[ Page 1947 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Reynolds –– 1947

Mr. Cocke –– 1948

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 1951

Mrs. Dailly –– 1953

Mr. R. Fraser –– 1957

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

On the amendment to section 7 1958

Ms. Brown

Mr. Lea

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

On section 10 –– 1960

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

On section 15 1962

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

On section 23 –– 1962

Mr. Cocke

Appendix –– 1963

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this evening are two very interested people who are here for the third time, constituents of ours from White Rock, Jim and Peg Aldred. I ask you to welcome them.

In your gallery, Mr. Speaker, are two very strong free-enterprisers who, in the spirit of free enterprise, provide a good number of jobs in the Vancouver centre area, which is where they have their business. They certainly understand the meaning of the phrase "ability to pay." I would ask you please to welcome my daughter and son-in law, Darlene and Ben Bezalel from Vancouver.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to standing order 36 and ask Your Honour whether, when a member rises in his place to speak wearing a button, especially those that say on them "the whining team" and "the wrecking team," it constitutes compliance with that standing order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The reference to "uncovered" deals with an old parliamentary tradition of wearing hats in the House. It meant that one was to remove one's chapeau.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I just have a couple of minutes to go. It's interesting to see the member for Skeena get up and talk about members standing in their places wearing buttons, because to my knowledge nobody on this side of the House has stood up to make a speech when they were wearing a button.

I have just a few comments on some of the comments from the NDP members who have been speaking on Bill 11. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) said that every thinking person would feel this bill should be withdrawn. The explanation says the amendments reinforce the policy that public service salaries must be based on the ability to pay and on proven increases in productivity. I don't understand — and I don't think the people of this province can understand — the opposition's chief financial spokesman, and one of their leadership candidates, when he talks about every thinking person saying this piece of legislation should be withdrawn. It's a piece of legislation that has worked in this province for the last year, and worked very well. I have mentioned that of the 966 compensation plans that went before the commission last year, 895 were within the guidelines –– 93 percent. I think you have to give the Minister of Finance credit for that type of legislation, and give the government credit for the fact that they brought that legislation in originally when other governments in Canada were saying that it couldn't be done. The workers in this province understand what we're trying to do.

I also wanted to quote the member for Nanaimo.... I was making the odd note as he was speaking, and I think that's probably one of the best ways to make a speech in this House — by listening to some of their comments. He said: "Wherever you turn — newspapers, magazines — they don't like this legislation." Well, he can't be reading the same newspapers or magazines that I'm reading. This afternoon I read him a comment out of Barron's Weekly, a financial newspaper that certainly is more respected around the world in financial circles than anything any of the NDP members has ever said or will do, in which it said that it was time this government did what they were doing; that it's a responsible government; and that once again we're leading the rest of the country with this type of legislation.

They say this Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act should be withdrawn, taken out. One of their members yelled "closure" at me before we had the supper break. I think it fits in very well not only with this piece of legislation but with a lot of other pieces of legislation that we've been debating in this House since the last election. We did have closure on an amendment to a piece of legislation. I, for one, see nothing wrong with closure on any legislation after a reasonable period of time has gone by. I went to the library to read what some of the NDP members said about closure when they brought it into this Legislature on estimates a few years ago. Mr. Ernie Hall, the poor socialist from Surrey who used to live in Tsawwassen — in fact, he still does; he lives in one of the nicest areas of Tsawwassen — said, in talking about closure: "Do you think that democracy has fled from the province of Quebec, from the province of Ontario? Rubbish! Rubbish!" This is relevant to Bill 11, Mr. Speaker, because from my point of view, if the government had to bring in closure on Bill 11, I would accept that, once that party had a chance to get its members up on their feet. But if they're going to keep on making silly comments and making no recommendations, the people of this province should know that this government has to take some responsibility and bring in closure to get this legislation through.

[8:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll have to remind the member that he is either reflecting on a previous vote or anticipating one. Please avoid any such reflection.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not want to reflect on the way the members of the NDP vote. They are entitled to the way they vote and I respect that. I'm just suggesting that some of their speeches are a little too long, and some of the debate is filibustering. Closure is a term.... In fact, I quote the former member, Mr. Hall, on closure: "You can drag this thing into the realm of politics just as much as you want, but you know yourselves that this is

[ Page 1948 ]

the only way to go. This is the only thing that can happen to drag this Legislature out of the bush league that you have apparently got the desire to push it into, and turn it into a proper Legislature of which we can be proud." That's an NDP member of this Legislature saying that closure is something to make all legislators proud. I've said that since I've been here, because I've watched it being used in Ottawa as a tool to govern. I encourage the Premier and other members of the Social Credit government to bring in closure when necessary on this legislation, because we're wasting the taxpayers' money — the $100,000 a day that it takes to run this institution.

The NDP are filibustering every bill before us, whether they need to or not. I support the government when they bring in closure. I would also support — as I hope members of the NDP would — some changes in the rules of this Legislature to have some sanity in debate, and some agreement as to time, so that we are not wasting the taxpayers' money. I also support very strongly the Minister of Finance in this piece of legislation and commend him for bringing it in.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I think I should start out by having a little chat with the Legislature — through you — with respect to some of the comments made by the hon. member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

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

Interjection.

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch on the comments made by the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound with respect to the discussion of my former colleague, Ernie Hall. At that time they were not talking about closure as we're discussing it today, but about time limits set by the Legislature on estimates. It had nothing whatsoever to do with legislation, but with time limits that the Social Credit said at that time were absolutely unacceptable. As a matter of fact, under the auspices of the then Mr. Bill Bennett and now Premier, they went around this province for three years, waving a flag and screaming, "Not a dime without debate" at the top of their lungs. We relented, Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, and said: "If that's the way you want it, help yourselves." We relented on the time limits that had been set in standing orders, and which stood in the standing orders in 1977; they were repealed in 1979, but stood until then. They were relented upon by us, and successively by the Social Credit government out of shame, because there's no possible way they could set time limits after having denied us those same time limits.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if perhaps the member could be encouraged to get back to the bill before the House, rather than to speak about rules and time limits on debate in the Legislature.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. I think, though, the member for New Westminster knows what I'm going to say. Some latitude has been allowed, and I think an appropriate amount of latitude will be allowed to the member in this debate, but at some time we would all be encouraged to return to the principle of Bill 11.

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

I'm not going to protract this aspect of the debate, but I do want it fully understood that in our reply to the demand that there should be debate ad infinitum, we said finally: sure, if that's the way you want it, debate forever. Taxpayers' money, that member said. The marathon sittings of this House were during the period that the NDP were in government, and look at the records.

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

MR. COCKE: At least we tried to handle it democratically, Mr. Member. We never resorted to closure and wouldn't resort to closure now. Closure has been used three times in the history of this Legislature and twice in the last two weeks. Shame on that doctor sitting there with the funny looking tie. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should resort, when in doubt, to the democratic process. The way to resort to the democratic process is to observe the minorities' opportunity to debate and to put forward their ideas, whether or not the government feels they're redundant.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, on Bill 11, I suggest to you that they've done it again. When the original Compensation Stabilization Act was proposed and was being debated, it was announced by both the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier that this would be a bill of two years' duration. "Take care of the interim and the long term will take care of itself. Set the path for Canada. Canada will recognize the way of B.C. is obviously the way that everyone should go." That was the announcement. And now, two years later, the sky's the limit — no time limit, just put this kind of package of slashing and bashing into place forever and a day.

The kind of legislation that we have before us is to some extent acceptable, or could have been, were it just that interim situation — but only acceptable to some, not to people who believe in the freedoms that we enjoy in this country. What I think we should all remember is that freedom is not just a one-way street. Freedom to change, freedom to negotiate, is a freedom that we should all enjoy.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: We're leaders.

MR. COCKE: You're leaders in the greatest number of unemployed, the worst economic situation in terms of recovery in the entire country. B.C. has got the worst record of all of Canada after having this kind of legislation in place for two years. Now what have you got to say to that? What a shocking situation! Then we turn to the rest of the country and say,

[ Page 1949 ]

"Follow us. Follow us to infamy. Follow us down the drain. Follow us to Silicon Valley," Mr. Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer), where they're also going down the tube. Never has slashing, bashing and crushing of ordinary people been a move in the right direction for economic recovery, for trust, or for any other aspect of a decent, straight and strong economy.

Compensation stabilization was originally dreamed up prior to February 18 — and I remember the date well. I heard it on short-wave radio. The Premier's message was telling the country that B.C. had dreamed a new dream and we were going for "restraint." Part of that restraint was almost immediately implemented with the Compensation Stabilization Act. It would put B.C. back on its feet, it was said. I go back to what I said a few moments ago; we put B.C. flat on its britches.

The private sector hasn't needed legislation to keep negotiated wage increases at an acceptable level. The economy dictates that. You don't have to have a dictatorial government telling either the private or the public sector what is acceptable when they already know. It doesn't take very long for the employees of government, municipalities, Crown corporations or the lumber industry to know that there are only so many dollars available. You don't have to have ham-fisted legislation, like this and the other legislation that we face, to bring about the changes that this government are arguing are part of their package.

I say that restraint in this and virtually everything else the government is doing is nothing but a catchword, nothing but a PR stunt to put them in a position where they hold total control of the entire province from right here in Victoria. We know that centralization is a thing of the past in more progressive areas. We know that centralization was attempted in many of the communist countries and still is being attempted with no success. Centralization and Stalin are synonymous. They put their economics in jeopardy when they take the powers away from the local level and bring them to the unthinking areas of central government. Fortuitously for this country, this is not the government of the land, only the government of the province; but it has impaired the economy of B.C. and will continue to impair the economy of B.C. as long as they continue along this line of centralization.

[8:30]

Nothing more or less can be accepted from a bill that says that the government — let's not kid ourselves; when I am talking about the government I am talking about the cabinet — determines the compensation for all of the public sector. We are not talking about direct public servants; we are talking about 240,000 people in this province. We are talking about every employee of a Crown corporation, a municipality, a school district and the provincial government. That's 240,000 people dictated to by the Minister of Finance, who really doesn't call the shots. The Minister of Finance together with the Premier and one or two other influential people in that cabinet have decided to go back to the nineteenth century and adopt the old ways of the old conservatives in order to bail us out of the quandary we are in. Don't they realize that they have created the quandary? Don't they realize that these are exactly the same conditions that the world was in when it went down that long slide to a terrible, deep, dark depression in the thirties? Don't they realize the rhetoric was almost the same then as it is now? Control, restraint, kick 'em when they're down. Mr. Speaker, that's what we have before us.

We also have before us a total admission of failure. In 1981 we were told that the Compensation Stabilization Act would work, would bail us out, would give us that new fresh start, would rev up the economy. Everybody was so excited. Everybody was delirious with delight that that Finance minister, that brilliant creature, was putting us on a course of recovery. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask you where that first bill took us. If you can answer any different than I — that is, down the tube — then I would like to suggest that the second bill will take us that much further down exactly the same pit as the first.

AN HON. MEMBER: Down the tube.

MR. COCKE: Tube, pit, vortex — you call it what you like, and I'll call it what I like. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, that's precisely the direction that has been adopted. They've learned nothing in the last two years, except the fact that they have a feeling that the public accepts that, yes, there should be some restraint. Also, the public accepts the fact that there is something less desirable about the human quality in a public servant or a teacher than there is in the rest of society. That is something that was probably generated by the same people, unfortunately, who decided that politicians also fit in that basket. I think that's unfortunate as well.

In any event, we were asked in 1981 to accept government intervention. As a result of that request, there was a bill put on the statutes of this province which became an act — the Compensation Stabilization Act. We were told by two people that it was of short duration. What did we get for the trouble that this Legislature took at that time? We got a bill that was put on the books for two years and that has gone on for that period and more, and now we're asked to give it an endless life in the amendment, because I see nothing in the amendment, nothing at all, that would tell me that there is any end to the life of this. It talks about the commencement, but it certainly doesn't talk about when it's going to come off the books; nor has there been any announcement this time by a responsible minister about when it might come off the books. All we have before us....

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

MR. COCKE: I want to congratulate the Minister of Forests, because he has told me right now.... He says: "What makes you think that it's going to end?" So the fact that we have to live in this kind of society for anything more than an interim period must make anybody in this House, particularly because we must more than anybody else in society, appreciate the need for a democratic society. When we see dictatorial bills like this before us, surely we can be at least given some kind of intimation that that kind of dictatorial society will come to an end eventually. The minister has said no. He wants it to go on and on interminably. This is the government that says: "Why don't we put the public sector in the same position as the private sector?" Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the public sector is already second class in terms of their ability to negotiate or to have any part in the decision-making process. That mentality should also be a message to the private sector: "Watch it out there!" If they're prepared to do this kind of thing — to set every aspect of wages, working conditions and so on outside of the negotiated contract — then it strikes me that they're also prepared to

[ Page 1950 ]

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

Another aspect of a government gone wild, of one that is so blessed with short-sightedness, is that they can put forward legislation that has become the laughing-stock of the rest of the western world. It's unfortunate for us that there's no laugh here, because we're directly affected.

Mr. Speaker, I want to read to you the first aspect of this bill, which says: "The purpose of this act is to establish a program that will encourage productivity and restrain and stabilize compensation in the public sector while ensuring that the paramount consideration for determining compensation is the public sector employer's ability to pay." Again they've thrown in that word "productivity." It's interesting. One thing that you can be absolutely sure of is that you do not gain productivity from a demoralized workforce. I think we've all seen evidence of that. Those of us who have been close enough and objective enough to observe have always seen that there is no way you can get a high level of productivity from a demoralized workforce.

One of the things that people have had in our society is the enjoyment of freedom. They've never had those enjoyments in either super left-wing or super right-wing countries; they have had lousy productivity on both sides of the political spectrum. They've had rotten productivity for one reason: if repressed, a freedom-searching person is not going to be productive. That's just absolute, pure logic, as far as I'm concerned. Why would a group of people, who from the time they began working believed they had the right to participate in negotiations, either directly or through others, participate in an opportunity to suggest working conditions and to make demands for decent working conditions, suddenly to be told that the government knows best? That can only go on for a period of time. At the end of that period, there has to be a kind of getting-back-together, and saying: "Okay, now let's get back to the basic freedoms we've all enjoyed." Two years ago we were promised that that would occur; it's even less than two years ago. That promise has now been lost. The government has turned its back on its own promise. With this new bill, the government has said: "We don't care what we said way back then. We don't care what you think. We've won an election, and now we're calling the shots. We got 49 percent of the vote."

Incidentally, I heard one of the members over there say "51." I'm not sure where he found those extra votes but, anyway, it's okay by me. That's neither here nor there; it's not that far off, I'm sure. It's 49 point something. Well, anyway, we'll see when the final votes come in. But, in any event, let's say it's 59 percent....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Great stuff ! The fact of the matter is so did I. You see, I won as well. But that's one thing that you people don't recognize. While you won in your constituency and are taking seriously, I hope, your responsibility to your constituency, I happen to have won in mine, as did my colleagues here. The people in New Westminster know my policies, and they keep increasing my mandate each year — if you're talking about mandates.

I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who had a long apprenticeship in that chair and should know better, understands democracy almost less than anybody in this House, and I feel sorry for him.

[8:45]

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

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

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we return to the bill?

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

Interjections.

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

MS. BROWN: Remind them that Hitler won too.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I suggest also that for the last ten minutes or a little more, because of the fact that we are having these marathon sessions and we don't have the Blues, I've been totally wasting my time standing here, by virtue of the fact that the Minister of Finance has seen fit to get out and stay out of the House.

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

MR. COCKE: I can't blame him.

He is not taking his responsibilities seriously, and I would hope that if they ever make you a minister, Mr. Member, you will take your responsibility an awful lot more seriously than he takes his. There is no possible way that he is going to have access to what I have to say, so tightening up and gearing in to Bill 11 is really not very much motivated on my part, because I may as well just stand here and chat with the House, as they're chatting with me.

I do think that's a travesty. I think the minister should present himself. He should be here; that's his job. If he gets tired, as is the government's wont, they can always change the bill that we're working on. He is tired, no doubt. He's had a long, long day. He's been here for a few paltry hours.

I really want to make this the focal point of my argument against Bill 11, and that is that the economic recovery that was promised in the original package is not even on the horizon. I want to take you back to the month of August, when every other province in the country, every other jurisdiction in Canada, improved their employment situation and had decreased unemployment and an increased employment situation. Where did B.C. find itself? There were 10,000 more people unemployed in our province. Why? Why would a government who placed themselves on this course, who had determined their direction some time ago, put themselves into a position where it's not more of the same, it's more of an awful lot worse that we're facing? There has been no economic recovery as a result of that February 18 decision by the Premier. There has not been economic recovery, or even a

[ Page 1951 ]

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

However, we have not seen this government back off on its spending, We found out today, for example, that with all their largess, the economic committee of this government decided that the best place they could meet to have a discussion about economic recovery and the economics of our province was in a $60,000 box at B.C. Place, watching the Lions play football. We long-suffering taxpayers paid for that.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Speaker, in 1981-82 we asked that government to cut back on their advertising and on their spending. Talking about restraint....

Interjection.

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

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

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we talked real restraint in 1981-82 and again in 1982-83. We asked them to cut back on their advertising and to cut back on their travel to the tune of $81,936,000. But did they? No. In 1982-83 we said cut back $76,225,000. Did they? No. But they say to the public servants, to Crown corporation employees, to teachers and municipal employees: "We want you to be absolutely within the power of government. But not us. No restraint where we're concerned." No restraint even on this weekend when they sat up there in that lush suite or two watching the Lions and the Edmonton Eskimos play football. Pretty nice going.

MR. REID: The Lions won!

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

MR. COCKE: Yay, Lions! But I'll tell you who else won, Mr. Speaker: those five cabinet ministers who were there. And I'll tell you who else lost: the taxpayers who paid for it. That's not restraint. That has nothing to do with stabilization. Stabilization comes from trust, and you'll never get trust when you have this kind of bill before you. Hasn't this government learned anything? Remember old Bill 33? Remember they set up the old Mediation Commission, with their lavish offices downtown? You remember that, don't you? It was a waste of money. Nobody trusted them.

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

MR. COCKE: The contract we gave Cass-Beggs was zero compared to what you gave Matkin. Come on, you gave it away! What we did was get a competent man in there for a short of time.

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

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

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: How about Jimmy Rhodes?

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

MR. COCKE: You see, Mr. Speaker, the minister has a guilty feeling. He was out there wasting money on the weekend. He has to come in here and face a piece of legislation that's taking the public sector and putting them in a position where they can no longer be free, where they can no longer bargain properly with the government, where they are totally in the grip of a few people in cabinet.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that they are guilty. They have been found guilty by every thinking person in this province. They have never, ever abided within the rules that they set for others. They set these kinds of rules for others. The rules for themselves are: play it high, wide and handsome. Entertain, have a delightful time. We'll be asking you some questions about Las Vegas in due course. In any event, they have had a ball at public expense. We have seen it. We have proven it. Yet that same group have the audacity to come into this House and say to us: "Would you accept, ad infinitum, an extension of what we promised would only last two years?" Mr. Speaker, no, we cannot accept it. I will oppose this bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, unlike team A of the New Democratic Party opposite, I don't intend to speak at length on this bill. I intend to tell it like it is and then sit down. The last speaker on his feet, the member for New Westminster, has given us an adequate description of the attitude of the New Democratic Party to the restraint program in British Columbia, to the positive actions brought forward by the Social Credit government and to the response of the special vested interests which support the New Democratic Party. Nothing could have been more clear in the last election than the attitude of the people of British Columbia in giving a mandate to Social Credit to bring government expenditure under control.

That was what the election was all about. The people spoke loud and clear as to what they expected their government to do. No such message, Mr. Speaker, reached the New Democratic Party and the vested interests they support. Instead, they have embarked upon an entirely new course of action for the opposition in British Columbia: not to oppose but to obstruct, not to come to this chamber to debate but to hold it to ridicule by using every device possible to waste the time and the money of the taxpayers of British Columbia. That's the dilemma that we face today. All of the talk about the old days when debate was held sacred in this House has been passed. Device after device has been used by team A or team B or team C, who do not come to this House to debate this issue and face the consequences of whatever may be the decision of the government to act. Instead, they use every

[ Page 1952 ]

device possible to obstruct, to prevent, to have minority rule, to engage upon a tyranny preventing action in British Columbia that the people demand and that is essential to the economic prosperity of this province. That is what the debate in this chamber is about tonight — this central issue. The bill under discussion is part and is indeed the core of that whole program, because it says that British Columbia and Canada can no longer afford runaway expenditures on public services. That's what it is about. Why is this not possible? Because the taxpayers of British Columbia can't earn it and they can't pay for it.

[9:00]

The Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, laid it out well for British Columbians when he said there have been three stages of prosperity in Canada: the first stage, which we earned for almost 25 years after World War II; the second phase, when the New Democratic Party came to power and earning prosperity was no longer felt to be a requirement or necessity. Prosperity was taken for granted, and you spent the money because it would always be coming in; somehow the taxes would arrive, somewhere the industry would be ever present to keep supplying the taxes. We found that that is a myth — that you really have to earn prosperity if taxes are to arrive. Instead, what the New Democratic Party advocates for British Columbia — indeed, demands with their obstructive practices in this House — is that we borrow for prosperity, again feeding the insatiable appetite of the vested interests that support the New Democratic Party, not for the long-term good of the people of British Columbia, not to the benefit of all of the individuals in this province, but to the special benefit of the few.

The trade unions — particularly the public service trade unions that are your supporters — are your base. It isn't the average British Columbian; it is the few people in the public service unions who want more and more and more, even though more isn't there to give. If it isn't there to give you want the public to borrow it. You want future generations to go into debt in order to keep feeding forever the insatiable appetite of your friends. It is not possible. This issue sooner or later has got to be faced squarely, whether there is team A, team B, team C, team D or team E. However many people you bring into the House to try to obstruct the legislation, it must eventually come to a vote, because democracy must prevail and the wishes of the people must be expressed.

If the government is wrong — and almost certainly, Mr. Speaker, it is not wrong.... If any government in North America is correct, this government is correct. That's why people all over North America and all over the world are watching what is taking place in British Columbia today.

Interjection.

HON MR. McGEER: All over the world is not an exaggeration. Just this evening I have an analysis from the London Times looking at British Columbia, understanding that the steps being taken here are the first real steps of sanity taken by a freely elected government since the syndrome of borrowed prosperity started in North America. That's what it is all about.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Our friends opposite still think it's nonsense. Fine. Then what they should do is permit this program to go ahead. When it's proved wrong they will become the government. But that's not what this party is about. They're afraid that if the program goes ahead it's going to be proved right. What other government, Mr. Speaker, ever went to the electorate and got an overwhelming mandate, an increased majority, for promising less? What government ever did that? Not the New Democratic Party. That's their stock in trade: promises, promises, promises. The money will rain from the sky. That's the approach of the New Democratic Party: buy any vote at any cost from any group. But the people have more common sense than that.

When your ex-leader went to the public of British Columbia and said, "Throw away restraint. It's wrong," the public of British Columbia decided they had to get behind Social Credit, vote for restraint and support economic sanity in British Columbia. We had insanity for three years when you were government from 1972 to 1975. We nearly had insanity in 1933, 1937, 1941, 1945 and on and on and on. Do you think that that party opposite, whether it's team A from 8 o'clock this evening until.... When does team B come?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. For members with an insatiable capacity for leisure, the difficulty of appearing in the House to debate or to vote is an intolerable burden. We saw the other evening, after the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown).... All of those speeches we heard about the poor children.... Remember those education debates: on and on and on about the poor children? Then when the time came to record the vote they weren't there. They didn't care enough to show up to vote.

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

HON. MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to give them credit; at least they didn't run out of the House like the member did when the independent schools debate came up — didn't come in in the first place. So if — which I doubt — my friends opposite in the New Democratic Party really believe in their philosophy...

MR. LEA: Learned friends.

HON. MR. McGEER: Learned friends.

...they will come to this House not to obstruct but to debate. They will turn up in the Legislative Assembly not to rest but to work. They will turn up not to speak for the few but to speak for the many. When the New Democratic Party recognizes its responsibilities in opposition and begins to live up to the minimum responsibilities of an opposition, we'll have a healthier House.

As the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) stated, if the objective of the members opposite is not to oppose but to obstruct, if it is to make a mockery of this Legislative Assembly, then the only recourse the assembly has is to uphold the rules, to stand for order and to call the questions. That's the only way we can have a rational democracy.

MRS. DAILLY: Shame!

[ Page 1953 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: The member for Burnaby North says: "Shame!" But, Mr. Speaker, you will recall the famous saying in the United States that freedom of speech is not licence to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. The privilege of debate is not one to make a mockery of the rules of the House. Therefore, if the objective is to debate the issues, the House and the public are obliged to listen to all of the arguments that reasonably can be brought forward. But if the objective is to harass the House, that's an entirely different question. Those who come to debate at a meeting deserve to be listened to. Those who come to a meeting to disrupt it deserve to be brought to order, and this is the difficulty that we face with the current opposition, Mr. Speaker. The intention is not to debate but to obstruct. The intention is to bring trivial points of order. The objective is to keep adjourning the House. The objective is to do all of those things which characterized the opposition during this past week, which reveal their whole approach to this legislative session. Never in my 20 years in the House have I seen anything like it. Our hon. members always turned up when it came time for a vote; they weren't at home sleeping. They weren't with the Leader of the Opposition resting. They're here working.

That's the problem with the New Democratic Party: they're here to obstruct when it suits them, and home sleeping when they prefer to take a rest. What we want to hear from the opposition is what their arguments are in debate. Have them stand up in the House and present arguments in debate, not trivial points of order. Let them remember that what this bill is about is central to the whole program of restraint in British Columbia. We cannot continue to allow the public service to grow beyond the capacity of the taxpayers to support that growth.

Yes, if you're five feet five inches tall and you weigh 300 pounds, the first day you go on a diet is hard. But the essential thing to bring people into trim, so that we can benefit the people of British Columbia in the long run, is to take that first step, and this is what this bill plans to achieve. Therefore the members opposite will have no doubt, I'm sure, that I'm going to support that bill, as every sound and sensible British Columbian will do.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, the words that we've just heard from that minister are enough to incense any right-thinking democratic member of this House. I notice that he has a cold, and I think he's getting older. He's been here longer that I have, which is a long time. I will be fairly gentle with him tonight, but only because of those reasons.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Reynolds) started this tonight, and was followed, in a more articulate way, by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). What they are trying to tell us is that in this particular Legislature of British Columbia, under a Social Credit government, the opposition can only debate if they happen to agree with the government's policies. But if we disagree with the policies and we want to make our reasons and our points for disagreeing, we are accused of being obstructionists. If that is what we are to talk about.... He brought it up, Mr. Speaker, and he suggests that we don't debate any more in this House. I'm taking my position here tonight to debate, and to debate I have to counter, first of all, some of the comments made by the preceding government speaker. That is the whole essence of debate.

What we keep hearing in this Legislature is something that is very dangerous. Over and over again we hear that we in the opposition are obstructionists, simply because we will not sit down and acquiesce to rotten, terrifying and frightening legislation. If my colleagues and I have no right to get on our feet here tonight and debate this particular bill, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, and if we have no right to talk about the reasons we oppose it, may I say we no longer have a parliamentary system in the province of British Columbia.

I find that that member who just took his seat is becoming very frightening. Because he is tired and has a cold and wants to get back to playing his little science games and perhaps devising more tunnels to get us from the mainland over here, he can't be bothered to sit in the House any more. He accuses us of being lazy. That member always found the House a bore, particularly when the opposition were on their feet, because I have watched him through the years. Whether we bore him or not, he has a responsibility to allow every member of the opposition to debate.

There's a very dangerous trend happening on the floor of this House. We hear speeches from the Social Credit government members who seem to imply that no longer will debate be allowed in this House unless we happen to stand up and say how wonderful they are. There was a basic, implied threat, starting with the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, and then we heard it more clearly from the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications: if we don't toe the line and go along with the government, closure will be imposed upon us again. He was playing with us tonight.

[9:15]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that we are debating second reading of Bill 11. The member who has just taken her seat has been telling us for roughly the last ten minutes how she must have the right to debate the bill. I would suggest that if she were to do that she would perhaps be more in keeping with the rules of the House.

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

Would the member please continue on Bill 11.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, you — or whoever was in the chair at the time — allowed the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to relate his whole speech to the fact that the opposition was holding up the procedures of this House. Never once did that minister address the bill. If he has been allowed that laxity for at least 10 to 15 minutes, I think I should be allowed the same laxity. He was not told to sit down, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) did not stand up and tell him that he should get on to the bill. So I also reserve that right until you, Mr. Speaker, tell me, not the Minister of Forests. He is not the Speaker.

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

[ Page 1954 ]

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member has just accused me of telling her to change her approach. Actually, I was addressing the Chair when I made my remarks; I was not addressing that member.

MRS. DAILLY: I will continue on Bill 11, which I'm going to address in somewhat the same vein as did the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. The only thing he said about the bill was when he referred to the word "restraint." It's a marvellous word, isn't it? It completely covers up all the right-wing extremist policies that the Social Credit want to inflict on the province of British Columbia. Everybody is in favour of restraint. Sure they are; everyone is. But the kind of restraint being brought in by the Social Credit government is dangerous, because it will result in serious and long-lasting effects on the people of British Columbia. In his very tired speech — he was so tired he couldn't even remember the dates of the elections, which is unusual — that member did speak about restraint. He went through the old rhetoric about how the NDP want to spend money and how marvellous Social Credit are.

I cannot help thinking how much money that minister who just took his seat has cost the taxpayers of British Columbia. In spending, he is the most unrestrained minister we have ever had in the B.C. Legislature. As I was listening to him speak, in my mind I was going through some of his unrestrained actions. They weren't just things he'd talked about. Somehow or other, that minister seems to be able to get whatever he wants out of the cabinet. I think he mesmerizes them because he happens to come from the environs of a university, and for some reason they're in awe of him. They must be, because he keeps getting everything he asks for.

What money has he wasted? I'm relating this to restraint. He's always talking about the lack of restraint on our side. He's all ready to put the squeeze on public servants, but at the same time he ensures that he maintains his tenure at the university and all the nice little frills that go along with being a cabinet minister. There's no restraint there.

That minister ensured that in his own riding.... I believe he built an eight-lane highway. I know that when I complained about this....

Interjection.

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

Mr. Speaker, we had a new university created, and you had to have some way to get up to it. So certainly we had to have a highway built, as you know. It is sometimes difficult to find it. But for some reason or other, he built an eight-lane highway. It's beautiful. In time, I'm sure it can be used. But the point is, in a time of economic depression, was it necessary for that minister to push his own little highway program through cabinet? It cost millions of dollars.

The other thing I remember is that minister's pet project, the UBC hospital. It is magnificent; it is beautiful; but again, I ask you to talk about priorities and timing. At the moment, that hospital is under audit because there are empty beds. I'm waiting with great interest for what that audit will be on the hospital built by that minister. It's in his riding; it's his university — completely unrestrained spending by the minister, who had the gall to stand up here and accuse the NDP of wasting money.

He talked about debt. He went on and on about the amount of money that the NDP put the province in debt. That government's debt on the people of British Columbia is now $12 billion. It has tripled since the NDP left office, and he has the gall to stand up in this House and talk about the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, to the bill, in more detail. In the news release that went out with this bill, the minister said all settlements under the compensation stabilization program have been achieved through the voluntary guidelines. Then he praised both public sector employers and employees for their willingness to accept necessary restraint measures. That is a very telling statement, a good statement; but if he praises public sector employees for the way they have voluntarily accepted the guidelines, why then was it necessary to bring in another draconian measure, Bill 11 ? There is no way that a government can expect to keep labour peace, to avoid confrontation and demonstrations, if they continually come in with a heavy hand or heavy boot on the public employees of this province.

This kind of legislation was not necessary today. There isn't one public sector employee today who doesn't know there is a recession. In the few provinces which have attempted to set up a mechanism of cooperation between their public sector employees and the government, things are not nearly as difficult. The tension is not the same as in British Columbia. Every time Social Credit brings in a bill such as Bill 11, they are simply inflaming the labour-management environment in the province. It is all based on a false premise, this business of ability to pay. Public sector employees know the situation; they pay taxes too. They know their taxes have to go for their wages; they know there is a worldwide recession. They're not stupid. It's all PR flak that goes into this kind of a bill.

The other interesting thing is productivity. I want to go through a little bit of this, because the bill keeps saying wages will change with productivity. If I understand this bill, it also applies to teachers. When the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) was asked about bargaining for teachers today and about their part in the compensation stabilization bill, he said: "We have got to relate everything to the employee's productivity." Some reporter asked him how you do that in the classroom, and the minister had no answer. Some areas in the public sector, particularly a classroom, are quite different from working, say, in a sawmill, where you can actually see your production.

It is rather tragic that the Social Credit government thinks it is so easy to teacher-bash, to bash public sector employees. To do this, they are ready to take extreme measures with the public sector employees of British Columbia because it's good PR; it sounds good. You can get people to say on pretty well every poll: "Yes, I think it wouldn't hurt to keep public servants restrained in their wages and their numbers." As someone said, the taxpayer probably says that until the very services which will be cut back or eliminated because of these employee cutbacks affect them individually. Then, I can assure you, the taxpayer will immediately come to government and say: "Hey, what's happened? We don't have these services anymore." Suddenly they are going to realize that the Social Credit government has been playing what I would consider an almost dishonest game with the people of British

[ Page 1955 ]

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

Part of the reason they are in such a mess with their operating budget has to do with Social Credit's handling of the affairs of this province; in other words, their decision on how to spend money. We all know there is just so much money available today. The interesting thing is to look at how Social Credit has spent the money available to them through the taxpayers. I keep hearing over and over again from every Social Credit member: "Remember, we don't have the money. We can't make the money in government, so don't come to us for more. The money we have is raised entirely from taxes, so don't come and ask us to create any more in any other forum." Of course, that is a basic difference between the New Democratic Party socialists and Social Credit.

We believe that, particularly in times of recession — as in a war — government has to take some very strong action to move the economy. But this government just washes their hands of it. They say: "We have to use the money that's coming in. That's it. There's no more money for teachers, education and health. We're going to have to cut back on Human Resources, senior citizens and the poor." People may say: "Well, maybe that's so. Maybe they have to do that because there's no more money." But the interesting thing is that, as with all governments, the Social Credit cabinet has set their own priorities on spending. They find it more important, in their thinking, to spend money on helping to get a very wealthy ski resort out of bankruptcy — I'm referring to Whistler. There is no problem with saying: "We'll come up and back that...." I know the minister said they didn't put any money into it. We will wait until the final accounting has taken place on that issue.

This is typical of the Social Credit government. They love to stand up and say there's no more money, but they always find money for their pet projects. There is no difficulty in finding.... This may seem peanuts, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that $60,000 is not peanuts today to the person who is struggling to get by and who's been deprived of $50 a month. They saw nothing wrong with renting an exclusive VIP suite at $60,000 in B.C. Place so that the cabinet ministers can do business there. There must be something about sitting in a beautiful VIP suite in B.C. Place with food and drinks that creates a better situation for doing business than would be the case where they should be doing it — here in the Legislature or in their offices in Robson Square. Really, we have to listen to that nonsense today that they were working in the B.C. Place VIP suite at $60,000. Money to go to expensive condos....

Interjection.

MRS. DAILLY: Sure, highways are important. But it's interesting that often there's always lots of money to make sure that those highways go in where, I'm sure, the Social Credit vote can best be served. There are other areas, where the NDP exist, where highways are also built. Perhaps at this time the Social Credit government has to look seriously at their expenditures in some of those areas, too. Everything has to be....

[9:30]

If you're in a time of restraint, Mr. Speaker, why doesn't everyone have to take their share? Why does it just have to be certain sectors of our society? The old answer comes up again: "Oh, but there are so many people who lost their jobs in private industry." We know that. The public servants know it. But at the same time, they must question some of the exceptionally extravagant moves by the Social Credit government. We look at this very expensive suggestion — it hasn't come out yet, but we understand that it's in the making — of PR programming for television, etc., to sell a program of so-called restraint to the public. I'm sure we'll hear that word over and over again, but we will not hear about who is going to suffer under the Socred restraint program and who will not.

You and I know, Mr. Speaker, that under the present manner of prioritizing cutbacks, the Social Credit government does not show much sympathy or concern for those most in need. It seems to be true in most Tory, conservative governments.... You find the same thing happening in England, where it's the poor who have suffered the most. People with money have survived much better than the poor. Almost everything that was brought in with the Conservative government in England has had a very serious effect on the poor and has created massive unemployment. The same is true in the United States today. Of course, in B.C. we have one of the worst examples. It is such a stubborn government. It brings in a bill that sounds good. Basically it says: "We've got to keep the public sector wages down." It sounds good, but the interesting thing is that the public sector has had their wages kept down for some period of time. They have had to keep their wages down, and we're still awaiting the turnaround. Instead of hands off for a while and saying, "Okay, we'll stop using them as scapegoats," the Social Credit government is going to continue to use them because it's easy. The public, they know, will buy it. It's really a very unfair and dishonest way of handling priorities.

However, the problem is that if all these policies of Social Credit were going to bring about a booming economy, I think even the NDP would have to sit back and say: "Look, it's not our way of handling things, but we have to give you credit; you are succeeding." But, Mr. Speaker, the policies this government has embarked upon and persists in continuing with in the same vein are doing nothing to help our situation; in fact, they are making it worse. There are going to be more and more public servants on the welfare rolls in the coming year. Can't you just picture it, Mr. Speaker? And everybody else is going to be paying the taxes to keep these people on welfare when they could have been doing some very useful work.

There are a number of other points that I want to make on this bill. I had some of them underlined here, if you will just bear with me for a moment. It's the whole area of talking about the matter of ability to pay, which I think I discussed earlier, and that's the basis of this bill, plus the matter of productivity. I think I tried to point out that the suggestion that they alone will bring about nirvana is simply not coming true. The merits of expenditure restraint are not really discussed in this House. I find it interesting that the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who berated the NDP for not debating and just obstructing.... It is most interesting that we never hear any really positive backup arguments in the Social Credit debate on these bills. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it's almost a shock when someone from the government side gets up to take part in the debate. What we mainly hear is simply a repetition of the usual extreme right-wing rhetoric. We hear a few trite expressions and no backup. I don't understand upon what basis the Social Credit cabinet moved on these bills.

[ Page 1956 ]

Someone says that they had someone from the Fraser Institute who sat there and obviously impressed them, and they decided to go along with that philosophy. But the interesting thing is that I have yet to see any Social Credit cabinet ministers on their feet actually discussing in detail and giving us some of the rationale for the very draconian measures which they have taken.

I'm going to refer now to the fact that it's not only the left-wing social democrats who are somewhat concerned with the restraint approach taken by Social Credit. I noted a recent quote in the Globe and Mail by the chairman of the Bank of Montreal, William Mulholland. I don't think he's a member of the NDP, but who knows. He was talking about the whole area of governments handling their restraint programs, and referring to the Liberal government and their 6-and-5. He made the point that he was against the following up of the 6-and-5 restraint program, because it could be mistimed, could affect the recovery cycle and could mean that economic growth would not continue. He also said that if it is followed up, the program could fail to achieve credibility with the general public, and particularly with the labour movement. Here is the chairman of the Bank of Montreal expressing concern that these further restraint programs would gradually cause government to lose credibility with labour. He is showing a far broader grasp of what the problems will be if a government continues on a restraint program which is not really achieving anything, except to build up a very unpleasant labour-management climate in the province of British Columbia at this time.... Mr. Mulholland is trying to point this out, and as I said, I'm certain he didn't say it from any partisan viewpoint; he's talking about it as a concerned person and as the chairman of the Bank of Montreal.

Again, I want to point out that when Social Credit were campaigning they talked about the restraint program to some degree, but there was no way in which they spelled out in any detail exactly how draconian their measures were going to be. I was reading an article today from Maclean's magazine which was rather interesting. It talks about the restraint revolution. I don't know whether you've had an opportunity to read it, Mr. Speaker. I don't feel too happy reading that, although cost-cutting hasn't been as severe across Canada as it has in British Columbia. "Premier Bennett has enabled the other provincial Premiers" — and by the way, let's face it, the majority are Tory governments — "to present their cost-cutting programs as far less draconian in nature. He's made it easy for the other Tory governments. Compared to him, everyone looks good." I really resent the fact that the people of British Columbia have to suffer under the Social Credit government just to help the other Premiers, who are Tories, bring in milder restraint programs. As a matter of fact they were all taken aback, as I think we know, by these extreme measures taking place in British Columbia. It does say the exception is Manitoba.

By the way, before I talk about Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, it did say that a couple of the governments were somewhat embarrassed. Some attempted, apparently, to increase their own wages, which in a time of restraint certainly wasn't looked on with great favour. I won't read what happened in other provinces; it probably is not courteous to those provinces. I'll deal with ours, except to point out that the exception to this kind of heavy restraint on the public servants was Manitoba, where without giving the world away to their public servants they at least settled this year in an atmosphere of cooperation.

This is why we are so concerned with this bill. It does not create an aura of cooperation. Instead it will create a very confrontational attitude in the province of British Columbia, because it is unfair. Anything that is unfair will not be accepted. It is just like a child who is punished unfairly — he never forgets it. We know that it stays with him throughout his whole life. It is going to be the same in the province of British Columbia. Many of the people who are being punished by the Social Credit government, I can assure you, are going to have very long memories about it. It will be a long time before they will forget that the Social Credit government has used some of the people in British Columbia — a large number of them in the public sector — entirely as scapegoats because they know that it is very easy today to use teachers and the public employees as scapegoats. It's not very nice, is it, to base some of your policies on finding out which sector in society will be the easiest sector to whip around and perhaps subjugate. It has overtones that are not very pleasant, Mr. Speaker.

Someone has said that British Columbians are really learning from all these very repressive measures brought in by the Social Credit government — learning that the rights of none are secure unless the rights of all are secure. I think this is where the Social Credit government is going to make a very serious mistake. They are assuming that in picking out one sector that the public will easily accept, they can get away with it. But the problem is that many people in British Columbia are beginning to say to themselves: "If this can be done to one sector, who is next?" I think that that is something the Social Credit government is going to have to face.

That is why we are on our feet. We are not here to obstruct. We are here to try to say to the Social Credit government: "Withdraw the legislation." We have something positive to offer. We're asking you to withdraw it. We're asking you to put it in committees. We would like to take part with the members on committees so that we could discuss it. The Social Credit would be very wise to withdraw a number of bills now and to let the public of B.C. have an opportunity to react to it. Instead this government seems determined to ignore any of the opposition's viewpoints and to ignore other groups out there who are complaining about these bills. They seem to feel that they have an absolute right to govern without opposition and without listening to the opposition. Mr. Speaker, if that were so then we might as well adjourn the Legislature and not meet anymore and turn this over to you know what. If there is no opposition, then we end up with a government similar to those in totalitarian countries. I know that is certainly not the kind of government that you, Mr. Speaker, endorse, and I'm sure most people do not. But if the Social Credit government persists in putting through bills which are unpopular with many people — and they are....

[9:45]

We all know that there was a recent poll. The Social Credit members, including the Premier, constantly say that they know that is a large silent majority out there which supports everything they are doing; they've never had more letters and so on. The point is that that poll — if it can be assumed that it is correct, as some of them can be — certainly shows that there is a lot of dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Social Credit government is bringing in the restraint program. Once again, if you ask people if they want restraint, they say, "Sure," but what they object to are the very regressive, almost oppressive methods being used by

[ Page 1957 ]

the government to handle — in their opinion — the restraint problem. Most of it cannot be backed up with any rationale or logic.

Once this bill goes through you might as well say collective bargaining is dead for all the public sector employees. How could anyone expect the New Democratic Party, who brought in the collective bargaining process for public servants, to sit here and allow it to go through without any opposition? That would be an unbelievable expectation. Not just because we brought it in — we happen to believe that public servants do have a right to collective bargaining, and this bill is stripping them of that right. They are not even going to be given a chance — I don't want to get into the details of it; I know that is for committee — to appeal some of the decisions or to argue their case.

I don't think that any of us in the room should be asked to accept a piece of legislation which is destroying all of the basic rights between employer and employee, which have been fought for for many years. These are the implications of this bill. Yet we have one Socred member after another on their feet saying to us that we are supposed to sit back, keep quiet and apparently not even debate it. There is no way that the NDP can do that.

There will be many other speakers following me who will be going into more detail and more concern. I would like to end my few remarks tonight on the same note I began with: to say that we were all elected in this House to take our position here in debate. If the debate doesn't happen to please the government, if it happens to be presenting a viewpoint that is not agreeable to them, that does not mean they have a right at any time to invoke closure. I found the remarks of some of the government members absolutely frightening, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP will continue to fight for their right to speak on the floor of this House.

MR. R. FRASER: I rise to support this bill totally. I would say to those who called the remarks trite that there is absolutely nothing trite about the ability to pay. It is fundamental to the salvation of our society as we know it. Responsibility is the bottom line. I happen to be a small employer, and I know lots of employers with small companies, and I can assure you that those of us with businesses are well aware of the restraint taking place in the private sector and are well aware of everybody else's hope that the government will some day come to its senses and say stop, stop — stop the runaway. This government has done that, and I am pleased about that. I am pleased to be part of that government, no doubt about that.

The double-faced complaints we hear are interesting, complaining about the deficit and in the next breath complaining that we are not spending more money. Which way is it? Certainly the comments are seductive, looking back on the great days of the forties, fifties, sixties or seventies. We cannot look back at a former minister and say: "Gee, we thought he was terrible when he was here, and now that he is gone we think he is great." The whole purpose of it is to look forward and to try to face and solve the problems, and one by one that is exactly what we are going to do.

Some of the arguments I hear suggest that there are those in the House and in the community who believe that the private sector has no place doing business in the nation. Well, where else would you have it done, Mr. Speaker? There is no other group that can do it better, that understands it better and that could make it run better, and that is how it is going to work. The private sector will be the salvation, and I am pleased to support a government that will give the private sector a chance to operate. That's what the bill is all about — the restraint, the stabilization program that will keep the size and cost of government in check and will leave money in the pockets of the public to spend as they see fit.

I happen to be one who believes in choices, and I do not believe that government knows better than every member of the public. I believe the public is entitled to make their own decisions. Saving by reducing the cost of government gives our taxpayers, our people, our supporters — in fact, everybody — the right to spend their money as they see fit. One famous American politician who many of you have not known of, I am sure, who at one point was the governor of the state of Georgia and who later became a senator in the United States, was asked what was causing the economy to crumble. He always had a good way of expressing himself and making it clear in a very few number of words. He said: "Well, when I was a boy on the farm I learned you need more people pulling the wagon than riding on it." We have to have people pulling the wagon together or the wagon won't move.

We hear about bankruptcies and....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is B team riding or pulling?

MR. R. FRASER: A team, B team and C team — isn't that lovely? I'm glad to be on one team that knows where we're going — we're winning. All the members of the public are winning.

One of the members referred to Maclean's magazine, and I too will do that. It said: "...but in the weeks since, most other provinces have gradually demonstrated that they, too, have been pursuing similar policies." But we were the first. This government was the first. I was glad to join that government, I'll tell you. The Manitoba government has a job creation fund of $200 million to which the employees have contributed $10 million. That's a job tax in camouflage, Mr. Speaker — no doubt about that. We certainly don't want that here.

How do you measure productivity? Everybody has their own way and everybody has their own method, but I'll tell you, if you can get more done with less money and less time, that's an increase in productivity. Even teachers understand that. In fact most teachers understand that and most teachers understand restraint. They understand control, and they understand sharing the problem, and they will share, and they will help in the solution. I have absolutely no doubt that they, too, are doing more than many in this province suspect. You talk about cutbacks. Look at what is happening in places like West Germany, which created, in the seventies, the agreement of the century for its people. We now have that government saying there is just not enough money left in the till for the government's handouts, which many accepted as a way of life. They granted themselves pensions that were 100 percent or better of their take-home pay when they were working. Everybody was getting on to the system. In fact it says here that nearly 18 million of the 22 million West German households benefited from government programs in social assistance. It became obvious to them and obvious to everyone that it could not go on.

The never-never land that we seem to be heading for does not exist, and the restraint package that we are asking the public sector to accept with willingness is one that will help us all, including them. If we don't, the whole thing will go

[ Page 1958 ]

down the drain. In fact in 1929 Lord Hewart said: "The fall of modern civilization will, in fact, be the size of its governments." He was ahead of his time but he was right. Certainly the governments from that day forward have contributed to the size of government, and certainly they responded to the demands from the public, who said: "I want more. I want this. This is a good program. We should do something here. We should do something there." I don't think you can be critical of governments that responded to those desires, but this day is different. This day the public says: "There are essential services, there are desirable services and there is a difference. Now we want less and voted for less. Whatever you do, please give us less." That's exactly what the government will do, with my support, always.

It is looking ahead that is hardest. Hindsight is always 20-20. Certainly in all of our lives we have had opportunities to look back and think: "If only I had done it differently." I don't think there is anyone in this room who hasn't had at least one reflection of that nature. I suppose we could look back a few years ago and say we should have done it sooner. But whether you did it sooner or later, Mr. Speaker, at least it had to be done and it was done, and that is critical.

I look at a questionnaire put out by one of my friends. It says: "Do you support the current economic restraint program limiting growth in government spending?" Eighty-three plus percent said yes. Another question: "Do you feel it is working?" Sixty-two plus percent said yes.

The restraint program is out there. People do like it, as everyone in the province knows. I'm sure that everybody would apply it in a slightly different way or try to make it a little more gentle, but sometimes it isn't possible to be gentle. How can you be nice when you are letting someone go? It is not always easy. The salvation will be people leaving the government service and going into the private sector, which is happening, by the way. I have examples of that. That's productivity, Mr. Speaker.

There are those who say there is nothing left to negotiate. Part of job satisfaction is pay. The other part is the joy of doing the work. When you always stress the pay, it doesn't always work. There is opportunity; there is growth; there is the satisfaction of just doing the work.

[10:00]

Mr. Speaker, I've enjoyed taking part in this debate, even such a short one, but for the benefit of everyone, including myself and the people out there in the community, I will not take any more time. I will adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 7.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT
(NO. 1), 1983
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 7.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to express my thanks to the minister for allowing us to have the weekend to check this particular amendment with our various municipal councils to get some indication from them as to their response to it.

As far as I can understand, they would like me to ask a number of questions, and they specifically have to do with subsection (b)(a)(ii). The third line from the bottom of that section says: "the average of the total taxable value for general municipal purposes of the taxable land and improvements in the municipality, determined under 26(11) of the Assessment Act...multiplied by a percentage established by the minister for that municipality" — for each of the current and two preceding taxation years. They raise a couple of concerns about that. First of all, why isn't it stated right here and now what the percentage is going to be? Apparently in the existing act, Mr. Chairman, it states exactly what the percentage is. So the municipality knows from one year to another, or two years ahead, as the case may be, exactly the limit to the debt they can accrue. This leaves them in limbo until the minister, in his infinite wisdom, establishes what the percentage is. They won't know that until the minister does that, and either the minister brings that information to them or they have to apply to the minister to find out exactly what the percentage is. What they don't know is whether this percentage is going to vary from year to year and what the kinds of things are that would influence the setting of that percentage. What would the minister take into account in determining what the percentage would be? How long would the percentage be good for? Is it just for the year 1985, for example? Or would it be good for, say, 1985-86-87, or as the case may be?

The other thing that they expressed some concern about was: is the percentage set for each municipality differently? Or is a blanket percentage set that would apply to all municipalities? One of the things that the municipal manager in Burnaby pointed out was that the existing way that it has been under the present legislation is that they used to be able to average their debt off over three years. They would know, for example, that their debt limit, if they broke it into three and paid it off over three years, presently would be about $165 million. They realize that without an amendment to put some limit on to the new variable tax rate system, their limit could go up to $1.6 billion. So they recognize that there has to be a limit. Not that Burnaby would be irresponsible enough to run up a $1.6 billion debt. But what they have some insecurity about is that the minister has now taken all figures out completely, and they have no idea whatsoever as to exactly what their limit will be.

Another thing that they pointed out to me was that the minister has to approve the debt limit anyway, in every instance. It would be of great service to them if the bill spelled out — as the old bill does — that the debt limit is such and such a percentage rather than leaving it to float free. Also, they want to know clearly what kinds of criteria are taken into account in terms of setting the percentage of the debt — whether it's one percentage for the whole province or whether each municipality would have a different percentage for it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: What we're dealing with here is the transition from the old system to the new. We're moving from a percentage of the assessed value to one of full market

[ Page 1959 ]

value. Realizing, of course, that there isn't a figure stated in the bill, you do have my assurance as the minister that the amount arrived at will not be less than what it was under the old system. I believe it has been the greatest concern that they would be limited should the percentage be less than what it was under the old system. I can only give you my assurance here that as we move from the old system to the new system, the figures will be equivalent to the old system.

MS. BROWN: What about the question of whether it's going to be a percentage for the whole province or whether municipalities are going to have to meet the same percentage requirement?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Again, there is no change from that in the old act. If you stop to look at this very closely you will find that almost all of the changes in here are merely that transition from the old to the new. So what applied in the old act would apply under the new.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough.

MR. LEA: I have one statement and a question. Probably we'd all agree that the best way to lead is to set an example; if you set an example you may not have to coerce or order people to do something.

Section 7 of this act really tells the municipalities: "Here are the rules. Here's what you do in terms of your debt. The provincial government is going to tell you the ratio of debt to assets you can have." I'd like to ask the minister two questions. Would he, as the minister of Minister of Municipal Affairs, allow municipalities to triple their debts over a period of eight years? That's the first question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Through you, Mr. Chairman, the municipalities will be restricted to the maximum debt permissible under the act. No doubt that will be determined once we have this whole transition completed. Under the old act, as you know, it was 20 percent. As I've said already, under the new act the numbers will be equivalent to the old one.

MR. LEA: The thing that is perfectly obvious to me, Mr. Chairman, is that there's one rule for the provincial government and a different rule for municipalities. Different principles apply. If the federal government said to the provincial government: "We're going to set the rules of how much money you can borrow. We're going to take away your judgment call and make the judgment not you elected people in the Legislature of British Columbia. We in Ottawa, the Parliament of Canada, are going to tell you...." We would be squealing like stuck pigs. We wouldn't take it. We would be flying down to Ottawa in jets. There would be delegations of ministers. The Premier would be running around the province telling people about the dictatorial federal government and the federal parliament. He'd say: "Why don't they set an example instead of bringing down these arbitrary rules?" We would all be doing it in a united voice out of this Legislature.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: That's fair enough.

MR. LEA: That's true. But we are going to do it in this section to the municipalities. Somehow there seems to be a double standard here. It seems to me that we're moving away from the democratic model when we don't allow municipally elected people to make their decisions and suffer the consequence of those decisions at the polls. That's what we're allowed to do here in this Legislature by the federal parliament. It seems to me that there is a double standard.

Also, there is no limit on the amount of money that this provincial government can borrow. The limit is set by this Legislature. We make our own rules, as is right. But, Mr. Speaker, we're saying to the municipalities: "You are not going to be allowed to make your own rules. We as senior government, as the senior chamber, are going to make the rules for you."

That seems to me to be the wrong way to go. For a government that has tripled the debt in this province in eight years to set this arbitrary rule over the municipalities seems to me to be ludicrous. There are a great many people in this chamber who served at the municipal government in one capacity or another — on parks boards, school boards or municipal councils for years. I suggest that if the provincial government had done this when the members in this House were at the local level, they wouldn't have taken it lightly. I just want to point out that I think it's a bit much that we don't set an example and ask other people to live by it, as opposed to doing one thing ourselves and setting rules for them from on high.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I just want to comment very briefly that those rules have been in for years and years, including the term that your party served.

MR. LEA: That's true. It doesn't make it right. We didn't cure all the ills in the time we were in. We caused a few, too, as any government will. But that doesn't make it right. It seems to me the responsibility in a democratic system should be between the voters and the people they elect, and they shouldn't have to take orders from on high.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, when the percentage is set, is it going to be for three years, two years, or is it going to vary each year? At what time of the year will the municipalities know what their debt limit is?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The amount, when it's fixed, will stay as a percentage. As indicated earlier, it's a question of waiting until we get the figures that would apply under the new system — the full market value. I can only repeat that they have my assurance that it will not be below that. Whenever it is established it will be fixed.

[10:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, in my little comments the other day on taxation generally, I indicated that I appreciated the difficulties with equity in taxation, and property taxation. I mentioned a number of other attempts at equity: equal value assessment, single tax and a number of other things. Since 1975 we haven't had any committee of this House look into the very complex problem of property taxation. It was suggested, if not asserted or moved, by my colleague who is a critic for that area that the minister authorize and charge a select committee with studying this very complex problem. I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to consider this, not to change our views on Bill 7 but to look forward to a more equitable future in terms of property taxation. Has the minister considered this proposal, and what is his attitude

[ Page 1960 ]

towards a select committee of this House discussing and discovering perhaps other avenues for a more equitable property taxation system?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member's comment might have been quite relevant during second reading of this bill, but it doesn't really apply to the amendment before us. Perhaps the minister may wish to respond. No.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I have one problem with this section. In times of high inflation when property values just go up to the moon, 20 percent of those inflated values is one thing. Let's say that two years later — in a situation like we're in now — the property values drop vastly. If a municipality had been allowed a debt limit of a rather large amount, let's say two years ago, they could be placed in a very difficult position at the present time. Is there anything in here that provides the minister with flexibility with respect to responding to the needs of a community that has, by virtue of an over-ambitious council or a group of over-ambitious developers, extended the debt load by virtue of extending services to areas that would otherwise not be touched? Has the minister some discretionary power to provide for that particular situation?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes, the inspector does. The percentage is really set out as a guide. Certainly if circumstances such as you just described arose, then the minister would have the authority to make whatever adjustments were necessary in order to overcome the problem that could be created.

MS. BROWN: At what point then, Mr. Chairman, would the minister intervene on behalf of the upcoming year in establishing the debt load? Say, for example, there was an inflationary spiral like the one we went through in 1981-82. In rearranging the limit to that debt load, would it be made for the year 1983-84 or would the minister intervene in the very year it is happening and try to change the limit in that year?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am not asking this question on behalf of Burnaby, because Burnaby has demonstrated that it is a responsible council. But this legislation wasn't written specifically for Burnaby.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I am asking it on behalf of Quesnel. How is that? Since this is written for the province as a whole, I would like a response from the minister on that.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If there was a really drastic reduction in the assessments, then the borrowing wouldn't be approved that year.

MS. BROWN: And you wouldn't approve an increase either.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief question. If the borrowing limit is going to remain the same and yet the municipalities are going to have to carry 75 percent of the cost of a lot of works that the government used to cover 75 percent of, how are they going to be able to continue these programs or start new programs? It seems to me you would need to increase the borrowing limit.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member for Nanaimo is getting into the revenue-sharing program. The borrowing has no bearing as far as the revenue-sharing sharing was concerned. Since it is revenue-sharing of a somewhat temporary nature, whenever the revenue of the province improves, it is hoped there will be an opportunity to take a second look at that program.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 and 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. COCKE: I worry about section 10. Again, we are talking in terms of a government setting regulations and deciding standards in areas where I don't think they are particularly competent. I believe that governments far closer to the situations are far more competent. The criticism that I hear on section 10 and the other sections relating to government setting regulations are as follows. First, they haven't even had a hint of what those regulations might be. We are talking about every municipality, city, village and whatever that is incorporated in the province. They have not been given even the slightest hint of what to expect from the regulations that may be proposed by the government; nor have they, under the circumstances, been told whether the regulations have in fact been drafted, whether there is anything in the works in terms of that situation — they haven't been consulted in the drafting. They are saying to themselves: "Well, here we are. We are asked to sit back and let bills like Bills 7 and 12 go through the House without too much criticism." Frankly, I think we have been most cooperative with these two bills.

These are the kinds of things that very much worry the opposition and very much worry elected officials around the province. They are saying that under this section — a new section in the act — you are giving yourself a right to make regulations on the whole question of setting property tax levies, prescribing exemptions on industrial land or industrial improvements, or both, and also providing the government with the kind of regulatory power that we worry about and have worried about in so many pieces of legislation. Let me ask the minister: have you started drafting the regulations, and has there been consultation of any sort with anybody with respect to the regulations under this section?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The answer is no, we haven't started to draft regulations.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, here we are and we haven't started drafting regulations. I gather the regulations have to be pursuant to the section, and the section reads: "In addition to the provisions of any other act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations prescribing exemptions from property tax levies under any act in respect of prescribed (a) industrial land or industrial improvements or both, or (b)

[ Page 1961 ]

business land or business improvements or both, and different exemptions may be prescribed for each class of property."

The minister says we haven't started drafting yet. I see a real problem here, in terms of what might happen in the drafting, if there isn't a good deal of consultation prior to the drafting. I can see in the last line that you could favour one as opposed to another — favour one district or one industry as opposed to another, etc. Is the minister prepared to give the House or the committee an undertaking that a good deal of consultation will go into these regulations prior to them being proclaimed?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I should point out to the member that such exemptions would not apply to a particular industry, but rather to a classification within the variable tax system. We would certainly have some consultation with the proper people. Let me assure you that under no circumstances would there be any special treatment for any particular industry.

MR. COCKE: Who are proper people? Who are the people one would expect would be in the minister's mind as the proper people with whom to consult? Would it be his colleagues? Would it be the back bench? Would it, on the other hand, be local municipalities that may or may not favour the government? Or would it be the UBCM? Secondly, the minister says that it would not pertain to a certain industry: "...different exemptions may be prescribed for each class of property." Some classes of property pertain only to one industry. But in any event, who will the minister consult with?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I would expect that there could be consultation with the UBCM.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the erosion-of-autonomy section. This is the one where the minister really moves in and takes unto himself powers which would better be exercised by the municipality itself. It seems to me that a decision about exempting or changing the property tax level on an industry should be made at the municipal level, and then the municipality should go to the minister and initiate consultation with the minister and suggest that it would be a good thing if such a class of property were exempted from taxation.

We have, for example, in the middle of Burnaby, some of the richest and most arable farmland in the whole world. I'm talking about the Flats, which grows vegetables which feed this province two or three crops a year. All around that land industry is growing up and the pressure on that land is beginning to become pretty intense. One of the things that the municipality of Burnaby may decide to do is ask that the tax burden on the community that lives and grows produce on that land be changed, softened or relieved in some way. That decision should be made by the municipality in order to protect that land, despite the fact that all around it taxes are going up because the use of the land around it is changing, either for light industry or commerce of some sort or other. Then the municipality would approach the minister and suggest that it would like to exempt this particular property from the taxes that it should really be paying by virtue of the fact that it's in an area where everyone else is paying a certain class of tax.

That's the way in which it should work. It shouldn't be the minister deciding what is in the best interest of a municipality and then going into the municipality and saying that we want this kind of property exempt from a particular kind of tax, and the municipality having no access to agreeing or disagreeing with the minister's decision. So, Mr. Chairman, it's being done backwards. It's being done the wrong way around.

[10:30]

At the same time, if a municipality seems to be abusing those powers, by all means the minister should be able to intervene on behalf of protecting, for example, that class of property. If Burnaby should decide that the farmland — the Flats — is not paying sufficient taxes to justify its existence, and therefore try to get it removed from the ALR and get its zoning changed to industrial so as to turn it into a richer tax base, then the minister should be able to intervene and protect, in the best interest of the rest of the community, Burnaby from abusing that property. But just to write these powers to the minister into this section, I think, is really taking away responsibility that should start with the municipality, should rest with the municipality, and should only be wrested from them if they appear to be abusing that power.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I think that if, for instance, a municipality should request and get exemption for a particular section of property that is in food production or agricultural use, it could create a problem for producers in another area of the municipality. I think that you have to go back again to the variable tax rate, which gives the municipality the authority to establish a tax rate for that industry. Agriculture is one of the classifications in there. So if a municipality is so inclined to give that benefit to the agricultural community, then it would have to be across the board within that municipality. But they can do it.

MS. BROWN: Well, I was just using the Flats as an example. But the minister hasn't addressed the body of what I was saying, which is that the decision about exemptions in the municipality should start at that level, and then the minister could be consulted either to approve or disapprove, unless the minister perceives that the municipality is abusing its power, and then the minister should have the right to intervene. But this section gives the minister powers that really should rest with the municipality. I'd like the minister to respond to that. Tell me, for example, why you are doing this.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, the exemption here could apply to a small business or to a business — industrial property, but the exemption suggested earlier would benefit mainly small businesses, corner stores, etc.

MS. BROWN: Yes, but why are you doing it? Why are you not leaving the municipalities to make those decisions?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, it was the judgment, I hear, that this is something that should be handled in this way rather than by leaving it for each municipality to determine such exemptions. I would imagine that the municipalities have enough authority now in being able to set the tax rate for any particular classification, whether it's business, industrial, commercial-industrial or agriculture.

Sections 10 to 14 inclusive approved.

[ Page 1962 ]

On section 15.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I see the minister is amending section 775(8) of the original act, and I note that he's also putting another of his famous regulation aspects here. He is giving himself sole power to vary the limit on the tax rate. Would he tell us why?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Yes. Again we're dealing with this conversion from the percentage of assessed value to the full market value under the new system.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what I asked was: can you not make a conversion from one formula or from one system to another without providing the minister with all the power of the act? That's really what I'm asking. Why can't the minister devise a formula within which municipalities or whatever live — with some flexibility, no doubt...? Why would the minister have to be provided with the power to make all these decisions from within his office? I go back to what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds was talking about, and that is the whole question of land that may be seen in one perspective in a particular area, but may be seen in quite a different perspective from the vantage point of Victoria, which often is a very poor vantage point — a particularly poor vantage point with the present government, who seem to be shortsighted beyond being myopic. Without being too insulting, I would like the minister to answer the question of exactly why he needs these powers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The powers are already there under the old formula. The transition from the old to the new requires this change. Certainly we could have gone into a long preamble in arriving at a particular figure, but that was not decided. Again, I can only give the same assurance that I gave in section 7, as it applied to borrowing: the figures we arrive at will be equivalent to those in the old formula.

MR. COCKE: I get tired of listening: trust me, trust me, trust me. When he can't even answer the question so that one can understand what he is talking about, and then he says: "It is okay. I am going to look after everybody. We will make the easy transition from one position to another. Trust us along the way...." Mr. Chairman, can we have something definitive? There must be some reason why the minister has to make regulations in sections 10 and 15 of this bill. I will tell you right now that I am voting against this section unless I can get a better answer from the minister than I have got right now.

MS. BROWN: The problem we are running into is that the regulations aren't ready; we really don't know what we are talking about here. All we have to do is take the minister's word: "Trust me that it won't be any different than, more than or less than...." What are we going to do once the regulations come out and we find that you haven't honoured your commitment? What recourse do we have then? The minister is getting ready to answer; he is mulling over my question.

Are you going to answer me? I will ask the question again. We are having problems because the regulations aren't ready; we don't know what we are voting on here. The minister said we should trust him. I am asking him to tell me what option we have in the event it turns out that he can't deliver on his word. Tell me what I do next. The minister is getting ready to respond to me; I would appreciate it if we gave him the time to do it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to give them an answer that they are going to be satisfied with. I simply have to repeat that the figures we arrive at under the new system will be equivalent to those in the old.

Sections 15 to 22 inclusive approved.

On section 23.

MR. COCKE: In this validation section, it says: "...before the act comes into force, (a) to implement the variable tax rate system in 1983, or (b) under the uniform mill rate system in 1983." Why the "or," Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Would you care to repeat that?

MR. COCKE: It strikes me that it is a bit ambiguous here. It says in the explanatory note that this "validates action taken, before this act comes into force, (a) to implement the variable tax rate system in 1983, or (b) under the uniform mill rate system in 1983." Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to give us an explanation of why both of them are necessary. It strikes me that one might be.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the reason for this is that one municipality did not come in under the new program.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Which one? You're not going to tell us.

Sections 23 and 24 approved.

Schedule 1 approved.

Schedule 2 approved.

Title approved.

[10:45]

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 7, Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:46 p.m.

[ Page 1963 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

7 The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 7) intituled Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 7, by deleting "and" at the end of paragraph (a), by adding ", and" at the end of paragraph (b) and by adding the following paragraph:

"(c) by adding the following subsections:

" (1.1) In 1984 no debt shall be contracted by a city, town or district which causes the aggregate debt for all purposes, other than those listed in subsection (2), to exceed 20% of the total of

(a) the average of

(i) the total assessed value for general municipal purposes of the taxable land and improvements in the municipality, determined under section 26 (19) (a) of the Assessment Act, before its repeat under the Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983 for the 1982 taxation year, and

(ii) the total taxable value for general municipal purposes of the taxable land and improvements in the municipality, determined under

(A) section 26 (11) of the Assessment Act for the 1983 taxation year, and

(B) section 26 (7) of the Assessment Act for the 1984 taxation year, multiplied by a percentage established by the minister for that municipality for each of the 1983 and 1984 taxation years, and

(b) the value of the utility systems and other municipal enterprises for which the municipality has a subsisting certificate of self liquidation granted by the inspector, the value to be determined by the cost of the systems and enterprises less the amounts approved by the auditor for depreciation.

(1. 2) Commencing in 1985, no debt shall be contracted by a city, town or district which causes the aggregate debt for all purposes, other than those listed in subsection (2), to exceed 20% of the total of

(a) the average of the total taxable value for general municipal purposes of the taxable land and improvements in the municipality, determined under section 26 (7) of the Assessment Act, multiplied by a percentage established by the minister for that municipality for each of the current and 2 preceding taxation years, and

(b) the value of the utility systems and other municipal enterprises for which the municipality has a subsisting certificate of self liquidation granted by the inspector, the value to be determined by the cost of the systems and enterprises less the amounts approved by the auditor for depreciation.