1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1983

Evening Sitting

[ Page

1947 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Second reading.

Mr. Reynolds –– 1947

Mr. Cocke –– 1948

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1951

Mrs. Dailly –– 1953

Mr. R. Fraser –– 1957

Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 (Bill 7). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

On the amendment to

section 7 1958

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lea

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

section 10 –– 1960

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

section 15 1962

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

section 23 –– 1962

Mr. Cocke

Appendix –– 1963

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this evening are

two very interested people who are here for the third time,

constituents of ours from White Rock, Jim and Peg Aldred. I ask you to

welcome them.

In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are two very strong free-enterprisers

who, in the spirit of free enterprise, provide a good number of jobs in

the Vancouver centre area, which is where they have their business.

They certainly understand the meaning of the phrase "ability to pay." I

would ask you please to welcome my daughter and son-in law, Darlene and

Ben Bezalel from Vancouver.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant

to standing order 36 and ask Your Honour whether, when a member rises

in his place to speak wearing a button, especially those that say on

them "the whining team" and "the wrecking team," it constitutes

compliance with that standing order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference to "uncovered" deals with an

old parliamentary tradition of wearing hats in the House. It meant that

one was to remove one's chapeau.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We have to thank the other hon. House Leader for his remarkable contribution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of minutes to

go. It's interesting to see the member for Skeena get up and talk about

members standing in their places wearing buttons, because to my

knowledge nobody on this side of the House has stood up to make a

speech when they were wearing a button.

I have just a few comments on some of the comments from the NDP members who

have been speaking on Bill 11. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said that

every thinking person would feel this bill should be withdrawn. The explanation

says the amendments reinforce the policy that public service salaries must be

based on the ability to pay and on proven increases in productivity. I don't

understand — and I don't think the people of this province can understand

— the opposition's chief financial spokesman, and one of their leadership

candidates, when he talks about every thinking person saying this piece of legislation

should be withdrawn. It's a piece of legislation that has worked in this

province for the last year, and worked very well. I have mentioned that of the

966 compensation plans that went before the commission last year, 895 were within

the guidelines –– 93 percent. I think you have to give the Minister

of Finance credit for that type of legislation, and give the government credit

for the fact that they brought that legislation in originally when other governments

in Canada were saying that it couldn't be done. The workers in this province

understand what we're trying to do.

I also wanted to quote the member for Nanaimo.... I was making the

odd note as he was speaking, and I think that's probably one of the

best ways to make a speech in this House — by listening to some of

their comments. He said: "Wherever you turn — newspapers, magazines —

they don't like this legislation." Well, he can't be reading the same

newspapers or magazines that I'm reading. This afternoon I read him a

comment out of Barron's Weekly ,

a financial newspaper that certainly is more respected around the world

in financial circles than anything any of the NDP members has ever said

or will do, in which it said that it was time this government did what

they were doing; that it's a responsible government; and that once

again we're leading the rest of the country with this type of

legislation.

They say this Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act should be

withdrawn, taken out. One of their members yelled "closure" at me

before we had the supper break. I think it fits in very well not only

with this piece of legislation but with a lot of other pieces of

legislation that we've been debating in this House since the last

election. We did have closure on an amendment to a piece of

legislation. I, for one, see nothing wrong with closure on any

legislation after a reasonable period of time has gone by. I went to

the library to read what some of the NDP members said about closure

when they brought it into this Legislature on estimates a few years

ago. Mr. Ernie Hall, the poor socialist from Surrey who used to live in

Tsawwassen — in fact, he still does; he lives in one of the nicest

areas of Tsawwassen — said, in talking about closure: "Do you think

that democracy has fled from the province of Quebec, from the province

of Ontario? Rubbish! Rubbish!" This is relevant to Bill 11, Mr.

Speaker, because from my point of view, if the government had to bring

in closure on Bill 11, I would accept that, once that party had a

chance to get its members up on their feet. But if they're going to

keep on making silly comments and making no recommendations, the people

of this province should know that this government has to take some

responsibility and bring in closure to get this legislation through.

[8:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll have to remind the member that he is

either reflecting on a previous vote or anticipating one. Please avoid

any such reflection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to

reflect on the way the members of the NDP vote. They are entitled to

the way they vote and I respect that. I'm just suggesting that some of

their speeches are a little too long, and some of the debate is

filibustering. Closure is a term.... In fact, I quote the former

member, Mr. Hall, on closure: "You can drag this thing into the realm

of politics just as much as you want, but you know yourselves that this

[ Page 1948 ]

the only way to go. This is the only thing that can

happen to drag this Legislature out of the bush league that you have

apparently got the desire to push it into, and turn it into a proper

Legislature of which we can be proud." That's an NDP member of this

Legislature saying that closure is something to make all legislators

proud. I've said that since I've been here, because I've watched it

being used in Ottawa as a tool to govern. I encourage the Premier and

other members of the Social Credit government to bring in closure when

necessary on this legislation, because we're wasting the taxpayers'

money — the $100,000 a day that it takes to run this institution.

The NDP are filibustering every bill before us, whether they need to

or not. I support the government when they bring in closure. I would

also support — as I hope members of the NDP would — some changes in the

rules of this Legislature to have some sanity in debate, and some

agreement as to time, so that we are not wasting the taxpayers' money.

I also support very strongly the Minister of Finance in this piece of

legislation and commend him for bringing it in.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think I should start out by having

a little chat with the Legislature — through you — with respect to some

of the comments made by the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

I was very interested in the fact that he was quoting Ernie Hall....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You're not very interested in anything, Deep Throat. In any event, you had better listen to this.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: When I watch a sit-down comic, I can't help but smile.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the comments made by the member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound with respect to the discussion of my former

colleague, Ernie Hall. At that time they were not talking about closure

as we're discussing it today, but about time limits set by the

Legislature on estimates. It had nothing whatsoever to do with

legislation, but with time limits that the Social Credit said at that

time were absolutely unacceptable. As a matter of fact, under the

auspices of the then Mr. Bill Bennett and now Premier, they went around

this province for three years, waving a flag and screaming, "Not a dime

without debate" at the top of their lungs. We relented, Mr. Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound, and said: "If that's the way you want it,

help yourselves." We relented on the time limits that had been set in

standing orders, and which stood in the standing orders in 1977; they

were repealed in 1979, but stood until then. They were relented upon by

us, and successively by the Social Credit government out of shame,

because there's no possible way they could set time limits after having

denied us those same time limits.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I

wonder if perhaps the member could be encouraged to get back to the

bill before the House, rather than to speak about rules and time limits

on debate in the Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I think, though, the member for New

Westminster knows what I'm going to say. Some latitude has been

allowed, and I think an appropriate amount of latitude will be allowed

to the member in this debate, but at some time we would all be

encouraged to return to the principle of Bill 11.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the fact that at least a reply is permitted to some of the statements made.

I'm not going to protract this aspect of the debate, but I do want

it fully understood that in our reply to the demand that there should

be debate ad infinitum, we said finally: sure, if that's the way you

want it, debate forever. Taxpayers' money, that member said. The

marathon sittings of this House were during the period that the NDP

were in government, and look at the records.

AN HON. MEMBER: You couldn't even handle it then.

MR. COCKE: At least we tried to handle it democratically, Mr.

Member. We never resorted to closure and wouldn't resort to closure

now. Closure has been used three times in the history of this

Legislature and twice in the last two weeks. Shame on that doctor

sitting there with the funny looking tie. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that

we should resort, when in doubt, to the democratic process. The way to

resort to the democratic process is to observe the minorities'

opportunity to debate and to put forward their ideas, whether or not

the government feels they're redundant.

AN HON. MEMBER: For how long and how often?

MR. COCKE: For as long as it takes, Mr. Member.

Mr. Speaker, on Bill 11, I suggest to you that they've done it

again. When the original Compensation Stabilization Act was proposed

and was being debated, it was announced by both the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier that this would be a bill of two

years' duration. "Take care of the interim and the long term will take

care of itself. Set the path for Canada. Canada will recognize the way

of B.C. is obviously the way that everyone should go." That was the

announcement. And now, two years later, the sky's the limit — no time

limit, just put this kind of package of slashing and bashing into place

forever and a day.

The kind of legislation that we have before us is to some extent

acceptable, or could have been, were it just that interim situation —

but only acceptable to some, not to people who believe in the freedoms

that we enjoy in this country. What I think we should all remember is

that freedom is not just a one-way street. Freedom to change, freedom

to negotiate, is a freedom that we should all enjoy.

The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) said that the rest of the country should be following B.C. Why?

AN HON. MEMBER: We're leaders.

MR. COCKE: You're leaders in the greatest number of

unemployed, the worst economic situation in terms of recovery in the

entire country. B.C. has got the worst record of all of Canada after

having this kind of legislation in place for two years. Now what have

you got to say to that? What a shocking situation! Then we turn to the

rest of the country and say,

[ Page

1949 ]

"Follow us. Follow us to infamy. Follow us down the drain. Follow us to

Silicon Valley," Mr. Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer), where they're

also going down the tube. Never has slashing, bashing and crushing of ordinary

people been a move in the right direction for economic recovery, for trust,

or for any other aspect of a decent, straight and strong economy.

Compensation stabilization was originally dreamed up prior to

February 18 — and I remember the date well. I heard it on short-wave

radio. The Premier's message was telling the country that B.C. had

dreamed a new dream and we were going for "restraint." Part of that

restraint was almost immediately implemented with the Compensation

Stabilization Act. It would put B.C. back on its feet, it was said. I

go back to what I said a few moments ago; we put B.C. flat on its

britches.

The private sector hasn't needed legislation to keep negotiated wage

increases at an acceptable level. The economy dictates that. You don't

have to have a dictatorial government telling either the private or the

public sector what is acceptable when they already know. It doesn't

take very long for the employees of government, municipalities, Crown

corporations or the lumber industry to know that there are only so many

dollars available. You don't have to have ham-fisted legislation, like

this and the other legislation that we face, to bring about the changes

that this government are arguing are part of their package.

I say that restraint in this and virtually everything else the

government is doing is nothing but a catchword, nothing but a PR stunt

to put them in a position where they hold total control of the entire

province from right here in Victoria. We know that centralization is a

thing of the past in more progressive areas. We know that

centralization was attempted in many of the communist countries and

still is being attempted with no success. Centralization and Stalin are

synonymous. They put their economics in jeopardy when they take the

powers away from the local level and bring them to the unthinking areas

of central government. Fortuitously for this country, this is not the

government of the land, only the government of the province; but it has

impaired the economy of B.C. and will continue to impair the economy of

B.C. as long as they continue along this line of centralization.

[8:30]

Nothing more or less can be accepted from a bill that says that the government

— let's not kid ourselves; when I am talking about the government I am talking

about the cabinet — determines the compensation for all of the public sector.

We are not talking about direct public servants; we are talking about 240,000

people in this province. We are talking about every employee of a Crown corporation,

a municipality, a school district and the provincial government. That's

240,000 people dictated to by the Minister of Finance, who really doesn't

call the shots. The Minister of Finance together with the Premier and one or

two other influential people in that cabinet have decided to go back to the

nineteenth century and adopt the old ways of the old conservatives in order

to bail us out of the quandary we are in. Don't they realize that they have

created the quandary? Don't they realize that these are exactly the same

conditions that the world was in when it went down that long slide to a terrible,

deep, dark depression in the thirties? Don't they realize the rhetoric was

almost the same then as it is now? Control, restraint, kick 'em when they're

down. Mr. Speaker, that's what we have before us.

We also have before us a total admission of failure. In 1981 we were

told that the Compensation Stabilization Act would work, would bail us

out, would give us that new fresh start, would rev up the economy.

Everybody was so excited. Everybody was delirious with delight that

that Finance minister, that brilliant creature, was putting us on a

course of recovery. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you where that first

bill took us. If you can answer any different than I — that is, down

the tube — then I would like to suggest that the second bill will take

us that much further down exactly the same pit as the first.

AN HON. MEMBER: Down the tube.

MR. COCKE: Tube, pit, vortex — you call it what you like, and

I'll call it what I like. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, that's

precisely the direction that has been adopted. They've learned nothing

in the last two years, except the fact that they have a feeling that

the public accepts that, yes, there should be some restraint. Also, the

public accepts the fact that there is something less desirable about

the human quality in a public servant or a teacher than there is in the

rest of society. That is something that was probably generated by the

same people, unfortunately, who decided that politicians also fit in

that basket. I think that's unfortunate as well.

In any event, we were asked in 1981 to accept government

intervention. As a result of that request, there was a bill put on the

statutes of this province which became

an act — the Compensation

Stabilization Act. We were told by two people that it was of short

duration. What did we get for the trouble that this Legislature took at

that time? We got a bill that was put on the books for two years and

that has gone on for that period and more, and now we're asked to give

it an endless life in the amendment, because I see nothing in the

amendment, nothing at all, that would tell me that there is any end to

the life of this. It talks about the commencement, but it certainly

doesn't talk about when it's going to come off the books; nor has there

been any announcement this time by a responsible minister about when it

might come off the books. All we have before us....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: What makes you think it's going to end?

MR. COCKE: I want to congratulate the Minister of Forests,

because he has told me right now.... He says: "What makes you think

that it's going to end?" So the fact that we have to live in this kind

of society for anything more than an interim period must make anybody

in this House, particularly because we must more than anybody else in

society, appreciate the need for a democratic society. When we see

dictatorial bills like this before us, surely we can be at least given

some kind of intimation that that kind of dictatorial society will come

to an end eventually. The minister has said no. He wants it to go on

and on interminably. This is the government that says: "Why don't we

put the public sector in the same position as the private sector?" Let

me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the public sector is already second

class in terms of their ability to negotiate or to have any

part in the

decision-making process. That mentality should also be a message to the

private sector: "Watch it out there!" If they're prepared to do this

kind of thing — to set every aspect of wages, working conditions and so

on outside of the negotiated contract — then it strikes me that they're

also prepared to

[ Page 1950 ]

put forward legislation that would do that to the private sector. It's most unfortunate.

Another aspect of a government gone wild, of one that is so blessed

with short-sightedness, is that they can put forward legislation that

has become the laughing-stock of the rest of the western world. It's

unfortunate for us that there's no laugh here, because we're directly

affected.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you the first aspect of this bill, which says:

"The purpose of this act is to establish a program that will encourage

productivity and restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector while

ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the

public sector employer's ability to pay." Again they've thrown

in that word "productivity." It's interesting. One thing that

you can be absolutely sure of is that you do not gain productivity from a demoralized

workforce. I think we've all seen evidence of that. Those of us who have

been close enough and objective enough to observe have always seen that there

is no way you can get a high level of productivity from a demoralized workforce.

One of the things that people have had in our society is the

enjoyment of freedom. They've never had those enjoyments in either

super left-wing or super right-wing countries; they have had lousy

productivity on both sides of the political spectrum. They've had

rotten productivity for one reason: if repressed, a freedom-searching

person is not going to be productive. That's just absolute, pure logic,

as far as I'm concerned. Why would a group of people, who from the time

they began working believed they had the right to participate in

negotiations, either directly or through others, participate in an

opportunity to suggest working conditions and to make demands for

decent working conditions, suddenly to be told that the government

knows best? That can only go on for a period of time. At the end of

that period, there has to be a kind of getting-back-together, and

saying: "Okay, now let's get back to the basic freedoms we've all

enjoyed." Two years ago we were promised that that would occur; it's

even less than two years ago. That promise has now been lost. The

government has turned its back on its own promise. With this new bill,

the government has said: "We don't care what we said way back then. We

don't care what you think. We've won an election, and now we're calling

the shots. We got 49 percent of the vote."

Incidentally, I heard one of the members over there say "51." I'm

not sure where he found those extra votes but, anyway, it's okay by me.

That's neither here nor there; it's not that far off, I'm sure. It's 49

point something. Well, anyway, we'll see when the final votes come in.

But, in any event, let's say it's 59 percent....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Great stuff ! The fact of the matter is so did I.

You see, I won as well. But that's one thing that you people don't

recognize. While you won in your constituency and are taking seriously,

I hope, your responsibility to your constituency, I happen to have won

in mine, as did my colleagues here. The people in New Westminster know

my policies, and they keep increasing my mandate each year — if you're

talking about mandates.

I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr.

Schroeder), who had a long apprenticeship in that chair and should know

better, understands democracy almost less than anybody in this House,

and I feel sorry for him.

[8:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think we're digressing a bit at this point.

MR. COCKE: God will forgive him, I'm sure. She will, I'm told.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we return to the bill?

MR. COCKE: I'll return to the bill when they stop their terrible heckling, which almost makes me dissemble on the floor of the House.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. minister to come to order, please.

MS. BROWN: Remind them that Hitler won too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest also that for the last ten

minutes or a little more, because of the fact that we are having these

marathon sessions and we don't have the Blues, I've been totally

wasting my time standing here, by virtue of the fact that the Minister

of Finance has seen fit to get out and stay out of the House.

MS. BROWN: He's gone to bed, I guess.

MR. COCKE: I can't blame him.

He is not taking his responsibilities seriously, and I would hope

that if they ever make you a minister, Mr. Member, you will take your

responsibility an awful lot more seriously than he takes his. There is

no possible way that he is going to have access to what I have to say,

so tightening up and gearing in to Bill 11 is really not very much

motivated on my part, because I may as well just stand here and chat

with the House, as they're chatting with me.

I do think that's a travesty. I think the minister should present

himself. He should be here; that's his job. If he gets tired, as is the

government's wont, they can always change the bill that we're working

on. He is tired, no doubt. He's had a long, long day. He's been here

for a few paltry hours.

I really want to make this the focal point of my argument against

Bill 11, and that is that the economic recovery that was promised in

the original package is not even on the horizon. I want to take you

back to the month of August, when every other province in the country,

every other jurisdiction in Canada, improved their employment situation

and had decreased unemployment and an increased employment situation.

Where did B.C. find itself? There were 10,000 more people unemployed in

our province. Why? Why would a government who placed themselves on this

course, who had determined their direction some time ago, put

themselves into a position where it's not more of the same, it's more

of an awful lot worse that we're facing? There has been no economic

recovery as a result of that February 18 decision by the Premier. There

has not been economic recovery, or even a

[ Page 1951 ]

hint of it. There has been a further reduction in terms of the economic success of this province.

However, we have not seen this government back off on its spending,

We found out today, for example, that with all their largess, the

economic committee of this government decided that the best place they

could meet to have a discussion about economic recovery and the

economics of our province was in a $60,000 box at B.C. Place, watching

the Lions play football. We long-suffering taxpayers paid for that.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: We didn't? No charge? But we built those apartments out there. Pretty nice pickings for no charge.

Mr. Speaker, in 1981-82 we asked that government to cut back on

their advertising and on their spending. Talking about restraint....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You don't mind slurping at the public trough.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister and the member will come to order. The member for New Westminster continues.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we talked real restraint in 1981-82

and again in 1982-83. We asked them to cut back on their advertising

and to cut back on their travel to the tune of $81,936,000. But did

they? No. In 1982-83 we said cut back $76,225,000. Did they? No. But

they say to the public servants, to Crown corporation employees, to

teachers and municipal employees: "We want you to be absolutely within

the power of government. But not us. No restraint where we're

concerned." No restraint even on this weekend when they sat up there in

that lush suite or two watching the Lions and the Edmonton Eskimos play

football. Pretty nice going.

MR. REID: The Lions won!

AN HON. MEMBER: It was 31-30. Yay, Lions!

MR. COCKE: Yay, Lions! But I'll tell you who else won, Mr.

Speaker: those five cabinet ministers who were there. And I'll tell you

who else lost: the taxpayers who paid for it. That's not restraint.

That has nothing to do with stabilization. Stabilization comes from

trust, and you'll never get trust when you have this kind of bill

before you. Hasn't this government learned anything? Remember old Bill

33? Remember they set up the old Mediation Commission, with their

lavish offices downtown? You remember that, don't you? It was a waste

of money. Nobody trusted them.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Do you remember the contract you gave Cass-Beggs?

MR. COCKE: The contract we gave Cass-Beggs was zero compared

to what you gave Matkin. Come on, you gave it away! What we did was get

a competent man in there for a short of time.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You gave him a lifetime retirement policy after four years of risk.

MR. COCKE: You gave Matkin more, so what are you talking about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the hon. member he has three minutes left.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How about Jimmy Rhodes?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, please.

MR. COCKE: You see, Mr. Speaker, the minister has a guilty

feeling. He was out there wasting money on the weekend. He has to come

in here and face a piece of legislation that's taking the public sector

and putting them in a position where they can no longer be free, where

they can no longer bargain properly with the government, where they are

totally in the grip of a few people in cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that they are guilty. They have been

found guilty by every thinking person in this province. They have never, ever

abided within the rules that they set for others. They set these kinds of rules

for others. The rules for themselves are: play it high, wide and handsome. Entertain,

have a delightful time. We'll be asking you some questions about Las Vegas

in due course. In any event, they have had a ball at public expense. We have

seen it. We have proven it. Yet that same group have the audacity to come into

this House and say to us: "Would you accept, ad infinitum, an extension

of what we promised would only last two years?" Mr. Speaker, no, we cannot

accept it. I will oppose this bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, unlike team A of the New

Democratic Party opposite, I don't intend to speak at length on this

bill. I intend to tell it like it is and then sit down. The last

speaker on his feet, the member for New Westminster, has given us an

adequate description of the attitude of the New Democratic Party to the

restraint program in British Columbia, to the positive actions brought

forward by the Social Credit government and to the response of the

special vested interests which support the New Democratic Party.

Nothing could have been more clear in the last election than the

attitude of the people of British Columbia in giving a mandate to

Social Credit to bring government expenditure under control.

That was what the election was all about. The people spoke loud and

clear as to what they expected their government to do. No such message,

Mr. Speaker, reached the New Democratic Party and the vested interests

they support. Instead, they have embarked upon an entirely new course

of action for the opposition in British Columbia: not to oppose but to

obstruct, not to come to this chamber to debate but to hold it to

ridicule by using every device possible to waste the time and the money

of the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's the dilemma that we face

today. All of the talk about the old days when debate was held sacred

in this House has been passed. Device after device has been used by

team A or team B or team C, who do not come to this House to debate

this issue and face the consequences of whatever may be the decision of

the government to act. Instead, they use every

[ Page 1952 ]

device possible to obstruct, to prevent, to have

minority rule, to engage upon a tyranny preventing action in British

Columbia that the people demand and that is essential to the economic

prosperity of this province. That is what the debate in this chamber is

about tonight — this central issue. The bill under discussion is part

and is indeed the core of that whole program, because it says that

British Columbia and Canada can no longer afford runaway expenditures

on public services. That's what it is about. Why is this not possible?

Because the taxpayers of British Columbia can't earn it and they can't

pay for it.

[9:00]

The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, laid it out well for

British Columbians when he said there have been three stages of

prosperity in Canada: the first stage, which we earned for almost 25

years after World War II; the second phase, when the New Democratic

Party came to power and earning prosperity was no longer felt to be a

requirement or necessity. Prosperity was taken for granted, and you

spent the money because it would always be coming in; somehow the taxes

would arrive, somewhere the industry would be ever present to keep

supplying the taxes. We found that that is a myth — that you really

have to earn prosperity if taxes are to arrive. Instead, what the New

Democratic Party advocates for British Columbia — indeed, demands with

their obstructive practices in this House — is that we borrow for

prosperity, again feeding the insatiable appetite of the vested

interests that support the New Democratic Party, not for the long-term

good of the people of British Columbia, not to the benefit of all of

the individuals in this province, but to the special benefit of the few.

The trade unions — particularly the public service trade unions that

are your supporters — are your base. It isn't the average British

Columbian; it is the few people in the public service unions who want

more and more and more, even though more isn't there to give. If it

isn't there to give you want the public to borrow it. You want future

generations to go into debt in order to keep feeding forever the

insatiable appetite of your friends. It is not possible. This issue

sooner or later has got to be faced squarely, whether there is team A,

team B, team C, team D or team E. However many people you bring into

the House to try to obstruct the legislation, it must eventually come

to a vote, because democracy must prevail and the wishes of the people

must be expressed.

If the government is wrong — and almost certainly, Mr. Speaker, it

is not wrong.... If any government in North America is correct, this

government is correct. That's why people all over North America and all

over the world are watching what is taking place in British Columbia

today.

Interjection.

HON MR. McGEER: All over the world is not an exaggeration. Just this evening I have an analysis from the London Times

looking at British Columbia, understanding that the steps being taken

here are the first real steps of sanity taken by a freely elected

government since the syndrome of borrowed prosperity started in North

America. That's what it is all about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Our friends opposite still think it's

nonsense. Fine. Then what they should do is permit this program to go

ahead. When it's proved wrong they will become the government. But

that's not what this party is about. They're afraid that if the program

goes ahead it's going to be proved right. What other government, Mr.

Speaker, ever went to the electorate and got an overwhelming mandate,

an increased majority, for promising less? What government ever did

that? Not the New Democratic Party. That's their stock in trade:

promises, promises, promises. The money will rain from the sky. That's

the approach of the New Democratic Party: buy any vote at any cost from

any group. But the people have more common sense than that.

When your ex-leader went to the public of British Columbia and said,

"Throw away restraint. It's wrong," the public of British Columbia

decided they had to get behind Social Credit, vote for restraint and

support economic sanity in British Columbia. We had insanity for three

years when you were government from 1972 to 1975. We nearly had

insanity in 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945 and on and on and on. Do you think

that that party opposite, whether it's team A from 8 o'clock this

evening until.... When does team B come?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. For

members with an insatiable capacity for leisure, the difficulty of

appearing in the House to debate or to vote is an intolerable burden.

We saw the other evening, after the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms.

Brown).... All of those speeches we heard about the poor children....

Remember those education debates: on and on and on about the poor

children? Then when the time came to record the vote they weren't

there. They didn't care enough to show up to vote.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister is now reflecting on a previous question.

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to give them

credit; at least they didn't run out of the House like the member did

when the independent schools debate came up — didn't come in in the

first place. So if — which I doubt — my friends opposite in the New

Democratic Party really believe in their philosophy...

MR. LEA: Learned friends.

HON. MR. McGEER: Learned friends.

...they will come to this House not to obstruct but to debate. They

will turn up in the Legislative Assembly not to rest but to work. They

will turn up not to speak for the few but to speak for the many. When

the New Democratic Party recognizes its responsibilities in opposition

and begins to live up to the minimum responsibilities of an opposition,

we'll have a healthier House.

As the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) stated,

if the objective of the members opposite is not to oppose but to

obstruct, if it is to make a mockery of this Legislative Assembly, then

the only recourse the assembly has is to uphold the rules, to stand for

order and to call the questions. That's the only way we can have a

rational democracy.

MRS. DAILLY: Shame!

[ Page 1953 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Burnaby North says: "Shame!"

But, Mr. Speaker, you will recall the famous saying in the United

States that freedom of speech is not licence to yell "Fire!" in a

crowded theatre. The privilege of debate is not one to make a mockery

of the rules of the House. Therefore, if the objective is to debate the

issues, the House and the public are obliged to listen to all of the

arguments that reasonably can be brought forward. But if the objective

is to harass the House, that's an entirely different question. Those

who come to debate at a meeting deserve to be listened to. Those who

come to a meeting to disrupt it deserve to be brought to order, and

this is the difficulty that we face with the current opposition, Mr.

Speaker. The intention is not to debate but to obstruct. The intention

is to bring trivial points of order. The objective is to keep

adjourning the House. The objective is to do all of those things which

characterized the opposition during this past week, which reveal their

whole approach to this legislative session. Never in my 20 years in the

House have I seen anything like it. Our hon. members always turned up

when it came time for a vote; they weren't at home sleeping. They

weren't with the Leader of the Opposition resting. They're here working.

That's the problem with the New Democratic Party: they're here to

obstruct when it suits them, and home sleeping when they prefer to take

a rest. What we want to hear from the opposition is what their

arguments are in debate. Have them stand up in the House and present

arguments in debate, not trivial points of order. Let them remember

that what this bill is about is central to the whole program of

restraint in British Columbia. We cannot continue to allow the public

service to grow beyond the capacity of the taxpayers to support that

growth.

Yes, if you're five feet five inches tall and you weigh 300 pounds,

the first day you go on a diet is hard. But the essential thing to

bring people into trim, so that we can benefit the people of British

Columbia in the long run, is to take that first step, and this is what

this bill plans to achieve. Therefore the members opposite will have no

doubt, I'm sure, that I'm going to support that bill, as every sound

and sensible British Columbian will do.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the words that we've just heard

from that minister are enough to incense any right-thinking democratic

member of this House. I notice that he has a cold, and I think he's

getting older. He's been here longer that I have, which is a long time.

I will be fairly gentle with him tonight, but only because of those

reasons.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) started this

tonight, and was followed, in a more articulate way, by the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). What they

are trying to tell us is that in this particular Legislature of British

Columbia, under a Social Credit government, the opposition can only

debate if they happen to agree with the government's policies. But if

we disagree with the policies and we want to make our reasons and our

points for disagreeing, we are accused of being obstructionists. If

that is what we are to talk about.... He brought it up, Mr. Speaker,

and he suggests that we don't debate any more in this House. I'm taking

my position here tonight to debate, and to debate I have to counter,

first of all, some of the comments made by the preceding government

speaker. That is the whole essence of debate.

What we keep hearing in this Legislature is something that is very

dangerous. Over and over again we hear that we in the opposition are

obstructionists, simply because we will not sit down and acquiesce to

rotten, terrifying and frightening legislation. If my colleagues and I

have no right to get on our feet here tonight and debate this

particular bill, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, and if

we have no right to talk about the reasons we oppose it, may I say we

no longer have a parliamentary system in the province of British

Columbia.

I find that that member who just took his seat is becoming very

frightening. Because he is tired and has a cold and wants to get back

to playing his little science games and perhaps devising more tunnels

to get us from the mainland over here, he can't be bothered to sit in

the House any more. He accuses us of being lazy. That member always

found the House a bore, particularly when the opposition were on their

feet, because I have watched him through the years. Whether we bore him

or not, he has a responsibility to allow every member of the opposition

to debate.

There's a very dangerous trend happening on the floor of this House.

We hear speeches from the Social Credit government members who seem to

imply that no longer will debate be allowed in this House unless we

happen to stand up and say how wonderful they are. There was a basic,

implied threat, starting with the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound,

and then we heard it more clearly from the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications: if we don't toe the line and go along with

the government, closure will be imposed upon us again. He was playing

with us tonight.

[9:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand

that we are debating second reading of Bill 11. The member who has just

taken her seat has been telling us for roughly the last ten minutes how

she must have the right to debate the bill. I would suggest that if she

were to do that she would perhaps be more in keeping with the rules of

the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister; your point is well taken.

Would the member please continue on Bill 11.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, you — or whoever was in the chair

at the time — allowed the Minister of Universities, Science and

Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to relate his whole speech to the fact

that the opposition was holding up the procedures of this House. Never

once did that minister address the bill. If he has been allowed that

laxity for at least 10 to 15 minutes, I think I should be allowed the

same laxity. He was not told to sit down, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) did not stand up and tell him that he

should get on to the bill. So I also reserve that right until you, Mr.

Speaker, tell me, not the Minister of Forests. He is not the Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. member. There's an old saying that two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, so would you please....

[ Page 1954 ]

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with you on that. That's why I'm on my feet: to correct the wrongs of the government.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the

member has just accused me of telling her to change her approach.

Actually, I was addressing the Chair when I made my remarks; I was not

addressing that member.

MRS. DAILLY: I will continue on Bill 11, which I'm going to

address in somewhat the same vein as did the Minister of Universities,

Science and Communications. The only thing he said about the bill was

when he referred to the word "restraint." It's a marvellous word, isn't

it? It completely covers up all the right-wing extremist policies that

the Social Credit want to inflict on the province of British Columbia.

Everybody is in favour of restraint. Sure they are; everyone is. But

the kind of restraint being brought in by the Social Credit government

is dangerous, because it will result in serious and long-lasting

effects on the people of British Columbia. In his very tired speech —

he was so tired he couldn't even remember the dates of the elections,

which is unusual — that member did speak about restraint. He went

through the old rhetoric about how the NDP want to spend money and how

marvellous Social Credit are.

I cannot help thinking how much money that minister who just took

his seat has cost the taxpayers of British Columbia. In spending, he is

the most unrestrained minister we have ever had in the B.C.

Legislature. As I was listening to him speak, in my mind I was going

through some of his unrestrained actions. They weren't just things he'd

talked about. Somehow or other, that minister seems to be able to get

whatever he wants out of the cabinet. I think he mesmerizes them

because he happens to come from the environs of a university, and for

some reason they're in awe of him. They must be, because he keeps

getting everything he asks for.

What money has he wasted? I'm relating this to restraint. He's

always talking about the lack of restraint on our side. He's all ready

to put the squeeze on public servants, but at the same time he ensures

that he maintains his tenure at the university and all the nice little

frills that go along with being a cabinet minister. There's no

restraint there.

That minister ensured that in his own riding.... I believe he built

an eight-lane highway. I know that when I complained about this....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: I know. He said you got one too.

Mr. Speaker, we had a new university created, and you had to have

some way to get up to it. So certainly we had to have a highway built,

as you know. It is sometimes difficult to find it. But for some reason

or other, he built an eight-lane highway. It's beautiful. In time, I'm

sure it can be used. But the point is, in a time of economic

depression, was it necessary for that minister to push his own little

highway program through cabinet? It cost millions of dollars.

The other thing I remember is that minister's pet project, the UBC

hospital. It is magnificent; it is beautiful; but again, I ask you to

talk about priorities and timing. At the moment, that hospital is under

audit because there are empty beds. I'm waiting with great interest for

what that audit will be on the hospital built by that minister. It's in

his riding; it's his university — completely unrestrained spending by

the minister, who had the gall to stand up here and accuse the NDP of

wasting money.

He talked about debt. He went on and on about the amount of money

that the NDP put the province in debt. That government's debt on the

people of British Columbia is now $12 billion. It has tripled since the

NDP left office, and he has the gall to stand up in this House and talk

about the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, to the bill, in more detail. In the news release that

went out with this bill, the minister said all settlements under the

compensation stabilization program have been achieved through the

voluntary guidelines. Then he praised both public sector employers and

employees for their willingness to accept necessary restraint measures.

That is a very telling statement, a good statement; but if he praises

public sector employees for the way they have voluntarily accepted the

guidelines, why then was it necessary to bring in another draconian

measure, Bill 11 ? There is no way that a government can expect to keep

labour peace, to avoid confrontation and demonstrations, if they

continually come in with a heavy hand or heavy boot on the public

employees of this province.

This kind of legislation was not necessary today. There isn't one

public sector employee today who doesn't know there is a recession. In

the few provinces which have attempted to set up a mechanism of

cooperation between their public sector employees and the government,

things are not nearly as difficult. The tension is not the same as in

British Columbia. Every time Social Credit brings in a bill such as

Bill 11, they are simply inflaming the labour-management environment in

the province. It is all based on a false premise, this business of

ability to pay. Public sector employees know the situation; they pay

taxes too. They know their taxes have to go for their wages; they know

there is a worldwide recession. They're not stupid. It's all PR flak

that goes into this kind of a bill.

The other interesting thing is productivity. I want to go through a

little bit of this, because the bill keeps saying wages will change

with productivity. If I understand this bill, it also applies to

teachers. When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was asked

about bargaining for teachers today and about their

part in the

compensation stabilization bill, he said: "We have got to relate

everything to the employee's productivity." Some reporter asked him how

you do that in the classroom, and the minister had no answer. Some

areas in the public sector, particularly a classroom, are quite

different from working, say, in a sawmill, where you can actually see

your production.

It is rather tragic that the Social Credit government thinks it is

so easy to teacher-bash, to bash public sector employees. To do this,

they are ready to take extreme measures with the public sector

employees of British Columbia because it's good PR; it sounds good. You

can get people to say on pretty well every poll: "Yes, I think it

wouldn't hurt to keep public servants restrained in their wages and

their numbers." As someone said, the taxpayer probably says that until

the very services which will be cut back or eliminated because of these

employee cutbacks affect them individually. Then, I can assure you, the

taxpayer will immediately come to government and say: "Hey, what's

happened? We don't have these services anymore." Suddenly they are

going to realize that the Social Credit government has been playing

what I would consider an almost dishonest game with the people of

British

[ Page 1955 ]

Columbia, because they are using a lot of right-wing political rhetoric to cover their own inefficiencies.

Part of the reason they are in such a mess with their operating

budget has to do with Social Credit's handling of the affairs of this

province; in other words, their decision on how to spend money. We all

know there is just so much money available today. The interesting thing

is to look at how Social Credit has spent the money available to them

through the taxpayers. I keep hearing over and over again from every

Social Credit member: "Remember, we don't have the money. We can't make

the money in government, so don't come to us for more. The money we

have is raised entirely from taxes, so don't come and ask us to create

any more in any other forum." Of course, that is a basic difference

between the New Democratic Party socialists and Social Credit.

We believe that, particularly in times of recession — as in a war —

government has to take some very strong action to move the economy. But

this government just washes their hands of it. They say: "We have to

use the money that's coming in. That's it. There's no more money for

teachers, education and health. We're going to have to cut back on

Human Resources, senior citizens and the poor." People may say: "Well,

maybe that's so. Maybe they have to do that because there's no more

money." But the interesting thing is that, as with all governments, the

Social Credit cabinet has set their own priorities on spending. They

find it more important, in their thinking, to spend money on helping to

get a very wealthy ski resort out of bankruptcy — I'm referring to

Whistler. There is no problem with saying: "We'll come up and back

that...." I know the minister said they didn't put any money into it.

We will wait until the final accounting has taken place on that issue.

This is typical of the Social Credit government. They love to stand

up and say there's no more money, but they always find money for their

pet projects. There is no difficulty in finding.... This may seem

peanuts, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that $60,000 is not peanuts

today to the person who is struggling to get by and who's been deprived

of $50 a month. They saw nothing wrong with renting an exclusive VIP

suite at $60,000 in B.C. Place so that the cabinet ministers can do

business there. There must be something about sitting in a beautiful

VIP suite in B.C. Place with food and drinks that creates a better

situation for doing business than would be the case where they should

be doing it — here in the Legislature or in their offices in Robson

Square. Really, we have to listen to that nonsense today that they were

working in the B.C. Place VIP suite at $60,000. Money to go to

expensive condos....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Sure, highways are important. But it's

interesting that often there's always lots of money to make sure that

those highways go in where, I'm sure, the Social Credit vote can best

be served. There are other areas, where the NDP exist, where highways

are also built. Perhaps at this time the Social Credit government has

to look seriously at their expenditures in some of those areas, too.

Everything has to be....

[9:30]

If you're in a time of restraint, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't everyone

have to take their share? Why does it just have to be certain sectors

of our society? The old answer comes up again: "Oh, but there are so

many people who lost their jobs in private industry." We know that. The

public servants know it. But at the same time, they must question some

of the exceptionally extravagant moves by the Social Credit government.

We look at this very expensive suggestion — it hasn't come out yet, but

we understand that it's in the making — of PR programming for

television, etc., to sell a program of so-called restraint to the

public. I'm sure we'll hear that word over and over again, but we will

not hear about who is going to suffer under the Socred restraint

program and who will not.

You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that under the present manner of

prioritizing cutbacks, the Social Credit government does not show much

sympathy or concern for those most in need. It seems to be true in most

Tory, conservative governments.... You find the same thing happening in

England, where it's the poor who have suffered the most. People with

money have survived much better than the poor. Almost everything that

was brought in with the Conservative government in England has had a

very serious effect on the poor and has created massive unemployment.

The same is true in the United States today. Of course, in B.C. we have

one of the worst examples. It is such a stubborn government. It brings

in a bill that sounds good. Basically it says: "We've got to keep the

public sector wages down." It sounds good, but the interesting thing is

that the public sector has had their wages kept down for some period of

time. They have had to keep their wages down, and we're still awaiting

the turnaround. Instead of hands off for a while and saying, "Okay,

we'll stop using them as scapegoats," the Social Credit government is

going to continue to use them because it's easy. The public, they know,

will buy it. It's really a very unfair and dishonest way of handling

priorities.

However, the problem is that if all these policies of Social Credit

were going to bring about a booming economy, I think even the NDP would

have to sit back and say: "Look, it's not our way of handling things,

but we have to give you credit; you are succeeding." But, Mr. Speaker,

the policies this government has embarked upon and persists in

continuing with in the same vein are doing nothing to help our

situation; in fact, they are making it worse. There are going to be

more and more public servants on the welfare rolls in the coming year.

Can't you just picture it, Mr. Speaker? And everybody else is going to

be paying the taxes to keep these people on welfare when they could

have been doing some very useful work.

There are a number of other points that I want to make on this bill.

I had some of them underlined here, if you will just bear with me for a

moment. It's the whole area of talking about the matter of ability to

pay, which I think I discussed earlier, and that's the basis of this

bill, plus the matter of productivity. I think I tried to point out

that the suggestion that they alone will bring about nirvana is simply

not coming true. The merits of expenditure restraint are not really

discussed in this House. I find it interesting that the Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who berated

the NDP for not debating and just obstructing.... It is most

interesting that we never hear any really positive backup arguments in

the Social Credit debate on these bills. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it's

almost a shock when someone from the government side gets up to take

part in the debate. What we mainly hear is simply a repetition of the

usual extreme right-wing rhetoric. We hear a few trite expressions and

no backup. I don't understand upon what basis the Social Credit cabinet

moved on these bills.

[ Page 1956 ]

Someone says that they had someone from the Fraser Institute who sat

there and obviously impressed them, and they decided to go along with

that philosophy. But the interesting thing is that I have yet to see

any Social Credit cabinet ministers on their feet actually discussing

in detail and giving us some of the rationale for the very draconian

measures which they have taken.

I'm going to refer now to the fact that it's not only the left-wing

social democrats who are somewhat concerned with the restraint approach

taken by Social Credit. I noted a recent quote in the Globe and Mail

by the chairman of the Bank of Montreal, William Mulholland. I don't

think he's a member of the NDP, but who knows. He was talking about the

whole area of governments handling their restraint programs, and

referring to the Liberal government and their 6-and-5. He made the

point that he was against the following up of the 6-and-5 restraint

program, because it could be mistimed, could affect the recovery cycle

and could mean that economic growth would not continue. He also said

that if it is followed up, the program could fail to achieve

credibility with the general public, and particularly with the labour

movement. Here is the chairman of the Bank of Montreal expressing

concern that these further restraint programs would gradually cause

government to lose credibility with labour. He is showing a far broader

grasp of what the problems will be if a government continues on a

restraint program which is not really achieving anything, except to

build up a very unpleasant labour-management climate in the province of

British Columbia at this time.... Mr. Mulholland is trying to point

this out, and as I said, I'm certain he didn't say it from any partisan

viewpoint; he's talking about it as a concerned person and as the

chairman of the Bank of Montreal.

Again, I want to point out that when Social Credit were campaigning

they talked about the restraint program to some degree, but there was

no way in which they spelled out in any detail exactly how draconian

their measures were going to be. I was reading an

article today from Maclean's

magazine which was rather interesting. It talks about the restraint

revolution. I don't know whether you've had an opportunity to read it,

Mr. Speaker. I don't feel too happy reading that, although cost-cutting

hasn't been as severe across Canada as it has in British Columbia.

"Premier Bennett has enabled the other provincial Premiers" — and by

the way, let's face it, the majority are Tory governments — "to present

their cost-cutting programs as far less draconian in nature. He's made

it easy for the other Tory governments. Compared to him, everyone looks

good." I really resent the fact that the people of British Columbia

have to suffer under the Social Credit government just to help the

other Premiers, who are Tories, bring in milder restraint programs. As

a matter of fact they were all taken aback, as I think we know, by

these extreme measures taking place in British Columbia. It does say

the exception is Manitoba.

By the way, before I talk about Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, it did say

that a couple of the governments were somewhat embarrassed. Some

attempted, apparently, to increase their own wages, which in a time of

restraint certainly wasn't looked on with great favour. I won't read

what happened in other provinces; it probably is not courteous to those

provinces. I'll deal with ours, except to point out that the exception

to this kind of heavy restraint on the public servants was Manitoba,

where without giving the world away to their public servants they at

least settled this year in an atmosphere of cooperation.

This is why we are so concerned with this bill. It does not create

an aura of cooperation. Instead it will create a very confrontational

attitude in the province of British Columbia, because it is unfair.

Anything that is unfair will not be accepted. It is just like a child

who is punished unfairly — he never forgets it. We know that it stays

with him throughout his whole life. It is going to be the same in the

province of British Columbia. Many of the people who are being punished

by the Social Credit government, I can assure you, are going to have

very long memories about it. It will be a long time before they will

forget that the Social Credit government has used some of the people in

British Columbia — a large number of them in the public sector —

entirely as scapegoats because they know that it is very easy today to

use teachers and the public employees as scapegoats. It's not very

nice, is it, to base some of your policies on finding out which sector

in society will be the easiest sector to whip around and perhaps

subjugate. It has overtones that are not very pleasant, Mr. Speaker.

Someone has said that British Columbians are really learning from all these

very repressive measures brought in by the Social Credit government — learning

that the rights of none are secure unless the rights of all are secure. I think

this is where the Social Credit government is going to make a very serious mistake.

They are assuming that in picking out one sector that the public will easily

accept, they can get away with it. But the problem is that many people in British

Columbia are beginning to say to themselves: "If this can be done to one

sector, who is next?" I think that that is something the Social Credit

government is going to have to face.

That is why we are on our feet. We are not here to obstruct. We are

here to try to say to the Social Credit government: "Withdraw the

legislation." We have something positive to offer. We're asking you to

withdraw it. We're asking you to put it in committees. We would like to

take part with the members on committees so that we could discuss it.

The Social Credit would be very wise to withdraw a number of bills now

and to let the public of B.C. have an opportunity to react to it.

Instead this government seems determined to ignore any of the

opposition's viewpoints and to ignore other groups out there who are

complaining about these bills. They seem to feel that they have an

absolute right to govern without opposition and without listening to

the opposition. Mr. Speaker, if that were so then we might as well

adjourn the Legislature and not meet anymore and turn this over to you

know what. If there is no opposition, then we end up with a government

similar to those in totalitarian countries. I know that is certainly

not the kind of government that you, Mr. Speaker, endorse, and I'm sure

most people do not. But if the Social Credit government persists in

putting through bills which are unpopular with many people — and they

are....

[9:45]

We all know that there was a recent poll. The Social Credit members,

including the Premier, constantly say that they know that is a large

silent majority out there which supports everything they are doing;

they've never had more letters and so on. The point is that that poll —

if it can be assumed that it is correct, as some of them can be —

certainly shows that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the manner

in which the Social Credit government is bringing in the restraint

program. Once again, if you ask people if they want restraint, they

say, "Sure," but what they object to are the very regressive, almost

oppressive methods being used by

[ Page 1957 ]

the government to handle — in their opinion — the

restraint problem. Most of it cannot be backed up with any rationale or

logic.

Once this bill goes through you might as well say collective

bargaining is dead for all the public sector employees. How could

anyone expect the New Democratic Party, who brought in the collective

bargaining process for public servants, to sit here and allow it to go

through without any opposition? That would be an unbelievable

expectation. Not just because we brought it in — we happen to believe

that public servants do have a right to collective bargaining, and this

bill is stripping them of that right. They are not even going to be

given a chance — I don't want to get into the details of it; I know

that is for committee — to appeal some of the decisions or to argue

their case.

I don't think that any of us in the room should be asked to accept a

piece of legislation which is destroying all of the basic rights

between employer and employee, which have been fought for for many

years. These are the implications of this bill. Yet we have one Socred

member after another on their feet saying to us that we are supposed to

sit back, keep quiet and apparently not even debate it. There is no way

that the NDP can do that.

There will be many other speakers following me who will be going

into more detail and more concern. I would like to end my few remarks

tonight on the same note I began with: to say that we were all elected

in this House to take our position here in debate. If the debate

doesn't happen to please the government, if it happens to be presenting

a viewpoint that is not agreeable to them, that does not mean they have

a right at any time to invoke closure. I found the remarks of some of

the government members absolutely frightening, and I say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that the NDP will continue to fight for their right to speak

on the floor of this House.

MR. R. FRASER: I rise to support this bill totally. I would

say to those who called the remarks trite that there is absolutely

nothing trite about the ability to pay. It is fundamental to the

salvation of our society as we know it. Responsibility is the bottom

line. I happen to be a small employer, and I know lots of employers

with small companies, and I can assure you that those of us with

businesses are well aware of the restraint taking place in the private

sector and are well aware of everybody else's hope that the government

will some day come to its senses and say stop, stop — stop the runaway.

This government has done that, and I am pleased about that. I am

pleased to be part of that government, no doubt about that.

The double-faced complaints we hear are interesting, complaining

about the deficit and in the next breath complaining that we are not

spending more money. Which way is it? Certainly the comments are

seductive, looking back on the great days of the forties, fifties,

sixties or seventies. We cannot look back at a former minister and say:

"Gee, we thought he was terrible when he was here, and now that he is

gone we think he is great." The whole purpose of it is to look forward

and to try to face and solve the problems, and one by one that is

exactly what we are going to do.

Some of the arguments I hear suggest that there are those in the

House and in the community who believe that the private sector has no

place doing business in the nation. Well, where else would you have it

done, Mr. Speaker? There is no other group that can do it better, that

understands it better and that could make it run better, and that is

how it is going to work. The private sector will be the salvation, and

I am pleased to support a government that will give the private sector

a chance to operate. That's what the bill is all about — the restraint,

the stabilization program that will keep the size and cost of

government in check and will leave money in the pockets of the public

to spend as they see fit.

I happen to be one who believes in choices, and I do not believe

that government knows better than every member of the public. I believe

the public is entitled to make their own decisions. Saving by reducing

the cost of government gives our taxpayers, our people, our supporters

— in fact, everybody — the right to spend their money as they see fit.

One famous American politician who many of you have not known of, I am

sure, who at one point was the governor of the state of Georgia and who

later became a senator in the United States, was asked what was causing

the economy to crumble. He always had a good way of expressing himself

and making it clear in a very few number of words. He said: "Well, when

I was a boy on the farm I learned you need more people pulling the

wagon than riding on it." We have to have people pulling the wagon

together or the wagon won't move.

We hear about bankruptcies and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is B team riding or pulling?

MR. R. FRASER: A team, B team and C team — isn't that lovely?

I'm glad to be on one team that knows where we're going — we're

winning. All the members of the public are winning.

One of the members referred to Maclean's

magazine, and I too will do that. It said: "...but in the weeks since,

most other provinces have gradually demonstrated that they, too, have

been pursuing similar policies." But we were the first. This government

was the first. I was glad to join that government, I'll tell you. The

Manitoba government has a job creation fund of $200 million to which

the employees have contributed $10 million. That's a job tax in

camouflage, Mr. Speaker — no doubt about that. We certainly don't want

that here.

How do you measure productivity? Everybody has their own way and

everybody has their own method, but I'll tell you, if you can get more

done with less money and less time, that's an increase in productivity.

Even teachers understand that. In fact most teachers understand that

and most teachers understand restraint. They understand control, and

they understand sharing the problem, and they will share, and they will

help in the solution. I have absolutely no doubt that they, too, are

doing more than many in this province suspect. You talk about cutbacks.

Look at what is happening in places like West Germany, which created,

in the seventies, the agreement of the century for its people. We now

have that government saying there is just not enough money left in the

till for the government's handouts, which many accepted as a way of

life. They granted themselves pensions that were 100 percent or better

of their take-home pay when they were working. Everybody was getting on

to the system. In fact it says here that nearly 18 million of the 22

million West German households benefited from government programs in

social assistance. It became obvious to them and obvious to everyone

that it could not go on.

The never-never land that we seem to be heading for does not exist,

and the restraint package that we are asking the public sector to

accept with willingness is one that will help us all, including them.

If we don't, the whole thing will go

[ Page 1958 ]

down the drain. In fact in 1929 Lord Hewart said:

"The fall of modern civilization will, in fact, be the size of its

governments." He was ahead of his time but he was right. Certainly the

governments from that day forward have contributed to the size of

government, and certainly they responded to the demands from the

public, who said: "I want more. I want this. This is a good program. We

should do something here. We should do something there." I don't think

you can be critical of governments that responded to those desires, but

this day is different. This day the public says: "There are essential

services, there are desirable services and there is a difference. Now

we want less and voted for less. Whatever you do, please give us less."

That's exactly what the government will do, with my support, always.

It is looking ahead that is hardest. Hindsight is always 20-20.

Certainly in all of our lives we have had opportunities to look back

and think: "If only I had done it differently." I don't think there is

anyone in this room who hasn't had at least one reflection of that

nature. I suppose we could look back a few years ago and say we should

have done it sooner. But whether you did it sooner or later, Mr.

Speaker, at least it had to be done and it was done, and that is

critical.

I look at a questionnaire put out by one of my friends. It says: "Do

you support the current economic restraint program limiting growth in

government spending?" Eighty-three plus percent said yes. Another

question: "Do you feel it is working?" Sixty-two plus percent said yes.

The restraint program is out there. People do like it, as everyone

in the province knows. I'm sure that everybody would apply it in a

slightly different way or try to make it a little more gentle, but

sometimes it isn't possible to be gentle. How can you be nice when you

are letting someone go? It is not always easy. The salvation will be

people leaving the government service and going into the private

sector, which is happening, by the way. I have examples of that. That's

productivity, Mr. Speaker.

There are those who say there is nothing left to negotiate. Part of

job satisfaction is pay. The other

part is the joy of doing the work.

When you always stress the pay, it doesn't always work. There is

opportunity; there is growth; there is the satisfaction of just doing

the work.

[10:00]

Mr. Speaker, I've enjoyed taking

part in this debate, even such a

short one, but for the benefit of everyone, including myself and the

people out there in the community, I will not take any more time. I

will adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 7.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT

(NO. 1), 1983

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 7.

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

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my

thanks to the minister for allowing us to have the weekend to check

this particular amendment with our various municipal councils to get

some indication from them as to their response to it.

As far as I can understand, they would like me to ask a number of

questions, and they specifically have to do with subsection (b)(a)(ii).

The third line from the bottom of that

section says: "the average of

the total taxable value for general municipal purposes of the taxable

land and improvements in the municipality, determined under 26(11) of

the Assessment Act...multiplied by a percentage established by the

minister for that municipality" — for each of the current and two

preceding taxation years. They raise a couple of concerns about that.

First of all, why isn't it stated right here and now what the

percentage is going to be? Apparently in the existing act, Mr.

Chairman, it states exactly what the percentage is. So the municipality

knows from one year to another, or two years ahead, as the case may be,

exactly the limit to the debt they can accrue. This leaves them in

limbo until the minister, in his infinite wisdom, establishes what the

percentage is. They won't know that until the minister does that, and

either the minister brings that information to them or they have to

apply to the minister to find out exactly what the percentage is. What

they don't know is whether this percentage is going to vary from year

to year and what the kinds of things are that would influence the

setting of that percentage. What would the minister take into account

in determining what the percentage would be? How long would the

percentage be good for? Is it just for the year 1985, for example? Or

would it be good for, say, 1985-86-87, or as the case may be?

The other thing that they expressed some concern about was: is the

percentage set for each municipality differently? Or is a blanket

percentage set that would apply to all municipalities? One of the

things that the municipal manager in Burnaby pointed out was that the

existing way that it has been under the present legislation is that

they used to be able to average their debt off over three years. They

would know, for example, that their debt limit, if they broke it into

three and paid it off over three years, presently would be about $165

million. They realize that without an amendment to put some limit on to

the new variable tax rate system, their limit could go up to $1.6

billion. So they recognize that there has to be a limit. Not that

Burnaby would be irresponsible enough to run up a $1.6 billion debt.

But what they have some insecurity about is that the minister has now

taken all figures out completely, and they have no idea whatsoever as

to exactly what their limit will be.

Another thing that they pointed out to me was that the minister has

to approve the debt limit anyway, in every instance. It would be of

great service to them if the bill spelled out — as the old bill does —

that the debt limit is such and such a percentage rather than leaving

it to float free. Also, they want to know clearly what kinds of

criteria are taken into account in terms of setting the percentage of

the debt — whether it's one percentage for the whole province or

whether each municipality would have a different percentage for it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What we're dealing with here is the

transition from the old system to the new. We're moving from a

percentage of the assessed value to one of full market

[ Page 1959 ]

value. Realizing, of course, that there isn't a

figure stated in the bill, you do have my assurance as the minister

that the amount arrived at will not be less than what it was under the

old system. I believe it has been the greatest concern that they would

be limited should the percentage be less than what it was under the old

system. I can only give you my assurance here that as we move from the

old system to the new system, the figures will be equivalent to the old

system.

MS. BROWN: What about the question of whether it's going to

be a percentage for the whole province or whether municipalities are

going to have to meet the same percentage requirement?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again, there is no change from that in the

old act. If you stop to look at this very closely you will find that

almost all of the changes in here are merely that transition from the

old to the new. So what applied in the old act would apply under the

new.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough.

MR. LEA: I have one statement and a question. Probably we'd

all agree that the best way to lead is to set an example; if you set an

example you may not have to coerce or order people to do something.

Section 7 of this act really tells the municipalities: "Here are the

rules. Here's what you do in terms of your debt. The provincial

government is going to tell you the ratio of debt to assets you can

have." I'd like to ask the minister two questions. Would he, as the

minister of Minister of Municipal Affairs, allow municipalities to

triple their debts over a period of eight years? That's the first

question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Through you, Mr. Chairman, the

municipalities will be restricted to the maximum debt permissible under

the act. No doubt that will be determined once we have this whole

transition completed. Under the old act, as you know, it was 20

percent. As I've said already, under the new act the numbers will be

equivalent to the old one.

MR. LEA: The thing that is perfectly obvious to me, Mr.

Chairman, is that there's one rule for the provincial government and a

different rule for municipalities. Different principles apply. If the

federal government said to the provincial government: "We're going to

set the rules of how much money you can borrow. We're going to take

away your judgment call and make the judgment not you elected people in

the Legislature of British Columbia. We in Ottawa, the Parliament of

Canada, are going to tell you...." We would be squealing like stuck

pigs. We wouldn't take it. We would be flying down to Ottawa in jets.

There would be delegations of ministers. The Premier would be running

around the province telling people about the dictatorial federal

government and the federal parliament. He'd say: "Why don't they set an

example instead of bringing down these arbitrary rules?" We would all

be doing it in a united voice out of this Legislature.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's fair enough.

MR. LEA: That's true. But we are going to do it in this

section to the municipalities. Somehow there seems to be a double

standard here. It seems to me that we're moving away from the

democratic model when we don't allow municipally elected people to make

their decisions and suffer the consequence of those decisions at the

polls. That's what we're allowed to do here in this Legislature by the

federal parliament. It seems to me that there is a double standard.

Also, there is no limit on the amount of money that this provincial

government can borrow. The limit is set by this Legislature. We make

our own rules, as is right. But, Mr. Speaker, we're saying to the

municipalities: "You are not going to be allowed to make your own

rules. We as senior government, as the senior chamber, are going to

make the rules for you."

That seems to me to be the wrong way to go. For a government that

has tripled the debt in this province in eight years to set this

arbitrary rule over the municipalities seems to me to be ludicrous.

There are a great many people in this chamber who served at the

municipal government in one capacity or another — on parks boards,

school boards or municipal councils for years. I suggest that if the

provincial government had done this when the members in this House were

at the local level, they wouldn't have taken it lightly. I just want to

point out that I think it's a bit much that we don't set an example and

ask other people to live by it, as opposed to doing one thing ourselves

and setting rules for them from on high.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I just want to comment very briefly that

those rules have been in for years and years, including the term that

your party served.

MR. LEA: That's true. It doesn't make it right. We didn't

cure all the ills in the time we were in. We caused a few, too, as any

government will. But that doesn't make it right. It seems to me the

responsibility in a democratic system should be between the voters and

the people they elect, and they shouldn't have to take orders from on

high.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, when the percentage is set, is it

going to be for three years, two years, or is it going to vary each

year? At what time of the year will the municipalities know what their

debt limit is?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The amount, when it's fixed, will stay as a

percentage. As indicated earlier, it's a question of waiting until we

get the figures that would apply under the new system — the full market

value. I can only repeat that they have my assurance that it will not

be below that. Whenever it is established it will be fixed.

[10:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, in my little comments the other day

on taxation generally, I indicated that I appreciated the difficulties

with equity in taxation, and property taxation. I mentioned a number of

other attempts at equity: equal value assessment, single tax and a

number of other things. Since 1975 we haven't had any committee of this

House look into the very complex problem of property taxation. It was

suggested, if not asserted or moved, by my colleague who is a critic

for that area that the minister authorize and charge a select committee

with studying this very complex problem. I wonder if the minister has

had an opportunity to consider this, not to change our views on Bill 7

but to look forward to a more equitable future in terms of property

taxation. Has the minister considered this proposal, and what is his

attitude

[ Page 1960 ]

towards a select committee of this House discussing

and discovering perhaps other avenues for a more equitable property

taxation system?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's comment might have been quite

relevant during second reading of this bill, but it doesn't really

apply to the amendment before us. Perhaps the minister may wish to

respond. No.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have one problem with this

section. In times of high inflation when property values just go up to

the moon, 20 percent of those inflated values is one thing. Let's say

that two years later — in a situation like we're in now — the property

values drop vastly. If a municipality had been allowed a debt limit of

a rather large amount, let's say two years ago, they could be placed in

a very difficult position at the present time. Is there anything in

here that provides the minister with flexibility with respect to

responding to the needs of a community that has, by virtue of an

over-ambitious council or a group of over-ambitious developers,

extended the debt load by virtue of extending services to areas that

would otherwise not be touched? Has the minister some discretionary

power to provide for that particular situation?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, the inspector does. The percentage is

really set out as a guide. Certainly if circumstances such as you just

described arose, then the minister would have the authority to make

whatever adjustments were necessary in order to overcome the problem

that could be created.

MS. BROWN: At what point then, Mr. Chairman, would the

minister intervene on behalf of the upcoming year in establishing the

debt load? Say, for example, there was an inflationary spiral like the

one we went through in 1981-82. In rearranging the limit to that debt

load, would it be made for the year 1983-84 or would the minister

intervene in the very year it is happening and try to change the limit

in that year?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am not asking this question on behalf of

Burnaby, because Burnaby has demonstrated that it is a responsible

council. But this legislation wasn't written specifically for Burnaby.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I am asking it on behalf of Quesnel. How is

that? Since this is written for the province as a whole, I would like a

response from the minister on that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If there was a really drastic reduction in the assessments, then the borrowing wouldn't be approved that year.

MS. BROWN: And you wouldn't approve an increase either.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief question. If

the borrowing limit is going to remain the same and yet the

municipalities are going to have to carry 75 percent of the cost of a

lot of works that the government used to cover 75 percent of, how are

they going to be able to continue these programs or start new programs?

It seems to me you would need to increase the borrowing limit.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Nanaimo is

getting into the revenue-sharing program. The borrowing has no bearing

as far as the revenue-sharing sharing was concerned. Since it is

revenue-sharing of a somewhat temporary nature, whenever the revenue of

the province improves, it is hoped there will be an opportunity to take

a second look at that program.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. COCKE: I worry about

section 10. Again, we are talking in

terms of a government setting regulations and deciding standards in

areas where I don't think they are particularly competent. I believe

that governments far closer to the situations are far more competent.

The criticism that I hear on

section 10 and the other sections relating

to government setting regulations are as follows. First, they haven't

even had a hint of what those regulations might be. We are talking

about every municipality, city, village and whatever that is

incorporated in the province. They have not been given even the

slightest hint of what to expect from the regulations that may be

proposed by the government; nor have they, under the circumstances,

been told whether the regulations have in fact been drafted, whether

there is anything in the works in terms of that situation — they

haven't been consulted in the drafting. They are saying to themselves:

"Well, here we are. We are asked to sit back and let bills like Bills 7

and 12 go through the House without too much criticism." Frankly, I

think we have been most cooperative with these two bills.

These are the kinds of things that very much worry the opposition

and very much worry elected officials around the province. They are

saying that under this

section — a new

section in the act — you are

giving yourself a right to make regulations on the whole question of

setting property tax levies, prescribing exemptions on industrial land

or industrial improvements, or both, and also providing the government

with the kind of regulatory power that we worry about and have worried

about in so many pieces of legislation. Let me ask the minister: have

you started drafting the regulations, and has there been consultation

of any sort with anybody with respect to the regulations under this

section?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The answer is no, we haven't started to draft regulations.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, here we are and we haven't started

drafting regulations. I gather the regulations have to be pursuant to

the section, and the

section reads: "In addition to the provisions of

any other act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations

prescribing exemptions from property tax levies under any act in

respect of prescribed (

a) industrial land or industrial improvements or

both, or (b)

[ Page 1961 ]

business land or business improvements or both, and different exemptions may be prescribed for each class of property."

The minister says we haven't started drafting yet. I see a real

problem here, in terms of what might happen in the drafting, if there

isn't a good deal of consultation prior to the drafting. I can see in

the last line that you could favour one as opposed to another — favour

one district or one industry as opposed to another, etc. Is the

minister prepared to give the House or the committee an undertaking

that a good deal of consultation will go into these regulations prior

to them being proclaimed?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I should point out to the member that such

exemptions would not apply to a particular industry, but rather to a

classification within the variable tax system. We would certainly have

some consultation with the proper people. Let me assure you that under

no circumstances would there be any special treatment for any

particular industry.

MR. COCKE: Who are proper people? Who are the people one

would expect would be in the minister's mind as the proper people with

whom to consult? Would it be his colleagues? Would it be the back

bench? Would it, on the other hand, be local municipalities that may or

may not favour the government? Or would it be the UBCM? Secondly, the

minister says that it would not pertain to a certain industry:

"...different exemptions may be prescribed for each class of property."

Some classes of property pertain only to one industry. But in any

event, who will the minister consult with?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would expect that there could be consultation with the UBCM.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the erosion-of-autonomy

section. This is the one where the minister really moves in and takes

unto himself powers which would better be exercised by the municipality

itself. It seems to me that a decision about exempting or changing the

property tax level on an industry should be made at the municipal

level, and then the municipality should go to the minister and initiate

consultation with the minister and suggest that it would be a good

thing if such a class of property were exempted from taxation.

We have, for example, in the middle of Burnaby, some of the richest

and most arable farmland in the whole world. I'm talking about the

Flats, which grows vegetables which feed this province two or three

crops a year. All around that land industry is growing up and the

pressure on that land is beginning to become pretty intense. One of the

things that the municipality of Burnaby may decide to do is ask that

the tax burden on the community that lives and grows produce on that

land be changed, softened or relieved in some way. That decision should

be made by the municipality in order to protect that land, despite the

fact that all around it taxes are going up because the use of the land

around it is changing, either for light industry or commerce of some

sort or other. Then the municipality would approach the minister and

suggest that it would like to exempt this particular property from the

taxes that it should really be paying by virtue of the fact that it's

in an area where everyone else is paying a certain class of tax.

That's the way in which it should work. It shouldn't be the minister

deciding what is in the best interest of a municipality and then going

into the municipality and saying that we want this kind of property

exempt from a particular kind of tax, and the municipality having no

access to agreeing or disagreeing with the minister's decision. So, Mr.

Chairman, it's being done backwards. It's being done the wrong way

around.

[10:30]

At the same time, if a municipality seems to be abusing those

powers, by all means the minister should be able to intervene on behalf

of protecting, for example, that class of property. If Burnaby should

decide that the farmland — the Flats — is not paying sufficient taxes

to justify its existence, and therefore try to get it removed from the

ALR and get its zoning changed to industrial so as to turn it into a

richer tax base, then the minister should be able to intervene and

protect, in the best interest of the rest of the community, Burnaby

from abusing that property. But just to write these powers to the

minister into this section, I think, is really taking away

responsibility that should start with the municipality, should rest

with the municipality, and should only be wrested from them if they

appear to be abusing that power.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think that if, for

instance, a municipality should request and get exemption for a

particular

section of property that is in food production or

agricultural use, it could create a problem for producers in another

area of the municipality. I think that you have to go back again to the

variable tax rate, which gives the municipality the authority to

establish a tax rate for that industry. Agriculture is one of the

classifications in there. So if a municipality is so inclined to give

that benefit to the agricultural community, then it would have to be

across the board within that municipality. But they can do it.

MS. BROWN: Well, I was just using the Flats as an example.

But the minister hasn't addressed the body of what I was saying, which

is that the decision about exemptions in the municipality should start

at that level, and then the minister could be consulted either to

approve or disapprove, unless the minister perceives that the

municipality is abusing its power, and then the minister should have

the right to intervene. But this

section gives the minister powers that

really should rest with the municipality. I'd like the minister to

respond to that. Tell me, for example, why you are doing this.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, the exemption here could apply to a

small business or to a business — industrial property, but the

exemption suggested earlier would benefit mainly small businesses,

corner stores, etc.

MS. BROWN: Yes, but why are you doing it? Why are you not leaving the municipalities to make those decisions?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, it was the judgment, I hear, that

this is something that should be handled in this way rather than by

leaving it for each municipality to determine such exemptions. I would

imagine that the municipalities have enough authority now in being able

to set the tax rate for any particular classification, whether it's

business, industrial, commercial-industrial or agriculture.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

[ Page 1962 ]

section 15.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I see the minister is amending

section 775(8) of the original act, and I note that he's also putting

another of his famous regulation aspects here. He is giving himself

sole power to vary the limit on the tax rate. Would he tell us why?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. Again we're dealing with this

conversion from the percentage of assessed value to the full market

value under the new system.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what I asked was: can you not make a

conversion from one formula or from one system to another without

providing the minister with all the power of the act? That's really

what I'm asking. Why can't the minister devise a formula within which

municipalities or whatever live — with some flexibility, no doubt...?

Why would the minister have to be provided with the power to make all

these decisions from within his office? I go back to what the member

for Burnaby-Edmonds was talking about, and that is the whole question

of land that may be seen in one perspective in a particular area, but

may be seen in quite a different perspective from the vantage point of

Victoria, which often is a very poor vantage point — a particularly

poor vantage point with the present government, who seem to be

shortsighted beyond being myopic. Without being too insulting, I would

like the minister to answer the question of exactly why he needs these

powers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The powers are already there under the old

formula. The transition from the old to the new requires this change.

Certainly we could have gone into a long

preamble in arriving at a

particular figure, but that was not decided. Again, I can only give the

same assurance that I gave in

section 7, as it applied to borrowing:

the figures we arrive at will be equivalent to those in the old formula.

MR. COCKE: I get tired of listening: trust me, trust me,

trust me. When he can't even answer the question so that one can

understand what he is talking about, and then he says: "It is okay. I

am going to look after everybody. We will make the easy transition from

one position to another. Trust us along the way...." Mr. Chairman, can

we have something definitive? There must be some reason why the

minister has to make regulations in sections 10 and 15 of this bill. I

will tell you right now that I am voting against this

section unless I

can get a better answer from the minister than I have got right now.

MS. BROWN: The problem we are running into is that the

regulations aren't ready; we really don't know what we are talking

about here. All we have to do is take the minister's word: "Trust me

that it won't be any different than, more than or less than...." What

are we going to do once the regulations come out and we find that you

haven't honoured your commitment? What recourse do we have then? The

minister is getting ready to answer; he is mulling over my question.

Are you going to answer me? I will ask the question again. We are

having problems because the regulations aren't ready; we don't know

what we are voting on here. The minister said we should trust him. I am

asking him to tell me what option we have in the event it turns out

that he can't deliver on his word. Tell me what I do next. The minister

is getting ready to respond to me; I would appreciate it if we gave him

the time to do it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to give

them an answer that they are going to be satisfied with. I simply have

to repeat that the figures we arrive at under the new system will be

equivalent to those in the old.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

section 23.

MR. COCKE: In this validation section, it says: "...before

the act comes into force, (

a) to implement the variable tax rate system

in 1983, or (

b) under the uniform mill rate system in 1983." Why the

"or," Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would you care to repeat that?

MR. COCKE: It strikes me that it is a bit ambiguous here. It

says in the explanatory note that this "validates action taken, before

this act comes into force, (

a) to implement the variable tax rate

system in 1983, or (

b) under the uniform mill rate system in 1983." Mr.

Chairman, I would like the minister to give us an explanation of why

both of them are necessary. It strikes me that one might be.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this is that one municipality did not come in under the new program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Which one? You're not going to tell us.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

Schedule 1 approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Title approved.

[10:45]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 7, Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983, reported complete

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

today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:46 p.m.

[ Page

1963 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

7 The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on

Bill (No. 7) intituled Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 to amend

as follows:

SECTION 7 , by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a),

by adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (

b) and by adding the following

paragraph:

"(

c) by adding the following subsections:

"

(1.1) In 1984 no debt shall be contracted by a city, town or district

which causes the aggregate debt for all purposes, other than those listed in

subsection (2), to exceed 20% of the total of

(

a) the average of

(

i) the total assessed value for general municipal

purposes of the taxable land and improvements in the municipality, determined

under

section 26 (19) (

a) of the Assessment Act, before its repeat under the

Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 for the 1982 taxation year, and

(ii) the total taxable value for general municipal

purposes of the taxable land and improvements in the municipality, determined

under

(A)

section 26 (11) of the Assessment Act for the 1983

taxation year, and

(B)

section 26 (7) of the Assessment Act for the 1984

taxation year, multiplied by a percentage established by the minister for that

municipality for each of the 1983 and 1984 taxation years, and

(

b) the value of the utility systems and other municipal

enterprises for which the municipality has a subsisting certificate of self

liquidation granted by the inspector, the value to be determined by the cost

of the systems and enterprises less the amounts approved by the auditor for

depreciation.

(1. 2) Commencing in 1985, no debt shall be contracted by a city,

town or district which causes the aggregate debt for all purposes,

other than those listed in subsection (2), to exceed 20% of the total of

(

a) the average of the total taxable value for general

municipal purposes of the taxable land and improvements in the municipality,

determined under

section 26 (7) of the Assessment Act, multiplied by a percentage

established by the minister for that municipality for each of the current and

2 preceding taxation years, and

(

b) the value of the utility systems and other municipal

enterprises for which the municipality has a subsisting certificate of self

liquidation granted by the inspector, the value to be determined by the cost

of the systems and enterprises less the amounts approved by the auditor for

depreciation.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada