[ Page 7669 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority financial statements, 1981-82.

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7669

Oral Questions

Legal aid in family cases. Ms. Brown –– 7669

Borrowing by school boards. Mr. Hanson –– 7670

Bankruptcies of small businesses. Mr. Lea –– 7670

Tax notices. Mr. Stupich –– 7671

Northeast coal. Mr. Leggatt –– 7671

Court of Appeal Act (Bill 2). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7672

Mr. Macdonald –– 7672

Mr. Lorimer –– 7672

Mr. Lauk –– 7673

Ms. Brown –– 7673

Mr. Levi –– 7674

Mr. Leggatt –– 7679

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7681

Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act (Bill 32). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On section 2 –– 7682

Mr. Barber

Mr. Mussallem

Mr. Lorimer

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Howard

Mrs. Wallace

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We have a special group of students visiting us today. Seated in the gallery are 50 grade 10 students from York House School in Vancouver. Attending later this afternoon will be another 50 grade 8 students from York House School. I'm sure they've been told to expect exemplary behaviour from members of this House, who will be their usual quiet, diplomatic selves. I'd ask the members to make these students welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I've two introductions today. First of all, Mr. Ken Davis from CKOK Radio, Penticton, and a former Fraser Valley resident whom I'm sure you know quite well, Mr. Speaker. We also have 28 grade 6 students in the precincts from Okanagan Falls Elementary School, accompanied by their chaperones and their teacher, Mr. A. Forsey. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I am pleased to say that we have in the precincts now — and will later in the gallery –– 48 of the brightest grade 7 students. Naturally, they come from Vernon and district — Silver Star Elementary School, to be precise — and I would like all MLAs to join with me in welcoming them and their four teachers: Mr. Phil Mickelson, Miss Pam Metcalfe, Mr. Jim Inglis and Mr. Al Hooper. They're on tour now and I'd ask you to extend them a very warm welcome.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery this afternoon, visiting from Fraser Lake and Endako, representing the Mining Association of British Columbia, and meeting here in Victoria are Mrs. Irene Dodge and Mrs. Joan Macdonald. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, there are two visitors in the gallery today, Mrs. Helen Porret from New Westminster and Mrs. Agnes Orr from Burnaby. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery told and also from your home city of Chilliwack is well-known British Columbia broadcaster Mr. Dennis Barkman. I would ask everyone to make him welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm so pleased today to ask our members to welcome an outstanding citizen from Vancouver Centre. She is a life member of our Social Credit Party and an outstanding citizen of British Columbia, Mrs. Annie Hughes.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we've got Mr. John Patterson, vice-president of the engineering technologists society, and Mr. John Leech, the executive director of that organization. Accompanying them is a figure familiar to this House, Mr. Jim Bennett, my former executive assistant.

MR. DAVIDSON: Mr. Speaker, visiting us today are three of the Dispensing Opticians Association of British Columbia: Mr. Peter Card, Mr. Robert Hunkin and Mr. Robert Dodds. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'd like to file the financial statements of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority for the year 1981-82. This is required, of course, but it is a bit unusual because I'd like to file them today without the annual report, which won't be ready until sometime in June. The British Columbia Utilities Commission has requested information regarding B.C. Hydro's financial statements, and it's not possible for Hydro to make those available until they've been filed with the House, and rather than wait until June, so that the commission can have the information as quickly as possible we would file at this time. I don't know whether or not I need leave; I would doubt it, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to file those separately at this time.

Oral Questions

LEGAL AID IN FAMILY CASES

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney-General. It has to do with yet another of those memos he sent out on April 23. This particular memo was addressed to all counsel who act for the family law and social services section, and spells out policy changes for 1982-83. Why has the Attorney-General decided to limit the provision of legal assistance under the Family Relations Act to only those persons with children who have suffered physical abuse or who are fearful of physical abuse?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The provision of legal aid — and that's what it is — to people involved in family-law matters has for some years been an open-ended program. As a consequence of examinations made into the steadily and rapidly rising cost of that program, it was deemed appropriate that some rules be established, based upon which we may assess the effectiveness of the program and the likely future cost of providing the services required. Therefore guidelines were established for the very first time with respect to this aspect of legal aid. As we gain experience, those guidelines may be subject to adjustment.

MS. BROWN: If in fact it's the cost of the legal aid that the minister is concerned about, why was the decision made to cut off services, for example, to those battered women who have no children or to those poor women with children who are not battered, rather than simply remove those lawyers from the roster who were abusing the system? Does it make sense to penalize the victims rather than the lawyers themselves?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The victims are not to be penalized under this particular matter. It is a matter of the discretion which is available to people who function within the family-law system. The cases to which the member refers will be dealt with by the ministry on a case-by-case basis.

MS. BROWN: The other guideline has to do with the decision to deny legal counsel to children over the age of 12. An experienced family advocate has indicated that most of the children over the age of 12 who have used the legal advocacy system were involved in sexual abuse cases. Can

[ Page 7670 ]

the Attorney-General advise the House why the decision was made to cut off legal services to this particular group of people in our society — children over the age of 12?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: For the precise reason that I gave in answer to the first question: so that we can begin assessing the nature of the requests for legal assistance. In cases such as those to which the member refers, the system will accommodate those who are in need.

BORROWING BY SCHOOL BOARDS

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. As a result of Bill 27, the Education (Interim) Finance Act, many school districts in British Columbia are facing a serious cash flow problem and are being forced to borrow millions of dollars to meet operating expenses. The Victoria School Board is now paying $4,500 a day in interest charges on a $10 million loan, just to meet operating expenses. What action has the minister decided to take to ensure that his ministry makes payments to the school boards on time?

HON. MR. SMITH: The problem of borrowing for this year is one we're aware of, and we have been dealing directly with the school boards, municipalities and Minister of Finance. Now that the bill has passed and the tax notices are out, I do not expect the problem to be a continuing one. As to adjustments during the borrowing period, I've been dealing with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, on that, and I'll have further information later.

MR. HANSON: I have a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that three days' interest on this loan would hire a teacher's aide for a, year, and a week's interest would be a teacher's pay for an entire year? Why is this money being spent to enrich the banks, and not on the education of children in British Columbia?

Every time the school boards around the province ask the Ministry of Education where the funding is that is supposed to be allocated on a certain interim payment basis, they're told it's in the mail. When will the school districts get this money?

BANKRUPTCIES OF SMALL BUSINESSES

MR. LEA: I have a question to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. Various organizations, including the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, have requested provincial legislation similar in principle to chapter 11 of the American bankruptcy code to provide a breathing-space for small businesses facing foreclosure. Has the government decided to implement such a measure in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to say that the question is out of order because it may involve future legislation and future policy. However, I'd like to assure the member for Prince Rupert and other members of the House that indeed I am looking at a way in which this government can be of some assistance to the small business community — the backbone of the business community of British Columbia, I might say. When we move forward I want to assure that member that it will be done properly, that it will be something of assistance to the small business community, and that will involve the banking system of British Columbia, the federal government of Canada and our government. When I do something I want to ensure that it is done right and proper, the same way this government has moved forward in all its policies in the past.

MR. LEA: I didn't ask about future policy, Mr. Speaker, or you would have stopped me. What I asked was, is it the government's policy now — you've made up your mind — that you're going to act on a policy of implementing a program that would give some breathing-space to the small business community when facing foreclosure by the banks? There has been a poll of the small business community where 67 percent of the people in the small business community agreed that we need such legislation and we need a program. Has this government decided, and is its policy, that the government is going to do something about it and not blame the federal government, because it can be done without the federal government at the provincial level? Is it this government's policy to do something about this problem facing the small business community now?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member's first question, "Has the government decided?" is in order. The question bringing information to the House is out of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am not aware of the survey the member is talking about other than a group of socialist MLAs who went around the province posing as a committee of cabinet to do a survey on the small business community.

I would also like to say that this government has given a great deal of assistance to the small business community in relieving some of the onerous taxation which was brought on the small business community during the years 1972-75 when the socialists were in government. We have had to bring in policies to alleviate that burden. There were a number of taxes which were practically putting the small business community out of business. In the past years we have brought about a climate in British Columbia in which the small business community could indeed flourish. As I explained to the member for Prince Rupert, the matter is certainly under active consideration. When we move we will do it properly.

MR. LEA: I have a final question to the minister. Is the minister aware that the socialist MLAs and members he is talking about consist of John Bulloch, the president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and Barbara Morrison, the representative here? The survey was done through their magazine called Mandate. It had nothing to do with the committee we started but was done by the Mandate magazine. Are you aware of that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Was there a question there, hon. member?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I didn't think the committee that he and his socialist friends formed would be of much value to the small business community.

[ Page 7671 ]

TAX NOTICES

MR. STUPICH: I have a question to the Minister of Education. He said in response to a previous question: "...now that the tax notices are out." I am a bit puzzled. I am not aware of any tax notices that are out, and I will be very surprised if they are out by May 19.

HON. MR. SMITH: They go out at different intervals within the next several weeks. I am informed that some of them are out and others are ready to go out. I am not the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Maybe you would like to direct the question to him.

MR. STUPICH: Does the minister know of any municipality where the tax notices are out? Can he name one?

HON. MR. FRASER: I've got mine already.

MR. STUPICH: I was talking about 1982 taxes. I know some ministers are in the habit of not paying their taxes currently, but we're talking about 1982.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. The chairman of Nippon Kokan, Hisao Makita, said recently it is unlikely that Canadian mines will get any additional contracts beyond those already signed with mines in B.C. and Alberta. He is speaking for the Japanese steel industry, just so the minister is sure we've got the right person. In view of this, will the minister advise whether he has any signed contracts with any countries other than Japan for coal out of the northeast sector?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The member, as usual, is wrong.

MR. LEGGATT: John Bulloch's a socialist, right?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't sign, nor does this government sign, coal contracts with any steel industry anywhere. This government promotes policies and says that British Columbia is in the coal business, then leaves the signing of contracts to the individual coal companies. That's the individual enterprise way of doing it.

Further, with regard to Mr. Makita's recent remarks, he is indeed referring to the forecasts that were recently done by the Japanese steel industry. I've watched those forecasts of coke and coal requirements and steel production since early 1976 and I've seen them fluctuate. I can recall that while we were endeavouring to put northeast coal together, as well as additional contracts from the southeast, opposition members — indeed, practically everybody in British Columbia — said we would never sell any coal to the Japanese steel industry. They also said that when we opened up northeast coal there would be no additional contracts for the southeast producers indeed, that we would be taking their market away.

I would like to explain to the House what has happened since that time. We did get sufficient quantities to open up the northeast coalfields. During that time and since the announcement was made, there have been additional millions of tons of coal sold out of the southeast. I would also like to advise the members of the House that we have been working in other areas of the world. There have been additional contracts signed between Korea and British Columbia producers. We are moving coal into Europe. I was in Europe last fall, and additional inroads could be made there. As a matter of fact, one of the investors in the northeast coal project is from France. I have recently met with some other people from France who are well known in the steel and coal industry, and we do indeed have an opportunity in that area. What I am trying to explain to the House is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has now exceeded the scope of the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I am trying to answer his question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEGGATT: Given the fact that the minister has admitted on numerous occasions that the public investment in northeast coal cannot be recovered on the basis of the existing contracts, does the minister now propose to renegotiate those existing contracts so that the taxpayers of British Columbia can get some protection for their massive public investment in northeast coal?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is argumentative and it may lead to a very long answer. Shall leave be granted for this answer?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The question is based on inaccurate information.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They don't want to know the truth. Is that the idea?

As I have pointed out on numerous occasions in this Legislature, and will probably have to do again, on the first two contracts that are presently signed with the Japanese steel industry, there will be a return to the taxpayers of British Columbia of something in the vicinity of $5.5 billion. All the infrastructure, all the highways, all the railroad, all the investment by the taxpayers of British Columbia will be left for future coal orders. I'm not pessimistic like the members of the socialist party, who have been against everything we've ever done on this project. That infrastructure will be there for future generations to use. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, there will be additional coal contracts. If you want to take the short-sighted view, we would never build anything in this province; we wouldn't build new pulp mills; we wouldn't build new ports; we wouldn't do anything; we'd pull down the blinds on British Columbia and let darkness shine.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on an uncomplicated point of order. I wonder if the government House Leader would mind calling the estimates of the minister, so we can get to the bottom of all this.

[ Page 7672 ]

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 2.

COURT OF APPEAL ACT

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to move second reading of Bill 2, and to inform you and members of the House that this legislation will replace a Court of Appeal Act which has stood as the law in this province without any major revision since its enactment more than 70 years ago. Under the direction of the hon. Chief Justice of British Columbia, with the active support of the members of the court of appeal, the government has for several years had the opportunity of considering the inadequacies of the existing legislation to the requirements of 1982.

The new act will significantly modernize the practices and procedures in the court of appeal. It will for the first time separate in a definitive way those matters of a statutory nature from those which more properly fall within the scope of the civil rules of the court of appeal.

For the first time we have provided a shortened period of time for the bringing of appeals from 45 to 30 days, and we have specified time limits in the statute for the conduct of other business before the court. But at the same time, recognizing that the application of a rigid time formula may not suit every case, we have given the authority to individual justices of appeal to abridge times by either shortening or extending them as the case may be. So in no case will any litigant properly coming before the court of appeal suffer as a result of statutory time limits.

The act will also standardize the times which are limited for launching cross-appeals, something which has been absent before. The authority of individual justices of the court of appeal is being extended to deal with many of the interlocutory procedural matters. This will provide for the more efficient administration of the business which comes before the court of appeal in this province.

Under this new legislation, the concept of requiring leave to appeal has been introduced for the purposes of expediting matters which come from lower courts in proceedings where the lower court has been the appeal from a board or tribunal. Many statutes in the province provide that certain matters can be determined by administrative tribunals, and the right of appeal is extended to the courts. The court of appeal will be used only in those cases where some significant point of law remains to be decided following the undertaking of steps in appeal which the statute already provides. In addition, many matters currently requiring the attention of the entire court of appeal will now be dealt with by single justices of appeal.

The thrust of the legislation, together with the new civil rules which are in their final state of drafting now and should be available for examination by this House and members of the bar when this legislation is enacted, will serve to expedite matters coming before the court of appeal. As I indicated, the initiative for this bill came from the honourable Nathaniel Nemetz, Chief Justice of British Columbia. We were fortunate in the drafting of the legislation to have the very able assistance of the honourable A. Bruce Robertson, QC, a former justice of appeal who spent in excess of two years in the preparation of this bill.

I think the bill will be one of interest to the lawyers in the House. I look forward to their support and comment. I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm the designated speaker on this bill. Perhaps I shouldn't be speaking on the bill at all. I may very well be in a conflict of interest position, as my little brother is a supernumerary who sits on the court, but I welcome the bill and have one or two comments to make which I think are of interest not only to lawyers but to the public and clients generally.

The onrushing increase in the flow of legal work in the superior courts is a matter of concern to the provincial and federal treasuries and to the taxpayers. I welcome the kind of streamlining of the court which permits a single justice to decide whether there is a meritorious point worth arguing, rather than the kind of automatic appeal which too often takes place, sometimes at the cost of the litigants who find themselves in an expensive situation where perhaps an appeal should not have been taken.

There is a section in this bill dealing with legal costs. I've read the section. I won't give the number, because we're not in committee. While we're only dealing with the court of appeal in this bill, it's a matter of wide public interest. Far too often we have situations where a client cannot have his lawyer's bill reviewed, because he is faced with a situation where there is considered to be a contract. The normal situation, of course, is contingency fees.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Not in order.

MR. MACDONALD: It certainly is. The former Attorney-General has not looked at section 28, which allows regulations to be made prescribing the matter of costs. It does not say just party-and-party costs. I am talking about the costs that can be visited upon the client by his own lawyer. It is my opinion that they should be reviewable by the registrar in a taxation way and that the client should not be faced with a situation where his lawyer says to him: "You have made a contract, you are bound by it, and the bill is not reviewable." That contract may be very unjust to the client, or it may be fair. Very often it bears no relationship to the amount of work involved in the case or the difficulty of the case. I would hope that under the provisions of this bill which give the court the right to make regulations prescribing costs, those regulations would embrace the problem I have referred to.

I welcome the bill, with those few comments. I recognize that a great deal of work has gone into codifying the Court of Appeal Act and reducing complex and rather archaic language to a simple code. I would support second reading.

MR. LORIMER: I have just one matter to bring to the Attorney-General's attention, with reference to the prohibitive costs involved for an individual to go to the court of appeal. For financial reasons, most individuals are barred from going to the court of appeal. It would seem to me that the procedures, the amount of factum and so on that has to go into the file should be looked at in order to try to reduce the costs involved for individuals. It might be all right for corporations and so on to go to the court of appeal where they have a write-off for income tax purposes, but for an individual who

[ Page 7673 ]

has not that right I think, by and large, they are prevented from going before that particular court. I would hope that the Attorney-General would give some indication that he is looking at streamlining the system with reference to the material that has to be presented in order to reduce the costs involved.

MR. LAUK: One of the things that has been long missing in our court of appeal jurisdiction here — an — idea that has been tried in other jurisdictions — is to put into the Court of Appeal Act a provision whereby the Chief Justice of the province can designate an issue or case upon petition to be heard at public expense because of the important nature of the question. I think the Attorney-General, through the inherent powers of that office, can refer any question at public expense. That is not the point. I think that the Chief Justice of the province should be allowed to recognize, upon petition of a would-be appellant, that (1) an issue may be of such farreaching concern to the administration of justice or to the state of the law that counsel should be paid for by the public; or (2) where it would work such a major hardship if the appeal were not proceeded with, the Chief Justice, upon petition, can designate that case as one coming under the provisions of the section I am suggesting.

Something like those recommendations have been kicking around the bench and bar for some years. I wonder why it has not been considered in this bill this time around.

MS. BROWN: I have some problems with this bill because I think that the kinds of issues that actually reach the court of appeal have something to do with the quality of delivery of justice at the lower courts. I think that has a lot to do with what actually happens and what issues actually get to the court of appeal.

I think that we live in a society, Mr. Speaker, in which there has always been a determination that the quality of justice that's meted out to people really should not be dependent on their income; it should have nothing whatsoever to do with whether they can afford to hire good legal counsel. That's one of the reasons, I think, why legal aid was introduced in all of its various shapes and forms and ramifications. My concern is that that is now under attack, that somehow or other, as the result of some of the decisions being made by the Attorney-General, and being explained in the memos which were issued to various counsel dated April 23, the quality of justice which people of limited income are going to receive is going to be threatened. Some of the issues which probably should reach the court of appeal will never get to the court of appeal, because there just won't be the legal counsel provided by the Attorney-General's ministry or through legal aid or because the people involved themselves will not have the money to hire the lawyers to see that they get the kind of justice that they need in the lower courts before they can get to the court of appeal.

Now I raised an issue during question period that I want to go into in more detail. Specifically, I want to talk about the decision of the lower courts to withhold from applicants legal counsel, which used to be supplied through the Attorney-General's ministry to those people who couldn't afford to hire legal counsel themselves in matters dealing with custody, access, maintenance and related matters such as injunctive relief in the supreme court, and that means the injunctions against one spouse visiting against the wishes of another spouse and those kinds of things. Until April 23 there used to be, without limitations, legal counsel extended to people who needed it. After the memo went out on April 23, the counsel were told that they could not represent any applicants in these matters unless the applicants had de facto custody of their children and proof that there had been physical violence involved, or proof that there was imminent physical violence involved — in other words, that there was a clear threat of violence against them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this debate relevant under this particular bill?

MS. BROWN: Well, just a minute, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm asking the question, because if it is relevant, then it was out of order to ask the question.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Then I will explain why it's relevant, and I was very careful to check with people on this side of the House who understand the act better than some of the people over there....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Name one!

MS. BROWN: Stu Leggatt. I was told, Mr. Speaker, through you, that in debating what issues get before the court of appeal one, in fact, has to look at what happens in the lower courts because that's what decides what goes before the courts of appeal. This piece of legislation has to do with streamlining the courts of appeal, making it more accessible to people, and I'm saying it's not going to be possible for the courts to be accessible to you if you cannot get justice at the lower courts. Now that should not be too difficult for fine legal minds like that of the Attorney-General and others over there to comprehend.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. If that is the fact, then I must apologize to the House for having allowed the question. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: I knew that your fine legal mind would grasp this immediately, Mr. Speaker.

As a result of decisions being made by the Attorney-General's ministry to curtail the level of legal assistance available to people of limited or fixed incomes in the lower courts, it is not going to be possible for these people to have access to the court of appeal. I'm suggesting to you that in those instances where there is, in fact, violence in the family but there are no children, the spouse involved in that instance is not going to have the kind of legal counsel available to her or to him, as the case may be, which would ensure that the kind of justice they get at the lower courts is of such high quality that if need be they can have access to the court of appeal.

I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the minister that to withhold legal representation to a parent whose child has just been apprehended, for example, by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), and to say that because you now do not have de facto custody of your child you're not eligible for legal counsel under this jurisdiction, is to withhold from that person the quality of legal representation that she or he should have if they're going to

[ Page 7674 ]

have the quality of justice which they must have to decide whether they should have access to the court of appeal. It's not good enough just to streamline the procedures in the court of appeal, when by memo and by decision the minister is deciding that there are people who are not going to have access even to the streamlined court of appeal because of the decision of the Attorney-General's ministry to withhold the delivery of good legal representation to them.

Mr. Speaker, even the decision of the Attorney-General that legal services are not to be given in the instances of enforcement of maintenance to someone under these circumstances, when you realize that most people who are dependent on maintenance get something in the order of $100 or $200 a month.... When in fact we're dealing with instances of non-payment of two, three or four months it doesn't make sense to hire a lawyer to collect $400 or $500 in back maintenance. Now the Attorney-General is saying that this person is not going to be eligible. In other words, this person has to deal with all of the complexities of the court system without legal counsel as a result.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is getting really upset about my discussing this matter. I've tried to explain a number of times why.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the lady member, the point that she is raising is a point that she feels very strongly about, but it's not relevant to this bill. That's the only reason that I'm suggesting it as a point of order. The hon. lady could be talking about a thousand different situations — maritime law, motor-vehicle law, wills, estates, trusts and everything else. If we're going to get into that kind of a debate in this bill, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, with every respect, we'd be here for six months. It's not the place to discuss it. I'm not saying it should not be discussed, but this is not the place.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I've already asked the member about it on one occasion. I know that the member will now keep her remarks strictly relevant to the bill.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the gentleman minister, it is relevant. As I explained earlier to the gentleman minister, if the gentleman minister were listening, the gentleman minister would have heard that it is not possible to even get to the court of appeal if the quality of representation which one has at the lower courts is in question. Surely even the gentleman minister can understand that — gentleman minister as he is.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Was that a Valentine?

MS. BROWN: Well, I'm just indicating that I recognize you as you recognize me.

Mr. Speaker, in another memo the Attorney-General has indicated that the legal counsel available to children over the age of 12 is also going to be curtailed. As I pointed out earlier, in most instances what we are dealing with here are cases of sexual abuse against these children. What happens, Mr. Speaker, when you have a case of sexual abuse, especially when the person involved with the child happens to be a family member, is that prior to April 23 that child was entitled to a legal advocate — a third party, someone to speak on her behalf, to counsel her, to advise her, to guide her in terms of her hearings and certainly in dealing with the complexities of the court system. As a result of the memo issued by the Attorney-General's ministry on April 23, these children are now going to be deprived of that legal advocate. They're going to be deprived of that protection before the courts — that person to speak on their behalf and represent them, that counsellor.

It is not good enough just to streamline the court of appeal, as glamorous as that may be, or even as important as that may be. As I said to you earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I'm saying again, before you even get to the court of appeal, we have to ensure that the kind of legal counsel which people in lower courts have is not tied to their incomes. That has never been the case. Now this is about to happen as a direct result of these memos — three or four of them — which were issued by the minister on April 23.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. If the member wishes to use as an example matters which may happen before they arrive at court of appeal, perhaps that could be permitted. To embark on a full-fledged debate on what happens before we get to court of appeal is surely not in order in this particular bill. In viewing sections 32 through to the end of the bill, there is reference to any number of bills that are amended by this statute. However, a full-fledged debate on any of those other bills is not in order; it is only as the appeals process is affected. I would ask the hon. member to please remember that as she continues.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your very kind guidance. I will use only as examples the fact that unless straightforward, honest, accessible, good quality legal counsel is available to people at the lower courts, it's not going to be possible for them to benefit from the amendments in the legislation that we are dealing with, or even from the streamlining of the courts of appeal.

My only reason for raising this issue is that I want to bring to the Attorney-General's attention my concern that his decision to curtail the availability of legal counsel in the lower courts is going to impact on the opportunities of some people — certainly people with limited incomes — to use the courts of appeal. That is why I raised the issue of children over the age of 12, and the issue of women, whether victims of physical, emotional or psychological abuse. They are not covered if it's simply emotional or psychological abuse. They're also not covered if it's fear of kidnapping, or that kind of thing.

I want to suggest to the minister that he should be taking a second look at the quality of delivery of justice in the lower courts, at the same time as he deals with streamlining the courts of appeal as outlined in this act.

MR. LEVI: Frankly, I was quite surprised, when the Attorney-General introduced the bill, that he didn't take the opportunity to make some remarks about the justice system as it is today, its development from what it was even 70 years ago, and certainly over the last 10 years. We don't often get a chance in this House to debate some of the concepts of justice. In the 17 years that I have spent in the criminal justice system, mostly as a parole officer....

[ Page 7675 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, no, no. If you've got anything to say, get up. Otherwise, please keep quiet. If you don't understand the subject, keep quiet and learn.

It didn't happen. Sometimes under a bill like this, with something as fundamental as a change in the rules of the appeal court.... Not that the rules are all that numerous in terms of the change. Although there's an attempt to effect some language changes, this piece of legislation is extremely remote from the average citizen of this province. This is what's really happened to our court system. We're dealing here with the top court in the province. This is the top of the pecking order. My colleague made reference to the family courts, which are at the bottom of the order. One wonders about the ordering of the whole court system anyway.

I've always had some serious problems understanding the real function of the kinds of decisions that come out of the appeal court. After all, if that court makes a ruling and there's a change in the application of a particular section, it goes all the way down to the bottom. It impacts very much in the criminal sector, on the sentencing process, which is one that is looked for all the time. The major problem I've always had with our supreme court is that there is an incredible remoteness from what is going on in terms of the day-to-day courts, where the majority of our criminal cases are heard. I'm primarily dealing with criminal cases. The family law area is relatively new in terms of our court structure — 10 years that we've been attempting to do something about that. Nevertheless, the decisions made by the appeal court impact on what goes on down there.

We're dealing here with a piece of legislation that includes an oath — I'm not going to cite the oath — with two principles in there which interest me. One relates to the judge who swears that he will do, to the best of his skill and knowledge.... That's one of the important things about how the court operates: skill and knowledge. It's always been a very serious bone of contention with many people in this country as to how judges are in fact appointed. However, there is now some system, an attempt at a screening system. "At last," the former Attorney-General says. My God, yes, at last, albeit by a young lawyer who was able to go around and measure their size, girth.

I was much more interested in some observations made by Mr. Justice Martin Taylor in an interview in 1980 by Larry Still, who wrote a series of excellent articles on the court system. I'm going to quote Mr. Justice Taylor. We're dealing here with the whole question of how a judge becomes a judge in terms of experience and training. Before I go to the quote, Mr. Speaker, I might say that in other jurisdictions, particularly in Scandinavia, you take the option of whether to be on the judicial side or on the lawyer side, and you train in one or the other; that is, you train to be a lawyer or you train to be a judge. It doesn't work that way in our system. Many years ago there was a young, scholarly lawyer in the University of Calgary who decided to take a look at how judges become judges as his master's thesis, He found out that if you had the right political connections you were halfway in the door anyway. It's not that it isn't still the case today. However, that is a major question in terms of judges.

In the last two or three years we've had some public debate about judges; I'm not now going into any of those cases, and I wouldn't like to hear anybody else from the judiciary say that somehow judges are separate, special people. They're not; they're human beings. I think it was Mr. Justice McEachern, Chief Justice of the B.C. supreme court, who said, "Judges should face constructive scrutiny," in attempting to reply to the invidious inquiries by lawyers about the behaviour of certain judges. The point is that I agree with that. We need to have a much freer discussion, not about judges in terms of their private lives, but rather about what they do and how they come to do it.

To my knowledge no judge appointed in this country has any training whatsoever in being a judge. I quote from the article where Mr. Justice Taylor pointed out: "Very little has been written on the practice of the courts. A new judge must rely on what he learned as a practising lawyer, as well as from the example of other judges, As for judging, the judge must assume an anonymous role in the sense that it is the standard of the community as a whole, and not necessarily his own, which he must apply in dealing with the issues before him."

Those attainments are highly meritorious. Those younger members of this House who went through the period when a former member of this House.... He was once a Speaker, an Attorney-General and a judge later on: Mr. Justice Manson. He sat in this place for 19 years; I think he was Attorney-General for eight years; he was on the bench for 26 years. He was probably the most crusty, interesting, choleric individual to sit on the bench. However, he was a judge....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: My colleague, who has already spoken, is trying to pinch half my speech.

Once when he was active as a judge he had an incredible argument in court with a man whom he was trying for murder. He got into a terrible argument. He got into all sorts of arguments. He was a great finger-waver. He did some other good things too. Perhaps the most interesting thing he did was when he finally had an act drawn up and passed by the Parliament of Canada in order to get rid of him. As a matter of fact, I think he's responsible for the retirement age of 75 for judges.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Is that guy still squeaking?

I think judges can retire at 70 or stay on until 75.

I would have thought that the Attorney-General might have stopped for a minute and thought: "Well, I'm just going to shove this bill through; there will be three or four lawyers get up, and it'll all be over. And all the lawyers will run around outside and say: 'Allan did it again. We got it through — bang!'"

This is a good time — I hope it's a good time — for other members on that side to get into the debate on the application of justice in this province and what needs to be looked at. One major criticism I have in terms of the operation of the appeal court — and one could also level the same criticism against the supreme court — is that the judges on our supreme courts have no idea about many of the decisions they have to make, particularly with respect to sentencing. This, to me, is very serious. In its own way the appeal court is just as inefficient and insufficient in its knowledge as to what to do. I find no connection between decisions made in the supreme court and the appeal court and policy decisions that are being made in the criminal justice system as it applies to corrections and

[ Page 7676 ]

what happens to offenders afterwards. There is no integrated policy whatsoever.

I can recall many years ago, when I worked for John Howard, going along with a man to the Appeal Court of British Columbia, where there was an appeal of sentence. He had a definite-indefinite sentence. His lawyer, who knew even less than some of the judges, got up and said: "We'd like this young man to go to Haney. Then he can get some training." At the same time he was trying to get the sentence cut. He said, "Two years less a day," and two years less a day is very hard. The sentence ought to have been cut to 9 and 18. Fortunately I was able to get up and say: "If you want this young man to go to Haney, you'd better give him a year, because they don't take anybody in there to train unless they have a sentence of a year. It's not enough time."

From that little contretemps that we had, we said that if the judges had the opportunity to be well-briefed on what goes on in institutions, in parole and in probation, then they would be in a position to make much better decisions about sentencing. They don't. I am afraid it still goes on, so you do not have an integrated criminal justice system. From the courts all the way down to the people who work on the line, to the policemen who feel the great frustrations....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, isn't this more relevant to the estimates than to this particular bill?

MR. SPEAKER: We will encourage the hon. member who has the floor to make his remarks relevant to the bill.

MR. LEVI: How about if we have a little recess and I take the minister outside?

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, this bill is an entirely new bill on the court of appeal. It is not an amendment to the old bill. It is a brand-new piece of legislation setting up, in effect, a court of appeal for the province of British Columbia. With the greatest respect, I would suggest that a fair amount of scope must be allowed when this kind of legislation comes before the House. We are not merely looking at the technical part of the bill. The whole principle of appeals and the appeal system must be a part of the principle of a new bill on the court of appeal.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. As long as it has to deal with the court of appeal it will be acceptable, I am sure.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On the same point of order, I agree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody that this is a court of appeal act. It deals with the constitution and composition of the court. Therefore any remarks which are addressed to that subject are most welcome to me. However, I might point out that to deal with individual cases or the reminiscences of members with respect to their experiences, whatever they may have been, is inappropriate in the circumstances. Likewise, I would point out to the members that the qualifications of judges and the appointment thereof fall within the scope of responsibility of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the recommendation of the Minister of Justice in accordance with federal legislation, something over which I have no control.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. With great respect, it is an originating bill, but it does have several amending sections to it. To suggest that any of those amendments would open the scope of debate to an entirely new debate on each of those areas amended would be folly, I suggest. The hon. member will keep his remarks relevant to the bill, I am sure.

MR. LEVI: Well, I'm not going to let him get away with what he just said about the skill aspect. That is in the bill. That is part of the principle. We're talking about appointments. You don't just put Johnny Two Shoes on the board, or Woody Wooden Shoes. You've got to have a lawyer.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You just said so. You don't have anything to do with that because you're the Attorney-General? He doesn't have anything to do with putting them on the bench. We're not talking about who puts them on the bench. I'm talking about the issue of qualifications, the kind of things they can learn. That is the kind of thing I was talking about. That was the reason for the example, which I will stay away from. I won't do any more reminiscing.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: That's not the point. I'm not talking about who selects them. I know we don't select them. I think it is very unfortunate we don't.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's let the member make his speech.

MR. LEVI: I don't mind debating with the former Attorney-General. He loves this subject. Now that he's Minister of Intergovernmental Relations he has all the time in the world to think about the things he couldn't think about when he was Attorney-General. But I love you anyway, Garde. You know that.

I can go back to my original remark that it was unfortunate that the Attorney-General didn't take us into this kind of debate. It would have been worthwhile. We could get into some discussion about where the justice system is going. This is the very top of the justice system. In fact, this court is the most influential court in the justice system, until you get into the House of Commons, where they amend the Criminal Code.

They have all of this. They make the decisions. They do influence future decision-making in lower courts. That goes on. I was pointing out before that in the system that we all have a major concern about — the total criminal justice system involving all the aspects of crime.... This is part of the criminal system.

Justice Patrick Hartt, who was the former and first chairman of the federal Law Reform Commission, said:

"I suspect that the criminal justice system is one of the least important deterrents to crime." — this is from a man who was a justice of the Ontario court —

[ Page 7677 ]

"Also, it is now acknowledged that detention frequently fails to rehabilitate the offender, and punishment per se, on the evidence, tends to debase rather than reform. While judges, police, probation officers, prosecutors and police wardens all operate on the assumption that custodian institutions are necessary simply to spare society from predatory abuses of certain convicted criminals, they also understand that correctional institutions seldom correct and achieve little beyond the warehousing function."

This is coming from a judge who is, in fact, making some reference to the kind of sentencing process that takes place, some of the sentences coming down from the appeal courts.

First the appeal courts say: "Yes, we'll give him five years for the possession of narcotics." Then later on somebody will say: "Well, perhaps because they're not trafficking we'll give them a fine." So there were changes as the result of some judges looking at the reality of the situation. In the marijuana question they made some reductions in application of the sentence. That's what judges do. A major part of that invariably comes in the appeal courts, because sometimes when a judge gives a wrong sentence that's exactly what happens: it goes to the appeal court. Either the members of the appeal court will agree with it, or they'll come out with something else.

The main thing is that this discussion that I hope other people will participate in is really to do with the fundamentals of the system we have in the province. Unfortunately we've had so much of the negative aspect of what's gone on because of a couple of notorious cases which really had nothing to do with the application of justice. This time, because you're rewriting the rules, which I've been given to understand are not all that changed.... I don't find that the language is all that changed either. Part of what concerns me very much is the real remoteness that the average citizen feels from a piece of legislation like this. After all, they're the taxpayers. We now have an extremely expensive criminal justice system in this country.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: What are you recommending?

MR. LEVI: Let me say this. He's the Attorney-General. I'm just the guy who talks.

For the minister's benefit, let me give you an example. In Canada last year we spent $4 billion on defence. In the same year we spent $3.9 billion on police, courts, prisons and all processes connected with the criminal justice system. That is an enormous amount of money. It's a system in which we are getting deeper and deeper into the problems, one of which was illustrated by what Mr. Justice Hartt talked about in the quote I read you. We're getting into areas of cost which are so remote from the kinds of consequences of decisions that come out, for instance, even in the appeal court. I said earlier that for me the issues of competence and training of the judges have always been a major concern in terms of the appeal court, other senior courts or even, for that matter, the lower courts. In this particular case, the supreme court, no training is required. People have, in fact, gone directly to the supreme court without having training in judging at all. That was the case with Mr. Justice Farris, who went right from the courtroom to become chief justice. He's a man of long experience. Perhaps that's the kind of thing you can do.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Which Farris?

MR. LEVI: John L. Farris, the former chief justice when....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's Wendell.

MR. LEVI: No, Wendell was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Come on, Norman. Are you going to deal with the bill?

MR. LEVI: I think we're really boring the Attorney-General. He came in, did his little trip — one, two, three. Now he's bored because he doesn't want to hear these things. Why not?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Because you're talking beside the principle of the bill.

MR. LEVI: You didn't even talk on the principle. That's the trouble with this bill: there's no principle; you changed the language.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, if the hon. member believes that the bill has no principle, why is he arguing? He can deal with these matters in the course of estimates when we can have a full debate on the question of the judicial system and the way in which it is administered in this province, but not on the Court of Appeal Act.

MR. LEVI: Oh, we've got him up on his feet anyway.

MR. SPEAKER: Before the hon. member continues, I would like to remind him that on page 485 of Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition it states that debate on the stages of the bill should be confined to the bill. It should not be extended, particularly in second reading, to criticism of administration of that bill, but be strictly relevant to the principle. The member will keep that in mind as he continues.

MR. LEVI: As long as the minister keeps it in mind. I'm not criticizing the administration, I'm talking about the operation in terms of the court, not the way the Attorney-General operates. We know the way he operates: he comes in, bangs the bill on the table, then expects everybody to sit down and keep quiet.

Unfortunately, it's not always the case that in the estimates we can debate these things. This is a good opportunity and a good forum in which to talk about the superior court of this province and the kind of work done there, its relevance to what goes on in society today. We can talk about the future of the judicial system in respect to the appeal court. What's wrong with doing that? Out there we have a multitude of problems — family problems, criminal problems. You even hear complaints frequently in terms of civil suits. Something is wrong, so we're examining that.

One of the points I'm making is that in the criminal area, which is the one that I know most about, there is a remoteness in terms of understanding what the problems are. So what does one do? One talks about the people who make the decisions, and their frame of reference in terms of what goes on in society. That is a fair enough observation in terms of this bill, because right in the beginning there is a requirement to take an oath — skill and knowledge. One can question that.

[ Page 7678 ]

One can urge that there be a process by which we can be assured that we have skilled, well-trained people. What's wrong with that? That's not a critique; that's a suggestion. It has been offered before but we have no movement towards it. All we have is a piece of legislation that simply changes a few i's, crosses a few t's and simplifies a little bit of language — and at the back is the most incredible schedule of amendments to other bills.

It's the fundamental part of the justice system, but that's not the case in terms of the appeal court. All too often we don't discuss our court system in this House. There was a time when nobody dared talk about the court system or the judges. We've got out of that; we're away from that now; we can do it. That's what's being attempted here. Nobody is attacking anybody; nobody has to get nervous about it. Let's have a discussion about the kinds of things that concern people, such as those that concern my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), or the concerns that I have. That's fair enough.

MR. SPEAKER: But only insofar as it touches on the court of appeal.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I appreciate that.

In terms of the court of appeal, a very interesting analysis was done by a very bright, capable writer in April 1980, in which they talked about the justice pyramid — that's power and prestige at the top. They were talking about the nature of the appeal court, even the architecture. When you go into the appeal court, it's like going into the great temple of Solomon. You have a sense of awe when you go in there, and it becomes very difficult,

The Attorney-General might want to go down to some of the courts and watch and listen quietly to the reaction of people when they go into courts. Most of them have a feeling, even when they go to look, that they don't have a right to be there. That kind of aura, that kind of edifice complex which we've built into some of our courts, is really a very discouraging process for a lot of people. They're attracted, for instance, to the new building down there, and people more and more go into the courts. But my gosh, they've got a sense of awe about these things; they don't understand what's going on and they're not quite sure what this has to do with their daily lives, until they wind up in there. The appeal court is like that completely.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a hothouse.

MR. LEVI: Yes, it's a hothouse; it has sealed windows. Frankly, the only time I was there to listen to a trial, I had a heck of a time staying awake.

The thing is, because of the aura around the supreme court, there is an aura around the way the whole thing is conducted and where it's conducted, and it's very unfortunate. It doesn't give people the feeling that it is part of the daily life of citizens in this province. Even as taxpayers they have a right to go in it. It's very difficult to see that.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: It's too late to speak to him. All those big desks down there....

I think the austere view that is held by many people is what Judge Doug Campbell, who is a very fine family court lawyer here in Victoria.... He made an observation. He said: "The pecking order starts with the court of appeal and goes on down to the lowest form of life, which has to be the family court." It's very unfortunate. It's obviously a remark that comes from experience and feeling when we talk about the state of the pecking order, in terms of the appeal court. It's austere and it's remote, yet it has more impact on the administration of the justice system in this province than any other court. In terms of some of the cases they deal with, they sometimes change the direction of decisions which have social policy implications. In this country, all too few such decisions are made, but they emanate out of the court of appeal. That's the important thing.

In terms of the change — and the minister has indicated this is the first time in 70 years that there's been a change in the application of the court of appeal — I don't know that it's going to do anything to overcome some of the feelings of people out there about the appeal court system. That's the difficulty that I have with the legislation.

Obviously one supports the change because it has to be, in terms of the operational side of it. However, could we have built into the idea of the legislation some of the things which directly affect and take into account the kind of things that people are concerned about? That's what I think the administration of justice is all about, and that is what is exemplified by the superior court which we have, which is the Court of Appeal of British Columbia. If we're going to make changes to that part of it, we could look also to making changes to the whole effect that it has. The effect is more than what's written in a book afterwards as a judgment which lawyers can refer to. It has to be more than that; otherwise it's too remote and doesn't mean too much to people. The indifference that some people feel has been one of the causes, in terms of our very costly justice system — and, in some cases, a sense of desperation about whether in fact they can get the kind of justice that they want.

It was a justice of the appeal court — and I was there when he said it — who said that the only people entitled to legal aid in this country are those who can afford to pay for it. That was a principle that was enunciated 35 years ago. I know we would not hear that today, but I heard it very vividly when a person was asking for some assistance in the court at that time.

There have been some changes. But the difficulty is that the size and the cost of the criminal justice system are so out of proportion to the kind of real effectiveness that could take place if there was an integrated approach to our justice system by the courts, the people in the police system, the people who work in the rehabilitation system and the prison system — all of that has to be integrated. It is not integrated, and consequently decisions are made on the judicial level which can impact on people in the rest of the system. It doesn't seem to make sense in terms of the kinds of sentences that are handed down, the kind of approach that's used, and the lack of knowledge — where they think they're sending offenders. All of that is still missing after all of these years. Sure, we've gone into all sorts of other processes, but in terms of the courts — particularly in terms of our top court — we're still very far away from that integrated approach. With all due respect to the people who work there, the appeal court is still not part of the real world of the criminal justice system.

We've had some debate in the press recently on the position of judges, their state of independence and what they can and cannot do. We're living in an entirely different era

[ Page 7679 ]

than we did when the concepts were brought in 70 years ago — when this first legislation, which is now being replaced, was brought in — about just what the role is and what the proper function of a judge is. It might have been all right 70 years ago for a judge to keep his mouth closed, to make no observations, not to be.... But in those days there were not many people from the press who ever went and shoved a microphone in the face of the chief of the supreme court or chief of the appeal court of British Columbia.

Now, of course, everybody in this country is as close as a telephone. People want to know — who better to talk about the appeal court than the chief justice? Who better to talk about the supreme court...? That's why it's different. We need some kind of change in outlook on that. That's not possible, presumably, in this bill.

But the minister, who goes down to Ottawa for regular meetings with his colleagues.... Presumably this is what they talk about — at least I hope they spend some time talking about this. Or maybe they don't; maybe they prefer the same stuffy little system that has been going on for a long time. Frankly, it is quite inappropriate for the kind of times that we're living in.

In terms of what the minister is doing here, I can only conclude from what he's done with these rules — he's changed the rules; he didn't really say anything about the system — that he likes things the way they are, Well, I don't like them the way they are. That's why I got up to speak on this. I find them extremely difficult to accept after all the years that I was in the system and all the years I've been here witnessing. The changes are much more fundamental than the kind of changes that are envisaged in this bill. This is the nature of the debate that we want to have, and the minister has given us some notice that we can discuss it in his estimates. Okay, good. We'll get into that and then we'll get into the particulars. By then, maybe he'll be ready to debate this thing so that we can really find more modern-day relevance than I find, frankly, in some aspects of the important work of the court.

MR. LEGGATT: Before I say very much about Bill 2, I'd like to congratulate my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who gives a consumer point of view about legal services that's sorely needed in this chamber. I find it very hard to listen to my colleagues in the law criticize a lay member's approach to the legal system and its defects with some sort of assumption that in our own trade union are the only people who have the wit or the wisdom to criticize the way we deliver legal services. Frankly, I very much welcome an opportunity to listen to my colleague any time he rises on a subject of which he knows a great deal and to which he contributes a great deal in terms of change in the law.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed with the Attorney-General's introductory remarks to the bill. I'm not sure why we have a new bill here. I glanced briefly at the old bill, and the changes are not all that significant between the new bill and the old bill. Perhaps in concluding the Attorney-General would deal in a little more detail with the changes that have been effected as a result of our new Court of Appeal Act.

The key provision that I noted in his initial remarks — for example the abridgement of time — has always been in the old act under section 27. I don't see any significant change there. I think we always have the right to appeal. Even after the appeal period has gone by, we have always had the right to make an application to enlarge the time in special circumstances. That does not seem to have changed, and I'm glad, of course, that it's still in the legislation. The cross-appeal question, I think, is an improvement. I don't know quite why we have to have a whole new bill for that purpose.

Another issue arises as a result of introducing us again to the question of the court of appeal itself and the question of court of appeal legislation. Do we need a court of appeal in the province of British Columbia? We have a Supreme Court of Canada. One of the complaints that people make about the judicial system from time to time is that there's an endless route for appeals to go on. Something that starts in lower court — for example, let's take provincial court, where most people are exposed — can go up to county court in most criminal matters or by stated case to supreme court, thereafter to the court of appeal, and thereafter to the Supreme Court of Canada. That's a lot of steps in the appeal process, and a lot of legal fees that have to be paid to support the people in our profession to do that work. By the way, I'm not one of those who believe that people in our profession are overpaid.

There is perhaps an opportunity from time to time, because it's so easy to assume that all the institutions that are there are always necessary, to perhaps question the need for the court of appeal system throughout the country. In fact, an expanded Supreme Court of Canada might be able to do that kind of work just as effectively. A Supreme Court of Canada that travelled, or was perhaps regionalized, might be just as effective as the court of last resort, rather than having the additional appeal steps. I think it's worth a look or a study into whether we really need a court of appeal at all.

The second thing I question is the kind of people that you appoint. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be relevant to the bill and relevant to the principle of the bill. Provided in this bill there is a standard oath that's prepared by the Attorney-General setting forth that any person accepting responsibilities on the court of appeal must swear an oath to "...truly and faithfully, according to his skill and knowledge, execute the duties, powers and trust placed in him as a justice of the court of appeal...."

There is a debate raging in the community — outside as well as inside the legal community, I think — as to what a judge can say in public. What are the rules that our judges must abide by in terms of public comment on matters of the day? There is an area of some vagueness around this. Of course, I'm particularly concerned at the present time with the case of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger. Apparently the appropriateness of his remarks on the constitution are now being investigated or studied by the federal Judicial Council.

There is, as I say, an area of vagueness around this particular subject which should be clarified. I think the place to clarify it should be the Legislature, or perhaps the federal House. We should clarify the question of what is and what is not appropriate comment from the courts. Tradition has been that, because judges are placed in a position of having to make decisions about these matters, they are somewhat circumscribed in getting into debate on matters of strict partisanship. The facts as they seem to be in the case of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger are that he addressed the Canadian Bar Association....

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I must raise as a point of order the fact that the member is not dealing with the principle of this bill, but is dealing with another matter touching upon judicial conduct which falls entirely

[ Page 7680 ]

within federal legislation, something over which I and this court of appeal have no control. If there is any vagueness in the issues to which the member refers, I would be happy to provide him with a lengthy list of material that he can address on the subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member for Coquitlam-Moody please, as we've mentioned to other members who have spoken, make his remarks relevant to the bill.

MR. LEGGATT: I shall certainly do that, Mr. Speaker. I'd like the Attorney-General to read section 4(1) of the legislation he's proposing to us, which deals with the question of judicial rank. It sets out that the chief justice has rank and precedence over all other judges of the courts of British Columbia, which of course gives the chief justice of the court of appeal rank over a judge of the supreme court. Those comments made by a judge of the supreme court clearly come into question by his superior court judge. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I think I am still making relevant remarks in terms of this brand-new bill dealing with the Court of Appeal Act and the jurisdiction of superior court judges, one to the other.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the member has to say, but there's no suggestion that the chief justice of British Columbia is dealing with the subject of the member's remarks. It's being dealt with by the Judicial Council of Canada, which is established under a federal bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Coquitlam-Moody continues without offending the rules of the House.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will continue to not offend the rules of this House. The Attorney-General can argue as long as he likes about the question of whether judicial rank is relevant to the question of judicial comment. If he can make that one stick in any court in the land, including this Legislature, I'd be very surprised. This is very relevant to what we have to say about the capacity of supreme court judges to make public comments. Also, the bill in question sets out very clearly judicial rank in the province of British Columbia.

To get back to the question of what is or is not appropriate in terms of public comment, it should be appropriate, if it's not now, particularly for our superior court judges.... I don't see why any judge should be inhibited from commenting on something as fundamental as the constitution of this country. It boggles the mind — in fact, beggars reason — and offends common sense that we would have a judicial inquiry into a judge who saw fit to make a public comment about something as completely fundamental to our nation and province as the rules under which we live, our constitution. Surely we look to our people most skilled in that area to make those comments. Frankly, I welcome those kinds of comments from a superior court judge. Surely we are not going to be in the hands of law professors all our lives for comments on something as important and fundamental as the constitution.

In the case of Mr. Justice Berger, he not only commented on it once; he commented on it several times. It's quite significant that in making his first comment, he spoke favourably on the constitution as it then was. He addressed the Canadian Bar Association and had his remarks widely covered by newspapers, including the Globe and Mail, which was apparently the problem with the Prime Minister of this country. Nothing was said until such time as sections were removed from the constitution and again comment was made in the Globe and Mail by the same supreme court judge; thereafter a complaint was made.

It is inappropriate for the judicial council and inappropriate for judges of our courts to engage in this kind of activity. We surely have some kind of sense of responsibility or justice or just plain common, old-fashioned good sense to see that this kind of thing will bring the judiciary into disrepute.

A good deal is said, and we in parliament and the general public are constantly warned, that we should not bring the judiciary into disrepute. They are limited in their ability to respond. They're limited in their capacity to defend themselves publicly, and I agree with that fundamental concept.

What is happening now, in terms of that particular activity by the judicial council, is bringing the judiciary into more disrepute than ever could occur as a result of comments from lay people or lawyers.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: How can you make that decision before they've dealt with the matter? Are you prejudging what they're going to do?

MR. LEGGATT: I'd be happy to deal with that. I'm not prejudging it. I'm suggesting that a body which refused or discontinued an investigation into the chief justice of this province, but then continued an investigation into one of the most prestigious judges I know in this province, is acting in an injudicious manner, Mr. Speaker. That's what I'm saying. The Attorney-General, who has seen fit to take it upon himself today to defend the Judicial Council, should have looked at their previous decisions over previous judges to come to a better and more even-handed decision.

MR. SPEAKER: But not under this bill.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, as I say, it is a time when we should re-examine this whole question of what is, or what is not, appropriate judicial comment. If there's any doubt about it, it should be made clear by the Legislature, the Attorney-General and the federal Parliament that comment on something as fundamental as the constitution, native rights, women's rights or the place of Quebec in Confederation is appropriate for someone as knowledgeable in those fields as Mr. Justice Thomas Berger or any other judge who happens to be very knowledgeable in those fields.

Dealing with this question of who judges the judges, it seems to me that if you're going to hold these kinds of....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A point of order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, at no place in this legislation is there anything to do with who judges judges. If .he's talking about the Judicial Council, again, I must say, that's federal legislation, and if he wishes to address those matters with the Minister of Justice, I suggest he do so in the appropriate fashion.

MR. SPEAKER: The member continues, strictly relevant to the principle of this bill.

[ Page 7681 ]

MR. LEGGATT: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court judge the judges every day by assigning them various cases. So that is the bill, and the Attorney-General really must be more careful when reading his own legislation.

In any event, we are looking at a question of when you're going to pass a court of appeal bill. Maybe it's time we examined the need for a court of appeal itself. Maybe it's time we examined the streamlining of the appeal process in Canada. Maybe it's time we examined the idea of having a single ultimate court of appeal, the supreme court of Canada. I'm on the bill now, Mr. Speaker; you can't argue with that. If we had an Attorney- General's department that was innovative, they would perhaps have a look at that. We haven't had much from the Attorney-General in terms of new departures in the law, new approaches to the law, or new studies of the law. All we've had today is a complaint; the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) got up and had the temerity, as a lay person, to criticize lawyers and judges. I think we need more than that from the Attorney-General. We need some innovative thinking on the question of the law. It hasn't come from that quarter, Mr. Speaker.

It's a question of "let's not rock any boats." That's why the Attorney-General thought he was going to get this bill through in about ten minutes. He looked at it and said: "Well, it's the usual thing. We'll get five lawyers up and it will be through in a minute." I don't think he should expect that from a piece of legislation like this. There is deep concern in the population about the administration of justice and about the law — and that includes every level of justice. Unless this government and the Attorney-General start to look at changes within the law that will satisfy those public demands, I might say that he and his government are going to be in very serious trouble, as they are already.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, let me assure you and members of this House that innovation in the administration of justice in this province is no stranger to the Attorney-General or to his ministry. As for debate in this chamber with respect to the administration of justice in all of its elements, I most sincerely welcome it at the appropriate time, when it is in accordance with the rules — not to abuse the rules, when dealing with the Court of Appeal Act. I would like to respond to some of the matters raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), but I don't propose to do so in dealing with the Court of Appeal Act or to use it as a vehicle for such debate, important as it may be. I took forward anxiously to having the opportunity of joining in debate, not necessarily disagreeing with many of the matters raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody and his colleague who spoke as a layman in respect to these matters.

So far as the organization of courts in this province is concerned, I wish the member to know that very careful consideration is being taken of the way in which the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the county courts and the court of appeal function one with the other. Studies are underway which I hope will soon produce innovative concepts with regard to the way in which all those superior courts function. There has been — for too long, in my view — a clinging to history, with respect to the way courts were established. Whether we need to have one superior court which sits in a trial division and in an appeal division, and how it will meet the geographical and regional needs of a province as large as this one, I'm not at liberty to say at the moment; but I want to assure the members that this is not being ignored.

The concept of having no court of appeal in this province, but rather giving all the appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of Canada, is fraught with very serious constitutional difficulty, as I know the member will appreciate. The Supreme Court of Canada is established under federal legislation, to which the provinces make very little contribution, although during 1980 we tried to have discussed constitutional change which would permit the provinces to play a greater role in the selection of judges and in the determination of jurisdictions and the manner of operation of the Supreme Court of Canada. We would not wish to see the appellate authority for this province fall under the control of a court which might not sit regularly within B.C. to serve the people of this province.

We are also concerned, as I'm sure the member is, that over recent years the Supreme Court of Canada has adopted the policy of dealing with cases which are of national significance. Therefore leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is not easily obtained; in criminal matters, yes, but with regard to others, you have to establish to the satisfaction of the Supreme Court of Canada or to the court of appeal of the province that there is some issue of national significance requiring it to be dealt with by that court. We in this province must therefore continue to have an appellate court which can deal with issues that come from the courts below. Until we in this nation can look at changes in the Supreme Court of Canada and the appellate jurisdiction which it exercises, I would think we in this province would have to look to adjusting our own system in a way which will better serve the administration of justice in British Columbia.

We think we are at least as good as, if not better than, any of the other provinces in this regard. We have made greater strides in some respects than other provinces. In some cases they have merged their district and superior courts; we have not. But that's not because it's not being examined. I can assure the member that two specific proposals are currently under examination; I would hope that they would be before this House next year.

With respect to the remarks of the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), while he's not here, I hope he will note that when we come to the estimates I would like to discuss some of the matters that he wanted to raise, because they are valid matters for discussion in this chamber, and many of the points which he raised are ones with which I agree. I only hope that when we come to debate this again he would consider that the independence of the judiciary is not necessarily indicative of remoteness of individual judges from what is going on in society. I would ask him to also consider what the consequences might be if, in making sure that judges were not remote, we created a situation where questions could be asked about their independence in any particular case. It is within that area that I think one has to very carefully examine the relationship between the judiciary, the bar. the police and society generally.

Perhaps I'm guilty of saying things to which I have already objected. but I would just like to say one more thing to the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam. It is passing strange to me that in Britain, from which most of our concepts come. When one is at the bar one tends to be very narrow in scope with regard to one's associates. If one is

[ Page 7682 ]

elevated to the bench in Britain, then one's scope widens. As judges travel about Britain on circuit, they regularly meet with community leaders in the towns they visit, and that gives them an opportunity to broaden their perspective as they go into the regions of their country. Just the opposite occurs in Canada. In Canada, as a member of the bar, one generally has a wide range of acquaintances and many involvements in community affairs. Yet when one is appointed to the bench, there is a narrowing of one's associations — and I think that in the matter we were debating with the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), this is an element which must not be ignored. I think that in many cases our society imposes upon judges limitations which are not sought by judges and are certainly not in the best interest of the discharge of their responsibilities. So I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to an interesting debate during estimates, in which, I think, we will find many points of agreement and maybe a few disagreements.

With respect to the bill itself, the cost to the citizen is something of very serious concern to us. It was raised by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who, by the way, mentioned that he perhaps had a conflict of interest because his brother is a supernumerary judge of the court of appeal. I would recall to you, Mr. Speaker, that his father was a judge of the court of appeal in this province.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no other way he'd ever get to the court of appeal, I can assure you, than becoming a member of that court, because the cases he loses he loses so wholeheartedly that there is no appeal left, so he is not likely to be before the court of appeal as a practitioner of the bar.

MR. MACDONALD: I wouldn't lose if I was on the court.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right. I'm not sure about the court.

Anyway, costs. The member was really directing his remarks to the matter of contingency fees, which I know is of great concern to him. That's another bill, and, hopefully, we will be looking at that matter a little later. But there is one aspect with regard to costs that I would like to address. Under this new legislation, and with new technology and communication, the court of appeal is considering means by which many of the applications to this court of appeal can be dealt with without actually appearing in the court itself. We hope to establish a system whereby a practitioner in Prince George who has a matter which is coming before the court of appeal, with leave to appeal or an interlocutory application of some kind, will be able to do so, in effect, by television. He will appear in Prince George and speak to the court in Vancouver — they will see him on television and he will see them. As a result, I think, some significant savings can be made. We hope to see techniques of that kind introduced soon.

There has been, as the member pointed out, a tremendous increase in the workload of the total judicial system. This bill is directed to ensuring that at the court-of-appeal level there can be expeditious treatment of cases which need the attention of the court of appeal. I'm pleased to say that under the chief justice and the members of his court the ability to obtain an early hearing in the court of appeal in this province is much improved over what one would find in other jurisdictions.

This bill will contribute to the ability of the court to maintain this record. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of this bill.

Motion. approved.

Bill 2, Court of Appeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Committee on Bill 32, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE RESTRAINT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 32; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. BARBER: This is the bill that puts municipalities into political receivership. Section 2 is the way the government proposes to do so. This is the bill which has been described by a former Minister of Municipal Affairs as a fascist document. This is a bill which gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in this section specifically, the authority to impose his will and arbitrary political judgment on the course and conduct of municipal government in British Columbia.

Section 2 allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs to limit the operating expenditures of a municipality for the calendar years 1982 and 1983. What authority he has he may only obtain by demanding it from this Legislature. He was not elected to exercise it.

MR. RICHMOND: On a point of order, if my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Chairman, I think we determined in this House one day last week that the term "fascist" was unacceptable. I believe, if we look back in Hansard, it will report that it was withdrawn by the member who used it, and was termed unacceptable in this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, to attribute that word in any manner to a member would certainly be unacceptable. I'm sure, if the member was making any allusion to a member in the use of that word, he would withdraw.

MR. BARBER: I withdraw nothing, because I charged nothing. I described the bill, in the words of a former Minister of Municipal Affairs, as being a fascist document. I'm referring to Bill 32; not Bill Vander Zalm. Perhaps the member for Kamloops didn't understand that. I'm referring to the bill before us, and the section which is the operating and governing section of that bill, as having been described by a former Minister of Municipal Affairs as a fascist document. That does not mean its author is a fascist. I didn't say so.

What's awesome, frightening, sweeping and tyrannical about this bill is that it gives the Minister of Municipal Affairs authority that he was not elected to exercise. No municipality voted that this Minister of Municipal Affairs should be empowered to set their budgets. No electors actually voted for

[ Page 7683 ]

that anywhere — here in this provincial House or at any municipal level either. What is frightening about this bill is the incredibly dangerous opportunity for political tyranny. What is frightening about this bill is the awesome authority given to one man — in this case, one Socred, for heaven's sake — to control the future and govern the opportunities that local government may wish to exercise for itself This is unacceptable.

The section which we're now debating gives the minister the authority to limit the budget of any municipality for this and the next calendar year. What competence does he have to do so? What advice will he receive that allows him to deter mine — more knowledgeably than any mayor, more thoroughly than any alderman, more ably than any regional director — what they should or should not spend? When this guy was the mayor of Surrey, he would have yelled bloody murder if any administration at the provincial level had at tempted to circumscribe and abrogate his responsibilities as the duly elected mayor of that municipality. He would have yelled from bottom to — top of this province. He would have done so as a Liberal, and he would have done so as a Socred.

But today, as a minister, he thinks that he is somehow entitled and enabled to administer the awesome authority this section gives him.

If a socialist government chose to ask for such authority, these right-wingers opposite would have yelled and screamed and hooted and hollered, and in my opinion they would have been entitled to do so. No government, socialist or reactionary, is entitled to ask for this power, because they're not fit to exercise it. They're not fit because they're not knowledgeable, they're not competent, and they weren't elected to do so. On all three grounds they are not fit to exercise this power. They were not elected to do so and are therefore not entitled to do so. It is a simple rule of democratic law and democratic principle. The Minister of Municipal Affairs was not elected to "limit the operating expenditures of a municipality." He is not personally fit to do that. He doesn't know enough. He sits here in Victoria in his great house on Rockland or in his vast office in the buildings and he presumes, does he, to know what the people of Prince George should be spending on the improvements their municipality may require? Rubbish! He is not fit, knowledgeable or competent to exercise the vast arbitrary and tyrannical powers contained in this section. He doesn't know enough and can't know enough.

The man who wishes to make himself czar of all the municipalities is not fit to exercise these powers, and neither is any other member of this Legislature. Only on home turf could they possibly know enough about what their problems are to determine what their budget should be. Only in local government are they knowledgeable enough about the real issues and concerns of those constituents at the home level to make decisions about what they should and should not spend money on. Social Credit has a difficult enough time getting its own house in order without proposing to local government that they now assume responsibility for that also. Social Credit had an overrun of $225 million last year. They now propose to turn around and tell local government to restrain their budgets? If they're not competent to control their own spending, how do they propose to become competent enough to control the spending of municipalities? The czar of all the municipalities, the first member for Surrey, may be arrogant enough to think he is SO competent but no one else believes he is. We certainly don't, and we know him pretty well.

I ask the government once again to apply the Gaglardi test. If you don't think one of our members would be fit to exercise these vast and awesome authorities over local government, why should we think any of you is fit? If you don't think someone of the character of Phil Gaglardi would be fit to exercise the power you wish to be granted under section 2, why should any of us think any individual is so fit?

This section proposes to replace 2,000 elected persons in British Columbia with one elected person in Victoria. This bill proposes and this section allows that 2,000 aldermen, mayors and regional directors be put out of business as far as assigning budget priorities for the improvements that they may wish to enjoy in their own local communities, and instead sees that power given to one man — the first member for Surrey. In a democratic society that would be considered laughable, and no government in its right mind would even dare to put it forward. But in British Columbia, where we have a coalition of misfit opportunists who are prepared to do anything in order to get their way, apparently it is not laughable, at least on their parts.

If a New Democrat administration had asked for this power, Social Credit would have yelled and screamed for days, but because the right-wingers opposite have asked for it, it is now apparently acceptable. The difference is that we never did ask for that authority. We never used it, we never wanted it, because we don't believe it should be used by a central government. We believe local authority belongs in a local place and should not be trespassed upon by a central government in Victoria. We believe local authority is more knowledgeable, competent and accountable than is any centralist authority in Victoria. How on earth can a Minister of Municipal Affairs in Victoria know what the budget priorities should be of the people of Fort St. John? He can't. He is not fit to make that judgment because there is no conceivable way he could know enough to do so competently. He is not fit because he was not elected to exercise that power, and there is therefore no democratic way he could exercise that authority. He is not fit because no individual representing any government could possibly be aware enough of local pressures and interests to make those decisions.

This bill puts out of business 2,000 other elected persons in British Columbia, representing the many hundreds of municipalities, districts, towns, villages, cities and regional districts that exist in British Columbia. This bill has been aptly described by a former Minister of Municipal Affairs as a fascist document. It is such, and reveals a dangerous policy and tendency. The tendency of Social Credit toward centralizing power in Victoria is well known, and it is dangerous. It is added to by section 2 of this bill, which is not yet so well known but it is most certainly equally dangerous. This section says that no alderman and no mayor is as able as the Minister of Municipal Affairs to write a budget, because this section says that this government may arbitrarily, capriciously and tyrannically impose its view of budget priorities on any local administration in the province. It may do so without appeal. It may do so without further recourse to this Legislature. It most certainly does so without debate at the local level. The czar of all the municipalities has an authority under section 2 that no previous Minister of Municipal Affairs has ever exercised or even asked for. Fortunately they've never asked for it; regrettably it is now being asked for in this debate.

[ Page 7684 ]

Has any local government in the province asked this Social Credit administration to take away its budget authority? Has any local mayor or alderman come to this House or to that minister's office and asked to surrender their jurisdiction? Has a single local elected person in this province requested of Social Credit that they assume responsibility for budgeting? The answer to all three questions, I think, is no. This minister hasn't made any case, even once, that local government has asked him to assume this awesome authority. He can't make that case, because it would be a total fabrication if he tried. The UBCM doesn't go along with this. No local mayor or alderman I've ever heard of goes along with this. In fact they consistently oppose it. They are opposing other things this government has been doing even more strenuously, but no elected person, to the best of my knowledge — and we've canvassed a great many of them — has asked that section 2 be imposed on them. Most of them have said, in fact, that as locally and democratically elected persons they should be made to be held accountable for the budgets they write. If the local electors don't like those budgets, they will be turfed out of office, and that's how it should be.

That's how we do things in the Canadian democracy. Maybe the minister doesn't have much faith in our system. In our system we are regularly held accountable for what we do or for what we fail to do. In the Canadian system that has achieved some great success over the last century. Maybe the minister believes in some other system. Maybe he believes in a system where the central government regularly and rightfully takes control from local government, but we don't believe in that in Canada, and we don't believe in it in British Columbia. We believe that local government has as authentic, distinguishable and as real an authority as does a central government in Victoria or a central government in Ottawa. It is certainly the case under the Canadian constitution: municipalities are fundamentally the children of the provinces in that they do not exist as separate entities. That's always been the case in the Canadian system, and we've always had the authority under the Municipal Act to determine what further authorities local government may exercise.

The difference between our side and the Socred side is this, Mr. Chairman. We believe fundamentally that locally elected persons are entitled to make decisions and to be held accountable for them. We do not believe that Victoria is entitled to intervene and tell them what budget priorities they may set or what local improvements they may choose to pay for. On this side of the House we believe in local government, and New Democrats always have. We believe that the central government in Victoria is not as able, as well informed or as entitled as a local alderman or a local mayor to make those choices. Since when did the member for Surrey become competent to tell the people of Kimberley whether or not they may build a swimming pool at their own expense? Since when did the member for Surrey become competent to tell the people of Pouce Coupe that they may or may not build a sidewalk at their own expense? The consequence of this section, Mr. Chairman, is that he may now do this. He may now say: "Sorry, your proposed public improvements in your community are beyond what we have decided is a proper level of restraint. Therefore you are not entitled to spend that money."

Mr. Chairman, the danger in that is provable and clear. The tyranny in that is obvious and explicit. The tragedy of it is that Social Credit thinks that they can get away with this kind of trash. They actually have so contemptuous an attitude toward local government that they really seem to believe that they can get away with this kind of centralist intervention in the affairs of local government. The minister, in his usual inept way, will get up and say: "No, we're not trying to take away power; all we're trying to do is restrain budgets and protect the interests of the taxpayers of British Columbia." If that were true in the first place, they wouldn't have had an overrun of $225 million last year, but they did. That's what the Socreds did. If that were true in the first place, they wouldn't have wine-guzzling ministers running around...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: ...spending $37.50 on bottles of wine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. When I call the member to order, he'll cease talking. I'm telling the member at this time that personal allusions to any other minister are not in order at any time. I would ask the member to continue with section 2 on this bill. I'm sure the hon. member knows exactly what I'm speaking about.

MR. BARBER: What are the allusions? I'm talking about the public expenditure of $37.50. That's public money, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm talking about the necessity for the member to remain on the strictly relevant part of section 2.

MR. BARBER: Which allows the minister to exercise, as he puts it, "restraint on the operating expenditures of a municipality." As we put it, Mr. Chairman, this is sheer hypocrisy. That is, I think, a legitimate comment. The Chairman, whoever he may be, may not like to hear it, but from our point of view it is nonetheless true. It is hypocrisy on the part of government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the section we are dealing with in this particular bill is section 2, dealing strictly with the expenditures of a municipality and limitations thereon. Under the regulations and rules that govern the discussions that can take place in this committee, the member must be strictly relevant. Personal allusions or other references are not in order at this point in debate.

MR. BARBER: The minister's defence of this section will no doubt be allowed to be in order. I have no hesitation in predicting that. That is always the way with ministers' statements.

The minister will say — I also predict — that this is part of the government's general program of restraint and is therefore justifiable in a time of recession. That is not hard to predict either. Because we know he is going to say that, I would like to say in advance that we don't accept that rationale, because it's phony and hypocritical. The rationale is inconsistent and insincere, coming from that government with its record of waste and extravagance. If local government misspent the public funds as badly as has Social Credit, then maybe there would be some justification for this section. The point is, local government has been far more prudent, cautious and responsible than Social Credit has ever been in

[ Page 7685 ]

the expenditure of public funds. If you add up the operating expenditures of all the municipalities last year and look at their overruns, you would not find a $225 million overrun as the result. The operating expenditures last year were reasonable, prudent, cautious, accountable and democratically arrived at.

What the minister wishes to do now is to take the power away from local government to assess and assign those expenditure priorities, and to give it to himself instead, as if somehow he is more fit. He is not, and neither is his government. Local government did not have an overrun totalling $225 million last year. Social Credit did. If local government behaved as badly as Social Credit government does, there might be some justification for this section; but they do not, and there is not. The minister himself had an overrun on his office budget last year, but do we see him proposing in this section to restrain the office budgets of cabinet ministers? No, he wants to restrain someone else but not himself. No wonder local government rejects it and no wonder they think you do not have the fit and competent authority, as you wish to have it granted under section 2. The minister overran his own office budget by $25,000 last year, and now he wants to tell a local mayor not to overrun his? That is absolute hypocrisy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we will have ample opportunity at another time in committee to discuss the ministerial estimates but this is not that time.

MR. BARBER: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman. It goes without saying that I asked the minister to explain that overrun in question period four weeks ago and he has yet to provide an answer. He is asking municipalities to exercise restraint, which he himself has never exercised. He is asking a mayor to be more prudent than he has been. He is asking local government to be more cautious than his government has been. He is asking every mayor and alderman in British Columbia to relinquish their authority to set budgets and he has instead asked that he personally, and he alone, be given that authority. This is unacceptable in a democratic community.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs is not a mayor, he is not an alderman and he is not a regional director. He has held those positions in the past but he does not hold them currently. He was not elected to be anything other than a member of this Legislature. He was not elected to administer the budget of the city of Victoria; he is not fit to administer the budget of the city of Victoria; he should not be allowed to administer the budget of the city of Victoria, but he wishes to do, and thinks he can do, all of these things. Section 2, regrettably and tragically, will allow him to get away with it, at least until the next general election, when the next New Democrat administration repeals this offensive and undemocratic attack on the rights and privileges of local government. We will repeal it. We do oppose it, and we do so in the name of local autonomy, local control, local choice, local responsibility and local freedom.

New Democrats believe in local government. We believe its practitioners must be held accountable for the decisions they make. We believe local government must be held accountable for the budgets they write, If the budgets are too lean or too fat the electors will tell them so. Local government gives us an opportunity to exercise that choice. The tyrannical Minister of Municipal Affairs may not believe local government should be so entitled. I wish he would be prepared to say so in public the next time he goes to Surrey. I wish he would be prepared to tell the mayor of Surrey, the next time he sees him — if he ever sees him these days — that he no Ionizer believes that mayor is competent to administer a municipal budget. I wish he would tell him, plainly and truthfully, that he no longer believes council and the mayor of Surrey are jointly fit to administer a municipal budget and to be held accountable for the consequences if the local electors don't like it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The heavy hand of state centralism.

MR. BARBER: The heavy hand of Social Credit is the heavy hand we see in this section today. It is undemocratic, it is authoritative, it is centralist, and it is a step backward in time. Maybe in some other countries, they believe in this way of doing business. Maybe in East Germany or Chile, they believe that the central government has the right to take such power from local government without appeal, without debate, without consultation and without request. In some other countries, maybe they do it that way. And maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs thinks we should do it that way here. He did, after all, campaign with Pierre Elliott Trudeau as a Liberal candidate, and we know Mr. Trudeau's view of the democratic process. It's not too strong.

MS. BROWN: We ve got pictures.

MR. BARBER: We've got pictures of them, campaigning arm in arm together in a certain federal campaign. Maybe we now see the Trudeau view....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Table them.

MR. BARBER: What do you mean? We have tabled them. We'll do it again. We'll be tabling them in Surrey in the next election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: That's not in order, I quite agree.

On section 2, though, we see the same philosophy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau that the first member for Surrey espoused when he was a federal Liberal candidate that we object to in Ottawa and we object to again here in Victoria. Pierre Elliott Trudeau has the same contempt.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. On section 2.

MR. BARBER: I'm discussing briefly the philosophical origins of section 2. They may be found in the philosophical attitudes of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who, provably, has contempt for the democratic process in this country.

This section, provably, shows contempt for the democratic process in local government across British Columbia. The philosophical similarities and the parallels are precise. Why does the government want this power? Don't they trust mayors to make decisions? Don't they trust aldermen to make decisions? Don't they trust regional directors to make decisions? Don't they trust the local electors to make the decision

[ Page 7686 ]

about whether or not those representatives should continue to handle their affairs?

When you were the mayor of Surrey, I ask through the Chair, did you not think you were a fit mayor to sign your budget and to be held accountable for, it by the electors of your own community? Did you not think you were fit to do that? What would you have done, I ask through the Chair, if Dan Campbell or Jim Lorimer, former Ministers of Municipal Affairs, had said: "Hey, Mr. Mayor of Surrey, Bill, you're really not fit. We're going to take that power away from you and we're going to make that decision in Victoria instead"? What would you have done? Answer honestly when you wind up — if you do — in this debate. Answer honestly and tell us if, when you were mayor of Surrey, you would have permitted a government in Victoria to take this power from you. Would you really? Can you answer absolutely honestly that you would have agreed to that? I don't think you can. I think if you told the truth about your feelings when you were mayor of Surrey — a position to which you were elected clearly and for which you were held accountable by the people of Surrey.... They expected you to be as responsible as the mayor, and they elected you. It wasn't an Eckardt thing; it wasn't a Gracie's Finger thing. They elected you freely. It was an honest election, not like Gracie's Finger; it was honest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the relevant parts of section 2. I must also advise the member that he does try the patience of the Chair on numerous occasions. There was a time, hon. member, when during committee we would engage in short questions across the floor, one to another. It seems that having adopted the 30-minute rule of speaking does offer a member an opportunity to stray from the relevance of the particular debate. I have now advised the member on several occasions that he must confine his remarks to the strictly relevant aspects of section 2 which are before us. I advise the member for the last time.

MR. BARBER: It may be that a lack of patience results in a lack of hearing. What I've been saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the power the minister wants to limit the operating expenditures of a municipality is a power that no mayor in British Columbia would ask the minister to exercise. I'm also observing that, as it happens, the author of the bill used to be a mayor. I think it's a reasonable question, to return to the traditional format, to ask whether or not, when he was the mayor of Surrey, he would have allowed any minister to take that power from him. I don't think he would have. I think if he were to give an honest reply — not a political one — he would agree.

If local government decides to pay for certain improvements, in our view, they're entitled to budget for them. If the electors don't like it, they're entitled to say so by referendum or at the next general election in that municipality. That's the democratic system. That's how it works — at least that's how it works in this country. That being the case, why does this government want the power that, formerly and exclusively, locally elected persons had access to themselves? Do they really think they are more fit and more knowledgeable? Do they really think they know better than the government of Prince George, the government of Kimberley, Kamloops or Vancouver? Do they really believe they know more? If so, that is an astonishing level of arrogance. It's not acceptable, it's not defensible, it's not necessary, it's not right, and it shouldn't be here.

When you were the mayor of Surrey, you would never have permitted this sort of thing to come through. Think back to the days when you were the mayor, and think again about this section. If you do, you'll withdraw it.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I feel I must answer some of the points raised by the member. Certainly I won't stray as he did, but I need to answer some of the points. The member repeatedly said there was arrogance on this side of the House and on the part of the minister and the ministry in proposing the legislation, particularly this section. I must say to the member that perhaps the height of arrogance, when talking about the democratic system, is to ignore and abuse the most important part of that democratic system, the legislature.

I noted the reference to a so-called $225 million overrun. The only deficit I can recall which remains a legacy was in 1975, when the NDP was government.

We certainly believe in local government. This bill, more particularly this section, does not take away from that at all. As a matter of fact, I think the evidence is there that we work with local governments. For example, we have not forced communities to amalgamate.

Certainly this is the most important section of this bill. This bill is a large part of the thrust of the government of British Columbia to bring about economic stabilization for the province, and to bring about restraint in all governments: local government, provincial government, school boards, hospital boards — you name it. That is a program of the government. Contrary to what the member said, this section, as would the bill and the whole restraint program, would receive my support if I 'were still mayor of Surrey. It is supported by every mayor and alderman I've spoke to across the province.

MR. BARBER: Name one.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yesterday we had a good visit with a long-term mayor from the Fraser Valley, Mayor Ferguson of Abbotsford. He comes to mind immediately because I'm sitting next to the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie).

Interjections.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The mayor of Fort St. James, the mayor of Surrey, the mayor of Langley, the mayor of White Rock, the mayor of Prince George, the mayor of Langley District, the mayor of Burnaby: they all support the stabilization program; they all support the restraint program. They realize as much as we do that government must at this time bring about the necessary restraints to assure economic recovery, which will perhaps come to British Columbia before it comes to any other area in North America because we are doing something about it. I'm not the only one who would be a supporter of the restraint program were I still mayor of Surrey; all the mayors I mentioned — and I could go on with the list — support the restraint program, those mayors and aldermen who make up the councils.

Mr. Chairman, people in every part of my community support it; regardless of their political stripe, they are supportive of the initiatives taken by, this government, as evidenced

[ Page 7687 ]

in this bill and this section of the bill. People in my community and in every community throughout British Columbia support it. The only people continually fighting it are the NDP opposition in the Legislature. They are fighting restraint; they are fighting the attempts of this government to bring government under control through this section and this bill, and to prevent huge tax increases at whatever level of government in British Columbia. It's not the people who are fighting it; it's not the municipal councils; it's not the mayors and aldermen. No, it's the municipal affairs critic on the other side of the House and the members of the NDP opposition who are fighting it.

I think the member would have to agree that a body that can speak for the municipalities in British Columbia is the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Their letter of March 17 reads in part: "The UBCM executive wish to applaud the government's attempt to manage the cost of government generally." "Applaud," says the letter. The letter from the Union of B.C. Municipalities goes on further to say: "Every indication to date is that a 12-percent ceiling on operating increases in 1982 will generally be acceptable by municipalities."

The councils, the mayors, the people, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the free enterprise members on this side of the House, the members of government and myself as minister are all supportive of the government restraint program and this section of the legislation which brings that about. The only opposition, it would appear very clearly, are the NDP members in the opposition.

MR. BARBER: The letter from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities dated March 17, which I have read, refers generally to the question of a program of government restraint. Section 2 does not. Where in section 2 does it specify 12 percent? Nowhere. No percentage figure is indicated at all. All you have asked is to be given the absolute authority to set any municipal budget at any level for any political purpose you deem. Twelve percent does not appear in this bill or this section. For you to try to falsify the statement and mislead the committee about what the UBCM said in that letter is to do something that is completely unacceptable. They never endorsed that section or this bill. They have never referred to it in any public statement, and to suggest otherwise is to suggest a wrong thing. You have no business doing it. They said, in fact, that they are prepared to exercise restraint. Good for them.

We don't see any mayor — if I may briefly say so again — going out at the expense of his taxpayers and buying $37.50 bottles of wine. No mayor does that; no mayor asks to be able to do it; and no mayor said anything other than that. They believe in and will exercise restraint themselves locally. The attempt of the minister who just spoke to suggest otherwise is cheap, wrong, insupportable by the evidence and never should have been made.

We are debating section 2, a section which names no percentage, 12 or any other. We are debating a section which gives the minister the power to set any figure — 12 percent or any other — at his absolutely personal and arbitrary whim. No mayor has supported that. No alderman has asked for that. No municipality has requested that. What the minister has suggested is absolutely wrong. It is entirely a misstatement and a misrepresentation — typical of this government — of the actual statement made by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. It is a disgraceful attempt to misstate what they have said and to distort their real position.

Neither in that nor in any other statement did they endorse section 2 or Bill 32 — not there, not anywhere.

We will read the whole letter into the record and we will indicate, at any time the government wishes, how clearly the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has indicated that they are prepared to exercise restraint. They will not propose expending millions on advertising, millions on furniture and millions on booze. Local government doesn't want the power to do that. The provincial government does because that is what they spend money on. Local government asks that the province exercise the same restraint that they have always exercised.

Of course they support a program of rational restraint, and so do we. Of course they believe in opposing expenditures, and so do we. It is not rational to spend a hundred grand painting slogans on the side of the vessels of the British Columbia Ferry Authority. That isn't restraint. Four-hundred-dollar-a-night rooms for the Premier aren't restraint. Booze for the government isn’t restraint. Local government doesn't want that phony restraint. They want real restraint and that is what they agreed to in their statement of March 17. They did not agree to the rubbish in this section and they will, I think, be dammed angry when they realize how the minister has attempted to misrepresent their statement. I'm glad he read that statement of March 17 into the record because now they will also know the cynical way that Social Credit has attempted to distort its meaning. Once again they will discover how this minister is prepared to distort and twist any statement they make for his own political purposes. They did not in that statement or any other public statement — we have them all — say they endorsed the Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act. If so, let him table it. He can't table that letter. That would never do, because they didn't say so, and there is none other he can find either, unless Jack Kelly wrote it in the Premier's suite by night. Unless it's a forged document, he can't produce any document.

MR. RITCHIE: You got under his skin!

MR. BARBER: What gets under my skin is your attempt to misrepresent the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. This minister may wish to exercise the power of the czar of all the municipalities, but in a democratic society he should not ask for that power. This minister may believe that he is more knowledgeable than any local mayor to assign the priorities for local improvements, but in that — as in so many other things — he is wrong. He is not fit to exercise this power, he is not knowledgeable enough to exercise this power. He is apparently fit to try to distort the actual statement of the UBCM, but he is certainly not fit to do anything else. He has no business bringing this section forward. They did not request it. They have not asked for this display of hypocrisy by Social Credit, and they have not asked for the tyranny to be imposed upon them that section 2 will most certainly impose.

If local government wants to pay for local improvements, in our judgment they are fit to do so; and if the local electors don't like their judgment, they will be turfed out at the next local election — that's how the Canadian system works. Maybe in some other country it works some other way, but in this country it works that way, and that's how it should be. You were elected to administer the provincial budget, not municipal budgets; you were elected to administer the provincial priorities, not local priorities. No matter how

[ Page 7688 ]

arrogant Social Credit may have become, no matter how tyrannical this government may be, the point remains that no local elector asked you to administer their local affairs; they asked you to administer the provincial affairs, and they are discovering you are having a darned difficult time doing that.

Before a government of wine guzzlers tells anyone else to put its house in order, let them put their own house in order first. Social Credit had an overrun of $225 million last year; local government had nothing of the sort. Before you tell local government to exercise restraint, do a bit yourself. When you've done so, the government's position on this section may be a little more credible; until you've done so, it lacks all credibility.

The recent attempt by the Minister of Municipal Affairs to distort and twist the clear meaning and obvious intent of the March 17 statement of the UBCM is another illustration of the reasons for the loss of credibility suffered by this government in this and so many other areas. Social Credit has no business asking for this power; the Legislature has no business granting it. Again, Mr. Chairman, it is no wonder that this bill has been described as a fascist document by a former Minister of Municipal Affairs; it will continue to be so described until the minister alters this section.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Seldom have I heard anyone so exercised as this member is today — on the wrong subject. I want to tell him very clearly that at this time in my constituency there are three municipalities — Mission, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows — and the mayors and councils in those municipalities applaud such legislation as we have here. They applaud section 2, which very clearly sets out the rights of the minister. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) makes a big issue of that minister having a personal right to do as he pleases. He knows full well — I'm sure he understands — that although the minister is quite capable of making decisions.... His ability is such that I have great confidence in him, but legally, Mr. Chairman, in the question of referring a bill of this kind to the minister.... Because his ministry is there and the ministry administers, the minister states his policy or does as he wishes, but the minister is the responsible person — and that's the way the legislation is.

The member for Victoria has become so exercised as to suggest, for some unknown reason, that this man will come out riding on his charger and cut down the municipalities willy-nilly. He is just exercising himself beyond reason. The minister speaks for his ministry. He's acting as a responsible minister should. I want to say to this House that there is no reason why our municipalities are any different than any others; they applaud the minister, applaud this bill and applaud restraint. This is senior government, and as senior government they applaud the responsibility of senior government saying, "There shall be a ceiling, and we'll watch it," and the public out there responds and applauds.

Of course I understand the hon. opposition making statements about spending. They have a debt policy. They don't mind mortgaging the future; they don't mind how much a municipality spends; they don't mind how much debt they get into to mortgage the future of the people living there.

We have had cases in this province before where municipalities have gone into liquidation, and it was necessary to put in an administrator. That must never happen. In times such as this, there's more danger than ever. It's proper — and the people applaud it — to say that there shall be someone watching, looking and helping. When the hon. member talks of administering a municipality, that is totally incorrect. No mention whatsoever is made of that in this section. It merely says, very clearly, that municipalities shall comply with a limit on operating expenditures. It's as simple as that.

MS. BROWN: That's not all it says. Read the whole section.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It says very clearly: "A municipality shall comply with a limit on operating expenditures under subsection 1...." This act is very clear. It goes for the years 1982 and 1983. Those are the years of restraint. It should be so. The public applauds it. I do not know how we can debate this issue when it is a necessary thing at this time. It's necessary and responsible for the senior government to set the course, cast the die and set a barrier which cannot be passed. That's what we're here for. If we're not here for that reason, we should not be here at all. I applaud section 2. I'm telling you that the municipalities on the north side of the Fraser River — Mission, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows applaud this section as a good section.

MR. LORIMER: This is certainly a centralist approach to municipal-provincial relations. The minister is not that bad a chap. He used to have a reasonable sense of humour, but he's obviously gone power-mad here.

MR. KEMPF: Is that what they said about you when you were minister?

MR. LORIMER: No, they treated me with respect. When they spoke to me they stood at attention. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

MR. LORIMER: I wonder if these people could be quiet, Mr. Chairman. I'm trying to listen to them, but they don't make any sense and I find it very difficult.

The main problem with the minister is that he's starting to take himself seriously, and he's the only one in the province who is. The suggestion that he is in a position to curb the spending of municipalities is ludicrous. Any suggestion that the high-flying, high-spending cabinet that we see today can advise any municipality on how to control its spending is laughable.

There was no such thing as a department of municipal affairs until 1934. Prior to 1934 there were a number of municipalities, cities and so on that were carrying on very well without the interference of this provincial government. Since that time the aldermen and mayors were elected to look after the spending and priorities of any municipality in which they were elected. Generally speaking, they have carried out this function in a very able manner over the years.

Now we get a major change being suggested in section 2, changing the rules whereby the Minister of Municipal Affairs can interfere with the spending estimates of the municipalities. This is strictly a political bill. No action will be taken by the minister to suggest any restraints on the municipalities. He knows that the municipalities have shown responsibility for a great number of years, and have a far better record than the present provincial government as far as restraint is concerned. This is an attempt by the minister to put the blame for high taxes on the municipalities. He's trying to suggest that your high taxes are due to the actions of the

[ Page 7689 ]

municipalities, when in fact they are, of course, the responsibility, direct and indirect, of the provincial government.

We discussed a bill earlier in this session with reference to the removal and the changes in the transfer of payments from the provincial government to the municipalities. As far as the municipalities are concerned, the transfer of payments from the provincial government has been cut drastically. The municipally elected people are locally elected and answerable to the people in the community. They're very clearly answerable, directly and daily, to the anxieties and so on of the people they represent. The province in no way could interfere efficiently or with any degree of ability in the spending or savings or listing priorities of any municipality. One of the reasons is that they haven't got the staff to do it. There's no way they can do it.

This bill is here solely for publicity. It will never be acted upon. But it's another step in the Social Credit philosophy of trying to fight the municipalities and have conflict between local and senior governments. Section 2 sets this out very, very clearly. Section 2 gives the minister full power to decide or roll back the expenditures of any municipality. Heavy-handed awesome powers have been given to a minister who is unable to carry out those powers. He does not have the staff to carry out those powers. The government as a whole is unable to give leadership to any area with reference to restraint and spending.

The representatives from the municipalities are elected every year — or every two years — to carry out the responsibilities of local government. They are responsible to the people that they meet daily. Throughout history, with very few exceptions, they have shown the responsibility that goes with that office. They have set a far better example on restraint than the provincial government has. These people are elected or re-elected by those affected by their decisions.

Another matter that indicates why this section will not be used is the fact that the provisional municipal budgets were set at the end of last year and the budgets have basically been approved. So any interference by a provincial administration in the activities of the municipal governments would be fatal to what goes on in that municipality.

If the minister wants control of the municipalities, he should then take the next step and wipe out local government altogether, and have administration straight from Victoria. He could then build himself a giant staff and maybe be able to do the job — not as well as the municipalities can, but if he wants to be a centralist about it, that's the only way he can do it. At the present time he is unfit and incapable of doing what is suggested in section 2.

MS. BROWN: I thought I should bring something to the attention of the minister. Every two years the residents of the municipality of Burnaby have an opportunity to vote and through the democratic election process decide who should make decisions for them on municipal matters. Up until section 2 of Bill 32 they had that opportunity. At no time in the past — and certainly we have no indication of that in the future — have they ever intended to elect the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make those decisions for them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're sure about that?

MS. BROWN: They have never voted for the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They would like to.

MS. BROWN: They've never voted — certainly not in the 1979 election — for one single Social Credit representative. There are three constituencies in Burnaby, and all three are represented by opposition members. They have the opportunity to vote otherwise, and they didn't avail themselves of that opportunity. Now, what the minister is doing in this section is subverting the democratic decision made by the residents of Burnaby. What the minister is doing is saying to the residents of Burnaby: "You can vote every two years for councillors and a mayor to make decisions on municipal matters if that makes you happy. But in fact 1, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will be the person, whether you like it or not, who will be making those decisions for you." That's what this section is doing. It is treating the residents of Burnaby with contempt. It is trampling on their democratic right to decide who represents them on municipal matters.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Burnaby supports it.

MS. BROWN: The residents of Burnaby have never voted for a provincial member to make decisions for them on municipal matters — never. Every two years they have an opportunity. Mr. Chairman, until section 2 of this bill becomes law, through the democratic process to vote for councillors and a mayor who will decide on municipal matters for them, They understand better than anyone else does what their operating expenditures are, and in fact Burnaby goes through the hoops trying to stay within any irresponsible budget handed to them by this government. When the government says lop $2 million off, they lop $2 million off. When the government changes its mind and comes and says they can no longer have a particular tax base, which means that they have to redraw their budget, they do that too.

Its' a municipality that's always cooperated and done everything within its power, unlike the present government, to stay within its guidelines. Burnaby has no overruns. It doesn't over spend its budget, and it tries very, very hard — and succeeds at living within its budget. There's never been an instance that we know of — and my colleagues representing Burnaby can contradict me or support me on this — when any of the people elected at the municipal level by the people of Burnaby have ever used the taxpayers' money in a profligate and wasteful way. We've never had an experience of that.

MR. BARBER: Not even wine-guzzling?

MS. BROWN: No wine-guzzling, no $400-a-night rooms. And if and when they do, in fact, drink a carton of milk, they pay the 60 cents themselves.

Now this minister is calling upon the duly elected members of the municipality of Burnaby council to turn over responsibility for budgeting to him — to a minister who, my colleague has pointed out, overran his own office budget last year; who has clearly indicated his inability to live within his own office budget by his $25,000 overrun; who represents, as he does, a government which overran its budget last year by something in the neighbourhood of $225 million.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member currently speaking was in the House when the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) was advised that the remarks now being canvassed are certainly eligible to be canvassed in this House and in this

[ Page 7690 ]

committee, but not under section 2 of Bill 32. Hon. member, the Chair can do no other than enforce the rules which all members have to adhere to. Again, I would commend standing order 61 to all members and ask that the member please adhere to the standing orders which govern our actions in this committee.

MS. BROWN; Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, what I was doing was responding to section 2(l), which says that "notwithstanding any other act, the minister may limit the operating expenditures of a municipality." In other words, he may decide how much that municipality shall or shall not spend. I was simply saying that the minister has not, either by action or by deed, indicated that he should be made responsible for implementing this section. The minister's own failure, in terms of running his own office, to live within any kind of financial guidelines.... The minister is a member of a government which has also failed to live within its own financial budget and guidelines, and that makes me question, on behalf of the people of Burnaby, whether that minister should be made responsible for limiting the operating expenditures of another level of government, which is what this section is giving him the right to do. How can the minister say to the municipality of Burnaby, "I know better than you do what your operating expenditures should be, and I want to limit your operating expenditure to X number of dollars," when the minister has proven himself incapable of doing that in terms of his own office budget? That is the only reason that I mentioned it. It was not any attempt on my part to be out of order. The only reason I raised it is that that is one of the reasons why I am not only reluctant but will refuse to support this section, for the two reasons I have outlined: (1) the minister was not elected by the people of Burnaby to make those decisions on their behalf, and (2) the minister has not demonstrated that he has the ability — dealing with his own office — to live within his own budget.

The minister was reading into the record, and I want to read into the record, too, a comment made by one of the elected members on the Burnaby council. The councillor I am about to quote is Alderman Vic Stusiak, who is the person who chairs the finance committee of the Burnaby council. In other words, Alderman Stusiak is the councillor who will be dealing directly with the minister if this section ever becomes law, because Alderman Stusiak, as chairperson of the finance committee of the municipality, is a person who has to present the budget to council and make decisions and suggestions about ways and means in which Burnaby can live within its budget. Alderman Stusiak is not very popular, because he does try to live within the budget and he is always suggesting to Burnaby council ways and means of slashing the budget, fitting it in so that there is no overrun. He is, always recommending staff cuts and program cuts. If you attend any council meeting on a Monday evening when it is sitting, you will notice a number of Burnaby residents appearing before council. Invariably the person they are fighting with is Alderman Stusiak, because Alderman Stusiak is a Scrooge of Burnaby council, and he is a Scrooge of Burnaby council because, unlike the minister, he believes that he must live within his budget. If anyone was going to be made responsible for deciding on operating expenditures, drafting budgets and living within budgets, it shouldn't be the minister; it should be Alderman Stusiak. Yet Alderman Stusiak, in talking about the government and what this minister is trying to do, stated quite clearly that the minister was being devious and fraudulent. Those are not my words. Those are Alderman Stusiak's words. Alderman Stusiak is a very gentle man, which is the reason he used such gentle terms in terms of referring to the member. The terms he used were "devious and fraudulent." Another alderman went on to say: "I am furious that the government takes council members and the citizens of Burnaby as fools who would go along with this." I had no intention of reading that into the record, because I don't want to hurt the minister's feelings. I protect the minister every opportunity I get because I realize how sensitive he is, but the minister took a letter from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, deliberately distorted a part of it and read only a part of it into the record. That letter had nothing at all to do with section 2 of this piece of legislation.

As I said before, the minister is consistent. Distortion is something we have come to accept and expect from him, so I guess we shouldn't be surprised. I just thought I should add those two factors on behalf of Burnaby. They did not elect this minister to make decisions on municipal matters. Certainly, looking at this minister's record and the record of his government, they would not be in favour of turning over to him the all-encompassing powers which he's taking unto himself in section 2, subsections 1 and 2. I'm opposed to this.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, very briefly again, certainly section 2 does not provide a percentage figure, as was mentioned by several speakers, but we've already established a percentage for this year. That percentage was considered by the various municipal councils. As I have repeatedly said — and I repeat again — the municipal councils throughout the province have no problems living within the guidelines that have been established, or within the figure that has been set. They are supportive of restraint. I can understand, in part, the comment made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), when she said: "The people of Burnaby did not vote for you." I certainly agree. I did not run for office in Burnaby; I ran in Surrey.

[Mr. Mussallem in the chair.]

Let me again repeat, my family has had a business in Burnaby for 30-odd years. We've paid a lot of taxes in Burnaby for all those years. I can assure you, speaking as one who is a substantial taxpayer in Burnaby — and there are many of us in business, with homes and with industries — we did not vote for what that member is advocating either. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds appears to be advocating open-ended spending. Let governments run away with the bank. How much can the taxpayers afford? The government has set up a commendable restraint program in order to bring government under control, in order that we as a people, regardless of where we are in this province and what our philosophy may be, are saved the pressures of government growth and all those things that have been advocated by the opposition NDP.

They are all alone. They have no support among the taxpayers and the people for opposing this restraint program. It is not only received favourably by all those mayors, aldermen and other people I've mentioned, including the UBCM, but also and especially by the taxpayers of British Columbia. They need this, they want this and they're supportive of it. I'm surprised that the NDP opposition — the socialists — would fight what certainly has to be not only necessary but popular with the people.

[ Page 7691 ]

It's not as if we as a government said: "We're going to impose some figure upon your budget that isn't reasonable." No, we established for the provincial government — for ourselves — a 6.1 percent, I believe it is, increase. We're saying 12 percent to them. We've been very generous in allowing them to take into consideration those programs that their citizens may deem necessary. But again we've said we must restrain government's growth and its ability to continually take from the taxpayers. There's a limit. As one who pays taxes in Burnaby, which was the constituency, area or municipality mentioned by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, let me say, not as a minister and MLA standing here in the Legislature, but as a taxpayer in Burnaby, I appreciate this.

AN HON. MEMBER: Does she pay taxes in Burnaby?

MS. BROWN: Yes, and I pay them on time, unlike the new members over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I couldn't help but get that remark across the floor. I don't know whether that member pays taxes in Burnaby. Until recently she lived in Point Grey. When she lived in Point Grey she ran some place or other in Vancouver, so I don't know where she pays taxes now.

MS. BROWN: But you know that I pay my taxes, and that's the important thing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You still buy your dresses at Madam Runge in Vancouver. You don't buy in Burnaby. I know you don't. You don't go to Brentwood or Loughheed Mall. You go to Madam Runge.

I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I've wandered from the topic, I apologize.

MS. BROWN: Where do you buy your dresses?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member for Burnaby North please come to order? The debate cannot continue on this level.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the point of order I rise on is that you are banging your gavel with respect to the hon. member for Burnaby, and you're permitting the Minister of Municipal Affairs to engage in personal, slanderous attacks. If you want to restore order, if you want to maintain order in the committee, Mr. Chairman, I suggest you do what your predecessor did and lay the wood on the Minister of Municipal Affairs. If you do that, you'll have the respect of this committee. But if you continue to permit that slanderous, personal attack of a minister against a member over here, you are not doing your job as Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I do not take very quietly an attack on the Chair of this nature. I want to tell you very clearly that it is the judgment of the Chair that there was too much talk across the floor. The minister had the floor and the right to speak. What the Chair objected to was the crossfire, which I will not tolerate while I'm in this chair.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I just want to reinforce that the minister did have the floor. I would like to draw to the Chair's attention that it isn't slanderous for any member of this House to say that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds dresses in nice, expensive dresses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's hardly a point of order.

MS. BROWN: It's quite possible that what I'm about to say is not a point of order either. However, I just want to bring to the minister's attention that not even my husband tells me where to buy my clothes. Where does he get off taking those kinds of powers unto himself? That's certainly not under section 2 of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not like this crossfire. Let us act like an adult House. It's very childish. The minister has the floor.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think we should remain very rational and very calm while we discuss this section. I appreciate that it was difficult when there was all of this fire across the floor from the other side with respect to my remarks.

I want to reiterate, Mr. Chairman, that we certainly are supportive, and do not back away from or make any apologies for implementing a restraint program on all levels of government. And the fact that we did it first at the provincial level and have set for ourselves a percentage of almost half of what we've established for all other governments indicates that we not only mean what we say, but we do what we say we're going to do. I think all members of the House should support this section,

MRS. DAILLY: This is really a time one wishes we had television on the floor of this House, so the people of British Columbia could see what kind of Minister of Municipal Affairs we have. We have a minister who is so weak in his defence of his own legislation that he has to attack one of our members, referring to the clothes she wears. That's the level of debate that that minister has brought us to.

As the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) pointed out, perhaps we should expect it from him, because he's brought in a bill with sweeping, totalitarian powers. He also wants to bring it to a point where he's not only controlling the councils-but controlling what the people of British Columbia wear. That is how far the Social Credit government wants to go.

On the particular clause, I have been listening to the minister attempt to defend these totalitarian powers which the Social Credit government is giving to itself, not only through this minister but in almost every other ministry. It is only in a time of economic recession that a government such as the Social Credit would move in with totalitarian measures.

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Even they wouldn't have the nerve to bring in these kinds of bills which give total power to one minister.

[ Page 7692 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I do not wish to interrupt you. I can see your reasoning, but would you address your remarks precisely to section 2.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I am. I would like to refresh the memory of the House. Section 2 deals with giving the right of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, "to limit the operating expenditures of a municipality for the calendar years of 1982 and 1983. A municipality shall comply with the limit on operating expenditures."

Mr. Chairman, I will tell you where my words are quite relevant when I speak of power. This Minister of Municipal Affairs has so little faith and trust in the councils of British Columbia that he has decided — because his political fortunes are fading along with his party — that he is going to use the municipal councils of British Columbia as little scapegoats for his own ineffectiveness in dealing with the economic problems we face today. What we have here is an attempt to get up and say — he waved his hands and he'll do it again, I'm sure, before we are finished with this bill — to the public of B.C. that this section is simply involved with the matter of restraint.

I want to make it quite clear that the New Democratic Party and the councils of British Columbia and the citizens of British Columbia don't need that government to tell us that we're in a period of economic recession. We don't need that government to keep telling us that everybody must involve themselves in some restraint. That is not the issue; that is accepted. What the New Democratic Party is taking issue with here in this particular clause, Mr. Chairman, is that this government and that Minister of Municipal Affairs have so little faith in the elected aldermen-of Burnaby for example, the area which I represent — that they are going to tell them, like little children, how much they can spend. In other words, he is saying: "I don't believe you're capable of bringing yourselves under any form of restraint during this time of economic recession."

Yet the facts speak for themselves. I don't think the minister could deny this. The municipality of Burnaby and the Burnaby School Board — and I know the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) would agree with me — have a reputation — along with the majority of our councils and school boards, I'm sure — of being responsible enough to restrain themselves when it comes to budgets. They spend hours upon hours — and you know that in your municipality, Mr. Chairman — attempting to handle the moneys they have in a very frugal, careful way. The Burnaby municipal council budget, without being told by this minister, would have come in well under 10 percent anyway. Yet for political purposes this minister and his government are going to bring in this act ordering the councils of British Columbia to restrain themselves. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's going to wash; it isn't washing with the councils. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has shouted across this floor a number of times today during this debate that the councils are behind him. Yes, the councils are behind him. They're behind any government — the NDP and themselves — when it comes to the matter of restraint today. They don't need to have that minister tell them how to go about it. That's the issue.

I can just see the Social Credit members going out on the platform and saying: "The NDP do not believe in restraint; we're the only ones who do." You know, Mr. Chairman, it simply won't wash anymore, because all we have to do is look at their personal records as ministers and as a government. There has been no government that has ever gone on such an orgy, as one of our members said the other day, of public spending with the taxpayers' dollars as this government over here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the hon. members to come to order, especially the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), please.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit government has been completely unrestrained in their spending, in their travel budgets, in the other affairs that have come forward to this House and in unnecessary spending by various ministers throughout the whole government. That is going to be dealt with. The people of British Columbia have not forgotten it, and there can be no attempts to whitewash the uncontrolled spending by the ministers in the Social Credit cabinet.

It is pretty ridiculous to have any Social Credit minister stand up and try to lecture the people of British Columbia about how to restrain themselves. The people of British Columbia want a good example if they are going to follow. The municipal councils of British Columbia — I am back to this clause in the bill — do not need the Social Credit government, with their record of uncontrolled public spending, to try to tell them how to control their budgets. There is no way that 1, as a member representing a municipality which has a reputation for being frugal and careful with their budgets year upon year, am going to stand here and support one of the most autocratic cabinet ministers that British Columbia has ever had. When he stands up to debate this bill and tries to twist it, I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, it won't wash with the people of British Columbia. I am very much against this whole bill. I am particularly against this clause.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to support this section of the bill for one very good reason: it is typical of the leadership this party has always shown. More than that, this is a section for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I have been listening to all the socialist hogwash and garbage thrown across the floor this afternoon on this bill, particularly from that member for Victoria — that armchair, bookstore specialist who never paid any taxes in his life. I want to point out one thing. Those socialists over there, during the debate on the throne speech and on the budget, have continually said: "Spend more." They go out and tell the public of British Columbia that there is a big well down there, and they think that as long as Social Credit is in, the economy is going to be good, and there is no bottom to the well. They go out and build up these expectations that we should look after everybody from the cradle to the grave, that there should be no responsibility on behalf of the citizens. They brought about a lot of this problem by building up expectations, in the hope that the economy of British Columbia would fail, so that somehow they could slip back under the carpet and into government.

I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, of those dying days of 1975. There was no legislation to bring in restraint or to put it out front and tell the taxpayers "no." They just cut back and stopped programs at a time when the economy was good. They had spent so carelessly, shovelling money out the back

[ Page 7693 ]

end of a truck to practically every department. There was no control by the Minister of Finance. There was no control by the ministers of their own departments. That's what this section is all about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, may I say that it would be very nice if you would come back to this section.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about this section, because this is a section for the taxpayers. You see, Mr. Chairman, I'm talking about the protection of the taxpayers. I'm just reminding the socialist hordes opposite....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can relate it, but it's a distant relation.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there is some distance, but sometimes we have to think back a little to remember those dying days when the Leader of the Opposition got off the sinking ship of state as it was going onto the rocks, and gave it over to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). Then he tried to call a snap election.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's getting even more distant.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There was nothing like this legislation today. There were no sections in any bill. They just stopped programs and cut out services. They didn't just cut back; they cut out services to people. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I support this section of the bill because it's for the taxpayers of British Columbia.

I've listened to all this garbage about the political deal of trying to support.... You know, because their councils have been after them. They ought to talk to the taxpayers of British Columbia. I'll tell you, the taxpayers of British Columbia support this section.

I've listened to these members from the socialist constituencies — negative Nellies. I had the opportunity last Friday to speak to the councils, the mayors and the aldermen of all the municipalities from 100 Mile House north. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, they came to me in droves after my speech on restraint, and they said: "Thank God for the Social Credit government, because you're showing leadership." They came up and said: "You've taken a burden off our shoulders, because you and that Minister of Municipal Affairs are showing leadership." I told them that we were not the architects of high interest rates or of inflation but we were ready to lead this ship over these troubled waters into safe waters.

I am proud to be able to stand here today and support this bill. I will take all that guff from the socialist hordes opposite, because they've never been able to lead anybody anywhere, and they know nothing but spend, spend, spend. I support that Minister of Municipal Affairs. All he is going to do is get out there and tell the story. I tell you, they'll buy it, because, I say again, this section is for the taxpayers of British Columbia, and that's what this party is all about — supporting the taxpayers.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: I was of two minds about this section, earlier. I wasn't sure in my mind whether or not I should support it until I heard that honourable empty barrel from the

Peace River country stand up and expound from the full depths of his hypocrisy on the spending of public money, waving his arms around like a windmill, with energy from his own natural gas supply, and exclaiming about and accusing us on this side of wanting to spend more and more. I listened to him say that and couldn't help but remember the last session, less than a year ago, when in Committee of Supply we moved motions to cut back on the minister's own departmental extravagances. We moved motions to curtail the amount of money he was squandering on travelling to Australia, for argument's sake, or wherever he was going.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: He went to Korea and Japan on business; he went to Australia for some other purpose.

We moved amendments to cut back on that extravagant living by the minister, and when the vote came, who was the first to stand up in the House and demand a greater take from the general public? That minister right there. Every motion we made to cut back on the extravagances of this government, that minister was the first to vote against it. Then he stands up and says: "Who wants to spend more?" He does. He's proven that he enjoys getting his fingers into the taxpayer's pocket, yanking out the dollar bills and spending them on high living.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know if he pays $37.50 for bottles of wine.

MR. MACDONALD: Fifty-nine thousand dollars for travel.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, $59,000 for travelling all over the world, yet he's got the unmitigated gall, Mr. Chairman, to offend the sensitivities and the memory of members in this committee about squandering money, and he gets all the backbenchers and all the cabinet ministers in the Socred Party to support him for it.

Last year we sought to reduce the expenditures of these spendthrifts over there by a total amount of $82 million. We sought to save the taxpayers' money. "Oh, no, not me; I don't want to save the taxpayers' money," said the honorable empty barrel from Peace River. He stood up and voted to squander that $82 million, and he succeeded. Now he's got his colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, seeking to impose the penalties upon municipalities under section 2.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs said — and so did the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — that the municipalities support this bill. I don't know whether they do or not; the minister said they do, and I take his word for it. Then the Minister of Municipal Affairs uses that as the rationale for bringing the thing forward and insisting upon its being carried. He said: "We've got to vote for this because the municipalities want it."

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Not too many days ago we dealt with a bill on revenue sharing that this same minister brought into the House, and the municipalities opposed that right down the line. Did it make any difference to the minister then? No,

[ Page 7694 ]

he forced it through, forced it on the municipalities against their objection. He can't, on the one hand, use as a foundation for this bill the fact that some municipalities may support it but, on the other hand, when the municipalities don't want something, cram it down their throat. That, Mr. Chairman, is the mark of someone who leans in the direction of fascism: do as I say, I'm going to tell you what's best for you. Hypocritical, two-faced, doubletalk, deceitful and dishonest — that is about the only way I can classify this particular piece of legislation. Those are the only words I can use to describe this bill and this section — and I did not apply them to any individual in the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that, hon. member, but moderate language is always best used when trying to gain a point in committee or in the House. I would commend that to all the members.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, moderate language and temperate approach is what I use all the time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Those are the only words you know.

MR. HOWARD: I wish the Premier would stop speaking from his seat so that I can hear what he says.

In any event, those are the two reasons against it: first, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the wrong foundation for the support; and secondly, te Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, by his own statements last session, is not interested in saving the taxpayers' money. By his own squandering of public funds he says he's not interested in saving the taxpayers' money, yet he uses that as his reason for supporting the section. No way can it be supported.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I assure you that I will use moderate language. I intend to pattern myself after the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who has just spoken. I will certainly make sure that my language is as moderate as his, and I will make sure that I keep as much in order as the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, who gets up in this House and makes the same speech over and over, no matter what the topic under discussion is. He waves his arms, goes off the deep end and abuses the rules of this House, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister of Municipal Affairs on section 2. First of all, I am extremely concerned — others have mentioned it — about the fact that there is no mention of any limits in this particular section. It simply says that the minister may limit the operating expenditures. The minister has indicated that it has been done in conjunction with the municipalities, and that that limit is set at 12 percent.

As far as I can recall, it was February 18 when the Premier went public on television and made certain announcements about a restraint program, saying that the guidelines were to include 12 percent for municipalities. The minister also said at that time that wage limits would be in the range of 10 to 12 percent, or perhaps 8 to 14 percent. What's concerning me is that now the Premier has changed his mind on that. He has indicated that it may not be 8 to 14 percent, but that it may in fact be zero to 5 percent. In the same speech in which he set the 12 percent for municipalities, hospitals, schools and so on, he set the 8 to 14 percent. Now the 8 to 14 percent, by the Premier's word, has been changed to zero to 5 percent, or whatever; no one seems to know. Hospitals have apparently been changed to 7.7 percent for wages.

My point is that there have been changes in the aspect of wage control. How can municipalities — who have been told that it's 12 percent, have worked out their budget and set their mill rate on that basis — be sure that's what it is? If limits for wages are subject to change, why then arc not the limits for local governments also subject to the same change? How does the minister know that the Premier isn't out in the hall right now changing that limit? That's why it's so important to ensure that we have something in here other than just blank, wide-open legislation. That is the problem with this.

The other problem with this is that it penalizes the thrifty. The municipalities and school boards that have kept themselves well in line and have kept a good tight rein on their expenditures, as most municipalities have done, are limited to some percentage, be it 12 or whatever. We say right now that it is 12, but we don't know. That could change. Obviously if one thing can change, another can change. So those municipalities are limited, based on that very thrifty budget that they have had. But if a municipality or group has traditionally overspent, then it gets the same increase. That is not fair. I think that is something you have to look at very carefully in this particular section 2, because that is what you are doing. You are penalizing the thrifty administrations by insisting that they hold back, regardless of the history and the reasons. You are giving a bonus to those who have overspent or been less than thrifty in the past.

Those are two reasons why I simply can't support this section and am very opposed to the way it is worded — so wide open.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is no mention of limits, but the limit has certainly already been established for municipalities at 12 percent, as was mentioned. I hope that clarifies it for the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat. It has been established at 12 percent and the municipalities are aware of that. As I also mentioned earlier they appear to have no difficulty whatsoever at the 12 percent level — nor should they, for that matter.

Mention was made of wages. Obviously municipalities, some before others, will be negotiating wage settlements with their employees. If they can settle at no wage increase, that is their decision, along with their employees, as a part of the negotiations. If it is felt that they can keep more people working in the municipality by negotiating a lower percentage, a lot of employees as well as municipal councils may well see this as their contribution to assuring a solution to the economic problems besetting the country and the world. So if they do that and they come in at zero percent, hon. member, no problem. If they come in at 4 or 5 percent, no problem. If they come in at over 8 percent, granted, it will be referred to the commissioner. The commissioner will then have to deal with that matter according to the guidelines established — no problem. I'm hoping that will answer the questions.

Again, to say you penalize the thrifty.... I suppose that argument could always go on. We certainly hope and trust that a good many municipalities will be thrifty. There's a penalty, perhaps, if there is a change. For the most part, I think people will respect that thriftiness. Another government — a pre-1973 W.A.C. Bennett Social Credit government — knew what the penalty for thriftiness means, in part, because they, too, left a surplus which soon reverted to a deficit. It does happen in government. That doesn't mean that

[ Page 7695 ]

people suddenly don't respect the thriftiness practised by that previous party. I'm sure that respect is there.

MR. BARBER: The minister says that the limit is 12 percent. Where does the section say that?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The section doesn't say that.

MR. BARBER: Why, then, should we believe you?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Because it's public knowledge that it has been established at 12 percent, if for no other reason than that. Certainly it's been established at that.

MR. BARBER: If the law doesn't say 12 percent, what force can there possibly be to compel 12 percent?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The law is what we're discussing now. But the percentage has been established. The municipalities have agreed and have been able to comply.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, this bill is not yet law. With what authority can you require municipalities — before this bill becomes law — to meet 12 percent or any other requirement? This bill is not law. This bill, not being law, gives you no authority. With what authority can you require municipalities to accept a 12 percent limit? The law says nothing about 12 percent.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The municipalities have not sought an authority; they have, as responsible people, assumed and accepted the percentage established.

MR. BARBER: If the municipalities have accepted that guideline voluntarily, what do you need this law for?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again, the law that we're debating today is part of an overall government restraint program which will be in effect for several years.

MR. BARBER: The bill does not say several years. The bill says two years. Which are we to believe, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Several is two, or two is several.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I would commend to all members that only one person at a time can be allowed to speak. At the present time we have a perfect example of how committee is supposed to work on a section.

MR. BARBER: I respect the fact that English is the minister's second language — and he commands it very well. But the word "several" does not mean two; it means more than two. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not, as he has just advised us, this will be expanded beyond the years '82-83 that are actually specified in the bill. The words "two" and "several" do not mean the same thing. I asked the minister whether or not it goes beyond the two years outlined in the bill. He said yes. I want to know for sure if that's what he meant.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The bill says two years. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, if we seriously support, as British Columbians and regardless of our political stripe, the attempts of this government to bring about restraint in government and to return the economy...to take a lead which will be admired by provinces and states all over the world, then in two years, or beyond two years.... Such may not be required.

MR. BARBER: The bill specifies the years of application, but it does not specify the percentage of application. Is it not the case, Mr. Minister, that you may tomorrow, if you wish — or upon whatever day this bill becomes law — by regulation change the 12 percent figure to any other? Would the minister agree that he has the power, once this becomes law, to change that by regulation to any other figure than 12 percent?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: For this year the figure has been set at 12 percent. I can't tell you what it will be for next year.

MR. BARBER: What I asked, Mr. Chairman, was: could the minister confirm that upon the application of this bill in law he may by directive, not even requiring the formality of an order-in-council, amend the percentage figure which he has told us will be applied to municipalities? Is it not the case that you may amend it, not just this year but at any time? You may do it next week, if you wish. Is that not the case?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I would agree, the authority is there.

MR. BARBER: So what we have, Mr. Chairman, is the minister's admission that this program may not last for two years, but rather it may last for several. We also have his admission that the percentage figure, which does not appear anywhere in the law, may be varied at any time in the future at his own whim, without publication — there's no requirement in this bill to publish — and without appeal.

By way of a further question, I wonder if the minister could indicate what figure he expects may apply, shall we say, in 1983. Does he have any preliminary research, any preliminary documents, any preliminary calculations of what figure he expects will apply in 1983? We know what he says will apply in 1982, even though the law doesn't say it. We now know, by his admission, that that figure may change at any time. The law does say that it may in fact lead to change next week; the law permits that. The minister has admitted as much. I wonder if the minister could tell us what he expects, on the basis of the preliminary homework that presumably has been done by his department, the figure will be for the calendar year 1983.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I expect that we will make tremendous progress in British Columbia. Hopefully, the percentage will not be as restrictive, if you wish to call it that — I don't call it restrictive at all, frankly. I feel that the municipalities can operate well within the 12 percent. If you consider that to be restrictive and would prefer — as I deem it to be the case from the NDP — a more open-ended figure,

[ Page 7696 ]

that may be possible because of the strides and the various efforts of government.

I'm very pleased with the debate that has taken place so far today. It appears that we've made great progress, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.