1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7697 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 8). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7697

Mr. Barber –– 7697

Municipal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 10). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7697

Mr. Barber –– 7697

Municipal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 10). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On

Section I –– 7697

Mr. Barber

Third reading –– 7698

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 5). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7698

Mr. Howard –– 7699

Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 31). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7699

Mr. Stupich –– 7699

Court of Appeal Act (Bill 2). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 116 –– 7700

Mr. Howard

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 17). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7700

Mr. Barber –– 7700

Division –– 7701

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 17). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Third reading –– 7702

Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 41). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7702

Mr. Macdonald –– 7702

Mr. Lauk –– 7702

Mr. Leggatt –– 7703

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7703

Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 41). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 7704

Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act (Bill 32). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

section 3 –– 7704

Mr. Barber

Mr. Barrett

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Hanson

Appendix –– 7709

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

This amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act will

validate the land-use contract between the Cariboo Regional District

and 105 Mile Ranch Ltd. that was registered in the land titles office

of Kamloops on April 18, 1973. This amendment is required because there

was a mixup in the registration of the land-use contract in 1973. There

are two different copies of the 105 Mile Ranch land-use contract

covering different areas. At the time of entering into the 105 Mile

Ranch landuse contract, the Municipal Act required that land-use

contracts be signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and be

registered in the land titles office, then called the land registry

office. One contract has been signed by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs, but it has not been registered in the land titles office. The

other contract has been registered in the land titles office, but has

not been signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Neither land-use

contract has any status in law since neither conforms to the statutory

requirements that applied when land-use contracts existed under the

Municipal Act. The contract which is being validated by this amendment

has been the basis for land-use control in an area surrounding 100 Mile

House in the Cariboo since 1973.

The amendment will prevent

the developments which have been developed in accordance with the

contract from being declared legally non-conforming. As well,

subsequent developers of land affected by the land-use contract will be

subject to the same rules as the previous developers, who had every

right to expect that the whole area would develop under the same set of

rules. This amendment has been requested by the Cariboo Regional Board

and will provide the necessary degree of legal security to owners of

land affected by this contract, which they are rightfully due.

I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition makes no objection to this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill

8, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.,

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

When enacted, Bill 10 will confirm the right of municipalities to tax

transmission pipelines and similar utility company property. Prior to a

recent court decision, under

section 407 of the Municipal Act

municipalities imposed a one percent utility tax on distribution

pipelines. Main transportation pipelines were subject to ordinary mill

rate taxation by municipalities. The court held that main

transportation pipelines were to be included as facilities of a gas

company for the purpose of the one percent utility tax. If the court

decision were left to stand, municipalities such as Kent, Sparwood and

Hudson's Hope would suffer a significant loss of tax revenue.

The

amendment to

section 407 clarifies the distinction between gas

distribution systems and transportation pipelines. The amendment

restores the traditional right of municipalities which tax transmission

pipelines and will be effective in 1982 and thereafter. The amendment

has the support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition supports this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

10, Municipal Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 10: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 1.

MR. BARBER:

The

section shall pass, but I have questions for the minister. I wonder

if he could specify which municipalities and which utility companies —

by name will now be affected by

Section 1 of this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I already mentioned some of them. Areas in the northern part of the

province may be most affected. The major pipeline companies would be

similarly affected, or affected in another way. The effect would be

felt by Westcoast Transmission, among others.

MR. BARBER:

It's the "among others" we're concerned about. Are there any smaller

companies, apart from Westcoast or Kootenay Power and Light, with which

we're all familiar, that would also be affected by this bill? If so,

could the minister specify so that municipalities which might otherwise

be unaware of the provisions of the

section could be immediately

informed of them in order to take the quickest possible financial

advantage that will be conferred on them upon the unanimous passage of

this bill?

[ Page 7698 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Trans Mountain comes to mind, Inland Natural Gas.... There may be other

small companies, definitely, but it's not as if they're being treated

in any way differently than they were being treated. The rules have

been in effect for some time. It's only that those rules were

successfully challenged in the court. We're restoring a status quo in

fairness to the municipalities, and returning to a situation which

certainly wasn't onerous for the gas companies, large or small.

MR. BARBER:

What provision has the minister established to advise municipalities

that they will be entitled to return to the former position of tax

benefit, or status quo as the minister described it, upon the unanimous

passage of this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, they certainly will be aware of the passage of the bill. We

normally provide the information to UBCM, which in turn provides it to

the municipalities affected. However, we have a list of those

municipalities which have been most directly affected or concerned with

this, and they will similarily be advised by letter.

Section 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Municipal Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 5, I'd just like to point

out to the House that the government has embarked on an aggressive

program to build an energy-secure British Columbia. In a statement that

was released some two years ago now we outlined a program in which we

wanted to build on the strengths that we have in our province and to

develop alternative energy sources available to us. The measures

presented in this legislation exemplify the intent of that statement

and demonstrate what we believe is good stewardship of the resources

that we have in British Columbia.

Geothermal resources present what will be, I hope, a unique opportunity to

challenge industrial ingenuity to develop this clean and sustained energy source

for the advantage of our province. The geothermal potential that has been identified

most clearly so far is near Pemberton in the Mount Meager area. Development

research in the area is continuing with two wells drilled to date, and more

exploration being planned. We don't know yet whether that project will yield

a successful and commercial project for British Columbia Hydro, but encouraging

temperature levels have been encountered so far.

the House might wish to know, geothermal resources are simply the

natural heat in the deep rock strata — heat that usually occurs in

association with the process of mountain building. We have, in British

Columbia, I guess, the best prospects in Canada for the development of

this kind of energy to be used for electric-power generation or in

other useful applications, such as a heat source for industrial

processes. Hotsprings, which are scattered all over our province,

demonstrate the potential for this resource. An active exploration

program, however, is very necessary before we can discover the true

potential, which may be great.

Geothermal energy is by no

means a new source of energy; it has quite a long history. Italy has

produced electricity from geothermal steam since near the turn of the

century. In Iceland it's a key source of energy for both electricity

and heating. Earlier in the year I had a chance to see the Wairakei

generation station in New Zealand, which makes a very important

contribution to the electric-power needs of that country, and the

Geysers field north of San Francisco in California, which is the

largest development in existence today, producing almost 1,000

megawatts of power out of a single steamfield. It produces that level

now, and when it's fully developed, it may be producing twice as much.

It's equivalent to the output of a large hydroelectric dam like the

Revelstoke Dam.

Geothermal development can provide,

therefore, an important additional energy source. We in British

Columbia probably can expect to find discoveries that would match that

Geysers field, but the energy we can obtain from this source may make a

very important contribution to the future needs of this province, and

will do so in an environmentally secure manner. Geothermal resource

development is, like other developments in the energy field, high-risk.

B.C. Hydro has taken progressive steps to show the way in exploration

of this resource in British Columbia. However, in the long term we look

to the private sector to invest in exploration for geothermal resources.

This

legislation secures all geothermal rights for the province and provides

for these rights to be made available to the industry by competitive

bids. This is an approach which has served us well in oil and gas

development, using the initiatives of a competitive industry to develop

the resource while bringing maximum revenues to the province. I

anticipate that some of the same companies which are now exploring for

oil and gas will enter into exploration for geothermal resources.

Just as in oil and gas development, where all exploration

and drilling operations are regulated by my ministry officials to

ensure that safe operations are conducted, the environment-protected

and resource-conservation measures adhered to, so too in geothermal

resource development we will provide for complete and sound regulation

of the exploration operations and, hopefully, subsequent development.

won't go into the bill in detail, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to

point out some of the key features, which include exploration-operation

regulation, including exploratory drilling. It will be regulated in

much the same manner that oil and gas is now regulated. Should a

successful discovery be made, it will be necessary for the operator to

submit a plan of operation before being allowed to proceed. Likewise,

before production begins, the production plan is required. It must meet

the approval of the ministry, on the advice of our staff,

[ Page 7699 ]

and,

finally, that of the minister, I don't anticipate that companies which

are engaged in exploration for geothermal resources will use that steam

directly, but that rather arrangements will be worked out to sell to

B.C. Hydro or, in a similar manner, to cooperate in using steam for

power generation. Steam-generating units would be built in the field to

use the steam, because you can't transport it very far. This would, of

course, require approval by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Only

when we get further on towards development will we be able to judge the

economics of this source of energy. Our main objective today with this

legislation is to encourage its development and application. As I

mentioned earlier, there is potential for geothermal heat to be

developed for purposes other than electric-power generation. This

legislation will enable geothermal rights to be acquired to produce hot

water and steam for heating, such as district heating in a community,

heating greenhouses or other industrial applications. The challenge for

those potential users will be to search out these additional uses.

These are steps towards providing for the long-term renewable energy

needs of British Columbia.

To end any confusion that might

be in the minds of some members or the public, I might say that the act

will not apply to the production of water with a temperature of less

than 80 degrees Celsius at surface. That will ensure that hotsprings

which are now being used and may be used in the future for recreational

purposes will not be affected by the provisions of this legislation.

Permits

will be issued by public tender. Provisions will be set for cabinet to

establish royalty rates. Should geothermal development take place in

areas which have privately-held surface rights, potential conflicts

will be resolved by the Mediation and Arbitration Board, which is

already in place and operating under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act.

There will be a couple of minor amendments put forward during the

course of the committee stage of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

summary, the Geothermal Resources Act presents a new era for British

Columbia. We are leading Canada in the passing of this kind of

legislation to apply to a unique natural energy source so as to meet

the growing energy needs of the people of this province, in perpetuity

and in a safe, clean and environmentally safe manner. I believe it's an

example of the stewardship of the fortunate energy resource potential

with which we in British Columbia have been endowed. I take pleasure in

moving second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills, along with others, that we receive notification of ten minutes before the House meets.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm not complaining, I'm just suggesting that it is a fact of life. The

intricacies of it would require an opportunity to examine both what the

minister said in his introductory remarks in relation to the bill, and

to do so on another occasion. I therefore move adjournment of the

debate until the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

In speaking to the motion of the hon. member, we're quite prepared to

accede to the request for the adjournment, but certainly not for the

reasons suggested. I draw to the hon. member's attention that this bill

has been on the order paper since November 30, 1981; so there has been

lots of opportunity for everyone to consider it. I'd also draw to the

hon. member's attention that I've been in this House slightly longer

than he has, and I can assure him that there's now a better exchange of

information on the order of business of the day than there has ever

been since I've been in the Legislature. We agree to his request.

MR. SPEAKER: I would have to accept that only as a ministerial statement. No debate is allowable on a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. HEWITT: In moving second

reading of Bill 31, the Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act,

1982, I would make members aware that this bill deals with a number of

amendments to various acts under the jurisdiction of my ministry. The

debate, I'm sure, may well take place in committee as we deal with each

section, but these amendments help to clarify and better identify some

purposes of the acts in question. We deal with the Agricultural and

Rural Development (BC) Act, with an amendment thereto; Agricultural

Credit Act; Insurance for Crops Act; Livestock Disease Control Act;

Livestock Public Sale Act; and the Meat Inspection Act. Those are the

numbers of amendments we are dealing with.

One thing I would

like to mention in second reading is the consolidation of the

Agricultural Credit Act and Agricultural Land Development Act. Bill 31,

the Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, deals with the

repeal of the Agricultural Land Development Act, but I want to assure

members that it doesn't mean the end of the program in my ministry.

We've just consolidated that particular program, which assists in

development of agricultural land on private lands, under the

Agricultural Credit Act of my ministry to better identify and

consolidate the credit programs that we administer.

With those remarks, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, as is obvious by the way the minister introduced second

reading of this legislation, it's much better discussed in committee.

Therefore we'll reserve our comments until we get to committee stage.

Motion approved.

Bill

31, Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7700 ]

COURT OF APPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

The members will note that standing on the orders are two amendments to

this bill, one dealing with

section 28 by the deletion of subsection 3.

May I advise the committee that by reason of other legislation which

will be brought before the House in this session which will deal with

the matter of court rules, it is not necessary that subsection 3 appear.

the members of the committee will know, the appropriate procedure to

repeal a

section of a bill is to negative the

section — I thought the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) would like the word "negative"

— and accordingly I would move that subsection 3 of

section 28 be

negatived. I move the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Sections 29 to 96 inclusive approved.

section 97.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Similarly,

section 97 deals with the necessity of dealing with leave to

appeal in the matter of the Real Estate Act. Amendments to the Real

Estate Act already preclude that requirement, and accordingly I ask you

to call the

section and the government, will vote against it.

Section 97 negatived.

Sections 98 to 115 inclusive approved.

section 116.

MR. HOWARD:

During the last session in one of those omnibus bills that contained

everything, including the kitchen sink, an amendment to the Wildlife

Act was incorporated. That was in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act (No. 2) last year. What it did was alter the definition of

"resident" in the Wildlife Act, which has caused a tremendous amount of

furor and complaint by hunters and people interested in wildlife. I

wonder if I could have an explanation from the minister as to what the

effect of

section 116 of this bill is with respect to the Wildlife Act.

Without my looking the whole thing up and trying in my awkward way to

understand what the law says, I'd rather rely on an astute and

competent legal mind. I realize that the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald) is not here and I can't rely on him, so I have to

take second best.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I assure the

hon. member for Skeena that his concerns with respect to other

amendments, valid as they may be, don't apply in this particular case.

Section 68 of the Wildlife Act provides that a person who is aggrieved

by refusal to issue a licence, or by cancellation or suspension of a

licence, may appeal to the county court. We intend to amend the

Wildlife Act so that it does not deal with the matters under sections

74, 75 and 77, but only with respect to this limited right of appeal in

the County Court Act in this particular regard.

MR. HOWARD:

I have one other thought to express on that. We've been waiting for

some time now for a new Wildlife Act to be presented to the House. The

word out in the communities that are interested in wildlife matters and

in the B.C. Wildlife Federation is that the introduction of the new

Wildlife Act is imminent. I assume that when the new Wildlife Act comes

in.... Could the Attorney-General tell me how this will be

incorporated in that new Wildlife Act? Can he also tell me how the

amendment made last year will be dealt with in the new Wildlife Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I would like to be able to respond to the member's question, but I'm

not apprised of the details that would be required with respect to any

new wildlife legislation that would assist the member. He should

therefore direct that question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr.

Rogers). I can, however, assure him that if new legislation comes

forward in the Wildlife Act, the matter of appeals will not create the

problem that we're correcting in this particular case.

MR. HOWARD:

What I'm getting at is the difficulty of amending the same piece of

legislation twice in the same session. That has caused some problems

before. I just raise that perhaps as a procedural question rather than

a question seeking an absolute opinion as to whether something is going

to be in it or not.

Sections 116 to 119 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Court of Appeal Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, this is a very short bill changing the minimum amount of

tax payable from the present $75 to $125 under the Home owner Grant

Act. I would move second reading.

MR. BARBER: This

bill is more proof that Social Credit proposes to restrain everyone but

itself. This bill sees, as the minister said, the minimum property tax

payable being increased from $75 to $125. This is an increase of some 70

[ Page 7701 ]

percent.

This is an example of no restraint. This is an example of Socred

hypocrisy on the issue of restraint. This is a money grab from

homeowners across British Columbia that is not justifiable in a time of

restraint. This is an attack on the ability of homeowners — especially

seniors — to maintain those homes and to continue to be able to pay for

them. This is a tax grab by Social Credit of massive proportions during

a period of restraint As has been so often indicated, they propose to

restrain everyone in the province but themselves and their own

personally extravagant and wasteful habits.

The opposition,

of course, opposes this bill. We oppose it because you have no business

asking people to pay an extra $50 minimum, an increase of some 70

percent, on their property tax in a time of restraint. You have no

business asking them to do that when at the same time you are

increasing charges, levies, fees and the actual costs for persons using

other government services. What justification can Social Credit have

for so hugely increasing the percentage of tax payable on the minimum

property tax scheme under the homeowner grant? What justification do

you have for doing that in this time of restraint? If you actually

believed in restraint, would you not be well advised ...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARBER:

If the government actually believed in restraint, would they not be

well advised to leave this bill alone? If you believe in restraining

your own appetite as well as that of the taxpayer generally, what do

you need the extra loot for now?

If you believe in

restraint, it's difficult to find any restraint in this bill. As usual,

the restraint is being imposed on everyone but the Socreds. The

government of $37.50 bottles of wine and 60 cent cartons of milk billed

to the taxpayers now proposes to bill the taxpayers an extra minimum of

50 bucks for the privilege of participating in the homeowner grant

scheme. What justification can they have for that in a time of

restraint, Mr. Speaker? It's a simple question; it's a simple debate —

the minister avoided it totally in his understandably brief

introductory remarks. What is the justification for increasing the

minimum tax payable from $75 to $125 in a time of restraint, recession

and unemployment? What is the justification for that? Do you really

need the money that badly? You're shutting down half the hospitals in

British Columbia, for heaven's sake. What more do you have to spend the

money on? You're putting all the social services out of business.

Mr.

Speaker, does the government really have such a desperate need for this

cash that they have to force old folks to the wall again and again by,

in this case, increasing the minimum tax payable? What's the

justification in a time for restraint for, doing that? If Social Credit

actually had any sincere conviction about the issue of restraint, they

would not bring in a bill of this sort. If this government's restraint

policy was not riddled with the hypocrisy that it provably is, this

bill would not be brought forward at this time. This bill cannot be

justified in a time of restraint, unemployment and property taxes being

too high, as they are in the first place. This bill is more evidence of

the hypocrisy of Social Credit when it comes to restraint; this bill is

most vigorously opposed by the New Democratic Party, the official

opposition.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I

don't want to comment too much on the remarks made by the member of the

opposition, but certainly all of us, regardless of where we serve in

this House, must be accountable to the people we represent. I think a

part of that accountability is certainly justifying those things which

we propose in legislation, and the opposition, for their position, in

criticizing whatever they wish with respect to the legislation put

forth.... I don't think it's really too accountable to criticize an

increase whereby those paying taxes will pay for all the services they

receive in a municipality a minimum of $125. To relate this to what has

been publicized in the media with respect to hospitals, I think, is

grossly unfair.

Firstly, I don't believe for one moment that

we can continue to refer to cutbacks in hospitals when everyone here

and everyone out there in the province knows that hospitals are

receiving a considerable increase in the funding available to them. If

you wish to refer to that as a "cutback, " because not everyone is

getting what he's demanding, I don't think it's just. Certainly if you

feel that during these times of economic problems there ought to be

some change of priorities with respect to how we continue to provide

people in our province with services, to suggest that this is a great

imposition, whereby we have people pay a minimum tax of $125.... I

really question the accountability of the opposition in making such a

charge.

Mr. Speaker, again I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Richmond

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Vander Zalm

NAYS — 22

MacDonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 17 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7702 ]

Bill

17, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Davidson in the I chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends

section 8 of the Constitutional Question

Act. The

section currently provides that where there is a challenge

with respect to the constitutional validity of

an act of Parliament or

of this Legislature, notice must be given, before any effective order

can be made, to either or both of the Attorney-General of British

Columbia and the Attorney-General of Canada. It specifies the way in

which notice shall be given. The purpose is so that either the federal

or the provincial Crown, as the circumstances may indicate, may appear

when the constitutional issue is being argued and make such

representations as they deem appropriate.

The amendment

before the House is to enlarge the circumstances in which such notice

must be given, by reason of the recent constitutional amendments which

have been the subject of discussion in Canada for the past several

years. We expect that the adoption of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms will increase significantly, for a time at least, the number

of challenges to both federal and provincial legislation and

regulation. In order that we may be apprised of such challenges and

appear either in support of the challenge or opposed to it, the

amendment of the

section is necessary. The same notice requirement

exists: the notice must be 14 days, but it can be shorter, if the court

in its wisdom deems that necessary.

The members of the House

should be aware, and I'm sure they will be aware, that much of the

legislation in the provinces and in the federal sphere, will be the

subject of extensive examination in view of the Charter of Rights and

Freedoms. By being represented, or at least receiving notice of

challenges with respect to the validity of legislation, governments

will be better able to keep track of the decisions made with respect to

such challenges and make such adjustments to legislation as the courts

may indicate.

I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition supports.this bill. This is

an important growth industry in Canada that's been created by the

passage of the Charter of Rights. It would be a pity if the

Attorney-General's lawyers weren't also in court, along with many

others who will be there arguing all kinds of these cases over the next

45 o 50 years. By all means, let the Attorney-General be apprised of

what is happening in the law courts. Let him appoint a lawyer, with

unemployment raging as it is in this country. This is one way to

prevent the relief rolls from swelling.

MR. LAUK: I

do not want to let this opportunity slip by. I appreciate the comments

of the Attorney-General and the second member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Junior counsel!

MR. LAUK:

The Premier has never disappointed me. He's totally predictable. The

most petty-minded thing that he could possibly say at any given time,

he will.

MR. SPEAKER: On to the bill, please.

MR. LAUK:

I think this bill is symbolic in many ways of what's happened in the

past several years of this administration in relation to the government

in Ottawa. We are now doing the final step of the Constitutional

Question Act; it's the result of this government saying one thing to

its own people in the province of British Columbia and doing something

else.

They said they were taking a hard position with the

federal government over the Dease Lake extension, and they bowed under

the pressure of the federal government — knuckled under — because they

can't stand any pressure from the Trudeau Liberals. We saw that they

were opposed to the Trudeau Liberals' approach to the constitution from

the beginning. At least our local press told us that. But whenever they

got back east, what would they do? The slightest pressure from Pierre

Elliott Trudeau and this Premier and his officials would knuckle under.

He puts on this facade of protecting British Columbia interests in the

face of the Trudeau interests, but he knuckles under to them every

time. He sold out the position of British Columbia and signed this

constitution under the, pressure of the Trudeau Liberals.

The

same thing happened with restraint. Before leaving he said he'd never

cooperate with such a program. He went back east. What did he do? He

was the pet poodle of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He's the first one to

experiment with restraint in his own province, doing the bidding and

calling of the Trudeau Liberals. All the way along he's kept up the

pretence that this government is defending British Columbia interests

against the Trudeau Liberals. Every time he's just in the hip pocket of

the Trudeau Liberals. I'll tell you why. That cabinet is controlled by

the Liberal Party. It Was controlled by the Liberal Party from the

beginning, and it has always been controlled by the Liberal Party.

Under this bill, this is the final act of humiliation on the part of

the British Columbia government. They sold out on the constitution.

They sold out on restraint. They'll always sell out, because they're

just a carbon copy of the federal Liberal Party right here in the

province of British Columbia.

[ Page 7703 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

The concerns that I have around the Constitutional Question Amendment

Act, 1982, deal with remarks that the Attorney-General has made

publicly on several occasions about the impact of the Charter of

Rights, and the attitude that he's going to have towards the

interpretation of the charter in the courts.

Certainly no

one can object to notice provisions so the department is fully advised

when there is a court challenge, but I have some concerns that the

Attorney-General seems to be approaching the charter from a very narrow

point of view. In other words, we may see a political attack on the

charter by the Attorney-General and his officials when the

interpretation of the charter comes, in view of his remarks made

previously about how the charter will inhibit the police from doing

their job. It seems to me that that's a dangerous attitude for the

Attorney-General to take. The Attorney-General should not take sides on

that question. It's a matter of the charter being given effect to.

Surely the intention of those who have supported the charter is that we

have a charter which protects the rights of the individual. I would be

disappointed to see the Attorney-General interfere in cases before the

courts with the rights of the individual, where the charter clearly

intends to protect those rights.

I would like the

Attorney-General to reread some of his remarks about the charter which

indicate a very narrow, somewhat oppressive view of the way that

charter should be applied to the rights of the individual. I hope that

by passing this legislation we don't see the Attorney-General

interfering in every case before the courts, whereby the charter is

used to defend oppressive practices — the Attorney-General routinely

intervening to oppose the impact of the charter on the rights of the

individual.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I won't bother to

respond to the comments of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Lauk), who was entirely out of order in making the remarks he did in

this debate. Of course, he is entirely out of order because of the

myopic view which he has of this government's stellar performance

during the constitutional discussions that took place in Canada. As a

matter of fact, I find it passing strange that that member, who opposed

any action with regard to the constitutional change in this province,

should have taken such a position when what occurred, in the final

analysis, was the unilateral presentation by the federal government to

the United Kingdom of proposals which were passed by committees of the

Parliament of Canada, actively supported by members of the New

Democratic Party who sit in that House. He now suggests that we're in

bed with the Liberals because we now have a charter which the member

for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is now saying we should stand up and

support. I wish you would get together and make up your minds as to

where you want to stand. We wouldn't have had the problem if we'd had

our way, because there'd be no charter — and there shouldn't be any

charter in many respects.

However, to Bill 41, second

reading. I want to say to the member for Coquitlam-Moody that when we

receive notice of challenges which emanate from the charter, the

representations which will be made before the courts in this province

or elsewhere with respect to those challenges will be those which we

are satisfied are supportable by the appropriate opinion of the law;

they will not be made on the basis of politics. However, let it be

clear that I am very concerned, as are Attorneys-General throughout

this entire nation, about the impact which the charter will have on the

appropriate administration of criminal justice. We had a debate

yesterday in this House — we will have more as the days go by — with

regard to the problem associated with the administration of criminal

justice. I would point out to the hon. member that what we have to do

with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is follow the approach of the

United States of America at a time when the Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court of the United States is so alarmed about the direction

they have taken that he is making public speeches — the member would

support his right to do this — pointing out that the directions they

have gone under their constitution and bill of rights have deflected

the administration of criminal justice in that nation to such an extent

that the basic purpose of criminal justice administration has been

lost. Criminal justice administration exists so that it is safe for

people to walk about the streets of their communities. The application

of judicial

interpretation to the constitution of the United States has

had just the opposite result. It is now safer for the criminal than it

is for the citizen. I am concerned that we do not go in that direction

in Canada. Therefore we will make full representation with respect to

the preservation of the law and the proper administration of criminal

justice, as they arise from time to time.

MR. LEGGATT: And the liberty of the subject.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

That will be considered. It will be because the liberty of the subject

is in question that the issue will be brought before the courts. We

will ensure that it is fully and properly addressed. If the decision of

the courts is more in favour of the liberty of the subject than is

currently the case, then that is what the charter is for. We just wish

to ensure that all sides of the issue are presented.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave to refer Bill 44 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill

41, Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 7704 ]

Bill 41, Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 32.

MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE RESTRAINT ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the inspector of municipalities will define as "operating expenditures."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Operating expenditures are moneys for other than capital works. We can

define it fairly easily. In a regional district it may be somewhat more

complicated, in that we have to look at functions rather than the

overall budget, but again, we have been able to sort it out without any

difficulty. The inspector has handled it very effectively. As minister,

I have yet to receive a complaint personally.

MR. BARBER:

The operating expenditures of municipalities which have municipal

police forces include that service and that expenditure. I wonder if

the minister could tell us what will happen if an arbitrated settlement

awards police officers, shall we say, 14 percent and the guideline is

12 percent. How is a municipality enabled under the provisions of

section 3 to continue to guarantee public safety if the arbitration

award says one thing and this

section says another?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The

section does allow a fair bit of flexibility to the inspector.

Using the RCMP as an example,, one might certainly refer to our being

forced to negotiate a contract with the federal government respecting

the RCMP and its service to the various communities throughout the

province. The inspector can, and does, take those sorts of things into

consideration. However, with respect to the settlement of salary

disputes, the local authority will first, of course, have to consider

whether the awards granted are in fact beyond their means to pay; they

may not have to cut back on the number of people involved. In other

words, how big the pie is and how you cut it up is obviously a matter

that would need to be looked at by the local government.

MR. BARBER:

The minister has admitted that under the provisions of

section 3 the

inspector of municipalities may allow an increase greater than 12

percent in order to provide for services for public safety, such as

police and fire protection. That being the case, we are once again

faced with the problem of who's in charge. We're aware, Mr. Chairman,

that under another bill, which has not yet been made law, this

government proposes to exercise a form of wage control over public

servants. Again, what that bill proposes to do appears to be in

conflict with what this bill proposes to do. If the inspector of

municipalities under

section 3 has the power to allow an expenditure of

more than 12 percent for the purposes of guaranteeing public safety,

who has the final power — the inspector of municipalities or the Maytag

repairman?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's not for the

inspector of municipalities to determine what the percentage increase

may be for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is a federal force

under federal jurisdiction. The amount of the increase for officers,

wherever they may be in the country, is negotiated federally. That is

not a matter for the inspector: He does not determine the amount of a

contract award. This would be a federal matter. The only thing is that

the inspector's door is open with respect to a case that might be

presented by a municipality. Hypothetically, as You said, it could be

that a municipality might come forth and say, "Because of an action

federally beyond the powers or authorities of a municipality, we have

this sort of situation, " and that doesn't necessarily mean that the

only option available to the inspector is granting an exemption from

whatever the budget limitation is and that there would therefore be an

automatical increase. I'm sure that first the council would have the

option of looking at the amount of money available and how they would

like to divvy this.

I suppose it could vary depending on

where you are in the Province, but sitting next to a colleague here

from the north, I could almost guarantee you that most northern

municipalities, and I would expect perhaps the majority of southern

municipalities, would attempt to sort it out locally. The northern

municipalities have a reputation for that. They can, as we know, adjust

according to circumstances and cut the cloth to meet whatever

circumstance, but it would be a local matter first. We do not deny the

municipality the opportunity of presenting their case to the inspector.

MR. BARBER:

The minister is answering questions I haven't asked. I was referring to

municipal police forces; I didn't talk about the RCMP I talked about

municipal police forces from the beginning; I never mentioned the RCMP.

There are some 14 municipalities in the province that have municipal

police forces.

To ask the question again, what would happen

in the instance of a municipal police force being granted an arbitrated

settlement of, shall we say, 14 to 14.5 percent, which is clearly in

excess of the 12 percent? When you took at the function that the

minister tells us would be guaranteed under

section 2 and would now be

enforced under

section 3, what authority does the inspector of

municipalities have to allow that increase?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: None.

MR. BARBER:

There's a problem here, Mr. Chairman. The minister earlier said that

operating expenditures include the provision of fire and police

services. Is that right?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr.

Chairman, operating expenditures certainly include fire, police, public

safety and health. All of those programs are very often or generally a

part of a municipal budget. Certainly from all of the time that I've

served on a municipal council, when we looked at the amount available

for recreation, road construction, ditching, street lights, planning

and information services, we had to

[ Page 7705 ]

consider

the moneys needed for other programs as well. We too, as you do in your

family, had to prioritize things accordingly. Granted, oftentimes we

had to cut out dessert in order to have the meat and potatoes. So this

again will be a decision locally. But it's true: it's all a part of

operating a municipality. As was mentioned earlier, and I repeat again,

the whole attempt here, certainly in cooperation with municipalities,

is to put a lid on the amount of government and to provide our

taxpayers with the secure feeling that we, as people in government at

whatever level, are concerned about their ability to pay and we're

wanting to restrain and get some order in the way that we tax the

people at all levels. I'm sure that there will be difficult decisions

made by people in local government when they must prioritize those

things that they wish to allocate the available resources to.

we had an endless source of money — if, in fact, there weren't the need

to restrain and we could just carry on demanding from the taxpayers

whatever it is the government decided to spend — then I suppose there

wouldn't be the need to prioritize. You could hire whatever police

numbers you felt necessary and you could provide all of the comfort and

facilities that go with providing good fire protection. You could go on

with providing recreational programs, closing all of the ditches and

providing ornamental street lights, but we do not have the luxury of

having a province in which the taxpayers have pockets that are filled

up and to which there is no bottom and from which we can continue to

draw. I think we all recognize that and that's why we have the program

— to bring restraint into the amount of government and the spending of

government. But this will require difficult decisions.

MR. BARBER:

If Social Credit believed in restraint, they wouldn't have overrun

their budget last year by $225 million. If the minister believed in

restraint, he wouldn't have overrun his personal office budget last

year by $25,000. If Social Credit believed in restraint, they wouldn't

have cabinet ministers drinking $37.50 bottles of wine at the

taxpayers' expense.

The problem in

section 3 is that it

appears to establish conflict between the role of Mr. Peck, the Maytag

repair man, and the inspector of municipalities. It is clear there is

an open and evident conflict between the powers of the inspector of

municipalities to allow operating expenditures — which include public

safety, among other things — to exceed the 12 percent guidelines, and

those of Mr. Peck, who is apparently going to have to enforce a program

of 8, 10 or 12 percent, or 5 or less, depending on which version of

which Premier's statement you believe from time to time. There's an

obvious inconsistency in the authority and the powers granted to Mr.

Peck, the Maytag repairman, and the inspector of municipalities, whose

name happens to be Mr. Woodward. The minister's answer has not

satisfied the question. What happens when, there is a conflict between

the decision of the inspector of municipalities in regard to an

exemption from the 12 percent limit and the decision of Mr. Peck in

regard to those features of exemption which include salaries?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The hon. first member for Victoria has on numerous occasions referred

to a matter which I would much prefer to discuss during budget debate.

My office certainly did not leave the government a debt. If, in fact,

we changed priorities within the office operation because we wanted to

serve the people better, that's another matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, Please. As you rightfully point out, hon. minister, it is a

matter best canvassed under a different subject in committee. This is

possibly an ideal opportunity, hon. members, to point out the problem

that we can experience when one member raises something which is not

covered specifically in the section, and then another member feels that

a response would be in order. For that very reason I would encourage

all members to stay within the strict relevance of the

section we are

debating.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not see a

conflict between the commissioner, Mr. Peck, and the inspector of

municipalities. They both have a job to do. I take exception to this

constant referral to Mr. Peck as the man who used to work for Maytag.

It doesn't matter to me if a person — inspector or otherwise.... If

they have a job to do, they don't have to come fresh out of university

as the member for Victoria did. There is no conflict between the role

of the inspector and that of Mr. Peck, the commissioner.

MR. BARRETT:

I agree with the minister: if Peck is working for Maytag, then Maytag

should pay him. But it was your leader who said he was a Maytag

salesman — not the member from here, I know you're fighting for the

leadership, but I didn't expect you to bring it to the floor of this

House without discussing it in caucus first.

On this

section, his leader has put him into more trouble. Do you people meet

in cabinet or do you discuss these inconsistencies? What's going on

over there? I quote from the Vancouver Sun a statement made by

the Premier referring to this

Section in terms of police negotiations

and the 14 municipalities that this member is talking about. You don't

even know what's going on. I don't know whether it's your fault or the

Premier's fault. You're talking about restraint and the supervisor at

the municipal level doing something, and this is what your boss is

saying: "Asked whether it was worth the $882,000 budgeted this year for

the commissioner's office to deal with the irresponsible one percent,

Bennett replied: 'Sure. Do you question the price of a policeman? Do

you question the price of the courts? Of course not.' "

Now

what does that mean under this section? It means that under this

section the police are not going to be confined in their contracts to

any direction from this bill.

MR. HOWARD: Or either one of those Bills.

MR. BARRETT:

Or either one of the Bills, You, as the responsible minister, come in

here and try to cover up for a program you don't even know the details

of. You've been asked and embarrassed — and embarrassing the rest of us

— to discuss this issue when every day the rules change by statements

of the Premier.

Now I want to ask the minister: did you know

that the Premier was going to exempt the police from this section? Did

you know that? Were you aware that, through his statement, he was going

to exempt the police from this section? What does that do to Mr.

Woodward's role?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that this provision, like the other provisions in the

[ Page 7706 ]

legislation,

has certainly been considered by the municipalities — by the UBCM — and

I can assure you that at all the meetings that have been held in

various parts of the province by the municipalities and the regional

districts, local government does not perceive the problems that appear

to be related here by the NDP opposition. They, in fact, have no

difficulty with the legislation because, as I've repeatedly said, the

legislation is supported by the UBCM and the municipalities because

they, too, as responsible people in government recognize the need for

restraint. We do not have a bottomless pit; we do not have, Mr. Leader

of the Opposition, the opportunity of continually going back to the

taxpayers for more and more and more. We do need the sort of leadership

that will assure the citizens of British Columbia that someone is

concerned about their ability to pay and through this constraint

program will bring government at all levels into line under some

control, which will assure them that confidence, that protection and

that degree of security.

This section, of course, provides

the inspector to make exceptions or exemptions in certain

circumstances. Granted, that is something recognized, required,

realized and appreciated by local government: there has to be some

opportunity to provide for those unusual situations that may exist in

one or another community. You constantly refer to fire and police;

certainly those are two very important matters, but similarly a

community in the north or in some other part of the province could

perhaps be hit perhaps with unusual weather circumstances in a year

when they really need the opportunity to turn to the inspector of

municipalities and say: "You are one of us. You are there to assist us.

The legislation provides you with that opportunity, so help us out."

These are the sorts of situations. The inspector can then address that.

The

legislation is fair, workable and has the support of the people in

local government. It particularly has the support of taxpayers,

wherever they may be in this beautiful province of ours.

MR. BARRETT:

The minister is on the same embarrassed hook as the Minister of

Finance. You are responsible to give direction through this section,

through the inspector, over the circumstances you've just described. No

one disagrees with those circumstances. No one in their right mind

would — except the Premier. The point is that what the member for

Victoria is asking has been clearly defined by the minister himself.

When you say that the inspector is to go in under those unusual

circumstances in the communities where he is to make that difference,

which law applies, yours or the Minister of Finance's? Who has more

power, Mr. Peck or Mr. Woodward?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No conflict.

MR. BARRETT:

You see the conflict. Whom do you support? If Mr. Peck orders a

rollback contrary to a decision made by Mr. Woodward under this

section....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are tending to stray very dramatically

from

section 3 of Bill 32. Clearly we are beginning to cover more closely debate

that could be relative to another section, possibly

section

Section 3 states:

"The inspector of municipalities may define operating expenditures."

We are into a situation where we are considering extraordinary circumstances.

In no way can we allow this discussion to flow into another

section currently

before the committee. If the Leader of the Opposition would take his seat, I

will recognize the first member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. BARBER:

The point of order is simply this: the minister has already agreed that

operating expenditures include wage settlements for, among others,

policemen and firemen. The Leader of the Opposition is asking which law

applies in regard to wage settlements. Operating expenditures, as may

be described under

section 3 of this bill — the exemptions feature of

the bill — include wage settlements. It is on that precise basis that

the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are entirely in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. The Chairman will determine what is or is

not in order. The member may make some suggestion to the Chair but he

certainly will not determine, from his position, what is or is not in

order.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, and to

continue on the point of order, the minister has already determined

what an operating expenditure is. That definition, as provided for in

subsection 3(a), is the one upon which we base this particular debate.

I respectfully suggest that debate is entirely in order.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Chairman, my point of order relates to what you, the Chair, just

said. The Chair permits cabinet ministers to lecture the Chair about

what is and is not in order. I don't think it is becoming to the

neutrality expected of the Chair to jump on the poor member for

Victoria, who just happened to make a suggestion as to whether

something was in order or not. Be fair, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Had that been the first time that it happened,

the member's point would have had much more validity than it does. The

Leader of the Opposition continues on

section 3, bearing in mind that

there is another section, currently under discussion as well, which

could possibly more appropriately be canvassed.

MR; BARRETT:

I have to define, in terms of my responsibility in this House, where

the debate takes place, particularly when the minister himself has

stated here this morning that the police contracts and the fire

contracts come under this

section as part of the general budget. What I

am asking the minister is to tell me very quickly who has the ultimate

authority in the extraordinary circumstances you outlined. Which bill

has the authority? Is this bill more authoritative in these

extraordinary circumstances than Mr. Peck's authority? That is a very

clear question.

The minister has made a very important

statement to the House. There is mass confusion in this province about

conflicting statements by various government ministers and the Premier.

The municipalities have to rely on the statements of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, or he is not running the show. I ask the Minister of

Municipal Affairs: what do you say to the mayors and the councils of

the cities of Vancouver, who hire their own police forces, in the

extraordinary circumstances that we all agree — and as you have defined

— may exist? Who has the authority — this

section or Mr. Peck — so that

the municipalities will know who is boss, who is running

[ Page 7707 ]

the show? Does this bill have absolute authority in terms of Mr. Woodward's exceptional circumstance?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, let me assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that

there is not mass confusion anywhere, except possibly in that small

portion of this House occupied by the members of the opposition. Those

municipalities are well aware of the program. They certainly have no

difficulty at all in interpreting this particular section, or the

provisions of any other act. They know full well the rules with respect

to negotiating contracts, be they with someone working on a highways

project, a recreational program, or for the fire or police departments.

It is all provided for. They know how to deal with that situation, and

when and where to turn for what.

Section 3 (

b) allows a

municipality, as it states very clearly, "...to exceed the limit

under

section 2 where he" — that is the inspector — "considers that

extraordinary circumstances exist and that the municipality has made

all reasonable efforts to comply with the directive under

section 2,"

which establishes the amount of budgetary increase. The municipalities

will have no difficulty with that at all.

The hon. first

member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) gave a hypothetical situation when he

asked what happens if someone increases the guidelines or limitations

with respect to wage increases. That is a matter for another piece of

legislation, not for this particular legislation. This

section affords

a municipality the opportunity to present its case to the inspector.

The inspector, in light of that evidence, will then consider whether or

not an exemption ought to be granted. It will certainly not deal with

establishing a percentage increase for somebody's wages.

MR. BARRETT: I thank the minister for sticking specifically to this section, because I understand this section.

The

minister said that this allows the inspector of municipalities to deal,

in extraordinary circumstances, with exemptions. Is that correct?

That's what you just said. That's correct, isn't it? We both agree;

we've reached that far. Now if the exemption exceeds the guidelines,

then whose decision does the municipality follow — Mr. Peck's or Mr.

Woodward's?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't believe it,

Mr. Chairman. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has been in this House

a lot longer than I have and certainly knows the process, I would

admit, far better from experience than what I possibly might be

expected to know, and he should be well aware that the other

legislation — the legislation dealing with wage restraints — comes into

effect when you're looking at an increase negotiated between two

parties which is in excess of that which the commissioner provides for.

That is a matter for that legislation and that commissioner, Mr. Peck,

and it's not a matter for the inspector of municipalities. It will not

go to the inspector of municipalities — it will instead go to the

commissioner. Why the Leader of the Opposition should attempt to try to

confuse these two pieces of legislation by discussing them at the same

time, when he should be concentrating on

section 3, is beyond me.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the attempt by the minister to explain his

confusion, but that's your confusion. Mr. Woodward goes in at the

request of the municipality under the authority of this legislation.

The municipality makes its case "under the extraordinary

circumstances," using your own words. The inspector, under this

section, agrees with

the municipality, grants the extraordinary circumstance — which

includes an increase in its budget because of the extraordinary

circumstance — for police, and police salaries perhaps have to be

higher in a northern area or region where it's difficult to attract

people, and they have to have a higher salary. Then what happens in

those extraordinary circumstances? Does Mr. Peck then have the

authority, as you understand it, to overrule Mr. Woodward's decision by

this section? That's what I want to know.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly take some pleasure in straightening out

this confusion that exists with the Leader of the Opposition. That

would definitely be a matter for the commissioner if there is a

question as to what percentage increase might be negotiated between a

municipality and a police force. I didn't know we had police forces in

the northern communities other than the RCMP. I'm sure we don't.

MR. BARRETT: In some regions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Okay. We're really limited to the lower mainland. Fine, that probably

doesn't matter. But if it's a matter negotiated between the police or

their negotiators and the municipalities of Nelson, West Vancouver or

Delta, then they must, by the other requirements of the legislation,

deal with the commissioner. They deal with the commissioner on matters

of compensation.

If the commissioner allowed a percentage

increase within whatever the legislation provides for, and it somehow

then impacts on a municipality whereby they deem they are in the

position of making representation to the inspector of municipalities to

have their overall budgeting considered, then again the legislation is

very clear. They can, under this legislation, come to the inspector,

but it does not exempt them from some other legislation. This

legislation does not supersede some other law.

MR. BARRETT: What you're saying is that if the budget increase....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't say what I'm saying.

MR. BARRETT:

Okay. If the municipality has negotiated a budget that the inspector

has said is an extraordinary circumstance, and the thing that makes it

an extraordinary circumstance is an increase in fire and police costs

in terms of wages, then Mr. Peck rules. But if Mr. Peck's ruling

increases the budget to the point where firemen and police costs are

higher than the original municipal budget, then Mr. Woodward rules.

That's what you've just defined. It's a cockamamey mishmash, and you

know it. You know the whole thing is crazy. You're embarrassed, as the

Minister of Municipal Affairs, to have to stickhandle your way through

this mess on behalf of the Premier, who keeps interfering with hallway

comment.

What we've got in this

section is a toothless,

tailless, headless, bodyless, legless tiger. That is the minister. In

this

section he is setting up a straw tiger that says: "We're going

[ Page 7708 ]

supervise these budgets, but if Mr. Peck says no first, Mr. Woodward

may say something afterwards. If Mr. Peck says no afterwards, Mr.

Woodward did his job." You're embarrassed. You've worked for months

drawing up this legislation. You are sincerely committed to this

legislation, and you get a pop-off Premier talking in the hallways

making a hash of your work, your dedication and your commitment. You

are still staying there as minister trying to explain it.

find it interesting that the Premier beetles off again when another

contradiction comes up that embarrasses the minister under this

section. I am confining myself to this

section and how the minister

explains it. He is going out in the hall to make another statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will stick to this section.

Mr.

Minister, the Premier has made conflicting statements that affect this

section. There is no way the inspector of municipalities, under this

section, has any authority that means anything. You've admitted that

whatever Mr. Peck comes up with will supersede this if it means in

effect, after the decision that Woodward said.... What kind of

planning and restraint is that? It is a bizarre, nightmare of red tape,

of bureaucrat on top of bureaucrat on top of bureaucrat pouring away

taxpayers' money trying to find a solution under this

section that

common sense should have found. How much money are we going to spend

under this

Section in expenses, research ...?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, order, please. Again, I must instruct the Leader of the

Opposition that we are dealing only with what is before us in

section

3. That is very clear and very short. I would ask the member again to

confine his remarks to the strict relevance of

section 3.

MR. BARRETT:

No one wants to be more restricted in terms of relevance on this

section than I do. The inspector of municipalities is going to have to

go to municipalities under this

section and spend money to get there.

After he's spent the money and he's done his job, the minister admits

that this legislation is subject, in terms of budget increases for

personnel, to a rollback by Peck. So why are we passing this

section

which expends money that the taxpayers send down to Victoria when the

minister has finally admitted that the authority will be superseded by

another bill? That is relevant to this section. It couldn't be more

specific to this section, and my comments in that regard, I will admit,

have been somewhat extravagant. I will admit that, but the extravagance

of my comments is based on the foolish position that this

section has

placed the minister in, and he's in that foolish position because he's

defending a day-to-day policy announced in the corridors by the

Premier. I couldn't put it any more succinctly than'that, Mr. Chairman,

and still stay with this section.

When I said it was

cockamamey, it may have been extravagant, but it was correct; when I

said it was a toothless tiger, it may have been extravagant, but it was

correct; and when I say it's nonsense, that sums it up specifically.

This government is out of control, and this

section is nonsense.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this section, which deals, of course, with

the limitations of public expenditures by the municipal councils, also deals

with how it's to be done. I want to deal with the credibility of this section.

In referring to that, I wish to quote from an

article from a Burnaby newspaper

called Burnaby Today, which I think specifically points out how the credibility

of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in bringing in this

section and the whole

bill, is at stake.

quote from, the paper: "Mr. Vander Zalm spoke to a group of Social

Credit supporters. The discussion was on the recession, which, of

course, is the essence of this whole bill."

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it in a phone booth?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, in a phone booth.

has told this Legislature. that he has brought in this bill and this

particular clause to back it up for one purpose only, and that is to

bring about restraint in the province of British Columbia. Yet to quote

from.the paper, while speaking to this group of Social Credit members,

"Vander Zalm blamed much of the recession on unjustifiably high

interest rates. 'Until, the banks bring down the interest rates, we are

doomed, ' he said. 'There isn't a little business, not even a

medium-sized business that can survive! "

Mr. Chairman, I'll

try to keep to the relevancy of the clause. My point here is: why has

the minister bothered to bring in this bill and this specific clause,

which elaborates on the purpose of the bill, when he, at the same time,

has told a group of party supporters that the only way to deal with

restraint and handle this recession today is to aim at the banks, in

order to bring down interest rates? So what I'm saying is that the

whole matter of bringing in this bill and aiming at municipal councils,

limiting their expenditures, is a political sham. He does not believe

this bill is going to have any effect whatsoever. I would also like to

say that his credibility continues to be at stake following further

statements he made relative to the recession and restraints in this

bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, to

this point in time the remarks of the member would have been most

appropriate in second reading, but the Chair is having extreme

difficulty relating the remarks specifically to

section 3. Upon

reflection, I'm sure the member will realize the position of the Chair

and refer directly to

section 3.

MRS. DAILLY: I

appreciate the role that you must play to keep us on this specific

clause, Mr. Chairman, and you do an excellent job with that role.

would just like to continue very briefly to say that the reason I'm

speaking on this particular

section dealing with limiting of

expenditures is simply to state that the minister's whole credibility

is at stake for ever bringing in this clause.

He also went

on to say — and this is my final statement, Mr. Chairman — that the

reason we're in a recession is because of the B.C. socialists. What is

he bringing in this bill attacking all the councils for if the whole

blame...? Imagine, we're not even government. They've been

government for seven years, but the socialists are responsible. He

tells his group that if they want to do anything about recession...

get involved in government if you want to bring about a change in

government. The Minister of Municipal Affairs suggests that the change

should be brought about in his own government.

[ Page

7709 ]

MR. HANSON: I know the minister doesn't want any facts to get

in the way. Under

section 3 the inspector of municipalities will be

carrying out ministerial directives in terms of restraining municipal

spending. I think the records should indicate what the facts have been

since the Social Credit assumed power at the end of 1975 up to 1980.

I'd

like to read into the record a few facts. The total expenditures of

municipalities in British Columbia increased by 13.3 percent per annum.

At the same time the Social Credit spending, with all their waste and

mismanagement, was 19.21 percent. I know he doesn't want the facts to

get in the way, but my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) has indicated, as have many members on this side of the House,

that the leanest, most efficient government in British Columbia over

the last six or seven years has been municipal government — local

government.

Let me read you a few of these figures. Between

1975 and 1980 — these are taken out of the government's own annual

reports — the total expenditures for municipalities in British Columbia

grew from just $1 billion to $1.6 billion, an average per annum

increase of 13.3 percent. Meanwhile the total provincial government

expenditures between 1975 and 1980 — the same period of time — rose

from $2.6 billion to $5.1 billion.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Again I must draw to the member's attention the fact

that the remarks that he's making would have been appropriate in second

reading, but now we are on

section 3 and must adhere to the strictly

relevant clause. While the words "operating expenditure" are mentioned

in the section, that does not permit us the scope to go beyond the

definition of operating expenditures for the purpose of the act. I must

again ask the member if he can more closely relate his remarks to the

section before us, which is

section 3. Having decided the principle in

second reading, we now must deal with the strictly relevant aspect of

each section.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, as you

correctly point out, the clause does refer to operating expenditures,

and also compliance on the part of a municipality to keep their

spending within reasonable limits. What I'm pointing out is that the

record from 1975 to 1980 of the municipalities is extremely good,

efficient and lean, compared with the wasting of taxpayers' dollars by

the provincial government. That is the argument I'm making.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I can appreciate the member's argument and I can appreciate the

member's position, but it becomes increasingly apparent to the Chairman

that people are not appreciating the confines of strict relevance

within which the Chair must keep debate. Again I ask the members to

bear in mind that we must stick strictly to the section, and to go on

to any government's record during debate on this

section is certainly

straining the strictly relevant aspect of debate.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

2 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 2) intituled Court of Appeal Act to amend as follows:

Section 28, by deleting subsection (3).

Section 97, by deleting

section 97.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada