1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4703 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill

168). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction of amendments — 4703

Oral Questions

Reconsideration of meeting with ICBC agents. Mr. Bennett —

Cars difficult to trace by police. Mr. Curtis — 4703

Recognition of claims by ICBC. Mr. Gardom — 4704

Binding contract on hospital patients. Mr. Wallace — 4704

Details of mortgage on Minister's land holding. Mr. Phillips — 4704

Mining negotiations in Omineca district. Mr. Gibson — 4705

Qualifications of new Ministerial assistant. Mr. Smith — 4705

Province-wide breast cancer detection system. Mrs. Jordan — 4705

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 175).

Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4706

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4708

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4708

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4708

Report and third reading — 4708

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Second

reading.

Mrs. Jordan — 4708

Mr. Chabot — 4709

Mr. Bennett — 4712

Mr. Rolston — 4713

Mr. Gibson — 4716

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4716

Division on second reading — 4721

Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act (Bill

173).

Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4722

Mr. Schroeder — 4723

Mr. Gibson — 4726

Mr. Wallace — 4728

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4732

Division on second reading — 4733

Royal assent to Bill 174 and Bill 175 — 4733

Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 171). Hon. R.A.

Williams.

Introduction and first reading — 4733

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Hon. Mr.

Barrett.

Introduction of amendments — 4734

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask

the House today to welcome 38 students from Centennial Senior

Secondary School in the District of Coquitlam. They are

accompanied in the House today with their teacher, Mr.

Swetlikoe.

Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): There are a group

of students, Mr. Speaker, from the social studies class at

Kitsilano Secondary School who had the pleasure of meeting you

this morning and getting a very informative lecture from you on

government. They are presently sitting in the gallery with

their teacher, Mr. Ippen, and I would appreciate if the House

would join me in saying welcome to them.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery I see the former MLA of this

House and an alderman from Richmond, Ernie LeCours, I bid them

welcome.

Mr. Speaker: I'd like to welcome him too. But I point

out that the reason I couldn't get him to answer the phone is

because he's sitting up there. (Laughter.)

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Mr.

Speaker, I would ask that when a group of students from Boston

Bar arrive, we show just how well we behave sometimes. They're

not in here now but they will be coming in later this afternoon

and, I hope, tomorrow morning.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum

Resources) : Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a

very good friend of mine and a very intelligent person, Mr.

Nelson Smith from Cranbrook.

Introduction of bills.

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

LABOUR DISPUTES ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 168, intituled Elevator

Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister Of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move

that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred

to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 168.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Oral questions.

RECONSIDERATION OF MEETING

WITH ICBC AGENTS

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. Because of the resultant hardship

caused to thousands of British Columbians in difficulty with

their insurance, and to the dispute with the agents, has the

Minister reconsidered his position as an elected responsible

official in stepping in and meeting with these insurance agents

and salesmen in an attempt to resolve the dispute facing

British Columbia?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister Of Transport And

Communications) : First of all, Mr. Speaker, I know of no

individual in British Columbia who has failed to have provided

for him service related to the provision of automobile

insurance. That's point No. 1.

Two, at this point I can see no need to step in and take any

further action than that which I have already taken.

CARS DIFFICULT TO TRACE

BY POLICE

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): On the

same general subject, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport

and Communications. On Tuesday of this week in question period

the Minister rejected suggestions from this side of the House

that it was still necessary for members of various police

departments to contact insurance agents in an effort to trace

stolen or abandoned automobiles or those which had been

involved in accidents. I believe the Minister said at that

time:

I don't believe it. There may be an isolated case.

Now that the Minister has had a couple of days to reconsider

the situation, I wonder if he would care to amend his statement

to the House on this particular point. Is it still necessary

for police departments on a reasonably regular basis to contact

insurance agents in an effort to determine who owns an

automobile or other motor vehicle?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I have no further information to

add to the statement I made the other day. I'm checking into

it.

[ Page 4704 ]

RECOGNITION OF CLAIMS BY ICBC

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): In view of

the imminent departure of the Attorney-General, this concerns

two tragedies involving two young men both critically

injured.

One was a warehouseman, a third-year student. He suffered a

broken back in an accident and he's lost the use of his arms

and his legs — he's a quadriplegic. The other is a 20-year-old

lad who broke his neck, also in a car accident. He's a

paraplegic; he's without the use of his legs. Both of these

boys are hospitalized.

They've both been denied recovery by the traffic victims

indemnity fund which is under your jurisdiction, and also by

ICBC.

I'd ask the Attorney-General, since he may not be in front

of a question period again until the spring of next year: are

you prepared to give your assurance today, before you take your

trip to China, that you have an obligation to honour the claims

of these boys and that you will nominate ICBC to do just

that?

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker,

even if the question is in order, apparently there is a claim

of a civil nature. The people may or may not be entitled. They

may be entitled as against the old fund, on which it is the

contention of this government that the insurance companies

reneged by not living up to their obligations. It may be a

claim since the inception of ICBC. But I can't give a

commitment that they have a claim, whether it's against the old

fund by the private insurance companies or ICBC.

I'll be glad to take the matter under consideration, but no

commitment. I can't suddenly act like a judge and give you an

answer to legal problems and legal claims right here on the

instant.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Attorney-General, under the Act in

question you have the responsibility to administer this aspect.

If I would have the Attorney-General's attention….

You have the responsibility to administer this aspect of the

statute, and under the Act you also have the opportunity to

enter into financial arrangements with TVIF. I say that it's

your moral and legal responsibility to see that these people —

and roughly 125 other people — are protected.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Members the

provision in our rules that states, in effect, that the Member

must not ask the solution of a legal proposition such as

interpretation of a statute or a Minister's own powers and so

on? In this case we have an answer from the Minister in any

event.

Mr. Gardom: It's a pretty great moral responsibility,

Mr. Speaker; surely you'll agree with that.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker: I have to agree with the rules too.

BINDING CONTRACT ON HOSPITAL PATIENTS

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

ask a question of the Minister of Consumer Services. Does her

department condone the business practice whereby the Aberdeen

Private Hospital in Victoria places itself in a position to

receive double or triple payments for its services, by virtue

of a binding 30-day contract which it imposes on its patients,

regardless of the length of time they live?

Hon. P.F. Young (Minister Of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

DETAILS OF MORTGAGE ON

MINISTER'S LAND HOLDING

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): A question to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. When the

Minister filed under the public disclosure Act it showed that

he is a third owner in lots 21, 22 and 23 of block 223,

district lot 526, plan 590, in Vancouver. Due to the fact that

his executive assistant holds the second mortgage on this

property I would like to ask the Minister how he condones this

glaring and blatant conflict of interest.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You're not asking the

Hon. Minister with regard to some administrative or Ministerial

responsibility, are you?

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would appear to

me that there could be favours derived to the Deputy from the

Minister, where he holds an interest on a piece of property

with this Member. It could be where the Deputy Minister has

given the Minister special mortgage rates. It could become a

criterion for receiving a job in the department. I think it

certainly is within….

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member knows that the statute

itself requiring public disclosure is added to the public

records which are available to all persons in the community to

see in the Land Registry Office. So there's really no question

on this matter of public disclosure that has bearing upon his

capacity as a Minister in regard to his own administration and

his department.

[ Page 4705 ]

An Hon. Member: Are you making an accusation?

Mr. Phillips: I'm not making an accusation. I'm

asking the Minister a question. But you've brought up a very

good point, Mr. Speaker, because on the public disclosures Act,

which has to be a business property, my understanding of the

Act is that you have to disclose all people you are indebted

to.

Mr. Speaker: No, you're quite mistaken in that

regard, because it does not require that in regard to certain

property.

But in regard to business…. May I point out to the Hon.

Member — he must be well aware — that there is public record in

every record office in the Province of British Columbia setting

out such arrangements to which he is referring. Therefore it's

not a question of public disclosure. Also, it doesn't appear to

be a question of Ministerial responsibility which is a basis

for question period. I must therefore really say that the Hon.

Member appears to be out of order.

MINING NEGOTIATIONS IN

OMINECA DISTRICT

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Mines if he or any of

his officers have approached and are negotiating with a mining

property in the Omineca mining district with the intent of

acquiring an option for cash payments and other

considerations.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Gibson: Would the Minister undertake to make

inquiries within his department and report back to the

House?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: I will take that as notice.

QUALIFICATIONS OF NEW

MINISTERIAL ASSISTANT

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my

question is to the Hon. Member for Fort George, the Minister

Without Portfolio.

In a recent edition of The Democrat ….

An Hon. Member: Who? Who?

Mr. Smith: The Minister Without, from Fort

George.

In a recent edition of The Democrat there is an

article concerning the appointment of the Member for Fort

George (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), as a Minister Without Portfolio.

I'd like to quote from that article. It says:

"Immediately after my appointment I've done the first

important thing," says Nunweiler, "I've hired a

first-rate executive assistant, Steve Wood, a young Prince

George lawyer who was born and raised in the north. Steve's

bright, a hard worker and an active party member."

Would the Minister indicate to the House which one of these

three attributes he considered most important in making his

decision?

Hon. A.A. Nunweiler (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr.

Speaker, is that a question?

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that you're really not

supposed to refer to and read articles from the newspaper? But

I assume that in this case you're asking the Hon. Member if he

made such a statement. And we're all interested in the

answer.

Mr. Smith: A supplemental question if I might, then,

Mr. Speaker. Since your appointment, Mr. Minister, how many

executive assistants have you hired, what are their salaries

and where are they located?

Hon. Mr. Nunweiler: It's a matter of record, Mr.

Speaker. I will take it as notice.

PROVINCE-WIDE BREAST

CANCER DETECTION SYSTEM

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, this is

equally as serious a subject to the Hon. Minister of Health. In

view of the fact that B.C. medical experts estimate that one

out of every 15 women in British Columbia will develop breast

cancer, and that British Columbia breast cancer detection

methods are falling behind, and that the Minister's specially

appointed cancer control agency was appointed to spring into

action as modern developments allow in cancer detection and

treatment, is the Minister prepared at this time to spring into

action and bring into effect in British Columbia an effective

and province-wide breast cancer detection system?

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

that is a very serious question. It's a question that we're

looking at very carefully at the present time. We have

completely restructured the whole cancer service for the

province, as the Member indicated, and, in the process, are

bringing in people with great expertise in this area.

As the Member knows, there's a great deal of discussion now

as to whether xerography should be used, or mammography, or a

combination of both. As

[ Page 4706 ]

a matter of fact, there's even a question…. There's a New

York study which has indicated that it's helpful — a five-year

earlier detection. But there are also studies going on with

thermography in Montreal.

Oddly enough, when I was out of the House on Tuesday of this

week, I was meeting with the commission in Vancouver discussing

the whole question. I've been asking women in the province

whether or not this kind of approach would be supported. If we

can get equipment and support and all the rest of it, yes,

we're most interested and we'd like to go ahead with that kind

of programme.

Mrs. Jordan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I accept

the Minister's statements at this time, although I may have

more to say later.

I would like to ask him, in view of the time that he's

taking to come to a conclusion for the reasons he's given,

whether he would undertake to accelerate the programme of

teaching self-examination for breast cancer in the more remote

areas of the province. It's much of a problem where people are

even going to their doctors regularly. But where you are in the

remote areas, they're not often even aware of this

self-examination. I wonder if it couldn't be taught in

conjunction with some of the mobile dental units or some of the

other areas — the Red Cross outpost hospitals.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, another good point. It's

another reason for setting up our own B.C. cancer service. In

the past we've relied upon others to do our work for us. We've

just put our cancer agency together within the last few weeks

and haven't even to this point appointed the administrator.

What we will be doing is providing, as an arm of that

service, education all over the province. Public health nurses

will be taught this process, teachers; anybody will have

available the kind of an educational programme that's so

absolutely necessary.

I think that the President's wife in the United States, and

Mr. Rockefeller's wife, have really brought this whole question

to public attention. I must say that in this government the

cabinet has discussed the question. This government is very

much aware and very much supportive of anything that can be

done.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I move the house

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Adjourned debate on Bill 175.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: I believe the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) was speaking and adjourned the debate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're right, Mr. Speaker, I

adjourned the debate. However, I adjourned debate at the

suggestion indeed of the Hon. House Leader, Deputy Premier

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly), who indicated to me that she might be

thinking of bringing in some amendments.

I'm sure that if these amendments she's bringing in will

reconcile Bill 175 with Bill 174, the bill we passed in haste

yesterday and the bill where we rejected an amendment which

would have brought these two bills together…. I wonder if

the amendment which she has been considering will be brought

forward. I trust, when she closes the debate on second reading,

that she will indicate what it is.

I trust, again, it will not affect the principle of this

particular bill, which when you struggle through the almost

who have been left off the rolls, and who for one reason or

another are unable to vote because they're not on the voters

list, will be permitted to apply to vote despite the fact that

they are not on the rolls.

Yesterday it was pointed out that the Municipal Amendment

Act, 1974 (No. 2), Bill 174, would only apply in rural areas,

and that people left off the municipal voters list would not be

able to vote under the amendment that we were passing

yesterday.

This particular bill, No. 175, the one we are discussing

today would permit people, whether they reside inside or

outside a municipality, to take advantage of the provisions of

Bills 174 and 175 which allow a person to go and apply, despite

the fact that they are not on the list itself. They can sign

their name and then become a voter.

This is important, Mr. Speaker, and the principle is

important because in at least one school district, I believe

School District 28, about which we heard from the Hon. Member

for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), where for some reason there was an

advanced election last Saturday….

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On November 9. The election is

already over and terminated, yet we see in this Act a provision

section 2 that it will become retroactive to November 1. In

other words, if any person who wished to present themselves as

a candidate perhaps, or a person who wished to vote, was denied

that right last Saturday, they would be in

[ Page 4707 ]

a very curious position of being able to use this Act to go

back and overturn the election in School District 28.

The other problem that arises is that people have presented

themselves to the advanced polls, to vote in the advanced

polls, in other school districts in the province and, of

course, the people who are running those polls are running them

on the existing legislation. This legislation, again, would be

retroactive and you might well by this legislation give a cause

of a claim to overturn the election, particularly in tight

elections, on the grounds that this legislation, being

retroactive, changed the voters list and made eligible to vote

a number of people who previously and at the present time,

indeed, are still barred.

So the principle is interesting, Mr. Speaker. The bill

itself is interesting. I trust that when the Minister closes

the debate she will clarify why there is this discrepancy

between 174 and 175, that she will again give us some opinion

or clarification as to what the retroactive effect of this

legislation will be, whether indeed the election in School

District 28 could be, or will be overturned as a result of this

legislation, whether people who presented themselves for

advanced polls in other school districts of the province, and

who have been denied the right to vote because of the existing

legislation, will somehow or other be able to recover their

rights under the retroactive provisions of this

legislation.

It appeared to me that the best thing we could do with this

bill was to forget it. I realize this would result in some

people being deprived a vote, who under this legislation will

get it. But the number of legal problems that are presented in

terms of overturning existing elections in School District 28,

or elections elsewhere in the province under the current

election, makes me think that this backup legislation with

retroactive provisions to try to correct mistakes made earlier

this year simply will not work. It might be more valuable

simply to allow this Act to die and never to proclaim Bill 174

as well.

I propose these questions to the Minister because they are serious and practical problems. Will we have to have new

elections for school boards some time in the near future simply

because of the effect of the. retroactive provisions of this

legislation, which would have uneven application under the

elections that have already taken place and those that are

currently taking place because the current election deals with

the advanced poll? The problem, I'm sure, is recognized by

her.

We've often passed legislation in this House…. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, an

amendment was put forward by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to amend

a bill he just brought in a short time ago. We are always putting in this type

of correcting legislation.

Rather than to say all is well, as we've so often heard from

the government side, and say all we have to do is pass a later

piece of legislation and the problem will disappear, I'm sure

it's incumbent upon the Minister to indicate what sort of

problems we're going to get into if we pass this legislation,

because I can see a good argument that could be made, in the

light of the difficulties we face, in the light of the fact

that this bill will have uneven application, that it should

simply be forgotten.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member who

just spoke: we did give the adjournment of the debate hoping

that you would have time to check over the Act again, as we

certainly did ourselves. I admit the wording in it perhaps is

clumsy, yes. We will certainly try to ensure that our

legislation is far more understandable in the future,

particularly when we're dealing with this kind of

legislation.

But, Mr. Member, I'd like to say that this Act is consistent

with the Municipal Act. It states that it must apply to the

amendment of the Municipal Act. The only reason that the

reference is made in this particular bill to municipality and

regional district is because, as you know, there are different

phraseology and terms used in applying to school district

regions. For instance, in Chilcotin, as the Hon. Member

mentioned, it's not possible to entirely parallel the

procedures as electors in some widespread rural areas of school

districts — for example, Chilcotin — have expressed themselves,

as you know, Mr. Member, a strong preference for retaining

either the system of electing rural area representatives or

election by annual meeting.

Legislative council selected the wording "in respect of a

municipality or rural area, as the case may be," to

fulfil the dual requirements indicated above.

What we have been attempting to do, as much as possible, is

to ensure that when amendments are brought into the Municipal

Act, the School Act will be as consistent as possible. I want

to reiterate that this Act does specify; it says that it must

apply to the Municipal Act. Therefore, this is completely in

agreement with the principle espoused by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs yesterday, in which it said that it would be

extended only to rural areas, because, at the moment, since

there is no provision at present in the Municipal Act giving

the vote to persons not on the list of electors in

municipalities, only the

section of the bill referring to rural

areas is operative.

Therefore, in our Act it states that we must be consistent

with their Act; therefore that means it's operative only in

rural areas. The term, "rural areas" had to be used instead of

"regional districts" because,

[ Page 4708 ]

first of all, this is the term used in the Public Schools

Act. Secondly, there is one rural area of a school district,

the District of Atlin, which is not in a regional district. I

realize this is a complicated procedure to explain and I regret

that I did not give you that clarification myself at the

beginning when I introduced the bill. I can assure you that I

have double-checked on this Act and it is completely consistent

with the Municipal Act and means the same exactly when it comes

to those who will now be allowed to vote only in rural

areas.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer

Bill 175 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 175, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

forthwith.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

The House in Committee on Bill 175; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson:

Section 2, Mr. Chairman, gives the

retroactive provisions of this legislation. I wonder if I could

pose a question to the Minister.

What happens if a person who presented himself to the

advanced poll in one of the school districts, and was denied

the right to vote because of the fact that the existing law

governed at that particular time, and then presents himself,

clutching this particular piece of paper, saying, "Look, I was

entitled to vote. It's retroactive, and I have the right as of

November 1."

Obviously, if he goes to the advance poll he can't vote on

election day. If enough people did this in a tight election…. The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon.

Mr. Nimsick), I believe, once had a very tight election — six

votes or something, 15 votes.

Now, say 16 people turned up and said they had been denied

the vote. Retroactively it would have been given to them and

they were all going to vote against school trustee Nimsick.

Would the election be overturned?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I can't answer it. As you say, it

is rather an "iffy" question. We're not sure if this is

actually going to happen. But I can assure the Hon. Member that

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and I,

since his Act will also apply to the same problem, will be

getting together to watch this closely. If these things happen,

then of course, we will have to ensure that the proper

procedures take place.

But I really can't say anything else at this time until we

see what develops from it.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 175, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No, 2),

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Adjourned debate on second reading

of Bill 170.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

(continued)

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I

want to take a few brief moments to conclude my remarks on this

bill. I must say, in concluding, that it is unfortunate but

true that we have moved no closer to a solution to the

assessment and taxation mess created by this government in this

province.

Once again, we see that this government through its

legislation is taking the people of British Columbia into a

situation where we are backtracking into the future.

Let me recall for this House what the Premier and Minister

of Finance said about Bill 71 on April 6 of last year, when he

called that bill

…a method of patching up the catch-up for

the time being.

If that was his thinking then, what does he think Bill 170

is? Does he think it is a Band-aid for the patch-up of a

catch-up?

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that prior to that the Premier and the Minister

of Finance told the Legislature that British Columbia was then on the verge

of a whole range of tax restructuring. Here it is, two years later, and we are

still on the verge. One

[ Page 4709 ]

might even be presumptuous and suggest that the Premier

and Minister of Finance is suffering a chronic case of vergitis.

The Premier made a well-intentioned promise then, I'm sure,

that he was not going to handle the restructuring of taxes and

assessments on a crisis-by-crisis basis. But I would ask you

what could be more of a crisis than to have to call this House,

this Legislature, these 55 Members, and all the attendants and

attending staff into session simply to come up with a Band-aid

to patch up the catch-up.

The people of this province who pay property taxes are

simply not going to accept the attitude of this government to

shoot first and ask questions later. In the previous debate on

the Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No, 2), we've just seen

yet another example of the government shooting first and acting

later. And then, as now in this bill, the Minister couldn't

answer the question. The people of British Columbia are left in

limbo in that bill, as they are in this bill. This government

is legislating from crisis to crisis on this bill and on all of

its legislation, just as the Premier and Minister of Finance

said he wouldn't.

At this point in time it is unfortunate that we have no

other alternative. The assessment formula in British Columbia

will continue to remain an inequitable burden on many. It will

continue to be disadvantageous to communities with slow growth

and will favour communities with a better than average

growth.

During the course of this debate we have learned absolutely

nothing from the government about what concrete plans it has to

come up with a solution for 1976. Our party has solutions, Mr.

Speaker, and I would urge this House to give their full

attention to the positive solution that the Leader of Her

Majesty's Opposition (Mr. Bennett) will advance today in this

debate.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): When this session

was called it was called primarily to establish a new taxation

structure in the province to co-ordinate the companion

legislation which was passed in the spring.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, I wonder if the Hon. Member

will be speaking louder soon, so that we can get his words on

Hansard ? (Laughter.)

Mr. Chabot: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we

have microphones in this assembly is so that those with low

voices can be heard. I'll try to speak as closely as I possibly

can to the mike.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, would you ask that Member who is going to China

tomorrow morning to withdraw that statement?

Mr. SPEAKER: Would you kindly withdraw that statement?

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,

what statement?

Mr. Speaker: I'm not sure because I was listening to

the Hon. Member. But if it was in any sense unparliamentary I

would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it.

Hon. Mr. Cocke: If it was in any sense

unparliamentary, yes.

Mr. Chabot: Well, I know on occasion, Mr. Speaker,

you have reprimanded Members for using the word which the

Minister used.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: That Premier's willing to go back to

those days, and the people will be pretty soon too, Mr. Speaker…

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're all wrong.

Mr. Chabot: …because they're fed up with the

fumbling, bumbling government and Minister of Finance that

doesn't know where he's going in this province. I'll never

understand why an Assessment Act would be introduced in the

spring session without having the vision or the ability to

establish a tax bill that will go along as a companion to that

Assessment Act. It's quite obvious that we have in this

province, Mr. Speaker, a government that is unfit — unfit to

legislate, unfit to rule.

Mr. Speaker, the government did make some changes regarding

assessments. They introduced Bill 71, probably one of the most

inflationary pieces of legislation to be introduced by that

government, because it increased taxes to small businesses

throughout this province which, in turn, in most instances,

were passed on to the consumer in this province — very

inflationary measures. A very vicious piece of legislation as

well, Mr. Speaker, vicious against the small businessmen of

this province.

Mr. Speaker: Is the Hon. Member referring to some Act

that was passed by this House?

Mr. Chabot: No. I'm discussing the whole gamut of

taxation and assessments…

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Hon. Member….

Mr. Chabot: …being pursued by that

[ Page 4710 ]

government over there.

Mr. Speaker: I just draw that to your attention, that

it's not parliamentary to describe legislation passed by this

House in such florid terms.

Mr. Chabot: Well, Mr. Speaker, I won't describe it as

a vicious piece of legislation…

Mr. Speaker: Well, you're not really supposed to do

that, as you know.

Mr. Chabot: …but I will say that it was a vicious

attack against the small businessman of this province by that

government, without any doubt.

In the years that I've been a Member of this House, Mr.

Speaker, there's not been any other piece of legislation which

has produced the kind of outcry generated by the introduction

of Bill 71, which tampered with assessments in this province….

Hon. Mr. Cocke: Let's hear about Bill 33. How can you

say that? How can you say that?

Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, that Minister wants me to

talk about Bill 33 but, unfortunately, under the provisions of

Bill 170, it's not possible for me to answer that Minister.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure you wouldn't stray anyway.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Chabot: You know full well, Mr. Speaker, that I

attempt, as best I can, to abide by the rules of this House, to

speak to the principle of legislation and, when we're in

estimates, to examine the management or lack of management of

departments by Ministers. But what I'm talking about now is the

assessment structure in this province. I'm talking about the

outcry that was generated by the introduction, the changes to

the Assessment Act, by Bill 71.

Do you know that in my constituency, one which normally has

between 70 and 80 appeals on assessment, last year there were

697 appeals — a ten-fold increase in appeals against

assessments? It's quite obvious that people not only in my

constituency are concerned about the actions of this

government, but throughout the province, because it has

seriously affected many of the small businesses throughout this

province by the unbelievable increases in assessment —

percentage increases, that is — anywhere from 200 per cent to

1,000 per cent increases against small businesses — small

businesses that in many instances are seasonal in nature, are

tourist oriented, and find it difficult to absorb these

unbelievable increases in taxes which were imposed by an

insensitive government.

There's no doubt in my mind that the introduction of that

legislation — Bill 71 — was intended to get revenge against the

business community of this province in that it has had a very

detrimental effect to those marginal, to those seasonal

businesses in this province that in many instances are unable

to pass on the type of increases in taxation generated by the

new assessment structure.

I have received a great deal of correspondence, Mr. Speaker,

regarding this very subject — more on this subject than any

other issue in the 12 years I've been a Member of this House.

One that I've brought out — just one, Mr. Speaker; I don't

intend going through my entire file — but one which really

concerned me was the small struggling curling club that has

almost been forced to close its doors because of the tremendous

increase in assessments.

An Hon. Member: Where's that?

Mr. Chabot: In Invermere. There's an increase on land

from $1,210 to $10,250, and on improvements from $6,000 to

$16,990 — very massive increases which really can't be met.

It's been necessary….

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Tell

us some more about the small curling club. Come on, tell us

some more.

Mr. Chabot: I suggested to the curling club, which

finds itself in this financial difficulty, who is facing

closure, to approach the government to buy them out. You know,

the government is very prone to buy out businesses in this

province, and land, at inflated prices, housing projects at

inflated prices. I suggested that they approach the government,

because the government's in a buying mood, to help them out of

their financial predicament created by Bill 71, by that

government over there who's out to ruin the small businessman

in this province.

Mr. Cummings: Tell us about the small curling club.

Tell us some more about that.

Mr. Chabot: Well, the Second Member for

Vancouver–Little Mountain wants to hear more, and I'll read a

copy of this letter addressed to the Minister of Finance re

1974 assessment notices.

"Dear Sirs: Speaking on behalf of the Invermere District

Curling Club, we are, to say the least, thunderstruck and

speechless as to why the assessment on this curling club is so

outrageous.

"This is a community recreational facility and a non-profit

organization. Further, we would like to point out that this is

the only

[ Page 4711 ]

curling rink north of Kimberley that is operating in the

East Kootenays.

"Taxation based on these assessments will force the closure

of this community recreational facility."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Is it a non-profit facility?

Mr. Chabot: Yes. Yes, it is non-profit.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They can apply for exemption from

the municipality. Have you advised them of that, as an MLA?

Mr. Chabot: Yes, I advised them to speak to the

municipality, and I advised them to talk to the government too.

Maybe they'd take a financial interest in it as well…

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Good. Good. I'm glad you told them

that.

Mr. Chabot: …because your government caused their

problem. Your government caused their problem.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: And you helped them with the

municipality.

Mr. Chabot: Absolutely. I suggested they approach the

municipality and the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's good, I'm glad you did.

Mr. Chabot: I wonder what kind of response, Mr.

Speaker, they received from that insensitive government over

there. Was the government willing to help a small non-profit

organization in one of the small communities of this

province?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, they are. Do you want any

help?

Mr. Chabot: There's been no indication to date that

the government was willing to help, and I will send the letter….

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did you write me?

Mr. Chabot: The Minister of Finance appears very

touchy on this subject, Mr. Speaker, and I will provide him

with a copy of the correspondence that was sent to him.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did you write me?

Mr. Chabot: Yes, I did.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Good.

Mr. Chabot: I've had substantial correspondence with

your office, answers sometimes from you, sometimes from John

Wood, and dating back to last October. I've been expressing the

concern expressed to me by the small businessmen, not only

within my constituency, but throughout this province as

well.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did you write me about the curling

club?

Mr. Chabot: Did I write you specifically about the

curling rink? I wrote to you about each and every case, about

the problems confronting the small businessmen….

Hon. Mr. Barrett: This one, too.

Mr. Chabot: I have just a copy of the letter that was

sent to you here. I can't tell you offhand. I wrote you so many

letters on assessment that it's difficult; but the Premier

stands in this House and talks about Bill 71 being primarily

designed to generate more taxation from the pulp mills that

have been given sweetheart agreements on taxes in this

province.

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: He knows full well that Bill 71 did no

such thing. He knows full well that it was by order-in-council

that these so-called tax concessions, the exemptions from the

receipt of certain services which are not available to these

large corporations in the province, were municipal arrangements

that were, in many instances, endorsed by the change of letters

patent right in this Legislature.

In fact, some of the examples quoted by the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) yesterday were changes in letters

patent which were ratified by the Legislature of which the

Minister of Finance was a Member, which the Minister of Finance

never challenged while he sat in opposition, but is willing to

challenge now, and suggest that Bill 71 would rectify what he

calls an "inequity" as far as taxation is concerned. He knows

full well that Bill 71 had nothing to do with these

arrangements from the municipalities.

I wonder what kind of communication the government has had

with UBCM on the introduction of the Assessment Act in the

spring. Has there been open communication with municipalities,

be they large, be they small, or with the parent body, the

UBCM? This government has stood on many platforms throughout

this province and suggested it

[ Page 4712 ]

was going to be open, that it was going to be a government

that would communicate. Has there been that communication? I

doubt it very much.

I hope when the Minister of Finance stands in his place and

closes the debate that he'll tell us whether there has been

open and frank discussions with the municipalities that are so

drastically affected by this legislation.

When I look at this amendment that we're debating now, I

can't help but think of the Premier and his many tours of the

Province of British Columbia, telling the people that the

opposition supports most of the legislation. Oh, they support

most of the legislation — most of the legislation is

housekeeping legislation such as this legislation. It's

bumbling legislation correcting shortcomings of that government

over there. And we want to assist the government in correcting

its mistakes on behalf of orderly government in this

province.

No, Mr. Speaker, it's quite obvious by this piece of

legislation — and not only this piece, but a tremendous amount

of the legislation introduced by that government — that this is

a government that moves before it thinks.

If this government was unable to establish a new tax

structure for the year 1975, why proceed with the Assessment

Act in the spring? They are companion legislation; they go

together. Why introduce one unless you're going to introduce

the other?

Bill 170 is the action of a fumbling, bumbling, incompetent

government — a fumbling, bumbling, incompetent Minister of

Finance as well.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 170 is two steps backwards.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of The Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, in speaking to this bill I must offer some comment of

the remarks of the Premier as to where the burden of property

tax has fallen in this province.

I might point out that studies by Professor Stanley

Hamilton, who gave testimony to the travelling committee,

indicate that assessment procedures coupled with the homeowner

grant reduced the school tax portion to homeowners to under 8

per cent of the tax payable in this province, and that

commercial and industrial property has paid over 92 per cent of

the school taxes in this province.

Now, this was considered equitable because commercial and

industrial has always had the opportunity to deduct their taxes

paid on this level from their federal income tax.

Controls on assessment were brought in to protect the

homeowner, and the assessment commissioner, in direct

contradiction to statements by the Minister of Finance, was

quite specific when he said: "Industrial and commercial

properties during these years did keep pace with market

values."

It should also be remembered as well that despite the limitations imposed,

municipalities then, as now, were free to seek approval from the assessment

commissioner for reassessing areas and properties which were clearly out of

line. I point this out only to clear up statements that have been made in this

House by the Minister.

It is significant that the number of appeals as to property

taxation and assessment accelerated in 1974 as a result of this

government's initial tinkering with the system. In his usual

show of panic then, when confronted with the protests of the

people, the Premier, instead of facing the real issue, hastily

devised

an Act we passed earlier this year — the Real Property

Tax Deferment Act — so that thousands of homeowners who were

hurt through overtaxation caused by the government policies

could mortgage their homes gradually to the province at 8 per

cent interest.

That was no answer to the inequities of overtaxation to

these people.

An Hon. Member: It sure wasn't.

Mr. Bennett: And we in the official opposition said

so.

In opposing that Band-aid legislative cover-up, Mr. Speaker,

we said that the people in need in B.C., who were being

overtaxed, didn't want to mortgage their homes, but needed

financial relief. We proposed then, and still do, a basic

exemption — an exemption for those almost 100,000 people, the

elderly, the handicapped and the widows of this province, to

save them harmless from overtaxation — a programme that would

cost under $30 million in this province.

These people, by not falling for this tax deferment, have

substantiated our argument because to date, a little more than

1,400 taxpayers out of a total property tax load of 800,000

parcels have applied for this government mortgage — just 1,400

out of 800,000 tax parcels. This substantially proves that the

people do not want to mortgage their land to pay for

overtaxation with government loans; they want tax incentives;

they want a basic exemption. Where these people still live in

those homes, this should be a commitment of government.

We in this party voted for assessment equalization, and we

still support that principle. Assessment of all property in

B.C. at value is a logical step at this time. Resultant taxing

procedures based on concern for homeowners and farmland and

other areas would recognize our wish to save them from

excessive taxation.

However, in this modern, urban world the property tax itself

must be questioned as the major source of revenue for

municipalities. The property tax, Mr. Speaker, has been badly

hit by inflationary pressures. What we need in this province is

a complete overhaul of revenue accruing to municipalities,

[ Page 4713 ]

provincial governments and federal governments.

Studies done in Ontario show the growing disparity between

property tax as a source of revenue…and in view of the

growing and costly responsibility of municipal government.

For example, over a 20-year period municipal expenditure in

gross dollar terms has increased by over 800 per cent. The

property tax base, you know, has not kept pace because in gross

dollar terms, municipal property taxation has risen only 500

per cent. For 20 years then, locally-raised revenue has risen

at a rate of around 4 to 5 per cent, while spending has risen

over 11 per cent. It's obvious to those of us on this side of

the House that tinkering with the tax system is not the

answer.

The growth of taxation revenues from both the provincial and

federal governments must be passed through to local

government. Urban problems of transportation, services,

pollution abatement and housing cannot be solved with property

tax.

We in this party advocate that revenues from income tax,

corporation tax and resource revenue should be shared with the

municipalities on an indexing system which would transfer to

the municipalities on a growth basis payments which would

reflect the growth in provincial revenue from these three tax

sources.

And furthermore, the provinces should enter in immediate

negotiations with the federal government for providing for the

transfer of one point of the federal take from income and

corporate taxes directly to the municipalities on a 100 per

cent transfer basis. This transfer would take place over a

five-year period, and the projected federal revenue available

by 1980 over this five-year period would be approximately $800

million for all municipalities in Canada.

Federal revenues are growing at a rate of 15 per cent a

year; provincial revenues — and this is the national average,

not the British Columbia rate — have grown between 10 and 11 per

cent. The biggest increase, logically, must come from the

federal government, but the provinces must make sure they pass

along their share.

In prosperous British Columbia our growth rate is 25 per

cent, not the 10 or 11 that is the national average. Yet

through per capita grants we've passed on to municipalities

less than 5 per cent of this revenue.

Mr. Speaker, that would indicate that these areas and this

type of government cannot finance all property tax; they must

participate in those growth revenues that are available to the

senior governments in this country.

This programme and this policy is the way out of the financial problems of

our cities. It's realistic; and I believe it's necessary. We of this party advocate

revenue sharing as part of our programme of a new bill of rights for municipalities

in this province and in Canada.

This government bill before us looks backward, as does most

of the legislation presented by this government. It will be an

administrative nightmare for the municipalities. The appeals

will be numerous and difficult to administer. Mr. Speaker, we

oppose this bill.

Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): Let's get a few things

right, Mr. Speaker. Under the times before Bill 71, an average

of 80 per cent of the vacant land in the rural areas of this

province paid less than $100 taxes, regardless of their size.

After the change in the assessment on vacant land, with Bill

71, about 45 per cent still had taxes less than $100.

Obviously, this has meant a shift in the tax burden, and a

saving to residential land and to farms. But this government is

aware of the number of homes and farms. We are aware that for

many years under Social Credit, speculators and some businesses

were subsidized at the expense of the homeowner and the

farm.

We are aware, as a government, that the homeowners and the

farms are two-thirds of the folios, or 550,000, of the taxable

properties in this province. There are a total of 831 folios.

We are further aware that the vacant lands, of less than 2

acres, comprise about 13 per cent of these totals, or 107,000

parcels.

It shouldn't be surprising to anybody in this House that a

government concerned about the welfare of the majority of

people, the greatest good for the greatest number, is going to

automatically think of the tax burden and the equity of the tax

burden on all people, but especially the residential and the

farm.

This is an extremely complicated subject, Mr. Speaker, and I

don't pretend to be any expert. I came enthusiastically to

nearly a month of meetings and seminars with the municipal

matters committee. I found it very helpful to listen to other

Members who had a great deal more experience than I did, and to

learn.

I think it should be noted that the Members of the House in

Ontario saw it as an equally complex matter. It should be noted

that a much more elaborate study was made by the Members and by

experts in Ontario. Would you believe they spent over 4 years,

Mr. Speaker? Would you believe that in 1973 they introduced

legislation, and guess what happened to that legislation? It

was deferred. They have made no, to my knowledge, major moves,

despite a much more exhaustive study than we spent. And you

must understand, Mr. Speaker, that we spent less than 30

sitting days in studying this matter. We only started on

September 17 in a formal way.

Would you believe that any major assessment and taxation

moves in Ontario have been deferred until 1977? So this House

is asking us to move, I think, with alarming speed into the

cold, chilly and often

[ Page 4714 ]

very uncertain waters of assessment, and, as the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) quite rightly

said a couple of days ago, really into the matter of

taxation.

I note that many people have real anxieties in life. Many

people say that the two anxieties that are inevitable are the

anxiety of paying one's taxes — I gather that's property

taxation especially — and also of death. I appreciate that

anxiety, and don't want to minimize it, but it should be noted,

that the real property taxation is a relatively small part of

one's costs — would you believe 4.5 per cent of the total gross

national product of this country? It has been said that it is a

relatively small part, in fact we're told that it's the lowest — the real property taxes in B.C. are the lowest in the

country.

There was a lot of confusion about the kind of value that

taxation meant to those people, and what the assessments would

mean to the people. It should be pointed out that part of the

debate, and, I think, part of the very necessary exercise of

the House committee, was to point out to people just what value

they were getting for their property taxation. It was important

to somehow help them see the relationship between taxes and

those services.

Mr. Speaker, many people weren't aware of the kind of

services to people — and we could list those, they are very

many — and also, of course, the services to land. In my case,

unique services such as services of dikes, and certainly

services of providing water and streets and sewers and fire

protection.

But that's not really the point of this debate. We can

discuss that at another time. I think it is important to

emphasize in this debate the confusion in the minds of many

people, in many elected people, even their parent organization,

the UBCM. A lot of things that need to be cleared up — a lot of

relationships that certainly haven't been clarified to me

between the tax burden and the various income levels of people.

This has never been clear and I think it could become

clear.

I notice Mr. Hamilton, as referred to by the Leader of the

Opposition, who made a very helpful brief, but again, as an

expert, as a professor at the University of British Columbia,

he was not in his mind clear of that kind of relationship.

Many of the anomalies about taxation…. The fact that many

people still feel that taxation is some kind of a tax on

wealth. There are so many other forms of wealth that real

property taxation is only one of many, many forms of taxing

wealth. Therefore, we need to look at that.

I'm glad that in this legislation we are asking for — and in

the brief presented to the House by the Member for Delta (Mr.

Liden) — as chairman, the commission must study these aspects,

these anomalies.

Many people in the province, I think, can benefit from this kind of a study.

It's curious to me, Mr. Speaker, that in many ridings there are what we call

electoral areas where the assessments are very low, where the tax rate is especially

low — it's usually at 10 mills — where the services often are much higher, where

there's no real equity between the kind of services and the relative assessment

and taxation, where people living on the fringe of an organized area benefit

a great deal from library and recreation and parks and special programmes. So

that must be looked at when we look at the whole business of equity and taxation.

I think it's important to appreciate that in the last three

years there's been a phenomenal appreciation in land values.

There has been great discussion about the imbalance in

appreciation on residential and on vacant land. It shouldn't be

a surprise that assessments are higher on those, and that

assessments are especially high on vacant lands.

It was pointed out by many people who came to our committee

that we didn't create the value in that vacant land — nobody in

this House can claim the value.

I have a difficulty listening to people who say that because

they have done a lot of preparatory work, they've gone to

various hearings, and they've done some studies to improve

their land, and sometimes they get their land zoned upward,

that is their creation and therefore they should accrue that

benefit. I really have a difficulty with seeing that they

should accrue. I, incidentally, might appeal to this House —

I'm not quite satisfied with the legislation as it now is. I

feel that there still is a loophole in this legislation

regarding appreciation in value. We heard the Mayor of

Vancouver — I read the paper yesterday — anxious about the fact

that the CPR might be getting away with a remarkable

appreciation in their value, and that the City of Vancouver

might be short $0.5 million. I'm sure we could echo that many

other times.

I would like to believe that we could be more precise on

what we mean by improvement, that any zoning changes must see a

higher assessment. If a city, village or municipality must

benefit from that appreciation, I want to be convinced that

either by regulation or by maybe some future amendments that

that is hammered out very clearly, because I am

apprehensive.

My main concern to this House is that we be careful, that

those of us who are new, it's understandable, need to have time

to look at the new roll, which incidentally, Mr. Speaker, does

not exist yet. The new roll, the 100 per cent, the pure roll

which everybody lauds has not been seen. I'm told it won't be

ready until January. We need to look at that; we need to study

that. The Members and the committee, I think, all said we need

to do computer studies, we need to hypothesize on various ways

[ Page 4715 ]

looking at that.

Mr. Moore gave us, I thought, a very helpful hypothesis,

Members have referred to the T and K formula, which probably

doesn't mean a thing to other Members. It was a helpful

exercise. I'm new at this game, but the T formula is the index

or the class, the various classes of taxable property, various

types of property — thinking of residential, multi-farming,

commercial, farm acreage, industrial.

We had a great discussion about assessments on machinery, a

great discussion about assessments on utilities including B.C.

Hydro and any other Crown corporation. Many of us believe that

the day must come when they must be assessed and there must be

taxation, if we are to speak of equity on all assessable

properties.

Again, maybe it's fair to say that there should be

assessments on everything — including churches, including

universities, including schools — so that at least the

municipalities have some knowledge of what that exemption is

costing them. That's fair. I've said before, as have other

speakers in speeches in the Anglican Church and the United

Church nationally expected, that the day is coming when at

least, they'll be totally assessed, if not totally taxed.

Interjection.

Mr. Rolston: Well, they are assessed. But my

experience is that I don't think the community is aware of what

that assessment is actually costing them. I think that is

necessary.

There is a real concern, of course, when we talk about

assessments and a sudden shift, a sudden shift in this case

with the pure assessment, which we have not seen and which we

have not studied. Therefore we're not sure what that shift is

going to look like, how hard it will hit the small commercial establishment, the

residential.

I think the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) has said we're

especially anxious as to how hard it will hit the older

residents, on whom presumably the assessments are quite out of

date. So there's a lot of confusion and, quite frankly, I think

it warrants further study. In the case of Ontario, it warrants

deferring any major legislative changes there until 1977, and I

suspect that they have a more elaborate investigating system

than we have. It certainly would be rather foolish for us to

rush into cold water now.

I found a great deal of confusion, Mr. Speaker, regarding the assessments on

farms, a lot of confusion about just what a farm is, what a bona fide farm is.

I'm quite aware that the Municipal Act makes reference to intensity of use,

but that didn't seem to be adequate. In this discussion hopefully other Members

will do some worrying, some thinking, and in a year or so we'll come up with

more helpful amendments to the Municipal and Taxation Acts regarding those

definitions,

so we can look at exemptions in that sense.

I think that there has to be a great deal of caution in

biting the bullet without killing ourselves. We don't want to

become just heroes. There's been a great deal of confusion for

20 years. If you read The Vancouver Sun of January 16,

1971, the previous Premier was chastised very heavily by the

association of assessors for his even moving from a 5 per cent

to a 10 per cent equalization mechanism.

I think it's essential, Mr. Speaker, that we look at

mechanisms, that we look at models, that we hypothesize, that

we do a lot more intensive study.

I think there's a need that we maintain the burden of

taxation as it presently is, per class, and many Members agree

that that should happen. There might be some shift, Mr.

Speaker, within that class, within residential, commercial or

vacant. I'm asking that the Minister of Finance make sure that…. Presumably, if there are improvements in an area, there

could be a shift in those various classes because of those

improvements. We are told, you know, that there still is a lot

of building going on, so presumably there will be an increased

assessment because of that.

I would be anxious at this time, still as very much a

greenhorn, about making great assessment changes between

classes. I would be very apprehensive about that.

So we're leaving the assessments the same for 1975 as they

are this year. It is important for us to factor these up. Many

people have quoted the assessment commissioner, who said that

at least it's better to live with an imperfect assessment roll,

like this year's roll, that has, after all, 20 years behind

it, than to plunge into the untried, the unworked out, the

even unseen pure assessment roll that the assessment authority

has been working on. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that in the new

year we'll be asked to continue to work on and to do that

work.

In closing, death and taxes are great anxieties. They are

things in which a great deal of humility is required. I believe

that with humility the Members will stand and support this

legislation. They don't give up. We're not going to regress,

Mr. Speaker, because ultimately we want the pure assessment; we

want to develop a model that will bring equity with the

assessment. Everybody wants that, but at this time we simply

hold the line.

I could quote a letter from Mr. Holmes, who has been senior

assessor in Matsqui and is now a well-known consultant in the

Fraser Valley. He says that the simplest and most effective way

to overcome the taxation problems of this year, or at least for

the new year, 1975, would be for the government to freeze taxes

and assessments at the 1974 level — certainly allowing for

construction and changes and obvious physical improvements. But

this will give us the chance to do the homework, to look then

at the

[ Page 4716 ]

new roll so that we are ready to launch into the future

boldly and with justice.

So I ask your support. For me it was a very useful month

studying this. It's only the beginning; I know that at the end

of the tunnel we'll come out, we'll see daylight, we'll see

equity. Thanks.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, I have no wish to recycle the learned comments that

have been made in this debate so far, and I support fully the

position of my party. I want simply to make a representation to

the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the president of the

B.C. Railway — all the one person — that the B.C. Railway start

paying taxes to the City and District of North Vancouver,

please, Mr. Premier, in excess of $ 100,000 per year.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped

that I would have some positive input into the debate. I regret

that there has been very little of that to date. Unfortunately,

I have to close with comments that are essentially negative and

somewhat political in orientation from the official

opposition.

I was amused by the convolutions, if I may use the word, of

the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), who was

forced somewhat embarrassingly to alter position because of a

certain political decision he made. It is with interest that

one is able to read past statements attacking the party that he

now belongs to and find that within a matter of weeks — or

months, I should say — after having made those statements, he

found that he was wrong in the original premise, or in his

campaign speeches about taxation, and finds himself now aligned

with a group that did indeed, as he described it, leave a

mess.

It's a well-known fact that there was direct political

intervention in the assessment authority. It's a well-known

fact that at no time did the Members who are left with the

Social Credit group ever stand up in the House and make any

criticism of that — not to my recollection.

I must congratulate the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams), a member of that committee, who has sat

through over 90 per cent of the second reading debate of this

bill. I regret the absence of the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips). I'm sure he has urgent business today. But that

Member sat through it all, sat through the House before,

disagrees with the government, did suggest some alternate

proposals. That's the role of opposition. But I didn't see that

from the Social Credit group. I tell you that the kind of

emotional, somewhat screaming statements made by the Members

leaves me somewhat confused.

I have to spend a few moments on the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett), and I regret having to bring up this particular situation. But it

is true that one of the most glaring examples of tax inequity was a certain

piece of farmland that was assessed just outside the city boundaries as agricultural

land, and for years was under assessed. The City of Kelowna. It was Kelowna,

Mr. Speaker, and the particular land in question assessed as agricultural land

right on the border of the city belonged to none other than the former Premier

(Hon. Mr. Bennett).

It was a shocking case to the point that even the Victoria

Colonist , which is not a notorious socialist newspaper, for

those who may not have divined that at this point, wrote a

particularly vicious

article attacking the former Premier for

allowing that situation to remain.

Now I didn't recall that being raised as an example of what

Bill 71 was about. As a matter of fact, I want to say that the

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) who is here

because of a lightly landed blow to the body of an unfortunate

woman candidate…. As a consequence of that lightly landed

blow, the Member is here.

He is here to inform us that, in reading through the past

debate, not one Member of that group, when Bill 71 went through

the House, except his colleague for Victoria (Mr. Morrison),

and he was inquiring whether or not it would be retroactive for

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Premier, I'm sure you

didn't mean to in any way suggest to those who don't know that

you are now referring to the Hon. Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson)….

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, I'm sorry. No, Mr. Speaker, he

didn't even make a hit with the voters. That Member is in by

accident. The blow was struck by the former Member of this

House, Mr. Waldo Skillings, an internationally famous bridge

player, who lost his temper during an election campaign and

attempted to punch out a lady candidate.

An Hon. Member: That's a low blow.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A low blow? I don't think that was

it at all, Mr. Member, but certainly a blow of some description

was struck. As a result it was a field blow to him but a lucky

blow for you.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Members don't wish to go into the past, Mr. Speaker?

They are the ones who at second reading constantly referred to Bill 71 and the

past situation. They must take what they are prepared to give. They must be

prepared to do that. Now, I am discussing Bill 71 in the same context that the

Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

[ Page

4717 ]

did. I have an obligation to reply to him and tell him that

his reading of Hansard which he put on his desk, is one

that I must agree with.

It is a matter of record that not one voice and not one word

was said about that unfortunate incident in Kelowna where there

was a glaring example of what the tax inequities had allowed to

pertain in this province. Shocking!

The former Premier of this province (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) —

it is a matter of record — did not pay a fair share of

taxation, not deliberately but because of his own taxation

policy, classifying his property as agricultural land bordering

the city of Kelowna. Other homeowners in Kelowna had to pay a

higher share of taxes because of that. That situation was not

unique to Kelowna; that was going on throughout the whole

Province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Is that the shopping centre?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, that's not the shopping centre.

They were growing grass that a couple of horses ate, Mr.

Member, and that became agriculture property. The taxpayers of

British Columbia had to define which particular part of the

anatomy that we were being taken for when those taxation

policies were being described.

Now, we did, of course, move on Bill 71. We did of course,

have a non-debate from the official opposition. As a matter of

fact, today that non-debate continued. That miss-and-run Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) was at it again today, reading

gobbledegook speeches that we can no longer attribute to Don

Campbell but to some poor other unfortunate who now must take

the place of that vacuum in that party's stand.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What is the situation? Well, it is

impossible to fill a vacuum but there are enough volunteers

apparently. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Speaker, I've got to draw to your attention some

specific examples. It is true that the Member for Columbia

River (Mr. Chabot) wrote on a number of instances. What the

Member failed to tell the House is that there is a method

whereby any non-profit organization can go to a municipality

and ask for relief from taxes. As a matter of fact, some of

them have been successful.

I recently heard a programme on CBC television about the

White Rock Players and their problem in terms of increased

assessment because of Bill 71, their successful appeal to the

government for a little comfort and relief, and their

successful appeal to the municipal council for a little comfort

and relief. But they wanted more help. That's

understandable.

Non-profit groups were looked after in the legislation. It is the duty of

every single MLA to ensure that non-profit groups are given the exact information

that is available. The local council should be in a position to make a decision

as to whether or not they are a non-profit group; it shouldn't be big government

here in Victoria that makes that decision. Surely we are not opposed to the

principle of subsidiarity in allowing the local levels to make those decisions.

I don't believe that there would be any MLA who would come

to this House and who would be so political as to not give a

helping hand to those organizations and avail them of the

relief that exists through the legislation. And I don't want

any MLA accused of somehow forgetting that information to leave

the impression that the government was being hard on those

non-profit organizations. I would viciously attack any MLA who

would make such a suggestion. I know that every MLA would

consciously go to his municipal council and say, "Here, Mr.

Councillor, do not be chagrined over the increase in taxes to a

non-profit group because the government has provided a law to

say that they can receive some comfort." I know every

responsible MLA would do that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You think I'm wrong? Do you think

that I am still naive after 14 years in public life? Oh! Do you

believe that there would be an MLA who wouldn't go out of his

way to tell a council about that access to relief? I don't

believe it. You're too new, Mr. Member. All you've seen is one

of the former ones punch somebody out. But they are not all

that bad, Mr. Member. They are not all that bad.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You didn't see it. You weren't a

witness, but you were a beneficiary. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, just a photographer. Was it a

male or female photographer?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Was he going up the escalator or

down? (Laughter.)

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, it was on the slant. He was on

the square.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, just in case there are some

[ Page 4718 ]

MLAs who are unaware, I suggest they read the Municipal Act,

chapter 255, and they will see very clearly under

section 328

exactly what the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot)

appealed for. It is available under statutes in this province.

So I know he would not want to leave any impression with the

House that that relief wasn't there.

Now, there is some talk about the small businessmen. For

those of you who will refer to Hansard , you will see

that I indeed said that there were going to be anomalies. Once

we took the lid off those two categories…. And remember that

65 per cent or more of the tax folios are on private housing

which we did not touch through Bill 71. I said there would be

anomalies because of the situation that we inherited because of

direct political tinkering with the tax system.

We thought, somewhat naively, that we would be able to clean

up the mess a lot more quickly than we were able to. With the

enthusiasm of the new government we went charging in and said

these situations must end — situations like land being

classified as agricultural land right next door to a city, and

others.

So we went ahead with Bill 71. We found situations where

some of the small businesses that the Member talks about,

crying for those small businessmen, indeed is valid. We found

cases where people were property-rich but income-poor and that

the use they were putting it to for the income they were

getting from it. In that category are the Mom and Pop hotels

and motels — the kind of pioneering motel or hotel that is

owned by individual families. They pioneered them and developed

them. In that case they are quite right.

But in other instances some of the motels were in chains.

One of the chains is known as….

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Sandman?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's it. Yes, that's a chain, a

chain that was so fortuitous as to be able to find locations

very close to highways. If I may borrow a word from the Leader

of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), that was a curious

fact in itself. Four or five were located at these fortuitous

sitings. I think it was done by a divining rod. (Laughter.)

Considering the particular talents of the former Minister of

Highways (Mr. Gaglardi), perhaps that's the most appropriate

description: a motel divining rod. It was eminently

successful.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What, as a driver or as a

diviner?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Here's one. Here's a motel in South

Okanagan that has a current market value of $250,000. It was

assessed in 1973 at $63,000. Its assessment in 1974 went to

$91,000. Its taxes in 1973 were $3,126, and in 1974 went up by

a little over $1,000 to $4,397. It went up a little more than

$1,000.

This particular motel owner phoned me. I enjoy talking to

people and writing letters to them. He was very angry about the

increase in his taxes.

And I said, "But, sir, you have not been paying a fair share

of taxes for years."

And he said, "Well, why are you hitting me all at once?"

I said, "Well, would you like to pay some money back

gradually which you should have been paying years ago?"

No answer.

I said, "Your property is assessed at $250,000."

He said, "That's an inflated price."

I said, "Well, will you sell it to the government for

$200,000?"

No answer.

People must learn to pay their fair share of taxes. Even if

it is unpopular, you cannot go on playing jiggery-poker with a

tax system that has been messed up for over 10 years by that

former administration. We're trying to resolve it, and yet we

can't find a simple way to resolve it overnight.

Now we have this legislation in front of us but there is no

way that anyone can justify going back to that old system. How

could you?

Mr. McClelland: Are you voting against the bill?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, I'm telling you….

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We have made the one major step

through Bill 71. We reached some level of equalization through

Bill 71, but there is no way that we are in any way informed or

knowledgeable enough to go ahead with the other 65 per cent to

homeowners.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities came and said, "Slow down."

Others came and said, "Slow down." I don't even want to take

advice from the next source that I'd like to quote — another

non-socialist paper — but the Vancouver Province in an

editorial said: "Cool it. Slow down and get the information."

For once we agreed with The Province . Mr. Speaker, I

wish that could be stricken from the record but it is a matter

of fact that at one time The Province and our policy

were right on. We don't have enough information.

The motivation for that group to go to 100 per

[ Page

4719 ]

cent assessment is that they know very well what kind of

mess and jungle that we would go into without adequate

information. They'd run around politically saying: "Look what

the government has done to your taxes."

You can't expect that group to go around saying rationally

to the people of this province, "You have been underpaying. It

was our administration's fault and this new group is

straightening it out." I think they'd play politics.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Not that I'd ever make the

accusation that anybody plays politics, but I have a deep

suspicion that it happens on occasion outside of this

House.

Mr. Wallace: Name names.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Name names. Will I go through the

whole list, all 55? No, 56. We have a dual political

personality here now in the House, Mr. Member, and you should

know him better than anyone else. Jump, jump, jump.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Hop, skip and jump. Hop, skip and

jump, and then down the tube. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, ours is the only

party that he has not made application to, according to the

leader of the Liberal Party — which says that either we are the

best or the worst. I'm not quite sure what the case is. But

I'll tell you: I certainly do. We're the best.

I want you to know right now that I consulted with the

executive of our party. I've made an appeal as a social worker

to listen to all human complaint. But the answer is unanimously

no to that Member if he attempts to apply to our party.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): You're better

off in social work than you are in taxation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I'll hold his hand when he

goes down the tube. I've worked with schizophrenia before.

Political schizophrenia is a new experience and I'm willing to

learn.

Now, let's deal with the complaints made by the Member.

Somehow the question was raised that Bill 71, according to the

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), was a great hardship

to the municipalities. Then the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) made the point — was it he or someone else — that in my own constituency there is a poor

little grocery store where the price went up. Was it you, Mr.

Member, who read the grocery store case or was it the Member

for….

Mr. Phillips: Your mind's off in China again.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: …Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis)? That's right.

Mr. Phillips: Keep your mind on the House instead of

China.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: "Assessment legislation a

Life-saver for Port Coquitlam." The Columbia newspaper,

Wednesday, January 16, 1974.

"If you own a home in Port Coquitlam in a house on a

standard-size residential lot, you will probably smile when you

read your tax notice this year. On the other hand, if you own

land with no improvements on it, own an industry or industrial

land, or own and operate a commercial outlet in the city, then

you'll be crying the blues."

Then, of course, there was assistance to the homeowners. The

homeowners under the former administration had been carrying an

unfair burden. That was the case the opposition made. You made

it too.

Mr. Phillips: That's a lie.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Was it not the committee that you

were a member of which heard testimony from the mayor of

Terrace saying that if it had not been for Bill 71, that city

would have been bankrupt? Is that not what he said to the

committee?

An Hon. Member: No.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Then the newspapers are wrong

again.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Vancouver Province ,

which is known to be wrong, said on my birthday, October 2:

"He and Mayor Rowland argued that, based on that philosophy

the municipality should not be responsible for schools."

Is it not a case too that Mayor Rowland did say that Bill 71

saved that town from going bankrupt? Is the paper wrong? I

don't hear any denials. The committee members are under the

impression that that's what Mayor Rowland had said to that

committee.

Now, in terms of other examples, why shouldn't

[ Page 4720 ]

industrial land have paid more? We have the famous

illustration by the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) before the

present one of the barbershop paying four times per square foot

what the pulp mill was paying in the town of Port Alberni.

Certainly the large corporations must pay their fair share

and certainly there are anomalies. We will move to clear up

those anomalies the best we can. But no one in his right mind

can possibly make a case that we continue with the mess that we

had from before.

Now, as we moved into changes, we said to the committee: "Go

ahead and find out what you can about the next step, the

homes."

The committee came back with a recommendation saying that

there's no simple answer. So we made the decision, based on the

committee's report, to hold everything where it was in 1974,

freeze it, and then continue the study so that we can develop

the next step.

Those who want to rush in….

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay. Well, we're the government

and we made the decision. We said industry must pay its fair

share and we made that decision.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis) has very great experience in dealing with

legislative committees. We used to do a lot of that work when

we were in opposition, as I recall. Why, as a matter of fact,

we used to have a one-day meeting. We would go down, call roll

and the meeting would be adjourned. That's the last the

committee ever saw.

Anybody who wants to build a home on vacant land can get a

tax credit. Has the opposition been telling everyone that

story? The purpose of giving a tax credit was to get vacant

land into production on housing, Mr. Speaker. We passed

legislation in this House that said that new taxes — 90 per

cent — would be eliminated. Forgiven. Not deferred but

eliminated, if they would go ahead and build a home on that

piece of property.

Now, what's wrong with that? It was a move designed to get

land into production. They've never said a word about that. Did

you hear that in the debate? I didn't hear it.

The only one in the House who has said in this debate that

they want to go back completely to 1973 is the Member for Oak

Bay (Mr. Wallace). You're the only one. You notice that the

official opposition didn't say that. They were the ones who

were opposed to Bill 71, yet not once in any of their speeches

did they say "Let's go back to 1973." I listened very carefully. It's not their party's position.

Although they didn't vote for Bill 71, they said, "Let's not go

back to pre-1971 legislation." Isn't that interesting.

Talk about walking down a fence, Mr. Speaker. Walking along

a fence and having it both ways. Voting against Bill 71 but,

now that it is here, "Let's not go back to 1973." They know

better. Politically it would be suicide for the official

opposition to justify going back to 1973 rolls. Illustration

after illustration can be shown where industry benefited from

the kind of limits they imposed.

My friend, the Member for Oak Bay, hasn't got much to lose

in suggesting 1973 rolls. He represents not very many

industrial areas in his constituency. But these other Members

know what it means to the towns that they represent. Not once

during this debate did any Member of the official opposition

say, "It's our party's position to go back to 1973 rolls."

Hypocritical, Mr. Speaker? Not for me to say. But I find it

interesting that although they attacked Bill 71, they never

once said "Let's go back to the 1973 rolls." They would have

had to go back to their own constituencies to face their own

taxpayers and find out why those industries in their areas

which were limited in taxation all of a sudden had increases to

help equalize in those areas. They would have had to go back

and say, "Give the industries a break."

For the last time I'll comment on it: they never once said,

"Let's go back to 1973." How they defend that position

politically, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly is one

difficult to explain. But I'm sure by the time they get back to

their home towns they'll have figured out a way of telling them

the way it wasn't in the House.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): At least we're going home

and not to China.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, I don't mind if

you want to stick around or go home. We're all doing our duty

here, and it's a great privilege to do that duty.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, I'm glad that the miss-and-run

leader is back. I'm glad to see you back because it's good to

see you around. I wish that you took as much time writing out

your questions as you do your speeches.

Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of questions that were

asked during the second reading. "Why isn't there just a return

to the old system?" one Member asked.

I said, "because the old system was based on 50 per cent of

value, subject to 10 per cent restrictions, and the new

approach is a freeze, subject to clause (b)

[ Page 4721 ]

section 6(24). I know that all the committee Members are

familiar with each one of the numbers that I have read.

My friend the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) went through

the tax parcels and gave the answers sufficiently to that. I

don't think there's any need to repeat it. But the important

fact to remember is that of the total taxable parcels of

830,995 folios, 66.4 per cent were residential and farm.

Will the assessment authority be fairly financed because of

the changes in the legislation? Yes, I have already received a

financial report based on the new value, and the matter is

under consideration for the spring session — and I gave that

answer as well during a question period.

What happens to courts of revision under new legislation?

That was another Member's question. They continue to function

pursuant to

section 33 of the assessment Act. The appeal

process is unchanged and, as a general rule, the commissioner

would not investigate a possible disparity until after the

courts of revision are finished in the spring. It is the same

administrative procedure that has been followed for years under

section 40 of the old assessment Act.

How will residential classification be determined this year?

I think that question was raised by the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I understood that the

commissioner has the power under

section 14(

e) of the

assessment authority to give directions with respect to the

preparation and completion of assessment rolls. Under this

general power I understood his office has already advised

assessors to revise assessments. I've given that assurance that

property is to get residential classification whether a home is

on it or not. Apparently the authority does not intend to ask

for five-acre limits on residential property this year.

What is the consequence of the bill? The consequence is to

say: "Okay, everything stays where it is." We obviously don't

know enough in terms of the impact of major and dramatic

changes. We need more study. We intend to take the time for

more study. If that's what the official opposition is

criticizing, then so be it. But let them criticize with the

full knowledge, as clearly pointed out by the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who doesn't agree

with us today, that the basis of the problem was one that we

inherited.

There is no question that in Bill 71 there was not a single

voice, other than a question from the First Member for Victoria

(Mr. Morrison), about the mess we inherited. The only person

that's embarrassed in that group today obviously has to be the

Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), because he

spoke out against inequities, he campaigned against the

inequities, and now he's sitting there with the inequities.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I say to you in conclusion that the one bright spot of the whole

debate, of course, was when the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) spoke and immediately

put the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to sleep.

The other bright spot was some discussion by official

opposition Members about how the past did not really have a

bearing, and their own situation where they did not come out

and ask for a freeze in 1973.

I want to commend, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all the

committee members who worked very hard under an able chairman,

who with a new dimension went throughout this province and

listened to the people. And the people told us what they

wanted. This is what they wanted, and we are responding to the

people through this bill. I hope that everybody in the House

votes in a response to those same people.

I move second reading of Bill 170.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAY — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

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

Bill 170, Assessment Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Second reading of Bill 173, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTERIM

ARBITRATION PROCEDURE ACT

[ Page 4722 ]

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate

on this bill I think it would be helpful to run through some of

the background of the situation between the teachers of the

province and the trustees which led up to the necessity of bringing in interim

legislation regarding arbitration this year. I know that most

Members of the House are fairly familiar with the situation.

But I think it's necessary to keep certain steps in our minds

which I hope will give an opportunity for you to realize the importance of seeing that

this legislation is passed.

The teachers and the trustees of the province for almost

over the last 40 years have bargained — with ups and downs, of

course — but basically they have bargained on a local basis

between one school board and one local teachers'

association.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

However, in a number of cases throughout the last few years

there has been zonal bargaining. That, of course, has been done

by mutual agreement between the boards and the teacher

associations involved.

Then, of course, if agreement could not be reached, they've

gone into conciliation and from there into arbitration.

Interestingly enough, the present system of arbitration was

brought in by the former Minister of Education (Mr. Peterson)

in 1958. In checking back on his speech notes at that time, he

found it necessary to bring in that form of compulsory

arbitration because conciliation in 1958 had been breaking down

between the teachers and the trustees, and at that time there

was nothing in the School Act which said that arbitration must

follow.

In reading his notes, he was very concerned about massive

teacher resignations and perhaps other upsets in the province

which would affect the students of the province. So at that

time the new compulsory arbitration

section of the Act was

brought in with the intent of ensuring that arbitration

procedures would be followed so that settlements could be

arrived at in an orderly fashion throughout the province.

I want to emphasize that that is the basic theme of this

legislation: to ensure that arbitration procedures will follow

through in an orderly fashion in this province.

But I would like to go back to bring us up to date again on

the background scene in the province this year. This year, for

the first time ever, the school trustees of the province — 68

school boards of this province — agreed to turn over their

bargaining rights to the central BCFTA negotiating committee.

In other words, they said that they chose to have their agent

be one centralized agent.

Six other boards, I believe, of the province decided that they did not wish

to turn over their bargaining rights to a central body. It's interesting to

note that those boards which did not turn over their rights to the central agency,

their present situation is this — the latest I can receive: Vanderhoof, one of

them, has settled; Merritt has settled; Kamloops; Burnaby; and Richmond. North

Vancouver, apparently, is still actively negotiating. So we'll put those boards

aside for now because in the background leading up to the bill they, of course,

are not part of the present situation.

When the trustees turned over their bargaining rights to the

central agency, and this was announced formally, it became

quite obvious that the teachers of the province — the B.C.

Teachers Federation and the majority of the local associations — were equally adamant that they did not want to turn their

rights over to a central body, and that they wished to continue

in local bargaining.

Therefore, from the time that bargaining opened and

contracts were opened, we had the scene in this province where

no negotiation was taking place at all between those 68 boards

who had turned over their rights to the central body, or the

teachers' associations which were related to those boards. So

we went through a period where no negotiation had taken place

at all.

Then, of course, I was presented with the situation that the

next step is conciliation. Well, it was quite obvious that if

those 68 boards and 68 teachers' associations had never even

sat down to negotiate, obviously they were not ready to get

together to even appoint a conciliator. Of course, as you know,

the Act states that if that's the case, then the Minister must

do so.

As you're aware, I did so; I appointed 18 conciliators with

the hope that those conciliators would be able to bring about

some settlement between the local teachers' associations, in

whatever form or fashion they would agree to, and the school

trustees.

Well, following that appointment of the conciliators, it

became quite clear that even this was not going to resolve an

impasse. The reports that were given to me…and I spent a

good deal to time, I'm sure you're aware, with several

meetings. I had one meeting with the trustees and teachers

together and then I had a meeting with them separately, and had

many other discussions with other people involved and with the

conciliators themselves. It became quite obvious that, again,

there was going to be an impasse, not only in negotiations but

also in conciliation.

The trustees did make a move in one direction: they asked

the teachers' associations to come down to Vancouver, I

understand, and conciliate there. They did say that they were

willing to move into 18 rooms where the bargaining could

therefore take place.

To our knowledge — and we did a considerable amount of

investigation on this before moving into

[ Page 4723 ]

this bill — it became quite clear to us that there was going

to be another impasse, that the majority of the local teachers'

associations were not prepared to come down to Vancouver to

negotiate.

Therefore, when we reached that point it became quite clear

that we could end up with 68 arbitrations. So the next step

that I had to decide as Minister was: will the arbitration

procedure work, or can it break down? I know no one in this

House wanted to see a breakdown of an arbitration procedure in

this province, because if it did break down we would be ending

up in a scene where there might be no teachers' contracts for

the coming year. I think all of us don't need to use our

imagination much to realize what sort of a scene might be out

in the province if such a situation came about.

In the hope that there might be a last attempt by both

groups to settle, the bill also did extend two weeks the time

for conciliation and arbitration.

At this moment I haven't heard that there have been too many

results. I understand that maybe two teachers' associations did

meet in Vancouver — I believe it was Vancouver and Prince

George. I don't think, from the word I've heard, much has come

out of the Vancouver meeting and I don't know what has come out

of the Prince George. So it's quite obvious that conciliation

is not producing anything at this time. This, of course, was my

concern following the pattern of what we've seen earlier, so I

was very concerned, as I've said, to be sure that arbitration

did work.

Now, people have questioned us, particularly the trustees,

and asked me why I did not appoint a team of arbitrators

following the way I appointed the conciliators. Our department

people discussed with a number of arbitrators who had worked

teacher-trustee arbitrations before, and we asked some of them

their considered opinion: do you think that you could proceed

to handle, say, three, four arbitration hearings? How many do

you think you could actually handle? The concern that was

expressed to me was: well, this is a different picture this

year. If no negotiation and conciliation have taken place at

all, we're going to have everything laid out on the table

before us — the whole contract. Of course, we know that is a

pretty complicated thing to be dealt with.

So I want to emphasize here that in deciding that an

arbitrator could serve on no more than two boards, the prime

move behind that was to ensure that arbitration would work and

would be proceeded with within the deadline.

There has been much confusion in the past, may I say, and on the radio and

the television in interpreting this bill as stating; teachers given local bargaining

rights. Teachers have not been given local bargaining rights. If they were given

that, this legislation would be in front of your House today stating that all

teachers and boards must go back to square one and bargain locally. That is,

of course, absolutely wrong. The teachers have not been given local bargaining

rights.

Another recent headline says: "Teachers Given Local Arbitration Bargaining",

and that, of course, is also wrong.

We produced our suggestion in this bill that it be done —

one arbitrator on no more than two boards — with the main

purpose of ensuring that this arbitration procedure will work

for this year. I want to emphasize again that this is an

interim measure. I regret that we have to bring in interim

pieces of legislation in this particular matter, in view,

particularly, of the fact that there is an all-party standing

House committee which has had a number of hearings and will be

preparing a report, hopefully, in the next few months, which

may possibly produce legislation, if the recommendation comes

out, for this whole area of collective bargaining.

I think it's most unfortunate that this year was chosen to

try out one particular pattern of bargaining when an all-party

committee was already set up by the government to look into

this matter so that we can decide from an all-party point of

view what is best for all in this situation, and not that just

the wishes of one group should be adhered to.

The situation, therefore, was, in my opinion, becoming

almost a crisis situation in the fact that arbitration possibly

could break down, because I had no assurance at any time from

the school trustees, although I asked for it, on how many

arbitrators they would appoint.

They did tell me, however, that they were going to have a

meeting on the following Monday but I informed them that I

would have assumed that they would have thought ahead to how

many arbitrators they were going to appoint when we were so

close to the deadline. And as I was not able to find out how

many they were going to appoint, I decided that, as a Minister,

I could not risk a breakdown in the arbitration procedure

because after all, breakdowns such as that could possibly cause

a complete breakdown in our educational system.

Mr. Speaker, with that I'll conclude my remarks and move

second reading.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I will

utilize the time as best I can. Although I hope to be completed

within the 40 minutes, if it's allowed, I would like to take

the opportunity of being the designated speaker and utilize as

much time as is necessary just in case I get carried away.

The major objection to this bill is not necessarily the

reason it was brought down; the major objection is not the

language of the bill. The objection is not: does it accomplish

what it was set out to accomplish? The major objection to this

bill is the fact that it

[ Page 4724 ]

represents intervention in the bargaining process by the

Minister of Education. This intervention, in my opinion, was

completely unnecessary, and in these next few moments I would

like to try to prove that point.

First of all, the law as it exists, and as it is represented

by the Public Schools Act, is explicit as far as the process of

bargaining is concerned. It establishes the process, and it was

outlined for us again today by the Minister. Bargaining is

established, according to the Act, on a local basis and should

it break down, conciliation is the next step; should

conciliation break down, then arbitration is the final step and

should arbitration break down, then the Act clearly provides

that the previous contract shall carry forward into the next

year and be deemed to be the new contract. Therefore the law is

explicit as regards the process of negotiation — bargaining.

You have to be a little bit careful in the use of the words,

because there are four distinct words used. When the Minister

says that there have been accusations made that this particular

amendment provides for local bargaining, we have to be careful

that we understand she's using the word "bargaining" and that

in the strictest sense of the word, this amendment doesn't

provide for local bargaining, she's right, but it does come

down heavily on local arbitration. Therefore we need to be a

little careful as we sort out the meaning of these words. If I

cross-use them in my own speech today, I hope that you'll

forgive me.

There are certain latitudes that are spelled out in the

bill. There are certain latitudes that exist. For instance, let

me cite one: if both parties agree, then regional or zonal

bargaining can take place. In other words, the Act does not

insist upon local bargaining; it begins there, but provides the

latitude of regional or zonal bargaining. To cite an example:

the Okanagan area has used zonal bargaining, and, I understand,

to good success.

There has to be notice given. If either party wishes to take

advantage of zonal or regional bargaining, notice must be given

to the other party and, as I understand it, to the Department,

by a deadline date, and that deadline date is September 20.

In this present dispute, notice of a desire or a wish to

bargain zonally or regionally, or eventually provincially, was

not received. Insofar as it was not received, it can be laid to

the charge of the B.C. school trustees that the action they

have taken since September 20 is an illegal action because the

Act clearly provides that notice of regional bargaining, or any

other kind of bargaining but local bargaining, must have been

received by September 20.

There is a little loophole that I want to refer to a little later which makes

it possible for the school trustees to insist on regional bargaining without

due respect to the date of September 20. I'll talk about that a little later.

However, in that the Act provides certain latitudes, it is

vague in the one area. It is vague in the area of the

appointing of a bargaining agent. Nowhere in the bill does it

spell out clearly that a bargaining agent shall bargain only in

one district, or two districts, or six districts, or eight

districts, or 75 or 74 districts.

The Act is vague in this regard and it is, in my opinion,

that vagueness which has precipitated this amendment, because

it can clearly be seen that the school trustees took advantage

of the vagueness and decided that they would appoint one

bargaining agent for all school districts, and hence accomplish

provincial bargaining contrary to the intent of the Act.

It is this loophole that the school trustees used to evade

the September 20 deadline issue. So the Act is vague in this

regard and must be criticized in this regard.

I believe that our Minister needs to be lauded in that she

saw the weakness of the bill in this regard and has brought in

this amendment to stop provincial bargaining, which, if she had

allowed provincial bargaining, would have been against the true

and original intent of the bill. Actually this weakness, had

the Minister not acted, in the strictest sense causes the bill

to be in conflict with itself, and as a result we have the

discrepancy from which springs this present dispute.

The trustees clearly wish to press for central bargaining.

The teachers are just as adamant to retain local bargaining. It

must be said for all to hear that the trustees, in their search

for central bargaining, have not complied strictly with the

provisions of the Act in seeking that change in the law. It can

also be said then, that the teachers, in the strictest sense,

have taken a proper position in maintaining that the Act be

carried through as it reads, and then local bargaining be

carried on.

There is a way that the law can be changed; the process for

that has been established. First of all, I think we have

already established that the law clearly is explicit in the

procedures to be used in bargaining. That law can be changed.

There are proper procedures for the change of the law, and

everybody within earshot knows what those procedures are.

However, in preparation for those procedures, a committee

was appointed. The committee was assigned the distinct task of

going abroad, to and fro across this province to hear what

people had to say regarding bargaining. I was a member of that

committee. Although I was not able to attend every hearing, of

as many as I was able to attend, I think this could be the

summation: that the majority of the material presented to the

committee was material

[ Page 4725 ]

regarding bargaining, and that it can be further said that

approximately the same amount of material, or the same number

of presentations or briefs, was presented to support either

side. Evidence on either side of the question was about

equal.

This committee was assigned to conduct these public hearings

with the distinct assignment by this House that it was to make

recommendations to the Minister, and that these recommendations

to the Minister would assist her, hopefully, in making that

administrative decision and to bring down new legislation to

tell all of British Columbia, including the trustees and the

teachers, what the new law would be regarding bargaining, and

that upon proclamation the new procedure would become law and

both sides would be expected to obtain to it.

The work of the committee was enjoyable, although we must

say that it became a little bit repetitive and towards the end

we could almost anticipate what the briefs were going to

contain. The committee was saddled with the responsibility of

reporting to the House, but not until the spring session.

The committee further decided and made public their decision

that the committee, as a committee, was not going to interfere

in the dispute presently in progress. The majority of the

members of the committee felt it would not be in the good

interest to do so. In effect, the committee would become part

of the arbitration or the negotiating process, the bargaining

process, which was not desirable. As a matter of fact, the

committee decided not to interfere, and I supported that

decision.

But along comes the Minister not more than two days after

the decision that intervention was unwise. The Minister comes

along — in spite of the policy of non-intervention clearly

spelled out by that party, enunciated over and over again by

the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) of that party. In spite

of the fact that negotiations were in progress. In spite of the

fact that the conciliators were working on the negotiations at

the same moment that the Minister brought down the legislation.

In spite of the fact that one of the conciliators had not been

appointed until November 5, not giving them any time to work on

the bargaining process. In spite of the fact that the committee

had taken the position that intervention was not desirable —

this Minister introduced a special emergency legislation. And

why?

I'm wondering whether or not there wasn't pressure brought

to bear on the Minister, because it happened that one of the

areas chosen for the strikes that took place happened to be

Coquitlam. It was embarrassing for one of the Members of our

House (Hon. Mr. Barrett) who represents the area of Coquitlam.

I would think that there could have easily been pressure

applied to the Minister to bring down some legislation which

would quiet the atmosphere. She shakes her head. Maybe I'm wrong.

But the question is: why, Mr. Attorney-General, in spite of

the overwhelming commitment not to intervene, did the Minister

intervene?

Now, if it had been an emergency decision I think all of the

Members on this side of the House would have commended it. But

the fact is that the process was clearly spelled out.

Interjection.

Mr. Schroeder: Good shot.

The process was clearly spelled out and the negotiations

would come to a proper conclusion in any case. So this

legislation was brought in not as an emergency measure, not as

a last-resort measure, not as a necessary measure, but strictly

as intervention.

What was the result of bringing in the bill? Did it restore

negotiation? The answer is no, because, until the Minister

summoned the representatives of both the BCSTA and the B.C.

Teachers Federation, negotiations had been taking place.

Did the action of the Minister help to restore negotiations

to a greater degree? The answer is no, because the Minister, in

bringing in the legislation, clearly enunciated in the Act

itself, delayed the time for the decision.

What happened? She has already admitted to the House today

that two out of 68 school districts paid any attention to

negotiation. As a matter of fact, word is received that the

rest of them said, "Why should we negotiate; the deadlines have

been moved up for 14 days? Arbitration is inevitable.

Therefore, we will just stay home." And that is the reason why

Vancouver and Prince George districts negotiated. Did bringing

in this legislation restore negotiation? No.

Did it diminish the dispute? The answer is also no, because

it allowed 14 extra days for those who had already taken their

positions to cement those positions. It gave 14 days for

accusations and cross-accusations. It gave 14 days for the

inflammation of the dispute. It gave 14 days further to run a

hazard on the relations that could exist — and must, by the way,

exist — between teachers and school trustees. It did not

diminish the dispute.

Did it bring an earlier settlement? Again the answer is no.

An early settlement is not forthcoming. Deadlines have been

moved up 14 days but the due process which was spelled out in

the legislation in the first place is still going to take

place. All we have done is delay due process for 14 days. We've

delayed negotiations. We've inflamed the confrontation. We've

given 14 extra days for people to cement themselves in their

positions. We have given 14 days for them to make needless

accusations. We have given 14 days for a further deterioration

of trustee-teacher relations.

[ Page 4726 ]

People on both sides have drawn up their battle lines on the

basis, at least to some degree, of misunderstanding. I have

been interested in listening to the presentations from both

sides to be able at least in some measure to get each side to

understand that what they really believe is not what was

intended by the other side in the first place. May I give you

an example?

Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), you are

smiling.

One of the examples of clear misunderstanding was the fact

that the teachers believed that the first letter of approach

from the school trustees, which came to invite them to come

together to talk about the basis on which to negotiate, was

interpreted as being a dictatorial letter, a letter which

didn't say, "Let's get together to see what date we can get

together to talk about how we are going to negotiate." They

interpreted it as being a dictatorial letter which said, "On

such and such a day we are going to sit together and we still

negotiate. You are invited to be there." The teachers reacted

the same way the Minister would have reacted. But I can't use

the language they used. (Laughter.)

So to a certain degree — and I use this as just one instance — on a basis of misunderstanding the battle lines were drawn up.

Further, it has prejudiced the future negotiations.

And who is caught in the middle? The children of British

Columbia are caught in the middle and the educational process,

to which this party is committed, is going to deteriorate.

I have to mention again the one accomplishment of the bill,

and that is the clarification of the intent of the original Act

to protect local arbitration by stipulating that no person may

serve on more than two arbitration boards. For this, again, I

must say the Minister must be lauded.

By the way, I don't believe that we in this House should be

part of the dispute itself because we are not close enough to

the fact. We are not a negotiator or conciliator. Our

responsibility in this House is to draw up the guidelines by

which negotiations shall take place. Our responsibility is to

be sure that those guidelines are just and workable, and, in

the light of those guidelines, we are to allow the due process

to take place.

In this present dispute I must say, though, that neither

side comes with clean hands. Trustees do not wish to abide by

the spirit of the law and are using a loophole to their

advantage. Teachers are guilty of blocking any attempt at

discussion on a regional, zonal or area basis in time to meet

the deadlines. The teachers refused to meet with the trustees

at any date before September 20 so that the September 20

deadline could have been met and the basis for negotiation

established. The teachers refused to meet, and in this regard

teachers are guilty.

They cited that there was inferior notice given. They say

the wrong language was used because the word negotiation was

used when it should have been conciliation. The wrong dates

were used. July 12 was suggested as a date for meeting, and on

July 12 many of the teachers are in summer schools, some are on

vacation, and most of them are not available immediately to be

contacted by mail or by telephone. Other things were cited:

they used the wrong place; Vancouver is the wrong place.

In any case, the teachers did not come to the settlement of

the dispute with clean hands.

It is true that zonal bargaining does work. Okanagan has

given us the instance that proves that zonal bargaining can

work. Zonal bargaining was the goal of the school trustees. Had

the teachers listened prior to September 20, it is highly

possible that zonal bargaining could have taken place in more

areas of the province, perhaps even in all of the areas of the

province.

Further, in the dispute, the teachers are talking in terms

of a complete package negotiation

whereas the trustees are only

talking in terms of basic salary negotiation when they talk in

terms of provincial bargaining.

Teachers understand the trustees to say: "We want to

negotiate the whole ball of wax at a central place." But the

trustees are simply saying: "All we want negotiated is the

basic increase." That is the settlements that have taken place

already, 15.8 per cent, plus benefits, bringing it to 16 per

cent, which is going to be used as a basis for settlement all

across the province. All the trustees are saying is: "Let