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 )

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1337 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Habitat Conservation Fund. Mrs. Wallace –– 1337

Cassiar Packing payments to fishermen. Mr. D'Arcy –– 1337

Federal grant to Solidarity. Mr. Reynolds –– 1337

Erosion of justice system. Ms. Brown –– 1338

Waste treatment system. Mrs, Wallace –– 1338

Federal grant to Solidarity. Mr. Michael –– 1338

E&N Railway passenger service. Ms. Sanford –– 1339

Hydro rate hearings. Mr. Skelly –– 1339

Lower mainland logging. Mrs. Wallace –– 1339

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 13). Second reading.

On the amendment.

Division –– 1339

Division on second reading –– 1339

Regulations Act (Bill 31). Second reading.

Ms. Brown –– 1340

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 1344

Division –– 1345

Harbour Board Repeat Act (Bill 25). Second reading.

Mr. Skelly –– 1345

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1346

Division –– 1346

Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act (Bill 30). Second reading.

Mr. Howard –– 1347

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1347

Division –– 1348

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act –– 1983 (Bill 17). Second reading.

Mr. Skelly –– 1348

Ms. Brown –– 1350

Mr. Hanson –– 1354

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1357

Appendix –– 1358

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1983

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery this afternoon are two

very important people: Mr. Harry Trueman, travel agent par excellence —

he has left the kitchen — and Capt. Chris Justice. I would ask the

House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Would the House please welcome Bill and Jean

McMartin, the mother and father of the unsuccessful candidate for the

Social Credit Party in Vancouver East the last provincial election,

Will McMartin.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today we have

three gorgeous ladies. Oh, there are more than three; in fact, there

are probably 53. My apologies to all you other gorgeous ladies. There

are three particular gorgeous ladies. All the way from Calgary we have

Mrs. Alvina Heath, who is with Mrs. Helen Reynolds, the mother — she

looks more like the daughter or the sister — of the member from West

Vancouver–Howe Sound. There is also a gorgeous lady who has been

following John around for the last couple of weeks, and that is Yvonne

Johnson.

MR. REYNOLDS: I would like to introduce in the members'

gallery a gentleman from Los Angeles, California: Mr. Randy Burley, who

is studying music at the University of Victoria.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, also in the galleries today, from

the city of Nelson, are Frances Horan of the Nelson School Board, Mr.

Howard Dirks of the Notre Dame University board, Mr. Derry Burianyk of

the David Thompson University Centre Support Society, Mr. Des Gibb,

from the Nelson Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Ross Lake, who I believe

left earlier. I wish the House to bid them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: From the great riding of Vancouver–Point

Grey we have Miss Susan McNamee visiting us this afternoon, I would

like to bid her a most cordial welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, may I call your attention to standing order 2.

Oral Questions

HABITAT CONSERVATION FUND

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Environment. Can the minister explain why he has fired 22 auxiliary

employees of the habitat conservation fund without cause? These were

auxiliary employees working under the funding of the habitat

conservation fund.

[2:15]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: A number of auxiliary employees in the

ministry have been laid off and will be laid off in the future in the

reduction of our total staffing. I would have to take on notice the

question that, as the member seems to indicate, all of them were

involved in the habitat conservation program.

MRS. WALLACE: The habitat conservation fund, as the minister

knows, is a trust fund containing the proceeds of a $3 surcharge on

hunting, fishing and guiding licences. Has the minister decided that

the habitat conservation fund will be dissolved or terminated, and that

the proceeds of the surcharge will be diverted into general revenue?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker, I think it's quite clear

that the habitat conservation fund, as promised and committed by this

government, is for habitat enhancement and is not to be used in other

ways.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm very pleased to have that assurance, Mr.

Speaker, because it is my information that at least one proposal has

been submitted to utilize this fund to rehire fired employees under

contract, and that this proposal has had approval from some fairly high

ranking officials in the ministry. Will the minister advise why there

has been no official response from the Ministry of Environment allowing

that work to continue, using the employees who are trained in the job?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Certainly as much of the work as possible

will be continued, and I would like to suggest that perhaps, as in

other cases, the member's information may well be wrong.

CASSIAR PACKING PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN

MR. D'ARCY: Further to the Minister of Lands, Parks and

Housing and acting Minister of Environment, on August 31 the Royal Bank

placed Cassiar Packing Co. in receivership after the 1983 catch to that

date was delivered but before the fishermen were paid, thereby

maximizing the Royal Bank's cash position. As minister responsible for

fisheries, has the member for North Peace River taken steps to ensure

that fishermen who honoured their contracts with Cassiar Packing would

be paid according to those contractual obligations?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I am aware of the financial

transactions between the bank and Cassiar Packing. I have been given to

understand, in my checking, that steps have been taken to see that the

fishermen are paid.

MR. D'ARCY: That statement was made on September 1 by the

spokesman for the receiver. Does the minister have any further

indications as to the time-frame within which the fishermen will be

paid?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No. When I received the assurance that the

fishermen were to be paid, I did not do any further checking; if the

member likes, I will do that.

FEDERAL GRANT TO SOLIDARITY

MR. REYNOLDS: I have a question for the Attorney-General. In

view of the fact that Senator Jack Austin and Mr. Art Kube have stated

that the $600,000 for unemployment action centres will not be used for

the Solidarity union and in view of the fact that we have had coverage

in this province that shows it is being used to support Solidarity, has

they're going to monitor this $600,000 and stop its use by the

Solidarity union?

HON. MR. SMITH: In answer to the member, no, I have not, but I do expect I'll be talking next week to Robert Kaplan

[ Page

1338 ]

about the security bill and other matters. I would

be pleased to raise that question as well with him and with other

federal ministers. I thank him for the question.

EROSION OF JUSTICE SYSTEM

MS. BROWN: A supplementary question. When the

Attorney-General is meeting with Robert Kaplan, I wonder if he would

also discuss with him the erosion of the justice system in British

Columbia by that government over there.

HON. MR. SMITH: That is not a particularly clear or direct

question to respond to, Mr. Speaker, but there is no erosion of the

justice system in this province, as the member has pointed us to. Maybe

she would like to follow up her particularization.

Interjections.

HON. MR. SMITH: I hear some members over there talking about

legal services. Legal services in this province are continuing and will

continue at a high level, but they will not all continue to be funded

at the public purse. Some of them will not be funded at the public

purse.

WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the

Minister of Environment. Yesterday that minister announced his approval

of a proposal by the Genstar and IT corporations to develop and operate

a special waste treatment system in B.C. What assurance can the

minister give that the fees set by the private operators under the

program will be low enough to encourage use of the facility and

discourage illegal dumping?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, first of all, as that member

knows, we now have no facilities to use and so we are trying to move in

that direction, which I am sure the member supports. As far as what

assurance we can give that the fees will be low enough, they do not

have exclusive rights in this province for waste management treatment,

so the marketplace will look after that. The companies will certainly

be interested in trying to attract that business since they are in that

business, and we do have supervisory functions from within the ministry.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, the minister

has indicated that there will be competition. Of course, the

competition that we have had in the past has been from the United

States where those rates by private companies have proven to be so high

as to be discouraging.

The minister has indicated that the transportation of those

hazardous wastes will be carried out by truck. Will the minister

explain why this mode of transportation has been chosen, apparently

through the Fraser Canyon, and what procedures are being developed to

ensure transportation safety? We are talking in terms of many tonnes of

waste matter.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The Ministry of Environment has been in the

process of developing a very comprehensive manifest system so that

everything that travels will be properly recorded. The arrangements are

that experienced people who will be doing the transporting will be

trained, and the transporting will not be done unless the conditions

are safe and unless all provisions are taken to make sure that it is

safely done.

MRS. WALLACE: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. On

July 13 I asked the minister if he had decided to prevent the dumping

of contaminated waste from the B.C. Place excavation in the proximity

of the Fraser River. I've had no response on this, and I wonder if the

minister has now decided, relative to that issue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm not quite clear what the initial part of the question was. Have I decided what?

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, it was on July 13, some two months

ago, that I asked the minister if he had decided to prevent the dumping

of contaminated hazardous wastes, which we're now talking about, from

B.C. Place in the vicinity of the Fraser River. I'm asking him now

whether or not he has decided to prevent that dumping.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the member should

recognize that several analyses have been made of that material: one is

the soluble analysis, one is the total and one is the extractable. It's

clear in several of these analyses that the extractable analysis is

generally the one accepted by the environmental people as being the

valid one. In that analysis it shows that even though there is some

contaminant in there, a great deal of it has already been leached out.

The extractable analysis shows that even in water, unless there are

particular acid conditions, that does not leach out anymore.

Technically you're not talking about a hazardous waste. According to

the standards, it is waste that could be safely put in any dump.

FEDERAL GRANT TO SOLIDARITY

MR. MICHAEL: I have a supplementary to the question raised

regarding Operation Solidarity and the funding from the federal

government which was asked by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. Reynolds).

I would like to ask the Attorney-General if he is aware that the

president of Operation Solidarity in my area is the same person who is

working full-time for the Unemployment Action Centre. If he would like

any further information or names, I would ask him to feel free to

contact me personally. As a matter of passing interest, I should also

point out that this member, the president and leader of Operation

Solidarity, is also a member of a certain political party significantly

to the left of those sitting in the opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: What's the question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that that

member did not have a question to pose, I wonder if you could extend

question period today to accommodate that time.

MR. SPEAKER: No.

[ Page 1339 ]

E&N RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE

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

of Transportation and Highways. Has the government decided to intervene

before the Canadian Transport Commission hearings, which are going to

be held here in Victoria in October, to oppose the application by the

CPR to abandon passenger service on the E&N Railway on Vancouver

Island?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made at this time.

MS. SANFORD: Has the government decided, then, to provide

funding assistance for British Columbia groups who are going to appear

at the hearings to oppose abandonment of the service? I might say that

this was done the last time these hearings were held.

HON. A. FRASER: The answer is no.

HYDRO RATE HEARINGS

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Energy.

Does the minister agree with the B.C. Utilities Commission report on

the Hydro rate hearings that "public interest intervenors at commission

hearings provide significant assistance in the hearings generally"?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. SKELLY: No further questions.

LOWER MAINLAND LOGGING

MRS. WALLACE: I have another question for the Minister of

Environment. In a letter to the municipality of North Vancouver, the

government has said that it will not use the Environment and Land Use

Act to prevent logging; nor will it contribute any funds to buy out

logging rights for the area. Will the minister explain why the

government has abandoned its responsibility to protect the watershed of

North Vancouver and the tourist industry of the lower mainland?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I believe I have explained that in

the letter the member read. The Environment Management Act was never

intended to be used other than in emergent situations. It was never

intended to be used as a zoning tool. Secondly, one of the reasons that

the government has decided not to buy out the people is because there

are many similar situations throughout the province that could make the

same claim, that to protect a hillside from being logged or something

else from happening, the provincial government could simply put up the

money to buy out those rights. Maybe that member is not aware, but I

have some 20 to 30 such proposals on my desk asking us to buy out so

that something that is legally permitted shouldn't happen anywhere. If

we start that, there is no end to it.

Orders of the Day

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

[2:30]

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

On the motion.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

[ Page 1340 ]

NAYS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

Bill 13, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 31.

REGULATIONS ACT

(continued)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say a few words in

response to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who, when he

introduced this piece of legislation, referred to it as being

non-important. First of all, to disagree with him, because I think a

couple of important changes are taking place in this legislation quite

beyond those which he mentioned in his opening remarks. He told us, and

I certainly agree with him, that this is a response to the report

brought down by the Uniform Law Conference, which in 1980 established a

committee to investigate and report back problems that have arisen from

the administration of various Regulation Acts. I might add here that

three people from British Columbia sat on that particular committee:

Mr. Allan Roger, Mr. Herb Thornton and Mr. George Macauley. So we were

very well represented.

[2:45]

However, the bill does not carry out the recommendations which that

committee brought down. It goes far beyond that and in some instances

totally ignores recommendations made by that committee. The committee

recommended that decisions on filing regulations should be decisions

made by legislators, not by the registrar. That is one major area in

which this piece of legislation goes counter to the recommendations of

the Uniform Law Conference committee. It stated very clearly that the

registrar should not be the person to make the decision, but that the

decision should be made by an elected representative. Yet we find in

Bill 31 that the registrar is the person to make the decisions. The

registrar may be okay, but that was not the recommendation of the

committee.

The other recommendation of the committee was that the decision

about whether to file or not should not be based solely on whether the

matter was of a legislative nature or not but should also take into

account whether it was a matter of public policy. The bill actually

goes beyond the recommendations in making a decision about whether a

matter should be published in the Gazette

or not.... It gives all kinds of sweeping powers to the registrar,

which, as I said, was counter to the recommendations of the committee.

I just want to talk a little bit about this business of information in the Gazette , and the decision being made in this bill about what should and should not be included in the Gazette . The Gazette ,

as you know, Mr. Speaker, is one way of making more accessible to the

community at large changes in regulations. For example, if we look at

the health regulations, there is one

section of the Health Act which

covers the inspection and management of health units, the treatment of

disease, the inspection of mining and lumber camps, and the prevention

and suppression of epidemics. The Health Act calls for prompt

publication of these regulations in the Gazette .

Now this bill is introduced which says that the registrar can decide,

based on the expense involved — if it's too expensive — not to publish

regulations. The registrar can decide, if it's not something that's

going to be used by the people who are specifically affected by it —

like maps or larger pieces of literature — that it should not be

included in the Gazette . That

is putting too much power in the hands of the registrar. I think it

should be mandatory that information dealing with inspection of mining

and lumber camps be published in the Gazette ,

as should the business of inspection of health units, the treatment of

disease and epidemics. It should be public knowledge. Anyone should

have access to that kind of information. To give to the registrar

arbitrary powers to decide that so much information would be too

expensive, too long or unnecessary to be published in the Gazette is taking away from the community at large the access that it should have to that kind of information.

The Attorney-General has not indicated whether there are going to be

any amendments to this piece of legislation or not. But I know that

other of my colleagues, in speaking on this bill, have pointed out this

specific

section to him.

Section 22, for example, gives to the

registrar the power to decide whether stuff should be published in the Gazette

or not. He's had, I would imagine, about two months to look at that

particular

section and to decide on the recommendations made by other

of my colleagues, in terms of amending that

section or generally

withdrawing that particular section.

Section 6 says:

"The registrar may exempt a regulation from publication in the Gazette

if he considers that it (

a) is of a length to render

publication...impractical or unduly expensive, and (

b) is or will be

available to persons who are likely to be affected by it. Where a

regulation includes a map, illustration, plan, diagram, photograph,

graph, table or any other similar record or thing, the registrar may

exempt that part of the regulation from publication."

That whole

section on exemption from publication is one which I had

hoped the minister would have introduced an amendment to. It is fraught

with all kinds of dangers. First of all, to give the registrar the

power to make that kind of decision.... I think that if there are going

to be any exemptions from publication at all, first of all the decision

should be made by the Attorney-General himself — by an elected member,

Mr. Speaker, not by the registrar. To say that this is carrying out a

recommendation made by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada is not

correct. The recommendation made by that body was very specific that

that kind of decision should remain with the legislators and not with

the registrar.

I pointed out one way in the Health Act in which it could prove to

be an abuse. It could actually prove to be dangerous if the registrar,

in his or her — and I gather the present

[ Page 1341 ]

registrar is a her — wisdom should decide that the Gazette

does not need to carry information about the prevention and suppression

of diseases, the treatment of diseases, the management of health units

or the inspection of mining and lumber camps.

As far as the maps are concerned, that, I think, is really a very

dangerous kind of precedent for the Attorney-General to introduce in

this legislation. There are a number of environmental groups, for

example, who, if they want to protest or prepare a brief in opposition

to some legislation affecting an area in the province, have to rely on

the maps for the details in preparing their briefs to the government,

and in preparing their opposition. For the registrar to decide not to

print that map in the Gazette

means that particular group would have to approach the ministry

involved and ask directly for copies of the map. This may not be as

forthcoming as it should be, because the ministry would recognize that

the particular environmental group would be preparing a brief in

opposition to their decision. When the maps are published in the Gazette ,

the public has access to that map in any lawyer's office, the public

libraries, the law library, or wherever. These groups or individuals

can go in and get a copy of the Gazette ,

check the map out, have the information they need and prepare their

brief or presentation. It's all part of the democratic process. It's

all part of making information accessible to the community at large.

This

section of the bill, Mr. Speaker, which gives the registrar the

power not to publish these maps — to exempt the maps from publication —

would be throwing up a roadblock. It would be making the task of public

protest, which is a viable democratic tool supposedly available to all

of us, more difficult. It would slow down the democratic process. This

is why I would have hoped that the Attorney-General — because it was

brought to his attention by two or three of my colleagues — would have

introduced amendments to this

section on the order paper. But I have

checked, and I don't know if they are forthcoming, but they certainly

haven't been printed on the order paper yet.

There are a number of other examples that could be used: for

example, all sections in the Islands Trust legislation and other

legislation about regulations, where it would be dangerous if the

registrar made decisions not to publish by virtue of the fact that such

publication of those regulations would be too expensive, would be

impractical — I think "unduly expensive" is a term that he uses — or

would be available to the persons who are likely to be affected by

them. That's not a good enough guarantee in terms of the democratic

process. So I would specifically — and I know we are not allowed, in

speaking to the spirit of the bill, to deal with sections in great

detail — hope that before we go into committee stage on this piece of

legislation

section 6 would be amended.

The other thing that the bill does.... I think the minister

described it as removing one unnecessary step, and that is removing the

necessity for proclamation. Now regulations would be handled only by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which really is the cabinet. It is

another instance where the government is centralizing control in the

cabinet. It is all part of the overall package. If you look at all of

the other pieces of legislation which were introduced along with the

budget on July 7 and after that date, we see more and more that the

government is taking control into the cabinet, removing it from the

community at large. One of the things that the Lieutenant-Governor used

to have, Mr. Speaker, through the proclamation process, was a final

look at a bill before it actually became law.

Although the minister, in introducing it, said that wiping out

proclamation would speed the process up, it actually does something

more than that which I'm not quite sure enhances or enriches the

quality of life in British Columbia, and that is that it wipes out a

tradition that has been longstanding in the British Commonwealth, not

just in British Columbia. It has been part of the British parliamentary

process since the beginning of time. We become more of a republic, and

we seem to be drifting more and more into republicanism, and I realize

that this may not be a matter of great concern to the Attorney-General

or to the government at large, but it really makes one sad to see

tradition being eroded and being wiped out in the interest of so-called

restraint. I think that is a mistake. Even though historically there

have not been....

I think 1905 was the last time that a Lieutenant-Governor in British

Columbia actually did not just rubber-stamp a bill that was passed

through this House; still, it is a safeguard.

MR. COCKE: In 1907.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Still, it is a safeguard. It is

something which acts to protect all British Columbians, whether we know

it or not, against irresponsible legislation on the part of the

government or even hasty legislation and hasty decisions on the part of

the government. What could happen is that a bill would be passed by

this House based on the fact that the government has more numbers than

the opposition, so when it goes to the vote, the government is going to

win — that is a given. But when a

section of the bill comes into force

on proclamation, an appeal could be made directly to the

Lieutenant-Governor requesting that the signature not be placed on the

proclamation and that proclamation not proceed — that this be set

aside, to give the government an opportunity to rethink its position or

at least to give the government an opportunity to recognize that there

is sufficient opposition in the community at large to this particular

piece of legislation or this

section and maybe even to change its mind

on what it is doing. Historically the Lieutenant-Governor would then

appeal to the Governor-General in Ottawa for guidance and ask the

Governor-General if he believed it was not in the best interests of the

public to intervene.

[3:00]

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Attorney-General says that we're reverting to

colonial status. The fact of the matter is that we need all the

safeguards we can get, and the Lieutenant-Governor should be a

safeguard. The Lieutenant-Governor should be the court of final appeal

for the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: If the Lieutenant-Governor is prepared to act on

his or her own behalf, that's fine with me. The traditional way was for

the Lieutenant-Governor to appeal to the Governor-General for the

Parliament of Canada to intervene, if in fact it was recognized that

the legislation or a particular

section of

an act being introduced by

the House was not in the best interests of the people of British

Columbia. Now that is going to be taken away.

[ Page 1342 ]

Again, we are told by the Attorney-General that it's simply a matter

of saving one step, making it a little easier, faster and presumably

less expensive for legislation to go through. I find that really quite

difficult to deal with. In going through a lot of the legislation

that's on the books and the sections awaiting proclamation, some have

been awaiting proclamation going back to, I think, 1874, and it hasn't

happened. It's not as though the sections awaiting proclamation were

slowed down because the Lieutenant-Governor was writing too slowly or

his signature was illegible and therefore the proclamation couldn't go

through, or he couldn't be found to sign these proclamations or

whatever. He's been around; we've seen him. He's been in the precincts

here on at least one occasion since the House has been in session.

I keep thinking of, for example,

section 8 of the GAIN act, which

indexes income assistance payments. It's been awaiting proclamation

since 1976. If the Attorney-General is concerned about speeding up the

process, he should start getting these sections of these acts

proclaimed. Get the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor. It seems to

me that we've had two Lieutenant-Governors since

section 8 of the GAIN

act, for example, has been awaiting proclamation. Heaven knows how many

Lieutenant-Governors we've had since 1894 or whenever it was that the

other bills have been sitting on the paper and waiting to be

proclaimed. So the argument that it's speeding up the process just

doesn't hold water at all.

One is forced to accept that it really is a step towards

republicanism, towards concentrating more power and control in the

hands of cabinet. I think that's sad. There are so many pieces of

legislation that we have to deal with: Bill 3, for example; we have no

idea how it's going to be implemented. We're told to wait until the

regulations come down; it's all going to be done by regulation. No

regulations have yet been tabled; they may not even be printed, for all

we know. The one access that the community at large has to deal with

these regulations before they're proclaimed would be to go directly to

the Lieutenant-Governor and say: "These regulations are not in the best

interests of women and children, or working people, or tenants, or

minority groups." You know, the regulations wiping out the Human Rights

Code and the human rights branch and that kind of thing. That's now

going to disappear. That function of the Lieutenant-Governor is now

going to disappear. This bill goes through all the legislation, takes

all the proclamation sections and wipes them out, and says that from

now on everything is going to be dealt with by the cabinet.

The people have been shown what happens when they go directly to the

government. They've written letters, made phone calls, signed

petitions, demonstrated, sent telegrams and done everything that is

humanly possible through the democratic process, but there's been very

little response on the part of the government and the cabinet. The only

other recourse of the community at large is to go directly to the

Lieutenant-Governor. As soon as Bill 31 is passed in this House, they

lose that final court of appeal. Even though, as I said before, no

Lieutenant-Governor has deigned to utilize those powers since 1907,

those powers have been vested in and still rest with the

Lieutenant-Governor. Who knows, maybe this Lieutenant-Governor would be

willing to exercise those powers if in fact the community — the people

affected by the legislation dealing with the wiping out of human

rights: the minority groups, senior citizens, women and other

disadvantaged groups — did go directly to him and say: "That piece of

legislation should not be proclaimed, because it's not in the best

interests of the people of British Columbia." The Lieutenant-Governor

may exercise....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The last time was 1907; I am saying that it is

quite possible this may be the time again, because it is quite possible

we've never had legislation quite like this since 1907.

What is going to happen once Bill 31 becomes law is that that avenue

of appeal is going to disappear. I think that that's sad. I think

that's a tragedy because what we have is that the same cabinet which is

writing the legislation is the only place one can go to appeal it.

There's nowhere else to go. The cabinet introduces the legislation and

with the support of its back bench gets it passed on the floor of the

House, and if you want to appeal against that legislation, you have to

go to the same cabinet that wrote it. It seems to me there is something

undemocratic and intrinsically unfair about that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

There are all kinds of books written about Lieutenant-Governors. The

fact that they have never interfered since 1907 was because, of course,

there was such a kafuffle as a result of that interference. What we had

was a Liberal Lieutenant-Governor who wanted his Liberal minority

opposition to become the government and so overruled the decision of

the government, which was Conservative, and then of course the people

went to the polls and promptly voted Conservative again. So there was

just absolute chaos as a result of that, and I think that has scared

off all other Lieutenant-Governors. They have never forgotten that

experience and so have decided they'd better not interfere. But that is

their mandate; that's what they are supposed to be there doing.

They are there to see and to be the protectors, on behalf of the

Queen of England, of the people of the province. That's their real

function. There are all kinds of articles written by.... Saywell wrote

a whole book. I don't want to take up the time of the House by reading

it, but in describing the nature of the office of the

Lieutenant-Governor, Saywell said: "As a chief executive officer in the

province, the Lieutenant-Governor in his office, if not in his person,

is a representative of the Crown, and by statute, custom and legal

decisions exercises many of the monarchical powers essential to the

practical and theoretical working of parliamentary government." That's

what this bill is going to wipe out. In introducing the legislation,

the Attorney-General says it is just a minor little piece of tradition

that we're eliminating to kind of speed up the process. We're

eliminating something that's been on our books since 1867. It's an

office that was created by the British North America Act of 1867.

That's what, 200 years? Nearly 300 years? I don't know; my arithmetic's

not as great as it should be.

It just seems to me a real tragedy that two things are going to

happen when this bill becomes law: we will have wiped out, as I said, a

tradition which has been a part of our parliamentary system since 1867;

and we will also have wiped out the final avenue of appeal of the

common people. Now we are at the mercy of whatever cabinet happens to

be the government of the day. That's not just sad; I think it's

serious. I cannot understand why, in the interest of a so-called

speeding up of the process and of saving time, the government would at

this time decide to launch an offensive against

[ Page 1343 ]

a tradition and a safeguard which the people of British Columbia probably need more now than we have ever needed it before.

In checking this precedent, I spoke to some of the members in the

minister's office as well as to the Clerks of the House and various

people to find out what the point was of depriving us of the

protection. What is the point of taking this final level of protection

away from the people of British Columbia? In every instance I was told

that it was just to speed up the process. It was considered by the

government to be an extra, unnecessary step, and by simply wiping out

this final step we would get regulations enacted much more quickly. But

as I pointed out, that has not been the history. Sitting on our ledgers

we have bills and sections of bills awaiting proclamation, going back

to almost the very beginning of our parliamentary system. In some

instances there have been controversial sections of bills and sections

put in which the government of the day had never had any intention of

implementing, such as the GAIN Act. It was put in as a political ploy

to convince people that the government was really serious about its

commitment to people in need in this province. It's all a red herring

to say that the signature of the Lieutenant-Governor on a proclamation

is what has been slowing down the process and making it impossible for

those sections of bills or for those pieces of legislation to become

law.

The Islands Trust Act has sections in it waiting to be proclaimed

which would give it the power to purchase land on behalf of the people

of British Columbia to do all kinds of things considered to be in the

best interest of the community at large. Those sections have never been

proclaimed, not because the Lieutenant-Governor couldn't be found to

put his signature on them, or not even because the Lieutenant-Governor

did not want them to be proclaimed and decided that they should be set

aside so that the government could mull over them a bit longer. Those

sections were never presented to the Lieutenant-Government for his

signature. We found in the past that proclamation has been used as a

ploy by the governments of the day, whichever government might happen

to be in, not to deal with certain sections of bills which they were

not really committed to and really had no intentions of implementing.

Now we find, Mr. Speaker, that that is the excuse being used and the

reason being given to wipe out a very important protective

parliamentary step, which the people of British Columbia have enjoyed

since 1867.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not convinced that the Attorney-General can do

this. Some of the citations that I have been reading about the role and

functions of the Lieutenant-Governor would seem to indicate that, to

quote Sir John Thompson's statement, "it would be a matter of federal

concern should the dignity of the office of the Lieutenant-Governor be

impaired in any way." This is an impairment of the dignity of the

office of the Lieutenant-Governor, and I'm not convinced that the

provincial government can do that. If one can take the writings of

Senator Eugene Forsey and the Lieutenant-Governor prior to this one —

not Bell-Irving.... I'm sorry, his name has gone out of....

[3:15]

AN HON. MEMBER: Owen.

MS. BROWN: Yes, he is the one who used to write a lot about

the roles and functions of Lieutenant-Governors. His writings would

indicate that the provincial government cannot do anything that would

impinge on or impair the role and function of the Lieutenant-Governor.

Maybe this is something that you should take under review, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to appeal to you to investigate whether the provincial

government has the power to infringe on, impinge on or impair in any

way the rights and functions of the Lieutenant-Governor. Certainly

there's a body of knowledge which maintains that as he is the head of

the provincial government and a representative of Dominion authority,

the government cannot impair or impinge in any way on his role, on his

functions and on the responsibilities which he has. It's quite simple

for the government to introduce legislation that would say the

Lieutenant-Governor can no longer do this or no longer do that. But is

that legal? I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it isn’t; in fact, the

government does not have the power. The government is taking unto

itself powers which it does not have. The authorities do say that to

change in any way the responsibilities of the Lieutenant-Governor is a

decision that would have to be made at the federal level. Now it's

quite possible that the Attorney-General has consulted with the

Minister of Justice of Canada and has been given permission to do this,

but if that's the case, then I think the House should have been told of

this fact. At the time when the minister introduced this piece of

legislation, he should have said: "In consultation with the Prime

Minister of Canada and the Minister of Justice, the decision has been

made to impair the functions of the Lieutenant-Governor in this way,

and they have agreed to this."

I see that the Attorney-General is back. I'm sorry he wasn't here

when I raised this issue earlier, because I just don't feel like going

over the whole thing all over again.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Oh, everyone wants me to. Is that it?

I just want to say very briefly to the Attorney-General.... Your colleagues will fill you in, Mr. Attorney-General.

Mr. Speaker, if I can get the Attorney-General's attention, I just

want to repeat that I raised the question as to whether the provincial

government does, in fact, have the authority to impair the functions of

the Lieutenant-Governor, because Saywell and a number of other

authorities, which are sitting on my desk in my office — I'm sorry I

didn't bring them in, but....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The authorities are sitting on my desk. Is my green light on? That's too bad, because I wanted to....

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope Saywell isn't being installed as the chancellor of UBC.

MS. BROWN: Oh, really? Then he shouldn't be in my office sitting on my desk.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the green light doesn't apply to

me. I'll just wind down very quickly, even though it doesn't, because

I'm the designated speaker.

I'm just saying that they raise the issue, Mr. A-G, that to

interfere in any way, or to change the role and function of the

Lieutenant-Governor, has to be done at the federal level or certainly

has to be done at least with federal consultation and federal

acquiescence. I'm suggesting that if in fact this did happen — if the

Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice did

[ Page 1344 ]

in fact give permission for this power to be taken

away from the Lieutanant-Governor — then I think that the

Attorney-General, in his introductory remarks, should have indicated

that this was the case. But if he is acting unilaterally, and if his

government is acting unilaterally, then I think that they are going

beyond their authority and that in fact they do not have the power to

do this.

The opposition is going to oppose this legislation for the two

reasons, among others, which I pointed out. The decision to vest in the

registrar powers to decide what should be printed in the Gazette ,

and what should be exempted, is a dangerous precedent, and we cannot

support that. It is not one of the recommendations of the Uniform Law

Conference of Canada. It was not one of their recommendations; in this

regard the Attorney-General went beyond the recommendation, which very

clearly was that decisions should be made by legislators and not by the

registrar. It is fraught with all kinds of pitfalls and is open to

abuse, in terms of deciding what should....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I'm the designated speaker, but I'm finished anyway, so you can keep the red light on.

The second reason why we are not supporting this is because, as I've

said before, the role of the Lieutenant-Governor, although he has not

exercised his powers in that regard to date, still exists in terms of

being the final line of defence in terms of the rights of the people of

British Columbia. The cabinet is taking that away, and we cannot

support that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, I advise the House that the hon. minister closes debate.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the member

for an absolutely brilliant but erroneous conception of the role of the

Lieutenant-Governor. Injecting the Lieutenant-Governor into a

procedural, housecleaning bill is an ingenious way to give the

opposition some specious rationale for apparently opposing the bill.

I am sorry if they are concerned about the power of the registrar,

first of all, because it seems unthinkable that in deciding whether or

not a lengthy map or tables or plans or the Bronx telephone directory

should be filed as an exhibit to something would be a matter than an

elected official would want to have to decide every day. It should be

decided by a person who is entrusted with the filing and keeping of

regulations — someone who understands whether or not documents are

necessary immediately as an enacting part of a regulation or whether

they may, by incorporation, by way of reference or some other means, be

kept in some other place where everyone could have access to them. It

might just so happen that they were in everyone's home anyway. But to

have that decision made by a minister is palpable nonsense, with due

respect, Mr. Speaker. It is something that a person who is keeping the

records should decide on the basis of what is fair and reasonable. It

should not be done by a minister or an elected member.

The other point she makes which I find absolutely intriguing and

ingenious is that by eliminating the wonderful, hoary, traditional

procedural step of the proclamation....

Mr. Speaker, in my opening speech on second reading I lamented that

the proclamation step was disappearing. I feel the same tugs at

tradition in the British parliamentary system that that member feels.

But for her to take that as a quantum leap toward the argument that we

are somehow violating the constitution by eliminating or impinging upon

the office of the Lieutenant-Governor I say is far more ingenious than

real. I don't think Mr. Saywell in his book, or Prof. Cheffins, or

anyone else who has written exclusively about the offices of the Crown,

has ever in his wildest dreams of constitutional fantasy made the point

that because His Honour is going to be deprived of putting his

signature on one of those magnificent scrolls produced at about $25 or

$50 of public expense every time a bill is brought into effect in stage

form, we are somehow impinging upon his constitutional authority. I

would think His Honour would be thoroughly delighted if he did not have

to affix his signature and seal to those magnificent documents with

such unseemly irregularity.

MS. BROWN: You don't understand. It's not just a matter of signing.

HON. MR. SMITH: No, I understand very well.

The member opposite has a notion that the Crown is some kind of

appeal agency, not just from legislative decisions but from ministerial

decisions, from administrative process and everything else, and that

she can run, cap in hand, to the gates on Rockland Avenue and beseech

the occupant of that place not to affix his seal to this purely

administrative staging procedural document. I can imagine we will never

be able to find future occupants for that mansion because they will not

want to deal with the crowds of opposition members who are outside

saying: "Please Your Honour, please don't bring this bill into effect

on May 14 at two in the afternoon. Store it for another week or so."

They think that the Lieutenant-Governor is to be lobbied on every tiny

piece of minuscule administrative responsibility that is before him,

and that is not the role of the Crown. The Crown's role is one of great

dignity. The Crown's role is one of using a very, very limited but

important residual discretion in the constitution, occasionally perhaps

not taking the advice that is tendered or occasionally reflecting upon

that advice, but not in overruling administrative and procedural

decisions.

MR. HOWARD: What have you been smoking?

HON. MR. SMITH: No, no, no — not smoking anything at all. But

Saywell, who is soon to don robes of different office and to assume the

presidency of the University of British Columbia, would shudder and

cringe if he heard the argument, which we have heard just now, that the

role and office of the Lieutenant-Governor.... Mr. Speaker, you heard

the proposition. They who now have wrapped themselves in the cloth of

monarchists and defenders of tradition, they whose natural instincts

are towards republicanism, egalitarianism and populism, are now saying

that the elimination of a proclamation is infringing upon the office of

the Lieutenant-Governor. It absolutely boggles the mind.

Interjections.

[3:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the bill carries out the Uniform Law Conference

recommendations of having a simple test to decide what a regulation is and eliminates

the

[ Page

1345 ]

necessity of the old legislative test, which was very confusing. It standardizes

and streamlines the process and makes it much more efficacious.

I have great honour in moving second reading of this progressive bill.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

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

Bill 31, Regulations Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 25.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

(continued)

MR. SKELLY: As you've noted before from previous debate in

this House, Mr. Speaker, the opposition party intends to vote against

this bill. We cannot understand why the government would take a

functioning corporation such as the B.C. Harbours Board — a corporation

which isn't saddled with debt, as is the case with most of the other

Crown corporations of the government since the Socreds' return to

office — and turn it over to the B.C. Railway corporation, which is

virtually bankrupt as a result of its operations under this government.

Furthermore, we are concerned about the fact that some of the operations of

the B.C. Harbours Board will be turned over to the B.C. Development Corporation.

The B.C. Development Corporation is one of the most successful corporations

in the constellation of Crown corporations that have been set up by the government

of British Columbia, and that's because it was established by the New Democratic

Party over the opposition of Social Credit back in the 1970s. It is headed by

a former Social Credit MLA. There've been jobs for the boys in this province

ever since the Socreds took over in 1976. But this is a rather decent chap:

Newell Morrison, who had the decency to quit Social Credit and who now heads

the B.C. Development Corporation.

What we are especially concerned about in this bill is that it takes

3,900 acres of some of the highest-quality agricultural land in the

province — and as the representative for Delta you'll know, Mr.

Speaker, that in Delta we have some of the best agricultural land in

the province of British Columbia, and not simply in the province of

British Columbia but in Canada and, in fact, in the world.... It is

some of the most valuable growing land anywhere in the world, and we're

concerned, given the orientation of the B.C. Development Corporation,

that some of this land will be taken out of agricultural production and

used for industrial development or for other purposes that will, in the

long run, be counterproductive and counter to the interests of the

people of this province. That is one of our major concerns.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Tilbury Island.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, the minister constantly brings up

Tilbury Island, and we suggest to the minister that he turn that back

into agricultural land if he's so concerned about Tilbury Island,

rather than taking this 3,900 acres.... Now he laughs when I suggest

that he turn it back into agricultural land.

We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past with this 3,900 acres, and

that is what we are concerned about. This land will be taken out of

agricultural production and potential, turned into industrial land, and

we will lose another 3,900 acres of the some of the best agricultural

land in the world. That's why we are opposed to this piece of

legislation. We are particularly opposed when we hear some of the

thoughts that have been put forward by the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) in terms of planning. What is going to

happen to this agricultural land when all of the constraints have been

removed?

In 1977 the Social Credit government created a political appeal

system whereby, if you were rejected by the Land Commission, you could

go behind the closed doors of the Environment and Land Use Committee.

Using the political appeal system, you could take your land out of the

agricultural land reserve simply by flashing your Social Credit Party

card and having the right connections.

What we are saying, Mr. Speaker, is that we are very concerned,

especially in view of the new Minister of Municipal Affairs'

orientation towards planning. I would like to quote the minister from a

news

article in the Province on September 4: "Municipal Affairs

minister Bill Ritchie wants to abolish planning departments in B.C.'s

cities and towns. I fully believe once an official municipal plan is in

place there is no further need for planning personnel. Official

municipal plans should be reviewed once every ten years, and that job

can be contracted out."

It is interesting to see the various comments from civic and municipal officials

around the province. This is critical because of the attitude this government

has toward agricultural land and planning, which relates directly to land use,

and especially to the use of agricultural land in Delta. That's why we are

concerned about this attitude on the part of the government, as evidenced by

the comments of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 1346 ]

Alderman Marguerite Ford's response to Ritchie's schemes is: "It's

outrageous! What do you say to someone who is that dumb? How do we plan

something like B.C. Place? How do we deal with petitions from residents

who don't like their neighbour's garage? Ritchie will turn Vancouver

into another Detroit." We have some concerns about the attitude toward

planning that the Socred government has. We have some concerns about

the results that are going to take place when you turn agricultural

land over to the B.C. Development Corporation, whose primary purpose is

to develop that land for its industrial value and ignore its

agricultural value. If preserved, that land would be available to us

and our children and to future generations forever. We feel that the

agricultural potential would be destroyed under the jurisdiction of the

B.C. Development Corporation, and for that reason we oppose the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge the government to reconsider the bill

before us now. Reconsider the idea that the land be turned over to the

B.C. Development Corporation, and take into consideration that the land

be turned over to the Agricultural Land Commission where at least there

is a little more security that the land would be held for agricultural

purposes, if that were the case.

For those reasons the NDP will be voting against this bill and

hoping that the government will reconsider the position it has taken in

this legislation.

[3:45]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In closing this debate there are a couple

of items that have been brought to my attention by Her Majesty's Loyal

Opposition, and I would like to take a couple of moments to address

those matters. Firstly, one of the chief oppositions raised by the

party opposite is that control of this land is going to be given to the

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. That argument

really doesn't hold water, because I have been chairman of the British

Columbia Harbours Board which has had the responsibility for this land

for a number of years now.

There is one thing that I would like to say with regard to this

particular piece of real estate. I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, that

it is probably one of the most important pieces of real estate in

British Columbia — probably in western Canada and probably in all

Canada. This particular piece of real estate was envisioned by the

Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett, who had the vision for

Roberts Bank. It's probably one of the most important pieces of real

estate in western Canada, and I would like to say that I don't think I

will be making the decision of whether that land is ever taken out of

agricultural production. I don't think this government will make that

decision, and I don't think this Legislature will make that decision. I

think that will be the decision of future generations.

I do find it a little ironic to listen to the pious remarks of the

opposition, when they were going to plunk a stinking oil refinery right

in the centre of Surrey. So I find their remarks somewhat.... They were

also thinking of putting a steel mill right in the heart of the land

under discussion. They were the ones who took Tilbury Island out of

agricultural production — some of the best agricultural land in the

lower mainland — and made it into an industrial park. They were the

ones who took the Kaymor property. However, I'm not here to rub their

noses in that at all, and be bitter or anything.

I do want to emphasize that it is not the intention of this government at this

point in history to make any changes in the Delta farmland property. It will

be administered by the British Columbia Development Corporation. The leases

that the farmers have at the present time will remain intact. Certainly it's

only common sense that the operation of that railway go to that great British

Columbia Railway, because they have been running that operation anyway for the

B.C. Harbours Board, which has really been a duplication of effort.

There are a number of things that I could say in closing this

debate, but I don't want to be repetitious. I don't want to go over all

the rhetoric that the Leader of the Opposition brought to the floor of

this House when they were speaking just to try to hold up legislation.

Once again I want to say for the record that I don't think it will be

this government or this Legislature.... Maybe not even in this decade

will the future use of that property be decided. But at some point a

future generation will maybe have to make a decision as to whether the

port at Roberts Bank should be enlarged or whether there should be

backup industrial land to serve not only British Columbia but also the

commerce of future generations. That decision, I feel, will be made by

that future generation. I would like to think that sometime in the very

near future Roberts Bank will become a very important port development,

more so than it is. I would like to think that future generations will

think about cleaning up a lot of the commerce in the downtown port of

Vancouver, which could be used to better value than it is now. I would

like to think that in the decades ahead the Roberts Bank area will

become a major port, serving industry in and around the area. With that

in mind, I move second reading of Bill 25.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

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

Bill 25, Harbour Board Repeal Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 30.

[ Page

1347 ]

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

(continued)

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: I have just a few comments about this particular

bill, which repeals the Ocean Falls Corporation Act. I not only

listened to the opening remarks of the minister, I went back and read

them afterwards, which indicates that I am subject to a little bit of

self-imposed punishment from time to time. I read them mostly because

there were some statistics and figures in there that I wanted to make

sure were available and that I understood. In reading the minister's

remarks, I would normally be tempted to applaud the activities of the

former Minister of Education and Minister of Forests, Ray Williston.

What the minister said here would tempt one in that direction, because

Mr. Williston had been, so the minister tells us, given the job of

privatizing the acquisition of B.C. Cellulose Company. The result

thereof was BCRIC. That's the first time that I have heard an absolute

denial that the Premier had anything to do with the origin of BCRIC. I

see now that it's all Ray Williston's fault that BCRIC — that millstone

— came into existence.

The other thing I want to mention with respect to Mr. Williston and

the government — a government that applauds itself on its managerial

capacity, a government that says how beautifully it can run things, a

government that claims that it and its chosen few who run things for

them are the only ones who can do a good job of anything that's handed

over to them....

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

These great supporters of the capitalist system who can turn a

profit out of anything seem to have failed miserably with Ocean Falls.

Now that was either done deliberately and consciously because the

government had no interest in the people who lived in Ocean Falls, and

wanted, because of some philosophic content of their imagination about

the way things run, to sacrifice the interests of the people who lived

in that beautiful community by mismanaging the Ocean Falls

Corporation.... I don't mention Ray Williston in any unkind sense. I

only mention him because he is the person whom the minister said is

chairman of both corporations, namely the Ocean Falls Corporation and

B.C. Cellulose.

When we see the dismal record of this group of first-class corporate

managers, it makes one wonder whether or not the people of the province

really deserve this type of management, or mismanagement, and this

sacrifice of the interests of the people in that community. The public

accounts of 1979-80 show that the Ocean Falls Corporation incurred a

loss of over $26 million for the year ended December 31, 1979. That was

when it was under the chairmanship of the former Minister of Education

and former Minister of Forests of this province, Mr. Williston.

In 1981, the following year, the province forgave certain of the debt of the

Ocean Falls Corporation. Even after doing that, even after the corporation had

been so mismanaged that the debt that had been incurred had to be written off

by the province, the corporation still had outstanding obligations of approximately

$36 million. Then in the following year — the year ending March 31, 1982 — the

outstanding obligations were approximately $38 million. It's no wonder that

the government is intent on getting rid of a corporation that it has so mismanaged.

The regretful

part is that in the process the people who had lived in Ocean

Falls — people who had an adoration of that community, many of whom raised their

children there, saw them go to school there, saw developed some of the finest

swimmers in the province of British Columbia at that time as a result of the

fine athletic program geared to swimming and aquatic sports that took place

in that community.... It's regretful that those are the ones who have

been sacrificed and put to one side and whose interests have been completely

disregarded by a government that could do nothing else but drive that corporation

further and further into debt every year. Under the chairmanship of Mr. Ray

Williston, it managed the affairs of that company. Well, if that's any example

of competency on the part of the people whom this government says are able to

do things, then we are in for a sad way. Is it any wonder, with that type of

record, that BCRIC is in such a terrible mess too?

The same thing happened with BCRIC, a politically created

corporation. The government patted itself all over the back in 1979

when BCRIC was established. There's been nothing but misery because

right from the outset the Premier insisted upon having a political

finger in what was happening with respect to BCRIC. It will be a long

time before the current board of directors and officers of BCRIC will

be able to resurrect that company and bring it out of the mess that the

Socreds got it into in those first few years. I regret very much that

the government saw fit to do what it did.

Through looking at the records and its declarations about Ocean

Falls, one can only conclude that it was consciously and deliberately

done by a government that had no interest whatever in the well-being of

human beings in that community.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that the minister closes debate.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in my

closing remarks. I don't think I've ever listened to such hogwash from

the opposition in all my years in the Legislature as was uttered from

the lips of the previous speaker.

You know, because we were a compassionate government we have tried

for six or seven years to keep Ocean Falls alive. We have poured money

into the Ocean Falls Corporation to keep it alive, against the advice

of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), but because we are a

compassionate government we did indeed try. The truth of the matter is

that the socialist government of the day never should have used the

taxpayers' money to go in there and buy something that couldn't be run.

When we became saddled with this millstone around our neck, we tried

desperately to keep it alive. The member full well knows we have tried

to keep it alive — and there may still be a chance; we're still working

on it. Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we have been compassionate;

we have had a heart. We have tried to rescue this failing corporation,

to put it on a footing that could make it at least pay its way.

Unfortunately, with the best brains available, we have been unable to

do that.

I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 1348 ]

YEAS — 30

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Michael

Pelton

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

A. Fraser

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Veitch

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 20

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lauk

Nicolson

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Barnes

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

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

Bill 30, Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 17.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE

MEASURES)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

[4:15]

MR. SKELLY: There are a number of sections in this act, being

a miscellaneous finance statutes act, but there are certain principles

that we in the opposition are concerned about. In examining budgetary

and taxation measures, one of the principles we're always concerned

about is the regressiveness of certain aspects of taxation. When the

government.... Can you hear me, Mr. Speaker? Or is the Premier, who has

made one speech in the House and talks from his office to his pet

goat...?

We are concerned about the regressive nature of taxation and

financial legislation. In one particular in this bill — which, I

suppose, exemplifies the government's policy on taxation, there is a

measure which strikes much harder on the poor and those with less

wealth than on those who have more wealth. That is the regressive

provisions of the Home Owner Grant Act amendment.

What this bill does is increase the minimum tax payable from $125,

which is in itself regressive, to $150, which is that much more

regressive. The one thing we don't want to do, Mr. Speaker, during

times of economic recession, during times when people have very little

in the way of disposable income and during times when people find it

very difficult to make mortgage payments, to keep food on the table, to

keep kids going to school and to maintain the day-to-day operations

that families must maintain in order to keep going.... Then the

government turns around and increases the minimum tax payable under

this Home Owner Grant Act so that it strikes much more unfairly against

the poor and the less wealthy than it does against the rest of us who

can afford to pay. What this does, essentially, Mr. Speaker, is

increase the tax payable on houses of lower value while exempting

houses of higher value through the mechanism of the homeowner grant.

Anything that strikes more strongly against the poor we would have to

reject.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now when the Premier's father brought in the homeowner grant

legislation a long time ago in this House, he brought it in as an

exemption for a tax on wealth so that initially I think the homeowner

grant exemption was something like $35. It wasn't very much in figures

that we are concerned about today, but $35 meant a lot 20 years ago.

HON. A. FRASER: Twenty-eight dollars.

MR. SKELLY: Okay, I stand corrected by the Minister of

Transportation and Highways; the initial homeowner grant was $28. But

taxes were lower at that time too. Property values were lower at that

time as well, and the minimum tax payable when Premier W.A.C. Bennett

brought in this legislation was $1. As taxes increased, as property

values increased, as homeowner grants increased, that minimum value

remained $1. As a result the tax was not regressive at all, and the

exemption worked to the benefit of the poor and to the benefit of those

who had houses of lower value. As a result it was a fairly progressive

measure which relieved the burden of a completely regressive form of

taxation.

It was a good thing when it was brought in by the former Premier,

W.A.C. Bennett, and carried on in the same way through the New

Democratic Party administration right up until 1976, when this

regressive government came to office and changed the principle of

taxation by prescribing a minimum tax of $100. This meant that those

people who had houses of a very low assessed value had to pay the

minimum tax of $100. In fact, in some cases that minimum tax was an

unfair burden on the poor, because you could have a case where a person

owned a house with a taxable assessed value of $20,000 and a person who

owned a house with a taxable assessed value of $60,000, and the person

with the house of higher value was paying less tax than the person with

the house of lower value, because the minimum tax had to be paid. This

is why we are concerned about this particular

section of the act. It is

completely regressive; it is totally unfair.

If we are imposing an exemption against property taxes the

exemptions should start from zero and go to whatever it is — $530 —

rather than having the minimum tax payable of $100 or $150 or $125, as

is spelled out in this legislation. So it turns a good thing that was

brought in by W.A.C. Bennett into a very regressive form of taxation.

It is one of those things that we would hope the government would

reconsider, because it strikes harder on the poor, harder on the less

wealthy and harder on low-income people than it does against the rich

or people who own properties of a higher value. We would hope that the

government, during the time between consideration of this bill in

second reading and consideration of the bill in committee, would look

at this and perhaps change their minds.

[ Page 1349 ]

As has been mentioned before, when the Minister of Finance tables

the annual reports in the House, he has a

section in his ministry which

examines legislation both for its financial implications on the

government and for its general financial implications on the people of

the province. I would like to see, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of

Finance and that

section in his ministry have in fact done a study of

this basic tax payable and how it does affect certain classes of income

earners or certain classes of property owners. Surely if a study had

been done by the minister, he would immediately be aware that this

strikes harder on those who can afford it least. I can't say this is

not the type of government that would allow that thing to go through,

because piece after piece of legislation has indicated that this

government is taking a bigger bite out of those who can afford it less,

and allowing those who can afford it more to go scott-free. I'm not

sure that the government would change its mind, but surely between

consideration of second reading and committee stage the government

should take a look at

section 12 of this omnibus bill and reconsider at

least increasing the minimum tax payable that would offset the

homeowner grant.

During the last federal budget a number of financial and business periodicals — one of them was Maclean's

magazine — have pointed out that the trend in taxation measures over

the last few years has been to reduce the level of taxation against the

rich, those who earn their income through investments, and to increase

the burden of taxation against those who are poor or who earn their

income through salaries and hourly paid work. As a result of this our

whole system of taxation is now becoming skewed in favour of one class

of earner, the wealthy, and very much a burden against the poor and

those who earn their income through salaries and wages. This piece of

legislation is part and parcel of that trend.

If we are to bring this province out of a recession and if we are to

contribute in a positive way to economic recovery through the fiscal

measures that we bring into this Legislature, what we should be doing

in a time of economic recession is increasing the disposable income of

those people who spend most of their income and who circulate their

money directly into the local economy of the community where they live.

We know for certain, because those studies have been done, that money

that is earned by lower- and middle-income people is generally spent in

their local communities, in retail businesses and services and in the

economy of the local area. This increases employment and contributes to

economic recovery in those areas.

What we should be doing through every fiscal measure that we bring

into this Legislature is increasing the disposable incomes of those

citizens who are more likely to spend that income in the local

community purchasing goods and services. Because every one of those

purchases and every one of those monetary transactions contributes to

employment in those communities and brings them back to the economic

strength and vitality that they enjoyed prior to 1981 when we were hit

by this world-wide economic recession, which has been complicated and

made worse by the economic measures brought in by the Social Credit

government. This is one of those types of measures and is one that we

should be avoiding if we are to strengthen the economic vitality of the

province and encourage economic recovery.

We have found out in the last little while that it's not going to be

a producer-led recovery. The return to profitability of those large

resource corporations in the forest, mining and energy sectors is

really not going to bring economic recovery to each and every one of

our citizens, because we know that even though profitability has been

restored to a number of those large corporations or sectors, the

corporate recovery has not carried on through the economy to those who

have been deprived of work as a result of the recession. Significant

changes have taken place in the economy and a large number of people

have been placed out of work and have been told that they're going to

be out of work permanently.

What we need are measures that are going to assist that sector of

our economy that is capable, over the very short term, of employing the

most people, and is capable of employing people through a minimum

investment of capital. That sector of the economy is the small business

sector and the retail and service sector. The way we can encourage the

development in that sector is by placing money in the hands of our

citizens by reducing the taxation upon those low- and middle-income

citizens who are going to be hit hardest by this act, and in particular

by this

section of the act.

What I'm asking, Mr. Speaker, is that if this government is

seriously interested in economic recovery, if this government really

has their finger on the pulse of the economy and are really interested

or know what's happening in terms of the economy and the possibilities

of economic recovery, then they should withdraw at least

section 12 of

this bill and the provision that changes the minimum tax payable on

property and eliminates all of the value that W.A.C. Bennett created

when he created the homeowner grant. So I would hope that between the

discussion of this bill in principle and the discussion of this bill in

section-by-section stage, the government will take a look at that

aspect of the bill and reduce the minimum tax payable. It's important

that the government do that.

[4:30]

One of the problems we've seen over the last little while is that

savings have increased during the recession. People have lacked

confidence in the economy to this extent, and lacked confidence that

their jobs will be carried on, and so people have saved a great deal of

money during the economic recession. It's been noted in many financial

journals that the savings rate has increased. In fact, during a good

part of the recession it was higher than it had ever been in recent

history.

Recently, on the anticipation of economic recovery, and also on the

anticipation of things like income tax returns, etc., people have been

draining their savings and buying consumer goods that in the past they

hadn't bought before because of the tremendous uncertainty over whether

they would be employed in the future, or whether the economy would

carry on and recover, as many people expected it would. Now that those

savings have been drained down, economists feel that our society is now

in even more danger than it was in the past, because many people are

still losing their jobs. The economy hasn't recovered to the extent

that even in the budget speech it was predicted that it would recover.

So those savings have now been lost to those people, and since more

people are out of work there's no way of topping them up again. In

fact, we're in a worse position now in terms of economic recovery than

we were in the past. The government must understand this, and must take

fiscal measures to make sure that the disposable income of people is

not reduced even further. In fact, the government should be taking

measures to increase the disposable income. The way not to do it is

precisely what the government is doing here by increasing the basic

taxation payable on property tax. It simply doesn't make sense. It

takes money away from local

[ Page 1350 ]

communities, and it doesn't serve our purpose of encouraging economic recovery.

A number of studies have been done on how income is spent, and how

income is spent by different classes of persons earning different

classes of income. You often hear the other side in this Legislature

saying that wages are the real problem and a continuing increase in

wages is the problem in our economy. When inflation was the concern it

was causing inflation. Now that restraint is the concern, wages are

those things that prevent an effective restraint program. The

government itself admits, in its reports, that only 12.7 percent of all

the money it pays out is attributable to wages. So a very small

percentage of the money that this government handles is paid to

employees in the form of wages — only 12.7 percent.

But we all know as well, through various studies, that wages are not

the most rapidly increasing form of income. Studies as far back as the

1970s have shown that the most rapidly increasing class of income in

Canada is investment income: income from bonds, capital gains,

dividends and capital gains on shares. Those types of income require

very little labour. They produce very little, in terms of the economy.

In fact, studies have also shown that that type of income, rather

than being invested in the community where it's earned, is very mobile.

It can travel across international or provincial boundaries. That type

of income may or may not be spent in the local community, and may not

contribute to the economic recovery of this province. It may be

invested in property in the United States sunbelt, or overseas or in

currencies in other parts of the world, because very mobile capital is

used to earn investment income. There is no guarantee that that income

would be invested in British Columbia, in the local economy, and would

improve the employment and well-being of our citizens.

Here the government is not attempting to tax that investment income.

In fact, they are reducing the restraints on investment income,

increasing the growth of investment income, and attacking that class of

people whose major source of income is wages, salaries and government

transfer payments. They are hitting them hardest in the area of

property taxation.

What I am saying is that the government should reconsider their

fiscal measures. In particular, they should reconsider the measure that

is being extended under

section 12 of Bill 17, by increasing the

minimum tax payable under the Home Owner Grant Act. They should make

sure that there is a significant exemption available to people, and

that that exemption — whether it is called the homeowner grant or the

property tax exemption or whatever the government chooses to call it —

exempts a certain part of the assessed value of property. There should

be no minimum tax payable other than the nominal $1 tax which was

traditionally paid both under the W.A.C. Bennett government and the NDP

government, making that a true property tax exemption.

Let me use the Income Tax Act as a comparison. Would the income tax

be considered fair if people were entitled to a personal exemption of

$2,000, and that exemption resulted in their being liable to no

taxation at all, but then the government came back and imposed a $150

minimum tax? That is precisely what we are doing with the homeowner

grant. We are taking people with the lowest quality or lowest value of

housing, giving them an exemption under the homeowner grant, and then

telling them they have to pay $150 anyway. It just turns that property

tax exemption into a cruel hoax. The government should reconsider this

particular

section of this legislation, reduce the minimum tax payable

under the Home Owner Grant Act to $1, and that would protect people

with the lowest quality and lowest value of housing and make the whole

system of property tax more fair and equitable and less of a burden on

the poor.

Another thing the government should consider is the provision of an

exemption on business tax. The government has done that in the

exemption it has proposed on machinery, but a number of other provinces

have property improvement grants where they exempt not only homeowners

but also business people, in Saskatchewan under the Property

Improvement Grant Act. There are exemptions on property right across

the board, not simply on residential property. The government should

also consider that.

As I have stated before in this Legislature, the most regressive

taxation in this or in any province is taxation on small business,

because that taxation is immediately passed through to customers in the

market area of that small business, which is generally in the region

where that small business operates. If we are concerned about economic

recovery, we should be exempting small businesses from as many of those

taxes that are a burden on small business as we can identify, so that

we can reduce the price of food and of services delivered through small

businesses by reducing tax on them. That would encourage business and

cause it to expand; it would cause money to exchange in the community,

and a growth in employment and business; and it would be an instrument

for economic recovery in the province.

The government should consider removing as much as possible in the

way of taxation against small business so that they can encourage that

form of local economic recovery, which in communities such as the one I

represent, Port Alberni, has been extremely hard hit by the decline in

the forest industry and decline in our markets overseas. That type of

fiscal measure would be a boon to a community such as Port Alberni,

which has been hard hit by the recession and particularly the recession

in the forest industry.

There are a number of fiscal measures that the government should

consider and I hope will consider prior to bringing this bill back to

the House for committee stage. Possibly I will propose a few amendments

to the bill myself so that we can give it full debate when it comes to

the House during committee stage. I do hope the minister has taken some

of these positive suggestions into consideration, and I look forward to

some changes in the bill when it comes back to the House at that time.

MS. BROWN: I would like to respond to a couple of the issues

raised by the Minister of Finance when he introduced this particular

piece of legislation. As you know, it's the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, so it runs all over the ballpark. We have to deal with

sections; we have no choice. However, in introducing it the Minister of

Finance said: "The first and most important aspect is that the bill

provides for the necessary amendments to implement improvements in the

control and measurement of staff in the government." Then he goes on to

give a long explanation about full-time equivalents versus actual

people. When the government talks about cutting back the number of

people in the public sector, they're really not talking about people;

they're talking about full-time equivalents. The minister said that one

full-time equivalent equals two halves and so forth.

[ Page 1351 ]

In fact, when you look at the estimates of any given ministry, you

find that this amendment, this change, makes it possible for the

government to completely hide the true picture of the number of people

employed by the government, the number of people working in any

ministry, program or whatever.

I want to speak specifically about the Attorney-General's ministry,

because that's the one for which I am responsible for monitoring. One

of the main things that the Attorney-General has been doing since the

beginning of this legislative session is contracting out a lot of the

work that used to be done by public sector workers. Mr. Speaker, what

we're told in this

section of Bill 17, the one dealing with the....

Section 18, is it? I just want to give you the correct section, because

I notice you're beginning to look puzzled.

Section 26, Mr. Speaker;

you're beginning to wonder whether or not I'm in order, so I just want

to protect myself here and give you the exact section. The minister

says that the way in which estimates used to report really didn't take

into account auxiliary or part-time workers and those kinds of things,

so it didn't give an accurate picture. I'm suggesting that this

amendment that's included in this bill gives an even less accurate

picture. The Attorney-General is contracting out, and the legislation

does not cover contracting-out services.

Let us look for an example at the court services. In the estimates

for 1982-83, we were told that that

section of the Attorney-General's

ministry had 1,507 employees.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point you have made the

Chair aware of the specificity of this type of bill with many sections.

However, I will remind the member that these can be quite adequately

dealt with in committee. I sense that the debate that we're now

embarking upon would be more properly dealt with during the estimates

of the Attorney-General, not during the Finance Minister's act. Perhaps

if the member has general statements relevant to the whole act, the

member may continue, but clearly what we're hearing now is debate that

I think anticipates other debates.

[4:45]

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I can draw your attention to the Hansard

of August 25, 1983, page 1061, where the Minister of Finance introduced

this particular bill. I can read it into the record for you, if you

wish. It is very specific on this particular section. He even mentions

the number of the

section and goes into great detail about that

particular

section and the amendment which is implementing full-time

equivalents instead of individuals. He goes into a great deal of detail

and specificity as to why he is doing this. He talks about the number

of auxiliary staff not being provided, for example, and it being

difficult actually to have a true picture about the workforce in each

ministry. Really, a lot of what I am doing is echoing precisely what

the Minister of Finance said when introducing this piece of

legislation. I'm saying to him that the amendment makes it worse, not

better.

It doesn't make sense for me to stand on the floor of the House and

make a blanket statement such as, "That amendment makes it worse, not

better," without giving some examples. I have to substantiate my case.

It would be totally irresponsible of me to accuse the minister of

introducing an amendment which does something worse than before, and

just let it hang in the air, like that. I think the Speaker would agree

with me that I may be many things, but I'm not irresponsible. It is

simply in trying to uphold my reputation for responsibility that I'm

using one ministry as an example. I could use them all; I'm just more

familiar with the Attorney-General's ministry. That's the reason I'm

using that to substantiate my criticism of the minister's statement

about this amendment.

The Attorney-General has been contracting out a lot of jobs that

used to be done by the ministry staff in terms of court services. This

amendment does not cover contract workers. When the minister — not just

in his opening remarks, but.... If we read ourselves the estimates and

notes where it explains the different way in which estimates are being

done this year than they were previously, it says: "Using the full-time

equivalent instead of staff, what we're doing is including auxiliary,

permanent, temporary and seasonal employees...." There's no mention

whatsoever of contract workers. A lot of the work being done in the

Attorney-General's ministry at this time is being contracted out. We

know, for example, that the minister has decided not to use the court

reporters hired by the ministry anymore, but to contract out that area

of employment. So what I'm saying to you is that

whereas under previous

estimates we knew, for example, that in 1982-83 there were 1,507 people

working in court services, spending something over $41 million in that

particular

section of the ministry, this year, with this new amendment

for full-time equivalents, which does not cover contracting out, we

have no idea how many people actually will be working in court services.

Maybe the reason why the government is doing that is that it's less

expensive. There's a great deal of money to be saved that way. If that

is the case, how do you explain the fact that the estimate shows an

increase of nearly $2 million? But it is not possible under the

amendment which I'm dealing with in this particular bill to tell

whether that increase is actually going to increase full-time

equivalents — because there's nothing under staffing; the new estimate

book under staffing gives you a total for the whole ministry but it

doesn't give you any details in terms of the various sections.

The other thing the minister said was that two half-time equivalents

equal one full-time equivalent. That's not true at all. In fact there

are all different ways, we've found, of reporting on full-time

equivalents and half-time equivalents. We had, for example — and again

I go back to the ministry of the Attorney-General.... We find that,

whereas last year there were 5,537 people employed in that ministry,

this year there are going to be 4,983 full-time equivalents. Despite

that, the budget for salary, as shown in the supplement to the

estimate, Mr. Speaker, is increased. So it is not, clearly, a financial

saving device on the part of the government.

For the Minister of Finance to say that in cutting down the public

sector we're not really firing people — we're just juggling around

full-time equivalent jobs in terms of some of them being part-time

equivalents or half-time equivalents or third-time equivalents — is not

quite accurate. What is happening is that full-time equivalents aren't

losing their jobs; it is workers who are losing their jobs. There are

real people out there who are losing their jobs as a result of this

government's decision. Referring to firing a person as "releasing a

full-time equivalent" — or a part-time equivalent or a half-time

equivalent — doesn't soften the blow one little bit on the person who

has lost their job. If a court reporter who is no longer employed by

the government in that position is told, "It's not really you that's

fired; it's your job which was a full-time equivalent job which is no

longer needed," that doesn't put food on the table of that court

reporter, help her to pay her rent or meet her other responsibilities

in terms of her debts.

[ Page 1352 ]

We have moved into a world of euphemisms. Nobody gets fired anymore

in this government. They are redeployed right out of their jobs. That's

what happens to them.

MR. HOWARD: Unless their name is Matkin.

MS. BROWN: Right. Nobody is fired by this government anymore;

full-time equivalents just disappear. I think that one of the things we

have to bring to the attention of the members of the government, as

well as the community at large, is that full-time equivalents are not

some ethereal creation. It is not a puff of smoke, a machine or a

technological device. We are talking about people. Changing their names

or calling them something else doesn't change the fact. A poet once

said a rose by any other name is just as sweet. If you are fired under

another name, you are still fired. Whether you are redeployed or you

are turned into a full-time equivalent who disappears from the face of

the earth doesn't alter the fact, Mr. Speaker, that someone is being

fired. This amendment makes it possible for the government to fire

people without it actually being shown in the estimates exactly how

many people are fired.

Let me give you another example, Mr. Speaker. The Ministry of Human

Resources, as you know, on a fateful day in August released somewhere

in the neighbourhood of 599 of their staff. They were given pink slips

saying that their services were no longer needed.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Blue slips — whatever. When you look at the

estimates you will find that between the number of people who were

employed by the Ministry of Human Resources in 1982-83 and the number

of full-time equivalent staff they expect to use in the 1983-84 year,

there is only a difference of 500 people. Yet we know for a fact that

they have already fired close to 600 of their workers, and they have

been told that that is only the beginning.

Mr. Speaker, that's what this amendment does. Where 600 people were

fired, it could be reported as 300 full-time equivalents or 400

full-time equivalents or maybe even 150 full-time equivalents. Once

this amendment goes through, there isn't any way for anyone to

accurately assess who in the government will be losing their jobs, how

many people in the government will be losing their jobs and precisely

what services will disappear as a result of the decision to terminate

so-called full-time equivalents.

In the past the estimates used to give us in every section.... We

knew that the minister's office in the Attorney-General ministry, for

example, had five staff; and the provincial judiciary had 138; the

court services had 1,507; and corrections had 2,103. When you look at

your estimate books now there is absolutely nothing under staffing. We

have no way of knowing how many either human beings or full-time

equivalents work in the minister's office. There is no way of telling

how many full-time equivalents are in the court services. Nothing. The

only thing we have, at the end, Mr. Speaker, is a total of the

full-time equivalents. Then in small letters there is an explanation

that this doesn't really mean people; this just means jobs, and a

full-time equivalent job can be done by one person or it can be done by

a number of people. So the government is playing games. It is doing an

absolutely super job of keeping information and the facts away from the

public at large and from the opposition.

I want to criticize the full-time equivalent concept on two grounds.

First of all it does not give the members of the opposition or the

community at large an adequate picture of the staffing in the public

service. In many programs and services that exist today the reality of

the situation is that two half-time workers do not make one full-time

equivalent. What we are doing is dealing with apples and oranges. You

cannot look at the full-time equivalents listed in the estimates book

and get an adequate picture of the staffing in the public sector. It

doesn't work that way.

The other reason why I'm opposed to it is that it really disguises

what the government is doing. So the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith)

can say, "Well, I've only reduced my staff by 554 people," but that's

not true. What the Attorney-General has done is eliminate jobs which

were done by in-house staff and contract them out to the community at

large — to lawyers, psychologists or psychiatrists in the community, as

the case may be — and there is no accounting in the estimates as to the

number of jobs involved in any contract. We have absolutely no way of

knowing how many jobs are contracted out, the number of people actually

working for the government or the number of people actually on the

public payroll under the amendment which was introduced by the

minister. I agree with the minister when he says that this is perhaps

the most important

section in this bill, because it is a smokescreen

which we will never be able to see through. We will never know what any

ministry is doing in terms of its hiring budget.

For those two reasons I am hoping that the Minister of Finance, when

we actually get into committee stage, will have some amendments to

introduce on

section 26 of this bill. I said there were two reasons.

There are really three: the inadequate staffing picture, the lack of

information on the contracting out and the disguising of what is being

done.

I want to repeat that people are the ones who are being fired, not

full-time equivalents. Using euphemisms is almost dishonest. I don't

want to accuse the government of being dishonest or that minister of

being dishonest. But to go around saying "We're really not firing

people; we're just cutting down on the number of full-time equivalents

in the government," is really not giving an accurate picture of what's

going on out there. People are being fired and services are being

eliminated.

[5:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

My colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who spoke just before me, I

think, gave an excellent case as to why

section 12 — I think it is —

dealing with the homeowner grant should also be amended when we go into

committee stage. When you take the $25 increase and place it in the

same package with all the other increases which this government is

inflicting on the people in our community who can least afford any kind

of increases at all, you recognize once again that what the government

is doing is hitting the most defenceless. They are hitting the people

least able to pay, the ones with the smallest incomes, with the least

amount of flexible income in terms of moving money from one area to

another. These are not the people getting the tax loopholes, who can

write off their cigars and their alcohol, their travel, and all of

these other kinds of things. The people who are covered by this

amendment are the ones for whom a $25 increase is a lot of money. It

really is a significant amount of money. The recommendation made by my

colleague from Alberni is one that I

[ Page 1353 ]

want to associate myself with. And that is that

rather than increasing the amount of tax payable by $25, the government

should be embarking on a program of phasing the amount of tax paid by

this particular group down to $1 over a period of years. No one expects

that it can be done immediately. But the ultimate goal should certainly

be that that be phased down to $1. These are the same people who use

the bus passes, and those have been increased. These are the same

people who use Pharmacare, and the deductible on that has been

increased. These are the same people who may be losing their CIP

benefits. These are the same people who will be hurt most by the

increase in the sales tax. These are the same people who may be losing

their CIP benefits. They will be hurt most by the increase in the sales

tax and by a number of other hidden taxes which affect all people. They

are not based on the ability to pay or on one's income. These are the

people who are affected by this increase.

I can never understand, no matter how much I try, a government that,

when it wants to raise money, decides to tax the poorest people first.

When it wants to save money it decides to cut services from the most

needy first. I don't understand that kind of thinking. It's totally

alien to everything that we've been taught about compassion and caring

for each other. In terms of saving money, the first services that are

cut.... You don't cut the money for painting bus stops or repainting

buses that don't need painting anymore. The money isn't cut to pay for

polls to find out what the government can say to women so that they

will vote for them. That's not where the cuts come. No, the first cut

that comes is the $50 a month that's given to the people who need it

the most. When the cuts come, Mr. Speaker, the first thing that's wiped

out is services to children who have been raped or are the victims of

incest. The cuts come to the disabled, to senior citizens, to children,

to families in crisis. Now we find that the people who have the least

amount of money in terms of their taxes, and need the benefits of the

homeowner grant more than anyone else, are the first ones to have an

increase inflicted upon them. It really makes you wonder about the kind

of conscience that a government would have to bring down a package like

this government brought down on July 7, with its budget and attendant

legislation. In every single instance, under the guise of saving money

or raising money to pay off a massive deficit, it's the people who are

least able to pay who are hit first. In every single instance the

people who needed the services most lost it first.

We find it again in

section 12 of this legislation, the homeowner

grant. I hope that the Minister of Finance was listening to my

colleague the member for Alberni. If he didn't hear everything that he

said, I hope that he will read in the Blues, or in Hansard when

it's printed, the kinds of statements that he had to say as well as his

recommendation about phasing the tax down to a dollar. Certainly I hope

that when the time comes for us to deal with this

section by section,

there will be amendments on the order paper so that

section 12 will be

deleted. That's the best amendment that we could possibly hope to see.

The companion thing which goes along with the homeowner grant is the

phasing of school tax off the family home. That's not happening. At the

same time, Mr. Speaker, as we are increasing the burden of school tax

on the homeowner, we are raising the level of taxes that the very

poorest homeowners have to pay.

MR. REID: Give him the same pay as a schoolteacher.

MS. BROWN: Give whom the same pay?

MR. REID: The Speaker. Give him the same pay as the schoolteachers are getting. He'd be quite happy.

MS. BROWN: Well, I'd be happy to do that, except that I'd be

out of order if I suggested that, because that's not covered in this

bill in any section, is it? See? The little backbencher is trying to

lead me astray.

Mr. Speaker, there was a third thing that the minister talked about

in this legislation that I found absolutely horrendous, and that was to

empower the Treasury Board to authorize the payment of fees and

commissions to persons employed in collecting, managing or accounting

for public money either before or after deposit of public money to the

consolidated revenue fund. He said that this would provide flexibility

and would reduce the paper burden for all concerned. I don't understand

the kinds of things that this government talks about doing in the name

of reducing paperwork and paper burden. I don't want to reflect on a

vote that's passed, but just to remind you that that was the same

excuse given for wiping out the proclamation role of the

Lieutenant-Governor under Bill 31. That's just said in passing, Mr.

Speaker. It is destroying a tradition which has been part of our system

since 1867.

Now we find that these powers are being given to Treasury Board. I

want to quote here from a comment made by my colleague the finance

critic, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), in response to this, or

rather to ask his question again, because he says that in giving

Treasury Board the right to set these fees, we are once again saying

that the actual business of the House will not be conducted in the

Legislature, will not be conducted in the public forum that we have

here today, but that more and more the raising and spending of money is

going to be decided behind closed doors by cabinet — and cabinet, as

you know, Mr. Speaker, does not meet in public — or by Treasury Board,

and Treasury Board does not meet in public either. More and more we

find the concentration and control of power, centralization in the

cabinet, where it is protected from public scrutiny. It is making a

mockery of the legislative process and the Legislature.

Cabinet can be doing anything. It doesn't have to give us a reason

or an explanation. It doesn't have to bring it to the floor of this

House so that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, on behalf of the 45

percent — or whatever number of people — who voted for the opposition,

can have some ability to monitor the decision that's being made and

have some input into that decision. This House is a safeguard. Bringing

things before the Legislature is making it possible for the public to

know what's going on. It's open. It gives everyone a chance to have

some input. Your constituents, Mr. Speaker, my constituents and other

members' constituents can read it in Hansard , can sit in the

gallery, can listen to the debate, can contact their elected members

and say: "On our behalf, this is an issue we would like you to raise

with the government. We want to protest the government spending money

this way. We would like to protest the government's priorities. We do

not believe that it's more important that the government spend money

repainting buses that are already painted than that the government see

to it that the disabled people have the $50 a month they need in order

that they can live not as far below the poverty line as they would be

living without that $50 a month."

[ Page 1354 ]

Now we're finding in this piece of legislation that the government

is taking unto itself the power to make all kinds of decisions — to set

fees, user fees, whatever it is — in cabinet. Treasury Board, again, is

outside of the public purview. Do you know what goes on at Treasury

Board? You don't know. As a Speaker, of course, you're not supposed to

know anything really, and you probably don't, but....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: No, the Speaker is not supposed to know anything, because the Speaker is impartial; and I know that you are, Mr. Speaker.

But the opposition members have no idea what goes on in Treasury Board. Neither do the back-benchers of the government.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: No, you don't know what goes on in Treasury Board.

You're not supposed to. That's strictly private and confidential. The

public has no access to the information, decisions, debate and

discussions that go on at the Treasury Board level. There are some

cabinet ministers who do not have access to those discussions or to the

information, debate and decisions that go on in Treasury Board. Why,

then, are we giving Treasury Board additional powers?

It seems to me that when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

rises to close this debate, he's going to have to give a better

explanation to us than the one he gave in introducing this piece of

legislation, because in his introduction he said that Treasury Board

was going to be given these additional powers and authority to reduce

the paper burden. What on earth is a paper burden, anyway?

[5:15]

MR. DAVIS: Socialists wouldn't know what a paper burden is.

MS. BROWN: "Socialists wouldn't know what a paper burden is." Is that what the member for North Vancouver–Seymour said?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: It's his sense of humour. I see.

So, Mr. Speaker, the public is deprived of sensitive and essential

information so that somebody — we don't know who — can be relieved of

the paper burden. Is that a fair exchange? Are we prepared to sacrifice

the public's right to know in order to relieve the Minister of Finance,

and whoever else may be involved, of the paper burden? I think that's a

very dangerous precedent. I think that if the paper burden is too much

for the Minister of Finance to deal with, he should resign. Let someone

else who can handle the paper burden take the job on — maybe the little

member from Surrey, the little back-bencher here.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, he's complaining. In his introduction he

said that Treasury Board is to be empowered with this additional

authority — without bringing it before the Legislature, without having

any discussion in public — in order to reduce the paper burden for all

concerned. He said that this would also reduce associated costs to

government.

We keep hearing about all these reduced costs to government, but we

have before us a budget which is higher by 12 percent than it was a

year ago. I don't understand how they're so busy reducing and at the

same time everything is increasing. It reminds me of the diets I go on:

I am always reducing but my weight always goes up. This has got to be

the way in which this government's dealing with restraint. It is the

only understanding I have of it, that they must be using the same

methods I use.

I think that is a dangerous precedent, and I want to echo the words

of my colleague the member for Nanaimo. The question he posed, which I

repeat, is: how much authority the Legislature has given to cabinet for

increasing revenues without coming to the House to discuss it and to

talk about changes in tax legislation. The minister hasn't answered

that question yet, so maybe he could make a note of it again. Also, how

much money is now actually being collected and how much authority is

being given to Treasury Board to set fees? What kinds of fees are they

going to set and when are we going to be notified? Is there any time at

which, other than the people involved, the victims of these fees are

going to be notified? Are we going to get orders-in-council or are they

going to be motions by cabinet signed by the Lieutenant-Governor, or is

this something else that the Lieutenant-Governor is going to be

deprived of doing? At what point does the public become aware of these

fees — after it's a fait accompli, Mr. Speaker?

I want to use the two minutes I have left to very quickly review the

three points which I raised under this bill. One has to do with the

full-time equivalent as a smoke-screen, which I cannot support, and

which I am urging the Minister of Finance to amend by simply reverting

to the system which existed before and amending it to include

additional people not presently covered, such as the auxiliary,

temporary, seasonal employees and the people employed through

contracting out. In other words, be more open about the number of

people employed by the government rather than less so. Delete

section

12, which increases the tax paid under the homeowner grant by $25 on

those people least able to pay, and also delete the

section giving

powers to Treasury Board to set fees. Those should be brought to the

floor of the Legislature. There should be public debate. We have the

right to know.

MR. HANSON: I think that it is very important for all members

of the House and for the public to understand that this bill,

particularly the sections that involve the changes to the Public

Service Act, really want to take British Columbia back to the bad old

days. The bad old days are those days prior to the election of the New

Democratic Party government in 1972. To clarify that, Mr. Speaker, I

want to explain to you how government employees existed with that

particular government prior to 1972.

As you may be aware, the employees of the government subsidized the

public services to the people of the province. That was the approach of

the government — to keep the wages low and the conditions poor, and

also to have a large number of classifications of those people

receiving a paycheque from the provincial government. In fact, there

were many people who worked 10 or 15 years and fell into categories

called temporary continuous employment, as and when, on call, and so

on. These were people who worked in hospitals,

[ Page 1355 ]

in jails, in mental health institutions, in the

Ministry of Finance, and so on. They had that classification and

status, and the government always liked to keep them in a subordinate,

second-class position, ensuring that they did not qualify for regular

health benefits or any other kinds of benefits, and that their jobs

were always tenuous, at the call of their employer to be terminated at

any instance. I think when you look at the package of legislation, and

particularly clauses 26 to 29 in the bill, you will see that this piece

of legislation, Bill 17, wants to hark back to that particular time in

history.

There are a number of interesting and important things that we must

be aware of. At the change of government in 1972, an assessment was

made of the public service. It was clear that when someone was working,

for example, as a psychiatric nurse in one of the mental institutions —

Riverview on the mainland in New Westminster.... It was determined by

that new government that what was required was a rational and

responsible approach to the delivery of services; therefore there

really should be two kinds of employees, not 25 different

classifications. One classification would be for regular employees; in

other words, those performing a definite function of importance to the

government. It was determined that a certain complement would be

required in terms of nursing staff on the ward of that hospital to

deliver service, and a certain number to cover sickness and holidays,

seasonal fluctuations and so on, who would be called auxiliary

employees. In other words, there would be two classes: regular and

auxiliary.

When the estimates were delivered in the House, it was felt that the

public deserved to know exactly the government complement: how many

people were employed in the capacity of psychiatric nurse; how many

technicians were in the Ministry of Environment; how many people were

working as agriculturalists; how many people were working as probation

officers, and so on. If you look at the estimate books of the day, you

will see that the estimates presented in this House, by ministry,

indicated very clearly how many positions were to be paid for by tax

revenue and what those classifications were; and this House in its

wisdom was to determine whether or not that allocation was appropriate.

That sounds entirely reasonable.

Over the last few years less and less information has been provided

to the Legislature in the estimate books so that the debate on specific

appropriations, by particular ministerial department and by program,

could not take place in this House. As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds

(Ms. Brown) so eloquently pointed out, this House can be likened to the

valve on the top of a pressure cooker in our society. When I first

entered this House, that was pointed out to me by a learned

constitutional Clerk, who indicated ve