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 )

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7527 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

B.C. Packers Ltd. Mr. Lea –– 7527

Groundfish industry. Mr. Lea –– 7527

Mr. Howard

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7528

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 7529

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7529

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7529

Mrs. Wallace –– 7530

Mr. Stupich –– 7531

Mr. Howard –– 7532

Mr. Lockstead –– 7533

Mr. Passarell –– 7533

Mr. Brummet –– 7533

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7534

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

section 9 –– 7535

Mr. Macdonald

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Barrett

Mr. King

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Lea

Appendix

Written Answers to Questions –– 7551

WEDNESDAY, MAY 12, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in the

members' gallery today are this year's summer tour guides, who are

currently undergoing their training and introduction to the history of

this Legislature. Among them they speak a total of ten languages, an

important asset considering that British Columbia's parliament

buildings host almost 100,000 visitors during the summer months. I

would like to introduce from Victoria, Terry Barnett, Sonya Taft, Rex

Fyles, Janice Butkard, Dariol Rees, Shelley Pettapiece, Patrick

Antiphon and Rose del Rosario; from Ladysmith, Shannon Wyndlow and

Patrice Bryan; from Chilliwack, Gail Walter; and from Westbank, Wanda

Saunby. For the information of the members, these guides will join the

permanent tour guide staff on the May 24 long weekend and will be

conducting tours right through until Labour Day. I would ask the House

to make them very welcome as they complete their training and begin

their jobs as legislative tour guides.

MR. BARRETT: I

would ask the House to welcome a large number of United Fishermen and

Allied Workers Union members who are here meeting with legislators and

lobbying in the democratic process. It is to be hoped that their pleas

for gainful, honest employment will be listened to by all MLAs, and we

hope that they can go to work rather than go on welfare. I ask the

House to welcome them.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have got

the great pleasure to welcome to the assembly a most charming and

efficient lady, one who served as campaign chairman in Vancouver–Point

Grey and is also president of that constituency. She is a great worker

for the Social Credit Party: Mrs. Rosemary Dolman.

MR. RITCHIE:

I am very pleased today to introduce to the assembly a group of

students from the Mennonite Educational Institute of the Central Fraser

Valley. Here with their teacher, Mr. Peters, we have Tim Taves of

Central Fraser Valley, Norman Quai of Surrey, Michelle Dueck of

Chilliwack, Lois Dyck of Chilliwack, Norman Butther of Central Fraser

Valley and Pearl Schellenberg of Central Fraser Valley.

Also

in the gallery are guests from the Okanagan. We have Mr. Lawrence

Wilkes, who is president of the Okanagan Bible Institute, Mr. David

Pihl of the law firm Wilkinson and Pihl, and Mr. Pihl's son, Sean.

Would the House please welcome these guests.

MR. LORIMER:

In the precincts and to be in the House a little later in the afternoon

are students from Royal Oak secondary school in Burnaby. I might say

that this is the last trip for these people, as this school is closing

in June. I would like the assembly to join me in welcoming them when

they come in.

MR. STRACHAN: On behalf of our caucus,

I would like all members to join with me in extending best wishes and

many happy returns to the member for Omineca, Wolfman Jack, who is

today celebrating a birthday.

MR. KEMPF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm 29 again today.

It's

my great pleasure to introduce Mr. Ben Van Rhyan from Houston to the

House. Mr. Van Rhyan has served that community for many years in the

capacity of alderman, and he's still serving it on its hospital

society. With him today is his granddaughter Marsha. I would ask the

House to make both of them very welcome.

Oral Questions

B.C. PACKERS LTD.

MR. LEA:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. This may surprise

Mr. Speaker and members of the House, but the Minister of Environment

is also responsible for marine resources. During the past six months,

more than 500 shoreworkers — including skilled filleters, cold-storage

crews and general cannery workers — from the province of British

Columbia have lost their jobs in plant closures. That's 10 percent of

British Columbia's entire workforce when it comes to shoreworkers in

the fishing industry.

These aren't jobs that are going to

return when the economy revives; these are jobs that are gone forever.

Specifically, 301 lost jobs are due to a plant closure in Prince Rupert

at the Seal Cove plant of B.C. Packers.

Last week the

minister stated that officials were going to meet with the involved

parties. Have they met? Did they discuss the possibility of provincial

involvement in saving these jobs?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The answer is no. The meeting hasn't taken place, but it's due to take

place on Friday of this week. However, there are officials here today

from the UFAWU and a number of other delegations. They have requested a

meeting with the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development, and I would

advise the member that that meeting has been scheduled for 8:30

tomorrow morning at which time we would hope that the economic

development committee could discuss these matters with the officials

who are here representing many of these workers.

GROUNDFISH INDUSTRY

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister whether he has received word

from Ottawa asking for this province and its government to involve

themselves financially with a study into the groundfish industry.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I would like to take that question on notice to find out if that

specific request has been received from Ottawa. There is a substantial

amount of correspondence that goes on between federal Fisheries and

Oceans and the Ministry of the Environment. I wouldn't be opposed to

it, but I'd like to make sure I get the correct answer for the member.

MR. LEA:

Last week the minister said that the province had taken no action

whatsoever in getting a study into the groundfish industry underway. Am

I to understand that this week it's the same, that the province has

taken no action whatsoever except for the meeting with the fishermen

tomorrow that they've been forced into?

[ Page 7528 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I don't believe that anyone is being forced into a meeting. I think

that the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development has met with

virtually everyone who has ever requested a meeting. The UFAWU

requested a meeting, and we acquiesced to that request. In fact,

because of the urgency involved we put them on at the very first

available occasion, which is less than a week after having received

that request. I believe it is the first meeting of the committee that

has taken place since that request came in.

As for your

question on groundfish, I think you're trying to twist it just a little

bit between what you're asking today and what was said last week.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, there is no twisting whatsoever. Last week I asked whether

the province had taken any action to have a study into the groundfish

industry, and whether they've taken any action to make sure that the

plant at Seal Cove would remain open or be reopened and keep open until

the study is completed. This week the answer is the same: no action. So

I don't think there is anything twisted.

I'm asking the

minister: has the province done anything whatsoever within the last

week to look into the loss of jobs and keeping that plant open in

Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, yes.

Last week the member asked the question about this particular plant

and, in fact, had a suggestion about B.C. Packers' operation. I did

make some inquiries which led to some rather interesting results. At

present we don't limit people getting in or out of the processing

industry in this province, provided it meets the approval of the

federal agency; and at no time in their licence is there a criterion to

handle all types of fish species.

To paraphrase the question

the member asked last week: would we be requesting or forcing a company

that is "creaming" the fishing stocks to take groundfish as well as

processing herring roe and salmon? We don't have that policy at

present; it would be very difficult to enforce a policy or it would not

be beneficial for the majority of the fish-processing plants in this

province which don't have capacity to process groundfish.,

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Environment

whether he or his government has decided to take any initiatives to

save the groundfish industry from complete collapse — brought about by

the high-grading practices of groups such as B.C. Packers. If he has

decided to take any initiatives, could he share those initiatives with

the House, and could he tell us whether he intends to present them to

the Cabinet Committee on Economic Development?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

The answer to your first question is no. But we asked for suggestions

from the UFAWU and others, and we will be meeting with them tomorrow.

Following our meeting with them and after discussions with staff people

from my ministry, who will be there to answer questions from other

ministers involved in this business, there may be some change, and at

that time we will make a statement.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My

question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business

Development. The Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry

has just revised downward by 6 percent, or five million tonnes, the

forecast of the amount of coal required by the Japanese steel industry.

Can the minister advise the House whether he has recalculated his own

forecasts to put them in line with Japanese forecasts of coal needs in

the Japanese steel industry?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Speaker, in answer to the member's question, I read the same

article

that he read this morning. There are some statements contained in that

article which are not backed up by naming the people who made those

statements. However, I would like to inform him and the House that I

have watched the Japanese steel forecasts for the last seven years.

They have usually been on the increase; some years they're bigger than

others. If he's concerned about northeast coal, I'd like to tell him

that the Japanese steel industry did their long-range forecast two

years ago. They based that decision mainly on the decline in the use of

petroleum products in their blast furnaces. The Japanese steel

industry, the Japanese government and everybody involved are well aware

of their commitment to British Columbia and to Canada in taking the

coal for which they've contracted. I'd further like to inform the

member and the House that we are still selling only approximately 22

percent of the coking-coal requirements of the Japanese steel industry.

There is still room for additional contracts with the Japanese steel

industry unless, of course, the Japanese steel industry fails entirely.

As I've said before, I think the Japanese steel industry is a pretty

good barometer of world economics because they happen to be, along with

Canada, the most efficient steel industry in the world, and if the

Japanese steel industry fails, there won't be much hope for the world

economy. But I'm not a pessimist. The world is not coming to an end and

we will be bringing on new coal-mines. This government will always plan

for the future, because that's where the opportunities are. If we'd had

a little more faith a few years ago, and if you'd had faith, we

wouldn't be spending the billions of dollars that it's cost us to put

northeast coal together today. It would have been done before inflation

and people would be employed.

MR. SPEAKER: Please keep the answer within the scope established by the question. I recognize that the question was broad.

MR. LEGGATT:

My second question — the scope is quite narrow and I hope the minister

will think about it: is the minister still standing by his predictions

that we have to sell another 11 million tons a year so that the

taxpayers of the province of British Columbia will break even? Yes or

no?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I have never made that statement.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Can you hear the oohs and aahs, Mr. Speaker, as that iffy group over

there wobbles around the floor? I said that the Anzac spur line needs

more tonnage, but the overall project will return to the taxpayers of

British Columbia, and the taxpayers of Canada, billions of dollars

[ Page

7529 ]

over the life of the first two contracts. The Anzac spur line itself needs

more tonnage, the whole project will get more tonnage, and that's the benefit,

because we're building for the future. You have never heard me say that

the total project would not be beneficial to the taxpayers of British Columbia

and Canada, and don't you ooh and aah over there. The overall project certainly

will return billions of dollars, and the infrastructure will remain. We'll

have the port, the upgraded CNR line, the Anzac spur line, the roads, the powerlines

and the townsites all paid for on the backs of the first two contracts.

MR. LEGGATT:

If the minister is so confident about his analysis of this coal deal,

when is he going to table in this House the cost-benefit analysis on

the whole deal so that the rest of the taxpayers can have a look at it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In due course.

MR. LEGGATT:

Today the minister is quoted as saying: "No way will the Japanese want

to slow down the project. By giving us the contracts they made the

decision for northeast to go ahead. We didn't. If it doesn't go ahead

on time the Japanese will lose face." I am quoting what the minister

has to say about the Japanese. Considering the amount of money the

province is now putting into this project, will the minister confirm

that while the Japanese are losing face the taxpayers of British

Columbia are losing their shirts?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I don't know when I can convince that member of the opposition, who is

part of a party that's waffled all over the place on northeast coal.

They are against it, they want to close it down — and that's the truth.

But I want to tell you that there are signed contracts for northeast

coal.

MR. BARRETT: Table them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Why don't you table yourself once in a while? You know that those

contracts are between the coal companies and the steel industry of

Japan. I want to tell you that for a man who wants to be Premier of

this province, the way he has insulted our second-best customer…. He

knows he'll never be Premier of this province, or he wouldn't go around

insulting our second-best customer, the Japanese.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will come to order.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 20.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(Continued)

MR. COCKE: This is a housekeeping bill. There isn't too

much to it other than putting things in line, but I would think, Mr.

Speaker, since the agreement that was made in 1976 with the federal

government included tax points, among other things for the federal

participation in the delivery of health care in this province, that one

of the things I would like to see — and I think we can discuss it here

momentarily — is an accurate accounting of not only what those tax

points mean to B.C. but also what the additional grants are. The tax

points are significant, because I saw a great controversy arise

recently. I saw the Minister of Health for Canada say that British

Columbia gleans $969 million from the federal government for their

participation in our health-care plan. I saw, on the other hand, a

contrary statement from the first minister of this province indicating

that it was $300 million less. It strikes me that one way or another we

should be getting some truth.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You should talk.

MR. COCKE: Put on your skates, little minister.

While

the first minister is considering that, I would also ask him if he

would be sure to have all of the accounts paid and all of the vouchers

ready for delivery before he rushes off to Government House this

afternoon.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The designated speaker

for the official opposition responded briefly yesterday with respect to

Bill 20. One hesitates to use the overworked word "housekeeping, " but

I did indicate in my opening remarks that this is essentially to bring

our activity into line with the Federal Income Tax Act. I think all

members recognize that it is simply that. I move second reading of Bill

Motion approved.

Bill 20, Income Tax

Amendment Act, 1982 read a second time and referred to a Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 21, Mr. Speaker.

TAXATION (RURAL AREA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

(Continued)

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm going to take all the time

necessary at this particular moment to ensure that everything is in

order with respect to the second reading of this bill. I would like to

again indicate to the House that yesterday afternoon — after a fairly

busy day — I was not as properly prepared as I should have been.

MR. HOWARD: Just like your budget.

[ Page 7530 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Actually, compared to some other budgets we could talk about, Mr. Member, ours is holding firm and fine.

Mr.

Speaker, the purpose of this bill is fourfold. I will not ask members

to simply pass over second reading debate in order that we can discuss

it in committee. Clearly there are varying thrusts within the ambit of

Bill 21. One of the first activities of the bill is to amend a

section

of the Taxation (Rural Area) Act to broaden the exemption to include

improvements such as fixtures and machinery included in the second

definition of improvements under the Assessment Act.

certain Assessment Appeal Board hearings recently, it was found that a

property such as a ski-hill, when operated as a non-profit

organization, was of admitted and demonstrable benefit to all members

of a given community. But the wording of the section, which is actually

13(q), only allowed the land and the buildings to be exempted. As a

result, ski-tows or ski-lifts or other placements remained taxable. The

amendment, therefore, would make it possible for the total assessed

value of such properties, if they otherwise qualified, to be exempt

from property taxation.

The second thrust, Mr. Speaker, is

one alluded to in the budget speech of early April. It would implement

the increase in the rate of taxation of rural land from 1 percent of

assessed value to 1.2 percent, effective this taxation year. I point

out — not in defence but for the purpose of perspective — that this is

the first increase in this tax since 1917. This tax is the provincial

property tax, as members know, imposed on land that is not subject to

municipal or city property tax.

I recognize that property

owners in rural or unincorporated areas receive fewer services than do

municipal property owners and should, therefore, properly pay a

correspondingly lower rate of tax. But I think there is little

justification today for the extremely low rate which is now in effect.

In 1981 provincially supplied services to rural areas cost all

provincial taxpayers, through the government, something in the order of

$90 million to $100 million. A municipality with similar costs would

have had to finance about 65 percent of those costs through local

taxation. If a similar percentage had been applied to unincorporated

areas, the rural property tax rate in 1981 would have been in the order

of 25 mills. With a 10 mill rate, the general taxpayer of the province,

therefore, can be seen to have subsidized property taxpayers in

nonmunicipal or unincorporated areas by $25 million to $35 million last

year.

It seems to the government to be fair to the taxpayers

in rural areas to be asked to bear a slightly higher burden of

taxation. Could I point out, however, Mr. Speaker, that the increased

rate of tax will require an additional annual payment of only about $19

for the average rural taxpayer. About 243,000 properties are to be

affected by this change. The majority of these properties — not the,

vast majority but most of them — are residential. But on the other hand

they account for only 53 percent of the total tax paid through this

particular measure.

There is an amendment to another

section

to remove from the act the dollar amount of the fee to be charged for

obtaining a search and written statement indicating the status of tax

on a property, and to allow the fees to be prescribed by regulation.

The present fee, frankly, is not adequate to cover the cost of

conducting the search. Rather than amend the act each time a change in

the fee is required — upward or downward — over the course of coming

years, the fee can be set by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and in

accordance with government policy on fees.

In another

section the requirement that the ministry issue a receipt of payment

through the collector or surveyor of taxes is removed. It is proposed

that receipts only be issued where payment is made in cash or upon the

specific request of the taxpayer. This certainly conforms to the

practice in larger municipalities, and is consistent with the

provisions of the Financial Administration Act and policies regarding

control of public money. If some of this sounds familiar, then it was

the point I was making yesterday afternoon. About 320,000 receipts are

now issued under the act each year. This aspect of the bill before us

would remove the requirement regarding receipt issuance, and about

210,000 fewer receipts would likely be issued in the future. There are

cost savings to all of us as taxpayers as a result. A cost saving from

less postage, handling and data-processing would, as I said yesterday,

result in annual savings to the people of British Columbia of about

$83,000.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the latitude in

discussing several non-related aspects of this amending act. I move

second reading of Bill 21.

MRS. WALLACE: I am

certainly pleased to find that the minister has now got his act

together and presented us with all the information, as he sees it,

regarding this bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Now you agree with it?

MRS. WALLACE:

No, I'm afraid that I don't. He has his act together as he sees it, but

I certainly don't agree with all the arguments he has put forward. He

talked about the ski sites and so on, but I have some concerns about

the first

section of this bill. It is difficult to talk about this bill

without talking about the sections as the minister has done. He has

done it by

section because it deals with a lot of different things.

am concerned about the wording of this bill which says: "owned or

occupied and used exclusively" by a non-profit organization. I am

thinking about some of the small halls, for example, that are owned by

Girl Guides or 4-H Clubs, Farmers Institutes and those kinds of things

where there are rentals involved. They don't use the hall exclusively.

They rent it. I am concerned that the wording of this

section may

exclude them from being allowed to fall under this particular

section

of the act. I would like the minister's assurance that that is not the

case, that if a small community group has such an institution, the fact

that they rent it out for dollars to other organizations which may not

be non-profit will not exclude them from falling under that section.

The

greatest degree of difference between me and the minister concerns his

comments about the increase in rural taxation. He has spoken about

there being no increase in the 10 mill rate of taxation since 1917 or

something, when it was first brought in. The thing that he neglects to

say is that rural assessments have gone up exceedingly and that 10

mills on those assessments is creating a much greater revenue every

year.

I did mention the total amount for the Cowichan Valley

Regional District in another area of debate. For the nine rural areas

in the Cowichan Valley Regional District I have the value of a 10 mill

assessment — what it would raise in each area in 1981 and then in 1982

— and also what 12 mills would

[ Page 7531 ]

raise.

This is based on the new revised assessment. The total assessment for

the rural areas in 1981 was $138 million, and it is now being revised

to something over $150.6 million. We see that in area A, for example,

10 mills would raise $142,075 in 1981; in 1982 it will raise $148,575.

Now that we're going to 12 mills, that assessment will raise $178,290,

an increase of 25 percent in that one area.

In area B the

increase is over $50,000, a 27 percent increase on an additional 2

mills. Again this is an increase in the value of the 1982 assessment

over 1981 by something in excess of $10,000.

In area C —

which happens to be the area that I live in — in 1981, 10 mills would

raise $68,893; in 1982, because of the rapid development in that area,

we now find that 10 mills would have raised $99,121, an increase of

almost 50 percent. When we go to 12 mills in area C we find that we're

returning $118,946 to provincial coffers, an increase of 73 percent

over what we would have paid had the assessment remained at 10 mills.

That's a pretty big chunk to ask one small regional area to deliver.

It's a pretty big increase, particularly when we're talking about

restraint in government. Restraint has to come everywhere, not just

restraint on one section. If you're going to have restraint, it has to

be fair. You can't ask the people who live in area C to restrain their

wages. A lot of the people who live in that area are public servants

who work in Victoria. The minister is talking about 8 percent to 14

percent; the Premier is talking about zero to nothing. You can't

restrain their wages yet ask them to have a 73 percent increase in

their taxes.

In area D, another one in the south end, we have an increase of $58,642, a 68 percent increase, based on 12 mills instead of 10.

In area E there is a 51 percent increase, $55,870.

Those

are the kinds of increases being faced in the regional district as a

result of this particular bill. The minister has forgotten that those

taxes have been going up and the return has been going up year after

year. We have been paying our share. Every year those moneys have been

higher and higher at the 10 mill rate because our assessments have been

going up. I have a list of total assessments in the rural areas over

the last ten years. Of course, the value of the 10 mills is calculated

by simply taking one one-hundredth of that assessed value. Ten years

ago, in 1972, 10 mills raised $694,274; in 1973 it went a bit higher —

$757,186; in 1974 we were up to $1, 047,541. The growth continued until

1981, when the value of 10 mills was $1,380,297; this year 10 mills

would return to $1,807,508 to the provincial coffers. I'm suggesting

that that is an adequate increase without increasing it another 2

mills, which this act is doing. To say that we haven't been paying our

fair share…. I disagree with that. I think the rural areas have been

paying a fair share. The return is the assessment times the mill rate.

It's true that the mill rate hasn't changed, but certainly the

assessments in those rural areas have increased and the return has

increased as a result.

Leaving that and going on to the next

section, I have some concern about the fact that again we're into this

open kind of legislation where the fees can be set by order-in-Council.

It's a continuing trend of this government, Mr. Speaker, to put more

and more of those things into regulation and out of legislation. This

is another example of that kind of closed cabinet government, where

there is nothing in here to say what those fees can be. With a

government that is prepared to make a 20 percent increase in the mill

rate in

an act like this, how do we know what's going to happen to the

fees? There is no assurance that those fees will be reasonable and

fair. They may well be anything. I just don't like that direction of

taking those things out of legislation and putting them in

orders-in-Council. It’s not the first time you've heard me say this,

Mr. Speaker; I've been consistent at least on that particular point of

saying that I believe things should be enshrined in legislation and not

left to regulation and cabinet order. This is just one more example.

have some concern about not mailing out receipts, and I'm wondering

just what assurance people are going to have that everything is in

order and that they're not going to find themselves in trouble

somewhere down the line because they have not received a receipt. I

recognize the point of trying to save some money on postage, but

perhaps there are other places where we could save money on postage

much better. One of the things I'd like to suggest is that if you

didn't mail out B.C. Government News

you might be able to mail out receipts to taxpayers, and that might be

one way of reducing your postage bill and a much fairer way of doing

it. I think that people could find themselves in a vulnerable position

as a result of not having receipts.

With those remarks, I would ask the minister to bear them in mind when he responds, and I would like to hear his comments.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was genuinely puzzled yesterday. It wasn't an

attempt to do anything other than to wonder whether there was some

mistake. I don't agree with what the minister has said today, but at

least we're talking about the same subject now.

I would

certainly concur in many of the concerns raised by the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). The minister has pointed out that it's

the first time since 1917 that the rate of tax has increased. I don't

know the story on assessments; I would expect that assessments have

changed almost every year since then, but at nowhere near the rate at

which they have increased in the last year or in the last decade. That

of 1981 would be far and above the greatest rate of increase in

assessments ever experienced in the history of the province. So while

we're saying that the rate hasn't increased each year, the government

presumably has been getting more money — perhaps not every year since

1917, but in recent years the government has been collecting more money

— although perhaps in almost every year there has actually been a

decrease in the area of land covered by this particular tax, since more

and more area has been incorporated into municipalities. So although,

as I say, the total acreage is going down, the total assessment has

gone up at a very rapid rate in recent years, and to say that the

increase in tax rate is the first in 65 years is telling only a very

small part of the story.

The minister gave us some figures in his introductory remarks, and I would like an opportunity to review these in Hansard

and would ask him to be prepared to give us more detail when we get to

committee stage. For example, he has said that the cost of services

provided to the properties, if you like, in the areas covered by this

legislation runs from $90 million to $100 million. I believe he was

comparing it with what this could cost in municipalities. Of course,

the service supplied even by the provincial government in

municipalities is quite different from the service provided in rural

areas. When he talks about the services' supplied to rural areas, I

don't know whether he is talking about the cost of highways

[ Page 7532 ]

those areas, for example. Certainly they don't get very much in the way

of water service or sewage assistance, but they do get highways. And if

that's the case, I would argue that the highways are not there to serve

the rural areas nearly so much as they are there to serve the

municipalities on either end of rural areas. So I don't think it's a

fair comparison to use those figures without a bit more explanation.

say that the tax rate in the rural areas would have to be 25 percent to

equal what is being charged in municipalities — again there isn't

enough detail there to say whether or not the minister is telling us as

much as we would have to know to intelligently discuss this particular

legislation…. We're opposed to this increase in taxes at this time.

We've argued all along, and the minister stated in his budget speech,

supporting what we have said and what he himself has said, that this is

not the time in the economic history of the community to increase taxes

and to increase them at a rate of 20 percent. It's not the time to

carry on with further increases in charges for government services.

We've argued during the budget debate, and figures were presented by

outsiders to show, that increases in user rates for government services

will net the government an extra $300 million to $500 million in 1982,

over and above the figures for 1981. This is one more increase — at

least, although it's not detailed in the legislation, I suspect it's an

increase. Taking it out of the legislation and leaving it up to cabinet

to set this fee, it may be set as often as cabinet meets, if they so

decide. The charge for any of these government services can be changed

every time the cabinet meets. As it is, it takes it out of the

public-discussion area as well. If the minister is obliged to bring in

an amendment to the legislation, then he knows that the bill is going

to be printed and is going to be presented in the House. It's something

that the press look at, because there isn't much else to look at when

bills are being presented, and it's something about which we can speak

in the House. So there is public attention to every move by the

government to extract more revenue from the pockets of taxpayers in the

province.

Taking it out of the legislation and putting it

into cabinet means that it's done relatively secretly. Certainly

orders-in-Council are made public after the fact, but they aren't seen

to the same extent as are bills presented in this House. And beyond any

doubt, they are not discussed in the same way that legislation can be

discussed in the House. It's a tax grab. It's the wrong time for a tax

grab, and it's taking away from the Legislature the authority to set

the fees for services. On those grounds, the opposition is opposed to

this legislation.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, f have

just a few brief remarks with respect to the bill. The preliminary

comments last evening, and the references made again today, about the

minister having been in error in his introductory remarks…. I don't

think anyone should make a big deal about that, Mr. Speaker. It happens

so often that it's almost commonplace in this chamber.

want to add my voice to those who have objected so far, as I will and I

do, to the concept which is becoming more and more prevalent with this

government, Mr. Speaker, and that is removing from statutes authorities

that were vested in the Legislature and placing those authorities in

the hands of cabinet. It's a part of the centralizing of authority and

power and the removing of a variety of subject matters from the arena

of public debate. Included therein now will be the subject matter

relating to searches and fees and that sort of thing. Part of that

which we have inherited in a democracy, along with the concept of

freedom of speech, is the opportunity to exercise that freedom of

speech and to publicly discuss matters affecting the public. The more

that government seeks to take the decision-making process unto itself

and away from the elected body, the more it runs counter to the

historic essence of freedom of speech and the right to exercise it, and

that is true in this bill, as it is in a number of other bills that

have been dealt with in previous sessions and those that are before

this session at the moment. I object to the bill on that ground.

wonder — and I'm not that familiar with just how this functions — about

the provision in the bill that removes the requirement for the issuance

of a receipt to a taxpayer. I'm thinking in terms of rural landowners

and property owners who may rent their premises and require a tax

receipt for income tax purposes. In filing an income tax return, I

understand, it's not necessary to actually provide Revenue Canada with

a copy of a receipt for taxes in a situation where a rental or lease of

property takes place, but it is necessary to have it in one's

possession in case the tax man comes calling and wants to have an

examination made of that particular claim on a person's income tax

return. I'd appreciate some explanations from the minister as to the

effect of removing the requirement that a receipt be issued for taxes

paid.

Apart from the general question of a requirement for

tax purposes, there is the age-old custom that many families,

especially people in rural areas, follow, that of keeping receipts for

everything for which they pay. It is standard practice, normal

budgetary housekeeping, a practice inherited by a great many people and

still followed. If you are going to deny them the opportunity to have

the receipt for the taxes that they've paid on their property, you are

running contrary to that feeling that people have about keeping

receipts for money they have put out.

I also want to raise

an objection not necessarily about this bill, but about the practice of

government with respect to unpaid taxes. As we know, in the Municipal

Act unpaid taxes carry with them an interest demand limited to 12

percent per year. In other words, if a person doesn't pay taxes to a

municipality the maximum that that municipality can impose by way of

interest on unpaid taxes is 12 percent. That maximum is set out

precisely in the Municipal Act. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a

week or so ago we had not a debate but an examination of this matter

during question period when, in my own home town of Terrace, it was

discovered that a certain business person with connections in the

cabinet had failed to pay taxes to the municipality of Terrace and

thereby denied the municipality of Terrace the benefit of those funds.

Terrace municipality could only impose a 12 percent interest payment on

those unpaid taxes, a situation which the Minister of Municipal Affairs

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) applauded. He thought it was okay for taxpayers

and especially business people with connections in the cabinet not to

pay their taxes, sock the money away in an interest-bearing account or

use it for some other business purposes, and only be required to pay 12

percent on it.

In this particular act which this bill seeks

to amend there is a provision for interest payments on unpaid taxes,

but the provision in the act is subject to a decision by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In other words, if a person or business

in a rural area does not pay taxes as required by this act, the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can establish an interest rate high

enough so that there is no incentive not to pay taxes. In a

municipality there is an incentive not to pay taxes and

[ Page

7533 ]

that

incentive is the statutory limit of 12 percent. In a rural area that is

not the case. What we basically have is a discrimination in the

Municipal Act against business people in rural areas. We know that

most businesses — retail, manufacturing, processing, service — are

located in municipal areas. There are very few businesses,

relatively speaking, that are not within a municipality. So business

gets a break in a municipality, the break being that they get an

advantage by s not paying their taxes to the municipality. The

municipality loses because it doesn't have the income, and it has to go

to the bank and borrow to run its affairs at 16, 17, 18 percent or

whatever the going rate is at any given time. All they are able to

impose on the delinquent taxpayer is 12 percent. I am not arguing

anything else except that if it is possible to bring in a piece of

legislation to make a few changes in the Taxation (Rural

Area) Act — the bill before us right now — then it is equally easy for

the Minister of Municipal Affairs to bring in an alteration to the

Municipal Act to make sure that municipalities get their taxes paid. I

say that it is deliberately discriminatory on the part of the

government to favour the non-payment of taxes to municipal areas by

making the interest rate low enough that it's more attractive to not

pay the taxes than it is to pay them.

Those are the major reasons I would like to put forward with respect to this.

Let me sum up my objections, as others I have done. First, it is removing funds

from the hands of rural taxpayers at a time, economically, when we should

be allowing people to have every last possible cent they can have in their

pockets in order to keep going. The removal of money by way of increased taxes,

regardless of the rationale about time or percentage increase or anything

else, during a time when the economy is down is the worst possible thing to

do.

It just adds to the decline in the economy.

Secondly, the power grab that's in this legislation is an other reason

for my opposition to the bill. The government is seeking once more to pull away

from the Legislature the opportunity to debate publicly and to have an influence

on public policy, which is an anti-democratic stance.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I take my place briefly in this debate. In order not to be repetitive,

I won't give the figures for all the rural areas in my riding that are

affected. I'm surprised that some of the rural members on the

government side haven't taken their place in this debate, because their

constituents are just as affected as the constituents of rural members

on this side of the House.

I want to point out to the minister that assessments in rural areas have

gone up significantly this year, which obviously increases the tax base and

amount of tax payable quite significantly. This is taxes in every field

as well: in recreation areas, land areas, leased lands. I have a list of about

200 people who contacted me personally about their increased assessments over

last year, or their assessed values. Assessments tripled in a few cases in

some areas. I know this is not the place to discuss assessments, but I want

to point out to the minister that when assessments increase for people in

rural areas, and I'm sure the minister is very much aware of this, so does

their tax payable. The other point I want to make is that the basic residential

tax payable in rural areas is increasing from $75 to $125. That's an increase

of almost 50 percent, a minimum of 40 percent.

We have before this House a bill that tells a certain sector of the economy

to practise restraint, yet the government itself is not practising restraint.

It is imposing this type of taxation on the backs of the people living in rural

areas, in this case, and on all the people in this province. User fees are increasing

all the time, yet this government has no hesitation whatsoever in increasing

taxes in one fell swoop by 40-plus percent in this one area. I want to be on

record as opposing his bill, and hopefully the minister will review this bill

and possibly withdraw it when he has an opportunity to do so shortly.

MR. PASSARELL:

Like my colleague, the member for Mackenzie, I too am concerned that

very few members are in his House to listen to this important bill

which affects the residents of the north.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

The

Minister of Finance, in his initial statement, said this was an

excellent bill. He said further that it was high time for rural

residents to have an increase in their rural taxes, since hey hadn't

been increased since 1917. I find that total nonsense. It might be

worth while for the Minister of Finance to some up to the far north

some time and see the conditions; see what services the government

returns on the taxes that we pay to the south through our resources.

There are very few services available in the north in health and social

services, and roads are poor.

More importantly, this is a further taxation increase upon the residents of

the far north. Instead of presenting a bill that increases taxes in the far north,

in the rural areas of this province, this minister should be presenting a bill

to lower taxes in the far north. We've seen rural land assessment taxes dramatically

increase this year and last year. With Bill 21 we see taxes increased by 20 percent

for residents who live in the far north; the ones who make this province a great

province are finding that their taxes are once again going up by 20 percent.

I'll

be voting against this bill, as will the official opposition. This bill

has no benefit whatsoever to the rural residents of the far north.

Since we in the north pay more and more in taxes and see our taxes go

the south to build football stadiums, I am totally opposed to this

bill. During this time of restraint that the Premier often speaks

about, it is ludicrous to ring in a bill that increases rural property

taxes in the far north by 20 percent to subsidize the residents in the

south even further. Residents in the far north should be receiving

lower taxes by this government and not higher taxes. I'd like the

Minister of Finance to think before he brings in a bill of his nature

to increase residents' taxes and penalize them for living in rural

areas of this province and the far north. They re already overburdened

by high gasoline taxes and high food costs, and they have few social

services brought to the north. I would expect this Minister of Finance

to bring in some type of a referendum and see how the people of the far

north would accept his bill. Mr. Speaker, the official opposition, and

myself as a resident of the far north, are totally opposed to this

bill, and we will be voting against it.

MR. BRUMMET:

I would just like speak briefly on the rural taxation increase. It

would appear that the member preceding me, the member for Atlin, was

attributing the increases to the far north only. As I understand this

bill, it's rural taxation throughout the province. I think it is

necessary, if not popular, to get rural residents to pay a

proportionately greater share of the revenue, because the cost of

servicing the

[ Page 7534 ]

rural

communities has increased. The demands are much greater for roads,

sewerage and for a variety of services that are funded largely from

government revenue. We need to recognize that in the taxation. It is

not a major increase, and it certainly does not affect just the people

of the north. The lower taxation tends to encourage people more and

more to move farther away from the services and then to demand those

services at a much greater cost, so I think the minimal increase in the

mill rate for rural properties can be justified. For that reason I

support the bill.

If there is a way to deal with the more

isolated areas, I would suggest that it is in holding down the

assessments. The assessments have grown far too much for the value

received and the value of the property. I think increasing the mill

rate slightly to pay for the extra services and extra costs is a

reasonable move.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I made notes of the

comments offered by the members who've spoken in this brief debate on

second reading of Bill 21 — the members for Cowichan-Malahat, Nanaimo,

Skeena, Atlin and North Peace River. I think there may be some

misunderstanding on the part of two members who alluded to one of the

first moves taken by the amending bill when I spoke of a ski-hill as an

example. I would refer members to

section 13(2)(q), which I referred

to in the opening remarks. We're not changing that, Mr. Speaker, in

terms of those non-profit buildings which are now considered to be

exempt from taxation — that is, land and buildings owned exclusively by

a non-profit organization for activities which are of demonstrable

benefit to all members of the community where the land is located.

Rather we are expanding it. I think the member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Mrs. Wallace) expressed concern with regard to what this would do to a

community hall, a hall owned by Girl Guides or some other similar youth

organization. It does nothing to that, Mr. Speaker, but rather

clarifies the problem with the kind of activity, such as a ski-hill,

where the building now — the lodge, as it might be termed — owned and

operated by a non-profit society is exempt, but the accoutrement — not

a bad word for a Wednesday afternoon — the ancillary facilities, the

lifts, the tows, are not exempt, and we think that they should be in a

non-profit setting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I never accused the member of that; I would never do that, sir. Mr.

Speaker, to the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), I don't think that I

identified this as an excellent bill. No minister enjoys raising taxes.

I pointed out that this was an appropriate bill for a modest increase

in the tax rate in rural areas of the province of British Columbia, the

first change since 1917. We, frankly, examined a variety of options

within the ministry and opted for the lowest possible lift in a tax

rate which has remained unchanged over those good number of years. So I

don't take pleasure in this particular measure, but nonetheless, as I

tried to identify at the outset, I think there is a necessity to have a

slightly better balance between the tax rate levied in municipalities

and the tax rate levied in non-municipal areas.

To the

member for Atlin: I think the north-south argument was appropriately

answered by the last speaker in the debate, the member for North Peace

River (Mr. Brummet).

Concern was also expressed regarding

the issuance of a receipt. I attempted to explain, Mr. Speaker — and I

think it's correct — that in most large municipalities now, if not in

the majority of municipalities, the property-tax payer does not

automatically receive a receipt for the payment or payments that may be

made on that particular property. Members will know, of course, that

there is the cancelled cheque, which obviously is of some use. But in

the case of the home property owned by my wife and myself in Saanich

municipality, we do not receive a receipt on the tax notice unless we

ask for it for some particular reason, if only for confirmation that it

has been received and that everything is in order. That is precisely

what is proposed here: if the taxpayer wishes a receipt, then the

taxpayer is entitled, and will be entitled, to request a receipt. But

the receipts will not be blindly sent out to a number of people simply

because that has been the practice over a good number of years. So I

don't think, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), that it is in any way

running a danger with respect to the taxpayer finally having

confirmation that that has been received on time and is in good order.

Mr.

Speaker, obviously there are those opposite who are opposed to the

increase. I suppose I would simply refer to the budget where very few

taxes imposed in the province of British Columbia last year were

altered this year. That was the thrust of the budget speech. I don't

want to revisit the budget, but since it was mentioned by members

opposite, we determined within the Ministry of Finance — I determined

as minister — to hold the number of tax increases to the absolute

minimum. Members will know and will admit, I'm sure, that there were

very few. In fact, it was called a "good-news budget." This is one of

those areas, nonetheless, where it was felt that an increase was not

only appropriate but, in fact, necessary. Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading of Bill 21.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

King

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

Bill 21, Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

[ Page

7535 ]

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

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

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

MR. MACDONALD:

Last Tuesday the minister announced that he had his guidelines, and he

wondered what the opposition's guidelines were. What did he say at that

time? Second reading; in committee; in the corridor, statements to the

press: "Where are your numbers?" At the beginning of the debate he said

his numbers were 10, 12, 14, and then he asked: "Where are the

opposition's numbers?" Where are the minister's numbers now? The

Premier is going around the country charging us with conspiracy. Does

the Minister of Finance speak to the Premier? The Premier has totally

undermined what the Minister of Finance was saying in second reading

debate on this bill. These figures are totally meaningless today.

Obviously

you have a government in which the Minister of Finance is not kept

informed about what's in the Premier's mind. Maybe nobody knows what's

in the Premier's mind, not even the Premier. My gosh, have we ever seen

such blind staggers as we're seeing under this government! What are

these guidelines, Mr. Minister of Finance? We don't agree with them,

but what are they today? They've been shattered by the Premier, who is

sitting beside you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the

government, the Premier and other members of the executive council have

indicated the range of figures that will apply. We still ask the

members opposite if they have any numbers in mind. What percentages do

they think are appropriate in these conditions? The member was on his

feet asking about our figures. We have spelled out a great deal, not

only in the debate that commenced on February 18 but also in comments

made elsewhere. I think the Premier and I have emphasized that there

are upper limits to increases in compensation. The basic upper limit is

10 percent. It alone is subject to a 2 percent decrease or increase,

depending on the previous compensation experience. The guideline has

not changed. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear what figures

the member opposite has. Since he's so concerned about this, I would

like to hear his views. Tell us.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr.

Chairman, they sure have changed in the last couple of days. Now the

Premier's saying something to this effect: there's nothing there

whatsoever if any person is laid off in the public service in British

Columbia, or services are cut. Did the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) not hear these statements that the Premier was making when he

was speaking beside him and then out in the corridor?

We've been engaged in a total waste of time in bringing in this legislation.

The whole thing has been changed in mid-game by the Premier. There's no

planning or understanding of the economy, no government program that makes any

sense or holds together for more than a few weeks. They're just staggering

along.

The

Legislature was called to deal with inflation — if that's the problem,

and it is a problem throughout British Columbia and North America. We

were called back so late, after the TV announcement of this program.

Now the program is totally in shreds and we're just wasting our time

debating this bill.

I think that the Premier is not

consulting the Minister of Finance. He's purely playing politics with

this legislation, and taking polls to see how his various statements

are reacted to by the public out there. It's been a political charade —

nothing to do with restraint, nothing to do with public service and

services. It's politics. And the Premier is not talking to the Minister

of Finance. The Minister of Finance is not in his confidence, What the

Minister of Finance said in terms of these guidelines is totally

inoperative today as a result of the speeches and statements of the

Premier, as to which it is obvious that he did not consult his own

Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman,

when the New Democratic Party was government in British Columbia there

was a spendthrift philosophy that has not been duplicated — and,

hopefully, never will be again — in British Columbia. The member

opposite has come forward, once again, to suggest that the maximum

limits brought in by legislation, announced by the Premier on public

television, are minimum limits. How could anybody have listened to that

public statement, followed by all of the debate which has since taken

place in this House, and still believe that what was explicitly stated

as a maximum that the taxpayers of British Columbia could afford…?

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, that the member who has managed once more to

misunderstand has left the House. This is what lies at the heart of

economic difficulty and economic mismanagement: the belief that somehow

government purses are bottomless, the taxpayers' resources infinite,

the right of the public sector and their union leaders to hold the

public to ransom, even in times of economic difficulty…. All of

that floods forth when you have people who can listen and watch

statements repeatedly made and still come up believing the precise

opposite of what was stated — namely, that maximum means minimum.

course, it's consistent, because when they were government there was no

maximum for anything until the awful time of accounting came. As the

Premier's father used to say, when they were in opposition

before….

MR. BARRETT: You used to attack them, you phony!

HON. MR. McGEER:

You bet I attacked the government. But one thing, Mr. Chairman, I

warned the public of British Columbia again and again: believe in what

the New Democratic Party say; don't, as the media said at that time,

say they don't mean it. They were fools then, they were fools in

government and they're fools now. It's not theory any longer It's

proof. And the proof is that no insight at all has come from that

period of wastrel spending when they were government, and the period in

which they have had time to reconsider all of the things that they did

in error. No, that hasn't come. Instead, they still appear on the floor

of the

[ Page 7536 ]

House

this very afternoon, arguing that maximum is minimum. What

irresponsibility, Mr. Chairman! Read the legislation and begin to

understand for the first time that there is some requirement of

responsibility, not only when you're in government but when you're in

opposition. You're not here to climb into bed with your union friends,

even though they support you politically. You're here to be responsible

to all of the citizens of British Columbia.

The only thing

that I could hope for us to find this afternoon in this debate is, for

the first time in 22 years in this Legislature, for the first and the

second members for Vancouver East to discover a minimum of economic

responsibility. We're not asking for a maximum from them, only a

minimum.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Chairman

for giving me the opportunity to engage in debate on this

Section in

committee stage and discuss some of the words used by that hon. member,

the second member for Vancouver Point–Grey, when he talks about

responsibility to the voters and taxpayers. I don't mind sanctimonious

lectures from an absolutely phony position. I never ran as a Liberal. I

never crossed the floor and lacked the responsibility of going back to

my own electors and saying to my electors: "I've now changed my mind

and I'd like you to decide on it." Oh, no, Mr. Chairman. What a

political chameleon we have defending the University Hospital from cuts

because it's his favorite baby, while every other hospital in this

province is being cut. There is not a murmur, whimper or cry from him

for the ordinary taxpayers of this province who expect health care on

the same basis — not from the spoiled children of that minister who

will be affected by this.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague was not

quoting his confusion about this section. Far be it from him to do

that. He was quoting the confusion of a supporter of Social Credit,

namely the editorial page of the Vancouver Province . And we

have that minister lecturing the editorial page of the Province today,

saying to them that they have their nerve, their cheek, their gall —

that right-wing free enterprise newspaper — to question the Premier's

schizophrenic figures around this bill. I quote from the editorial, so

the minister will know exactly where these questions come from — not

from my colleague in the New Democratic Party, not from the great body

of the unwashed out there to whom the minister deigns to talk about

restraint, when they buy bottles of wine at $37.50. Pouilly Fuisse is

showing restraint. It'd be cheaper to buy it by the case instead of

four bottles at a time for six people to slosh down when they're

talking about how the peons watch themselves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe they do buy it by the case.

MR. BARRETT:

Maybe they buy it by the case. Who am I but your humble servant, Mr.

Chairman? Who am I but just a spokesperson for the ordinary people who

buy $3 Calona Red for a cheap high to try to escape the reality of this

government?

I'm just quoting this right-wing free enterprise

newspaper that asks the question my colleague asked. Will you lecture

Paddy Sherman? Oh, please, sir, will the minister get on the phone and

slap Paddy Sherman's wrist for confusing maximum with minimum and

twisting the Premier's words? We would not want trouble in that wide

bed against the NDP that embraces renegade Liberals and runaway Tories.

There's one — the Minister of Finance.

This is the question asked by the Vancouver Province

and I ask that minister who speaks so eloquently from the

university-welfare field…. He's been on welfare as a public employee

all his

working life, and he's never once asked for any cutback in his wages or

restraint for his goals at the university. Oh, that we could all live

in the luxury of the faculty club and tip our little wineglasses and

talk about the cutbacks for the peons out there. Oh, that we could all

be university graduates and just put it right there in the trough and

say: "Let it slop a little bit on us and maybe some will drop to the

janitor." Oh, it's so nice to be lectured by those common people with

common touch and common interest. He's never driven out of Point Grey

in his life, but he comes in and talks about my colleague. This is in

theVancouver Province , and I'd ask the minister to address

himself to it: "Premier Bill Bennett's threat to bring in tougher

legislation to keep the public-sector labour contracts in line is

confusing his entire restraint program."

Incidentally,

before I forget, Mr. Chairman, the Premier also said that if they don't

pay attention to him, he's going to call the House together. I would

ask the minister to inform the Premier that the House is already

sitting. He called it for April 5, and we're still here. Who does Bill

Bennett talk to? The Premier or himself? We're talking of two people.

Bill Bennett doesn't know the House is sitting, but the Premier does.

Are they one and the same or not? He's going to threaten to call the

House together. You're not here, Mr. Chairman. The Clerk is not there.

Those attendants are not here. I know that minister is not all there.

But somebody had better tell the Premier that the House has been called

and we're here and the Socred Whip showed up.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe Kinsella doesn't know it.

Anyway, back to the editorial by this right-wing newspaper.

Oh, they're going to get their heads together. A quarter and a quarter makes a half wit, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

A Liberal and a Tory makes a Socred. There it is in the making. How

long is the gestation period? That depends on how the polls are going.

If they show a rise in their support, it takes over within hours.

Don't

leave now! I'm waiting for…. Mr. Chairman, there's the same

minister who complains when my friend goes out to respond to a call

from nature taking off because the call of logic is frightening him out

of the House.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm glad I've got the audience of the back bench on this committee debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, possibly somewhere along the line we could get back to the compensation guideline

section 9 of the act.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I intend to keep my remarks under the same confined, strict limits of debate

[ Page 7537 ]

shown

by the former Liberal, the now minister in the reconverted Social

Credit government, which is wide, unlimited, unbound nonsense.

This is the editorial related to this section:

"Premier

Bill Bennett's threat to bring in tougher legislation to keep

public-sector labour contracts in line is confusing his entire

restraint program. It apparently amounts to changing the rules in the

middle of the game, and that may lead to the kind of confrontation that

B.C. can well do without in its currently unstable economic situation."

charge this government with deliberately seeking a confrontation with

labour for political purposes. I believe that. I believe that this

government under Bill Bennett, the Premier of this province, is

determined to seek a confrontation with the ordinary working people of

British Columbia for electoral purposes and is willing to undermine

this legislation to seek that confrontation.

The next question the editorial asks is:

"If

the restraint program is to work at all, those involved should have

confidence in the ground rules to be followed." — I quote from the Vancouver Province ,

not from the member for Vancouver East — "Mr. Bennett himself has said

public-service contracts could provide increases between 10 and 14

percent and that the program will help bring parity among the employees

in the various sectors.

"Mr. Bennett must have known what he was doing" — I'm

not sure if that's a question or a statement — "when he brought in

the restraint legislation setting up a compensation commission to supervise

public-sector bargaining and giving commissioner Ed Peck the authority."

In the same edition of the Vancouver Province

a question is raised by my colleague the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Macdonald), a distinguished member of the bar, a Queen's

Counsel, an hon. member of this House, and a lot more besides that, all

of which I need not recite here. When he says in the Vancouver Province

that "Bill Bennett says it's 5 percent or less," he's proving the

point that the Premier doesn't talk to the Minister of Finance or the

Minister of Finance is not listening. All you're doing is confusing the

Vancouver Province , and they want to support you. They want to

embrace you. You won't call the motion on the order paper that's

criticizing them. But that's another issue that I don't want to bring

up here because it would be out of order. If it was in order, Mr.

Chairman, I would bring up the fact that the motion chastising the

Province hasn't been called yet, but I won't bring it up, because it's

not in order to bring it up.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I won't even bring up one word about that motion.

go on to read from this, related to this section: "The program has been

widely supported — except in the labour movement, naturally." The Vancouver Province supports it. I'm not surprised and you're not surprised that labour doesn't support it, but that the Vancouver Province does.

"The public generally accepts the need to keep government

spending within its ability to pay. And its ability to pay is very much restricted

this year by the recession. But those conditions were very much in evidence

when Mr. Bennett drew up his restraint program. He insisted the program was

not intended to destroy the collective bargaining process."

a pig's eye! "You can bargain collectively in a free society all you

want, but if you don't do what I do," says old dictator Bill, "then

I'll ram down your throats what my decision is going to be." So what

are you going through this charade for? Who knows what the Premier's

statement will be by tomorrow? Will it be 3 percent tomorrow? Why are

we debating this? Will it be 2 percent, I percent? The minister has

been made to look silly by the Premier.

Now I ask the

minister in committee: what did the Premier mean by this statement that

public servants are facing 5 percent or less? Would you tell us, Mr.

Minister, were you consulted by the Premier? And will you tell us what

5 percent or less means? You tell us. And what does that statement have

to do with this

section in the bill?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if the Leader of the Opposition was in the House or not when I answered the earlier question.

MR. BARRETT: I was right here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was quiet when the member was speaking.

MR. BARRETT: I was right here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Don't push, Mr. Member. You tried that before — push, push, push — and we go through this same thing.

answered the question, and I think I indicated precisely what was

intended. I'm pleased to see that the NDP research office is working

well. At least it was able to put his hands on this morning's Province .

MR. BARRETT:

I want to acknowledge this brilliant answer by the minister, who feels

personally threatened by the nasty opposition asking questions. I have

no personal threats against you, sir — through you, Mr. Chairman. I

promise not to insult you; I promise not to hurt your feelings. Sir —

through you, Mr. Chairman — I humbly submit that because some people

switch parties like hopping out of one political bed into

another…. That's not a history that I will bring up at this time.

I just ask you simply: does your word mean a fig to anybody when in

this

section you talk 10 percent to 14 percent, and the Premier goes

out into the world and says 5 percent or less? He's made a fool of you,

not me. I would never do that, no, sir. I humbly withdraw any offensive

words I've said to you.

Why do you allow the Premier to make

a fool of you? Here it is in today's Province — I don't need a whole

research staff — delivered free. Did he talk to you about this 5

percent? Are you going to write a letter to the Province and explain it

to them and take them out of their confusion? What would your letter

be, if you were to write a letter to the Province and say to them that

5 percent is really no different than 10 percent? Could you tell us

that? Could you tell us exactly what the Premier meant by this

statement, "5 percent or less"? Would you tell us that, please, in a

few words?

Mr. Chairman, what's happened here is that the

Minister of Finance is being used. He didn't know the content of the

February 18 speech, but after the speech was over a poll was

[ Page 7538 ]

taken

to discover whether or not the people were in favour of the word

"restraint." That does not include cabinet ministers and their expense

accounts, my friend; that's the people who pay the bills. Now

$400-a-night hotel bills for cabinet ministers are okay. Four hundred

bucks a night to lay their precious bodies down to comfort while they

toil for the people is worth it — in those down beds in the luxurious

settings; then they go out for the dinners with the $37.50 bottles of

wine. But we've got to tell the working people that they must restrain

themselves from trying to pay their mortgages — not a word about

inflation, not a word about mortgage rates at 18 percent. Would I see a

headline that the Premier orders interest rates to go down to 10

percent? No, we get a bill. The minister does his

I'm-above-all-this-politics number — and he does it well. Oh, you'd

love to be above politics, you'd love to be the super-administrator,

the one man in that government who has a handle on logic and reason —

and you've got skewered, Now, when you've got a chance to explain the

skewering, you sit there in silence.

The Vancouver Province

wants to know when 10 percent means 5 percent. Were you told that the

Premier was going to make the statement that they're going to take 5

percent or less? Are you embarrassed? You can't kid us that none of

this is going to get out of here, because we're not going to tell

stories out of this chamber.

MR. MACDONALD: Who's running the government? Is it Kinsella?

MR. BARRETT:

That' right, tell us in the confines of this little quiet chamber. Were

you told about the 5 percent? What does it mean? How do you feel about

people in the bargaining process being threatened? While they're told

to bargain collectively in a free atmosphere, how do you feel about

them being threatened in the middle of labour negotiations that they

had better take this settlement? Have you discussed that aspect with

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich)? Is there a law against an

employer threatening employees in the middle of the bargaining process?

Is there such a law, Mr. Lawyer Member? Yes, there is. Has the Premier

been a law-breaker? Tell me, through you, Mr. Chairman, just between

us. I promise not to tell anyone else. How do you explain the Premier

and the Province understanding that the legislation originally was 10

to 14 percent and then the statement was made that it's 5 percent?

Would you please tell me how you explain that? You can't explain it,

can you? You've been embarrassed, haven't you? Oh, yes, you have. Just

like when you had to answer that question about the advertisement.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I quote from the editorial:

"The

Premier said that if all public-sector contracts came in at 14 percent

there would be 'layoffs and a reduction of programs.' Obviously he and

the unions should be careful that nothing they do leads, for instance,

to further cutbacks in health services.

"But

either the restraint process and the legislation backing it up is

sufficient unto the need or it was badly designed in the first place."

But

why this change? That's the question. That question is not from the

editorial; it is mine. Could you tell me why the figures were

originally 10 percent and 14 percent and now they are being threatened

with 5 percent? Could you tell me the reason for that change?

MR. HOWARD: Fascists don't have to answer.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think the member for Skeena used a term in an interjection which I

think we've all found to be offensive. I didn't rise to answer the

questions, which I'm not compelled to answer as I understand the rules

of debate and committee, but I would ask the member for Skeena to

withdraw.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. The minister has asked for the withdrawal of a term

which has been determined to be on our list of inadvisably used words

in debate. I would ask the member for a withdrawal.

MR. HOWARD:

Pursuant to the standing orders, I can explain what occurred. I said

while sitting in my seat: "Fascists don't have to answer." The minister

somehow or other thinks that I was referring to him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, the Chair would have to come the same conclusion.

MR. HOWARD: Would you come to the same conclusion? I think it would apply to him as well, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I would ask the member for a straight withdrawal of a

word that I'm sure the member wishes to withdraw in the interests of

parliamentary tradition.

MR. HOWARD: If it's an

offensive word to you, Mr. Chairman, to the rules and to the decorum in

this House, I certainly will withdraw it. But the minister obviously

felt that it applied to him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr.

Chairman, I ask the minister to explain to this House the discrepancy

in this section. The minister brings it in and clearly says that 10 and

14 percent is the target; the Premier makes a statement that it is 5

percent or less. The Vancouver Province is confused and says:

"But either the restraint process and the legislation backing it up is

sufficient unto the need or it was badly designed in the first place."

We all know that if the government wants this bill to be supported, it

should be understood. We're opposed to the bill, and we have been all

along. I'm not changing my position on that, but wouldn't it be

reasonable to accept that if the government was to be believed, if the

government was going to get support for this legislation and if the

government is going to campaign on it, it would like the media to

support them on this? Would the minister like the media to support the

idea and concept of this bill? Of course he would. But how can the Vancouver Province

support this bill if you leave them confused? You can excuse my

confusion, based on the fact that I'm opposed to the legislation. But

what about Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer out there who are waiting for

government leadership?

[ Page 7539 ]

MR. LEA: How about Paddy Sherman?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer and Paddy Sherman — the average taxpayer, publisher of the Vancouver Province , an average salary, average tax.

go on to read from this editorial: "He should be prepared to show his

confidence in Mr. Peck's ability to do the job, to meet the restraint

objectives he himself outlined, by letting Mr. Peck get on with the

job." Do you feel that the Premier is undermining Mr. Peck by

announcing decisions ahead of time, before Mr. Peck even sees them?

While you're at it, Mr. Speaker, here's another well-known free-enterprise newspaper.

AN HON. MEMBER: More research.

MR. BARRETT:

More research? Only the place, Mr. Member, where the average citizen

depends on the government to explain in the day-to-day news what its

policy is. What else is the citizen of British Columbia expected to

believe, other than the Premier's statement, which I'm questioning? If

you don't like that kind of research, then tell the Premier to shut up.

He's the one who went to the newspapers. It was the Premier who went

and blabbed this out all over. It was the Premier who caused this

headline to be written. And you're trying to blame me for my research,

while some ordinary taxpayer's only research is to pick up the paper

and see what the Premier said. Are you suggesting that the taxpayers

shouldn't read what the Premier said, and should ignore the front page

of the Province? What the Premier said doesn't count? Throw it away!

Don't be silly.

The fact is that this jerk government has

been playing politics and inciting flames of hate and distress in

ordinary people in this province for cheap political purposes, and

you've been caught at it. If you want to play that kind of divisive

politics, go to some other place. British Columbia should be a

peaceful, thoughtful province. It's no place for this kind of

scandalous, inflammatory, cheap politics on the backs of ordinary

people who work in this province and pay the taxes. All you've done is

sleazy, dirty-trick gimmickry around this legislation to try to scare

people about their hospital beds, about salaries and everything else.

It's the phoniest bill I've ever seen. And the guy who has criticized

it most is the Premier of the province.

MR. RICHMOND: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT:

You're darned right it's nonsense. I'm glad you agree. You've been here

a year. and you've finally figured it out: it's nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote how the Vancouver Sun

explains to its readers how the same legislation is to work. Where else

do the people of British Columbia get their information? Do they have

to wait for B.C. Government News to explain the difference between 10

to 14 or 5? Are you going to blacklist these newspapers for printing

their opinions? Are you going to manage the news around statements" The

whole bill is a phony bill. The whole thing has been exposed by

corridor statements, designed purely for political purposes to incite

flames of distrust and hate out there so this government can exploit it

for cheap political purposes.

MR. HOWARD: Just like it was done in the 1930s.

MR. BARRETT: It's the same thing.

Here's the Vancouver Sun ,

page A4, Wednesday, May 12. There's a caricature of Margaret Thatcher —

that's not Bill, it's Margaret; same policies. "The public-sector

employers and employees affected by the provincial government's

restraint program deserve something better than Premier Bill Bennett's

outbursts on the subject." That's in the Vancouver Sun ; it's an

editorial advising the people out there, who must make a judgment on

this legislation as to the government's intentions. In response to the

Premier's statement, the two major newspapers in Vancouver both had

editorials on the same day. When the Minister of Finance is asked about

the editorials, he sits there in dumb insolence and refuses to answer.

"Maybe the Premier was suffering from a bad case of electionitis."

What is electionitis? I have never once suggested that the Premier suffered

from a case of electionitis. I don't even know what it is. I don't know

if it's good or bad. Is this a subject for a lawsuit? Is the Vancouver Sun

exposing itself to a naughty-naughty from the Premier? "…he would

have done himself a favour by restraining himself…" The Vancouver

Sun is advocating that when Premier Bennett goes into the corridor he should

wear a white jacket in reverse before he opens his mouth. I don't disagree

with that "…instead of hurling threats at the very people whose cooperation

he needs to make the program any kind of a success."

That was a serious statement by the Vancouver Sun .

They are accusing the Premier of this province of inflaming labour

management relations instead of seeking their cooperation. Why would

the Sun feel that way? I don't know. Maybe we should interview

them. "Rather than blame them for the program's unpleasant side effects

he should ask himself whether his own government's tardiness and

failure to communicate aren't at fault." Listen to this and relate it

to your answer to my colleague, Mr. Minister.

"Almost

three months after Mr. Bennett announced the restraint program, the

enabling legislation still hasn't been enacted, and the regulations

spelling out the details haven't even been disclosed. Without any firm

guidelines to go by, labour and management alike have had to play a

guessing game.

"Mr. Bennett is understandably

upset — who isn't? — by heavy layoffs and cancelled services,

particularly in the fields of education and health care. The surprising

thing is that he apparently didn't see them coming.

"The

hospitals, faced on one side with orders to hold spending increases

below 8 percent, and on the other with vague wage guidelines allowing

for increases of 8 to 14 percent, had little choice but to close beds

and lay off staff. The school boards, bound by legal agreements to pay

teachers an extra 17 percent but obliged also to live within 12 percent

budget limits. have had little choice but to cancel courses and lay off

teachers.

"Mr. Bennett maintains that if the

sacrifice of restraint is shared around, there is no need for a single

job or program to be lost. If he'd been saying that sort of thing;

three months ago, and had shown he meant business by calling the House

into session immediately to process the legislation, it might not now

be too late to prevent the loss of jobs and services."

[ Page 7540 ]

What the Sun

doesn't understand — or they didn't get the quote, probably — is that

Bill Bennett is still going around saying that he may call the House

together. That is a real threat.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're here.

MR. BARRETT:

Some of us are here, but I want you to know that there is not a single

cabinet minister here to support the minister. He is carrying the can

for this program, not the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who's

got to deal with collective bargaining; not the Minister of Education

(Hon. Mr. Smith), who's got to have the cutbacks to kids; not the

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) ; not the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

Listen to this. This is what

a leading Vancouver paper is saying on its editorial page. I ask the

minister to get up and deny that this is what's happening, or make a

statement so that the Vancouver Sun can broadcast the message

contrary to what they are saying. I will read this to the minister.

Tonight this is going into every home that subscribes to the Vancouver Sun .

This is the

interpretation given by its research of this legislation,

and this is what they are saying; not Dave Barrett; not the member for

Kamloops (Mr. Richmond), who makes a one-word speech. This is what the Vancouver Sun is saying:

"The

restraint program is starting to become unravelled, not because of

union greed or administrative mismanagement but because of the

government's own dilly-dallying and inability to articulate it. It's

idle for the Premier to threaten to use a big stick on the public

employees when the government still isn't able to brandish a little

one."

You and I know, Mr. Chairman, that the whole thing has

been a phony setup from day one when we saw the three flags west

performance on television. There was the Canadian flag, there was the

British Columbia flag and there was another flag — I forget which.

Maybe it was the dogwood.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Japanese.

MR. BARRETT: No, it was not the Japanese one.

MR. LEA: The Socred seagull sitting in front.

MR. BARRETT: The Socred seagull over them.

The

three-flag performance came out on the 18th and said it was going to be

10, 12 or 14 percent. We had this moderate toned, hair-combed,

Ontario-like performance coached by Dougie Heal, stickhandled by

Patrick Kinsella, on provincewide television, a written-by-Bill-Davis

performance of "We want restraint." Hic! That came after when we

discovered what was in the expense accounts. Who was to carry the can

but the Minister of Finance? He came in here and articulated what the

bill was going to be and said here in this

section 1t was going to be

10 and 14 percent. Guess what? The day before we are going to go into

committee the Premier goes in the hallway and says: "Psst. I've got a

statement to make. I'm not going to make it in the House, in the

debate, because I haven't called the House back yet. I might call it

back, but since I'm here in the corridor and since I might call the

House back this is what I might say: Public servants are facing 5

percent or less."

Mr. Speaker, every citizen out there in

British Columbia is laughing at the Minister of Finance today because

he's a delayed April Fool's joke. He's been used by the Premier. Now

that his use is no longer necessary, the Premier has decided to play a

cheap political game by doing some people-bashing. Those prison guards

in there who keep dangerous offenders locked up in prison so that we

can all sleep safely at night, those policemen who walk the streets to

save us and protect us, those firemen who are ready on call, those

hospital workers — all of them are being threatened because they're

being greedy and the Premier says 5 percent or less. Come on, who are

you kidding? You can't explain it. I know how you feel. You feel

terrible. I don't blame you for feeling terrible, but there is a

traditional role when you feel terrible and you've been snookered by

the Premier, and that is to resign.

Mr. Chairman, anybody else that brought in a piece of legislation that was to be the showpiece of the session….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're losing your own members.

MR. BARRETT:

One, two, three, four, five, six, seven there's not even a quorum. This

is the most important bill of the session and there's not even a

quorum! I call a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ring the bells, hon. member, and see if we can summon members.

MR. BARRETT: Could we have a recess, Mr. Chairman? There's no quorum. How can you ring the bell if there's no quorum?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The standing orders ask that I write down the names of the members who are….

MR. BARRETT: What standing order says you ring the bells?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll just read you the standing order.

MR. BARRETT: You read me the standing orders after you rang the bell.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Don't lecture the Chair.

MR. BARRETT:

Lecture the Chair when I ask for a standing order? Don't you know the

rules of this place? Why, Mr. Member, you can ask for the standing

order anytime you want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing order

6 says: "It is common practice, in the absence of a quorum, to ring the

division bells and take the names of the members."

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have we got a quorum now?

HON. MR. CURTIS: You'll have one for a while, but not if you keep talking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears that we have a quorum. The hon. Leader of the Opposition continues on

section 9.

[ Page 7541 ]

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, there's another Liberal who's come back for a little

while. Hi, Lib, what do you hear from Pierre? You don't see him

anymore, do you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Section 9.

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to bring to your

attention that we called out a word earlier that was not permissible,

and now the other side…. It's just terrible!

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is very well taken. I ask the hon. House Leader to withdraw.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that if I used any terminology which

would offend the hon. leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I

totally and completely, sir, withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition continues on

section 9.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, it was not me who asked the former Liberal to withdraw.

How could I accept the withdrawal from that member when he might be a

Tory tomorrow? No one knows where it's coming from.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the accusation that that member is a Tory. The Tories won't have you.

The question I'm addressing to the minister is: would he please explain the confusion in the Vancouver Province editorial and the Vancouver Sun

editorial over the fact that this

section says 10 to 14 percent and the

Premier says 5 percent? Will he please explain that confusion?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Aye!

MS. SANFORD: Is he ever arrogant! He's so embarrassed about this bill he won't even answer the question.

MR. BARRETT: I ask this question on behalf of Paddy Sherman.

MR. MACDONALD: Does he talk to the Premier?

MR. BARRETT:

Does he talk to the Premier? Who is laying the ground rules? Does the

Minister of Finance agree with the Premier's statement that the public

servants are facing 5 percent or less? Do you agree with that?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, obviously, under the rules of this House, the debate on a

particular

section or clause could go for quite some time. The first

time the tiring and aged Leader of the Official Opposition….

MR. LEA: That's a pretty bald remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

One moment, please. There have been many personal allusions today, and

the Chair does find them upsetting. We should not make personal

allusions, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the

first time this tactic in committee was attempted by the Leader of the

Opposition — and that was four or five years ago — I must confess that

I found it distressing. But bully tactics don't work. The question with

respect to the

section before us was posed first by the other member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), and I answered it at that time.

That was some 45 minutes ago — something in that order. I simply point

that out for the Chair's information and for the information of those

members who may not have been in the House or in committee at that time.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, may I have your guidance? Have I been a bully to you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Speak to the section, please.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to know. If I've been a bully, I apologize to

the minister. I promise not to be a bully to Hugh again. I will not

bully the minister; I promise not to bully the minister; I apologize

for bullying the minister. I will never treat him as the Premier does

by bullying him and making these statements outside the House while

he's got to carry the can in here.

MR. BRUMMET: How silly can you get?

MR. BARRETT:

That's a good question to ask the Premier. How silly can you get when

you bring in a bill, make a speech and say it's 10 to 14, then go out

in the hallway and say it's 5? I ask the minister to tell us if he was

told by the Premier that it was going to be 5, and does he agree with

it? Do you agree with this statement that they're facing 5 percent or

less? Yes or no? That's all. My colleague didn't ask that in question

period. I'm asking you this brand new question, without bullying: do

you agree with the Premier's statement that the public servants are

facing 5 percent or less? Do you agree with that statement? That's all.

That isn't the question he asked; that's my question in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: He isn't going to answer. He's going to hide behind the rules.

MR. BARRETT:

The House is debating this section, and a statement has been made about

this

section by the Premier of British Columbia that the public

servants are facing 5 percent or less. Do you agree with this statement

by the Premier? That's all I ask. Do you agree with it? Do you have

digititis? You've been on the phone too long.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

Under

section 9, this House is asked to pass whether or not 10 or 14

should be the guideline. The Premier made a statement that it's 5

percent or less. I again ask the Minister of Finance, the person

responsible for this bill, if he agrees with the Premier's statement

that it could be 5 percent or less. Have I asked the question in a

bullying manner? Have I hurt your feelings? Have I insulted the Chair?

Please, sir, through you, Mr. Chairman, I humbly submit the following

question: could the minister please tell the hon. members of this

chamber, who are supplicants waiting for his words, whether or not he

agrees that the public servants are facing 5 percent or less?

What

we have here is proof positive that all the statements around this bill

have been calculated to inflame and incite sectors of the public to

respond angrily to the government, for

[ Page 7542 ]

political

purposes. There is no principle in this bill. It is a bill designed

purely for politics based on polls taken by the government. The

minister has been embarrassed by the Premier's making conflicting

statements. The minister has been left here hung out to dry because of

the conflicting statements that exist, and can't even find it within

himself to state whether or not he agrees with the Premier's statement

that it could be 5 percent or less. You can't find it in you, through

you, Mr. Chairman; you're confused, puzzled and left carrying the can.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Wrong.

MR. BARRETT:

Then get up and say whether or not you agree with this statement. Will

you answer the question? I ask the Minister of Finance whether or not

he agrees with the Premier's statement; that's all. Perhaps I'll

rephrase the question: do you think the Premier's statement in any way

impedes the possibilities of success of this bill?

Mr. Chairman, for the edification of the House, could you tell me what

section of this bill we're dealing with?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Nine.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 9, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT:

I want to thank the Minister of Finance for drawing to the Chair's

attention that we're both talking about the same section: the

guidelines. The minister was able to answer the question quickly:

"Nine, " he said, before he was even asked.

section 9, I

ask the minister, whose attention I now have, if he agrees with the

Premier's statement. That is one question he has refused to answer. The

second question is: does he think the Premier's statements will impede

the hopes of success for this bill? He refuses to answer that. Number

three: did the Premier consult him before the statement was made about

the 5 percent or less?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Is that in the bill? Stick to this section, Mr. Member; you shouldn't

be out of order. There is no wife-beating

section in this one. You

don't even know what's in this bill. You're just mouthing things. Shame

on you! The member comes in, in the middle of an intense exchange

between myself and the minister — a one-sided intense exchange.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's trying to protect the minister.

MR. BARRETT:

Is he trying to protect the minister? I don't think the Premier was

trying to protect the minister; I think the Premier put the minister

out to dry.

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

[Mt. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS 28

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

Mr. King requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. KING:

The Premier is going out the escape hatch once again. The Premier

manufactures the bullet, then he escapes from the bunker out his little

hatch. I have some questions for the minister carrying this bill. I

don't want to be deterred by the incomprehensible action of the Premier.

want to ask the minister whether or not he and-or the commissioner

under this act has consulted with the Government Employee Relations

Bureau and advised them with respect to the guidelines and any

regulations which may subsequently issue under the authority of this

act. Could the minister tell me that?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

With respect to the member's question regarding

section 9, no, I have

not consulted with the Government Employee Relations Bureau. I cannot

speak for the commissioner. I simply do not know if he has or has not

consulted or had contact with respect to GERB, but I have not.

MR. KING:

Could the minister tell the House who is working on designing the

regulations under the act which presumably are going to spell out the

specific guidelines which now seem to be in some disarray? Can the

minister tell me whether the commissioner is working on those

regulations or whether his ministerial staff are?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In answering, I do not necessarily associate myself with the use of the

words "in disarray," but I will answer the question. Officials who are

assisting me in this matter are in the drafting function. They are not

within the Ministry of Finance — I do not want to leave the member in

doubt — but officials have been working with me since the announcement

of the program on February 18.

MR. KING: Would the minister be kind enough to share with the House precisely who those officials are? Are they

[ Page 7543 ]

seconded from another ministry? Are they representatives of GERB, or what is their status?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Those who are principally involved in the preparation of a variety of

material — in the issuance and the drafting of the compensation

bulletins which have been released and other related material — through

the entire program since February 18 are essentially Mr. Matkin, who is

known to members on both sides of this House, and Mr. Plecas, who is

also, I am sure, known to most members of this House. If the question

suggests that officials of GERB have been seconded to me for this

purpose, then that is not correct.

MR. KING: It is

always difficult to deal with a bill which has received a good deal of

publicity prior to its presentation in the House, and which was touted

to accomplish certain things, and then subsequently to find the bill,

once it's introduced, lacking that detail. Members of the Legislature —

and, I'm sure, the public at large — are very weary; they are very

reluctant to see blank-cheque legislation passed, simply extending

powers without the specifics contained in the legislation. We don't

know what the regulations are going to be. If and when the bill is

passed, the executive council is empowered to set regulations. The

history of this particular approach, this particular initiative by the

government, is such that the minister and his staff and the bill seem

to be saying one thing, and the Premier, who originally announced this

government initiative, is now saying something else. That puts the

members of the Legislature in a most awkward position, to say nothing

of the minister himself. I'm sure he must be extremely embarrassed.

Mr.

Chairman, were I sponsoring a bill, as a minister of the Crown, and one

of my colleagues presumed to intervene in the process and place another

interpretation on the objective of that bill, I would be extremely

upset. I think any self-respecting minister of the Crown would act very

decisively to clear up that kind of confusion — that kind of

interference — because not only does it put members of the opposition

in a very untenable position in terms of not knowing what we are being

asked to authorize here, but I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that it

places those people who will be regulated by the authority of this

statute in a more untenable and indeed completely unacceptable position.

What

is the government's intention here? Is it the government's intention to

set an arbitrary 5 percent maximum increase now on all public-sector

employees falling within the jurisdiction of this statute? That's the

latest

interpretation we have from the Premier. Or does his previous

announcement hold true? It's a conundrum, Mr. Chairman. We have the

Minister of Finance sponsoring a bill that is labor-relations oriented;

we have the Premier intervening in the process; we have various

ministerial employees seconded from other ministries to design the

bill. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) sits mute while the

intent, certainly, of the Labour Code of British Columbia is mutilated,

and then we have GERB, the government's arm that is the authority for

collective bargaining — the agency which put out this document, the

fourth-draft "Strike Contingency Manual, Government Employee Relations

Bureau, Confidential," the document which seems to anticipate some

incredible conduct by the employees of this government….

is a document that anticipates various breaches of the Criminal Codes,

both federal and provincial, and it is a document which appends to it

sections of the Criminal Code dealing with unlawful assembly, riot,

punishment of a rioter, punishment for unlawful assembly, possession of

weapons, intimidation, carrying concealed weapons, disobeying an order

of the court, offences relating to a public or peace officer, causing a

disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, common assault, assault

with intent, intimidation and mischief.

Mr. Chairman, I

think the members of the Legislature and the public are entitled to a

very, very careful and detailed explanation by this minister as to

where the government is going with its industrial relations in this

province. I think we are entitled to a very sober, very careful,

exacting explanation of what the government's intentions are in terms

of proceeding under the authority of the bill now under debate. I want

to ask the minister whether or not this strike-contingency manual that

was authored by GERB was developed in consultation with him and his

staff, who are responsible for the draftsmanship and the introduction

of the bill that's before the House now. Did the minister know anything

about this strike contingency fund?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fund?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. KING:

Well, it is a fund too. There is a fund there. The strike-contingency

plan, in any event. There is a fund also, Mr. Minister, for your

information. I want to know, because it can tell us something about

what the government anticipates as a result of this bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty relating the member's comments, which

were made at length in second reading and outlined and identified by

other members on the opposite side, to

section 9 in committee.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Mr. Chairman, I'm doing my utmost to follow the thread of debate, and I

wonder how the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke who has just spoken

relates this to

section 9. Being the astute parliamentarian he is,

perhaps there is some way. When he gets up again I would like him to

explain to me how he can bring up civil insurrection and other matters

dealing with labour in connection with

section 9. I see nothing about

that in this section. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that it is your duty

to see that the rules are strictly adhered to; otherwise the debate

could go on forever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you're making a point of order, your point is well taken. Do you wish to speak to

section 9?

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Yes, I am, indeed I am. But I'm wondering if I'm missing something in

section 9, and I'm hoping that somewhere along the line we'll be told

how the debate can continue.

I rise in my place to take

exception to the tenor of debate, as I see nothing in the debate that

in any way stipulates what we're debating in

section 9. I know the

Leader of the Opposition is at his best when dealing with personalities

— and his major speech dealt with personalities — but I do not intend

to deal with personalities. I intend to confine myself to

section 9. I

hope the Chairman will not be too critical if I have to

[ Page 7544 ]

make a few remarks surrounding my efforts to explain the points I intend to make.

I will bring to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition the misleading words he said in this House….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. The statement that an hon. member has misled this House is unparliamentary.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

The impression that was given by the Leader of the Opposition when he

said that he would tell the working people out there who have to pay

their mortgages…. Well, this bill does not in any way deal with the

mortgages of the people out there; it deals with the public service.

And I say to the House on

section 9 that there is no problem in the

public service. We have a situation here where the public is under

strict restraint — forced restraint — and the union bosses are saying

to their members: "Fight that government." But their members do not

want to fight that government — it's the union bosses who do — because

the members out there realize that 12 percent is quite sufficient. And

12 percent is a great deal more than the general public will receive in

the next two years. One of the great and important features in this

section of the bill is its time limit of 24 months. I'm telling you

that that is a prime motive force here, and the debate should rest on

that force.

We should not be dealing in personalities. We

should confine ourselves to this section, and the

section clearly says

that the bill shall be for 24 months. The

section further says: "The

executive council shall issue compensation stabilization guidelines to

stabilize the compensation plans of the public-sector employers and

public-sector employees." That is clear, and that's what we're debating

— a period of time not to exceed 24 consecutive months. These are the

things I should bring up to this House.

I'd like to say that

when I speak of the Leader of the Opposition, I'm reminded of the

thirteenth

chapter of Corinthians, which says: "When I was a child, I

spake as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

I wonder about the opposition. We're waiting for this opposition to put

away childish things and debate the issue of this bill.

The

public sector out there realize they've got a good deal. When we talk

about closing hospitals, there need be no closing of hospitals. There

need be no closing of beds. There can be an adjustment. The hospital in

Mission — a fine hospital — was able to adjust their time…. I

understand one of the large hospitals in Victoria — the Royal Jubilee,

I believe — will not be closing beds. These things can be done. But if

certain areas of the public sector want to punish the public, that's

the way they go about it.

I charge those people out there in

the hospitals and the public sector to use some understanding. The

people in the private sector are suffering hard — some with no jobs at

all — while the public sector is entirely secure. I'm telling you that

they know that, and it's time the union bosses realized they have to

give up a little for the future of this province and this country.

Nowhere can we say: "Business as usual." It is impossible and cannot be

done. This

section attempts to say that we shall have regulation on the

public service — and it's high time.

We've heard a great

deal in debate today about what the Premier said about some receiving a

compensation of only 5 percent. There is nothing in this

section about

5 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on, George.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

There can be no 5 percent unless it's in the bill, and the bill does

not call for 5 percent. There will be no 5 percent — it's a paper

report. Many paper reports have not been correct. I know the Premier

knew what he was talking about. But these people did not listen.

The

bill is clear. The bill is final. The beautiful part of the bill is

that it perceives a duration of 24 months and then we'll be out of this

depression. We're debating reason and common sense in the public sector

— and the public-sector employees want to do it. I wonder why this

opposition does not understand that. The private sector suffers today,

and some are suffering very deeply. Businesses are suffering immensely.

Some that shouldn't be are in liquidation because of high interest

rates and inflation we're suffering today.

If this House

were to give the public service all that it demanded, it would be 20

and 25 percent. This cannot be — and they are not demanding it. These

are reasonable people. I appeal to the opposition to use some common

sense. "When I was a child, I spake as a child, but when I became a

man, I put away childish things." It's high time they put away childish

things.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of

Defence down at the end is obviously having some difficulty

understanding my concern. I'm going to go over it very slowly, because

I'd like to satisfy that member.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm being sniped at by the gentleman across the way who used to be a Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you used to be?

MR. KING:

Never a Liberal, never a Socred, never a Tory. I always cared for

people, my friend. I always represented people, and I shall continue to.

The

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) wonders how I related my remarks to

the bill. The bill doesn't say anything about what the percentage will

be. The Premier did. The Premier first of all said it will be between

12 and 14 percent if cases for high productivity and historic

relationships can be proven — very loose, very flexible. The bill says

less. The bill simply gives carte-blanche power to the cabinet to

establish guidelines. We're not sure that those guidelines will be the

same as the Premier initially announced. But if we had been sure — if

we had taken him at his word — we would have been very much surprised

and very much confused by the headline in the papers today, where the

Premier says that the guidelines have changed: it will now be 5 percent

or less.

It's recorded in Hansard that the Premier

did previously say that free collective bargaining would go on between

the status quo and the previous guideline he'd set of a maximum of 14

percent. He said: "Free collective bargaining will take place." Well,

where's free collective bargaining going to take place now? Is it going

to take place between the status quo —

[ Page 7545 ]

that

is, the existing contract — and 14 percent? Or is it going to take

place between the status quo of the existing contract and 5 percent?

The

Legislature certainly has a right to know this. Certainly that esteemed

elder statesman of the Social Credit Party down at the far end would

not expect members of this House to pass blank-cheque legislation.

That's what we're getting at. Before we pass

section 9 we are entitled

to hear the minister charged with this bill clear up that confusion.

What are the guidelines? When was the Premier telling the truth — when

he said 12 to 14 percent or when he said 5 percent? On which occasion

do we believe him? We have to have something to go by before we can

vote on this bill. It's only reasonable; it's only logical.

The

member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) made some other comment. He said:

"You don't have to worry about the public servants. They support us.

It's only those labour bosses who are the problem." If all the public

servants support you and agree that there should be restraint limited

to 5 percent, as the Premier is now suggesting, why bring in the bill?

If they support you, you could surely obtain that at the collective

bargaining table. That's only common sense. What kind of Social Credit

logic is it that tries to turn natural equations around and reach

obvious opposite conclusions. They are very adept at that, but the

public is not so blind that they are going to accept that kind of

claptrap.

Mr. Chairman, don't come in here and ask us to

sign blank-cheque legislation. What are the guidelines? Are we now

going to have free collective bargaining from the existing contract up

to a 5 percent increase, or is it going to be according to the

Premier's earlier announcement of between 12 and 14 percent? We want to

know. I think that's fair, despite my feelings about this bill, its

philosophy, its drafters and its supporters. We've talked about that in

second reading, but certainly in the section-by-section scrutiny of it

we are entitled to some reasonable explanation by the minister.

he's being interfered with politically by his boss, at least have the

courage to get up and say that. If he lacks the technical understanding

of how it's going to work, he has someone here who can explain it to

him. Surely out of courtesy and respect for the Legislature, the

minister has an obligation to clear the matter up. It's a pretty simple

thing we're asking for. That minister has always prided himself, Mr.

Chairman, on being one who was responsive to the niceties and the rules

of the Legislature. Certainly he wouldn't want to see this kind of

blank-cheque legislation passed that simply gives all-embracing power

to a cabinet to write regulations in the secrecy of the cabinet room

which never come back to the Legislature for debate and scrutiny. We're

entitled to more than that. If that minister cares for his reputation,

I think he'll answer the question in good conscience.

MR. LEGGATT: I want to talk a little bit about

section 9.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Northeast coal.

MR. LEGGATT: No, no. Northeast coal is something else.

I would like to ask a somewhat specific question to the minister. Is it

the minister's intention that the guidelines will be established before

or after a settlement is achieved with the public service?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is intended that the guidelines will be prepared

quite soon.

MR. LEGGATT:

Can the minister give the House a date for the establishment of the

guidelines so that those who are engaged in the bargaining process have

some understanding of whether there will be guidelines before

completion of negotiations?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think,

Mr. Chairman, that that really was the question asked in the first

instance by the hon. member. I answered: "quite soon."

MR. LEGGATT:

I take it, therefore, that the minister is telling us that the

intention is that there will be guidelines established under this

section before a settlement is achieved in the public service. Is that

right?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer is yes, Mr.

Chairman. The guidelines are out in substance now but have not been

formally issued. They will certainly be issued formally very soon. It

is a matter of several working days, I would think.

MR. LEGGATT:

I would like to thank the minister for being forthright on this. I take

it from his answer that it is fairly certain that the guidelines will

be established prior to the completion of bargaining. Why is it

necessary for the guidelines to be established prior to bargaining when

the minister may find a negotiated settlement under the proposed

guidelines come down?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder if

the member would indicate precisely which bargaining he has in mind in

his question. I think I know, but the question infers that there is

only one settlement to be concluded this year.

MR. LEGGATT:

I am aware that there are a number presently in the process. It is

clear that the minister's intention is to establish guidelines prior to

settlements being achieved. My question remains the same. Why is it

that you want to have guidelines before a settlement is achieved when

you may receive settlements underneath the guidelines without the

necessity of the legislation? Surely from a timing point of view, if

the minister is really concerned with restraint, the time for restraint

isn't when you interfere with the collective bargaining process. The

time is when you find out if you've been hurt by the collective

bargaining process. In fact, at this point the minister doesn't know

whether his government will be hurt by the collective bargaining

process or not. It is a premature bill, and I would like the minister

to respond to that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On that point