. I believe that there is a prejudice and a very profound

ignorance on behalf of people who represent cities in looking at what

they see as people of rural areas getting away without paying a fair

share of tax, as they would have to do in municipalities. Contrary to

the cliché, I don't say that ignorance is no excuse; I just say it is

quite understandable when a person's life is wrapped up in the problems

of one area, and that is looking after the organized areas — the

villages, towns, cities and municipalities of this province.

There has been this trend in recent years to start to look at rural

property owners as an untapped source. Rural property

[ Page 1270

owners bear and carry their own weight. They invest thousands of

dollars sometimes just to get water for their properties. A 10-, 12- or

13-mill rate is something that they will bear. But they should not be

looked upon as an untapped source. This piece of legislation will take

the lid off, and it will allow what I see to be property tax increases

to be set by regulations. I believe that any kind of tax increase

should be imposed in the Legislature. I have spoken against indexation

of taxes. I have heard from both sides that the indexing of taxes —

that flexibility in the imposition of taxes — is part of modern

government. I think that is a very odious intrusion into the democratic

process; it erodes democracy.

I see this particular piece of legislation as creating a very

dangerous temptation for governments to look for a new source of

revenue, and this sort of untapped source is rural property owners.

Rural property owners provide their own water. They either have wells

of their own or are members of water improvement districts in which

they participate. In our water improvement district we don't have hired

people to go out and look after us; we don't have to pay them. But we —

and I myself, for instance — take the responsibility upon ourselves

from time to time to do our share of work, to go up to the diversion

box, to clear out ice and obstructions in the middle of winter, to make

sure that the 80 water users in our system are well looked after. We

aren't paying the same mill rates as are paid in organized

municipalities, because instead of contracting for these services we

are going out and doing it ourselves.

[4:30]

Whereas communities such as Victoria, Oak Bay and other

municipalities dump untreated effluent into the ocean, and

whereas

Vancouver did that for many many years, until the Iona plant was

installed, we who live in rural areas have our own sewage treatment

plants. They are called septic tanks most often, but they are sewage

treatment plants. There is a bacteriological process that goes on in

those things, and from time to time they act up. Again, rural people

don't pay taxes to have somebody come out and dig up the field or the

tank to locate the problem. We do some of the work ourselves, or else

we hire somebody to come in and do it. That isn't part of our taxes,

and that's why for years and years rural taxes were nominally at 10

mills.

When it comes to things like improvements, talk about the highways.

The highway that I live on hasn't had to be repaved for years and

years. The only reason that our highway might ever have to be repaved

would be if for some reason or other logging trucks or heavy traffic

were routed over it. It isn't the rural residents who are requiring an

inordinate amount of investment in terms of maintaining roads and

highways; it is the general commerce, and it is paid for out of motor

vehicle licences for the heavy equipment.

Snow removal is another area where very often local people

undertake, and even do a lot of their own, snow removal. A lot of areas

are served by roads which are just easements. The clearing of those

roads in winter is not paid for by the taxpayer; the cost is borne by

the residents on those roads.

I see in this piece of legislation the temptation for a government,

when it looks at the mill rates in places like Surrey or Nelson or

Creston or other areas, to supposedly equalize the mill rates. The

people who live in rural areas are already paying very high rates for

the maintenance of these various necessary services.

The principle embodied in this bill is that we are going to see the

raising of taxes not by bringing in special acts of the Legislature but

through regulation. Mr. Speaker, the principle embodied there certainly

was the principle of Magna Carta: that the Crown could not impose upon

the people without coming to the House of Commons, and in this case,

coming to the Legislature. But we are seeing that erosion. This is all

supposedly under the guise of modernity, flexibility and being more

responsive.

The real problem that this bill is trying to address is that the

people feel they are overburdened by property taxation as opposed to

other forms and avenues for government to raise funds for its own

purposes. The reason is, by and large, that the government has imposed

some of the burden of transit, certainly the increased burden of local

education, and also a tremendous increase in hospital tax onto property

owners, instead of looking at other means, and a more equitable means,

of imposing. We are not within the norms here in British Columbia, in

terms of the burden shouldered by property owners.

The amount of property a person owns is not a very good indicator of

wealth and ability to pay. So we have this system, which is going to

enable us maybe to remove for a while the burden on commercial

property. It's going to have to go somewhere. Under this scheme it's

going to have to go onto residential or industrial properties. But if

you're also going to remove a tax burden from industrial and commercial

properties, then it's going to have to fall on the backs of residential

property owners.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

This is a very small, closed look at one aspect of government and

the raising of taxes, which are really inextricably combined with both

the municipal and provincial levels of government, because the more

money that's raised locally, quite honestly, the less money has to be

provided through the other provincial government means and abilities to

pay. This flexibility, then, is not doing a doggone thing to help the

average person who probably comes into your constituency office and

mine. Some of them come there when they see their assessments. Others

come to the office after they actually get their tax bill and see how

much the dollar value has increased. We all know, in this House, or we

soon will know, that many of these people could bear some level of

inequity in the system as long as the total tax bill is not that great.

We can't expect property taxes to be fair and equitable among all

people. But when property tax becomes one of the largest tax bills that

people face, when it starts to approach the magnitude of the income

tax, in terms of their tax load, instead of being something which is

noticeably less, then that inequity is magnified, and can't be fixed by

some simple tinkering.

On the optimistic side of this, I think I read in this bill the

possibility of some special classes of property being created which

might address the problems — for instance, one which I mentioned the

other day about a privately owned museum, a building built in 1898, I

believe, an old hotel in Ainsworth, and a tremendous tax being paid on

it, when one considers that the total revenues of that property last

year were $800. That was the gross revenues, not the net. Maybe, under

all this flexibility, the minister or the inspector of municipalities

will be able to look at very odd situations like this and make some

judgments in terms of varying tax rates. It may also be that in the

case of a private school built on a person's private

[ Page 1271

land, on a $1-a-year lease kind of business for the use of the land,

there will be that kind of flexibility. So I will look at this bill. I

see a lot in it that I very much fear. At the same time, I would hope —

maybe against hope, but hope against hope — that there may be some

flexibility here which would allow some discretion in some of the very

difficult and very unfair impositions of property tax.

This bill is introducing new powers. This bill is about new cabinet

power. We have the power right now in this Legislature to set rates and

classifications. By this bill we are giving up that power to the

cabinet. We are giving the cabinet the power which we have in this

Legislature, and that is the power to exercise certain controls over

local governments if we wish to pass certain regulations. We are now

giving that power to the cabinet. This legislation is centralist. It is

centralizing more power.

It is one little piece of legislation. This piece of legislation by

itself is not a world-beater. It's not of the magnitude of other steps

that have been taken in this House, like when the government

reorganization act was brought in — that was a very major step — or

when the Agricultural Land Commission Act was brought in; that was a

very major step. This does not rank in that league all by itself. But

this bill — Bill 12 — taken in conjunction with the Education (Interim)

Finance Amendment Act, 1983, Bill 7 and a whole bunch of other

things.... When you put all the pieces together, then it does start to

take on the magnitude of a very major piece of legislation. It is only

by putting all these pieces together that we see the move towards

centralization of power.

We have the ultimate power in this Legislature. I don't believe that

this Legislature should give up the power to the cabinet to set

classifications of property, to set rates for the taxation of various

classes of property, to take the lid off taxation of rural property

which has been set in this House. We have come into this House and we

have decided as a whole Legislature when the mill rate would go from 10

to 11 mills. We decide this year whether it will go up another

percentage point. But this will end that.

We are just allowing the cabinet now to start to look at a new

source of revenue, because all that money goes to the provincial

cabinet. That money from rural property tax does not go back to the

local areas; it is provincial government revenue. It goes into the same

sock as do logging taxes, stumpage taxes, income taxes, tobacco taxes —

and revenues from the sale of liquor, for that matter. It goes into

consolidated revenue. It is lost. It is not earmarked to go back into

the community. I dare say that if that current 10 mills were to go to

maintain certain services in certain little geographical areas, it

certainly would do a heck of a lot for those areas.

Interjection.

[4:45]

MR. NICOLSON: I hear an interjection here from one of the

big-city members, who does represent some rural areas.

MR. REE: Big city!

MR. NICOLSON: North Vancouver. Certainly we in the primary

producing part of the province look upon North Vancouver as a big city.

On one hand government is controlling expenditures of local

government under other pieces of legislation before the House, and now

it is going to be controlling revenues. This government and this

cabinet are taking over everything unto themselves, which is an

unmanageable task. They're taking over the control of expenditures, and

by this bill they're taking over the control of revenues and how

revenues shall be raised.

When a minister is asked a question about student loans, we're told:

"We'll give the information to the minister." The minister becomes the

university and colleges super loans officer for the whole province.

Similarly, if a problem about health is brought up, of maybe somebody

getting a bed in a hospital, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

says: "Well, don't talk hypothetically. Give me the specific case and

I'll see that that person gets admitted to hospital." So we have a

Minister of Health who is now the chief admissions officer of all the

hospitals of British Columbia. Now we have a government and ministers

that control admissions to hospitals and individual student loan

applications. The ministers are controlling the expenditures in the

province and the way in which revenue is to be raised.

Bill 12, when put in context with all these other actions that are

taking place, shows the degree to which this government is centralizing

control. Mr. Speaker, there was a day.... If you looked back at some of

the old estimates of expenditures in the years of 1910 or 1920, you

would have seen that in those days the government did control a whole

bunch of educational areas — rural schools. The actual salaries of

every teacher in those rural schools were published in the estimates of

expenditure. Well, we've gotten away from that. We created local

governments and school boards to look after that. We've seen the

creation of local villages, town and cities to look after those things

in local areas. Today we are going back to that day.... We're trying to

go back to a time when this province only had a population of 150,000

or 200,000 people. Now with 2.5 million people we think that we can go

back to a day when a centralized government in Victoria could run

everything that's going on. Well, it can't be done, Mr. Speaker.

This piece of legislation.... As an opposition member whose

intentions toward the success of the government might not be

honourable, sometimes when I see the government make a mistake, in

spite of the fact that I know it's going to hurt a lot of good British

Columbian people, I must confess that I do take some devilish delight

in seeing some of the mistakes that government is making. I'm not proud

of doing that; I shouldn't do that. I should always hope for the best,

but this piece of legislation is going to be the devil's own

temptation. When the government starts trying to set up all of these

different classifications and it's got all these things going, don't

they know...? They're already overburdened with their own

incompetence, and adding another monumental task like this to their

list is going to be tough for them. They've already taken on much, much

more than they're capable of.

Mr. Speaker, it's going to be awfully tough on me. I feel the

temptation is going to get the best of me, and I would wish that this

temptation could be taken away from me. Right now I have those

instincts under control. It's for that reason that I'm speaking against

this legislation, and I hope I can keep that way long enough to vote

against it. But if I were to succumb to temptation, I would say to the

government: "Go ahead. Do it. This is really good stuff." I would say

that, oh, it's just fantastic that the minister can manipulate tax

rates and try to fool the people by taking the burden of taxation of

the commercial and industrial people and shoving it onto the backs of

residential owners by raising the rural property tax,

[ Page 1272

and then try to pull the quick shuffle at election time and take it

off the residential owners, because residential owners are the people

who vote. Cominco does not have a vote. It's the employees of Cominco

that have votes, and they are the ones who pay property tax. If one

were to be selfish in their interest about this piece of legislation, I

would say yes, stay the course and let's see lots more like it. But if

I were a member of an executive council and another member of that

council were to bring in this kind of a minefield, I would fight

against it with every resource at my disposal. I don't think that this

is in the interest of the government; it certainly isn't in the

interest of the people of British Columbia.

I think with those few thousand well-chosen words I will conclude my

speech and thank you for your attention.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MS. BROWN: First of all, I would like to express my

disappointment that the government is not really participating in this

debate, because there are a number of municipal politicians sitting

over there in the back bench, some of whom have been sitting throughout

this entire debate. I would have anticipated that the reason they were

there would be to stand up and say something on behalf of the councils

which they used to be members of. I'm sure in caucus they tried to get

this piece of legislation amended or even withdrawn, and clearly they

have failed. But they certainly have an opportunity as elected people

to stand on the floor of this House, get on the record and let the

voters back home know exactly how they feel about this particular piece

of legislation.

You can't look at Bill 12 in isolation. It's exactly the same as

Bill 7, Bill 22 and some of the sections of the miscellaneous statutes

amendments of Bill 17. It's part of a package that my colleague the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) and for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea), in speaking earlier pointed out, gives the government all kinds

of power which used to belong to municipal politicians and used to be

the responsibility of municipal governments. I want to start out by

saying that not everything in Bill 12 is absolutely bad. I want to

spend a couple of seconds talking about one of the things that is quite

interesting about the bill, and that is without dealing with it

section

by section, but just to mention it in passing. The idea of a property

class taxation is a good one, if in fact they were saying through this

piece of legislation that the municipalities could look at the

different types of property and decide to assess them and tax them in

terms of the use that the property is put to. I don't see anything

wrong with that. I think that municipal governments, operating and

elected at the local level, have a pretty good understanding about the

various uses that a property is being put to. They're right there. They

can monitor it. They can see if someone says that this property is

being used as light industrial or commercial. They can see whether that

is true or not, unlike bureaucrats or politicians in Victoria, who have

to take a person's word for it. If in fact they were given those kinds

of powers, I think the municipal governments would be very pleased.

They would have no complaints if that were exactly what was happening.

But we find that there's a catcher in the rye, that in fact after

saying that this variable system is going to be put into place, what

the act then goes on to say is that the cabinet —

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council — keeps for itself, or gives unto

itself, the power to override these decisions anyway.

They make a mockery of the whole system: municipal governments,

municipal politicians and the voters who voted those people into power.

They are saying that they are going to take unto themselves the right

to change any of those decisions. They're going to decide limits on tax

rates. Cabinet is going to decide the relationship between tax rates.

Cabinet is going to prescribe the formulas for calculating the limits

or relationships referred to in the same paragraph which says it can

vary based on the class of property that it is, or the use to which a

property is put.

So having said it's no longer necessary for all property right

across the province to be taxed the same, based on whether it's

commercial, residential or whatever — you can vary it; it can be varied

based on the class of property it is — then the province goes around

and says: "But you don't make those decisions. You can decide what

class of property it is, but we, the cabinet, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, are going to take unto ourselves the

power to change your decision; to decide that the decision you've made

in this respect is not a correct one, not a good one." Now that is

really a Pandora's box. That is placing all kinds of temptation before

the minister and his colleagues in the cabinet. And if we look at the

record, at the way in which this government has dealt with that kind of

power in the past, it's not been a good record. All we have to do is

look at the agricultural land reserve and what happens when a municipal

government or a regional district makes a decision that land is

farmland and should not be taken out of the reserve. The first thing

those people do who want to take it out of the reserve is to go to the

minister and appeal the decision, and invariably the people of British

Columbia lose that decision and the developers win it.

[5:00]

Now we find that the power to actually zone — this is what they are

doing, they're now going to decide the zoning — is going to be resting

with them. At any time, in any place, they can override the decision of

any municipal council, of any regional district. We even have the

Minister of Municipal Affairs thinking aloud in public about whether we

need planners at the municipal level. His understanding of a good and

well-planned community, and one that is a pleasure and a joy to live

and work in, is a place where you bring outsiders in and say, "Draw me

a plan, " and then you put it on a shelf and every five or ten years

you bring it down, dust it off, and say to the outsiders: "What do you

think? Is it okay if we put another park here, a service station there,

a used-car lot there, or whatever?" It's absolute nonsense. And this is

the minister who is now going to have the responsibility — alone or in

consultation with his cabinet — to override the collective thinking of

municipal governments.

Let us continue to look, for example, at the kinds of things it can

do. I want to quote from an

article in this morning's Province, written

by Jack Clarke. He's talking about farmland and the fact that its loss

threatens our future. I know you may be wondering what the relationship

is between the loss of farmland and Bill 12 but let me tell you, Mr.

Speaker, that Bill 12 is going to herald the loss of a lot more

farmland that we've seen to date. However, Jack Clarke talks about the

really scary statistics that have come down about the loss of farmland

in Canada between 1961 and 1976, something in the neighbourhood of 3.5

million acres of good, arable land that has disappeared from farming.

It's being used for a number of other uses. Some of that land is right

here in British Columbia.

[ Page 1273

He says: "B.C. is the biggest sinner of all the provinces. Not

because it's alienating more farmland than anywhere else but because it

was the first to recognize the need for legislation to preserve it and

has been backsliding like a former convert." You will remember, of

course, that the legislation to protect farmland was introduced during

the NDP government's term of office.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am quoting the figures that were used by Mr.

Clarke, and his figures came from the federal task force. It is quite

possible, Mr. Speaker, that the member from North Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) is wiser than the federal task force. I for one doubt that

very much.

In Canada, between 1961....

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Why don't you listen?

MS. BROWN: He has a hearing impediment.

In Canada, between 1961 and 1976, 3.5 million acres were lost. Then

he went on to say that British Columbia, which we are debating, is the

biggest sinner of all.

What this legislation does is make it possible for that to co