1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2051 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Natural gas prices. Mr. Lockstead –– 2051

Hospital billings. Mrs. Dailly –– 2051

Disposal of hazardous wastes. Mrs. Wallace –– 2052

Colony Farm. Ms. Sanford –– 2052

Repainting of buses. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 2052

Mr. Macdonald

Rental assistance. Mr. Blencoe –– 2053

Property Tax Reform Act (No –– 2), 1983 (Bill 12). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

section 26 –– 2053

Mr. Blencoe

Division

section 33 –– 2055

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

section 35 –– 2056

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

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

Mr. Barrett –– 2057

On the amendment

Mr. Michael –– 2063

Mr. Skelly –– 2063

Mrs. Wallace –– 2067

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act (Bill 11). Second reading.

On the amendment

Mr. Lauk –– 2071

Appendix –– 2074

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we are privileged today to

have Rev. Lyall Simpson giving the prayer for the Legislative Assembly

and our guests in the gallery. I'd like to introduce him in another

capacity, as president of our British Columbia Council for the Family.

I would ask all members of the House to welcome him.

MR. GABELMANN: Not every MLA has the opportunity to introduce

next-door neighbours who also happen to be constituents. I'd like the

House to welcome June Leahy and her son Dick.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the members' gallery this afternoon is

one of western Canada's foremost educators and a good friend of mine,

my campaign manager Mr. David Poole.

MR. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today we have a good friend of mine from Victoria, Mr. Bob McPike. Would you make him welcome, please?

MR. SEGARTY: It's a pleasure for me to welcome to the House

today Evelyn McCartney and Sandra Payne from Squamish. On behalf of the

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS PRICES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In the past two

months the government has announced the end of what it calls subsidies

on domestic natural gas sales. According to the statement by the

minister on September 15, retail gas prices will increase from $4.49

per 1,000 cubic feet to $8.09 per 1,000 cubic feet over the next six

years.

In view of the fact that B.C. customers already pay the highest gas

prices in western Canada, why has the government decided to impose

these further massive increases?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta is

fortunate to have enough money in the bank to subsidize the burner tip

price of natural gas, which they have through the benevolence of the

federal government and the world energy crisis.

We in British Columbia are endeavouring to have gas not subsidized,

but to operate as any other business would do in this province: that is

to say, to carry its own weight. The figures released with the Govier

report are projections of what could happen. It is based upon 65

percent of the blended crude oil price landed at refinery 8 in

Vancouver — of imported crude.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister

mentioned during his response, the gas-producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan

provide substantial direct benefits to domestic gas producers as owners of the

resource. Has the government decided to review the decision to peg domestic

gas prices to the OPEC inspired price of oil, and will it return benefits to

British Columbians in the form of lower natural gas prices?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, I expect we will return

benefits to British Columbians in terms of greater royalty. The

provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan will have only a short period of

time before they face the reality of exactly the same problem.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The government has decided to grant higher

netbacks to the natural gas industry at the direct expense of B.C.

customers. That's what the minister is saying. Has the government at

least decided to examine the Alberta-Saskatchewan system for granting

benefits back to customers, and bring the B.C. price in line with that

paid in those two provinces? I suspect I know the minister's answer,

Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The netback to producers is so generous that

at the present time there is but one natural gas well being drilled in

this province, down from some 360 just two years ago. The answer is

obvious, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITAL BILLINGS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. The

minister has announced that patients in B.C. hospitals will soon be

issued bills showing the total cost of their stay in hospital. In view

of the fact that the cost of billing a B.C. resident for treatment in

an acute-care facility was about $5 three years ago and in view of the

fact that approximately 400,000 patients go through our hospital

system, does that mean the minister is prepared to divert approximately

$2 million from health care to administration?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have no way of knowing how the member has

calculated $2 million. The member may be unaware — perhaps due to the

good fortune of not having been being in the hospital lately — that a

person is presented with a bill as they leave, and they will receive

the same piece of material. There will be one additional figure on it,

most of which will be handled by a computer.

MRS. DAILLY: In view of the fact that the minister has stated

to hospital administrators that he wants the total cost put in, is the

minister therefore unaware that it will not be a simple procedure; that

already hospital administrators are questioning the amount of work this

will entail?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate now why the member has asked the question.

It is to provide is their average per diem figure for the number of days the

person has been in hospital. Each hospital has an average per diem figure they

use for calculating budgets and other performances, and it is a very simple

calculation. As an example, at Victoria General Hospital it's about $330

a day. If you are there 10 days you will be advised that the average cost for

your stay is 10 times $330.

[ Page 2052 ]

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of Environment, I understand

that the minister was interviewed yesterday on CFJC radio in Kamloops,

and during the course of that interview said that he didn't see the

need for full public hearings on the proposed hazardous wastes depot in

the central interior. Will the minister explain why he appears to be

backing away from public hearings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am not backing away from anything. We had

indicated, when we made the special wastes announcement, that we

intended to fully inform the public, to fully respond to any questions

they may have, to fully inform the people in the area and to meet with

them at their request. What I indicated was that we did not want to set

up the formal structure and mechanism to have a public hearing that

goes on for a year or two.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister, as I understand him, has said that he is

going to have meetings but not public hearings. Do I take that to mean that

he has decided he is going to tell people what he is going to do, without allowing

input from the public?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If that member had listened to the full

response, I said we would meet with people, allow them to ask questions

and answer all their questions.

MRS. WALLACE: If the minister is going to meet with people,

allow them to ask questions, and answer their questions, has he then

decided to have public hearings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it depends on what

connotation you place on the term "public hearings." We will certainly

be meeting with the public; we will have hearings in public with the

people. If you mean by public hearings a formally structured board that

is going to take a lot of expense and a lot of money in order to do

some sort of highly structured, formal public hearing, that is not the

intent.

COLONY FARM

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister

of Agriculture and Food. There is widespread local concern that Colony

Farm is destined by the government to become an extension of the nearby

industrial park. I'm wondering what steps the minister has taken to

ensure that Colony Farm remains in agricultural use.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the acreage of the Colony

Farms is in the agricultural land reserve, and I'm not aware of any

application to have it removed.

MS. SANFORD: That does not answer the question. I must say that.

The minister states that he doesn't have any application or there is

no application before the Land Commission to remove the Colony Farm

from the agricultural land reserve. I'm wondering if the minister has

decided, or — since he doesn't like "if" in front of the question — has

the minister decided to include a restrictive covenant on the sale of

ColonyFarm requiring that the land remain in agricultural use when it is sold?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been made.

REPAINTING OF BUSES

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I took notice of questions

posed by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on

September 15, and I would be pleased if I could give the response.

The first question surrounded the cost of repainting buses in

communities such as Penticton and Prince George. There are bus services

in 24 communities in the province, excluding Victoria and Vancouver.

The budget provided for 55 paint jobs to be completed in the small

communities. This represents 13 communities out of the total of 24. The

total budget for the small communities is $129,085, not the figure of

$1 million intimated in the member's remarks of last week. All small

community paint work has to be contracted out to private autobody

shops. Successful contracts resulted in an average cost of $2,347.65

per bus. You must understand, Mr. Speaker, that that's the total paint

job, not a partial one. The member's words in posing the question

referred to the bus system in the city of Prince George as costing over

$3,000 a bus, but the actual cost for Prince George, from the

successful bidder, was $2,499.75 per bus. The cost of a total paint job

for the Vancouver system, MTOC, is $2,588, and again I stress that's

for the complete paint job.

There was another question embodied in that query from the second

member for Vancouver East on September 15. He asked how many British

Columbia Transit buses are due for repainting. All buses are repainted

approximately every seven years, as one component of a complete

maintenance program. The seven-year cycle is an industry standard which

is maintained throughout North America, I understand, and specifically

in British Columbia, and is a common factor through transit systems.

The 11 buses in Prince George are all seven, eight and nine years past

their last paint job, so you can see that we've been doing it within

the standard given. Painting was delayed pending budget availability

and finalization of our new BCT livery.

I'd like to thank the member for his question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her

reply, because the figure she gave us of $600 per bus for the

repainting job is now amended. I'm $500 out and the minister is $2,000

out.

I asked the minister a supplementary question. The program also

includes tearing out the naughty beige, brown or orange upholstery on

the seats of the buses. Has the minister ordered that, and how much is

it costing to get rid of that particularly naughty colour?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The reference to the $600 versus $3,000

that was in the

preamble to the member's question probably referred to

a partial paint job. I don't know what particular reference he's making

to comments, but I have the information in detail if he would like to

have that.

In response to the second question, upholstery will be replaced when

needed. As far as colour combinations are concerned, they have been

established by the B.C. Transit

[ Page 2053 ]

board of directors as the red, white and blue

colour combination, which is well-known to the second member for

Vancouver East. I know that member is well aware that that colour

combination decision was made prior to my taking responsibility for

B.C. Transit.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE

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

Parks and Housing relating to the housing portion of his ministry. The

executive director of the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia

estimates the minimum monthly rent of new units to be approximately

$600 per month, and sufficient rental stock for moderate-and low-income

renters can only be provided with significant levels of government

assistance. What action has the minister taken to provide sufficient

housing for low-and middle-income families, given the particular

difficulties we're in these days?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We take very little action, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of that particular person's evaluation and assessments.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 2), 1983

The House in committee on Bill 12-1 Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the first amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 to 25 inclusive approved.

[2:30]

section 26.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I once again want to reiterate our

position and the UBCM's position on our concern about Bill 7 and Bill

12, and particularly the sections that could make decisions by cabinet

in terms of the taxation levels. The ability of local councils to set

their own financial direction is being seriously curtailed by certain

sections, and

section 26 in Bill 12 does exactly that. We again

reiterate our position that those local councils are directly elected

to do that duty and are accountable to their own electorate, and we

cannot support any particular

section that allows cabinet, by order, to

make certain changes with minimum consultation with the local councils.

Mr. Chairman, I once more wish to let the government know that there was a clear message at the UBCM conference.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

understand that in committee there's a very narrow area of debate

allowed: it must be specifically related to the details of individual

sections. I would remind the member of that fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's point is well taken. Debate in

committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the clause or

section under consideration.

Section 26 does deal specifically with

taxation, and I'm sure the member can specifically relate his remarks

to the basis of that section.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, what I refer to then is Mayor

Thom, who said: "Restraint we support, but restraints on local

government in terms of being able to collect enough taxes to pay for

their own infrastructure" — which is what this particular

section is —

"we do not support." We feel that if a local government wishes to set

its own tax level and, in its wisdom, wishes taxes to be increased,

then that council, village or town they represent are accountable for

that action. We feel that autonomy is traditional and that local

councils, villages and towns have been extremely supportive of trying

to meet the financial constraints of the day, but certain sections of

Bill 7 and Bill 12, which we're on today, do not respect that

traditional autonomy of local government in terms of the financial

matters of their operations. We cannot support that.

Mr. Chairman, once again I have to ask the minister why he feels....

Indeed, as minister responsible for municipal affairs, he has lost the

respect for local councils in terms of being able to set their own

constraints and priorities in the amount of taxes and dollars they wish

to collect. Does he no longer have respect for them? They've been doing

it for a very long time and I reiterate, reflecting on this particular

section, that the UBCM message was: "Allow us to set our own priorities

and let us utilize our own knowledge and the ability of our own

taxpayers to pay for the priorities that we assess on behalf of our

electorate." They were speaking for all those people at UBCM.

I would again like to ask the minister: does he feel that local

government is not capable of showing restraint? Does he feel that local

government has not done a good job, given that — in my estimation and

the estimation of our party — those local governments have been showing

restraint for a long time, with virtually no deficits at all? Does he

have no respect for their ability to be able to set their own

priorities in terms of tax levels and the amount of money they should

collect for their own purposes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 26 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like an answer

from the minister. There are 1,400 elected officials across this

province who are asking for some real answers as

[ Page 2054 ]

to why this government wants to take over the role

of local government in financial matters. The minister should respond.

He has a duty to answer those duly elected people who work very hard

for their electorate. Has he lost respect for their ability to set

their own priorities in terms of fiscal matters? Or is it because the

cabinet feels that they should have this power? If they do, I would

like him to explain why he feels cabinet must have this power.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am rapidly losing

confidence in this member as my critic. He appears to be on the wrong

section. All this does, Mr. Member, is give the municipalities the

authority to collect, under the new system, on behalf of these other

functions.

MR. BLENCOE: Then why does it say: "The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, under subsection (1), make

different regulations...."? Why do you need that particular power, Mr.

Minister?

No answer? They can't answer that, Mr. Chairman. That's the erosion

of local autonomy that we're talking about. That is the overwhelming

theme that came out of local government: "Lay off. Let us work our own

operations. We've been doing it for hundreds of years." They don't need

a provincial government that has the biggest debt in this province, has

a 12 percent increase in its budget.... This government is now saying

that they can't have any increase in taxes at all, when their budget

has gone up dramatically and they have the biggest deficit we've seen

in the history of this province. I want some answers, and the UBCM

wants some answers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this particular question was

asked during committee on Bill 7 and was thoroughly answered. I would

suggest that that member go back to the answer given then. The answer

to this is identical to that on Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: My question again to the minister: does he not

believe local councils, local municipalities, towns and villages, have

the ability to set their own financial direction? Or, indeed, does he

feel they're not doing a proper job? I think he owes an answer to those

1,400 people who are elected, who feel they do an important job — many

of them are Socred supporters — who are clearly saying: "Let us get on

with our job. Don't put constraints on us." An answer is demanded by

those 1,400 people, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we are really proud of the

job that the municipalities are doing and the leadership that they have

given in restraint, and they will always be respected for that. They

continue to show that leadership and cooperation in the whole area of

restraint.

MR. BLENCOE: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, of the

minister? Do you not think it somewhat hypocritical for the government

to bring down a budget that sees an overall...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not in order during committee.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I think it's very important, because this

section and other sections say that the cabinet is going to control the

amount of money that can be collected by local government — in other

words, the tax level. What percentage can go up? I think it's an

appropriate question. How can he tell local government that that's an

appropriate action — that centralization by cabinet — when he is a part

of a government that has seen its budget go up by 12 percent?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are relating this to second

reading debate now, and we are in committee. You must be strictly

relevant to the clause in front of us.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I believe it is relevant — extremely relevant. Are you ruling me out of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member persists in second reading

debate, the Chair will, but if the member can relate his remarks

specifically to

section 26, then there's no problem.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. I have further questions for the minister.

One of the deep concerns of local government is going to be the

ability in the next few years to pay for the basic infrastructure of

their operations. As you know, many municipalities — and one particular

one that I'm familiar with is nearly 100 years old now....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I

recognize the fact that this member is a newcomer to the Legislature,

but I'll say again that in committee on a bill questions and remarks

have to be strictly relevant to the

section at hand. It's not a time to

make generalized speeches. I would ask that member to please respect

those rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The

section

before us, I will point out to all members of the committee, first, is

permissive and, second, discusses regulations with respect to taxation.

If we can relate our remarks to that, the committee will be well served.

MR. BLENCOE: My question relates to the taxation levels, Mr.

Chairman. Local government is saying that it is in difficult times in

terms of infrastructure, because much of it is very old. They have to

maintain it properly; otherwise they get into serious trouble.

Consequently there may be a requirement for tax increases to pay for

basic infrastructure improvement. How will the minister deal with those

concerns of towns and municipalities, which can clearly document that

centralized or a blanket decision on increases or tax levels may be to

the detriment of municipalities that have special problems? I think

it's a reasonable question. Maybe the minister can answer it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They would deal with that in the

appropriate way. As I told you in committee on Bill 7, I am surprised

that you, with your extensive municipal experience, are not aware that

we have actually given more freedom, more autonomy with this change.

Under the old system there were limits on mill rates to be levied on

the assessed value. Under the new system they have the variable rate.

They establish it themselves, and that level will be based on their

spending. That is their decision, obviously.

[ Page

2055 ]

I don't know how else to answer the member, until he takes the time

to study the act and take a look at the old one as well. It's very

difficult to respond in a sound way to someone who is scattering off on

something he appears to know very little about in spite of having had

so much experience at the municipal level.

MR. BLENCOE: How will the minister rationalize to local

governments, when we understand they are going to have imposed on them

a zero to 5 percent increase in their budgets or taxes this year...?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I am being relevant. How will he rationalize

that to municipal government when the provincial budget is dramatically

increasing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are now straying into debate

that might be properly carried on in second reading or the estimates of

the minister, but which certainly is not specific to

section 26.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have the

Section in front of me, as I'm sure you have. It says: "The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — that is, the cabinet — "may, under

subsection (1), make...regulations for (

a) the taxation of land and

improvements, based on assessed value...." Now it seems to me that that is very wide-ranging.

It allows the minister to do almost anything regarding taxation. It

seems to me that any discussion whatsoever by the minister, the member

for Victoria, or anybody else in this chamber regarding those totally

wide-ranging options available to the minister under this

section is

strictly relevant to the section. It has to be.

[2:45]

Section 26 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 9

Macdonald

Barrett

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Blencoe

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

Journals of the House.

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

section 33.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, can the member for Central Fraser

Valley possibly give us some information as to why he feels that he and

his leading bureaucrat, the inspector of municipalities, need this kind

of fiscal power over duly elected, mandated municipal councillors? We

know that the question of property tax rates is an extremely sensitive

one to municipal voters, and councils that don't do the right thing are

going to be turfed out at the first opportunity. Why is he saying here

that he wants the right to make regulations regarding a variable mill

rate tax structure that not only can prescribe limits, but can vary

limits at any time they see fit, and can also vary those regulations?

It is quite clear that the municipal councils around this province,

whether in small villages or large cities, have shown far more fiscal

responsibility in managing their affairs than the provincial government

has shown. They adopted restraint long before the provincial government

did. They controlled their spending and borrowing, and have kept their

bond rating at triple-A when the province's has gone down to double-A.

Can the minister possibly tell the people of B.C. and those 1,400 duly

elected, mandated councillors out there why he alone, along with his

bureaucrats, wants this opportunity to make these kinds of judgments?

Mr. Chairman, let's look at the possibilities here, relative to my

own constituency. Suppose the government in its wisdom — or lack of it

— that government over there or some future government, decided to make

tax rate decisions that were antithetical to the economic interests of

an area. Suppose they decided to make tax rate decisions that were in

fact going to force an industry or a business to be uncompetitive, to

reduce the economic base of a given area. Or suppose they made a

decision to play off residential or commercial property tax payers. If

the local government made those kinds of decisions — and I know they

never would, because to my knowledge they never have been irresponsible

around this province — they would be turfed out. What recourse would

the local people have if the minister or his bureaucrats made a

mistake, either intentional or unintentional? Why do they need this

power when it has been demonstrated in municipality after municipality

around this province, year after year, cities, villages, townships

large and small, that they do not abuse their ability to levy taxes? In

the rare instance when they did, they were turfed out at the first

possible opportunity. Why does the minister need this kind of power?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, to protect the taxpayer — but

keep in mind that this is a re-enactment of the existing legislation.

The inspector could, under the old legislation, permit them to go

above, and that would apply here. However, it would still have to be

endorsed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So really what you have

here is what you had under the old system.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, in 11 years in this House, both on

the government side and on the opposition side, whenever there was a

contentious piece of legislation in committee, I heard the minister get

up and say: "It's just a tiny little housekeeping amendment; it's

really no change." If it's really no change, Mr. Minister, why do you

need it? Why does the UBCM oppose it? They come from across the

political spectrum. I don't believe they have a political axe to grind,

or want to embarrass the minister. I believe they want to cooperate

with the minister. I'm not sure that at this moment they have a great

deal of respect for the minister, but

[ Page 2056 ]

still they accept the fact that he is the minister

and they want to cooperate with him. Why does he need this power, when

they have not abused this power in the past? I don't believe that this

is a minor change. It is a major change and it would allow the

minister.... It's fine for you to talk about the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but that means you. That means the

minister. It would allow him to overrule, to vary the decisions of

democratically elected municipal councillors around this province.

[3:00]

Section 33 approved on the following division.

YEAS — 28

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

A. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

McGeer

R. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 10

Macdonald

Barrett

Lauk

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Lockstead

Wallace

Blencoe

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 34 approved.

section 35.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the minister

made the statement that the reason they want to centralize the tax

decisions that local government traditionally made is that they wish to

protect the taxpayer. My question to the minister is: does he not now

feel that local government has over the years, because of its duty to

ensure that the taxpayer is protected locally, become incapable of

protecting its own taxpayers?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Repeat your question.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister made the statement that the reason

he felt it's very important to make inroads into local government

financial operations and decisions traditionally made by local

government is the fact that he felt that the provincial government

could protect the local taxpayer. My question to the minister is: does

he not think that local councils are quite capable of protecting their

own taxpayers as they are elected to do?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member's question is

somewhat confusing. He is on

section 35, which deals with the rural

areas, and he's talking now about municipalities. I'm at a loss to

understand what he's really talking about.

MR. BLENCOE: Obfuscation and avoiding the question. The

minister made the statement that he's centralizing power to the cabinet

over local decisions that have traditionally been made by local

government because he feels that cabinet can protect local taxpayers

better. I want to know why he feels cabinet can do that far better than

local councils that have done it for hundreds of years. Answer that

question please, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, is this in

section 35?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears to be.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it says that cabinet can prescribe

tax rates, and he says he needs to protect the local taxpayer. Why does

he now feel he has to protect the local taxpayer when local governments

have been doing that for hundreds of years? It's a reasonable question.

The UBCM wants to know that. I think he has a duty to answer that

question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the response is identical to

that which has been given in other sections of this bill and in Bill 7.

Certainly we have full confidence in the ability of municipalities to

carry out their responsibilities. The record shows for itself that we

have every reason to have full confidence and will continue to.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we'll try again to get an answer

from the minister. The

section clearly says: "The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — cabinet, that is — "may make

regulations for the taxation of land and improvements under this act,

including prescribing tax rates, prescribing relationships between tax

rates and prescribing formulas for calculating the relationships

referred to in the previous paragraph." Why does the minister need this

kind of authoritarian centralism that is so rife throughout this piece

of legislation and many other pieces of legislation when it has never

been needed before in this province? There is no question that the duly

elected, mandated people at the municipal level, regardless of their

political background, have acted responsibly when it comes to taxation

of property.

I would like the minister to tell us: if he has the respect and

understanding, as he says he has, not only for the people who are

elected but, more importantly, for the people out there who elect and

give a mandate to those municipal councillors, why does he need this

sort of authoritarian, centralized control, where he deems himself to

know more about what is good for Zeballos than people who live in work

in Zeballos? He deems himself to know more about what is good for

people in Castlegar than the people that Castlegar have elected. Why

does he need this sort of authoritarian, centralized power that has

been criticized so much, both within and outside of this Legislature?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, would the member clarify whether he's referring to municipalities or rural areas?

MR. D'ARCY: We are much faster to answer questions than the

minister, on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about

any council under the Municipal Act, whether it be a regional district,

a city, a township, a village or a town that has had that power before

to set its own tax

[ Page

2057 ]

rates. I don't see why it makes a difference

whether we're talking about an electoral area of a regional board or

the city of Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the

section specifically relates to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act Amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the questions and the debate

would be better suited in second reading than in committee. That is why

I wanted to know if the member was talking about municipal or rural

taxation. Once I get that decision from him then I'll be able to answer

his question with some accuracy.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the minister

has, so perhaps he doesn't understand, but a substantial proportion of

the electorate who have sent me down here live in areas which are

euphemistically called unorganized — that is, they do not have a

regular municipal government. Of course this

section applies to them,

and yes, I am concerned about what the minister may decide relative to

those electors who increasingly see their taxes go up each and every

year by arbitrary actions of his ministry.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I assume, Mr. Chairman, that he is talking

about taxation in the rural areas. I think the records will show that

we could go back as far as possibly 1917, and that's around there when

this started, so it hasn't changed.

Section 35 approved on the following division:

[3:15]

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Brummet

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Curtis

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

NAYS — 8

Macdonald

Barrett

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Hanson

Wallace

Blencoe

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

Journals of the House.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Section 35.1 approved.

Section 36 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I now know why the government has

been fearful in calling this bill: they were aware that I was going to

be presenting this side's opposition to this particular amendment.

If I would be permitted to give this bill another title, and if I

would be permitted to give the title that was in order, I would call it

"The Fib Bill." This bill deals with a promise made by the government

when they were seeking election and then broken after they got elected.

What do you think they did that for? Some people would say cynically

that they were looking for votes. Of course, I'm one of those "some

people." I would say they were just looking for votes. This bill takes

away the renter's grant and tax credits from poor people and the

elderly. Since there are more poor and elderly people than there are

millionaires, this bill was passed before an election to entice the

poor people and the low-income earners to vote Social Credit. As soon

as the election was over, they said: "We're going to take this away."

They did let it slip before the campaign that they hadn't passed the

legislation yet, but they were going to take it away before voting day.

Isn't it funny that a lot of people had the hope that the government

would change its mind? A lot of people thought that this government

really fought for ordinary people.

When the minister first brought in these wonderful benefits, as he

saw it, allowing people to have some of their own money back, he made a

great speech about it. He said how wonderful it was to be able to allow

the poor and the low-income earners to have some of their own money

back and to get government off their backs — "too much government

taking too much money out of the pockets of the poor and the elderly

and the low-income earners." Do you remember that, Mr. Member? They

brought that bill in with a big fanfare and said: "This is for you

ordinary folks." The ordinary folks thought this was wonderful. "We're

going to get some of our money back." It's like the communists operate;

this government has learned a lot from the communists. Take away

everything you can from the people and then give them a little bit

back, and somehow they feel relieved. This is Soviet-style government.

This bill is a Soviet-style bill. You are a bunch of pinkos over there.

If you go too far, I'll call you Reds. Where else did you you learn

these tactics from? Mr. Speaker, look at the tie he's wearing. This

government is an incredible paradox. The only thing that they believe

in looking after is the millionaires and the super-rich. The ordinary

people out

[ Page 2058 ]

there have to carry this whole burden of saving money on their backs.

Mr. Speaker, if you had a choice of spending $38 million on a

brand-new prison or of giving some money back to the poor, the

handicapped, the elderly and low-income people, what would you spend

the money on?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Socreds might need the prison someday.

MR. BARRETT: My colleague, who is young and hasn't outgrown

his cynicism, suspects that the only reason they're refurbishing a

prison is because they're looking toward their future. I won't go that

far, but I begin to wonder about the sense of a government that takes

away from the low-income earners a few dollars that should be their

incentive to go out and work. How did you decide to take the money away

from these people? How did you decide that in the fight against the

high cost of government you're going to put the wounded in the front

lines and protect the millionaires?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's communism.

MR. BARRETT: "That's communism." I guess so. It's kind of a

perverse statism that you've got going. I don't know where you get

these weird ideas, except that I guess because there are so many

millionaires in your group and it doesn't affect you, it doesn't really

bother you to take this money off ordinary people. I don't understand

you. Or maybe I do understand you too well. Whom are you elected to

protect? You're protecting the super-rich, the large corporations and

the big businesses. Everybody else. If that is the case, then this is a

bill to protect the people from spending their own money. They take

money from the poor and the low-wage earners of this province and say:

"You're the ones who have to sacrifice in hard times." The minister

knows very well that he's the same minister who lifted the succession

duty tax. He's heard that story a hundred times, and he's going to hear

it a hundred times more. Given a choice of taxing estates of very

wealthy people, they let that go. They don't bother the super-rich when

times are tough. Not once did they take a dime off those millionaires'

estates, as California does, which was started by Ronald Reagan. The

fact is that prior to this government's election and the need for this

kind of legislation, there was a succession duty in this province, and

when the super-rich died, they paid their fair share from their

estates, putting some of the money back into this province that they

earned from the workers and ordinary people and the resources of the

province. Who lifted the tax off the millionaires? Social Credit.

Isn't it interesting? Their argument was that if we have a

succession duty on the millionaires' estates, the poor millionaires'

families will be left with nothing. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's the

classic example of estate Mc........ I won't say the name. The poor

gentleman died and went on to his reward, where material things don't

count any more. That poor gentleman left an estate of $28 million.

There was a succession duty in those days, brought in by W.A.C.

Bennett, and supported by me and my colleagues. That estate left $28

million, and the government taxed it and taxed it. After the government

was through taxing it, all the heavy hand of government left for the

poor widow and the five children was $21 million. Now we're hopeful

that that widow and those five children get along on the $21 million. I

haven't heard a complaint yet that they can't.

We were collecting an average, per year, of $40 million under that

succession duty. That was all wiped out by this bunch of millionaires

over here. You die rich, you can go down six feet and you don't have to

worry. You don't pay a dime under Social Credit. There's no restraint

when you kick the bucket under this government. You get a free ride to

whichever direction you're going. No taxes upwards, downwards or in

purgatory. But if you're poor and you're alive, and you try to buy a

few bucks' worth of groceries, and you try to buy a case of beer, or

try to give your grandchildren a gift, you lose your tax credits under

Social Credit and you lose the lousy $275 a year that's coming back to

you on your income tax.

That's cheap. It's not only cheap, it's mean. If you're going to

fight the high cost of government, and the need to show restraint, why

pick on the low-income people? What are the millionaires giving in this

fight against restraint, other than sympathy and letters to the editor?

You tell me, Mr. Speaker: in what legislation does this government

intend to ask the millionaires to give their share in the fight against

the high cost of government? They give up a bottle of scotch maybe?

Send a sympathy letter to Bill: "Keep on, Bill. Kick the slats out of

the ordinary people. Leave us millionaires alone." What are the wealthy

people of this province contributing in this time of restraint in terms

of a tax loss? Name it, Mr. Speaker. Nothing!

The program's not fair. The program is designed to hit the poor, the

low income earners and those people out there whose whole future is

wrapped up in some mundane job trying to stay one step ahead of

welfare. We're spending more money on welfare under Social Credit than

at any other time in the history of the province of British Columbia.

This is the welfare commie government. Except for millionaires. When

the millionaires die in this province, Mr. Speaker, their estates go

unattached, untaxed, unchanged, and the millionaires go to Valhalla

knowing that their money is safe in the arms of Social Credit.

Meanwhile, the low-income people who expect help from the government

are going to have the slats kicked out of them in this bill.

Here we are, on this quiet Wednesday afternoon, even though it's

really Tuesday according to your definition of time — no, I guess it is

Wednesday. That was last week. We're going to take money out of the

pockets of the poor and low-income earners. Can't you see them all

sitting there in the cabinet deciding: "Well, we need an extra couple

million bucks for this program. So who will we take it from? Why, we'll

take it from the poor people. We'll take it from the low-income

earners. We've got to leave the millionaires alone." They don't tax

estates, but they're going to take this money out of the pockets of

low-income earners, the elderly and the poor. Well, I suppose if you're

a Socred it's all right. But I'll bet you my shoelaces, Mr. Speaker,

that not one of them will get up in this debate and explain why they're

going to take this money off low-income people and leave the

millionaires alone.

[3:30]

I'm puzzled, Mr. Speaker. The millionaires aren't confused, but I'm

puzzled. Why don't they tax the millionaires if people have to pay

their fair share across the board?

We know that there are 16 millionaires sitting in the government.

And we know that there are 18 would-be millionaires sitting over there.

Was that the fight in cabinet? The

[ Page 2059 ]

ones who have already made it big want to be

protected, and those with a chance of making it big want to be

protected. The amount of money you're getting out of these people is

coffee money to the rich in this province. How can you go on television

and say these are tough times, we have to show restraint, we must be

careful with the money we spend, and then not look people right in the

eye and say: "By the way, we're not taxing millionaires any more with

succession duties"? How do you do that? I bet you don't do it. I bet

you don't tell anybody outside this room that the millionaires are

getting off the hook, do you?

Now raise your hands, all of you who are going to go on television

and explain to the people of this province why you're not taxing the

millionaires when it comes to succession duties, but you're going to

take away the tax credits for the low-income earners and the elderly.

Raise your hands. I'll give them a few moments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they haven't raised their hands. There's one. Would you

go on television and explain why you won't bring in a succession duty

at a time when it's hard for people to earn a living and you're taking

money away from the low-income people? Would you stand up in a debate

and explain that?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it certainly is relevant. If you had a

relevant that was a millionaire, you sure as heck wouldn't want to tax

it, would you?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're not in the right chair.

Mr. Speaker, there are young people in this province who might

suspect that if millionaires give money to the Social Credit Party on

the promise that they won't bring in a bill that affects millionaires,

the Social Credit Party will keep their promises.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, they're not as cynical as that. You mean you don't keep your promises?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the promise: if you

vote Social Credit, they'll remove the succession duty that Social

Credit brought in. And they did. The succession duty came off in 1976,

and the millionaires' estates have not paid their fair share in this

province since that time. And today we're debating a bill to make up a

loss in that money by taking money away from ordinary people

retroactively, in their income tax and the renter's grant.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there is no justice in this. You tell the citizens of

this province that if they have to sacrifice in times of restraint, if

they have to contribute to government revenues, if they have to put

money in the government's coffers, why isn't it fair to everybody? Why

do the low-income earners, the elderly and the handicapped and those

who have to rent have to contribute to your spending when the

millionaires don't?

MR. PARKS: Oh, but they do.

MR. BARRETT: How do the millionaires do it?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you're a millionaire and

you buy a car, you pay sales tax. If you're a poor person and you buy a

car, you pay the same sales tax. So that's fair, eh? The sales tax

itself is so regressive.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you buy a Cadillac you pay more.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. And then you write it off as a

business thing. I know of people who have gone to political conventions

in Cadillac’s they haven't owned.

MR. SKELLY: Paid for by the Socred government.

MR. BARRETT: No names, no pack-drill, Mr. Speaker.

But here we are. In the first session of the thirty-third

parliament, Elizabeth II, 1983, Bill 4, the Income Tax Amendment Act,

1983. This is the bill that takes away money from low-income people and

renters so that this big government can have more money in its pockets

to protect the millionaires. Why?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, does the explanatory note says: "We need this money because we don't want to take it from millionaires"? Come on.

MR. SKELLY: When do we vote on the explanatory note?

MR. BARRETT: When do we vote on the explanatory notes? When

are you going to go on television and look people in the eye and say:

"Look, we don't tax millionaires in British Columbia, because we like

them to come here from all over the world and know that their money's

safe, and we'd like the ordinary people to leave on weekends"? Come on,

this is the kind of doubletalk bill — I'm not talking about the

Premier; I'm talking about the legislation — that is brought before

this House. I can just see them all totalling up the little old widows

out there that they can skin another 200 bucks a year from. Can you see

them sitting around the cabinet room full of glee, saying: "Boy, we'll

make the people suffer. Knock another $75 or $100 bucks off their

renter's grant. Get that little widow out there who struggled to raise

her children. Let's hit her for $200." But whatever you do, don't touch

the millionaires, because they might get upset and write a letter to

the editor.

What a crazy business. People are supposed to believe in government.

People are supposed to believe that government cares for them. People

out there want to believe that the government will show some

compassion, some heart and some understanding. They go around flogging

this nonsense that this is a time of restraint, and everybody's got to

suffer except the millionaires. Bring back the succession duty and

point out that you're being fair. If you need more government revenue

for a child-abuse team, then let the rich pay their fair share. If you

need more money for a post-partum care facility

[ Page 2060 ]

for women who have just delivered, then let the

rich pay their share. If you're cutting off services to the handicapped

because the government can't afford to give $50 a month to handicapped

people, then let the rich pay their fair share.

But that's not what's going on in B.C. today, Mr. Speaker. The rich

are not paying their fair share. The millionaires are not being taxed.

And we've got a bill in front of us today that's going to hit little

people — widows, low-income earners, single-parent mothers — with

another $200 or $250 a year to kick into this government that says it's

showing restraint. Who are they trying to kid? No wonder they've made a

ruling that cameras can't take pictures of politicians in the hallways.

They don't want pictures of embarrassed politicians who are going to

vote for this kind of stuff.

I want to hear the government members get up and tell us why the

millionaires should be exempt at this time from further taxes. I'm not

embarrassed or ashamed to go on television and say to all the

millionaires of British Columbia: "If I get elected you're going to get

taxed, so don't vote for me. All the ordinary people, you're not going

to get taxed. Vote for me." Why don't you say that? They don't say that

in an election campaign, Mr. Speaker. Not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're realistic.

MR. BARRETT: You're more realistic; protect the millionaires is realism. That's what you are.

Look, it's tough out there. There's 14 percent unemployment. People

are having their wages frozen by this government. Increased costs.

Unlimited increased costs from the Crown corporations, Hydro and

others; and you're taking this money out of the pockets of ordinary

people and not a dime from the millionaires. Why?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You don't see that? Do you support a succession

duty? Not on your life. You've got prospects, don't you? We know that.

That's another bill. I mean, if you think you're going to be a

millionaire, you're not going to bring in that kind of a tax, are you?

A wink and a nudge. I understand. We've got it together.

Maybe there are about 50 people up in the galleries, and you hope

they'll forget it and walk away from here. Never bring television in

here and let them hear this kind of stuff. No, sir. Don't allow the

citizens to walk out of here hearing this kind of stuff. They might get

mad at government and figure out that the millionaires are being

protected by this bunch over there. We don't want them hearing that

stuff. We want the people to be frightened of the power of government.

We want people to understand that the propagandists and the news

manipulators that you hire for $18 million will influence them while

you take the money out of poor people's pockets.

Mr. Speaker, the silence is deafening. I know that I have to sit

down and shut up in a few minutes, and this whole inconvenience will be

over. You can go on about your business protecting those super-rich

people. I know that. But maybe a little half hour's discomfort from the

few of you who are left here is worth it. I'll bet you there won't be

one word about how they don't have the money for a child-abuse team to

protect children from being beaten up. There is no more child-abuse

team left in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. It's been wiped out by this

government that refuses to get the millionaires to pay their fair

share. They've taken away $50 a month from the handicapped citizens of

this province. They're taking away another $200 a year from the

elderly. They say they can't afford a child-abuse team, while they

allow millionaires — without succession duties — to get away with

millions and millions every single year. And they fake it out. They go

on television and give those practised smiles with those lovely teeth

and say: "Well, we really would like to do better but we don't want to

hurt the feelings of those millionaires, because if we ask them to pay

their fair share, they might get mad and not give money to our party."

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yeah. Oh, sure. I'm just a bad person,

raising these terrible arguments. As soon as I sit down the world will

be better again. I know all that. But you tell me, how do you expect

people out there to believe you when the only legislation you've

brought in this session attacks the low-income people, the handicapped

and the poor? At the same time you're leaving the millionaires alone,

who could be contributing some $40 million a year in succession duties,

the way they do in California.

It was W.A.C. Bennett, a Socred Premier of this province, who

brought in the succession duty. I sat across from him in this House and

heard him say that the millionaires who live in British Columbia,

who've made their millions in British Columbia, owe a debt to the

people of British Columbia and they should pay their fair share of

taxes. What happened to this Social Credit bunch? I agreed with W.A.C.

Bennett. I voted for that legislation. But what did this bunch do as

soon as they came in? They took that legislation out and the rich don't

pay those taxes any more. Now they come in here and squeeze every

nickel they can out of low-income people.

How do you put your head down on the pillow at night? How do you

feel about the claptrap you feed out there, saying, "Oh, people have to

sacrifice," and "we have to give," and "these are tough times" and

everything else? You squeeze the nickels and dimes out of the ordinary

people, the elderly and the poor and let the millionaires get off. How

do you explain that out there? Do you go back to your constituencies

and stop people on the street and say: "Look here, the millionaires are

hurting enough. They've got a headache from counting their money. We

don't want to hurt them too much, you know." So they take this money

out of the pockets of the poor, the elderly and the handicapped, who

know how to sacrifice. They raised families through the Depression,

hoped for the best for their children. Now they're having their

educations squeezed off and a few bucks taken out of the pockets of the

handicapped, but the millionaires walk down the street saying: "We've

got a lovely government, they're not going to touch me." Who is going

to believe you out there when you say that everybody has to sacrifice

at a time of restraint? You haven't brought in one piece of legislation

to take a nickel off the super-rich in this province.

MR. PARKS: Yes, we have.

MR. BARRETT: Name it.

MR. PARKS: Sales tax.

[ Page 2061 ]

MR. BARRETT: Sales tax! What a fig in the eye! The sales tax

went up a little bit. Oh, let's hear it for the poor millionaire. Maybe

you took seven cents off them. Well, that's really a punishment. They

might miss cream in their coffee on a Sunday. Come on! You have not

focused on the super-rich one bit. You haven't put a single point on

the t income tax on a graduated scale for the rich in this province.

Not a penny. Not one point. Certainly the income tax is a lot fairer

than anything you advocate. Here you are amending the Income Tax Act

and taking it off the poor, and you're not taking anything off the

rich. Here's the bill. If you believe it, why don't you amend it? I'll

help you amend it, even though you're a lawyer. It only takes simple

language. I won't charge you; I'll help you figure it out.

[3:45]

Don't give us that stuff. This is a half-hour of uncomfortable

feeling with some MLA yapping his head off. The half hour will pass,

the millionaire's interests will be taken care of, and it'll all be

forgotten.

Then you go on television and you look people right in the eye in

the camera and say: "Oh, well, times are tough for government, you

know. We've got to get government off people's backs." So they climb on

the backs of the poor and the handicapped and the low-income earner,

and leave the millionaires out of it. That's the kind of government

you've got over there, folks. But how many people in this province are

going to hear about it? Do you think they'll ever bring radio or

television in here? Not on your life. They won't even let you take a

picture in the corridor any more.

MR. STRACHAN: Why didn't you do it?

MR. BARRETT: We were the first ones to move to a question period and a full Hansard ,

and the next move was television and radio. And guess what? It's been

eight years since that committee gave its report, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Say that again in your dulcet tones. I can't quite hear that intelligence.

AN HON. MEMBER: He forgot what he said.

MR. BARRETT: Quite a time span — three seconds.

This bill is a retroactive piece of legislation, by its nature

unwarranted, unnecessary and undesirable in the parliamentary system.

It's retroactive. A year ago people thought they were going to have

this money. It's not something new. This is taking away last year's

money. Are you going to talk about that too? Are you going to tell us

how you're going to make people go out and borrow money to pay last

year's taxes? What a gang! What a bunch of mean penny-pinchers over

there, taking money off people that was earned a year ago, taking away

their renter's grant, and you haven't touched the millionaires. What

kind of an outfit is it anyway that sits down in that green cabinet

room and thinks up legislation like this?

Where's the cabinet? Where's the government benches? Gone to have a

cup of coffee. We'll just listen to this guy yap, he'll have his 40

minutes and it'll be over. We'll get up there and we'll all vote with

the government and protect the millionaires and take this money out of

little people's pockets.

The only time this bunch pays attention to little people is at

election time. They go on television and say: "Ooh, don't vote for

those socialists, they're going to redistribute income. Ooh, don't vote

for those socialists, they're trying to make it fair. Ooh, don't vote

for those socialists, they're going to tax the millionaires. You've got

a millionaire neighbour next door to you and you know how upset they'll

be if they get axed." Well, if you're twitching and tutting over there,

you get up, Mr. Minister, and tell us why the millionaires are being

left out this session. Will you do that? Get up and tell us why you

think we shouldn't have a succession duty, but we should skin the poor,

the elderly and the handicapped. I'd like to hear the train of thought,

the brilliant economic analysis, the overwhelming wisdom that says: "We

need more money from the low-incomed, the handicapped and the poor, but

we can't afford to tax the millionaires." I'd like to hear you explain

that.

Between you and me and the two posts beside you, Mr. Speaker, I

don't think we're going to hear that. Don't be surprised if not one of

them gets up and speaks on this bill. Don't be surprised if all we get

is dumb silence from the government over this. Because who is going to

get up....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, most silence is dumb. And sometimes when they open up they prove it.

The dense pack in the corner over there, the group that gets up and

votes for everything the government proposes, in the hope that their

own dreams and ambitions of sitting in that cabinet room are fulfilled

someday. Their little hearts beating under their little white shirts —

a-pump-a-pump-a-pump! "Let me in there and I'll protect the

millionaires. Just watch me. I'll be so loyal, and slavishly support

the government." The last time they had a maverick, they took away the

guy's committee. What happened to him? He's gone down the tube.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you called me to order I

was out of order in mentioning that. I would never mention that the

dense pack votes slavishly with the government, except that I was out

of order. The six of you down in the corner, the dense pack. How many

of them are there in the corner?

MR. REID: Six.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that one can count. That is a step forward.

When it comes to taking away, this government knows how to do it.

Take away from the poor, the handicapped and the elderly and leave it

in the pockets of the millionaires. That's what this bill is all about.

Why don't you get a little more mad at me? Why don't you get up and

say: "I'm so mad at you, I'm going to jump up on my feet and

participate in this debate and explain to the people of British

Columbia why the Leader of the Opposition is wrong, why the NDP is

wrong, and why we should tax the poor, why we should tax the

handicapped."

Interjection.

[ Page 2062 ]

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there's the voice from the guy. He's got a

new coat on. He changes coats just like changing principles. Just walk

across the floor; it's all gone. Now we've got a little stirring-up.

That's good. Now we're going to have a little intelligent debate. This

is the warming-up. They're going to get up and explain why they need to

take the money out of the pockets of the low-income earners. They're

going to get up and explain why they need to take it off the working

poor and the handicapped, and why they should leave the millionaires

alone. I want to hear that explanation.

MR. MICHAEL: I'll explain it for you.

MR. BARRETT: Don't hold your breath. You'd be the best one to

explain it for them all right. You came a long way to sit over there.

No personal reference, Mr. Speaker. But I'm looking forward to that

particular member getting up and explaining how on the road to Damascus

of Social Credit he became a convert to this kind of legislation, and

why he now believes that the poor and the handicapped and the

low-income earners should pay this, and when he became a defender of

the millionaires. I'd like to hear that member get up and say that we

shouldn't impose a succession duty on the rich. They might get upset as

we lower them into their reward. You know, when we were in government,

I never got one letter from anybody who had passed on and had to pay

that tax. Not once. That's right. You know how people complain about

everything. They must have been happy with it. Some of them were too

cheap to pay the 32 cents. But the fact is that here we have on this

sleepy little afternoon a quick shuffle, a quick little move, just a

little bill that says: "Last year, when you spent that money.... We're

going to tax it now. We want the money back." Retroactive legislation.

You'll get up and support it. You love it. You're willing to buy

anything now.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Bye-bye. Sure, I'm going. I'll be out of sight,

and you can go on and continue your game. Just take money from the

ordinary people. But I'll tell you, even though I may be gone, there

will always be, no matter how small or how large, a few citizens in

this province who will have the guts and the courage to stand up and

ask for decency and fairness in taxation for the ordinary people of

British Columbia. With all your tricks and all your propaganda and all

the sleaze you operate with, there are always going to be some people

in this province who have the guts to stand up and fight you. They even

come from the religious community, and what do you do? You attack them.

The local Catholic bishop calls part of this package of legislation

evil. The Premier's only answer is that he has a different philosophy.

I guess it's true. The Catholic bishop is a Christian. Is that what the

Premier meant, that he had a different philosophy? What did the Premier

mean? Let's hear the Premier explain this bill. When the Roman Catholic

bishop of this city attacks this legislation, the Premier says he has a

different philosophy. Well, the Roman Catholic bishop is a Christian.

What's the Premier? What's the difference in philosophy? Let's hear it.

Let's have the debate.

MR. REE: A little further to the left.

MR. BARRETT: A little further to the left, he says. What is that saying in the Bible about how does a camel get through the eye of a needle?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right: it's harder for a rich man to get

to heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.

Thank you, Mr. Member. I'm reading from that very left-wing book called

the Bible. Is that not right, Mr. Member? I expect you to get up and

explain why the millionaires aren't getting touched. Give us a wink,

Harv. Well, you know, there isn't going to be one of them to get up

there and say that the millionaires are being left alone because, after

all, we're the government of the rich and we want to make it fair. So

to make it fair....

MR. PARKS: We're a government of all British Columbians.

MR. BARRETT: You're not a government of all the people of

British Columbia. If you were you wouldn't attack the poor, the

low-income earners and the handicapped. You'd say everybody has to pay

their fair share, and you're not saying that. You're leaving the rich

right out of that. There's not a single penny the rich have to pay

that's extra since you've come into power. You've removed the

succession duty and you've stung the ordinary people of this province

every step of the way, and you won't get up and say why. Not one of you.

That's right, Mr. Speaker, just a little more discomfort, maybe

another 10 minutes and then it'll be all over. Then they can stand up

like they do when the bell rings, and vote for this legislation, and

hope people will forget it. Maybe one or two of them have got a little

drip of conscience in their stomachs right now, but that'll pass. Go

down and say a few nasty words about the NDP and that'll be okay,

that'll clean it up.

The rich don't pay their fair share under Social Credit, and that's

the message for the wealthy people of this province. In times of

restraint, when we have to cut back child-abuse programs, when we have

to take 50 bucks a month away from the handicapped citizens in a

wheelchair, we're going to take this money from the pockets of ordinary

people, but don't worry, millionaires out there, we're not going to

bother you one bit. This is the millionaires' party and they're running

the show here. They're protecting the super rich every step of the way.

I don't want to shock my colleagues, but I'm willing to lay you 7 to

1 that not one cabinet minister gets up and explains on this bill why

they're not taxing the millionaires. I'll give you 12 to 1. I'll give

you 20 to 1 odds, and take all comers, Mr. Speaker, that there won't be

a single cabinet minister who gets up and defends this bill vis-à-vis

why there isn't a succession duty in this province.

I ask the government to use an old word as a reference: "Repent." Take some time to think over what you're doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: If you said that more often and thought about millionaires, I'd feel better.

I move that the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

[ Page 2063 ]

On the amendment.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to take too much of

the House's time. Speaking to the amendment and some of the things that

were stated earlier in this debate. I suppose if a back-bencher spent

all of his time going about correcting all the baloney that you hear

from across the way, you'd be working at it full time. But as an

example, one of the members this morning spent a lot of time debating

the question of how bad things were in British Columbia, the fact that

consumer spending was down, and the fact that B.C. was lagging behind

all of Canada. Doom and gloom.

[4:00]

In today's Province there's

an announcement from the Royal Bank of Canada, and it says: "Bank

Forecast Sees Better Times for B.C." The announcement reads as follows:

"The Royal Bank of Canada says B.C. will enjoy the

fastest growth rate in Canada this year and in 1984. According to its

latest Econoscope economic review, the bank should continue to lead the

country, growing by 5.7 percent in real terms. The national average for

1983 is 3 percent growth."

With regard to the Leader of the Opposition's discussion about

millionaires — and I see he's left the House — it's interesting in

looking at what's happened in every province in the Dominion of Canada,

I believe, regarding succession duties. Back in 1971 the federal

government brought in a capital gains tax, and it was found by the

provinces in the ensuing years that what the provinces were in fact

doing by having succession duties was double taxation. If the members

will check the record — and I will have the facts within a few minutes

— I'm sure that you will find that every province in the Dominion of

Canada has done away with the succession duties, because in effect what

they ended up doing was taxing people twice. Under the federal income

tax law, on death all the property that you hold, whether it's bonds,

stocks or property, is treated as if it was sold on the day of death,

and the beneficiaries to the estate must see that all of those taxes

are paid on capital gains at that time. That's the reason for the

repealing of succession duties across the Dominion of Canada.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have visiting us from

London, England, a very lovely lady, and a friend, I'd say, not of

hundreds but of thousands of British Columbians who for so many years

have been able to receive her advice, counsel and assistance in making

No. 1 Regent Street a home away from home for people from our province.

I would like all members to bid a most cordial welcome and our fondest

respects to Miss Babs Denby.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as a frequent visitor to B.C. House

in London, let me add my words of praise as well. We've always been

hosted very well on a non-partisan basis in B.C. House, and should we

visit there again when there is a new agent-general — perhaps the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), should fate

be so kind to him — I hope that the staff are as good as their

predecessors.

MR. SKELLY: We're discussing Bill 4, the Income Tax Amendment

Act, Mr. Speaker, and there are two parts to it. We're discussing

hoisting this bill for six months — six months hence from today's date.

We're also discussing the advisability of doing that. I think the

government should consider the arguments that will be put forward by

the opposition in doing that. A lot of those arguments were contained

in the speech made by the leader of this party in this House. It

appears that the tax system in this province is skewed unfairly in

favour of the rich and places a much heavier burden for the cost of

government on the poor.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What is required before we pass these numerous changes in property

taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, etc., is a full analysis of the tax

system as it operates in this province, and after that complete

analysis — which should take about six months — then possibly the

government should come back with a revised version of the bill if they

come back with it at all.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this bill, and both

parts are equally offensive and should be reconsidered by the

government. As you know, the first part, in the space of one and a half

lines, repeals the renter's tax credit and the provincial tax credit,

as it was called, for the citizens of British Columbia.

I don't recall the minister's exact words when the legislation was

brought in, but I do have a copy of the budget speech in which the

minister said:

I believe that this credit will effectively bring tax

relief to those who need it most. The larger the family the larger the

credit; the smaller the income the larger the credit. The elderly in

particular will benefit from this measure. It is estimated that 75

percent of elderly tax filers will receive the credit. This important

measure will be implemented in the 1981 tax year.

So the minister was aware of those who benefited

most from the 1981 legislation, those in our province who needed that

benefit most. Yet in the middle of a taxation year, in November 1982,

the minister, by press release, suddenly snatched away this benefit,

knowing that he was snatching away the benefit from the people who

required it most. That's one part of the bill that the minister should

reconsider during this six month hoist. I'll come back and discuss that

a little bit more sometime later in my speech.

The second

part is the part which refines the provisions for the

political tax credit. It's interesting that when the minister snatched

away the provincial tax credits from those who need it most, he did not

also remove the political tax credit, which people are able to obtain

when they make a donation to a political party. They're able to deduct

that donation as a credit from their tax payable on their income tax

form, and even get money back from the federal government. Why did the

government not withdraw the tax credit for political donations? The

reason is that this party in the government benches in this Legislature

is a provincial party. It's a rump group. There is no other provincial

party and no federal counterpart to this party that governs in British

Columbia. They're a coalition of all of the right-wing elements in the

province. So they can't rely on the federal tax credit that's available

for political donations. What they did at the same time that they

snatched that provincial tax credit from the senior citizens, the

elderly, the handicapped, lower-income families and renters, is that

they kept for themselves that tax credit that benefits exclusively the

Social Credit Party in

[ Page 2064 ]

British Columbia. That's the real unfairness of

this bill. We've mentioned and discussed before, in terms of other

legislation, the unfairness of the Social Credit legislation in this

session and how it applies unfairly to the poor, as opposed to the

wealthy. This is one of those examples, and it's an example that the

people of this province find revolting. How can a political party like

this, which complains that they need restraint, that they have to back

off on tax expenditures.... While they back off on tax expenditures

that benefit the poor and thereby improve the economy, they also retain

the political tax credit, which is of benefit exclusively to the Social

Credit Party.

One thing we had hoped to see is not here. Maybe this is another

reason why the government should pull this bill out of the House or

vote for this hoist motion. It is in the federal tax legislation. When

the federal tax legislation allows you to claim a credit for political

donations, they also require disclosure of those political donations

over a certain amount. You've probably seen the newspapers: once a year

those political donations are published so that people know who

supports which political parties. That's fair. If we're going to allow

people to benefit from a tax credit, then at least the public should

have the right to know who is benefiting from these tax credits. For

example, the federal government requires that disclosure. Here's from

the Globe and Mail of July 6, 1983, discussing corporate

donations. On the corporate side, Canadian Pacific, the country's

largest company in terms of sales, was also the largest single

political donor — not to the NDP, which wants to nationalize the

company's railway, but to the Liberals and the Conservatives. They've

probably donated to the Social Credit Party as well, but because of the

tax legislation in this province, which is not consistent with the

similar tax legislation in the federal jurisdiction, we don't know if

Canadian Pacific donated to Social Credit. But they probably did, since

Social Credit is a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives. Since the

Canadian Pacific donated to both parties, we can only assume that they

donated to Social Credit as well.

Next came the Bank of Nova Scotia. As you saw in the Province of

yesterday or the day before, the 11 chartered banks of Canada had a 39

percent increase in their profits in the first nine months of this year

over last year. How did they get it? Through a comfortable financial

regime that's been established for them by federal and provincial

governments. Who did the Nova Scotia donate money to? They gave $37,698

to the Liberals and $30,000 to the Conservatives. Most of the other

banks gave about $30,000 each to the two major parties. What did those

banks give to Social Credit in British Columbia? Well, we can't tell.

We don't know, because under our legislation, which roughly

parallels....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain

(Mr. Mowat) said it wasn't enough, so obviously they gave something,

and clearly the government is giving something back out of taxes.

I do know that one of the chartered banks.... In fact, two of the

chartered banks lent executives to Team B.C., which was also funded

through the Ministry of Human Resources and is widely considered to be

a Social Credit front organization. Possibly they gave their money

directly to the front organizations, rather than to the party itself.

You can go through the list.

In any case, the federal government requires this financial

disclosure in exchange for that political tax credit. We were hoping to

see in this legislation, in exchange for the tax credit in British

Columbia, a similar disclosure provision. Unfortunately, the Social

Credit government in this province and the Social Credit Party appear

to have some fear of allowing the people to know who provides funding

for that party. What are they afraid of? We know the banks and the

large resource companies support the party. The Liberals and

Conservatives nationally appear to have no fear about disclosing the

source of their campaign funds. Why are Social Credit Party members in

British Columbia so afraid of having the source of their campaign funds

disclosed? That makes this legislation doubly unfair, because at the

same time we're taking away the tax credit for low-income people,

senior citizens and renters, we're allowing this political donations

credit to remain. Yet we're not providing adequate disclosure so that

people know who is getting the benefit of their tax money.

[4:15]

I'd like to get back to the provincial tax credit and the renter's

tax credit. It's well known that there are certain measures that can be

used under our income tax system to reduce the amount of taxable

income. There are things like tax deductions — the personal exemption.

We're all allowed to claim a personal exemption on our income tax form.

But those types of deductions favour the rich and discriminate against

the poor. I'll give you an example, which comes from an

article by Neil

Brooks, originally published in Saturday Night . I'll quote a small

section from this article:

"But our Income Tax Act stands social policy on its

head, subsidizing the well-to-do and denying help to the poor. The

richer you are, the more assistance you receive. If you're fortunate

enough to be in the 65 percent tax bracket, your saving on the $1,000

child care deduction, and thus the subsidy you receive, is $650. In the

25 percent bracket, the subsidy is worth only $250. If your income is

so low that you pay no taxes, the deduction is worthless and the

subsidy is nothing."

So the poorest families, even though they may pay the same amount

for child care and for attention to their children, for day care and

that type of thing, receive no benefit from that tax deduction on their

income tax form. The poorest families receive no benefit. The

wealthiest families, in the 65 percent tax range, receive the highest

benefit. That's why Mr. Brooks, who is an expert on taxes, claims that

the tax deduction system stands social policy on its head. It benefits

the rich much more than it benefits the poor.

Then we have tax credits, such as the political tax credit. The one

thing that the Canadian Council on Social Development suggests we

should use more of in the Income Tax Act are refundable tax credits.

That was the real benefit of the legislation that this government

brought in in 1980, and it was supported on all sides of the House.

Unfortunately, that was the first thing that was snatched away by the

current legislation and the minister's press release in 1982. Surely

the government needs time to reconsider this decision they've made.

They say it's going to save them $92 million. Over the past two years

we've pointed out other areas of provincial expenditures where that

kind of money could be saved: travel expenses, ministerial office

expenses, advertising expenses, where the government spends tens of

millions of dollars wasting taxpayers' money to promote the political

party that's

[ Page 2065 ]

currently in power. There are other areas of

government expenditure that should have been cut back long before the

government considered this necessary element of social and economic

policy, the provincial tax credit and the renter's tax credit. That's

the reason why we're asking the government to support this hoist

motion: to give them a six-month opportunity to look into the effect of

our tax system and how unequal it is as it affects the rich and the

poor in this province. Recent federal budgets have brought into focus

just how clearly unfair the tax system is across Canada, and some

interesting news articles that come out. One was in Maclean's

magazine right after the most recent federal budget, under the title

"Canada's Tax System: Is It Fair?" I'd like to quote some of the

sections out of that article, and even recommend the

article itself to

members on the government side, who are probably not all that aware of

just how regressive our income tax system is. The

article is from Maclean's , Vol. 96, No. 18, dated May 2, 1983:

"...even the common deductions used by many Canadians

— retirement and home-ownership savings and child care expenses — effectively

are more valuable to higher-income earnings. This is because the higher the

tax bracket the higher the tax rate, and therefore the bigger the saving when

deductions are applied against tax."

So all of the deductions that are included in our income tax form

which provide for some measure of tax avoidance, Mr. Speaker, are of

much more benefit to the rich than they are to the poor.

We've not always been aware of how great a percentage of federal and

provincial government expenditures is made through the provision of tax

expenditures — that is, by allowing individuals and corporations to

avoid the paying of tax. The first disclosure of tax expenditures was

made by the Joe Clark government in 1979, and I'll just quote that

section from this

article as well:

"In 1979 the Conservative government of Prime Minister

Joe Clark produced Canada's first tax expenditure account, which showed

that the government 'spent' $30 billion on tax breaks — compared to

total direct spending for that year of $50 billion. While the Trudeau

government used its restraint program to curb direct spending increases

to 30 percent between 1976 and 1979, it exercised no such reserve about

tax breaks; revenue forgone through tax concessions increased by 42

percent in the same period."

So this is a government in Ottawa that talks about restraints on

spending and yet has exercised no restraints on tax expenditures. The

current government in British Columbia operates in precisely the same

way, allowing that unchecked growth in tax expenditure for other than

the lowest-income earners and renters. The rich and corporations

benefit from those tax expenditures much more than the poor and the

renters.

That's been an interesting change. When we were in government it was

pointed out by the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) that over the

years corporations have paid a smaller and smaller percentage of the

tax burden in the country and in the province, and individuals,

especially in the lower-income groups, have shouldered more and more of

that tax burden. Again, it's mentioned in that Maclean's article:

"Corporate tax breaks over the years have meant that companies

now shoulder less of the national tax burden. In 1951 corporations carried 28

percent of the nation's tax burden, but by 1977 their portion was down to

12 percent. The official corporate tax rate is now 44 percent, but companies,

particularly large ones, generally pay much less because of tax breaks."

And you'll recall, Mr. Speaker, from David Lewis's book, officially entitled Louder Voices but known across Canada by its subtitle The Corporate Welfare Burns ,

that many of the largest corporations in Canada actually paid no tax at

all, and reaped tremendous tax expenditure benefits from the provincial

government. For every one of those tax expenditures — that is, the

government's allowance of certain tax avoidance measures — those of us

who do pay taxes on our income, such as salaries, have to pay more in

order to finance the government which allows those kinds of tax

avoidance measures.

The Maclean's

article also

gives three different examples of taxpayers and how they are impacted

on by the federal income tax system. The provincial income tax system

works in precisely the same way. Unfortunately there hasn't been much

investigation done of that provincial income tax system. We've had the

Carter commission report nationally, we've had a number of other

commissions which investigated the impact of our taxation system, but

very little of that type of investigation has been done in the

province. I think one of the reasons we should have this six-month

hoist is to allow the government to do a full public inquiry into how

the tax system in the province, and this measure in particular, impacts

more harshly on the poor than it does on the wealthy.

To get back, the Maclean's

magazine

article considers three taxpayers. Taxpayer A, who receives

$200,000 from dividend income, pays only 18 1/2 percent of his income

in taxes. Taxpayer B, who receives $200,000 in employment income, pays

43.8 percent of his income in taxes. So there's a tremendous difference

in the way the tax system impacts on those who collect dividends, who

are generally those at the upper end of the income and wealth scale,

and those who work for a living and earn salaries, who end up paying

almost half their income in taxes. Then the

article discusses taxpayer

C, a person who makes $25,000 from employment income — the majority of

people earning salaries from productive employment in this country —

and he pays 14.4 percent of his income in taxes, almost as much, in

percentage terms, as somebody who is receiving $20,000 in dividend

income. I'll make copies of this for anybody in the House who wants

them. This graphically illustrates that our tax system works more

harshly against the poor than it does against the rich, and also works

more harshly against those who earn incomes from salaries and hourly

paid employment than against those who clip coupons and are paid

dividends as a result of the ownership of shares in businesses. The

burden is shouldered more by those who work than by those who don't

have to, and that's one of the problems in our society.

The Premier recently made a speech, in secret in the Empress Hotel,

to an extreme right-wing group of economists, including Milton Friedman

and Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute. We don't know what he said,

and I'm not sure the Premier knows what he said when he made the

speech, because he's not that strong on economics, obviously. But one

of the economists at the meeting was quoted as saying that unemployment

insurance is the main cause of unemployment, which is ridiculous,

because unemployment existed long before unemployment insurance did.

But it's that

[ Page 2066 ]

kind of reversal of unde rstanding

that guides right-wing governments such as the one in office here in

British Columbia. It seems also to be a reversal of social policy that

we should hit the poor harder than we hit the rich. It just doesn't

seem to make sense.

[4:30]

One of the oldest democracies is the one established in Athens

around 2,400 years ago. We're going back a long time, but much has been

written about that democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alcibiades' time?

MR. SKELLY: No, this is not Alcibiades. Alcibiades

represented the kind of man who was popular at the decline of Greek

democracy, the kind of man who believed his mandate and power gave him

the right to impose his will on the poor and the weak. I suppose

Alcibiades would be a Social Credit member in today's society, because

this is a government that believes it has the mandate to turn the tax

system and the government's expenditure system against the poor. No,

I'm talking about what was really, in conservative times in ancient

Athens, the fundamental principle that guided the country: that is,

that those who had most, and who derived the most benefit from society,

had an obligation to give more.

There was a class system in Athens, and that system was based on

what you contributed and what you were capable of contributing. If you

were capable of providing a ship for the Athenian navy, then you

received status as a result of your contribution. If you were capable

of providing the funding to give armour to four or five soldiers, then

your status was a little bit lower. Your status in society and the

contribution expected from you in society was defined by what you had

to give. In our society we've turned that around and made it possible

for the wealthy to avoid contributing to society as a whole. I submit

that that's a perversion of democracy and the democratic system that

traces its roots back 2,400 years, to the system established in ancient

Athens. For example, somebody who was able to contribute five bushels

of wheat to the army of the day was called a pentakosiomedimnos, which

means a five-bushel-a-year man. He earned a certain amount of status by

being able to contribute that amount. It's like John F. Kennedy's

statement: Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can

do for your country. He was aware that the status of a person in a

democracy should derive from what he's able to contribute. The Social

Credit government has stood that principle on its head in a number of

ways — by allowing the rich to take from society and by allowing the

rich to avoid making a contribution to society. In that way they have

in fact made a perversion of democracy here in British Columbia.

So there are a lot of lessons we can learn, both in economic matters

and matters of social obligation, from that democracy that was founded

almost 2,500 years ago. We're straying from the point of the bill,

although that's probably what we should really be talking about: how

much we can contribute rather than how much we can take away from

society. Also, how we can create a system where those who benefit the

most.... I'm not saying they should contribute everything; that

would be foolish. There are even ancient Greek proverbs that people who

give everything are fools. We're not saying that. We're saying that

those who derive the greatest benefit from society should also get

their status from making the greatest contribution; that that is a

fundamental principle. And the poor should give what they can afford to

give.

Some economic work has been done at Dalhousie University on the poor

in this country. We consider them a drain on our economy and on

society. We say the "problem" of the poor, the "problem" of the

unemployed, the "problem" of welfare. Yet it's been carefully

documented and clearly established that in our society the poor pay

their way. In fact they more than pay their way, because they pay every

single tax that we pay. The gentleman member from Maillardville pointed

out that the rich pay the same taxes as the poor. He had turned the

whole issue on its head. The poor pay social services tax, the 7

percent sales, their insurance and medical premiums. They pay their own

way; no question about it. And they use fewer of the services of

society than do the wealthy, because they have less access. They can't

move around. Being poor, they don't always know what services are

available, and, believe me, the rich and the middle class do know what

services are available. They make it their business to know which

provisions are available to them for tax avoidance. That's why the

system has to be restructured to make it fairer, and to reduce the

burden of tax on the poor and increase the burden of tax on the rich; a

little bit, because as I said, we don't want to take everything away

from the rich. But it would require a very small transfer. The rich

would not suffer greatly, the poor would benefit greatly and society as

a whole would benefit greatly if we took six months out to examine our

tax system and the unequal impact it has on rich and poor, and come

back with a bill that is fairer in its application.

There's another thing that should be considered as well: disposable

income. The more you have, the less likely you are to spend it in the

local economy. The less disposable income you have, the more likely you

are to spend it for the necessities of life, or the things that are

close to the necessities of life, and for immediate creature comforts.

So you spend that disposable income in the local economy. You buy gas

to do a little Sunday driving, or maybe you'll go to a theatre or a

restaurant once a week, or once a month if you don't have very much

money. If you're rich you have an opportunity to invest that disposal

income. You may buy South African Krugerrands which are of no benefit

whatsoever to our economy. Or you may invest in hard currency equities

or shares. You could do a number of things. You could put the money in

Swiss bank accounts. The poor don't have that option, so a bit of an

increase in the disposable income of the poor works to the direct

benefit of local economies, and that's what we should be trying to

achieve. This bill is totally counter-productive to that effort. The

government has never, to my knowledge, accepted a motion to hoist a

bill for six months to reconsider what they're doing and to look into

the whole issue.

Right now this province is in a state of confrontation, a state I've

never seen it in before. The province is looking for some type of

movement on the part of both sides. The sides are defined as perhaps

labour, Solidarity, the NDP, church groups, etc., on the one side, and

on the other, as the Social Credit government, which feels it has a

clear mandate deriving from the general election of May 5, 1983. Right

now we need some movement which would show that the government is

willing to take a more careful look at its legislation and the impact

of that legislation, and maybe some movement on the part of those on

the other side to cooperate with the government in that type of

analysis.

[ Page 2067 ]

This is an opportunity for the government to examine this type of

tax legislation to see how they can change the system so that it bears

less harshly on the poor and on middle-income people than it does on

the rich. I would encourage the government to take a look at the

legislation and at the motion to hoist this bill for six months in

order to give it some thought. Perhaps out of that consideration we can

see far more consultation and cooperation in this province, and instead

of the nose-to-nose confrontation that we have now, out of that

cooperation and consultation would grow a more cooperative and

progressive approach to the needs of this province and a greater

understanding of the difficulties that the province faces in economic

terms.

We all understand that the province has fallen on some hard economic

times and that confrontation clearly is not helping to bring us out of

that morass. It's not helping at all. I feet that what is needed at

this point is acceptance by the government of a hoist motion such as

this. It will give us a little time to reflect, to reconsider, and time

to look at some of the things we're doing. It's one thing to say that

the May 5 mandate gave us unlimited power to do what we want to do, but

that's not how democracy works. We all know that. We all know that

democracy requires careful consultation, meeting with the people face

to face, finding out what their concerns are.

Of that poll which took place on the weekend and was reported by the Vancouver Sun ,

the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is reported to

have said: "Clearly we haven't sold our program well enough. We've got

to go out and talk to people about our program." A six month hoist will

give the government precisely that opportunity. We could set up a

mechanism — we could cooperate in that mechanism — which would allow

the government to consult with groups in society, on a public basis, as

to what tax measures are necessary to achieve restraint, as to what

economic measures are necessary to achieve restraint, and as to what

labour relations mechanisms are necessary. Through that process of

consultation progress can be made. But in the confrontation that we're

facing right now the province is actually being set back and productive

energies are being wasted. Energies in this Legislature are being

wasted. We all know that, Mr. Speaker; we're all aware of the costs.

We have an opportunity here to take six months out and reconsider

these tax measures which, as I pointed out, bear more harshly on the

poor than they do on the rich. I support the motion to hoist this bill

and would encourage the government to reconsider the position they've

taken. I'm certain the people who have done without that tax credit for

the last year would have no objection to a six-month hoist, because

they haven't expected the tax credit for this year in any case. Maybe

out of the considerations and investigations that take place during the

hoist they can expect a much fairer income tax system.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Certainly. The economy might pick up, as the

member for Shuswap said, quoting the Royal Bank of Canada, which has

been saying that for months — for years. Maybe the government will get

lucky and the economy will pick up, because the government certainly

isn't doing very much to encourage it.

So that's the reason I support this six-month hoist.

Let me mention one way that this.... I'll have to save it for

the main motion, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the attention that was paid

to my speech by the members opposite, and look forward to their debate.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, because I do not want to take any of her time, I

would like to remind the members once again that we are now discussing

the amendment to Bill 4. Although I know it's very difficult, I would

remind them of the requirements for relevancy when discussing the bill,

and also remind them that tedious repetition is one of those things

that is not to be entered into. I must say that the previous speaker

did very well in his discourse on this particular amendment, in my

opinion, but I’ll just remind all the rest of the members, because when

there is lengthy discussion on bills I believe the Chair must be

particularly aware and must try particularly to apply the rules of this

House in that regard.

MRS. WALLACE: I will try to stay within the confines of debate that you have outlined, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance was out of the House during

nearly all of my colleague's remarks. As you said, Mr. Speaker, he made

some very interesting and thoughtful points as to why we should be

taking a little more time to think about this particular piece of

legislation. Certainly his presentation was one which I would hope the

minister would consider with an open mind. It was a very thoughtful

presentation and brought into play a broad spectrum of the problems we

must consider when we are thinking about whether or not we are going to

remove this particular tax credit at this particular time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It should be remembered that it's almost a year since the

announcement was made that this tax credit would no longer apply. This

decision was taken by the government without benefit of legislation,

and because of their stated intent to bring in the legislation the

federal authorities went along with the proposal for this delayed piece

of legislation. In fact, even though many people had applied, inasmuch

as there was no legislation on the books at the time the tax forms were

being filed, when the legislation was actually introduced those claims

were paid out without the benefit of this tax exemption.

I think it's important to remember why we have this piece of

legislation on the books. I can do no better than to quote from the

minister when he introduced it and talked about why it was to be worded

as it was and applied as it was; that it would apply not only to

taxpayers but to tax filers, people who didn't actually pay any tax —

the very low-income people. He talked about the formula: that the

credit would be 3 percent of the personal exemption. He said that was

for two reasons: first, the formula would target more benefits to those

tax filers claiming more dependants, as well as to the elderly, so

those in need would receive more. He recognized that there was a need,

he recognized that the formula as applied would provide that greater

amount of relief to the neediest. His second reason for choosing this

particular formula was that personal exemptions are indexed under the

[ Page 2068 ]

Income Tax Act, and therefore if inflation continues to increase in

future years, the level of benefits under the tax credit will also

increase proportionately.

When the minister rises in the House and makes that kind of a

statement introducing a bill, Mr. Speaker, it indicates to me, and I

think it indicates to the public in no uncertain terms, that that is

the stated intent — that that will be a continuing benefit and that it

is to be applied based on inflation and the greatest need. Those are

two very fine principles that we on his side of the House were pleased

to welcome and accept. It doesn't happen too often. We find ourselves

at cross purposes here most of the time. But in this particular item we

were agreed that this was an excellent way to go. The estimated cost

that the minister gave at that time was $100 million. That's not much

out of a $7 billion budget. It is my contention and it is the belief of

those of us who sit on this side of the House that it is the

responsibility of government to assist those in greatest need, and

particularly to assist those in greatest need in times of recession. I

think you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House, would agree

that we are in a recession. Certainly that has been the argument we

have heard around this province by government members when they talk of

their need to restrain themselves — that everyone must restrain

themselves, that we must have restraint. The reason given is that we

are in tough times, we are in a recession. But the point that seems to

have now escaped the government is that it is their responsibility to

assist those in greatest need in times of recession. Certainly this

particular piece of legislation, if left on the statute book — if it is

not repealed, as is the stated intent of this bill — will achieve that

kind of system to some extent.

I think it's worth while to point out just what this would mean in

dollars and cents to some typical family in British, Columbia — for

example, a couple, both old age pensioners, would have been eligible,

and were eligible in the previous year, if they had just the pension as

their income, for $266.70 personal tax credit, plus a renter's credit

of $150, for a total of $416.70. That may not sound like very much in

this chamber, where we talk in millions and billions of dollars, but I

tell you, to an old age pensioner who is trying to get by on an

extremely limited income, who is being forced to meet increased costs

in rent.... We heard figures in the House today that at the minimum

cost of building a low-rental apartment, it would have to be rented at

$600 a month. When you are facing those kinds of increases, when you

have been facing 10 and 11 and 12 percent inflation in the last few

years.... It is down a bit now, but even at 5 percent inflation, if

your income is not going up and your costs are going up, you are in

trouble. This credit is the thing that makes the difference to a couple

like the two old age pensioners living on that minimum return. I don't

think this government really wants to take it out on old age

pensioners. I think they should take a second look. That's why I think

it is a good idea to move second reading back for six months. After

all, it has been a year since the program was announced. When the bill,

if it ever does pass this Legislature.... It is retroactive back to

January 1, 1982. So what is six months? We've taken this long. Why not

take a little longer and have a good look at what we're doing?

I think we should think about a single mother with two children. She

would be eligible to claim $147 personal tax credit and a renter's

grant of $150, for a total of $297. When you are trying to raise two

children without a partner, that is not very much. There are a great

many young women in this position in this province today. In most

instances they are in the low-income bracket. I had a report on my desk

yesterday — unfortunately I don't believe I have it here today — of an

affirmative action study being undertaken by B.C. Hydro. It indicates

in no uncertain terms that women are in a low-paid ghetto in the

clerical and stenographic field. Many of those women are the sole

breadwinner and many of them have children to support. Surely $297 is a

worthwhile investment to help the future of those children. It may mean

the difference between a Christmas and no Christmas. It may mean the

difference between belonging to the skating club or the hockey team, or

playing baseball, or many of those things that we have come to

recognize as being a necessary part of our social structure.... If

we are to ensure that young people grow up with a healthy normal

attitude, a good social conscience, and do not later become a charge on

society, it would be a good investment in our future to give $300 a

year to the single mother with two children in order that she may

provide just a little more for those children, help a little more to

ensure that they grow up to be good, responsible citizens, that they

have the opportunity to participate in community and extracurricular

school programs,

That's not too much to ask. We have a lot of unemployment in this

province today — a great many people who are in receipt of unemployment

insurance. The head of a household who is in receipt of UI, with two

children, would be eligible for personal tax credits of $240.30, plus

the renter's credit of $150. These are maximum amounts that she would

be eligible for — $390. When you are the breadwinner in a family and

suddenly, through no fault of your own, your income stops — the mill is

closed, the woods are closed, the store that you are working for has

had to lay off staff because those people who used to work in the

forest industry are no longer able to patronize that store as

fully.... When that is cut off, it is a pretty traumatic

experience. When you have always been able to go out and earn and

support your family, then you have to rely on a percentage, a limited

amount of income, not anything like what you had been getting....

You probably bought a house, you have got payments to meet. Again, the

children are there. You want to give them the opportunity to play on

the hockey team, to participate in school sports, school trips, and to

do all those things that normal, healthy young people should have the

right to do. In terms of this Legislature, $400 is not very much. But

it is a lot of money to the head of the household who is trying to

provide for his family and his children. It is important that we take

time to decide.

[5:00]

I notice the Minister of Finance has gone again. He is no more

interested in my comments than he was in the comments of my colleague,

Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, there is no standing order in this House

that insists that he be in the House when his bills are under

discussion. But I think that it important that we recognize that he is

not in the House and is not listening to the very sincere arguments

that we are trying to make on this side of the House against this kind

of ad hockery in coming up with a tax policy for British Columbia. And

ad hockery it is, Mr. Speaker. When you announce in one year that you

are going to have a continuing program of tax credits that is going to

benefit the low-paid, the lowest income people, people that don't even

pay income tax, and that it is going to continue based on the rate of

inflation, so it will increase as inflation increases, then the next

year you announce, without benefit of any change in legislation, that

[ Page 2069 ]

you're going to take it all back.... Six months later you

finally bring in a bill that's going to be retroactive to the first of

last year — a year and a half of retroactivity. That's ad hockery at

its worst, and it shows the lack of thought, time and consideration

that has gone into this government's planning of its financial future.

It's a bit disgraceful.

It's interesting that at the same time the cuts to the low-income

people I've been talking about were taking place, we had the

introduction of the so-called Billy Bonds. These were bonds that could

be purchased by British Columbians, and for those bonds there would be

a tax credit.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise on standing order 43. What on

earth could the BCRIC bonds have to do with the amendment on Bill 4

before us in this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. We are on a

hoist amendment, and the principle of second reading debate on this

type of amendment should be the reasons for that hoist and that delay.

I'm sure the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat can relate her debate to

that.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reason I was talking

about the BCRIC bonds, or the Billy Bonds as they've been commonly

called, is that I'm talking about the need to hoist this bill so that,

rather than an ad hoc tax policy, we can come up with something more

comprehensive, more all encompassing and fairer. I wanted to point out

that while we're taking away with this bill the kind of moneys — the

$416 from the old age pensioner couple, the $300 from the single mother

with two children, and the $400 from the head of a household on

UIC.... At the same time, if someone has enough money to be able to

invest in some bonds, under the tax credit arrangement that the

government has set up.... If, for example, they were to purchase

$50,000 worth of bonds, the rate for the non-tax-exempt B.C. bond is

$5,125, less the....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same standing order as

I did before. I very clearly heard the previous Speaker in the chair

warn the House about relevance in debate. To speak of those or any

other bonds in the debate on the hoist of Bill 4 is certainly

irrelevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again I will remind the hon. member for

Cowichan-Malahat that the principle of this amendment is that of delay

and hoist, and debate should be relevant to that principle. I'm sure

the member can do that.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I think

you understand what I'm saying here. What I'm saying is that if we

hoist the bill, then we have an opportunity to look at some possible

changes and some possible other ways of getting this funding. That

person who bought the $50,000 worth of bonds would be getting a tax

credit, in effect — or a gain — of some $513. I think that if we reviewed

those kinds of policies, we might find that if we did not allow the

person who was able to afford to buy $50,000 worth of bonds.... We

would be able to fully offset more than any one.... For $100,000

worth of bonds we could cover the entire cost of these three families

I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that we need to look at other

ways of balancing our budget, or, because what we're doing is not

balancing it, keeping our deficit down as low as possible. It is very

unfair to always take from the person least able to afford to pay.

That's what this bill does: it takes from the person least able to

afford to pay.

Church groups, renters' groups and low-income groups around the

province have raised their objections to it and expressed their

concerns. It's bad enough to think about taking this away now, at the

same time that rent controls are being removed.... I'm talking

about ability to pay. Without rent controls you’re going to have higher

rents. The loss of the incentive program for people in receipt of GAIN

means their income is down, yet they're not going to receive these tax

credits, have not received them this year.

It all hangs together. You can't look at any one aspect of a

taxation bill in isolation from your total taxation policy. That's why

it's important to hoist this bill and to review what direction we in

British Columbia are going. Are we going to continue adding the burden

onto the shoulders of the people with the lowest income? If you don't

care about those people, at least think about the economic

consequences. Every dollar that those low-income people have in their

hands is spent, is put back into the economy to help stimulate an

economy that badly needs stimulation. This government, with these kinds

of policies, continually increasing the load on people with limited

incomes.... I know I can't reflect on other bills, but the increase

in the sales tax works a much greater hardship on the low-income person

than on the high-income person. That goes right down the line for

things that have not been covered by legislation. Increases in various

fees, our Hydro bills — one service after another has had fairly

excessive increases, far beyond the five-and-six. It's 100 percent in

many cases that people have been forced to come up with. It's much more

difficult for people on low incomes. It takes away more and more of the

consumer dollar that normally buys consumer goods and is put back into

the economy.

My friend from Alberni talked about the fact that if the money is

left in the hands of the people who already have a great deal of

wealth, they are not going to spend it for consumer goods. We've seen

so much of it: tax credits, deferred taxes for corporat