[ Page 7697 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 8). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7697

Mr. Barber –– 7697

Municipal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 10). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7697

Mr. Barber –– 7697

Municipal Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 10). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On Section I –– 7697

Mr. Barber

Third reading –– 7698

Geothermal Resources Act (Bill 5). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 7698

Mr. Howard –– 7699

Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 31). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 7699

Mr. Stupich –– 7699

Court of Appeal Act (Bill 2). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

On section 116 –– 7700

Mr. Howard

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 17). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7700

Mr. Barber –– 7700

Division –– 7701

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 17). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

Third reading –– 7702

Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 41). Second reading.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7702

Mr. Macdonald –– 7702

Mr. Lauk –– 7702

Mr. Leggatt –– 7703

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 7703

Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 41). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 7704

Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act (Bill 32). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On section 3 –– 7704

Mr. Barber

Mr. Barrett

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Hanson

Appendix –– 7709

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND
VALIDATING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: This amendment to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act will validate the land-use contract between the Cariboo Regional District and 105 Mile Ranch Ltd. that was registered in the land titles office of Kamloops on April 18, 1973. This amendment is required because there was a mixup in the registration of the land-use contract in 1973. There are two different copies of the 105 Mile Ranch land-use contract covering different areas. At the time of entering into the 105 Mile Ranch landuse contract, the Municipal Act required that land-use contracts be signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and be registered in the land titles office, then called the land registry office. One contract has been signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but it has not been registered in the land titles office. The other contract has been registered in the land titles office, but has not been signed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Neither land-use contract has any status in law since neither conforms to the statutory requirements that applied when land-use contracts existed under the Municipal Act. The contract which is being validated by this amendment has been the basis for land-use control in an area surrounding 100 Mile House in the Cariboo since 1973.

The amendment will prevent the developments which have been developed in accordance with the contract from being declared legally non-conforming. As well, subsequent developers of land affected by the land-use contract will be subject to the same rules as the previous developers, who had every right to expect that the whole area would develop under the same set of rules. This amendment has been requested by the Cariboo Regional Board and will provide the necessary degree of legal security to owners of land affected by this contract, which they are rightfully due.

I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition makes no objection to this bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 8, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.,

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When enacted, Bill 10 will confirm the right of municipalities to tax transmission pipelines and similar utility company property. Prior to a recent court decision, under section 407 of the Municipal Act municipalities imposed a one percent utility tax on distribution pipelines. Main transportation pipelines were subject to ordinary mill rate taxation by municipalities. The court held that main transportation pipelines were to be included as facilities of a gas company for the purpose of the one percent utility tax. If the court decision were left to stand, municipalities such as Kent, Sparwood and Hudson's Hope would suffer a significant loss of tax revenue.

The amendment to section 407 clarifies the distinction between gas distribution systems and transportation pipelines. The amendment restores the traditional right of municipalities which tax transmission pipelines and will be effective in 1982 and thereafter. The amendment has the support of the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: The official opposition supports this bill.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, with leave, I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 10, Municipal Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 10: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARBER: The section shall pass, but I have questions for the minister. I wonder if he could specify which municipalities and which utility companies — by name will now be affected by Section 1 of this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I already mentioned some of them. Areas in the northern part of the province may be most affected. The major pipeline companies would be similarly affected, or affected in another way. The effect would be felt by Westcoast Transmission, among others.

MR. BARBER: It's the "among others" we're concerned about. Are there any smaller companies, apart from Westcoast or Kootenay Power and Light, with which we're all familiar, that would also be affected by this bill? If so, could the minister specify so that municipalities which might otherwise be unaware of the provisions of the section could be immediately informed of them in order to take the quickest possible financial advantage that will be conferred on them upon the unanimous passage of this bill?

[ Page 7698 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Trans Mountain comes to mind, Inland Natural Gas.... There may be other small companies, definitely, but it's not as if they're being treated in any way differently than they were being treated. The rules have been in effect for some time. It's only that those rules were successfully challenged in the court. We're restoring a status quo in fairness to the municipalities, and returning to a situation which certainly wasn't onerous for the gas companies, large or small.

MR. BARBER: What provision has the minister established to advise municipalities that they will be entitled to return to the former position of tax benefit, or status quo as the minister described it, upon the unanimous passage of this bill?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, they certainly will be aware of the passage of the bill. We normally provide the information to UBCM, which in turn provides it to the municipalities affected. However, we have a list of those municipalities which have been most directly affected or concerned with this, and they will similarily be advised by letter.

Section 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10, Municipal Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of Bill 5, I'd just like to point out to the House that the government has embarked on an aggressive program to build an energy-secure British Columbia. In a statement that was released some two years ago now we outlined a program in which we wanted to build on the strengths that we have in our province and to develop alternative energy sources available to us. The measures presented in this legislation exemplify the intent of that statement and demonstrate what we believe is good stewardship of the resources that we have in British Columbia.

Geothermal resources present what will be, I hope, a unique opportunity to challenge industrial ingenuity to develop this clean and sustained energy source for the advantage of our province. The geothermal potential that has been identified most clearly so far is near Pemberton in the Mount Meager area. Development research in the area is continuing with two wells drilled to date, and more exploration being planned. We don't know yet whether that project will yield a successful and commercial project for British Columbia Hydro, but encouraging temperature levels have been encountered so far.

As the House might wish to know, geothermal resources are simply the natural heat in the deep rock strata — heat that usually occurs in association with the process of mountain building. We have, in British Columbia, I guess, the best prospects in Canada for the development of this kind of energy to be used for electric-power generation or in other useful applications, such as a heat source for industrial processes. Hotsprings, which are scattered all over our province, demonstrate the potential for this resource. An active exploration program, however, is very necessary before we can discover the true potential, which may be great.

Geothermal energy is by no means a new source of energy; it has quite a long history. Italy has produced electricity from geothermal steam since near the turn of the century. In Iceland it's a key source of energy for both electricity and heating. Earlier in the year I had a chance to see the Wairakei generation station in New Zealand, which makes a very important contribution to the electric-power needs of that country, and the Geysers field north of San Francisco in California, which is the largest development in existence today, producing almost 1,000 megawatts of power out of a single steamfield. It produces that level now, and when it's fully developed, it may be producing twice as much. It's equivalent to the output of a large hydroelectric dam like the Revelstoke Dam.

Geothermal development can provide, therefore, an important additional energy source. We in British Columbia probably can expect to find discoveries that would match that Geysers field, but the energy we can obtain from this source may make a very important contribution to the future needs of this province, and will do so in an environmentally secure manner. Geothermal resource development is, like other developments in the energy field, high-risk. B.C. Hydro has taken progressive steps to show the way in exploration of this resource in British Columbia. However, in the long term we look to the private sector to invest in exploration for geothermal resources.

This legislation secures all geothermal rights for the province and provides for these rights to be made available to the industry by competitive bids. This is an approach which has served us well in oil and gas development, using the initiatives of a competitive industry to develop the resource while bringing maximum revenues to the province. I anticipate that some of the same companies which are now exploring for oil and gas will enter into exploration for geothermal resources.

Just as in oil and gas development, where all exploration and drilling operations are regulated by my ministry officials to ensure that safe operations are conducted, the environment-protected and resource-conservation measures adhered to, so too in geothermal resource development we will provide for complete and sound regulation of the exploration operations and, hopefully, subsequent development.

I won't go into the bill in detail, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to point out some of the key features, which include exploration-operation regulation, including exploratory drilling. It will be regulated in much the same manner that oil and gas is now regulated. Should a successful discovery be made, it will be necessary for the operator to submit a plan of operation before being allowed to proceed. Likewise, before production begins, the production plan is required. It must meet the approval of the ministry, on the advice of our staff,

[ Page 7699 ]

and, finally, that of the minister, I don't anticipate that companies which are engaged in exploration for geothermal resources will use that steam directly, but that rather arrangements will be worked out to sell to B.C. Hydro or, in a similar manner, to cooperate in using steam for power generation. Steam-generating units would be built in the field to use the steam, because you can't transport it very far. This would, of course, require approval by the B.C. Utilities Commission.

Only when we get further on towards development will we be able to judge the economics of this source of energy. Our main objective today with this legislation is to encourage its development and application. As I mentioned earlier, there is potential for geothermal heat to be developed for purposes other than electric-power generation. This legislation will enable geothermal rights to be acquired to produce hot water and steam for heating, such as district heating in a community, heating greenhouses or other industrial applications. The challenge for those potential users will be to search out these additional uses. These are steps towards providing for the long-term renewable energy needs of British Columbia.

To end any confusion that might be in the minds of some members or the public, I might say that the act will not apply to the production of water with a temperature of less than 80 degrees Celsius at surface. That will ensure that hotsprings which are now being used and may be used in the future for recreational purposes will not be affected by the provisions of this legislation.

Permits will be issued by public tender. Provisions will be set for cabinet to establish royalty rates. Should geothermal development take place in areas which have privately-held surface rights, potential conflicts will be resolved by the Mediation and Arbitration Board, which is already in place and operating under the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. There will be a couple of minor amendments put forward during the course of the committee stage of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

In summary, the Geothermal Resources Act presents a new era for British Columbia. We are leading Canada in the passing of this kind of legislation to apply to a unique natural energy source so as to meet the growing energy needs of the people of this province, in perpetuity and in a safe, clean and environmentally safe manner. I believe it's an example of the stewardship of the fortunate energy resource potential with which we in British Columbia have been endowed. I take pleasure in moving second reading.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those bills, along with others, that we receive notification of ten minutes before the House meets.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not complaining, I'm just suggesting that it is a fact of life. The intricacies of it would require an opportunity to examine both what the minister said in his introductory remarks in relation to the bill, and to do so on another occasion. I therefore move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In speaking to the motion of the hon. member, we're quite prepared to accede to the request for the adjournment, but certainly not for the reasons suggested. I draw to the hon. member's attention that this bill has been on the order paper since November 30, 1981; so there has been lots of opportunity for everyone to consider it. I'd also draw to the hon. member's attention that I've been in this House slightly longer than he has, and I can assure him that there's now a better exchange of information on the order of business of the day than there has ever been since I've been in the Legislature. We agree to his request.

MR. SPEAKER: I would have to accept that only as a ministerial statement. No debate is allowable on a motion to adjourn.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 31, Mr. Speaker.

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. HEWITT: In moving second reading of Bill 31, the Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, I would make members aware that this bill deals with a number of amendments to various acts under the jurisdiction of my ministry. The debate, I'm sure, may well take place in committee as we deal with each section, but these amendments help to clarify and better identify some purposes of the acts in question. We deal with the Agricultural and Rural Development (BC) Act, with an amendment thereto; Agricultural Credit Act; Insurance for Crops Act; Livestock Disease Control Act; Livestock Public Sale Act; and the Meat Inspection Act. Those are the numbers of amendments we are dealing with.

One thing I would like to mention in second reading is the consolidation of the Agricultural Credit Act and Agricultural Land Development Act. Bill 31, the Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, deals with the repeal of the Agricultural Land Development Act, but I want to assure members that it doesn't mean the end of the program in my ministry. We've just consolidated that particular program, which assists in development of agricultural land on private lands, under the Agricultural Credit Act of my ministry to better identify and consolidate the credit programs that we administer.

With those remarks, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, as is obvious by the way the minister introduced second reading of this legislation, it's much better discussed in committee. Therefore we'll reserve our comments until we get to committee stage.

Motion approved.

Bill 31, Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7700 ]

COURT OF APPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 27 inclusive approved.

On section 28.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The members will note that standing on the orders are two amendments to this bill, one dealing with section 28 by the deletion of subsection 3. May I advise the committee that by reason of other legislation which will be brought before the House in this session which will deal with the matter of court rules, it is not necessary that subsection 3 appear.

As the members of the committee will know, the appropriate procedure to repeal a section of a bill is to negative the section — I thought the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) would like the word "negative" — and accordingly I would move that subsection 3 of section 28 be negatived. I move the amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Sections 29 to 96 inclusive approved.

On section 97.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Similarly, section 97 deals with the necessity of dealing with leave to appeal in the matter of the Real Estate Act. Amendments to the Real Estate Act already preclude that requirement, and accordingly I ask you to call the section and the government, will vote against it.

Section 97 negatived.

Sections 98 to 115 inclusive approved.

On section 116.

MR. HOWARD: During the last session in one of those omnibus bills that contained everything, including the kitchen sink, an amendment to the Wildlife Act was incorporated. That was in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2) last year. What it did was alter the definition of "resident" in the Wildlife Act, which has caused a tremendous amount of furor and complaint by hunters and people interested in wildlife. I wonder if I could have an explanation from the minister as to what the effect of section 116 of this bill is with respect to the Wildlife Act. Without my looking the whole thing up and trying in my awkward way to understand what the law says, I'd rather rely on an astute and competent legal mind. I realize that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is not here and I can't rely on him, so I have to take second best.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: May I assure the hon. member for Skeena that his concerns with respect to other amendments, valid as they may be, don't apply in this particular case. Section 68 of the Wildlife Act provides that a person who is aggrieved by refusal to issue a licence, or by cancellation or suspension of a licence, may appeal to the county court. We intend to amend the Wildlife Act so that it does not deal with the matters under sections 74, 75 and 77, but only with respect to this limited right of appeal in the County Court Act in this particular regard.

MR. HOWARD: I have one other thought to express on that. We've been waiting for some time now for a new Wildlife Act to be presented to the House. The word out in the communities that are interested in wildlife matters and in the B.C. Wildlife Federation is that the introduction of the new Wildlife Act is imminent. I assume that when the new Wildlife Act comes in.... Could the Attorney-General tell me how this will be incorporated in that new Wildlife Act? Can he also tell me how the amendment made last year will be dealt with in the new Wildlife Act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I would like to be able to respond to the member's question, but I'm not apprised of the details that would be required with respect to any new wildlife legislation that would assist the member. He should therefore direct that question to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers). I can, however, assure him that if new legislation comes forward in the Wildlife Act, the matter of appeals will not create the problem that we're correcting in this particular case.

MR. HOWARD: What I'm getting at is the difficulty of amending the same piece of legislation twice in the same session. That has caused some problems before. I just raise that perhaps as a procedural question rather than a question seeking an absolute opinion as to whether something is going to be in it or not.

Sections 116 to 119 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Court of Appeal Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this is a very short bill changing the minimum amount of tax payable from the present $75 to $125 under the Home owner Grant Act. I would move second reading.

MR. BARBER: This bill is more proof that Social Credit proposes to restrain everyone but itself. This bill sees, as the minister said, the minimum property tax payable being increased from $75 to $125. This is an increase of some 70

[ Page 7701 ]

percent. This is an example of no restraint. This is an example of Socred hypocrisy on the issue of restraint. This is a money grab from homeowners across British Columbia that is not justifiable in a time of restraint. This is an attack on the ability of homeowners — especially seniors — to maintain those homes and to continue to be able to pay for them. This is a tax grab by Social Credit of massive proportions during a period of restraint As has been so often indicated, they propose to restrain everyone in the province but themselves and their own personally extravagant and wasteful habits.

The opposition, of course, opposes this bill. We oppose it because you have no business asking people to pay an extra $50 minimum, an increase of some 70 percent, on their property tax in a time of restraint. You have no business asking them to do that when at the same time you are increasing charges, levies, fees and the actual costs for persons using other government services. What justification can Social Credit have for so hugely increasing the percentage of tax payable on the minimum property tax scheme under the homeowner grant? What justification do you have for doing that in this time of restraint? If you actually believed in restraint, would you not be well advised ...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARBER: If the government actually believed in restraint, would they not be well advised to leave this bill alone? If you believe in restraining your own appetite as well as that of the taxpayer generally, what do you need the extra loot for now?

If you believe in restraint, it's difficult to find any restraint in this bill. As usual, the restraint is being imposed on everyone but the Socreds. The government of $37.50 bottles of wine and 60 cent cartons of milk billed to the taxpayers now proposes to bill the taxpayers an extra minimum of 50 bucks for the privilege of participating in the homeowner grant scheme. What justification can they have for that in a time of restraint, Mr. Speaker? It's a simple question; it's a simple debate — the minister avoided it totally in his understandably brief introductory remarks. What is the justification for increasing the minimum tax payable from $75 to $125 in a time of restraint, recession and unemployment? What is the justification for that? Do you really need the money that badly? You're shutting down half the hospitals in British Columbia, for heaven's sake. What more do you have to spend the money on? You're putting all the social services out of business.

Mr. Speaker, does the government really have such a desperate need for this cash that they have to force old folks to the wall again and again by, in this case, increasing the minimum tax payable? What's the justification in a time for restraint for, doing that? If Social Credit actually had any sincere conviction about the issue of restraint, they would not bring in a bill of this sort. If this government's restraint policy was not riddled with the hypocrisy that it provably is, this bill would not be brought forward at this time. This bill cannot be justified in a time of restraint, unemployment and property taxes being too high, as they are in the first place. This bill is more evidence of the hypocrisy of Social Credit when it comes to restraint; this bill is most vigorously opposed by the New Democratic Party, the official opposition.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to comment too much on the remarks made by the member of the opposition, but certainly all of us, regardless of where we serve in this House, must be accountable to the people we represent. I think a part of that accountability is certainly justifying those things which we propose in legislation, and the opposition, for their position, in criticizing whatever they wish with respect to the legislation put forth.... I don't think it's really too accountable to criticize an increase whereby those paying taxes will pay for all the services they receive in a municipality a minimum of $125. To relate this to what has been publicized in the media with respect to hospitals, I think, is grossly unfair.

Firstly, I don't believe for one moment that we can continue to refer to cutbacks in hospitals when everyone here and everyone out there in the province knows that hospitals are receiving a considerable increase in the funding available to them. If you wish to refer to that as a "cutback, " because not everyone is getting what he's demanding, I don't think it's just. Certainly if you feel that during these times of economic problems there ought to be some change of priorities with respect to how we continue to provide people in our province with services, to suggest that this is a great imposition, whereby we have people pay a minimum tax of $125.... I really question the accountability of the opposition in making such a charge.

Mr. Speaker, again I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 22

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 17 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

[ Page 7702 ]

Bill 17, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Davidson in the I chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 41, Mr. Speaker.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, this bill amends section 8 of the Constitutional Question Act. The section currently provides that where there is a challenge with respect to the constitutional validity of an act of Parliament or of this Legislature, notice must be given, before any effective order can be made, to either or both of the Attorney-General of British Columbia and the Attorney-General of Canada. It specifies the way in which notice shall be given. The purpose is so that either the federal or the provincial Crown, as the circumstances may indicate, may appear when the constitutional issue is being argued and make such representations as they deem appropriate.

The amendment before the House is to enlarge the circumstances in which such notice must be given, by reason of the recent constitutional amendments which have been the subject of discussion in Canada for the past several years. We expect that the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will increase significantly, for a time at least, the number of challenges to both federal and provincial legislation and regulation. In order that we may be apprised of such challenges and appear either in support of the challenge or opposed to it, the amendment of the section is necessary. The same notice requirement exists: the notice must be 14 days, but it can be shorter, if the court in its wisdom deems that necessary.

The members of the House should be aware, and I'm sure they will be aware, that much of the legislation in the provinces and in the federal sphere, will be the subject of extensive examination in view of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. By being represented, or at least receiving notice of challenges with respect to the validity of legislation, governments will be better able to keep track of the decisions made with respect to such challenges and make such adjustments to legislation as the courts may indicate.

I move second reading.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition supports.this bill. This is an important growth industry in Canada that's been created by the passage of the Charter of Rights. It would be a pity if the Attorney-General's lawyers weren't also in court, along with many others who will be there arguing all kinds of these cases over the next 45 o 50 years. By all means, let the Attorney-General be apprised of what is happening in the law courts. Let him appoint a lawyer, with unemployment raging as it is in this country. This is one way to prevent the relief rolls from swelling.

MR. LAUK: I do not want to let this opportunity slip by. I appreciate the comments of the Attorney-General and the second member for Vancouver East.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Junior counsel!

MR. LAUK: The Premier has never disappointed me. He's totally predictable. The most petty-minded thing that he could possibly say at any given time, he will.

MR. SPEAKER: On to the bill, please.

MR. LAUK: I think this bill is symbolic in many ways of what's happened in the past several years of this administration in relation to the government in Ottawa. We are now doing the final step of the Constitutional Question Act; it's the result of this government saying one thing to its own people in the province of British Columbia and doing something else.

They said they were taking a hard position with the federal government over the Dease Lake extension, and they bowed under the pressure of the federal government — knuckled under — because they can't stand any pressure from the Trudeau Liberals. We saw that they were opposed to the Trudeau Liberals' approach to the constitution from the beginning. At least our local press told us that. But whenever they got back east, what would they do? The slightest pressure from Pierre Elliott Trudeau and this Premier and his officials would knuckle under. He puts on this facade of protecting British Columbia interests in the face of the Trudeau interests, but he knuckles under to them every time. He sold out the position of British Columbia and signed this constitution under the, pressure of the Trudeau Liberals.

The same thing happened with restraint. Before leaving he said he'd never cooperate with such a program. He went back east. What did he do? He was the pet poodle of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He's the first one to experiment with restraint in his own province, doing the bidding and calling of the Trudeau Liberals. All the way along he's kept up the pretence that this government is defending British Columbia interests against the Trudeau Liberals. Every time he's just in the hip pocket of the Trudeau Liberals. I'll tell you why. That cabinet is controlled by the Liberal Party. It Was controlled by the Liberal Party from the beginning, and it has always been controlled by the Liberal Party. Under this bill, this is the final act of humiliation on the part of the British Columbia government. They sold out on the constitution. They sold out on restraint. They'll always sell out, because they're just a carbon copy of the federal Liberal Party right here in the province of British Columbia.

[ Page 7703 ]

MR. LEGGATT: The concerns that I have around the Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982, deal with remarks that the Attorney-General has made publicly on several occasions about the impact of the Charter of Rights, and the attitude that he's going to have towards the interpretation of the charter in the courts.

Certainly no one can object to notice provisions so the department is fully advised when there is a court challenge, but I have some concerns that the Attorney-General seems to be approaching the charter from a very narrow point of view. In other words, we may see a political attack on the charter by the Attorney-General and his officials when the interpretation of the charter comes, in view of his remarks made previously about how the charter will inhibit the police from doing their job. It seems to me that that's a dangerous attitude for the Attorney-General to take. The Attorney-General should not take sides on that question. It's a matter of the charter being given effect to. Surely the intention of those who have supported the charter is that we have a charter which protects the rights of the individual. I would be disappointed to see the Attorney-General interfere in cases before the courts with the rights of the individual, where the charter clearly intends to protect those rights.

I would like the Attorney-General to reread some of his remarks about the charter which indicate a very narrow, somewhat oppressive view of the way that charter should be applied to the rights of the individual. I hope that by passing this legislation we don't see the Attorney-General interfering in every case before the courts, whereby the charter is used to defend oppressive practices — the Attorney-General routinely intervening to oppose the impact of the charter on the rights of the individual.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I won't bother to respond to the comments of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who was entirely out of order in making the remarks he did in this debate. Of course, he is entirely out of order because of the myopic view which he has of this government's stellar performance during the constitutional discussions that took place in Canada. As a matter of fact, I find it passing strange that that member, who opposed any action with regard to the constitutional change in this province, should have taken such a position when what occurred, in the final analysis, was the unilateral presentation by the federal government to the United Kingdom of proposals which were passed by committees of the Parliament of Canada, actively supported by members of the New Democratic Party who sit in that House. He now suggests that we're in bed with the Liberals because we now have a charter which the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is now saying we should stand up and support. I wish you would get together and make up your minds as to where you want to stand. We wouldn't have had the problem if we'd had our way, because there'd be no charter — and there shouldn't be any charter in many respects.

However, to Bill 41, second reading. I want to say to the member for Coquitlam-Moody that when we receive notice of challenges which emanate from the charter, the representations which will be made before the courts in this province or elsewhere with respect to those challenges will be those which we are satisfied are supportable by the appropriate opinion of the law; they will not be made on the basis of politics. However, let it be clear that I am very concerned, as are Attorneys-General throughout this entire nation, about the impact which the charter will have on the appropriate administration of criminal justice. We had a debate yesterday in this House — we will have more as the days go by — with regard to the problem associated with the administration of criminal justice. I would point out to the hon. member that what we have to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is follow the approach of the United States of America at a time when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is so alarmed about the direction they have taken that he is making public speeches — the member would support his right to do this — pointing out that the directions they have gone under their constitution and bill of rights have deflected the administration of criminal justice in that nation to such an extent that the basic purpose of criminal justice administration has been lost. Criminal justice administration exists so that it is safe for people to walk about the streets of their communities. The application of judicial interpretation to the constitution of the United States has had just the opposite result. It is now safer for the criminal than it is for the citizen. I am concerned that we do not go in that direction in Canada. Therefore we will make full representation with respect to the preservation of the law and the proper administration of criminal justice, as they arise from time to time.

MR. LEGGATT: And the liberty of the subject.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That will be considered. It will be because the liberty of the subject is in question that the issue will be brought before the courts. We will ensure that it is fully and properly addressed. If the decision of the courts is more in favour of the liberty of the subject than is currently the case, then that is what the charter is for. We just wish to ensure that all sides of the issue are presented.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I ask leave to refer Bill 44 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 41, Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 41; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[ Page 7704 ]

Bill 41, Constitutional Question Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 32.

MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE RESTRAINT ACT
(continued)

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

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. BARBER: I wonder if the minister could tell us what the inspector of municipalities will define as "operating expenditures."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Operating expenditures are moneys for other than capital works. We can define it fairly easily. In a regional district it may be somewhat more complicated, in that we have to look at functions rather than the overall budget, but again, we have been able to sort it out without any difficulty. The inspector has handled it very effectively. As minister, I have yet to receive a complaint personally.

MR. BARBER: The operating expenditures of municipalities which have municipal police forces include that service and that expenditure. I wonder if the minister could tell us what will happen if an arbitrated settlement awards police officers, shall we say, 14 percent and the guideline is 12 percent. How is a municipality enabled under the provisions of section 3 to continue to guarantee public safety if the arbitration award says one thing and this section says another?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The section does allow a fair bit of flexibility to the inspector. Using the RCMP as an example,, one might certainly refer to our being forced to negotiate a contract with the federal government respecting the RCMP and its service to the various communities throughout the province. The inspector can, and does, take those sorts of things into consideration. However, with respect to the settlement of salary disputes, the local authority will first, of course, have to consider whether the awards granted are in fact beyond their means to pay; they may not have to cut back on the number of people involved. In other words, how big the pie is and how you cut it up is obviously a matter that would need to be looked at by the local government.

MR. BARBER: The minister has admitted that under the provisions of section 3 the inspector of municipalities may allow an increase greater than 12 percent in order to provide for services for public safety, such as police and fire protection. That being the case, we are once again faced with the problem of who's in charge. We're aware, Mr. Chairman, that under another bill, which has not yet been made law, this government proposes to exercise a form of wage control over public servants. Again, what that bill proposes to do appears to be in conflict with what this bill proposes to do. If the inspector of municipalities under section 3 has the power to allow an expenditure of more than 12 percent for the purposes of guaranteeing public safety, who has the final power — the inspector of municipalities or the Maytag repairman?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's not for the inspector of municipalities to determine what the percentage increase may be for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is a federal force under federal jurisdiction. The amount of the increase for officers, wherever they may be in the country, is negotiated federally. That is not a matter for the inspector: He does not determine the amount of a contract award. This would be a federal matter. The only thing is that the inspector's door is open with respect to a case that might be presented by a municipality. Hypothetically, as You said, it could be that a municipality might come forth and say, "Because of an action federally beyond the powers or authorities of a municipality, we have this sort of situation, " and that doesn't necessarily mean that the only option available to the inspector is granting an exemption from whatever the budget limitation is and that there would therefore be an automatical increase. I'm sure that first the council would have the option of looking at the amount of money available and how they would like to divvy this.

I suppose it could vary depending on where you are in the Province, but sitting next to a colleague here from the north, I could almost guarantee you that most northern municipalities, and I would expect perhaps the majority of southern municipalities, would attempt to sort it out locally. The northern municipalities have a reputation for that. They can, as we know, adjust according to circumstances and cut the cloth to meet whatever circumstance, but it would be a local matter first. We do not deny the municipality the opportunity of presenting their case to the inspector.

MR. BARBER: The minister is answering questions I haven't asked. I was referring to municipal police forces; I didn't talk about the RCMP I talked about municipal police forces from the beginning; I never mentioned the RCMP. There are some 14 municipalities in the province that have municipal police forces.

To ask the question again, what would happen in the instance of a municipal police force being granted an arbitrated settlement of, shall we say, 14 to 14.5 percent, which is clearly in excess of the 12 percent? When you took at the function that the minister tells us would be guaranteed under section 2 and would now be enforced under section 3, what authority does the inspector of municipalities have to allow that increase?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: None.

MR. BARBER: There's a problem here, Mr. Chairman. The minister earlier said that operating expenditures include the provision of fire and police services. Is that right?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, operating expenditures certainly include fire, police, public safety and health. All of those programs are very often or generally a part of a municipal budget. Certainly from all of the time that I've served on a municipal council, when we looked at the amount available for recreation, road construction, ditching, street lights, planning and information services, we had to

[ Page 7705 ]

consider the moneys needed for other programs as well. We too, as you do in your family, had to prioritize things accordingly. Granted, oftentimes we had to cut out dessert in order to have the meat and potatoes. So this again will be a decision locally. But it's true: it's all a part of operating a municipality. As was mentioned earlier, and I repeat again, the whole attempt here, certainly in cooperation with municipalities, is to put a lid on the amount of government and to provide our taxpayers with the secure feeling that we, as people in government at whatever level, are concerned about their ability to pay and we're wanting to restrain and get some order in the way that we tax the people at all levels. I'm sure that there will be difficult decisions made by people in local government when they must prioritize those things that they wish to allocate the available resources to.

If we had an endless source of money — if, in fact, there weren't the need to restrain and we could just carry on demanding from the taxpayers whatever it is the government decided to spend — then I suppose there wouldn't be the need to prioritize. You could hire whatever police numbers you felt necessary and you could provide all of the comfort and facilities that go with providing good fire protection. You could go on with providing recreational programs, closing all of the ditches and providing ornamental street lights, but we do not have the luxury of having a province in which the taxpayers have pockets that are filled up and to which there is no bottom and from which we can continue to draw. I think we all recognize that and that's why we have the program — to bring restraint into the amount of government and the spending of government. But this will require difficult decisions.

MR. BARBER: If Social Credit believed in restraint, they wouldn't have overrun their budget last year by $225 million. If the minister believed in restraint, he wouldn't have overrun his personal office budget last year by $25,000. If Social Credit believed in restraint, they wouldn't have cabinet ministers drinking $37.50 bottles of wine at the taxpayers' expense.

The problem in section 3 is that it appears to establish conflict between the role of Mr. Peck, the Maytag repair man, and the inspector of municipalities. It is clear there is an open and evident conflict between the powers of the inspector of municipalities to allow operating expenditures — which include public safety, among other things — to exceed the 12 percent guidelines, and those of Mr. Peck, who is apparently going to have to enforce a program of 8, 10 or 12 percent, or 5 or less, depending on which version of which Premier's statement you believe from time to time. There's an obvious inconsistency in the authority and the powers granted to Mr. Peck, the Maytag repairman, and the inspector of municipalities, whose name happens to be Mr. Woodward. The minister's answer has not satisfied the question. What happens when, there is a conflict between the decision of the inspector of municipalities in regard to an exemption from the 12 percent limit and the decision of Mr. Peck in regard to those features of exemption which include salaries?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The hon. first member for Victoria has on numerous occasions referred to a matter which I would much prefer to discuss during budget debate. My office certainly did not leave the government a debt. If, in fact, we changed priorities within the office operation because we wanted to serve the people better, that's another matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Please. As you rightfully point out, hon. minister, it is a matter best canvassed under a different subject in committee. This is possibly an ideal opportunity, hon. members, to point out the problem that we can experience when one member raises something which is not covered specifically in the section, and then another member feels that a response would be in order. For that very reason I would encourage all members to stay within the strict relevance of the section we are debating.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I do not see a conflict between the commissioner, Mr. Peck, and the inspector of municipalities. They both have a job to do. I take exception to this constant referral to Mr. Peck as the man who used to work for Maytag. It doesn't matter to me if a person — inspector or otherwise.... If they have a job to do, they don't have to come fresh out of university as the member for Victoria did. There is no conflict between the role of the inspector and that of Mr. Peck, the commissioner.

MR. BARRETT: I agree with the minister: if Peck is working for Maytag, then Maytag should pay him. But it was your leader who said he was a Maytag salesman — not the member from here, I know you're fighting for the leadership, but I didn't expect you to bring it to the floor of this House without discussing it in caucus first.

On this section, his leader has put him into more trouble. Do you people meet in cabinet or do you discuss these inconsistencies? What's going on over there? I quote from the Vancouver Sun a statement made by the Premier referring to this Section in terms of police negotiations and the 14 municipalities that this member is talking about. You don't even know what's going on. I don't know whether it's your fault or the Premier's fault. You're talking about restraint and the supervisor at the municipal level doing something, and this is what your boss is saying: "Asked whether it was worth the $882,000 budgeted this year for the commissioner's office to deal with the irresponsible one percent, Bennett replied: 'Sure. Do you question the price of a policeman? Do you question the price of the courts? Of course not.' "

Now what does that mean under this section? It means that under this section the police are not going to be confined in their contracts to any direction from this bill.

MR. HOWARD: Or either one of those Bills.

MR. BARRETT: Or either one of the Bills, You, as the responsible minister, come in here and try to cover up for a program you don't even know the details of. You've been asked and embarrassed — and embarrassing the rest of us — to discuss this issue when every day the rules change by statements of the Premier.

Now I want to ask the minister: did you know that the Premier was going to exempt the police from this section? Did you know that? Were you aware that, through his statement, he was going to exempt the police from this section? What does that do to Mr. Woodward's role?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that this provision, like the other provisions in the

[ Page 7706 ]

legislation, has certainly been considered by the municipalities — by the UBCM — and I can assure you that at all the meetings that have been held in various parts of the province by the municipalities and the regional districts, local government does not perceive the problems that appear to be related here by the NDP opposition. They, in fact, have no difficulty with the legislation because, as I've repeatedly said, the legislation is supported by the UBCM and the municipalities because they, too, as responsible people in government recognize the need for restraint. We do not have a bottomless pit; we do not have, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, the opportunity of continually going back to the taxpayers for more and more and more. We do need the sort of leadership that will assure the citizens of British Columbia that someone is concerned about their ability to pay and through this constraint program will bring government at all levels into line under some control, which will assure them that confidence, that protection and that degree of security.

This section, of course, provides the inspector to make exceptions or exemptions in certain circumstances. Granted, that is something recognized, required, realized and appreciated by local government: there has to be some opportunity to provide for those unusual situations that may exist in one or another community. You constantly refer to fire and police; certainly those are two very important matters, but similarly a community in the north or in some other part of the province could perhaps be hit perhaps with unusual weather circumstances in a year when they really need the opportunity to turn to the inspector of municipalities and say: "You are one of us. You are there to assist us. The legislation provides you with that opportunity, so help us out." These are the sorts of situations. The inspector can then address that.

The legislation is fair, workable and has the support of the people in local government. It particularly has the support of taxpayers, wherever they may be in this beautiful province of ours.

MR. BARRETT: The minister is on the same embarrassed hook as the Minister of Finance. You are responsible to give direction through this section, through the inspector, over the circumstances you've just described. No one disagrees with those circumstances. No one in their right mind would — except the Premier. The point is that what the member for Victoria is asking has been clearly defined by the minister himself. When you say that the inspector is to go in under those unusual circumstances in the communities where he is to make that difference, which law applies, yours or the Minister of Finance's? Who has more power, Mr. Peck or Mr. Woodward?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No conflict.

MR. BARRETT: You see the conflict. Whom do you support? If Mr. Peck orders a rollback contrary to a decision made by Mr. Woodward under this section....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are tending to stray very dramatically from section 3 of Bill 32. Clearly we are beginning to cover more closely debate that could be relative to another section, possibly section 9. Section 3 states: "The inspector of municipalities may define operating expenditures." We are into a situation where we are considering extraordinary circumstances. In no way can we allow this discussion to flow into another section currently before the committee. If the Leader of the Opposition would take his seat, I will recognize the first member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. BARBER: The point of order is simply this: the minister has already agreed that operating expenditures include wage settlements for, among others, policemen and firemen. The Leader of the Opposition is asking which law applies in regard to wage settlements. Operating expenditures, as may be described under section 3 of this bill — the exemptions feature of the bill — include wage settlements. It is on that precise basis that the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition are entirely in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The Chairman will determine what is or is not in order. The member may make some suggestion to the Chair but he certainly will not determine, from his position, what is or is not in order.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Chairman, and to continue on the point of order, the minister has already determined what an operating expenditure is. That definition, as provided for in subsection 3(a), is the one upon which we base this particular debate. I respectfully suggest that debate is entirely in order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, my point of order relates to what you, the Chair, just said. The Chair permits cabinet ministers to lecture the Chair about what is and is not in order. I don't think it is becoming to the neutrality expected of the Chair to jump on the poor member for Victoria, who just happened to make a suggestion as to whether something was in order or not. Be fair, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Had that been the first time that it happened, the member's point would have had much more validity than it does. The Leader of the Opposition continues on section 3, bearing in mind that there is another section, currently under discussion as well, which could possibly more appropriately be canvassed.

MR; BARRETT: I have to define, in terms of my responsibility in this House, where the debate takes place, particularly when the minister himself has stated here this morning that the police contracts and the fire contracts come under this section as part of the general budget. What I am asking the minister is to tell me very quickly who has the ultimate authority in the extraordinary circumstances you outlined. Which bill has the authority? Is this bill more authoritative in these extraordinary circumstances than Mr. Peck's authority? That is a very clear question.

The minister has made a very important statement to the House. There is mass confusion in this province about conflicting statements by various government ministers and the Premier. The municipalities have to rely on the statements of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, or he is not running the show. I ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: what do you say to the mayors and the councils of the cities of Vancouver, who hire their own police forces, in the extraordinary circumstances that we all agree — and as you have defined — may exist? Who has the authority — this section or Mr. Peck — so that the municipalities will know who is boss, who is running

[ Page 7707 ]

the show? Does this bill have absolute authority in terms of Mr. Woodward's exceptional circumstance?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, let me assure the hon. Leader of the Opposition that there is not mass confusion anywhere, except possibly in that small portion of this House occupied by the members of the opposition. Those municipalities are well aware of the program. They certainly have no difficulty at all in interpreting this particular section, or the provisions of any other act. They know full well the rules with respect to negotiating contracts, be they with someone working on a highways project, a recreational program, or for the fire or police departments. It is all provided for. They know how to deal with that situation, and when and where to turn for what.

Section 3 (b) allows a municipality, as it states very clearly, "...to exceed the limit under section 2 where he" — that is the inspector — "considers that extraordinary circumstances exist and that the municipality has made all reasonable efforts to comply with the directive under section 2," which establishes the amount of budgetary increase. The municipalities will have no difficulty with that at all.

The hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) gave a hypothetical situation when he asked what happens if someone increases the guidelines or limitations with respect to wage increases. That is a matter for another piece of legislation, not for this particular legislation. This section affords a municipality the opportunity to present its case to the inspector. The inspector, in light of that evidence, will then consider whether or not an exemption ought to be granted. It will certainly not deal with establishing a percentage increase for somebody's wages.

MR. BARRETT: I thank the minister for sticking specifically to this section, because I understand this section.

The minister said that this allows the inspector of municipalities to deal, in extraordinary circumstances, with exemptions. Is that correct? That's what you just said. That's correct, isn't it? We both agree; we've reached that far. Now if the exemption exceeds the guidelines, then whose decision does the municipality follow — Mr. Peck's or Mr. Woodward's?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I can't believe it, Mr. Chairman. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has been in this House a lot longer than I have and certainly knows the process, I would admit, far better from experience than what I possibly might be expected to know, and he should be well aware that the other legislation — the legislation dealing with wage restraints — comes into effect when you're looking at an increase negotiated between two parties which is in excess of that which the commissioner provides for. That is a matter for that legislation and that commissioner, Mr. Peck, and it's not a matter for the inspector of municipalities. It will not go to the inspector of municipalities — it will instead go to the commissioner. Why the Leader of the Opposition should attempt to try to confuse these two pieces of legislation by discussing them at the same time, when he should be concentrating on section 3, is beyond me.

MR. BARRETT:Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attempt by the minister to explain his confusion, but that's your confusion. Mr. Woodward goes in at the request of the municipality under the authority of this legislation. The municipality makes its case "under the extraordinary circumstances," using your own words. The inspector, under this section, agrees with the municipality, grants the extraordinary circumstance — which includes an increase in its budget because of the extraordinary circumstance — for police, and police salaries perhaps have to be higher in a northern area or region where it's difficult to attract people, and they have to have a higher salary. Then what happens in those extraordinary circumstances? Does Mr. Peck then have the authority, as you understand it, to overrule Mr. Woodward's decision by this section? That's what I want to know.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly take some pleasure in straightening out this confusion that exists with the Leader of the Opposition. That would definitely be a matter for the commissioner if there is a question as to what percentage increase might be negotiated between a municipality and a police force. I didn't know we had police forces in the northern communities other than the RCMP. I'm sure we don't.

MR. BARRETT: In some regions.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Okay. We're really limited to the lower mainland. Fine, that probably doesn't matter. But if it's a matter negotiated between the police or their negotiators and the municipalities of Nelson, West Vancouver or Delta, then they must, by the other requirements of the legislation, deal with the commissioner. They deal with the commissioner on matters of compensation.

If the commissioner allowed a percentage increase within whatever the legislation provides for, and it somehow then impacts on a municipality whereby they deem they are in the position of making representation to the inspector of municipalities to have their overall budgeting considered, then again the legislation is very clear. They can, under this legislation, come to the inspector, but it does not exempt them from some other legislation. This legislation does not supersede some other law.

MR. BARRETT: What you're saying is that if the budget increase....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't say what I'm saying.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. If the municipality has negotiated a budget that the inspector has said is an extraordinary circumstance, and the thing that makes it an extraordinary circumstance is an increase in fire and police costs in terms of wages, then Mr. Peck rules. But if Mr. Peck's ruling increases the budget to the point where firemen and police costs are higher than the original municipal budget, then Mr. Woodward rules. That's what you've just defined. It's a cockamamey mishmash, and you know it. You know the whole thing is crazy. You're embarrassed, as the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to have to stickhandle your way through this mess on behalf of the Premier, who keeps interfering with hallway comment.

What we've got in this section is a toothless, tailless, headless, bodyless, legless tiger. That is the minister. In this section he is setting up a straw tiger that says: "We're going

[ Page 7708 ]

to supervise these budgets, but if Mr. Peck says no first, Mr. Woodward may say something afterwards. If Mr. Peck says no afterwards, Mr. Woodward did his job." You're embarrassed. You've worked for months drawing up this legislation. You are sincerely committed to this legislation, and you get a pop-off Premier talking in the hallways making a hash of your work, your dedication and your commitment. You are still staying there as minister trying to explain it.

I find it interesting that the Premier beetles off again when another contradiction comes up that embarrasses the minister under this section. I am confining myself to this section and how the minister explains it. He is going out in the hall to make another statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will stick to this section.

Mr. Minister, the Premier has made conflicting statements that affect this section. There is no way the inspector of municipalities, under this section, has any authority that means anything. You've admitted that whatever Mr. Peck comes up with will supersede this if it means in effect, after the decision that Woodward said.... What kind of planning and restraint is that? It is a bizarre, nightmare of red tape, of bureaucrat on top of bureaucrat on top of bureaucrat pouring away taxpayers' money trying to find a solution under this section that common sense should have found. How much money are we going to spend under this Section in expenses, research ...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Again, I must instruct the Leader of the Opposition that we are dealing only with what is before us in section 3. That is very clear and very short. I would ask the member again to confine his remarks to the strict relevance of section 3.

MR. BARRETT: No one wants to be more restricted in terms of relevance on this section than I do. The inspector of municipalities is going to have to go to municipalities under this section and spend money to get there. After he's spent the money and he's done his job, the minister admits that this legislation is subject, in terms of budget increases for personnel, to a rollback by Peck. So why are we passing this section which expends money that the taxpayers send down to Victoria when the minister has finally admitted that the authority will be superseded by another bill? That is relevant to this section. It couldn't be more specific to this section, and my comments in that regard, I will admit, have been somewhat extravagant. I will admit that, but the extravagance of my comments is based on the foolish position that this section has placed the minister in, and he's in that foolish position because he's defending a day-to-day policy announced in the corridors by the Premier. I couldn't put it any more succinctly than'that, Mr. Chairman, and still stay with this section.

When I said it was cockamamey, it may have been extravagant, but it was correct; when I said it was a toothless tiger, it may have been extravagant, but it was correct; and when I say it's nonsense, that sums it up specifically. This government is out of control, and this section is nonsense.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, this section, which deals, of course, with the limitations of public expenditures by the municipal councils, also deals with how it's to be done. I want to deal with the credibility of this section. In referring to that, I wish to quote from an article from a Burnaby newspaper called Burnaby Today, which I think specifically points out how the credibility of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in bringing in this section and the whole bill, is at stake.

I quote from, the paper: "Mr. Vander Zalm spoke to a group of Social Credit supporters. The discussion was on the recession, which, of course, is the essence of this whole bill."

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it in a phone booth?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, in a phone booth.

He has told this Legislature. that he has brought in this bill and this particular clause to back it up for one purpose only, and that is to bring about restraint in the province of British Columbia. Yet to quote from.the paper, while speaking to this group of Social Credit members, "Vander Zalm blamed much of the recession on unjustifiably high interest rates. 'Until, the banks bring down the interest rates, we are doomed, ' he said. 'There isn't a little business, not even a medium-sized business that can survive! "

Mr. Chairman, I'll try to keep to the relevancy of the clause. My point here is: why has the minister bothered to bring in this bill and this specific clause, which elaborates on the purpose of the bill, when he, at the same time, has told a group of party supporters that the only way to deal with restraint and handle this recession today is to aim at the banks, in order to bring down interest rates? So what I'm saying is that the whole matter of bringing in this bill and aiming at municipal councils, limiting their expenditures, is a political sham. He does not believe this bill is going to have any effect whatsoever. I would also like to say that his credibility continues to be at stake following further statements he made relative to the recession and restraints in this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, to this point in time the remarks of the member would have been most appropriate in second reading, but the Chair is having extreme difficulty relating the remarks specifically to section 3. Upon reflection, I'm sure the member will realize the position of the Chair and refer directly to section 3.

MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the role that you must play to keep us on this specific clause, Mr. Chairman, and you do an excellent job with that role.

I would just like to continue very briefly to say that the reason I'm speaking on this particular section dealing with limiting of expenditures is simply to state that the minister's whole credibility is at stake for ever bringing in this clause.

He also went on to say — and this is my final statement, Mr. Chairman — that the reason we're in a recession is because of the B.C. socialists. What is he bringing in this bill attacking all the councils for if the whole blame...? Imagine, we're not even government. They've been government for seven years, but the socialists are responsible. He tells his group that if they want to do anything about recession... get involved in government if you want to bring about a change in government. The Minister of Municipal Affairs suggests that the change should be brought about in his own government.

[ Page 7709 ]

MR. HANSON: I know the minister doesn't want any facts to get in the way. Under section 3 the inspector of municipalities will be carrying out ministerial directives in terms of restraining municipal spending. I think the records should indicate what the facts have been since the Social Credit assumed power at the end of 1975 up to 1980.

I'd like to read into the record a few facts. The total expenditures of municipalities in British Columbia increased by 13.3 percent per annum. At the same time the Social Credit spending, with all their waste and mismanagement, was 19.21 percent. I know he doesn't want the facts to get in the way, but my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has indicated, as have many members on this side of the House, that the leanest, most efficient government in British Columbia over the last six or seven years has been municipal government — local government.

Let me read you a few of these figures. Between 1975 and 1980 — these are taken out of the government's own annual reports — the total expenditures for municipalities in British Columbia grew from just $1 billion to $1.6 billion, an average per annum increase of 13.3 percent. Meanwhile the total provincial government expenditures between 1975 and 1980 — the same period of time — rose from $2.6 billion to $5.1 billion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again I must draw to the member's attention the fact that the remarks that he's making would have been appropriate in second reading, but now we are on section 3 and must adhere to the strictly relevant clause. While the words "operating expenditure" are mentioned in the section, that does not permit us the scope to go beyond the definition of operating expenditures for the purpose of the act. I must again ask the member if he can more closely relate his remarks to the section before us, which is section 3. Having decided the principle in second reading, we now must deal with the strictly relevant aspect of each section.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, as you correctly point out, the clause does refer to operating expenditures, and also compliance on the part of a municipality to keep their spending within reasonable limits. What I'm pointing out is that the record from 1975 to 1980 of the municipalities is extremely good, efficient and lean, compared with the wasting of taxpayers' dollars by the provincial government. That is the argument I'm making.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can appreciate the member's argument and I can appreciate the member's position, but it becomes increasingly apparent to the Chairman that people are not appreciating the confines of strict relevance within which the Chair must keep debate. Again I ask the members to bear in mind that we must stick strictly to the section, and to go on to any government's record during debate on this section is certainly straining the strictly relevant aspect of debate.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

2 The Hon. L. A. Williams to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 2) intituled Court of Appeal Act to amend as follows:

Section 28, by deleting subsection (3).

Section 97, by deleting section 97.