1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1974
Afternoon Sitting
[ Page 4703 ]
CONTENTS
Routine proceedings
Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill 168). Hon. Mr. King.
Introduction of amendments — 4703
Oral Questions
Reconsideration of meeting with ICBC agents. Mr. Bennett — 4703
Cars difficult to trace by police. Mr. Curtis — 4703
Recognition of claims by ICBC. Mr. Gardom — 4704
Binding contract on hospital patients. Mr. Wallace — 4704
Details of mortgage on Minister's land holding. Mr. Phillips — 4704
Mining negotiations in Omineca district. Mr. Gibson — 4705
Qualifications of new Ministerial assistant. Mr. Smith — 4705
Province-wide breast cancer detection system. Mrs. Jordan — 4705
Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) (Bill 175).
Second reading.
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4706
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4708
Committee stage.
On section 2.
Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4708
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4708
Report and third reading — 4708
Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Second reading.
Mrs. Jordan — 4708
Mr. Chabot — 4709
Mr. Bennett — 4712
Mr. Rolston — 4713
Mr. Gibson — 4716
Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4716
Division on second reading — 4721
Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act (Bill 173).
Second reading.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4722
Mr. Schroeder — 4723
Mr. Gibson — 4726
Mr. Wallace — 4728
Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4732
Division on second reading — 4733
Royal assent to Bill 174 and Bill 175 — 4733
Timber Products Stabilization Act (Bill 171). Hon. R.A. Williams.
Introduction and first reading — 4733
Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Hon. Mr. Barrett.
Introduction of amendments — 4734
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1974
The House met at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House today to welcome 38 students from Centennial Senior Secondary School in the District of Coquitlam. They are accompanied in the House today with their teacher, Mr. Swetlikoe.
Ms. R. Brown (Vancouver-Burrard): There are a group of students, Mr. Speaker, from the social studies class at Kitsilano Secondary School who had the pleasure of meeting you this morning and getting a very informative lecture from you on government. They are presently sitting in the gallery with their teacher, Mr. Ippen, and I would appreciate if the House would join me in saying welcome to them.
Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the Speaker's gallery I see the former MLA of this House and an alderman from Richmond, Ernie LeCours, I bid them welcome.
Mr. Speaker: I'd like to welcome him too. But I point out that the reason I couldn't get him to answer the phone is because he's sitting up there. (Laughter.)
Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I would ask that when a group of students from Boston Bar arrive, we show just how well we behave sometimes. They're not in here now but they will be coming in later this afternoon and, I hope, tomorrow morning.
Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome a very good friend of mine and a very intelligent person, Mr. Nelson Smith from Cranbrook.
Introduction of bills.
ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
LABOUR DISPUTES ACT
Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 168, intituled Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act.
Hon. W.S. King (Minister Of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 168.
Leave granted.
Motion approved.
Oral questions.
RECONSIDERATION OF MEETING
WITH ICBC AGENTS
Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Because of the resultant hardship caused to thousands of British Columbians in difficulty with their insurance, and to the dispute with the agents, has the Minister reconsidered his position as an elected responsible official in stepping in and meeting with these insurance agents and salesmen in an attempt to resolve the dispute facing British Columbia?
Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister Of Transport And Communications): First of all, Mr. Speaker, I know of no individual in British Columbia who has failed to have provided for him service related to the provision of automobile insurance. That's point No. 1.
Two, at this point I can see no need to step in and take any further action than that which I have already taken.
CARS DIFFICULT TO TRACE
BY POLICE
Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): On the same general subject, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications. On Tuesday of this week in question period the Minister rejected suggestions from this side of the House that it was still necessary for members of various police departments to contact insurance agents in an effort to trace stolen or abandoned automobiles or those which had been involved in accidents. I believe the Minister said at that time:
I don't believe it. There may be an isolated case.
Now that the Minister has had a couple of days to reconsider the situation, I wonder if he would care to amend his statement to the House on this particular point. Is it still necessary for police departments on a reasonably regular basis to contact insurance agents in an effort to determine who owns an automobile or other motor vehicle?
Hon. Mr. Strachan: I have no further information to add to the statement I made the other day. I'm checking into it.
[ Page 4704 ]
RECOGNITION OF CLAIMS BY ICBC
Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): In view of the imminent departure of the Attorney-General, this concerns two tragedies involving two young men both critically injured.
One was a warehouseman, a third-year student. He suffered a broken back in an accident and he's lost the use of his arms and his legs — he's a quadriplegic. The other is a 20-year-old lad who broke his neck, also in a car accident. He's a paraplegic; he's without the use of his legs. Both of these boys are hospitalized.
They've both been denied recovery by the traffic victims indemnity fund which is under your jurisdiction, and also by ICBC.
I'd ask the Attorney-General, since he may not be in front of a question period again until the spring of next year: are you prepared to give your assurance today, before you take your trip to China, that you have an obligation to honour the claims of these boys and that you will nominate ICBC to do just that?
Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, even if the question is in order, apparently there is a claim of a civil nature. The people may or may not be entitled. They may be entitled as against the old fund, on which it is the contention of this government that the insurance companies reneged by not living up to their obligations. It may be a claim since the inception of ICBC. But I can't give a commitment that they have a claim, whether it's against the old fund by the private insurance companies or ICBC.
I'll be glad to take the matter under consideration, but no commitment. I can't suddenly act like a judge and give you an answer to legal problems and legal claims right here on the instant.
Mr. Gardom: Mr. Attorney-General, under the Act in question you have the responsibility to administer this aspect. If I would have the Attorney-General's attention….
You have the responsibility to administer this aspect of the statute, and under the Act you also have the opportunity to enter into financial arrangements with TVIF. I say that it's your moral and legal responsibility to see that these people — and roughly 125 other people — are protected.
Mr. Speaker: May I point out to the Hon. Members the provision in our rules that states, in effect, that the Member must not ask the solution of a legal proposition such as interpretation of a statute or a Minister's own powers and so on? In this case we have an answer from the Minister in any event.
Mr. Gardom: It's a pretty great moral responsibility, Mr. Speaker; surely you'll agree with that.
An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Speaker: I have to agree with the rules too.
BINDING CONTRACT ON HOSPITAL PATIENTS
Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer Services. Does her department condone the business practice whereby the Aberdeen Private Hospital in Victoria places itself in a position to receive double or triple payments for its services, by virtue of a binding 30-day contract which it imposes on its patients, regardless of the length of time they live?
Hon. P.F. Young (Minister Of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.
DETAILS OF MORTGAGE ON
MINISTER'S LAND HOLDING
Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): A question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. When the Minister filed under the public disclosure Act it showed that he is a third owner in lots 21, 22 and 23 of block 223, district lot 526, plan 590, in Vancouver. Due to the fact that his executive assistant holds the second mortgage on this property I would like to ask the Minister how he condones this glaring and blatant conflict of interest.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You're not asking the Hon. Minister with regard to some administrative or Ministerial responsibility, are you?
Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, it would appear to me that there could be favours derived to the Deputy from the Minister, where he holds an interest on a piece of property with this Member. It could be where the Deputy Minister has given the Minister special mortgage rates. It could become a criterion for receiving a job in the department. I think it certainly is within….
Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member knows that the statute itself requiring public disclosure is added to the public records which are available to all persons in the community to see in the Land Registry Office. So there's really no question on this matter of public disclosure that has bearing upon his capacity as a Minister in regard to his own administration and his department.
[ Page 4705 ]
An Hon. Member: Are you making an accusation?
Mr. Phillips: I'm not making an accusation. I'm asking the Minister a question. But you've brought up a very good point, Mr. Speaker, because on the public disclosures Act, which has to be a business property, my understanding of the Act is that you have to disclose all people you are indebted to.
Mr. Speaker: No, you're quite mistaken in that regard, because it does not require that in regard to certain property.
But in regard to business…. May I point out to the Hon. Member — he must be well aware — that there is public record in every record office in the Province of British Columbia setting out such arrangements to which he is referring. Therefore it's not a question of public disclosure. Also, it doesn't appear to be a question of Ministerial responsibility which is a basis for question period. I must therefore really say that the Hon. Member appears to be out of order.
MINING NEGOTIATIONS IN
OMINECA DISTRICT
Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Mines if he or any of his officers have approached and are negotiating with a mining property in the Omineca mining district with the intent of acquiring an option for cash payments and other considerations.
Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Gibson: Would the Minister undertake to make inquiries within his department and report back to the House?
Hon. Mr. Nimsick: I will take that as notice.
QUALIFICATIONS OF NEW
MINISTERIAL ASSISTANT
Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Member for Fort George, the Minister Without Portfolio.
In a recent edition of The Democrat….
An Hon. Member: Who? Who?
Mr. Smith: The Minister Without, from Fort George.
In a recent edition of The Democrat there is an article concerning the appointment of the Member for Fort George (Hon. Mr. Nunweiler), as a Minister Without Portfolio. I'd like to quote from that article. It says:
"Immediately after my appointment I've done the first important thing," says Nunweiler, "I've hired a first-rate executive assistant, Steve Wood, a young Prince George lawyer who was born and raised in the north. Steve's bright, a hard worker and an active party member."
Would the Minister indicate to the House which one of these three attributes he considered most important in making his decision?
Hon. A.A. Nunweiler (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, is that a question?
Mr. Speaker: May I point out that you're really not supposed to refer to and read articles from the newspaper? But I assume that in this case you're asking the Hon. Member if he made such a statement. And we're all interested in the answer.
Mr. Smith: A supplemental question if I might, then, Mr. Speaker. Since your appointment, Mr. Minister, how many executive assistants have you hired, what are their salaries and where are they located?
Hon. Mr. Nunweiler: It's a matter of record, Mr. Speaker. I will take it as notice.
PROVINCE-WIDE BREAST
CANCER DETECTION SYSTEM
MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, this is equally as serious a subject to the Hon. Minister of Health. In view of the fact that B.C. medical experts estimate that one out of every 15 women in British Columbia will develop breast cancer, and that British Columbia breast cancer detection methods are falling behind, and that the Minister's specially appointed cancer control agency was appointed to spring into action as modern developments allow in cancer detection and treatment, is the Minister prepared at this time to spring into action and bring into effect in British Columbia an effective and province-wide breast cancer detection system?
Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is a very serious question. It's a question that we're looking at very carefully at the present time. We have completely restructured the whole cancer service for the province, as the Member indicated, and, in the process, are bringing in people with great expertise in this area.
As the Member knows, there's a great deal of discussion now as to whether xerography should be used, or mammography, or a combination of both. As
[ Page 4706 ]
a matter of fact, there's even a question…. There's a New York study which has indicated that it's helpful — a five-year earlier detection. But there are also studies going on with thermography in Montreal.
Oddly enough, when I was out of the House on Tuesday of this week, I was meeting with the commission in Vancouver discussing the whole question. I've been asking women in the province whether or not this kind of approach would be supported. If we can get equipment and support and all the rest of it, yes, we're most interested and we'd like to go ahead with that kind of programme.
Mrs. Jordan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I accept the Minister's statements at this time, although I may have more to say later.
I would like to ask him, in view of the time that he's taking to come to a conclusion for the reasons he's given, whether he would undertake to accelerate the programme of teaching self-examination for breast cancer in the more remote areas of the province. It's much of a problem where people are even going to their doctors regularly. But where you are in the remote areas, they're not often even aware of this self-examination. I wonder if it couldn't be taught in conjunction with some of the mobile dental units or some of the other areas — the Red Cross outpost hospitals.
Hon. Mr. Cocke: Mr. Speaker, another good point. It's another reason for setting up our own B.C. cancer service. In the past we've relied upon others to do our work for us. We've just put our cancer agency together within the last few weeks and haven't even to this point appointed the administrator.
What we will be doing is providing, as an arm of that service, education all over the province. Public health nurses will be taught this process, teachers; anybody will have available the kind of an educational programme that's so absolutely necessary.
I think that the President's wife in the United States, and Mr. Rockefeller's wife, have really brought this whole question to public attention. I must say that in this government the cabinet has discussed the question. This government is very much aware and very much supportive of anything that can be done.
Orders of the day.
HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I move the house proceed to public bills and orders.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Adjourned debate on Bill 175.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)
(continued)
Mr. Speaker: I believe the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) was speaking and adjourned the debate.
MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): You're right, Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate. However, I adjourned debate at the suggestion indeed of the Hon. House Leader, Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. Dailly), who indicated to me that she might be thinking of bringing in some amendments.
I'm sure that if these amendments she's bringing in will reconcile Bill 175 with Bill 174, the bill we passed in haste yesterday and the bill where we rejected an amendment which would have brought these two bills together…. I wonder if the amendment which she has been considering will be brought forward. I trust, when she closes the debate on second reading, that she will indicate what it is.
I trust, again, it will not affect the principle of this particular bill, which when you struggle through the almost impossibly bad English of the section, indicates that people who have been left off the rolls, and who for one reason or another are unable to vote because they're not on the voters list, will be permitted to apply to vote despite the fact that they are not on the rolls.
Yesterday it was pointed out that the Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), Bill 174, would only apply in rural areas, and that people left off the municipal voters list would not be able to vote under the amendment that we were passing yesterday.
This particular bill, No. 175, the one we are discussing today would permit people, whether they reside inside or outside a municipality, to take advantage of the provisions of Bills 174 and 175 which allow a person to go and apply, despite the fact that they are not on the list itself. They can sign their name and then become a voter.
This is important, Mr. Speaker, and the principle is important because in at least one school district, I believe School District 28, about which we heard from the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser), where for some reason there was an advanced election last Saturday….
Interjection.
Mr. D.A. Anderson: On November 9. The election is already over and terminated, yet we see in this Act a provision in section 2 that it will become retroactive to November 1. In other words, if any person who wished to present themselves as a candidate perhaps, or a person who wished to vote, was denied that right last Saturday, they would be in
[ Page 4707 ]
a very curious position of being able to use this Act to go back and overturn the election in School District 28.
The other problem that arises is that people have presented themselves to the advanced polls, to vote in the advanced polls, in other school districts in the province and, of course, the people who are running those polls are running them on the existing legislation. This legislation, again, would be retroactive and you might well by this legislation give a cause of a claim to overturn the election, particularly in tight elections, on the grounds that this legislation, being retroactive, changed the voters list and made eligible to vote a number of people who previously and at the present time, indeed, are still barred.
So the principle is interesting, Mr. Speaker. The bill itself is interesting. I trust that when the Minister closes the debate she will clarify why there is this discrepancy between 174 and 175, that she will again give us some opinion or clarification as to what the retroactive effect of this legislation will be, whether indeed the election in School District 28 could be, or will be overturned as a result of this legislation, whether people who presented themselves for advanced polls in other school districts of the province, and who have been denied the right to vote because of the existing legislation, will somehow or other be able to recover their rights under the retroactive provisions of this legislation.
It appeared to me that the best thing we could do with this bill was to forget it. I realize this would result in some people being deprived a vote, who under this legislation will get it. But the number of legal problems that are presented in terms of overturning existing elections in School District 28, or elections elsewhere in the province under the current election, makes me think that this backup legislation with retroactive provisions to try to correct mistakes made earlier this year simply will not work. It might be more valuable simply to allow this Act to die and never to proclaim Bill 174 as well.
I propose these questions to the Minister because they are serious and practical problems. Will we have to have new elections for school boards some time in the near future simply because of the effect of the. retroactive provisions of this legislation, which would have uneven application under the elections that have already taken place and those that are currently taking place because the current election deals with the advanced poll? The problem, I'm sure, is recognized by her.
We've often passed legislation in this House…. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, an amendment was put forward by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to amend a bill he just brought in a short time ago. We are always putting in this type of correcting legislation.
Rather than to say all is well, as we've so often heard from the government side, and say all we have to do is pass a later piece of legislation and the problem will disappear, I'm sure it's incumbent upon the Minister to indicate what sort of problems we're going to get into if we pass this legislation, because I can see a good argument that could be made, in the light of the difficulties we face, in the light of the fact that this bill will have uneven application, that it should simply be forgotten.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member who just spoke: we did give the adjournment of the debate hoping that you would have time to check over the Act again, as we certainly did ourselves. I admit the wording in it perhaps is clumsy, yes. We will certainly try to ensure that our legislation is far more understandable in the future, particularly when we're dealing with this kind of legislation.
But, Mr. Member, I'd like to say that this Act is consistent with the Municipal Act. It states that it must apply to the amendment of the Municipal Act. The only reason that the reference is made in this particular bill to municipality and regional district is because, as you know, there are different phraseology and terms used in applying to school district regions. For instance, in Chilcotin, as the Hon. Member mentioned, it's not possible to entirely parallel the procedures as electors in some widespread rural areas of school districts — for example, Chilcotin — have expressed themselves, as you know, Mr. Member, a strong preference for retaining either the system of electing rural area representatives or election by annual meeting.
Legislative council selected the wording "in respect of a municipality or rural area, as the case may be," to fulfil the dual requirements indicated above.
What we have been attempting to do, as much as possible, is to ensure that when amendments are brought into the Municipal Act, the School Act will be as consistent as possible. I want to reiterate that this Act does specify; it says that it must apply to the Municipal Act. Therefore, this is completely in agreement with the principle espoused by the Minister of Municipal Affairs yesterday, in which it said that it would be extended only to rural areas, because, at the moment, since there is no provision at present in the Municipal Act giving the vote to persons not on the list of electors in municipalities, only the section of the bill referring to rural areas is operative.
Therefore, in our Act it states that we must be consistent with their Act; therefore that means it's operative only in rural areas. The term, "rural areas" had to be used instead of "regional districts" because,
[ Page 4708 ]
first of all, this is the term used in the Public Schools Act. Secondly, there is one rural area of a school district, the District of Atlin, which is not in a regional district. I realize this is a complicated procedure to explain and I regret that I did not give you that clarification myself at the beginning when I introduced the bill. I can assure you that I have double-checked on this Act and it is completely consistent with the Municipal Act and means the same exactly when it comes to those who will now be allowed to vote only in rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 175 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
Leave granted.
Bill 175, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)
The House in Committee on Bill 175; Mr. Dent in the chair.
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
Mr. D.A. Anderson: Section 2, Mr. Chairman, gives the retroactive provisions of this legislation. I wonder if I could pose a question to the Minister.
What happens if a person who presented himself to the advanced poll in one of the school districts, and was denied the right to vote because of the fact that the existing law governed at that particular time, and then presents himself, clutching this particular piece of paper, saying, "Look, I was entitled to vote. It's retroactive, and I have the right as of November 1."
Obviously, if he goes to the advance poll he can't vote on election day. If enough people did this in a tight election…. The Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), I believe, once had a very tight election — six votes or something, 15 votes.
Now, say 16 people turned up and said they had been denied the vote. Retroactively it would have been given to them and they were all going to vote against school trustee Nimsick. Would the election be overturned?
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I can't answer it. As you say, it is rather an "iffy" question. We're not sure if this is actually going to happen. But I can assure the Hon. Member that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and I, since his Act will also apply to the same problem, will be getting together to watch this closely. If these things happen, then of course, we will have to ensure that the proper procedures take place.
But I really can't say anything else at this time until we see what develops from it.
Section 2 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Bill 175, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No, 2), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 170.
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974
(continued)
Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few brief moments to conclude my remarks on this bill. I must say, in concluding, that it is unfortunate but true that we have moved no closer to a solution to the assessment and taxation mess created by this government in this province.
Once again, we see that this government through its legislation is taking the people of British Columbia into a situation where we are backtracking into the future.
Let me recall for this House what the Premier and Minister of Finance said about Bill 71 on April 6 of last year, when he called that bill
…a method of patching up the catch-up for the time being.
If that was his thinking then, what does he think Bill 170 is? Does he think it is a Band-aid for the patch-up of a catch-up?
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that prior to that the Premier and the Minister
of Finance told the Legislature that British Columbia was then on the verge
of a whole range of tax restructuring. Here it is, two years later, and we are
still on the verge. One
[ Page 4709 ]
might even be presumptuous and suggest that the Premier and Minister of Finance is suffering a chronic case of vergitis.
The Premier made a well-intentioned promise then, I'm sure, that he was not going to handle the restructuring of taxes and assessments on a crisis-by-crisis basis. But I would ask you what could be more of a crisis than to have to call this House, this Legislature, these 55 Members, and all the attendants and attending staff into session simply to come up with a Band-aid to patch up the catch-up.
The people of this province who pay property taxes are simply not going to accept the attitude of this government to shoot first and ask questions later. In the previous debate on the Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No, 2), we've just seen yet another example of the government shooting first and acting later. And then, as now in this bill, the Minister couldn't answer the question. The people of British Columbia are left in limbo in that bill, as they are in this bill. This government is legislating from crisis to crisis on this bill and on all of its legislation, just as the Premier and Minister of Finance said he wouldn't.
At this point in time it is unfortunate that we have no other alternative. The assessment formula in British Columbia will continue to remain an inequitable burden on many. It will continue to be disadvantageous to communities with slow growth and will favour communities with a better than average growth.
During the course of this debate we have learned absolutely nothing from the government about what concrete plans it has to come up with a solution for 1976. Our party has solutions, Mr. Speaker, and I would urge this House to give their full attention to the positive solution that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition (Mr. Bennett) will advance today in this debate.
Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): When this session was called it was called primarily to establish a new taxation structure in the province to co-ordinate the companion legislation which was passed in the spring.
Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, I wonder if the Hon. Member will be speaking louder soon, so that we can get his words on Hansard? (Laughter.)
Mr. Chabot: Well, Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we have microphones in this assembly is so that those with low voices can be heard. I'll try to speak as closely as I possibly can to the mike.
Interjections.
Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, would you ask that Member who is going to China tomorrow morning to withdraw that statement?
Mr. SPEAKER: Would you kindly withdraw that statement?
Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, what statement?
Mr. Speaker: I'm not sure because I was listening to the Hon. Member. But if it was in any sense unparliamentary I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw it.
Hon. Mr. Cocke: If it was in any sense unparliamentary, yes.
Mr. Chabot: Well, I know on occasion, Mr. Speaker, you have reprimanded Members for using the word which the Minister used.
Interjections.
Mr. Chabot: That Premier's willing to go back to those days, and the people will be pretty soon too, Mr. Speaker…
Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're all wrong.
Mr. Chabot:…because they're fed up with the fumbling, bumbling government and Minister of Finance that doesn't know where he's going in this province. I'll never understand why an Assessment Act would be introduced in the spring session without having the vision or the ability to establish a tax bill that will go along as a companion to that Assessment Act. It's quite obvious that we have in this province, Mr. Speaker, a government that is unfit — unfit to legislate, unfit to rule.
Mr. Speaker, the government did make some changes regarding assessments. They introduced Bill 71, probably one of the most inflationary pieces of legislation to be introduced by that government, because it increased taxes to small businesses throughout this province which, in turn, in most instances, were passed on to the consumer in this province — very inflationary measures. A very vicious piece of legislation as well, Mr. Speaker, vicious against the small businessmen of this province.
Mr. Speaker: Is the Hon. Member referring to some Act that was passed by this House?
Mr. Chabot: No. I'm discussing the whole gamut of taxation and assessments…
Mr. Speaker: I am sure the Hon. Member….
Mr. Chabot:…being pursued by that
[ Page 4710 ]
government over there.
Mr. Speaker: I just draw that to your attention, that it's not parliamentary to describe legislation passed by this House in such florid terms.
Mr. Chabot: Well, Mr. Speaker, I won't describe it as a vicious piece of legislation…
Mr. Speaker: Well, you're not really supposed to do that, as you know.
Mr. Chabot:…but I will say that it was a vicious attack against the small businessman of this province by that government, without any doubt.
In the years that I've been a Member of this House, Mr. Speaker, there's not been any other piece of legislation which has produced the kind of outcry generated by the introduction of Bill 71, which tampered with assessments in this province….
Hon. Mr. Cocke: Let's hear about Bill 33. How can you say that? How can you say that?
Mr. Chabot: Mr. Speaker, that Minister wants me to talk about Bill 33 but, unfortunately, under the provisions of Bill 170, it's not possible for me to answer that Minister.
Mr. Speaker: I'm sure you wouldn't stray anyway. (Laughter.)
Mr. Chabot: You know full well, Mr. Speaker, that I attempt, as best I can, to abide by the rules of this House, to speak to the principle of legislation and, when we're in estimates, to examine the management or lack of management of departments by Ministers. But what I'm talking about now is the assessment structure in this province. I'm talking about the outcry that was generated by the introduction, the changes to the Assessment Act, by Bill 71.
Do you know that in my constituency, one which normally has between 70 and 80 appeals on assessment, last year there were 697 appeals — a ten-fold increase in appeals against assessments? It's quite obvious that people not only in my constituency are concerned about the actions of this government, but throughout the province, because it has seriously affected many of the small businesses throughout this province by the unbelievable increases in assessment — percentage increases, that is — anywhere from 200 per cent to 1,000 per cent increases against small businesses — small businesses that in many instances are seasonal in nature, are tourist oriented, and find it difficult to absorb these unbelievable increases in taxes which were imposed by an insensitive government.
There's no doubt in my mind that the introduction of that legislation — Bill 71 — was intended to get revenge against the business community of this province in that it has had a very detrimental effect to those marginal, to those seasonal businesses in this province that in many instances are unable to pass on the type of increases in taxation generated by the new assessment structure.
I have received a great deal of correspondence, Mr. Speaker, regarding this very subject — more on this subject than any other issue in the 12 years I've been a Member of this House. One that I've brought out — just one, Mr. Speaker; I don't intend going through my entire file — but one which really concerned me was the small struggling curling club that has almost been forced to close its doors because of the tremendous increase in assessments.
An Hon. Member: Where's that?
Mr. Chabot: In Invermere. There's an increase on land from $1,210 to $10,250, and on improvements from $6,000 to $16,990 — very massive increases which really can't be met.
It's been necessary….
Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Tell us some more about the small curling club. Come on, tell us some more.
Mr. Chabot: I suggested to the curling club, which finds itself in this financial difficulty, who is facing closure, to approach the government to buy them out. You know, the government is very prone to buy out businesses in this province, and land, at inflated prices, housing projects at inflated prices. I suggested that they approach the government, because the government's in a buying mood, to help them out of their financial predicament created by Bill 71, by that government over there who's out to ruin the small businessman in this province.
Mr. Cummings: Tell us about the small curling club. Tell us some more about that.
Mr. Chabot: Well, the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain wants to hear more, and I'll read a copy of this letter addressed to the Minister of Finance re 1974 assessment notices.
"Dear Sirs: Speaking on behalf of the Invermere District Curling Club, we are, to say the least, thunderstruck and speechless as to why the assessment on this curling club is so outrageous.
"This is a community recreational facility and a non-profit organization. Further, we would like to point out that this is the only
[ Page 4711 ]
curling rink north of Kimberley that is operating in the East Kootenays.
"Taxation based on these assessments will force the closure of this community recreational facility."
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Is it a non-profit facility?
Mr. Chabot: Yes. Yes, it is non-profit.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: They can apply for exemption from the municipality. Have you advised them of that, as an MLA?
Mr. Chabot: Yes, I advised them to speak to the municipality, and I advised them to talk to the government too. Maybe they'd take a financial interest in it as well…
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Good. Good. I'm glad you told them that.
Mr. Chabot:…because your government caused their problem. Your government caused their problem.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: And you helped them with the municipality.
Mr. Chabot: Absolutely. I suggested they approach the municipality and the Minister of Finance.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's good, I'm glad you did.
Mr. Chabot: I wonder what kind of response, Mr. Speaker, they received from that insensitive government over there. Was the government willing to help a small non-profit organization in one of the small communities of this province?
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, they are. Do you want any help?
Mr. Chabot: There's been no indication to date that the government was willing to help, and I will send the letter….
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did you write me?
Mr. Chabot: The Minister of Finance appears very touchy on this subject, Mr. Speaker, and I will provide him with a copy of the correspondence that was sent to him.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did you write me?
Mr. Chabot: Yes, I did.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Good.
Mr. Chabot: I've had substantial correspondence with your office, answers sometimes from you, sometimes from John Wood, and dating back to last October. I've been expressing the concern expressed to me by the small businessmen, not only within my constituency, but throughout this province as well.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did you write me about the curling club?
Mr. Chabot: Did I write you specifically about the curling rink? I wrote to you about each and every case, about the problems confronting the small businessmen….
Hon. Mr. Barrett: This one, too.
Mr. Chabot: I have just a copy of the letter that was sent to you here. I can't tell you offhand. I wrote you so many letters on assessment that it's difficult; but the Premier stands in this House and talks about Bill 71 being primarily designed to generate more taxation from the pulp mills that have been given sweetheart agreements on taxes in this province.
Interjections.
Mr. Chabot: He knows full well that Bill 71 did no such thing. He knows full well that it was by order-in-council that these so-called tax concessions, the exemptions from the receipt of certain services which are not available to these large corporations in the province, were municipal arrangements that were, in many instances, endorsed by the change of letters patent right in this Legislature.
In fact, some of the examples quoted by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) yesterday were changes in letters patent which were ratified by the Legislature of which the Minister of Finance was a Member, which the Minister of Finance never challenged while he sat in opposition, but is willing to challenge now, and suggest that Bill 71 would rectify what he calls an "inequity" as far as taxation is concerned. He knows full well that Bill 71 had nothing to do with these arrangements from the municipalities.
I wonder what kind of communication the government has had with UBCM on the introduction of the Assessment Act in the spring. Has there been open communication with municipalities, be they large, be they small, or with the parent body, the UBCM? This government has stood on many platforms throughout this province and suggested it
[ Page 4712 ]
was going to be open, that it was going to be a government that would communicate. Has there been that communication? I doubt it very much.
I hope when the Minister of Finance stands in his place and closes the debate that he'll tell us whether there has been open and frank discussions with the municipalities that are so drastically affected by this legislation.
When I look at this amendment that we're debating now, I can't help but think of the Premier and his many tours of the Province of British Columbia, telling the people that the opposition supports most of the legislation. Oh, they support most of the legislation — most of the legislation is housekeeping legislation such as this legislation. It's bumbling legislation correcting shortcomings of that government over there. And we want to assist the government in correcting its mistakes on behalf of orderly government in this province.
No, Mr. Speaker, it's quite obvious by this piece of legislation — and not only this piece, but a tremendous amount of the legislation introduced by that government — that this is a government that moves before it thinks.
If this government was unable to establish a new tax structure for the year 1975, why proceed with the Assessment Act in the spring? They are companion legislation; they go together. Why introduce one unless you're going to introduce the other?
Bill 170 is the action of a fumbling, bumbling, incompetent government — a fumbling, bumbling, incompetent Minister of Finance as well.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 170 is two steps backwards.
Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of The Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this bill I must offer some comment of the remarks of the Premier as to where the burden of property tax has fallen in this province.
I might point out that studies by Professor Stanley Hamilton, who gave testimony to the travelling committee, indicate that assessment procedures coupled with the homeowner grant reduced the school tax portion to homeowners to under 8 per cent of the tax payable in this province, and that commercial and industrial property has paid over 92 per cent of the school taxes in this province.
Now, this was considered equitable because commercial and industrial has always had the opportunity to deduct their taxes paid on this level from their federal income tax.
Controls on assessment were brought in to protect the homeowner, and the assessment commissioner, in direct contradiction to statements by the Minister of Finance, was quite specific when he said: "Industrial and commercial properties during these years did keep pace with market values."
It should also be remembered as well that despite the limitations imposed, municipalities then, as now, were free to seek approval from the assessment commissioner for reassessing areas and properties which were clearly out of line. I point this out only to clear up statements that have been made in this House by the Minister.
It is significant that the number of appeals as to property taxation and assessment accelerated in 1974 as a result of this government's initial tinkering with the system. In his usual show of panic then, when confronted with the protests of the people, the Premier, instead of facing the real issue, hastily devised an Act we passed earlier this year — the Real Property Tax Deferment Act — so that thousands of homeowners who were hurt through overtaxation caused by the government policies could mortgage their homes gradually to the province at 8 per cent interest.
That was no answer to the inequities of overtaxation to these people.
An Hon. Member: It sure wasn't.
Mr. Bennett: And we in the official opposition said so.
In opposing that Band-aid legislative cover-up, Mr. Speaker, we said that the people in need in B.C., who were being overtaxed, didn't want to mortgage their homes, but needed financial relief. We proposed then, and still do, a basic exemption — an exemption for those almost 100,000 people, the elderly, the handicapped and the widows of this province, to save them harmless from overtaxation — a programme that would cost under $30 million in this province.
These people, by not falling for this tax deferment, have substantiated our argument because to date, a little more than 1,400 taxpayers out of a total property tax load of 800,000 parcels have applied for this government mortgage — just 1,400 out of 800,000 tax parcels. This substantially proves that the people do not want to mortgage their land to pay for overtaxation with government loans; they want tax incentives; they want a basic exemption. Where these people still live in those homes, this should be a commitment of government.
We in this party voted for assessment equalization, and we still support that principle. Assessment of all property in B.C. at value is a logical step at this time. Resultant taxing procedures based on concern for homeowners and farmland and other areas would recognize our wish to save them from excessive taxation.
However, in this modern, urban world the property tax itself must be questioned as the major source of revenue for municipalities. The property tax, Mr. Speaker, has been badly hit by inflationary pressures. What we need in this province is a complete overhaul of revenue accruing to municipalities,
[ Page 4713 ]
provincial governments and federal governments.
Studies done in Ontario show the growing disparity between property tax as a source of revenue…and in view of the growing and costly responsibility of municipal government.
For example, over a 20-year period municipal expenditure in gross dollar terms has increased by over 800 per cent. The property tax base, you know, has not kept pace because in gross dollar terms, municipal property taxation has risen only 500 per cent. For 20 years then, locally-raised revenue has risen at a rate of around 4 to 5 per cent, while spending has risen over 11 per cent. It's obvious to those of us on this side of the House that tinkering with the tax system is not the answer.
The growth of taxation revenues from both the provincial and federal governments must be passed through to local government. Urban problems of transportation, services, pollution abatement and housing cannot be solved with property tax.
We in this party advocate that revenues from income tax, corporation tax and resource revenue should be shared with the municipalities on an indexing system which would transfer to the municipalities on a growth basis payments which would reflect the growth in provincial revenue from these three tax sources.
And furthermore, the provinces should enter in immediate negotiations with the federal government for providing for the transfer of one point of the federal take from income and corporate taxes directly to the municipalities on a 100 per cent transfer basis. This transfer would take place over a five-year period, and the projected federal revenue available by 1980 over this five-year period would be approximately $800 million for all municipalities in Canada.
Federal revenues are growing at a rate of 15 per cent a year; provincial revenues — and this is the national average, not the British Columbia rate — have grown between 10 and 11 per cent. The biggest increase, logically, must come from the federal government, but the provinces must make sure they pass along their share.
In prosperous British Columbia our growth rate is 25 per cent, not the 10 or 11 that is the national average. Yet through per capita grants we've passed on to municipalities less than 5 per cent of this revenue.
Mr. Speaker, that would indicate that these areas and this type of government cannot finance all property tax; they must participate in those growth revenues that are available to the senior governments in this country.
This programme and this policy is the way out of the financial problems of our cities. It's realistic; and I believe it's necessary. We of this party advocate revenue sharing as part of our programme of a new bill of rights for municipalities in this province and in Canada.
This government bill before us looks backward, as does most of the legislation presented by this government. It will be an administrative nightmare for the municipalities. The appeals will be numerous and difficult to administer. Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill.
Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): Let's get a few things right, Mr. Speaker. Under the times before Bill 71, an average of 80 per cent of the vacant land in the rural areas of this province paid less than $100 taxes, regardless of their size. After the change in the assessment on vacant land, with Bill 71, about 45 per cent still had taxes less than $100. Obviously, this has meant a shift in the tax burden, and a saving to residential land and to farms. But this government is aware of the number of homes and farms. We are aware that for many years under Social Credit, speculators and some businesses were subsidized at the expense of the homeowner and the farm.
We are aware, as a government, that the homeowners and the farms are two-thirds of the folios, or 550,000, of the taxable properties in this province. There are a total of 831 folios. We are further aware that the vacant lands, of less than 2 acres, comprise about 13 per cent of these totals, or 107,000 parcels.
It shouldn't be surprising to anybody in this House that a government concerned about the welfare of the majority of people, the greatest good for the greatest number, is going to automatically think of the tax burden and the equity of the tax burden on all people, but especially the residential and the farm.
This is an extremely complicated subject, Mr. Speaker, and I don't pretend to be any expert. I came enthusiastically to nearly a month of meetings and seminars with the municipal matters committee. I found it very helpful to listen to other Members who had a great deal more experience than I did, and to learn.
I think it should be noted that the Members of the House in Ontario saw it as an equally complex matter. It should be noted that a much more elaborate study was made by the Members and by experts in Ontario. Would you believe they spent over 4 years, Mr. Speaker? Would you believe that in 1973 they introduced legislation, and guess what happened to that legislation? It was deferred. They have made no, to my knowledge, major moves, despite a much more exhaustive study than we spent. And you must understand, Mr. Speaker, that we spent less than 30 sitting days in studying this matter. We only started on September 17 in a formal way.
Would you believe that any major assessment and taxation moves in Ontario have been deferred until 1977? So this House is asking us to move, I think, with alarming speed into the cold, chilly and often
[ Page 4714 ]
very uncertain waters of assessment, and, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) quite rightly said a couple of days ago, really into the matter of taxation.
I note that many people have real anxieties in life. Many people say that the two anxieties that are inevitable are the anxiety of paying one's taxes — I gather that's property taxation especially — and also of death. I appreciate that anxiety, and don't want to minimize it, but it should be noted, that the real property taxation is a relatively small part of one's costs — would you believe 4.5 per cent of the total gross national product of this country? It has been said that it is a relatively small part, in fact we're told that it's the lowest — the real property taxes in B.C. are the lowest in the country.
There was a lot of confusion about the kind of value that taxation meant to those people, and what the assessments would mean to the people. It should be pointed out that part of the debate, and, I think, part of the very necessary exercise of the House committee, was to point out to people just what value they were getting for their property taxation. It was important to somehow help them see the relationship between taxes and those services.
Mr. Speaker, many people weren't aware of the kind of services to people — and we could list those, they are very many — and also, of course, the services to land. In my case, unique services such as services of dikes, and certainly services of providing water and streets and sewers and fire protection.
But that's not really the point of this debate. We can discuss that at another time. I think it is important to emphasize in this debate the confusion in the minds of many people, in many elected people, even their parent organization, the UBCM. A lot of things that need to be cleared up — a lot of relationships that certainly haven't been clarified to me between the tax burden and the various income levels of people. This has never been clear and I think it could become clear.
I notice Mr. Hamilton, as referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, who made a very helpful brief, but again, as an expert, as a professor at the University of British Columbia, he was not in his mind clear of that kind of relationship.
Many of the anomalies about taxation…. The fact that many people still feel that taxation is some kind of a tax on wealth. There are so many other forms of wealth that real property taxation is only one of many, many forms of taxing wealth. Therefore, we need to look at that.
I'm glad that in this legislation we are asking for — and in the brief presented to the House by the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) — as chairman, the commission must study these aspects, these anomalies.
Many people in the province, I think, can benefit from this kind of a study. It's curious to me, Mr. Speaker, that in many ridings there are what we call electoral areas where the assessments are very low, where the tax rate is especially low — it's usually at 10 mills — where the services often are much higher, where there's no real equity between the kind of services and the relative assessment and taxation, where people living on the fringe of an organized area benefit a great deal from library and recreation and parks and special programmes. So that must be looked at when we look at the whole business of equity and taxation.
I think it's important to appreciate that in the last three years there's been a phenomenal appreciation in land values. There has been great discussion about the imbalance in appreciation on residential and on vacant land. It shouldn't be a surprise that assessments are higher on those, and that assessments are especially high on vacant lands.
It was pointed out by many people who came to our committee that we didn't create the value in that vacant land — nobody in this House can claim the value.
I have a difficulty listening to people who say that because they have done a lot of preparatory work, they've gone to various hearings, and they've done some studies to improve their land, and sometimes they get their land zoned upward, that is their creation and therefore they should accrue that benefit. I really have a difficulty with seeing that they should accrue. I, incidentally, might appeal to this House — I'm not quite satisfied with the legislation as it now is. I feel that there still is a loophole in this legislation regarding appreciation in value. We heard the Mayor of Vancouver — I read the paper yesterday — anxious about the fact that the CPR might be getting away with a remarkable appreciation in their value, and that the City of Vancouver might be short $0.5 million. I'm sure we could echo that many other times.
I would like to believe that we could be more precise on what we mean by improvement, that any zoning changes must see a higher assessment. If a city, village or municipality must benefit from that appreciation, I want to be convinced that either by regulation or by maybe some future amendments that that is hammered out very clearly, because I am apprehensive.
My main concern to this House is that we be careful, that those of us who are new, it's understandable, need to have time to look at the new roll, which incidentally, Mr. Speaker, does not exist yet. The new roll, the 100 per cent, the pure roll which everybody lauds has not been seen. I'm told it won't be ready until January. We need to look at that; we need to study that. The Members and the committee, I think, all said we need to do computer studies, we need to hypothesize on various ways of
[ Page 4715 ]
looking at that.
Mr. Moore gave us, I thought, a very helpful hypothesis, Members have referred to the T and K formula, which probably doesn't mean a thing to other Members. It was a helpful exercise. I'm new at this game, but the T formula is the index or the class, the various classes of taxable property, various types of property — thinking of residential, multi-farming, commercial, farm acreage, industrial.
We had a great discussion about assessments on machinery, a great discussion about assessments on utilities including B.C. Hydro and any other Crown corporation. Many of us believe that the day must come when they must be assessed and there must be taxation, if we are to speak of equity on all assessable properties.
Again, maybe it's fair to say that there should be assessments on everything — including churches, including universities, including schools — so that at least the municipalities have some knowledge of what that exemption is costing them. That's fair. I've said before, as have other speakers in speeches in the Anglican Church and the United Church nationally expected, that the day is coming when at least, they'll be totally assessed, if not totally taxed.
Interjection.
Mr. Rolston: Well, they are assessed. But my experience is that I don't think the community is aware of what that assessment is actually costing them. I think that is necessary.
There is a real concern, of course, when we talk about assessments and a sudden shift, a sudden shift in this case with the pure assessment, which we have not seen and which we have not studied. Therefore we're not sure what that shift is going to look like, how hard it will hit the small commercial establishment, the residential.
I think the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) has said we're especially anxious as to how hard it will hit the older residents, on whom presumably the assessments are quite out of date. So there's a lot of confusion and, quite frankly, I think it warrants further study. In the case of Ontario, it warrants deferring any major legislative changes there until 1977, and I suspect that they have a more elaborate investigating system than we have. It certainly would be rather foolish for us to rush into cold water now.
I found a great deal of confusion, Mr. Speaker, regarding the assessments on farms, a lot of confusion about just what a farm is, what a bona fide farm is. I'm quite aware that the Municipal Act makes reference to intensity of use, but that didn't seem to be adequate. In this discussion hopefully other Members will do some worrying, some thinking, and in a year or so we'll come up with more helpful amendments to the Municipal and Taxation Acts regarding those definitions, so we can look at exemptions in that sense.
I think that there has to be a great deal of caution in biting the bullet without killing ourselves. We don't want to become just heroes. There's been a great deal of confusion for 20 years. If you read The Vancouver Sun of January 16, 1971, the previous Premier was chastised very heavily by the association of assessors for his even moving from a 5 per cent to a 10 per cent equalization mechanism.
I think it's essential, Mr. Speaker, that we look at mechanisms, that we look at models, that we hypothesize, that we do a lot more intensive study.
I think there's a need that we maintain the burden of taxation as it presently is, per class, and many Members agree that that should happen. There might be some shift, Mr. Speaker, within that class, within residential, commercial or vacant. I'm asking that the Minister of Finance make sure that…. Presumably, if there are improvements in an area, there could be a shift in those various classes because of those improvements. We are told, you know, that there still is a lot of building going on, so presumably there will be an increased assessment because of that.
I would be anxious at this time, still as very much a greenhorn, about making great assessment changes between classes. I would be very apprehensive about that.
So we're leaving the assessments the same for 1975 as they are this year. It is important for us to factor these up. Many people have quoted the assessment commissioner, who said that at least it's better to live with an imperfect assessment roll, like this year's roll, that has, after all, 20 years behind it, than to plunge into the untried, the unworked out, the even unseen pure assessment roll that the assessment authority has been working on. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that in the new year we'll be asked to continue to work on and to do that work.
In closing, death and taxes are great anxieties. They are things in which a great deal of humility is required. I believe that with humility the Members will stand and support this legislation. They don't give up. We're not going to regress, Mr. Speaker, because ultimately we want the pure assessment; we want to develop a model that will bring equity with the assessment. Everybody wants that, but at this time we simply hold the line.
I could quote a letter from Mr. Holmes, who has been senior assessor in Matsqui and is now a well-known consultant in the Fraser Valley. He says that the simplest and most effective way to overcome the taxation problems of this year, or at least for the new year, 1975, would be for the government to freeze taxes and assessments at the 1974 level — certainly allowing for construction and changes and obvious physical improvements. But this will give us the chance to do the homework, to look then at the
[ Page 4716 ]
new roll so that we are ready to launch into the future boldly and with justice.
So I ask your support. For me it was a very useful month studying this. It's only the beginning; I know that at the end of the tunnel we'll come out, we'll see daylight, we'll see equity. Thanks.
Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have no wish to recycle the learned comments that have been made in this debate so far, and I support fully the position of my party. I want simply to make a representation to the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the president of the B.C. Railway — all the one person — that the B.C. Railway start paying taxes to the City and District of North Vancouver, please, Mr. Premier, in excess of $ 100,000 per year.
Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that I would have some positive input into the debate. I regret that there has been very little of that to date. Unfortunately, I have to close with comments that are essentially negative and somewhat political in orientation from the official opposition.
I was amused by the convolutions, if I may use the word, of the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), who was forced somewhat embarrassingly to alter position because of a certain political decision he made. It is with interest that one is able to read past statements attacking the party that he now belongs to and find that within a matter of weeks — or months, I should say — after having made those statements, he found that he was wrong in the original premise, or in his campaign speeches about taxation, and finds himself now aligned with a group that did indeed, as he described it, leave a mess.
It's a well-known fact that there was direct political intervention in the assessment authority. It's a well-known fact that at no time did the Members who are left with the Social Credit group ever stand up in the House and make any criticism of that — not to my recollection.
I must congratulate the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), a member of that committee, who has sat through over 90 per cent of the second reading debate of this bill. I regret the absence of the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). I'm sure he has urgent business today. But that Member sat through it all, sat through the House before, disagrees with the government, did suggest some alternate proposals. That's the role of opposition. But I didn't see that from the Social Credit group. I tell you that the kind of emotional, somewhat screaming statements made by the Members leaves me somewhat confused.
I have to spend a few moments on the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), and I regret having to bring up this particular situation. But it is true that one of the most glaring examples of tax inequity was a certain piece of farmland that was assessed just outside the city boundaries as agricultural land, and for years was under assessed. The City of Kelowna. It was Kelowna, Mr. Speaker, and the particular land in question assessed as agricultural land right on the border of the city belonged to none other than the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett).
It was a shocking case to the point that even the Victoria Colonist, which is not a notorious socialist newspaper, for those who may not have divined that at this point, wrote a particularly vicious article attacking the former Premier for allowing that situation to remain.
Now I didn't recall that being raised as an example of what Bill 71 was about. As a matter of fact, I want to say that the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) who is here because of a lightly landed blow to the body of an unfortunate woman candidate…. As a consequence of that lightly landed blow, the Member is here.
He is here to inform us that, in reading through the past debate, not one Member of that group, when Bill 71 went through the House, except his colleague for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), and he was inquiring whether or not it would be retroactive for 1972.
Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Premier, I'm sure you didn't mean to in any way suggest to those who don't know that you are now referring to the Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)….
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, I'm sorry. No, Mr. Speaker, he didn't even make a hit with the voters. That Member is in by accident. The blow was struck by the former Member of this House, Mr. Waldo Skillings, an internationally famous bridge player, who lost his temper during an election campaign and attempted to punch out a lady candidate.
An Hon. Member: That's a low blow.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: A low blow? I don't think that was it at all, Mr. Member, but certainly a blow of some description was struck. As a result it was a field blow to him but a lucky blow for you.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Members don't wish to go into the past, Mr. Speaker? They are the ones who at second reading constantly referred to Bill 71 and the past situation. They must take what they are prepared to give. They must be prepared to do that. Now, I am discussing Bill 71 in the same context that the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson)
[ Page 4717 ]
did. I have an obligation to reply to him and tell him that his reading of Hansard which he put on his desk, is one that I must agree with.
It is a matter of record that not one voice and not one word was said about that unfortunate incident in Kelowna where there was a glaring example of what the tax inequities had allowed to pertain in this province. Shocking!
The former Premier of this province (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) — it is a matter of record — did not pay a fair share of taxation, not deliberately but because of his own taxation policy, classifying his property as agricultural land bordering the city of Kelowna. Other homeowners in Kelowna had to pay a higher share of taxes because of that. That situation was not unique to Kelowna; that was going on throughout the whole Province of British Columbia.
An Hon. Member: Is that the shopping centre?
Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, that's not the shopping centre. They were growing grass that a couple of horses ate, Mr. Member, and that became agriculture property. The taxpayers of British Columbia had to define which particular part of the anatomy that we were being taken for when those taxation policies were being described.
Now, we did, of course, move on Bill 71. We did of course, have a non-debate from the official opposition. As a matter of fact, today that non-debate continued. That miss-and-run Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) was at it again today, reading gobbledegook speeches that we can no longer attribute to Don Campbell but to some poor other unfortunate who now must take the place of that vacuum in that party's stand.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: What is the situation? Well, it is impossible to fill a vacuum but there are enough volunteers apparently. (Laughter.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, I've got to draw to your attention some specific examples. It is true that the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) wrote on a number of instances. What the Member failed to tell the House is that there is a method whereby any non-profit organization can go to a municipality and ask for relief from taxes. As a matter of fact, some of them have been successful.
I recently heard a programme on CBC television about the White Rock Players and their problem in terms of increased assessment because of Bill 71, their successful appeal to the government for a little comfort and relief, and their successful appeal to the municipal council for a little comfort and relief. But they wanted more help. That's understandable.
Non-profit groups were looked after in the legislation. It is the duty of every single MLA to ensure that non-profit groups are given the exact information that is available. The local council should be in a position to make a decision as to whether or not they are a non-profit group; it shouldn't be big government here in Victoria that makes that decision. Surely we are not opposed to the principle of subsidiarity in allowing the local levels to make those decisions.
I don't believe that there would be any MLA who would come to this House and who would be so political as to not give a helping hand to those organizations and avail them of the relief that exists through the legislation. And I don't want any MLA accused of somehow forgetting that information to leave the impression that the government was being hard on those non-profit organizations. I would viciously attack any MLA who would make such a suggestion. I know that every MLA would consciously go to his municipal council and say, "Here, Mr. Councillor, do not be chagrined over the increase in taxes to a non-profit group because the government has provided a law to say that they can receive some comfort." I know every responsible MLA would do that.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: You think I'm wrong? Do you think that I am still naive after 14 years in public life? Oh! Do you believe that there would be an MLA who wouldn't go out of his way to tell a council about that access to relief? I don't believe it. You're too new, Mr. Member. All you've seen is one of the former ones punch somebody out. But they are not all that bad, Mr. Member. They are not all that bad.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: You didn't see it. You weren't a witness, but you were a beneficiary. (Laughter.)
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, just a photographer. Was it a male or female photographer?
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Was he going up the escalator or down? (Laughter.)
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, it was on the slant. He was on the square.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, just in case there are some
[ Page 4718 ]
MLAs who are unaware, I suggest they read the Municipal Act, chapter 255, and they will see very clearly under section 328 exactly what the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) appealed for. It is available under statutes in this province. So I know he would not want to leave any impression with the House that that relief wasn't there.
Now, there is some talk about the small businessmen. For those of you who will refer to Hansard, you will see that I indeed said that there were going to be anomalies. Once we took the lid off those two categories…. And remember that 65 per cent or more of the tax folios are on private housing which we did not touch through Bill 71. I said there would be anomalies because of the situation that we inherited because of direct political tinkering with the tax system.
We thought, somewhat naively, that we would be able to clean up the mess a lot more quickly than we were able to. With the enthusiasm of the new government we went charging in and said these situations must end — situations like land being classified as agricultural land right next door to a city, and others.
So we went ahead with Bill 71. We found situations where some of the small businesses that the Member talks about, crying for those small businessmen, indeed is valid. We found cases where people were property-rich but income-poor and that the use they were putting it to for the income they were getting from it. In that category are the Mom and Pop hotels and motels — the kind of pioneering motel or hotel that is owned by individual families. They pioneered them and developed them. In that case they are quite right.
But in other instances some of the motels were in chains. One of the chains is known as….
Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Sandman?
Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's it. Yes, that's a chain, a chain that was so fortuitous as to be able to find locations very close to highways. If I may borrow a word from the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson), that was a curious fact in itself. Four or five were located at these fortuitous sitings. I think it was done by a divining rod. (Laughter.) Considering the particular talents of the former Minister of Highways (Mr. Gaglardi), perhaps that's the most appropriate description: a motel divining rod. It was eminently successful.
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: What, as a driver or as a diviner?
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Here's one. Here's a motel in South Okanagan that has a current market value of $250,000. It was assessed in 1973 at $63,000. Its assessment in 1974 went to $91,000. Its taxes in 1973 were $3,126, and in 1974 went up by a little over $1,000 to $4,397. It went up a little more than $1,000.
This particular motel owner phoned me. I enjoy talking to people and writing letters to them. He was very angry about the increase in his taxes.
And I said, "But, sir, you have not been paying a fair share of taxes for years."
And he said, "Well, why are you hitting me all at once?"
I said, "Well, would you like to pay some money back gradually which you should have been paying years ago?"
No answer.
I said, "Your property is assessed at $250,000."
He said, "That's an inflated price."
I said, "Well, will you sell it to the government for $200,000?"
No answer.
People must learn to pay their fair share of taxes. Even if it is unpopular, you cannot go on playing jiggery-poker with a tax system that has been messed up for over 10 years by that former administration. We're trying to resolve it, and yet we can't find a simple way to resolve it overnight.
Now we have this legislation in front of us but there is no way that anyone can justify going back to that old system. How could you?
Mr. McClelland: Are you voting against the bill?
Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, I'm telling you….
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: We have made the one major step through Bill 71. We reached some level of equalization through Bill 71, but there is no way that we are in any way informed or knowledgeable enough to go ahead with the other 65 per cent to homeowners.
The Union of B.C. Municipalities came and said, "Slow down." Others came and said, "Slow down." I don't even want to take advice from the next source that I'd like to quote — another non-socialist paper — but the Vancouver Province in an editorial said: "Cool it. Slow down and get the information." For once we agreed with The Province. Mr. Speaker, I wish that could be stricken from the record but it is a matter of fact that at one time The Province and our policy were right on. We don't have enough information.
The motivation for that group to go to 100 per
[ Page 4719 ]
cent assessment is that they know very well what kind of mess and jungle that we would go into without adequate information. They'd run around politically saying: "Look what the government has done to your taxes."
You can't expect that group to go around saying rationally to the people of this province, "You have been underpaying. It was our administration's fault and this new group is straightening it out." I think they'd play politics.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Not that I'd ever make the accusation that anybody plays politics, but I have a deep suspicion that it happens on occasion outside of this House.
Mr. Wallace: Name names.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Name names. Will I go through the whole list, all 55? No, 56. We have a dual political personality here now in the House, Mr. Member, and you should know him better than anyone else. Jump, jump, jump.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Hop, skip and jump. Hop, skip and jump, and then down the tube. (Laughter.)
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, ours is the only party that he has not made application to, according to the leader of the Liberal Party — which says that either we are the best or the worst. I'm not quite sure what the case is. But I'll tell you: I certainly do. We're the best.
I want you to know right now that I consulted with the executive of our party. I've made an appeal as a social worker to listen to all human complaint. But the answer is unanimously no to that Member if he attempts to apply to our party.
Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): You're better off in social work than you are in taxation.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I'll hold his hand when he goes down the tube. I've worked with schizophrenia before. Political schizophrenia is a new experience and I'm willing to learn.
Now, let's deal with the complaints made by the Member. Somehow the question was raised that Bill 71, according to the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith), was a great hardship to the municipalities. Then the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) made the point — was it he or someone else — that in my own constituency there is a poor little grocery store where the price went up. Was it you, Mr. Member, who read the grocery store case or was it the Member for….
Mr. Phillips: Your mind's off in China again.
Hon. Mr. Barrett:…Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)? That's right.
Mr. Phillips: Keep your mind on the House instead of China.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: "Assessment legislation a Life-saver for Port Coquitlam." The Columbia newspaper, Wednesday, January 16, 1974.
"If you own a home in Port Coquitlam in a house on a standard-size residential lot, you will probably smile when you read your tax notice this year. On the other hand, if you own land with no improvements on it, own an industry or industrial land, or own and operate a commercial outlet in the city, then you'll be crying the blues."
Then, of course, there was assistance to the homeowners. The homeowners under the former administration had been carrying an unfair burden. That was the case the opposition made. You made it too.
Mr. Phillips: That's a lie.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Was it not the committee that you were a member of which heard testimony from the mayor of Terrace saying that if it had not been for Bill 71, that city would have been bankrupt? Is that not what he said to the committee?
An Hon. Member: No.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Then the newspapers are wrong again.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Vancouver Province, which is known to be wrong, said on my birthday, October 2:
"He and Mayor Rowland argued that, based on that philosophy the municipality should not be responsible for schools."
Is it not a case too that Mayor Rowland did say that Bill 71 saved that town from going bankrupt? Is the paper wrong? I don't hear any denials. The committee members are under the impression that that's what Mayor Rowland had said to that committee.
Now, in terms of other examples, why shouldn't
[ Page 4720 ]
industrial land have paid more? We have the famous illustration by the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) before the present one of the barbershop paying four times per square foot what the pulp mill was paying in the town of Port Alberni.
Certainly the large corporations must pay their fair share and certainly there are anomalies. We will move to clear up those anomalies the best we can. But no one in his right mind can possibly make a case that we continue with the mess that we had from before.
Now, as we moved into changes, we said to the committee: "Go ahead and find out what you can about the next step, the homes."
The committee came back with a recommendation saying that there's no simple answer. So we made the decision, based on the committee's report, to hold everything where it was in 1974, freeze it, and then continue the study so that we can develop the next step.
Those who want to rush in….
Interjection.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay. Well, we're the government and we made the decision. We said industry must pay its fair share and we made that decision.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) has very great experience in dealing with legislative committees. We used to do a lot of that work when we were in opposition, as I recall. Why, as a matter of fact, we used to have a one-day meeting. We would go down, call roll and the meeting would be adjourned. That's the last the committee ever saw.
Anybody who wants to build a home on vacant land can get a tax credit. Has the opposition been telling everyone that story? The purpose of giving a tax credit was to get vacant land into production on housing, Mr. Speaker. We passed legislation in this House that said that new taxes — 90 per cent — would be eliminated. Forgiven. Not deferred but eliminated, if they would go ahead and build a home on that piece of property.
Now, what's wrong with that? It was a move designed to get land into production. They've never said a word about that. Did you hear that in the debate? I didn't hear it.
The only one in the House who has said in this debate that they want to go back completely to 1973 is the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). You're the only one. You notice that the official opposition didn't say that. They were the ones who were opposed to Bill 71, yet not once in any of their speeches did they say "Let's go back to 1973." I listened very carefully. It's not their party's position. Although they didn't vote for Bill 71, they said, "Let's not go back to pre-1971 legislation." Isn't that interesting.
Talk about walking down a fence, Mr. Speaker. Walking along a fence and having it both ways. Voting against Bill 71 but, now that it is here, "Let's not go back to 1973." They know better. Politically it would be suicide for the official opposition to justify going back to 1973 rolls. Illustration after illustration can be shown where industry benefited from the kind of limits they imposed.
My friend, the Member for Oak Bay, hasn't got much to lose in suggesting 1973 rolls. He represents not very many industrial areas in his constituency. But these other Members know what it means to the towns that they represent. Not once during this debate did any Member of the official opposition say, "It's our party's position to go back to 1973 rolls."
Hypocritical, Mr. Speaker? Not for me to say. But I find it interesting that although they attacked Bill 71, they never once said "Let's go back to the 1973 rolls." They would have had to go back to their own constituencies to face their own taxpayers and find out why those industries in their areas which were limited in taxation all of a sudden had increases to help equalize in those areas. They would have had to go back and say, "Give the industries a break."
For the last time I'll comment on it: they never once said, "Let's go back to 1973." How they defend that position politically, I don't know, Mr. Speaker, but it certainly is one difficult to explain. But I'm sure by the time they get back to their home towns they'll have figured out a way of telling them the way it wasn't in the House.
Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): At least we're going home and not to China.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, I don't mind if you want to stick around or go home. We're all doing our duty here, and it's a great privilege to do that duty.
Interjections.
Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, I'm glad that the miss-and-run leader is back. I'm glad to see you back because it's good to see you around. I wish that you took as much time writing out your questions as you do your speeches.
Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of questions that were asked during the second reading. "Why isn't there just a return to the old system?" one Member asked.
I said, "because the old system was based on 50 per cent of value, subject to 10 per cent restrictions, and the new approach is a freeze, subject to clause (b)
[ Page 4721 ]
of section 6(24). I know that all the committee Members are familiar with each one of the numbers that I have read.
My friend the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) went through the tax parcels and gave the answers sufficiently to that. I don't think there's any need to repeat it. But the important fact to remember is that of the total taxable parcels of 830,995 folios, 66.4 per cent were residential and farm.
Will the assessment authority be fairly financed because of the changes in the legislation? Yes, I have already received a financial report based on the new value, and the matter is under consideration for the spring session — and I gave that answer as well during a question period.
What happens to courts of revision under new legislation? That was another Member's question. They continue to function pursuant to section 33 of the assessment Act. The appeal process is unchanged and, as a general rule, the commissioner would not investigate a possible disparity until after the courts of revision are finished in the spring. It is the same administrative procedure that has been followed for years under section 40 of the old assessment Act.
How will residential classification be determined this year? I think that question was raised by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I understood that the commissioner has the power under section 14(e) of the assessment authority to give directions with respect to the preparation and completion of assessment rolls. Under this general power I understood his office has already advised assessors to revise assessments. I've given that assurance that property is to get residential classification whether a home is on it or not. Apparently the authority does not intend to ask for five-acre limits on residential property this year.
What is the consequence of the bill? The consequence is to say: "Okay, everything stays where it is." We obviously don't know enough in terms of the impact of major and dramatic changes. We need more study. We intend to take the time for more study. If that's what the official opposition is criticizing, then so be it. But let them criticize with the full knowledge, as clearly pointed out by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who doesn't agree with us today, that the basis of the problem was one that we inherited.
There is no question that in Bill 71 there was not a single voice, other than a question from the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), about the mess we inherited. The only person that's embarrassed in that group today obviously has to be the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), because he spoke out against inequities, he campaigned against the inequities, and now he's sitting there with the inequities. (Laughter.)
Mr. Speaker, I say to you in conclusion that the one bright spot of the whole debate, of course, was when the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) spoke and immediately put the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to sleep.
The other bright spot was some discussion by official opposition Members about how the past did not really have a bearing, and their own situation where they did not come out and ask for a freeze in 1973.
I want to commend, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, all the committee members who worked very hard under an able chairman, who with a new dimension went throughout this province and listened to the people. And the people told us what they wanted. This is what they wanted, and we are responding to the people through this bill. I hope that everybody in the House votes in a response to those same people.
I move second reading of Bill 170.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 31
Hall | Macdonald | Barrett | |||||||||
Dailly | Strachan | Nimsick | |||||||||
Stupich | Hartley | Calder | |||||||||
Sanford | D'Arcy | Cummings | |||||||||
Dent | Williams, R.A. | Cocke | |||||||||
King | Lea | Young | |||||||||
Radford | Nunweiler | Skelly | |||||||||
Gabelmann | Lockstead | Gorst | |||||||||
Rolston | Anderson, G.H. | Steves | |||||||||
Kelly | Webster | Lewis | |||||||||
Liden |
NAY — 16
Jordan | Smith | Bennett | ||||||||
Phillips | Chabot | Fraser | ||||||||
Richter | McClelland | Curtis | ||||||||
Morrison | Schroeder | Anderson, D.A. | ||||||||
Williams, L.A. | Gardom | Gibson | ||||||||
Wallace |
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
Bill 170, Assessment Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Second reading of Bill 173, Mr. Speaker.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS INTERIM
ARBITRATION PROCEDURE ACT
[ Page 4722 ]
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, in opening the debate on this bill I think it would be helpful to run through some of the background of the situation between the teachers of the province and the trustees which led up to the necessity of bringing in interim legislation regarding arbitration this year. I know that most Members of the House are fairly familiar with the situation. But I think it's necessary to keep certain steps in our minds which I hope will give an opportunity for you to realize the importance of seeing that this legislation is passed.
The teachers and the trustees of the province for almost over the last 40 years have bargained — with ups and downs, of course — but basically they have bargained on a local basis between one school board and one local teachers' association.
[Mr. Dent in the chair.]
However, in a number of cases throughout the last few years there has been zonal bargaining. That, of course, has been done by mutual agreement between the boards and the teacher associations involved.
Then, of course, if agreement could not be reached, they've gone into conciliation and from there into arbitration.
Interestingly enough, the present system of arbitration was brought in by the former Minister of Education (Mr. Peterson) in 1958. In checking back on his speech notes at that time, he found it necessary to bring in that form of compulsory arbitration because conciliation in 1958 had been breaking down between the teachers and the trustees, and at that time there was nothing in the School Act which said that arbitration must follow.
In reading his notes, he was very concerned about massive teacher resignations and perhaps other upsets in the province which would affect the students of the province. So at that time the new compulsory arbitration section of the Act was brought in with the intent of ensuring that arbitration procedures would be followed so that settlements could be arrived at in an orderly fashion throughout the province.
I want to emphasize that that is the basic theme of this legislation: to ensure that arbitration procedures will follow through in an orderly fashion in this province.
But I would like to go back to bring us up to date again on the background scene in the province this year. This year, for the first time ever, the school trustees of the province — 68 school boards of this province — agreed to turn over their bargaining rights to the central BCFTA negotiating committee. In other words, they said that they chose to have their agent be one centralized agent.
Six other boards, I believe, of the province decided that they did not wish to turn over their bargaining rights to a central body. It's interesting to note that those boards which did not turn over their rights to the central agency, their present situation is this — the latest I can receive: Vanderhoof, one of them, has settled; Merritt has settled; Kamloops; Burnaby; and Richmond. North Vancouver, apparently, is still actively negotiating. So we'll put those boards aside for now because in the background leading up to the bill they, of course, are not part of the present situation.
When the trustees turned over their bargaining rights to the central agency, and this was announced formally, it became quite obvious that the teachers of the province — the B.C. Teachers Federation and the majority of the local associations — were equally adamant that they did not want to turn their rights over to a central body, and that they wished to continue in local bargaining.
Therefore, from the time that bargaining opened and contracts were opened, we had the scene in this province where no negotiation was taking place at all between those 68 boards who had turned over their rights to the central body, or the teachers' associations which were related to those boards. So we went through a period where no negotiation had taken place at all.
Then, of course, I was presented with the situation that the next step is conciliation. Well, it was quite obvious that if those 68 boards and 68 teachers' associations had never even sat down to negotiate, obviously they were not ready to get together to even appoint a conciliator. Of course, as you know, the Act states that if that's the case, then the Minister must do so.
As you're aware, I did so; I appointed 18 conciliators with the hope that those conciliators would be able to bring about some settlement between the local teachers' associations, in whatever form or fashion they would agree to, and the school trustees.
Well, following that appointment of the conciliators, it became quite clear that even this was not going to resolve an impasse. The reports that were given to me…and I spent a good deal to time, I'm sure you're aware, with several meetings. I had one meeting with the trustees and teachers together and then I had a meeting with them separately, and had many other discussions with other people involved and with the conciliators themselves. It became quite obvious that, again, there was going to be an impasse, not only in negotiations but also in conciliation.
The trustees did make a move in one direction: they asked the teachers' associations to come down to Vancouver, I understand, and conciliate there. They did say that they were willing to move into 18 rooms where the bargaining could therefore take place.
To our knowledge — and we did a considerable amount of investigation on this before moving into
[ Page 4723 ]
this bill — it became quite clear to us that there was going to be another impasse, that the majority of the local teachers' associations were not prepared to come down to Vancouver to negotiate.
Therefore, when we reached that point it became quite clear that we could end up with 68 arbitrations. So the next step that I had to decide as Minister was: will the arbitration procedure work, or can it break down? I know no one in this House wanted to see a breakdown of an arbitration procedure in this province, because if it did break down we would be ending up in a scene where there might be no teachers' contracts for the coming year. I think all of us don't need to use our imagination much to realize what sort of a scene might be out in the province if such a situation came about.
In the hope that there might be a last attempt by both groups to settle, the bill also did extend two weeks the time for conciliation and arbitration.
At this moment I haven't heard that there have been too many results. I understand that maybe two teachers' associations did meet in Vancouver — I believe it was Vancouver and Prince George. I don't think, from the word I've heard, much has come out of the Vancouver meeting and I don't know what has come out of the Prince George. So it's quite obvious that conciliation is not producing anything at this time. This, of course, was my concern following the pattern of what we've seen earlier, so I was very concerned, as I've said, to be sure that arbitration did work.
Now, people have questioned us, particularly the trustees, and asked me why I did not appoint a team of arbitrators following the way I appointed the conciliators. Our department people discussed with a number of arbitrators who had worked teacher-trustee arbitrations before, and we asked some of them their considered opinion: do you think that you could proceed to handle, say, three, four arbitration hearings? How many do you think you could actually handle? The concern that was expressed to me was: well, this is a different picture this year. If no negotiation and conciliation have taken place at all, we're going to have everything laid out on the table before us — the whole contract. Of course, we know that is a pretty complicated thing to be dealt with.
So I want to emphasize here that in deciding that an arbitrator could serve on no more than two boards, the prime move behind that was to ensure that arbitration would work and would be proceeded with within the deadline.
There has been much confusion in the past, may I say, and on the radio and the television in interpreting this bill as stating; teachers given local bargaining rights. Teachers have not been given local bargaining rights. If they were given that, this legislation would be in front of your House today stating that all teachers and boards must go back to square one and bargain locally. That is, of course, absolutely wrong. The teachers have not been given local bargaining rights.
Another recent headline says: "Teachers Given Local Arbitration Bargaining", and that, of course, is also wrong.
We produced our suggestion in this bill that it be done — one arbitrator on no more than two boards — with the main purpose of ensuring that this arbitration procedure will work for this year. I want to emphasize again that this is an interim measure. I regret that we have to bring in interim pieces of legislation in this particular matter, in view, particularly, of the fact that there is an all-party standing House committee which has had a number of hearings and will be preparing a report, hopefully, in the next few months, which may possibly produce legislation, if the recommendation comes out, for this whole area of collective bargaining.
I think it's most unfortunate that this year was chosen to try out one particular pattern of bargaining when an all-party committee was already set up by the government to look into this matter so that we can decide from an all-party point of view what is best for all in this situation, and not that just the wishes of one group should be adhered to.
The situation, therefore, was, in my opinion, becoming almost a crisis situation in the fact that arbitration possibly could break down, because I had no assurance at any time from the school trustees, although I asked for it, on how many arbitrators they would appoint.
They did tell me, however, that they were going to have a meeting on the following Monday but I informed them that I would have assumed that they would have thought ahead to how many arbitrators they were going to appoint when we were so close to the deadline. And as I was not able to find out how many they were going to appoint, I decided that, as a Minister, I could not risk a breakdown in the arbitration procedure because after all, breakdowns such as that could possibly cause a complete breakdown in our educational system.
Mr. Speaker, with that I'll conclude my remarks and move second reading.
Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I will utilize the time as best I can. Although I hope to be completed within the 40 minutes, if it's allowed, I would like to take the opportunity of being the designated speaker and utilize as much time as is necessary just in case I get carried away.
The major objection to this bill is not necessarily the reason it was brought down; the major objection is not the language of the bill. The objection is not: does it accomplish what it was set out to accomplish? The major objection to this bill is the fact that it
[ Page 4724 ]
represents intervention in the bargaining process by the Minister of Education. This intervention, in my opinion, was completely unnecessary, and in these next few moments I would like to try to prove that point.
First of all, the law as it exists, and as it is represented by the Public Schools Act, is explicit as far as the process of bargaining is concerned. It establishes the process, and it was outlined for us again today by the Minister. Bargaining is established, according to the Act, on a local basis and should it break down, conciliation is the next step; should conciliation break down, then arbitration is the final step and should arbitration break down, then the Act clearly provides that the previous contract shall carry forward into the next year and be deemed to be the new contract. Therefore the law is explicit as regards the process of negotiation — bargaining.
You have to be a little bit careful in the use of the words, because there are four distinct words used. When the Minister says that there have been accusations made that this particular amendment provides for local bargaining, we have to be careful that we understand she's using the word "bargaining" and that in the strictest sense of the word, this amendment doesn't provide for local bargaining, she's right, but it does come down heavily on local arbitration. Therefore we need to be a little careful as we sort out the meaning of these words. If I cross-use them in my own speech today, I hope that you'll forgive me.
There are certain latitudes that are spelled out in the bill. There are certain latitudes that exist. For instance, let me cite one: if both parties agree, then regional or zonal bargaining can take place. In other words, the Act does not insist upon local bargaining; it begins there, but provides the latitude of regional or zonal bargaining. To cite an example: the Okanagan area has used zonal bargaining, and, I understand, to good success.
There has to be notice given. If either party wishes to take advantage of zonal or regional bargaining, notice must be given to the other party and, as I understand it, to the Department, by a deadline date, and that deadline date is September 20.
In this present dispute, notice of a desire or a wish to bargain zonally or regionally, or eventually provincially, was not received. Insofar as it was not received, it can be laid to the charge of the B.C. school trustees that the action they have taken since September 20 is an illegal action because the Act clearly provides that notice of regional bargaining, or any other kind of bargaining but local bargaining, must have been received by September 20.
There is a little loophole that I want to refer to a little later which makes it possible for the school trustees to insist on regional bargaining without due respect to the date of September 20. I'll talk about that a little later.
However, in that the Act provides certain latitudes, it is vague in the one area. It is vague in the area of the appointing of a bargaining agent. Nowhere in the bill does it spell out clearly that a bargaining agent shall bargain only in one district, or two districts, or six districts, or eight districts, or 75 or 74 districts.
The Act is vague in this regard and it is, in my opinion, that vagueness which has precipitated this amendment, because it can clearly be seen that the school trustees took advantage of the vagueness and decided that they would appoint one bargaining agent for all school districts, and hence accomplish provincial bargaining contrary to the intent of the Act.
It is this loophole that the school trustees used to evade the September 20 deadline issue. So the Act is vague in this regard and must be criticized in this regard.
I believe that our Minister needs to be lauded in that she saw the weakness of the bill in this regard and has brought in this amendment to stop provincial bargaining, which, if she had allowed provincial bargaining, would have been against the true and original intent of the bill. Actually this weakness, had the Minister not acted, in the strictest sense causes the bill to be in conflict with itself, and as a result we have the discrepancy from which springs this present dispute.
The trustees clearly wish to press for central bargaining. The teachers are just as adamant to retain local bargaining. It must be said for all to hear that the trustees, in their search for central bargaining, have not complied strictly with the provisions of the Act in seeking that change in the law. It can also be said then, that the teachers, in the strictest sense, have taken a proper position in maintaining that the Act be carried through as it reads, and then local bargaining be carried on.
There is a way that the law can be changed; the process for that has been established. First of all, I think we have already established that the law clearly is explicit in the procedures to be used in bargaining. That law can be changed. There are proper procedures for the change of the law, and everybody within earshot knows what those procedures are.
However, in preparation for those procedures, a committee was appointed. The committee was assigned the distinct task of going abroad, to and fro across this province to hear what people had to say regarding bargaining. I was a member of that committee. Although I was not able to attend every hearing, of as many as I was able to attend, I think this could be the summation: that the majority of the material presented to the committee was material
[ Page 4725 ]
regarding bargaining, and that it can be further said that approximately the same amount of material, or the same number of presentations or briefs, was presented to support either side. Evidence on either side of the question was about equal.
This committee was assigned to conduct these public hearings with the distinct assignment by this House that it was to make recommendations to the Minister, and that these recommendations to the Minister would assist her, hopefully, in making that administrative decision and to bring down new legislation to tell all of British Columbia, including the trustees and the teachers, what the new law would be regarding bargaining, and that upon proclamation the new procedure would become law and both sides would be expected to obtain to it.
The work of the committee was enjoyable, although we must say that it became a little bit repetitive and towards the end we could almost anticipate what the briefs were going to contain. The committee was saddled with the responsibility of reporting to the House, but not until the spring session.
The committee further decided and made public their decision that the committee, as a committee, was not going to interfere in the dispute presently in progress. The majority of the members of the committee felt it would not be in the good interest to do so. In effect, the committee would become part of the arbitration or the negotiating process, the bargaining process, which was not desirable. As a matter of fact, the committee decided not to interfere, and I supported that decision.
But along comes the Minister not more than two days after the decision that intervention was unwise. The Minister comes along — in spite of the policy of non-intervention clearly spelled out by that party, enunciated over and over again by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) of that party. In spite of the fact that negotiations were in progress. In spite of the fact that the conciliators were working on the negotiations at the same moment that the Minister brought down the legislation. In spite of the fact that one of the conciliators had not been appointed until November 5, not giving them any time to work on the bargaining process. In spite of the fact that the committee had taken the position that intervention was not desirable — this Minister introduced a special emergency legislation. And why?
I'm wondering whether or not there wasn't pressure brought to bear on the Minister, because it happened that one of the areas chosen for the strikes that took place happened to be Coquitlam. It was embarrassing for one of the Members of our House (Hon. Mr. Barrett) who represents the area of Coquitlam. I would think that there could have easily been pressure applied to the Minister to bring down some legislation which would quiet the atmosphere. She shakes her head. Maybe I'm wrong.
But the question is: why, Mr. Attorney-General, in spite of the overwhelming commitment not to intervene, did the Minister intervene?
Now, if it had been an emergency decision I think all of the Members on this side of the House would have commended it. But the fact is that the process was clearly spelled out.
Interjection.
Mr. Schroeder: Good shot.
The process was clearly spelled out and the negotiations would come to a proper conclusion in any case. So this legislation was brought in not as an emergency measure, not as a last-resort measure, not as a necessary measure, but strictly as intervention.
What was the result of bringing in the bill? Did it restore negotiation? The answer is no, because, until the Minister summoned the representatives of both the BCSTA and the B.C. Teachers Federation, negotiations had been taking place.
Did the action of the Minister help to restore negotiations to a greater degree? The answer is no, because the Minister, in bringing in the legislation, clearly enunciated in the Act itself, delayed the time for the decision.
What happened? She has already admitted to the House today that two out of 68 school districts paid any attention to negotiation. As a matter of fact, word is received that the rest of them said, "Why should we negotiate; the deadlines have been moved up for 14 days? Arbitration is inevitable. Therefore, we will just stay home." And that is the reason why Vancouver and Prince George districts negotiated. Did bringing in this legislation restore negotiation? No.
Did it diminish the dispute? The answer is also no, because it allowed 14 extra days for those who had already taken their positions to cement those positions. It gave 14 days for accusations and cross-accusations. It gave 14 days for the inflammation of the dispute. It gave 14 days further to run a hazard on the relations that could exist — and must, by the way, exist — between teachers and school trustees. It did not diminish the dispute.
Did it bring an earlier settlement? Again the answer is no. An early settlement is not forthcoming. Deadlines have been moved up 14 days but the due process which was spelled out in the legislation in the first place is still going to take place. All we have done is delay due process for 14 days. We've delayed negotiations. We've inflamed the confrontation. We've given 14 extra days for people to cement themselves in their positions. We have given 14 days for them to make needless accusations. We have given 14 days for a further deterioration of trustee-teacher relations.
[ Page 4726 ]
People on both sides have drawn up their battle lines on the basis, at least to some degree, of misunderstanding. I have been interested in listening to the presentations from both sides to be able at least in some measure to get each side to understand that what they really believe is not what was intended by the other side in the first place. May I give you an example?
Mr. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot), you are smiling.
One of the examples of clear misunderstanding was the fact that the teachers believed that the first letter of approach from the school trustees, which came to invite them to come together to talk about the basis on which to negotiate, was interpreted as being a dictatorial letter, a letter which didn't say, "Let's get together to see what date we can get together to talk about how we are going to negotiate." They interpreted it as being a dictatorial letter which said, "On such and such a day we are going to sit together and we still negotiate. You are invited to be there." The teachers reacted the same way the Minister would have reacted. But I can't use the language they used. (Laughter.)
So to a certain degree — and I use this as just one instance — on a basis of misunderstanding the battle lines were drawn up. Further, it has prejudiced the future negotiations.
And who is caught in the middle? The children of British Columbia are caught in the middle and the educational process, to which this party is committed, is going to deteriorate.
I have to mention again the one accomplishment of the bill, and that is the clarification of the intent of the original Act to protect local arbitration by stipulating that no person may serve on more than two arbitration boards. For this, again, I must say the Minister must be lauded.
By the way, I don't believe that we in this House should be part of the dispute itself because we are not close enough to the fact. We are not a negotiator or conciliator. Our responsibility in this House is to draw up the guidelines by which negotiations shall take place. Our responsibility is to be sure that those guidelines are just and workable, and, in the light of those guidelines, we are to allow the due process to take place.
In this present dispute I must say, though, that neither side comes with clean hands. Trustees do not wish to abide by the spirit of the law and are using a loophole to their advantage. Teachers are guilty of blocking any attempt at discussion on a regional, zonal or area basis in time to meet the deadlines. The teachers refused to meet with the trustees at any date before September 20 so that the September 20 deadline could have been met and the basis for negotiation established. The teachers refused to meet, and in this regard teachers are guilty.
They cited that there was inferior notice given. They say the wrong language was used because the word negotiation was used when it should have been conciliation. The wrong dates were used. July 12 was suggested as a date for meeting, and on July 12 many of the teachers are in summer schools, some are on vacation, and most of them are not available immediately to be contacted by mail or by telephone. Other things were cited: they used the wrong place; Vancouver is the wrong place.
In any case, the teachers did not come to the settlement of the dispute with clean hands.
It is true that zonal bargaining does work. Okanagan has given us the instance that proves that zonal bargaining can work. Zonal bargaining was the goal of the school trustees. Had the teachers listened prior to September 20, it is highly possible that zonal bargaining could have taken place in more areas of the province, perhaps even in all of the areas of the province.
Further, in the dispute, the teachers are talking in terms of a complete package negotiation whereas the trustees are only talking in terms of basic salary negotiation when they talk in terms of provincial bargaining.
Teachers understand the trustees to say: "We want to negotiate the whole ball of wax at a central place." But the trustees are simply saying: "All we want negotiated is the basic increase." That is the settlements that have taken place already, 15.8 per cent, plus benefits, bringing it to 16 per cent, which is going to be used as a basis for settlement all across the province. All the trustees are saying is: "Let's settle the basic percentage increase centrally, and negotiate the other things which have area interests on an area basis."
There again the scope of the dispute has a measure of misunderstanding. What's the solution? I believe that the solution is to let the law take its course; it's clearly spelled out. The process is foolproof, and the settlement is inevitable under the Act. Intervention is completely undesirable and completely unnecessary in this instance, and that is our main complaint regarding this bill. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver–Capilano): I'd like to commence by congratulating the Minister on what I thought was a fair and neutral history of this matter that is before us today. It's not helpful in a time like this to lay any burden of blame at any door, in spite of the provocations I'm sure she may have had during the events leading up to today. I commend her for not having done this.
As the Minister mentioned, and the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) explained further, this general subject is in front of the legislative committee. I think it's important that the bill we are
[ Page 4727 ]
discussing now, and the terms in which it is discussed, should not unduly prejudice the work of that committee, although, of course, we do have to refer to what it has been doing.
I'd like to commence by setting a bit of a historical perspective. For very many years there's been a pattern of settlements under the Public Schools Act in this province without strikes and with, generally speaking, good-faith negotiation in most districts. I might say that there still is in my own school district — district 44. It's one of the six that have elected this year to continue bargaining locally and directly with the teachers' association. But there have been a growing number of arbitrations, growing almost yearly to the stage where one had the idea that the system might be starting to, if not break down, at least come under a considerable strain.
There were allegations and complaints by district after district that they were being whipsawed, due to the fact of the local bargaining procedure, and that the BCTF would accept, or instruct their locals to accept, only the highest available packages in the province and then send the rest to arbitration.
The BCTF on its behalf made it quite clear that as far as it was concerned the locals had complete autonomy, but they agreed that advice was available to locals if they so wished. During this period there grew up a practice of what was almost de facto provincial bargaining, irrespective of the provisions of the law, because of a good central co-ordination of the teachers locals and, less so but still somewhat effective, co-ordination of the school districts associations by the BCSTA.
The settlements under arbitration generally tended to follow the pattern of settlements already across the province; so there was a sort of a follow-the-leader system that provided for some considerable consistency. As well, there was a de facto kind of regional bargaining going on in many areas of the province as certain areas would satellite around a major centre like, say, Prince George.
This situation, for one reason and another, which I'll try to go into in a few moments, was unsatisfactory to the BCSTA, which sought to move towards provincial bargaining. They represent that the Minister indicated to them last year that this would indeed be possible under the Act as it stands now because of precisely that vagueness to which the Hon. Member for Chilliwack referred. Whether one calls it "vagueness" or "flexibility" is a choice of words, but there was at least room for manoeuvre there, and the BCSTA in good faith decided to try and move in that direction.
The teachers expressed a great deal of concern about it; so the pattern this year has been one of confrontation — not, I would submit, Mr. Speaker, confrontation in a bargaining sense, but rather confrontation about how to bargain. That confrontation has taken the manifestation of changed bargaining tactics on behalf of the BCSTA — it will be 68 in school districts adhering to that central bargaining agent — and job action in some areas on the part of the teachers. This was manifested early in the summer with the abortive meeting early in July.
Now what are the background issues here? There's a lot of genuine concern on both sides. On the part of the trustees, those adhering to the BCSTA central position, there is a concern among some trustees in local school districts that they are not skilled in negotiation and therefore find it either distasteful or find themselves unable to do it as well as the more professional negotiating committees of the teachers. In that sense they feel the need for professional bargaining agents.
There's the concern about whipsawing that I mentioned earlier. There's also the concern, which is possibly the most important of all, that bargaining at a local level poisons the relationships for the balance of the year between the trustees on the one hand and the teachers on the other, who, after all, have as a major concern not the economic conditions, but rather the education of our children.
In trying to deal with these major concerns, the trustees in many districts have felt that it's hard for them to do this on the one hand, working cooperatively with the teachers, and on the other hand be in an adversary relationship over the matter of salaries for two or three months or longer out of every year.
The background for the teachers, on the other hand, has been a strong desire to preserve the previous system of bargaining because, first of all, they have, generally speaking, thought that it led to just solutions in economic terms — salaries and working conditions. They felt that it provided a way to take into account local conditions around this province. The committee heard of many contract variations around the province.
Many teachers have also felt it was a way to avoid central control by the BCTF, and in fact could leave to the teachers in each area the control over their own destiny that they desire to have, which is a very different perception than one that is commonly reflected. As I say, that is a motivation in some of the cases.
So with this kind of background we have one group trying to preserve the existing system. Unfortunately, in this circumstance some of the good patterns of negotiation that we're developing have been swept aside.
The zonal bargaining unit in the Okanagan, which comprised, I think, six separate school associations, has been working now for a number of years and very satisfactorily. The informal zones in some areas of the province — the satelliting I spoke of — has also been working reasonably satisfactorily. This has been
[ Page 4728 ]
swept aside this year.
The useful move that the Minister made towards a pattern of
regional conciliation didn't work, in part perhaps because the
zones didn't coincide with the natural geographic or
traditional zonal negotiations around the province, and in part
because of a disagreement between the BCTF and the BCSTA as to
where those regional conciliations should physically take place — whether it should all by done in Vancouver or whether it
should be done in various parts of the province. Without taking
sides on that, a different solution than the one that was
arrived at might well have led to different results at the
conciliation stage.
Then later on there was a further confusion of the issue and a complication of the problems of the Minister by, as she said, the inability, or unreadiness, of the BCSTA at that time to specify how they would wish to see the arbitration proceedings unroll — whether with one arbitrator for 68 school districts, or 68 arbitrators, or something in between. This is a question of great practical consequence because, for example, had there been only one arbitrator appointed on behalf of all of those school districts and on behalf of the BCSTA, with the whole contract on the table in those 68 school districts, it would have been physically impossible to complete the job within the time allowed by the legislation.
What would then happen automatically under the existing law is that, the 1974 settlement would be the one that went into effect. One would have to expect, under that circumstance, that we would see a great deal of job action in respective of what the law provides. I think most people would agree that it would be unfair that the simple passage of time should enforce a 1974 settlement under greatly changed economic circumstances.
That, I respectfully submit, is what is wrong with the solution proposed by the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), namely to let the existing law take its course, because there's a severe danger that that solution would lead to a serious breakdown in the educational system in our province in the early part of 1975. That's a risk that's difficult to take.
Once the decision had been made to go the confrontation route in 1974, on the question of how to bargain, then we inevitably come down to where we are today, as long as neither side was willing to yield. Where we are today is not, I suggest — again, as the Hon. Member for Chilliwack proposed — is not an intervention in bargaining. The bargaining process relates to salaries, to terms and conditions of employment, to local cost-of-living benefits, to places of residence in remote areas, and things of that kind. There hasn't been much of that kind of bargaining, and this legislature is not being asked to intervene in it. Rather, this Legislature is being asked to intervene in a confrontation about how the bargaining should take place.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that is not improper because that very question is before a legislative committee now, and the House, by this law, will not be prejudging that issue. Rather, it will be holding that issue open to allow this year's confrontation to be settled, to amend the existing law to settle this year's confrontation in accordance with that law with the necessary amendment to do that. The legislative committee can then consider the problem after the dust has settled and get to the more basic question of: how should, in the future, bargaining take place in this province — whether strictly local, whether zonal, whether provincial, whether some provision for flexibility, as between the various modes.
The vagueness in the question of the choice of bargaining agent by the school districts is not cleared up by this legislation — or rather, the flexibility is not cleared up — and it's still entirely possible for each school district to have a single bargaining agent — the BCSTA — if it wishes. The vagueness that is cleared up is in the arbitration process, an arbitration process already provided for in the existing law that was threatening to break down.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that what this bill does is to give the existing law a possibility of working, to ensure that at least some arbitration process will be able to be concluded by the end of 1974, which is critical, and to give the districts, and the teachers' associations, a couple of weeks more time to negotiate in that understanding — which is a new understanding and a new context for them to work in. Hopefully, many of them will then be able to come to voluntary settlements for the coming year.
I believe that the bill which we have before us then, is acceptable in principle. I believe that there are certain important amendments which should be considered which have to do with the number of districts that individual arbitrators can look after, because I think there is a serious question of manpower, on the one hand, and a question, on traditional grounds, of arbitrators having been able to handle more than two districts in certain areas, and we should not overlook that. Therefore, I think there should be some flexibility in that kind of provision, and in one or two other specific sections of the Act, but overall, Mr. Speaker, with the necessary amendments and given the situation we have now, I support the principle of this bill.
Mr. Wallace: The first duty of a Minister of Education is to ensure that the system of education continues to function in this province, and that duty, above all others, is the one which this Minister must uphold.
Sure, the taxpayers of British Columbia are interested in seeing that their tax money is fairly and intelligently utilized and that teachers are given, like
[ Page 4729 ]
landlords, a fair return on their capital investment, which is their training and their expertise. But above and beyond all that, the taxpayer of this province wants to be sure that when he pays his taxes for his education that his children will, in fact, go to school and not be sent home because of some euphemistic description such as study session, or withdrawal of service, or some such misnomer which means that teachers are really on strike, or whatever you want to say, or whatever way you want to say it.
The first responsibility of this Minister of Education, or any Minister of Education, is to maintain the educational system functioning, ensuring that our children do in fact continue to receive their education. I think that if we ever lose sight of that as being the number one reason for even having to debate this bill, then we're losing sight of the main goal.
The issue which has produced today's situation relates very clearly to one single factor, and that is the method of bargaining for teachers. Nothing else is the cause of this bill today.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
In passing, and I think it's been referred to already, the standing committee of the Legislature which was given terms of reference to explore the method of bargaining carried out its duties during the summer and held hearings in various centres. In my view, the most useful hearing was in Salmon Arm where we listened basically to the official positions as outlined by the B.C. School Trustees' Association and by the B.C. Teachers' Federation. I just want to make it very plain that my personal feeling is that that committee was very well worthwhile. Certainly, I think it puts it clearly on record — the transcripts are available for anyone who wants to read them — this committee work has established very clearly just what the positions are, and the reasons for the positions of the two parties.
Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, Hon. Member. Do you know if the committee's evidence has been tabled in the House as part of a report?
Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the tomes which are entitled "Hansard Verbatim Reporting Service," which is the transcript of the hearings that were held in the various parts of the province. I am not aware of these transcripts having been tabled.
Mr. Speaker: No. The problem we have is that our rules say that the evidence of a select committee is not debatable in the House unless the committee, in its report, tabled the evidence, or the transcripts in this case, with the House. That rule, although it seems strict, is often observed more in the breach than the practice. A certain amount of it I certainly would not draw to the attention of Members, as long as it doesn't get to the stage where it leads to a great argument about what did take place in front of the committee.
I refer you to, just so that you will be clear that I am not being non-specific, the Journals of 1943, page 1. Mr. Speaker Whittaker's decision deals with that in great detail. I would like Members to know that because on another occasion we had one Member reading document after document from committees, and that is one of the objections to that course — that some Members may read a certain document from committee, and other Members then wish to read other documents, and of course the well-balanced hearing before a committee does not always occur in that type of debate unless the documents have all been tabled in the House. That was the substance of Mr. Speaker Whittacker's decision. Would the Hon. Member proceed? I am not trying to limit him too much on the point, just to bear it in mind as we progress.
Mr. Wallace: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make was that I think it's very important to place on the record that that committee was given terms of reference hopefully to come forward with recommendations of a long-term nature in the form of recommendations which should be considered by the Minister, later or by the House, in the form of amendments to the Public Schools Act.
In the meantime, a confrontation situation developed in the province — for reasons which I'm sure have been mentioned already in this debate. I think it's very important that this committee not be placed in the position of appearing to be a party to the negotiations which were or were not going on. It would have been extremely unfortunate if that committee had attempted to come forward with the final report in the heat of this present confrontation in the province, and unless it could have been a unanimous report…. Somehow, without referring again in any detail to the hearings, I question whether that would have been likely. But I do feel that it should be placed on record that it would not, in my view at least, have been proper for that committee to attempt to come up with a final series of recommendations right at the time when a confrontation situation between the teachers and trustees existed.
From the discussions I've had with the teachers and with trustees, I don't think it's any exaggeration to say that the two sides are poles apart.
That's P-O-L-E-S, Mr. Speaker.
Well, I tried.
The fact is that the two sides are so far apart on a
[ Page 4730 ]
basic concept of how bargaining should occur — perhaps with one exception somewhere in the province, where some semblance of compromise seemed likely — it was made very clear to the committee, and this is why I think it should be mentioned…. The committee was left under no illusion whatever that the two sides were very far apart. Unfortunately, and perhaps this is almost a rule rather than the exception, each side feels that the other has not acted in good faith.
I listened to the Minister introducing the bill this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and she made it very plain, and I think it's a fair point, that as each day went by, and as certain deadlines spelled out in the legislation approached, it became quite a possibility that the whole process of arbitration might break down, and what kind of situation we might face if no specific action was taken by December 31st. The Minister has given that as a reason for intervening, and I support that reason and agree with the Minister.
As far as the principle of Bill 173 is concerned, I have to take issue with the Minister in choosing a method in this bill which, wittingly or unwittingly, readily leads to the conclusion that the Minister is leaning in favour of local bargaining. I listened carefully to the lady Minister's introductory remarks, and halfway through or so she said very clearly: "This bill does not give local bargaining rights or local arbitration rights."
Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is that no person can serve on more than two arbitration boards. Since we're dealing with something in the nature of 68 arbitration procedures, it is reasonable to assume that we're going to have a minimum of 34 different arbitration boards. It seems to me that if the teachers were not prepared to come to Vancouver to meet, albeit in 18 different rooms with 18 different conciliators in one particular city, there is reason to think, in the way this bill has been written, that 34 arbitration boards possibly meeting in 34 different parts of the province for the arbitration proceedings gives every indication, or certainly gives a clear implication, that this bill leans toward the concept of local bargaining.
Although the Minister has said publicly many times that she is waiting for committee recommendations, and is considering the problem without specifically being in favour of either local bargaining or central bargaining, the one disadvantage of the way in which the Minister has chosen to bring an interim solution to the problem, in my view, and certainly in the view of the trustees who think that the Minister has betrayed her promise to remain neutral, is that this bill shows quite clearly that she is favouring the teachers in their desire for local bargaining.
The other unfortunate atmosphere in which we are debating the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that there were withdrawals of service by teachers which, in terms of the Public Schools Act, is not permitted. In other words, the teachers were indulging in an illegal act in Coquitlam and in Alberni. Presumably these illegal actions by teachers in two particular areas acted as a further degree of pressure on the Minister to bring in some form of legislation. So it seems to me rather a hollow complaint that the Minister has intervened while supposedly negotiations are continuing.
On the other hand, teachers are putting such pressure on the Minister by withdrawal of service that any reasonable person looking at the scene would realize that the Minister was left with little alternative but to do something.
So it's like this business of walking the fence. You want the best of both worlds. The teachers want to be able to bring pressure to bear on the Minister in an attempt to gain their point of view, and then having exerted that pressure and having the Minister react to the pressure, they then criticize her for doing that too. I feel that in this particular situation there may be a measure of fault on both sides; I'm not sure.
But I certainly don't think that the teachers come out of this whole situation — in the reason for this bill being brought in — I don't think the teachers come out of it looking very noble at all, or even credible, particularly when so often they state that they don't really want the rights of a union and all the provisions of being unionized, and they don't want to strike.
So what a hypocritical position. When the going does get tough in negotiations, they just withdraw their services in selected cities in this province and leave the Minister and the rest of us and the taxpayer and our children knowing that tomorrow it's one place and the next day somewhere else.
While teachers have every right to believe in local bargaining, and press for local bargaining within the law, I hope that in debating this bill we don't lose sight of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the teachers of this province broke a law. If this is to be another example of gun-to-the-head legislation like we had with the ferry strike, where the Minister on that occasion just capitulated and said he had to because the ferry workers had a gun to his head, I certainly hope that this interim bill is no preliminary to similar action by the Minister of Education — that if the teachers push her far enough, then indeed there will be a capitulation of the same measure as we had over the ferry situation.
That ferry strike was illegal; the withdrawal of services in Coquitlam and Alberni was illegal. So I think it's rather hollow and hypocritical by the teachers to castigate either the Minister or the trustees for breach of good conduct and breach of faith under the Public Schools Act.
I think that we shouldn't, in debating the principle
[ Page 4731 ]
of this bill — which is an interim means of maintaining the education system until we come to a more durable and hopefully permanent system of bargaining — run away from the fact that the teachers, even with regard to their particular role as employees, seem to be equivocating, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I will not intrude on the rules by quoting from the reports from the hearings, but it is a matter of public record that at the annual convention of the B.C. Teachers Federation, I believe in May of this year, by a very substantial majority the teachers voted against seeking the right to strike.
I just want to place on record the fact that if any change of legislation is to bring successful bargaining into play, trustees or teachers are truly going to have to bargain in good faith. We just have not had the most glowing example of that potential by the example of teachers withdrawing services as they have done in recent weeks.
One of the sad things about this whole situation and the need for this bill is the number of times we hear teachers and trustees saying that they have good relationships except when it comes to bargaining for teachers' salaries and their contract. There's evidence that that particular part of the teacher-trustee situation leads to a considerable degree of disharmony and something more unfortunate than that, apparently, in some areas. But I think this year above all the atmosphere has been created in which the measure of trust between the two sides has reached the lowest ebb.
While I would support this bill for the first reason I mentioned — we have to keep our children in school — it would appear that there's a real risk of the system breaking down if, in fact, some such action isn't taken.
Nevertheless, in looking further down the road, some of the events which have led to the necessity for this bill today will still be here tomorrow and next month and the month after that. These events I'm talking about are a lack of trust and a feeling that each side has betrayed the other.
I notice that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is frowning a little bit when I say that the first responsibility is to keep our children in school and to keep the system functioning. Perhaps if the Minister feels differently, he'll want to take his place in this debate.
But I can tell you, Mr. Minister, that when we are debating education or when you're travelling in the province, taxpayers don't simply insist on the education system functioning at the expense of teachers or trustees or janitors or anybody else; they just say that, No. 1, the children have to continue to be educated. If there are disputes by people providing and staffing the system, the methods whereby they should be maintained in employment have to be fair and just and negotiated but in the absence of strikes.
Again, we may have differences on this side of the House with the government on the right to strike by teachers or by other essential services. We've talked about it many times. All I'm trying to do is reflect in the comments I'm making today a very strong feeling on the part of many citizens in this province: it is timely and prudent for society to find more satisfactory methods of settling any of these disputes and any service other than by the strike weapon.
Goodness knows, we've heard some of the veterans of the industrial relations field who know a thousand times more about it than I do make the very same point. Particularly I'm referring to George Meany. When I say that the first function of the Minister is to keep the children in school and to ensure that teaching services are maintained, I want to make it quite plain that I'm not making that statement in the sense that it's at the expense of fair play or fair treatment for teachers or any other persons providing service in the school system.
So we will support this bill, but I don't want to lead….
Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister Of Highways): Who's we? (Laughter.)
Mr. Wallace: You should have been here yesterday when I was asked that question. It's the royal we! The royal we! My husband and I. (Laughter.) Or should I say my…? No, never mind. (Laughter.)
Yes, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) says, I'm only going to make it worse if I say more. Quit when you're behind.
But some of these problems shouldn't be overlooked in debating the principle of this interim legislation. Regardless of the very sincere feelings which the two parties have — and these sincere feelings have led to the necessity for this bill — they are very far apart. I hope that in the period of time which will be allotted by this bill — the two-week extension for conciliation and another two weeks for arbitration — both parties will see that in their dispute as in any other similar type of dispute there simply has to be some measure of compromise. At the present time there is absolutely no evidence at all that the two sides appear to be in any kind of spirit of compromise.
Again without quoting the evidence, there certainly was none during the hearings of the committee. Apart from the six regions that the Minister referred to where local bargaining has taken place, apparently successfully, we are faced with 68 out of 74 school districts where there is very little sign that the spirit of compromise exists.
The Minister has pointed out in her remarks that when some attempt at conciliation was made, not all
[ Page 4732 ]
of the teacher associations affected even turned up for the meeting. Judging by reports that I've read in the newspaper, some of the teachers have taken a very firm stand that they're not prepared to consider conciliation as being a serious possibility for resolving the dispute. As the Minister also pointed out, the fact that very little negotiation has gone on means that the arbitration procedures, when they are finally resorted to in this case, will involve almost starting at square one. As the Minister put it, "Everything will be on the table." Because of the lack of negotiation there has been no preliminary tentative agreements on any parts of the contract. The arbitration procedure in this case will be much more difficult than usual.
For a variety of reasons this bill, while necessary, I hope will not give the citizens and the parents of this province any kind of feeling other than some feeling of temporary respite until we can hopefully bring the committee back into meetings. As I said a minute ago, if even at that point and after lengthy deliberations by the committee there is not some semblance of the spirit of compromise, I would think that we will be back in this House in the spring. If not in the spring at this time next year, we'll be back in exactly the same mess unless teachers and trustees can rebuild some of the trust of each other, which apparently existed up until this year, and until each side makes some effort to take that first step — each of them — towards some kind of compromise situation.
I hope the Minister in closing the debate will make that kind of appeal to teachers and trustees. Regardless of the sincerity with which they hold their present fixed position, there can be nothing but trouble now and trouble repeatedly each year in the future if this very fixed and unyielding position is taken by both sides. If this debate succeeds in doing nothing more than helping us through the temporary situation and producing some degree of flexibility by both sides, then I would think the debate would be worthwhile.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, in just winding this up and concluding it, I'll make my remarks fairly brief.
I would like to tell the House that the Lieutenant-Governor is arriving shortly to give royal assent to the two bills, the municipal and the school Act amendment.
The point was made by the official opposition that this bill interferes with the collective bargaining procedure. I have to completely reject that. After all, in the bill it does give the extension period. I did say at the time that I would hope that the two groups would find means of coming together. The inference made by the official opposition was that almost more negotiation had taken place prior to the introduction of the bill than came after. The information I have doesn't seem to follow that up.
If we're not proceeding now with proper conciliation since the bill came in, I suppose it still has to go right back to the original source of the problem that you have two groups who are basically polarized in their stands as far as local and provincial bargaining go. I cannot see that the bill had any negative effect; in fact, I hoped, certainly, that it would have a positive effect. But I cannot accept the fact that it was interfering.
There was concern expressed by the Member speaking for the Liberal Party about the possible amendments. We did check with the legislative counsel in the Attorney-General's office. In going through the School Act, we cannot see where we can put in that provision for possible…you know, if there is mutual agreement for more arbitrators…. However, there is still a possibility that maybe three or four boards and teachers' associations could come to some agreement prior to going to the arbitration board in their preparation for arbitration, and perhaps that could be presented collectively to an arbitration board.
An Hon. Member: By consensus.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Yes.
I would think that they could agree, could they not? We have discussed this with both of them. Yesterday, or rather when I met with the trustees, we did suggest that we could not see why there couldn't be some mutual agreement that could be placed before those arbitration boards which would certainly eliminate the lengthy time and the concern over time being consumed unnecessarily. So I think there is a possibility there, if they would get together, that they could, under this amendment, do that. However, in essence, we cannot say that one board can speak for another collectively. As a matter of fact, although that was done before, it was actually not really according to the Act.
So I do not see that it would be at all possible at this time to bring in such an amendment. My hope is, of course, that some of the boards and the teachers' groups will collectively be able to come to some form of agreement before they reach that stage.
Interjection.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Well, the advice we had was that we
would not be able to do that because of other clauses in the
school Act which do not allow for it. We did look into that
fairly carefully.
Again, I'd just like to reiterate the appointment of the two arbitrators and the fact that they cannot serve on more than two boards. I just want to reiterate again that we really were concerned that
[ Page 4733 ]
operating on more than two boards would not allow completion. I must say — I won't say I resent it — that certainly the implication that it was giving in to the teachers — that section — is absolutely untrue, as far as I am concerned. This decision was made in our department, as I said in my opening remarks, as a result of trying to figure out the best way that arbitration would proceed properly and in an orderly fashion, and that was the conclusion we came to.
Interjection.
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Well, to the Hon. Member who asked about whether they could not consent beforehand: again, all I can say is that I can discuss with you after the information we were given through the Attorney-General's department. Apparently, those former consents were not actually legal; one group really cannot speak for another group of boards.
However, I have just been informed that the Lieutenant-Governor is on the premises now, so I will now take the opportunity to move second reading of Bill 173.
Mr. Speaker: May I, with the leave of the House, postpone the division until after we have received…?
Hon. Mrs. Dailly: They didn't ask for it.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I believe there was a call for division.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: It only needs one to call for a division. I think that's correct, is it not?
At any rate, I'd ask leave of the House to have the division after we've received His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.
Leave granted.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.
Mr. Speaker: May it please your Honour:
We, Her Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia in session assembled, approach your Honour with sentiments of unfeigned devotion and loyalty to Her Majesty's person and government and humbly beg to present for your Honour's acceptance Bill 174, intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (2), and Bill 175, intituled Public Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (2).
Clerk: In Her Majesty's name His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence, and assent to these bills.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.
Motion approved on the following division:
YEAS — 36
Hall | Macdonald | Barrett | ||||||||||||
Dailly | Strachan | Nimsick | ||||||||||||
Stupich | Hartley | Calder | ||||||||||||
Sanford | D'Arcy | Cummings | ||||||||||||
Dent | Williams, R.A. | Cocke | ||||||||||||
King | Lea | Young | ||||||||||||
Radford | Nunweiler | Skelly | ||||||||||||
Gabelmann | Lockstead | Gorst | ||||||||||||
Rolston | Anderson, G.H. | Steves | ||||||||||||
Liden | Webster | Lewis | ||||||||||||
Kelly | Wallace | Williams, L.A. | ||||||||||||
Anderson, D.A. | Gibson | Gardom |
NAYS — 11
Jordan | Smith | Bennett | ||||||||||||||||||||
Phillips | Chabot | Fraser | ||||||||||||||||||||
Richter | McClelland | Curtis | ||||||||||||||||||||
Morrison | Schroeder |
Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Excuse me for drawing your attention to this point, Hon. Members, but the purpose of reading out the names is to have a double-check on accuracy, and I am sure you all want accuracy in recording your vote. It means, therefore, that while the Clerk is reading out the names of those who voted, it is essential that there not be a lot of keening regrets across the floor on how the vote went.
Bill 173, Public Schools Interim Arbitration Procedure Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.
TIMBER PRODUCTS STABILIZATION ACT
Hon. R.A. Williams presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Timber Products Stabilization Act.
Bill 171 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading
[ Page 4734 ]
at the next sitting of the House after today.
ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974
Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 170 intituled Assessment Amendment Act, 1974.
Mr. Speaker: Isn't this a referral to the committee in charge of the bill? The motion is that this be referred to the Committee of the Whole House in charge of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. Mr. Macdonald files answers to questions 197, 228, 229 and 230. (See appendix.)
Presenting reports.
Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the report on civil rights of the Law Reform Commission of British Columbia, Part 11: Costs of Accused on Acquittal.
Mr. Speaker: Is this one statutory?
Hon. Mr. Macdonald: Statutory filing, as far as I recall, Mr. Speaker.
MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Just a few moments earlier, the Hon. House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) indicated that we would go into second reading on Bill 168 this evening. There were amendments to the bill introduced into the House this afternoon, and unfortunately, to this point none of the Members of the opposition have been able to get hold of those amendments. So I would just ask for a point of clarification from the Hon. Minister: what was the content of the amendments? We haven't seen them.
Hon. W.S. King (Minister Of Labour): For the edification of the opposition Members, the amendments are strictly language amendments. There is no basic change in any of the concepts embodied in the bill.
An Hon. Member: Can't you write?
Hon. Mr. King: I can write, but apparently some opposition Members have trouble reading.
Mr. Speaker: May I inform the Hon. Members that I am told the amendments will be on the order paper for this evening.
Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Before we adjourn, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that my information in question period yesterday was incorrect. The Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) did file some documents on the last day of the House, and I would like to have the record corrected.
Mr. Speaker: I don't know what the Hon. Member means. Does he want to have the record changed, or does he want it recorded that he has now found out what happened?
Mr. Gardom: Recorded, Mr. Speaker. I think you fully understand. (Laughter.)
Hon. Mr. Barrett: This is a change of tactics against this Minister. (Laughter.)
Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.