[ Page 2051 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Natural gas prices. Mr. Lockstead –– 2051

Hospital billings. Mrs. Dailly –– 2051

Disposal of hazardous wastes. Mrs. Wallace –– 2052

Colony Farm. Ms. Sanford –– 2052

Repainting of buses. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 2052

Mr. Macdonald

Rental assistance. Mr. Blencoe –– 2053

Property Tax Reform Act (No –– 2), 1983 (Bill 12). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Ritchie).

On section 26 –– 2053

Mr. Blencoe

Division

On section 33 –– 2055

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

On section 35 –– 2056

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. D'Arcy

Division

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Second reading.

Mr. Barrett –– 2057

On the amendment

Mr. Michael –– 2063

Mr. Skelly –– 2063

Mrs. Wallace –– 2067

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lauk –– 2071

Appendix –– 2074

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, we are privileged today to have Rev. Lyall Simpson giving the prayer for the Legislative Assembly and our guests in the gallery. I'd like to introduce him in another capacity, as president of our British Columbia Council for the Family. I would ask all members of the House to welcome him.

MR. GABELMANN: Not every MLA has the opportunity to introduce next-door neighbours who also happen to be constituents. I'd like the House to welcome June Leahy and her son Dick.

MR. VEITCH: Seated in the members' gallery this afternoon is one of western Canada's foremost educators and a good friend of mine, my campaign manager Mr. David Poole.

MR. CAMPBELL: In the gallery today we have a good friend of mine from Victoria, Mr. Bob McPike. Would you make him welcome, please?

MR. SEGARTY: It's a pleasure for me to welcome to the House today Evelyn McCartney and Sandra Payne from Squamish. On behalf of the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, please make them welcome.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS PRICES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In the past two months the government has announced the end of what it calls subsidies on domestic natural gas sales. According to the statement by the minister on September 15, retail gas prices will increase from $4.49 per 1,000 cubic feet to $8.09 per 1,000 cubic feet over the next six years.

In view of the fact that B.C. customers already pay the highest gas prices in western Canada, why has the government decided to impose these further massive increases?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the government of Alberta is fortunate to have enough money in the bank to subsidize the burner tip price of natural gas, which they have through the benevolence of the federal government and the world energy crisis.

We in British Columbia are endeavouring to have gas not subsidized, but to operate as any other business would do in this province: that is to say, to carry its own weight. The figures released with the Govier report are projections of what could happen. It is based upon 65 percent of the blended crude oil price landed at refinery 8 in Vancouver — of imported crude.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister mentioned during his response, the gas-producing provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan provide substantial direct benefits to domestic gas producers as owners of the resource. Has the government decided to review the decision to peg domestic gas prices to the OPEC inspired price of oil, and will it return benefits to British Columbians in the form of lower natural gas prices?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, Mr. Speaker, I expect we will return benefits to British Columbians in terms of greater royalty. The provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan will have only a short period of time before they face the reality of exactly the same problem.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The government has decided to grant higher netbacks to the natural gas industry at the direct expense of B.C. customers. That's what the minister is saying. Has the government at least decided to examine the Alberta-Saskatchewan system for granting benefits back to customers, and bring the B.C. price in line with that paid in those two provinces? I suspect I know the minister's answer, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The netback to producers is so generous that at the present time there is but one natural gas well being drilled in this province, down from some 360 just two years ago. The answer is obvious, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITAL BILLINGS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health. The minister has announced that patients in B.C. hospitals will soon be issued bills showing the total cost of their stay in hospital. In view of the fact that the cost of billing a B.C. resident for treatment in an acute-care facility was about $5 three years ago and in view of the fact that approximately 400,000 patients go through our hospital system, does that mean the minister is prepared to divert approximately $2 million from health care to administration?

[2:15]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I have no way of knowing how the member has calculated $2 million. The member may be unaware — perhaps due to the good fortune of not having been being in the hospital lately — that a person is presented with a bill as they leave, and they will receive the same piece of material. There will be one additional figure on it, most of which will be handled by a computer.

MRS. DAILLY: In view of the fact that the minister has stated to hospital administrators that he wants the total cost put in, is the minister therefore unaware that it will not be a simple procedure; that already hospital administrators are questioning the amount of work this will entail?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate now why the member has asked the question. It is to provide is their average per diem figure for the number of days the person has been in hospital. Each hospital has an average per diem figure they use for calculating budgets and other performances, and it is a very simple calculation. As an example, at Victoria General Hospital it's about $330 a day. If you are there 10 days you will be advised that the average cost for your stay is 10 times $330.

[ Page 2052 ]

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES

MRS. WALLACE: To the Minister of Environment, I understand that the minister was interviewed yesterday on CFJC radio in Kamloops, and during the course of that interview said that he didn't see the need for full public hearings on the proposed hazardous wastes depot in the central interior. Will the minister explain why he appears to be backing away from public hearings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am not backing away from anything. We had indicated, when we made the special wastes announcement, that we intended to fully inform the public, to fully respond to any questions they may have, to fully inform the people in the area and to meet with them at their request. What I indicated was that we did not want to set up the formal structure and mechanism to have a public hearing that goes on for a year or two.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister, as I understand him, has said that he is going to have meetings but not public hearings. Do I take that to mean that he has decided he is going to tell people what he is going to do, without allowing input from the public?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: If that member had listened to the full response, I said we would meet with people, allow them to ask questions and answer all their questions.

MRS. WALLACE: If the minister is going to meet with people, allow them to ask questions, and answer their questions, has he then decided to have public hearings?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it depends on what connotation you place on the term "public hearings." We will certainly be meeting with the public; we will have hearings in public with the people. If you mean by public hearings a formally structured board that is going to take a lot of expense and a lot of money in order to do some sort of highly structured, formal public hearing, that is not the intent.

COLONY FARM

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. There is widespread local concern that Colony Farm is destined by the government to become an extension of the nearby industrial park. I'm wondering what steps the minister has taken to ensure that Colony Farm remains in agricultural use.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the acreage of the Colony Farms is in the agricultural land reserve, and I'm not aware of any application to have it removed.

MS. SANFORD: That does not answer the question. I must say that.

The minister states that he doesn't have any application or there is no application before the Land Commission to remove the Colony Farm from the agricultural land reserve. I'm wondering if the minister has decided, or — since he doesn't like "if" in front of the question — has the minister decided to include a restrictive covenant on the sale of ColonyFarm requiring that the land remain in agricultural use when it is sold?

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, that decision has not been made.

REPAINTING OF BUSES

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I took notice of questions posed by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on September 15, and I would be pleased if I could give the response.

The first question surrounded the cost of repainting buses in communities such as Penticton and Prince George. There are bus services in 24 communities in the province, excluding Victoria and Vancouver. The budget provided for 55 paint jobs to be completed in the small communities. This represents 13 communities out of the total of 24. The total budget for the small communities is $129,085, not the figure of $1 million intimated in the member's remarks of last week. All small community paint work has to be contracted out to private autobody shops. Successful contracts resulted in an average cost of $2,347.65 per bus. You must understand, Mr. Speaker, that that's the total paint job, not a partial one. The member's words in posing the question referred to the bus system in the city of Prince George as costing over $3,000 a bus, but the actual cost for Prince George, from the successful bidder, was $2,499.75 per bus. The cost of a total paint job for the Vancouver system, MTOC, is $2,588, and again I stress that's for the complete paint job.

There was another question embodied in that query from the second member for Vancouver East on September 15. He asked how many British Columbia Transit buses are due for repainting. All buses are repainted approximately every seven years, as one component of a complete maintenance program. The seven-year cycle is an industry standard which is maintained throughout North America, I understand, and specifically in British Columbia, and is a common factor through transit systems. The 11 buses in Prince George are all seven, eight and nine years past their last paint job, so you can see that we've been doing it within the standard given. Painting was delayed pending budget availability and finalization of our new BCT livery.

I'd like to thank the member for his question.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her reply, because the figure she gave us of $600 per bus for the repainting job is now amended. I'm $500 out and the minister is $2,000 out.

I asked the minister a supplementary question. The program also includes tearing out the naughty beige, brown or orange upholstery on the seats of the buses. Has the minister ordered that, and how much is it costing to get rid of that particularly naughty colour?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The reference to the $600 versus $3,000 that was in the preamble to the member's question probably referred to a partial paint job. I don't know what particular reference he's making to comments, but I have the information in detail if he would like to have that.

In response to the second question, upholstery will be replaced when needed. As far as colour combinations are concerned, they have been established by the B.C. Transit

[ Page 2053 ]

board of directors as the red, white and blue colour combination, which is well-known to the second member for Vancouver East. I know that member is well aware that that colour combination decision was made prior to my taking responsibility for B.C. Transit.

RENTAL ASSISTANCE

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing relating to the housing portion of his ministry. The executive director of the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia estimates the minimum monthly rent of new units to be approximately $600 per month, and sufficient rental stock for moderate-and low-income renters can only be provided with significant levels of government assistance. What action has the minister taken to provide sufficient housing for low-and middle-income families, given the particular difficulties we're in these days?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: We take very little action, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of that particular person's evaluation and assessments.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 2), 1983

The House in committee on Bill 12-1 Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 to 25 inclusive approved.

[2:30]

On section 26.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I once again want to reiterate our position and the UBCM's position on our concern about Bill 7 and Bill 12, and particularly the sections that could make decisions by cabinet in terms of the taxation levels. The ability of local councils to set their own financial direction is being seriously curtailed by certain sections, and section 26 in Bill 12 does exactly that. We again reiterate our position that those local councils are directly elected to do that duty and are accountable to their own electorate, and we cannot support any particular section that allows cabinet, by order, to make certain changes with minimum consultation with the local councils.

Mr. Chairman, I once more wish to let the government know that there was a clear message at the UBCM conference.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand that in committee there's a very narrow area of debate allowed: it must be specifically related to the details of individual sections. I would remind the member of that fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's point is well taken. Debate in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the clause or section under consideration. Section 26 does deal specifically with taxation, and I'm sure the member can specifically relate his remarks to the basis of that section.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, what I refer to then is Mayor Thom, who said: "Restraint we support, but restraints on local government in terms of being able to collect enough taxes to pay for their own infrastructure" — which is what this particular section is — "we do not support." We feel that if a local government wishes to set its own tax level and, in its wisdom, wishes taxes to be increased, then that council, village or town they represent are accountable for that action. We feel that autonomy is traditional and that local councils, villages and towns have been extremely supportive of trying to meet the financial constraints of the day, but certain sections of Bill 7 and Bill 12, which we're on today, do not respect that traditional autonomy of local government in terms of the financial matters of their operations. We cannot support that.

Mr. Chairman, once again I have to ask the minister why he feels.... Indeed, as minister responsible for municipal affairs, he has lost the respect for local councils in terms of being able to set their own constraints and priorities in the amount of taxes and dollars they wish to collect. Does he no longer have respect for them? They've been doing it for a very long time and I reiterate, reflecting on this particular section, that the UBCM message was: "Allow us to set our own priorities and let us utilize our own knowledge and the ability of our own taxpayers to pay for the priorities that we assess on behalf of our electorate." They were speaking for all those people at UBCM.

I would again like to ask the minister: does he feel that local government is not capable of showing restraint? Does he feel that local government has not done a good job, given that — in my estimation and the estimation of our party — those local governments have been showing restraint for a long time, with virtually no deficits at all? Does he have no respect for their ability to be able to set their own priorities in terms of tax levels and the amount of money they should collect for their own purposes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 26 pass?

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, I would certainly like an answer from the minister. There are 1,400 elected officials across this province who are asking for some real answers as

[ Page 2054 ]

to why this government wants to take over the role of local government in financial matters. The minister should respond. He has a duty to answer those duly elected people who work very hard for their electorate. Has he lost respect for their ability to set their own priorities in terms of fiscal matters? Or is it because the cabinet feels that they should have this power? If they do, I would like him to explain why he feels cabinet must have this power.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I am rapidly losing confidence in this member as my critic. He appears to be on the wrong section. All this does, Mr. Member, is give the municipalities the authority to collect, under the new system, on behalf of these other functions.

MR. BLENCOE: Then why does it say: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, under subsection (1), make different regulations...."? Why do you need that particular power, Mr. Minister?

No answer? They can't answer that, Mr. Chairman. That's the erosion of local autonomy that we're talking about. That is the overwhelming theme that came out of local government: "Lay off. Let us work our own operations. We've been doing it for hundreds of years." They don't need a provincial government that has the biggest debt in this province, has a 12 percent increase in its budget.... This government is now saying that they can't have any increase in taxes at all, when their budget has gone up dramatically and they have the biggest deficit we've seen in the history of this province. I want some answers, and the UBCM wants some answers.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, this particular question was asked during committee on Bill 7 and was thoroughly answered. I would suggest that that member go back to the answer given then. The answer to this is identical to that on Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: My question again to the minister: does he not believe local councils, local municipalities, towns and villages, have the ability to set their own financial direction? Or, indeed, does he feel they're not doing a proper job? I think he owes an answer to those 1,400 people who are elected, who feel they do an important job — many of them are Socred supporters — who are clearly saying: "Let us get on with our job. Don't put constraints on us." An answer is demanded by those 1,400 people, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, we are really proud of the job that the municipalities are doing and the leadership that they have given in restraint, and they will always be respected for that. They continue to show that leadership and cooperation in the whole area of restraint.

MR. BLENCOE: Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman, of the minister? Do you not think it somewhat hypocritical for the government to bring down a budget that sees an overall...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's not in order during committee.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I think it's very important, because this section and other sections say that the cabinet is going to control the amount of money that can be collected by local government — in other words, the tax level. What percentage can go up? I think it's an appropriate question. How can he tell local government that that's an appropriate action — that centralization by cabinet — when he is a part of a government that has seen its budget go up by 12 percent?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are relating this to second reading debate now, and we are in committee. You must be strictly relevant to the clause in front of us.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I believe it is relevant — extremely relevant. Are you ruling me out of order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member persists in second reading debate, the Chair will, but if the member can relate his remarks specifically to section 26, then there's no problem.

MR. BLENCOE: Okay. I have further questions for the minister.

One of the deep concerns of local government is going to be the ability in the next few years to pay for the basic infrastructure of their operations. As you know, many municipalities — and one particular one that I'm familiar with is nearly 100 years old now....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I recognize the fact that this member is a newcomer to the Legislature, but I'll say again that in committee on a bill questions and remarks have to be strictly relevant to the section at hand. It's not a time to make generalized speeches. I would ask that member to please respect those rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order is well taken. The section before us, I will point out to all members of the committee, first, is permissive and, second, discusses regulations with respect to taxation. If we can relate our remarks to that, the committee will be well served.

MR. BLENCOE: My question relates to the taxation levels, Mr. Chairman. Local government is saying that it is in difficult times in terms of infrastructure, because much of it is very old. They have to maintain it properly; otherwise they get into serious trouble. Consequently there may be a requirement for tax increases to pay for basic infrastructure improvement. How will the minister deal with those concerns of towns and municipalities, which can clearly document that centralized or a blanket decision on increases or tax levels may be to the detriment of municipalities that have special problems? I think it's a reasonable question. Maybe the minister can answer it.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: They would deal with that in the appropriate way. As I told you in committee on Bill 7, I am surprised that you, with your extensive municipal experience, are not aware that we have actually given more freedom, more autonomy with this change. Under the old system there were limits on mill rates to be levied on the assessed value. Under the new system they have the variable rate. They establish it themselves, and that level will be based on their spending. That is their decision, obviously.

[ Page 2055 ]

I don't know how else to answer the member, until he takes the time to study the act and take a look at the old one as well. It's very difficult to respond in a sound way to someone who is scattering off on something he appears to know very little about in spite of having had so much experience at the municipal level.

MR. BLENCOE: How will the minister rationalize to local governments, when we understand they are going to have imposed on them a zero to 5 percent increase in their budgets or taxes this year...?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I am being relevant. How will he rationalize that to municipal government when the provincial budget is dramatically increasing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are now straying into debate that might be properly carried on in second reading or the estimates of the minister, but which certainly is not specific to section 26.

MR. D'ARCY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have the Section in front of me, as I'm sure you have. It says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — that is, the cabinet — "may, under subsection (1), make...regulations for (a) the taxation of land and improvements, based on assessed value...." Now it seems to me that that is very wide-ranging. It allows the minister to do almost anything regarding taxation. It seems to me that any discussion whatsoever by the minister, the member for Victoria, or anybody else in this chamber regarding those totally wide-ranging options available to the minister under this section is strictly relevant to the section. It has to be.

[2:45]

Section 26 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 9

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Sections 27 to 32 inclusive approved.

On section 33.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, can the member for Central Fraser Valley possibly give us some information as to why he feels that he and his leading bureaucrat, the inspector of municipalities, need this kind of fiscal power over duly elected, mandated municipal councillors? We know that the question of property tax rates is an extremely sensitive one to municipal voters, and councils that don't do the right thing are going to be turfed out at the first opportunity. Why is he saying here that he wants the right to make regulations regarding a variable mill rate tax structure that not only can prescribe limits, but can vary limits at any time they see fit, and can also vary those regulations?

It is quite clear that the municipal councils around this province, whether in small villages or large cities, have shown far more fiscal responsibility in managing their affairs than the provincial government has shown. They adopted restraint long before the provincial government did. They controlled their spending and borrowing, and have kept their bond rating at triple-A when the province's has gone down to double-A. Can the minister possibly tell the people of B.C. and those 1,400 duly elected, mandated councillors out there why he alone, along with his bureaucrats, wants this opportunity to make these kinds of judgments?

Mr. Chairman, let's look at the possibilities here, relative to my own constituency. Suppose the government in its wisdom — or lack of it — that government over there or some future government, decided to make tax rate decisions that were antithetical to the economic interests of an area. Suppose they decided to make tax rate decisions that were in fact going to force an industry or a business to be uncompetitive, to reduce the economic base of a given area. Or suppose they made a decision to play off residential or commercial property tax payers. If the local government made those kinds of decisions — and I know they never would, because to my knowledge they never have been irresponsible around this province — they would be turfed out. What recourse would the local people have if the minister or his bureaucrats made a mistake, either intentional or unintentional? Why do they need this power when it has been demonstrated in municipality after municipality around this province, year after year, cities, villages, townships large and small, that they do not abuse their ability to levy taxes? In the rare instance when they did, they were turfed out at the first possible opportunity. Why does the minister need this kind of power?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: First of all, to protect the taxpayer — but keep in mind that this is a re-enactment of the existing legislation. The inspector could, under the old legislation, permit them to go above, and that would apply here. However, it would still have to be endorsed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. So really what you have here is what you had under the old system.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, in 11 years in this House, both on the government side and on the opposition side, whenever there was a contentious piece of legislation in committee, I heard the minister get up and say: "It's just a tiny little housekeeping amendment; it's really no change." If it's really no change, Mr. Minister, why do you need it? Why does the UBCM oppose it? They come from across the political spectrum. I don't believe they have a political axe to grind, or want to embarrass the minister. I believe they want to cooperate with the minister. I'm not sure that at this moment they have a great deal of respect for the minister, but

[ Page 2056 ]

still they accept the fact that he is the minister and they want to cooperate with him. Why does he need this power, when they have not abused this power in the past? I don't believe that this is a minor change. It is a major change and it would allow the minister.... It's fine for you to talk about the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, but that means you. That means the minister. It would allow him to overrule, to vary the decisions of democratically elected municipal councillors around this province.

[3:00]

Section 33 approved on the following division.

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 10

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 34 approved.

On section 35.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago the minister made the statement that the reason they want to centralize the tax decisions that local government traditionally made is that they wish to protect the taxpayer. My question to the minister is: does he not now feel that local government has over the years, because of its duty to ensure that the taxpayer is protected locally, become incapable of protecting its own taxpayers?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Repeat your question.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister made the statement that the reason he felt it's very important to make inroads into local government financial operations and decisions traditionally made by local government is the fact that he felt that the provincial government could protect the local taxpayer. My question to the minister is: does he not think that local councils are quite capable of protecting their own taxpayers as they are elected to do?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the member's question is somewhat confusing. He is on section 35, which deals with the rural areas, and he's talking now about municipalities. I'm at a loss to understand what he's really talking about.

MR. BLENCOE: Obfuscation and avoiding the question. The minister made the statement that he's centralizing power to the cabinet over local decisions that have traditionally been made by local government because he feels that cabinet can protect local taxpayers better. I want to know why he feels cabinet can do that far better than local councils that have done it for hundreds of years. Answer that question please, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, is this in section 35?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It appears to be.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Chairman, it says that cabinet can prescribe tax rates, and he says he needs to protect the local taxpayer. Why does he now feel he has to protect the local taxpayer when local governments have been doing that for hundreds of years? It's a reasonable question. The UBCM wants to know that. I think he has a duty to answer that question.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the response is identical to that which has been given in other sections of this bill and in Bill 7. Certainly we have full confidence in the ability of municipalities to carry out their responsibilities. The record shows for itself that we have every reason to have full confidence and will continue to.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, we'll try again to get an answer from the minister. The section clearly says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" — cabinet, that is — "may make regulations for the taxation of land and improvements under this act, including prescribing tax rates, prescribing relationships between tax rates and prescribing formulas for calculating the relationships referred to in the previous paragraph." Why does the minister need this kind of authoritarian centralism that is so rife throughout this piece of legislation and many other pieces of legislation when it has never been needed before in this province? There is no question that the duly elected, mandated people at the municipal level, regardless of their political background, have acted responsibly when it comes to taxation of property.

I would like the minister to tell us: if he has the respect and understanding, as he says he has, not only for the people who are elected but, more importantly, for the people out there who elect and give a mandate to those municipal councillors, why does he need this sort of authoritarian, centralized control, where he deems himself to know more about what is good for Zeballos than people who live in work in Zeballos? He deems himself to know more about what is good for people in Castlegar than the people that Castlegar have elected. Why does he need this sort of authoritarian, centralized power that has been criticized so much, both within and outside of this Legislature?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, would the member clarify whether he's referring to municipalities or rural areas?

MR. D'ARCY: We are much faster to answer questions than the minister, on this side of the House, Mr. Chairman. We are talking about any council under the Municipal Act, whether it be a regional district, a city, a township, a village or a town that has had that power before to set its own tax

[ Page 2057 ]

rates. I don't see why it makes a difference whether we're talking about an electoral area of a regional board or the city of Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the section specifically relates to the Taxation (Rural Area) Act Amendment.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, the questions and the debate would be better suited in second reading than in committee. That is why I wanted to know if the member was talking about municipal or rural taxation. Once I get that decision from him then I'll be able to answer his question with some accuracy.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the minister has, so perhaps he doesn't understand, but a substantial proportion of the electorate who have sent me down here live in areas which are euphemistically called unorganized — that is, they do not have a regular municipal government. Of course this section applies to them, and yes, I am concerned about what the minister may decide relative to those electors who increasingly see their taxes go up each and every year by arbitrary actions of his ministry.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I assume, Mr. Chairman, that he is talking about taxation in the rural areas. I think the records will show that we could go back as far as possibly 1917, and that's around there when this started, so it hasn't changed.

Section 35 approved on the following division:

[3:15]

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 8

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

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

Section 35.1 approved. Section 36 approved.

Schedule approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I now know why the government has been fearful in calling this bill: they were aware that I was going to be presenting this side's opposition to this particular amendment.

If I would be permitted to give this bill another title, and if I would be permitted to give the title that was in order, I would call it "The Fib Bill." This bill deals with a promise made by the government when they were seeking election and then broken after they got elected. What do you think they did that for? Some people would say cynically that they were looking for votes. Of course, I'm one of those "some people." I would say they were just looking for votes. This bill takes away the renter's grant and tax credits from poor people and the elderly. Since there are more poor and elderly people than there are millionaires, this bill was passed before an election to entice the poor people and the low-income earners to vote Social Credit. As soon as the election was over, they said: "We're going to take this away." They did let it slip before the campaign that they hadn't passed the legislation yet, but they were going to take it away before voting day. Isn't it funny that a lot of people had the hope that the government would change its mind? A lot of people thought that this government really fought for ordinary people.

When the minister first brought in these wonderful benefits, as he saw it, allowing people to have some of their own money back, he made a great speech about it. He said how wonderful it was to be able to allow the poor and the low-income earners to have some of their own money back and to get government off their backs — "too much government taking too much money out of the pockets of the poor and the elderly and the low-income earners." Do you remember that, Mr. Member? They brought that bill in with a big fanfare and said: "This is for you ordinary folks." The ordinary folks thought this was wonderful. "We're going to get some of our money back." It's like the communists operate; this government has learned a lot from the communists. Take away everything you can from the people and then give them a little bit back, and somehow they feel relieved. This is Soviet-style government. This bill is a Soviet-style bill. You are a bunch of pinkos over there. If you go too far, I'll call you Reds. Where else did you you learn these tactics from? Mr. Speaker, look at the tie he's wearing. This government is an incredible paradox. The only thing that they believe in looking after is the millionaires and the super-rich. The ordinary people out

[ Page 2058 ]

there have to carry this whole burden of saving money on their backs.

Mr. Speaker, if you had a choice of spending $38 million on a brand-new prison or of giving some money back to the poor, the handicapped, the elderly and low-income people, what would you spend the money on?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Socreds might need the prison someday.

MR. BARRETT: My colleague, who is young and hasn't outgrown his cynicism, suspects that the only reason they're refurbishing a prison is because they're looking toward their future. I won't go that far, but I begin to wonder about the sense of a government that takes away from the low-income earners a few dollars that should be their incentive to go out and work. How did you decide to take the money away from these people? How did you decide that in the fight against the high cost of government you're going to put the wounded in the front lines and protect the millionaires?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's communism.

MR. BARRETT: "That's communism." I guess so. It's kind of a perverse statism that you've got going. I don't know where you get these weird ideas, except that I guess because there are so many millionaires in your group and it doesn't affect you, it doesn't really bother you to take this money off ordinary people. I don't understand you. Or maybe I do understand you too well. Whom are you elected to protect? You're protecting the super-rich, the large corporations and the big businesses. Everybody else. If that is the case, then this is a bill to protect the people from spending their own money. They take money from the poor and the low-wage earners of this province and say: "You're the ones who have to sacrifice in hard times." The minister knows very well that he's the same minister who lifted the succession duty tax. He's heard that story a hundred times, and he's going to hear it a hundred times more. Given a choice of taxing estates of very wealthy people, they let that go. They don't bother the super-rich when times are tough. Not once did they take a dime off those millionaires' estates, as California does, which was started by Ronald Reagan. The fact is that prior to this government's election and the need for this kind of legislation, there was a succession duty in this province, and when the super-rich died, they paid their fair share from their estates, putting some of the money back into this province that they earned from the workers and ordinary people and the resources of the province. Who lifted the tax off the millionaires? Social Credit.

Isn't it interesting? Their argument was that if we have a succession duty on the millionaires' estates, the poor millionaires' families will be left with nothing. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's the classic example of estate Mc........ I won't say the name. The poor gentleman died and went on to his reward, where material things don't count any more. That poor gentleman left an estate of $28 million. There was a succession duty in those days, brought in by W.A.C. Bennett, and supported by me and my colleagues. That estate left $28 million, and the government taxed it and taxed it. After the government was through taxing it, all the heavy hand of government left for the poor widow and the five children was $21 million. Now we're hopeful that that widow and those five children get along on the $21 million. I haven't heard a complaint yet that they can't.

We were collecting an average, per year, of $40 million under that succession duty. That was all wiped out by this bunch of millionaires over here. You die rich, you can go down six feet and you don't have to worry. You don't pay a dime under Social Credit. There's no restraint when you kick the bucket under this government. You get a free ride to whichever direction you're going. No taxes upwards, downwards or in purgatory. But if you're poor and you're alive, and you try to buy a few bucks' worth of groceries, and you try to buy a case of beer, or try to give your grandchildren a gift, you lose your tax credits under Social Credit and you lose the lousy $275 a year that's coming back to you on your income tax.

That's cheap. It's not only cheap, it's mean. If you're going to fight the high cost of government, and the need to show restraint, why pick on the low-income people? What are the millionaires giving in this fight against restraint, other than sympathy and letters to the editor? You tell me, Mr. Speaker: in what legislation does this government intend to ask the millionaires to give their share in the fight against the high cost of government? They give up a bottle of scotch maybe? Send a sympathy letter to Bill: "Keep on, Bill. Kick the slats out of the ordinary people. Leave us millionaires alone." What are the wealthy people of this province contributing in this time of restraint in terms of a tax loss? Name it, Mr. Speaker. Nothing!

The program's not fair. The program is designed to hit the poor, the low income earners and those people out there whose whole future is wrapped up in some mundane job trying to stay one step ahead of welfare. We're spending more money on welfare under Social Credit than at any other time in the history of the province of British Columbia. This is the welfare commie government. Except for millionaires. When the millionaires die in this province, Mr. Speaker, their estates go unattached, untaxed, unchanged, and the millionaires go to Valhalla knowing that their money is safe in the arms of Social Credit. Meanwhile, the low-income people who expect help from the government are going to have the slats kicked out of them in this bill.

Here we are, on this quiet Wednesday afternoon, even though it's really Tuesday according to your definition of time — no, I guess it is Wednesday. That was last week. We're going to take money out of the pockets of the poor and low-income earners. Can't you see them all sitting there in the cabinet deciding: "Well, we need an extra couple million bucks for this program. So who will we take it from? Why, we'll take it from the poor people. We'll take it from the low-income earners. We've got to leave the millionaires alone." They don't tax estates, but they're going to take this money out of the pockets of low-income earners, the elderly and the poor. Well, I suppose if you're a Socred it's all right. But I'll bet you my shoelaces, Mr. Speaker, that not one of them will get up in this debate and explain why they're going to take this money off low-income people and leave the millionaires alone.

[3:30]

I'm puzzled, Mr. Speaker. The millionaires aren't confused, but I'm puzzled. Why don't they tax the millionaires if people have to pay their fair share across the board?

We know that there are 16 millionaires sitting in the government. And we know that there are 18 would-be millionaires sitting over there. Was that the fight in cabinet? The

[ Page 2059 ]

ones who have already made it big want to be protected, and those with a chance of making it big want to be protected. The amount of money you're getting out of these people is coffee money to the rich in this province. How can you go on television and say these are tough times, we have to show restraint, we must be careful with the money we spend, and then not look people right in the eye and say: "By the way, we're not taxing millionaires any more with succession duties"? How do you do that? I bet you don't do it. I bet you don't tell anybody outside this room that the millionaires are getting off the hook, do you?

Now raise your hands, all of you who are going to go on television and explain to the people of this province why you're not taxing the millionaires when it comes to succession duties, but you're going to take away the tax credits for the low-income earners and the elderly. Raise your hands. I'll give them a few moments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, they haven't raised their hands. There's one. Would you go on television and explain why you won't bring in a succession duty at a time when it's hard for people to earn a living and you're taking money away from the low-income people? Would you stand up in a debate and explain that?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it certainly is relevant. If you had a relevant that was a millionaire, you sure as heck wouldn't want to tax it, would you?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You're not in the right chair.

Mr. Speaker, there are young people in this province who might suspect that if millionaires give money to the Social Credit Party on the promise that they won't bring in a bill that affects millionaires, the Social Credit Party will keep their promises.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, they're not as cynical as that. You mean you don't keep your promises?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was the promise: if you vote Social Credit, they'll remove the succession duty that Social Credit brought in. And they did. The succession duty came off in 1976, and the millionaires' estates have not paid their fair share in this province since that time. And today we're debating a bill to make up a loss in that money by taking money away from ordinary people retroactively, in their income tax and the renter's grant.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there is no justice in this. You tell the citizens of this province that if they have to sacrifice in times of restraint, if they have to contribute to government revenues, if they have to put money in the government's coffers, why isn't it fair to everybody? Why do the low-income earners, the elderly and the handicapped and those who have to rent have to contribute to your spending when the millionaires don't?

MR. PARKS: Oh, but they do.

MR. BARRETT: How do the millionaires do it?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, if you're a millionaire and you buy a car, you pay sales tax. If you're a poor person and you buy a car, you pay the same sales tax. So that's fair, eh? The sales tax itself is so regressive.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you buy a Cadillac you pay more.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. And then you write it off as a business thing. I know of people who have gone to political conventions in Cadillac’s they haven't owned.

MR. SKELLY: Paid for by the Socred government.

MR. BARRETT: No names, no pack-drill, Mr. Speaker.

But here we are. In the first session of the thirty-third parliament, Elizabeth II, 1983, Bill 4, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983. This is the bill that takes away money from low-income people and renters so that this big government can have more money in its pockets to protect the millionaires. Why?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, does the explanatory note says: "We need this money because we don't want to take it from millionaires"? Come on.

MR. SKELLY: When do we vote on the explanatory note?

MR. BARRETT: When do we vote on the explanatory notes? When are you going to go on television and look people in the eye and say: "Look, we don't tax millionaires in British Columbia, because we like them to come here from all over the world and know that their money's safe, and we'd like the ordinary people to leave on weekends"? Come on, this is the kind of doubletalk bill — I'm not talking about the Premier; I'm talking about the legislation — that is brought before this House. I can just see them all totalling up the little old widows out there that they can skin another 200 bucks a year from. Can you see them sitting around the cabinet room full of glee, saying: "Boy, we'll make the people suffer. Knock another $75 or $100 bucks off their renter's grant. Get that little widow out there who struggled to raise her children. Let's hit her for $200." But whatever you do, don't touch the millionaires, because they might get upset and write a letter to the editor.

What a crazy business. People are supposed to believe in government. People are supposed to believe that government cares for them. People out there want to believe that the government will show some compassion, some heart and some understanding. They go around flogging this nonsense that this is a time of restraint, and everybody's got to suffer except the millionaires. Bring back the succession duty and point out that you're being fair. If you need more government revenue for a child-abuse team, then let the rich pay their fair share. If you need more money for a post-partum care facility

[ Page 2060 ]

for women who have just delivered, then let the rich pay their share. If you're cutting off services to the handicapped because the government can't afford to give $50 a month to handicapped people, then let the rich pay their fair share.

But that's not what's going on in B.C. today, Mr. Speaker. The rich are not paying their fair share. The millionaires are not being taxed. And we've got a bill in front of us today that's going to hit little people — widows, low-income earners, single-parent mothers — with another $200 or $250 a year to kick into this government that says it's showing restraint. Who are they trying to kid? No wonder they've made a ruling that cameras can't take pictures of politicians in the hallways. They don't want pictures of embarrassed politicians who are going to vote for this kind of stuff.

I want to hear the government members get up and tell us why the millionaires should be exempt at this time from further taxes. I'm not embarrassed or ashamed to go on television and say to all the millionaires of British Columbia: "If I get elected you're going to get taxed, so don't vote for me. All the ordinary people, you're not going to get taxed. Vote for me." Why don't you say that? They don't say that in an election campaign, Mr. Speaker. Not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're realistic.

MR. BARRETT: You're more realistic; protect the millionaires is realism. That's what you are.

Look, it's tough out there. There's 14 percent unemployment. People are having their wages frozen by this government. Increased costs. Unlimited increased costs from the Crown corporations, Hydro and others; and you're taking this money out of the pockets of ordinary people and not a dime from the millionaires. Why?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You don't see that? Do you support a succession duty? Not on your life. You've got prospects, don't you? We know that. That's another bill. I mean, if you think you're going to be a millionaire, you're not going to bring in that kind of a tax, are you? A wink and a nudge. I understand. We've got it together.

Maybe there are about 50 people up in the galleries, and you hope they'll forget it and walk away from here. Never bring television in here and let them hear this kind of stuff. No, sir. Don't allow the citizens to walk out of here hearing this kind of stuff. They might get mad at government and figure out that the millionaires are being protected by this bunch over there. We don't want them hearing that stuff. We want the people to be frightened of the power of government. We want people to understand that the propagandists and the news manipulators that you hire for $18 million will influence them while you take the money out of poor people's pockets.

Mr. Speaker, the silence is deafening. I know that I have to sit down and shut up in a few minutes, and this whole inconvenience will be over. You can go on about your business protecting those super-rich people. I know that. But maybe a little half hour's discomfort from the few of you who are left here is worth it. I'll bet you there won't be one word about how they don't have the money for a child-abuse team to protect children from being beaten up. There is no more child-abuse team left in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. It's been wiped out by this government that refuses to get the millionaires to pay their fair share. They've taken away $50 a month from the handicapped citizens of this province. They're taking away another $200 a year from the elderly. They say they can't afford a child-abuse team, while they allow millionaires — without succession duties — to get away with millions and millions every single year. And they fake it out. They go on television and give those practised smiles with those lovely teeth and say: "Well, we really would like to do better but we don't want to hurt the feelings of those millionaires, because if we ask them to pay their fair share, they might get mad and not give money to our party."

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yeah. Oh, sure. I'm just a bad person, raising these terrible arguments. As soon as I sit down the world will be better again. I know all that. But you tell me, how do you expect people out there to believe you when the only legislation you've brought in this session attacks the low-income people, the handicapped and the poor? At the same time you're leaving the millionaires alone, who could be contributing some $40 million a year in succession duties, the way they do in California.

It was W.A.C. Bennett, a Socred Premier of this province, who brought in the succession duty. I sat across from him in this House and heard him say that the millionaires who live in British Columbia, who've made their millions in British Columbia, owe a debt to the people of British Columbia and they should pay their fair share of taxes. What happened to this Social Credit bunch? I agreed with W.A.C. Bennett. I voted for that legislation. But what did this bunch do as soon as they came in? They took that legislation out and the rich don't pay those taxes any more. Now they come in here and squeeze every nickel they can out of low-income people.

How do you put your head down on the pillow at night? How do you feel about the claptrap you feed out there, saying, "Oh, people have to sacrifice," and "we have to give," and "these are tough times" and everything else? You squeeze the nickels and dimes out of the ordinary people, the elderly and the poor and let the millionaires get off. How do you explain that out there? Do you go back to your constituencies and stop people on the street and say: "Look here, the millionaires are hurting enough. They've got a headache from counting their money. We don't want to hurt them too much, you know." So they take this money out of the pockets of the poor, the elderly and the handicapped, who know how to sacrifice. They raised families through the Depression, hoped for the best for their children. Now they're having their educations squeezed off and a few bucks taken out of the pockets of the handicapped, but the millionaires walk down the street saying: "We've got a lovely government, they're not going to touch me." Who is going to believe you out there when you say that everybody has to sacrifice at a time of restraint? You haven't brought in one piece of legislation to take a nickel off the super-rich in this province.

MR. PARKS: Yes, we have.

MR. BARRETT: Name it.

MR. PARKS: Sales tax.

[ Page 2061 ]

MR. BARRETT: Sales tax! What a fig in the eye! The sales tax went up a little bit. Oh, let's hear it for the poor millionaire. Maybe you took seven cents off them. Well, that's really a punishment. They might miss cream in their coffee on a Sunday. Come on! You have not focused on the super-rich one bit. You haven't put a single point on the t income tax on a graduated scale for the rich in this province.

Not a penny. Not one point. Certainly the income tax is a lot fairer than anything you advocate. Here you are amending the Income Tax Act and taking it off the poor, and you're not taking anything off the rich. Here's the bill. If you believe it, why don't you amend it? I'll help you amend it, even though you're a lawyer. It only takes simple language. I won't charge you; I'll help you figure it out.

[3:45]

Don't give us that stuff. This is a half-hour of uncomfortable feeling with some MLA yapping his head off. The half hour will pass, the millionaire's interests will be taken care of, and it'll all be forgotten.

Then you go on television and you look people right in the eye in the camera and say: "Oh, well, times are tough for government, you know. We've got to get government off people's backs." So they climb on the backs of the poor and the handicapped and the low-income earner, and leave the millionaires out of it. That's the kind of government you've got over there, folks. But how many people in this province are going to hear about it? Do you think they'll ever bring radio or television in here? Not on your life. They won't even let you take a picture in the corridor any more.

MR. STRACHAN: Why didn't you do it?

MR. BARRETT: We were the first ones to move to a question period and a full Hansard, and the next move was television and radio. And guess what? It's been eight years since that committee gave its report, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Say that again in your dulcet tones. I can't quite hear that intelligence.

AN HON. MEMBER: He forgot what he said.

MR. BARRETT: Quite a time span — three seconds.

This bill is a retroactive piece of legislation, by its nature unwarranted, unnecessary and undesirable in the parliamentary system. It's retroactive. A year ago people thought they were going to have this money. It's not something new. This is taking away last year's money. Are you going to talk about that too? Are you going to tell us how you're going to make people go out and borrow money to pay last year's taxes? What a gang! What a bunch of mean penny-pinchers over there, taking money off people that was earned a year ago, taking away their renter's grant, and you haven't touched the millionaires. What kind of an outfit is it anyway that sits down in that green cabinet room and thinks up legislation like this?

Where's the cabinet? Where's the government benches? Gone to have a cup of coffee. We'll just listen to this guy yap, he'll have his 40 minutes and it'll be over. We'll get up there and we'll all vote with the government and protect the millionaires and take this money out of little people's pockets.

The only time this bunch pays attention to little people is at election time. They go on television and say: "Ooh, don't vote for those socialists, they're going to redistribute income. Ooh, don't vote for those socialists, they're trying to make it fair. Ooh, don't vote for those socialists, they're going to tax the millionaires. You've got a millionaire neighbour next door to you and you know how upset they'll be if they get axed." Well, if you're twitching and tutting over there, you get up, Mr. Minister, and tell us why the millionaires are being left out this session. Will you do that? Get up and tell us why you think we shouldn't have a succession duty, but we should skin the poor, the elderly and the handicapped. I'd like to hear the train of thought, the brilliant economic analysis, the overwhelming wisdom that says: "We need more money from the low-incomed, the handicapped and the poor, but we can't afford to tax the millionaires." I'd like to hear you explain that.

Between you and me and the two posts beside you, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we're going to hear that. Don't be surprised if not one of them gets up and speaks on this bill. Don't be surprised if all we get is dumb silence from the government over this. Because who is going to get up....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, most silence is dumb. And sometimes when they open up they prove it.

The dense pack in the corner over there, the group that gets up and votes for everything the government proposes, in the hope that their own dreams and ambitions of sitting in that cabinet room are fulfilled someday. Their little hearts beating under their little white shirts — a-pump-a-pump-a-pump! "Let me in there and I'll protect the millionaires. Just watch me. I'll be so loyal, and slavishly support the government." The last time they had a maverick, they took away the guy's committee. What happened to him? He's gone down the tube.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you called me to order I was out of order in mentioning that. I would never mention that the dense pack votes slavishly with the government, except that I was out of order. The six of you down in the corner, the dense pack. How many of them are there in the corner?

MR. REID: Six.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that one can count. That is a step forward.

When it comes to taking away, this government knows how to do it. Take away from the poor, the handicapped and the elderly and leave it in the pockets of the millionaires. That's what this bill is all about.

Why don't you get a little more mad at me? Why don't you get up and say: "I'm so mad at you, I'm going to jump up on my feet and participate in this debate and explain to the people of British Columbia why the Leader of the Opposition is wrong, why the NDP is wrong, and why we should tax the poor, why we should tax the handicapped."

Interjection.

[ Page 2062 ]

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there's the voice from the guy. He's got a new coat on. He changes coats just like changing principles. Just walk across the floor; it's all gone. Now we've got a little stirring-up. That's good. Now we're going to have a little intelligent debate. This is the warming-up. They're going to get up and explain why they need to take the money out of the pockets of the low-income earners. They're going to get up and explain why they need to take it off the working poor and the handicapped, and why they should leave the millionaires alone. I want to hear that explanation.

MR. MICHAEL: I'll explain it for you.

MR. BARRETT: Don't hold your breath. You'd be the best one to explain it for them all right. You came a long way to sit over there. No personal reference, Mr. Speaker. But I'm looking forward to that particular member getting up and explaining how on the road to Damascus of Social Credit he became a convert to this kind of legislation, and why he now believes that the poor and the handicapped and the low-income earners should pay this, and when he became a defender of the millionaires. I'd like to hear that member get up and say that we shouldn't impose a succession duty on the rich. They might get upset as we lower them into their reward. You know, when we were in government, I never got one letter from anybody who had passed on and had to pay that tax. Not once. That's right. You know how people complain about everything. They must have been happy with it. Some of them were too cheap to pay the 32 cents. But the fact is that here we have on this sleepy little afternoon a quick shuffle, a quick little move, just a little bill that says: "Last year, when you spent that money.... We're going to tax it now. We want the money back." Retroactive legislation. You'll get up and support it. You love it. You're willing to buy anything now.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Bye-bye. Sure, I'm going. I'll be out of sight, and you can go on and continue your game. Just take money from the ordinary people. But I'll tell you, even though I may be gone, there will always be, no matter how small or how large, a few citizens in this province who will have the guts and the courage to stand up and ask for decency and fairness in taxation for the ordinary people of British Columbia. With all your tricks and all your propaganda and all the sleaze you operate with, there are always going to be some people in this province who have the guts to stand up and fight you. They even come from the religious community, and what do you do? You attack them. The local Catholic bishop calls part of this package of legislation evil. The Premier's only answer is that he has a different philosophy. I guess it's true. The Catholic bishop is a Christian. Is that what the Premier meant, that he had a different philosophy? What did the Premier mean? Let's hear the Premier explain this bill. When the Roman Catholic bishop of this city attacks this legislation, the Premier says he has a different philosophy. Well, the Roman Catholic bishop is a Christian. What's the Premier? What's the difference in philosophy? Let's hear it. Let's have the debate.

MR. REE: A little further to the left.

MR. BARRETT: A little further to the left, he says. What is that saying in the Bible about how does a camel get through the eye of a needle?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's right: it's harder for a rich man to get to heaven than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. Thank you, Mr. Member. I'm reading from that very left-wing book called the Bible. Is that not right, Mr. Member? I expect you to get up and explain why the millionaires aren't getting touched. Give us a wink, Harv. Well, you know, there isn't going to be one of them to get up there and say that the millionaires are being left alone because, after all, we're the government of the rich and we want to make it fair. So to make it fair....

MR. PARKS: We're a government of all British Columbians.

MR. BARRETT: You're not a government of all the people of British Columbia. If you were you wouldn't attack the poor, the low-income earners and the handicapped. You'd say everybody has to pay their fair share, and you're not saying that. You're leaving the rich right out of that. There's not a single penny the rich have to pay that's extra since you've come into power. You've removed the succession duty and you've stung the ordinary people of this province every step of the way, and you won't get up and say why. Not one of you.

That's right, Mr. Speaker, just a little more discomfort, maybe another 10 minutes and then it'll be all over. Then they can stand up like they do when the bell rings, and vote for this legislation, and hope people will forget it. Maybe one or two of them have got a little drip of conscience in their stomachs right now, but that'll pass. Go down and say a few nasty words about the NDP and that'll be okay, that'll clean it up.

The rich don't pay their fair share under Social Credit, and that's the message for the wealthy people of this province. In times of restraint, when we have to cut back child-abuse programs, when we have to take 50 bucks a month away from the handicapped citizens in a wheelchair, we're going to take this money from the pockets of ordinary people, but don't worry, millionaires out there, we're not going to bother you one bit. This is the millionaires' party and they're running the show here. They're protecting the super rich every step of the way.

I don't want to shock my colleagues, but I'm willing to lay you 7 to 1 that not one cabinet minister gets up and explains on this bill why they're not taxing the millionaires. I'll give you 12 to 1. I'll give you 20 to 1 odds, and take all comers, Mr. Speaker, that there won't be a single cabinet minister who gets up and defends this bill vis-à-vis why there isn't a succession duty in this province.

I ask the government to use an old word as a reference: "Repent." Take some time to think over what you're doing.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: If you said that more often and thought about millionaires, I'd feel better.

I move that the motion be amended by leaving out the word "now" and adding the words "on this day six months hence."

[ Page 2063 ]

On the amendment.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to take too much of the House's time. Speaking to the amendment and some of the things that were stated earlier in this debate. I suppose if a back-bencher spent all of his time going about correcting all the baloney that you hear from across the way, you'd be working at it full time. But as an example, one of the members this morning spent a lot of time debating the question of how bad things were in British Columbia, the fact that consumer spending was down, and the fact that B.C. was lagging behind all of Canada. Doom and gloom.

[4:00]

In today's Province there's an announcement from the Royal Bank of Canada, and it says: "Bank Forecast Sees Better Times for B.C." The announcement reads as follows:

"The Royal Bank of Canada says B.C. will enjoy the fastest growth rate in Canada this year and in 1984. According to its latest Econoscope economic review, the bank should continue to lead the country, growing by 5.7 percent in real terms. The national average for 1983 is 3 percent growth."

With regard to the Leader of the Opposition's discussion about millionaires — and I see he's left the House — it's interesting in looking at what's happened in every province in the Dominion of Canada, I believe, regarding succession duties. Back in 1971 the federal government brought in a capital gains tax, and it was found by the provinces in the ensuing years that what the provinces were in fact doing by having succession duties was double taxation. If the members will check the record — and I will have the facts within a few minutes — I'm sure that you will find that every province in the Dominion of Canada has done away with the succession duties, because in effect what they ended up doing was taxing people twice. Under the federal income tax law, on death all the property that you hold, whether it's bonds, stocks or property, is treated as if it was sold on the day of death, and the beneficiaries to the estate must see that all of those taxes are paid on capital gains at that time. That's the reason for the repealing of succession duties across the Dominion of Canada.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we have visiting us from London, England, a very lovely lady, and a friend, I'd say, not of hundreds but of thousands of British Columbians who for so many years have been able to receive her advice, counsel and assistance in making No. 1 Regent Street a home away from home for people from our province. I would like all members to bid a most cordial welcome and our fondest respects to Miss Babs Denby.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as a frequent visitor to B.C. House in London, let me add my words of praise as well. We've always been hosted very well on a non-partisan basis in B.C. House, and should we visit there again when there is a new agent-general — perhaps the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), should fate be so kind to him — I hope that the staff are as good as their predecessors.

MR. SKELLY: We're discussing Bill 4, the Income Tax Amendment Act, Mr. Speaker, and there are two parts to it. We're discussing hoisting this bill for six months — six months hence from today's date. We're also discussing the advisability of doing that. I think the government should consider the arguments that will be put forward by the opposition in doing that. A lot of those arguments were contained in the speech made by the leader of this party in this House. It appears that the tax system in this province is skewed unfairly in favour of the rich and places a much heavier burden for the cost of government on the poor.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What is required before we pass these numerous changes in property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, etc., is a full analysis of the tax system as it operates in this province, and after that complete analysis — which should take about six months — then possibly the government should come back with a revised version of the bill if they come back with it at all.

As I said, Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to this bill, and both parts are equally offensive and should be reconsidered by the government. As you know, the first part, in the space of one and a half lines, repeals the renter's tax credit and the provincial tax credit, as it was called, for the citizens of British Columbia.

I don't recall the minister's exact words when the legislation was brought in, but I do have a copy of the budget speech in which the minister said:

I believe that this credit will effectively bring tax relief to those who need it most. The larger the family the larger the credit; the smaller the income the larger the credit. The elderly in particular will benefit from this measure. It is estimated that 75 percent of elderly tax filers will receive the credit. This important measure will be implemented in the 1981 tax year.

So the minister was aware of those who benefited most from the 1981 legislation, those in our province who needed that benefit most. Yet in the middle of a taxation year, in November 1982, the minister, by press release, suddenly snatched away this benefit, knowing that he was snatching away the benefit from the people who required it most. That's one part of the bill that the minister should reconsider during this six month hoist. I'll come back and discuss that a little bit more sometime later in my speech.

The second part is the part which refines the provisions for the political tax credit. It's interesting that when the minister snatched away the provincial tax credits from those who need it most, he did not also remove the political tax credit, which people are able to obtain when they make a donation to a political party. They're able to deduct that donation as a credit from their tax payable on their income tax form, and even get money back from the federal government. Why did the government not withdraw the tax credit for political donations? The reason is that this party in the government benches in this Legislature is a provincial party. It's a rump group. There is no other provincial party and no federal counterpart to this party that governs in British Columbia. They're a coalition of all of the right-wing elements in the province. So they can't rely on the federal tax credit that's available for political donations. What they did at the same time that they snatched that provincial tax credit from the senior citizens, the elderly, the handicapped, lower-income families and renters, is that they kept for themselves that tax credit that benefits exclusively the Social Credit Party in

[ Page 2064 ]

British Columbia. That's the real unfairness of this bill. We've mentioned and discussed before, in terms of other legislation, the unfairness of the Social Credit legislation in this session and how it applies unfairly to the poor, as opposed to the wealthy. This is one of those examples, and it's an example that the people of this province find revolting. How can a political party like this, which complains that they need restraint, that they have to back off on tax expenditures.... While they back off on tax expenditures that benefit the poor and thereby improve the economy, they also retain the political tax credit, which is of benefit exclusively to the Social Credit Party.

One thing we had hoped to see is not here. Maybe this is another reason why the government should pull this bill out of the House or vote for this hoist motion. It is in the federal tax legislation. When the federal tax legislation allows you to claim a credit for political donations, they also require disclosure of those political donations over a certain amount. You've probably seen the newspapers: once a year those political donations are published so that people know who supports which political parties. That's fair. If we're going to allow people to benefit from a tax credit, then at least the public should have the right to know who is benefiting from these tax credits. For example, the federal government requires that disclosure. Here's from the Globe and Mail of July 6, 1983, discussing corporate donations. On the corporate side, Canadian Pacific, the country's largest company in terms of sales, was also the largest single political donor — not to the NDP, which wants to nationalize the company's railway, but to the Liberals and the Conservatives. They've probably donated to the Social Credit Party as well, but because of the tax legislation in this province, which is not consistent with the similar tax legislation in the federal jurisdiction, we don't know if Canadian Pacific donated to Social Credit. But they probably did, since Social Credit is a coalition of Liberals and Conservatives. Since the Canadian Pacific donated to both parties, we can only assume that they donated to Social Credit as well.

Next came the Bank of Nova Scotia. As you saw in the Province of yesterday or the day before, the 11 chartered banks of Canada had a 39 percent increase in their profits in the first nine months of this year over last year. How did they get it? Through a comfortable financial regime that's been established for them by federal and provincial governments. Who did the Nova Scotia donate money to? They gave $37,698 to the Liberals and $30,000 to the Conservatives. Most of the other banks gave about $30,000 each to the two major parties. What did those banks give to Social Credit in British Columbia? Well, we can't tell. We don't know, because under our legislation, which roughly parallels....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) said it wasn't enough, so obviously they gave something, and clearly the government is giving something back out of taxes.

I do know that one of the chartered banks.... In fact, two of the chartered banks lent executives to Team B.C., which was also funded through the Ministry of Human Resources and is widely considered to be a Social Credit front organization. Possibly they gave their money directly to the front organizations, rather than to the party itself. You can go through the list.

In any case, the federal government requires this financial disclosure in exchange for that political tax credit. We were hoping to see in this legislation, in exchange for the tax credit in British Columbia, a similar disclosure provision. Unfortunately, the Social Credit government in this province and the Social Credit Party appear to have some fear of allowing the people to know who provides funding for that party. What are they afraid of? We know the banks and the large resource companies support the party. The Liberals and Conservatives nationally appear to have no fear about disclosing the source of their campaign funds. Why are Social Credit Party members in British Columbia so afraid of having the source of their campaign funds disclosed? That makes this legislation doubly unfair, because at the same time we're taking away the tax credit for low-income people, senior citizens and renters, we're allowing this political donations credit to remain. Yet we're not providing adequate disclosure so that people know who is getting the benefit of their tax money.

[4:15]

I'd like to get back to the provincial tax credit and the renter's tax credit. It's well known that there are certain measures that can be used under our income tax system to reduce the amount of taxable income. There are things like tax deductions — the personal exemption. We're all allowed to claim a personal exemption on our income tax form. But those types of deductions favour the rich and discriminate against the poor. I'll give you an example, which comes from an article by Neil Brooks, originally published in Saturday Night. I'll quote a small section from this article:

"But our Income Tax Act stands social policy on its head, subsidizing the well-to-do and denying help to the poor. The richer you are, the more assistance you receive. If you're fortunate enough to be in the 65 percent tax bracket, your saving on the $1,000 child care deduction, and thus the subsidy you receive, is $650. In the 25 percent bracket, the subsidy is worth only $250. If your income is so low that you pay no taxes, the deduction is worthless and the subsidy is nothing."

So the poorest families, even though they may pay the same amount for child care and for attention to their children, for day care and that type of thing, receive no benefit from that tax deduction on their income tax form. The poorest families receive no benefit. The wealthiest families, in the 65 percent tax range, receive the highest benefit. That's why Mr. Brooks, who is an expert on taxes, claims that the tax deduction system stands social policy on its head. It benefits the rich much more than it benefits the poor.

Then we have tax credits, such as the political tax credit. The one thing that the Canadian Council on Social Development suggests we should use more of in the Income Tax Act are refundable tax credits. That was the real benefit of the legislation that this government brought in in 1980, and it was supported on all sides of the House. Unfortunately, that was the first thing that was snatched away by the current legislation and the minister's press release in 1982. Surely the government needs time to reconsider this decision they've made. They say it's going to save them $92 million. Over the past two years we've pointed out other areas of provincial expenditures where that kind of money could be saved: travel expenses, ministerial office expenses, advertising expenses, where the government spends tens of millions of dollars wasting taxpayers' money to promote the political party that's

[ Page 2065 ]

currently in power. There are other areas of government expenditure that should have been cut back long before the government considered this necessary element of social and economic policy, the provincial tax credit and the renter's tax credit. That's the reason why we're asking the government to support this hoist motion: to give them a six-month opportunity to look into the effect of our tax system and how unequal it is as it affects the rich and the poor in this province. Recent federal budgets have brought into focus just how clearly unfair the tax system is across Canada, and some interesting news articles that come out. One was in Maclean's magazine right after the most recent federal budget, under the title "Canada's Tax System: Is It Fair?" I'd like to quote some of the sections out of that article, and even recommend the article itself to members on the government side, who are probably not all that aware of just how regressive our income tax system is. The article is from Maclean's, Vol. 96, No. 18, dated May 2, 1983:

"...even the common deductions used by many Canadians — retirement and home-ownership savings and child care expenses — effectively are more valuable to higher-income earnings. This is because the higher the tax bracket the higher the tax rate, and therefore the bigger the saving when deductions are applied against tax."

So all of the deductions that are included in our income tax form which provide for some measure of tax avoidance, Mr. Speaker, are of much more benefit to the rich than they are to the poor.

We've not always been aware of how great a percentage of federal and provincial government expenditures is made through the provision of tax expenditures — that is, by allowing individuals and corporations to avoid the paying of tax. The first disclosure of tax expenditures was made by the Joe Clark government in 1979, and I'll just quote that section from this article as well:

"In 1979 the Conservative government of Prime Minister Joe Clark produced Canada's first tax expenditure account, which showed that the government 'spent' $30 billion on tax breaks — compared to total direct spending for that year of $50 billion. While the Trudeau government used its restraint program to curb direct spending increases to 30 percent between 1976 and 1979, it exercised no such reserve about tax breaks; revenue forgone through tax concessions increased by 42 percent in the same period."

So this is a government in Ottawa that talks about restraints on spending and yet has exercised no restraints on tax expenditures. The current government in British Columbia operates in precisely the same way, allowing that unchecked growth in tax expenditure for other than the lowest-income earners and renters. The rich and corporations benefit from those tax expenditures much more than the poor and the renters.

That's been an interesting change. When we were in government it was pointed out by the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) that over the years corporations have paid a smaller and smaller percentage of the tax burden in the country and in the province, and individuals, especially in the lower-income groups, have shouldered more and more of that tax burden. Again, it's mentioned in that Maclean's article:

"Corporate tax breaks over the years have meant that companies now shoulder less of the national tax burden. In 1951 corporations carried 28 percent of the nation's tax burden, but by 1977 their portion was down to 12 percent. The official corporate tax rate is now 44 percent, but companies, particularly large ones, generally pay much less because of tax breaks."

And you'll recall, Mr. Speaker, from David Lewis's book, officially entitled Louder Voices but known across Canada by its subtitle The Corporate Welfare Burns, that many of the largest corporations in Canada actually paid no tax at all, and reaped tremendous tax expenditure benefits from the provincial government. For every one of those tax expenditures — that is, the government's allowance of certain tax avoidance measures — those of us who do pay taxes on our income, such as salaries, have to pay more in order to finance the government which allows those kinds of tax avoidance measures.

The Maclean's article also gives three different examples of taxpayers and how they are impacted on by the federal income tax system. The provincial income tax system works in precisely the same way. Unfortunately there hasn't been much investigation done of that provincial income tax system. We've had the Carter commission report nationally, we've had a number of other commissions which investigated the impact of our taxation system, but very little of that type of investigation has been done in the province. I think one of the reasons we should have this six-month hoist is to allow the government to do a full public inquiry into how the tax system in the province, and this measure in particular, impacts more harshly on the poor than it does on the wealthy.

To get back, the Maclean's magazine article considers three taxpayers. Taxpayer A, who receives $200,000 from dividend income, pays only 18 1/2 percent of his income in taxes. Taxpayer B, who receives $200,000 in employment income, pays 43.8 percent of his income in taxes. So there's a tremendous difference in the way the tax system impacts on those who collect dividends, who are generally those at the upper end of the income and wealth scale, and those who work for a living and earn salaries, who end up paying almost half their income in taxes. Then the article discusses taxpayer C, a person who makes $25,000 from employment income — the majority of people earning salaries from productive employment in this country — and he pays 14.4 percent of his income in taxes, almost as much, in percentage terms, as somebody who is receiving $20,000 in dividend income. I'll make copies of this for anybody in the House who wants them. This graphically illustrates that our tax system works more harshly against the poor than it does against the rich, and also works more harshly against those who earn incomes from salaries and hourly paid employment than against those who clip coupons and are paid dividends as a result of the ownership of shares in businesses. The burden is shouldered more by those who work than by those who don't have to, and that's one of the problems in our society.

The Premier recently made a speech, in secret in the Empress Hotel, to an extreme right-wing group of economists, including Milton Friedman and Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute. We don't know what he said, and I'm not sure the Premier knows what he said when he made the speech, because he's not that strong on economics, obviously. But one of the economists at the meeting was quoted as saying that unemployment insurance is the main cause of unemployment, which is ridiculous, because unemployment existed long before unemployment insurance did. But it's that

[ Page 2066 ]

kind of reversal of understanding that guides right-wing governments such as the one in office here in British Columbia. It seems also to be a reversal of social policy that we should hit the poor harder than we hit the rich. It just doesn't seem to make sense.

[4:30]

One of the oldest democracies is the one established in Athens around 2,400 years ago. We're going back a long time, but much has been written about that democracy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Alcibiades' time?

MR. SKELLY: No, this is not Alcibiades. Alcibiades represented the kind of man who was popular at the decline of Greek democracy, the kind of man who believed his mandate and power gave him the right to impose his will on the poor and the weak. I suppose Alcibiades would be a Social Credit member in today's society, because this is a government that believes it has the mandate to turn the tax system and the government's expenditure system against the poor. No, I'm talking about what was really, in conservative times in ancient Athens, the fundamental principle that guided the country: that is, that those who had most, and who derived the most benefit from society, had an obligation to give more.

There was a class system in Athens, and that system was based on what you contributed and what you were capable of contributing. If you were capable of providing a ship for the Athenian navy, then you received status as a result of your contribution. If you were capable of providing the funding to give armour to four or five soldiers, then your status was a little bit lower. Your status in society and the contribution expected from you in society was defined by what you had to give. In our society we've turned that around and made it possible for the wealthy to avoid contributing to society as a whole. I submit that that's a perversion of democracy and the democratic system that traces its roots back 2,400 years, to the system established in ancient Athens. For example, somebody who was able to contribute five bushels of wheat to the army of the day was called a pentakosiomedimnos, which means a five-bushel-a-year man. He earned a certain amount of status by being able to contribute that amount. It's like John F. Kennedy's statement: Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country. He was aware that the status of a person in a democracy should derive from what he's able to contribute. The Social Credit government has stood that principle on its head in a number of ways — by allowing the rich to take from society and by allowing the rich to avoid making a contribution to society. In that way they have in fact made a perversion of democracy here in British Columbia.

So there are a lot of lessons we can learn, both in economic matters and matters of social obligation, from that democracy that was founded almost 2,500 years ago. We're straying from the point of the bill, although that's probably what we should really be talking about: how much we can contribute rather than how much we can take away from society. Also, how we can create a system where those who benefit the most.... I'm not saying they should contribute everything; that would be foolish. There are even ancient Greek proverbs that people who give everything are fools. We're not saying that. We're saying that those who derive the greatest benefit from society should also get their status from making the greatest contribution; that that is a fundamental principle. And the poor should give what they can afford to give.

Some economic work has been done at Dalhousie University on the poor in this country. We consider them a drain on our economy and on society. We say the "problem" of the poor, the "problem" of the unemployed, the "problem" of welfare. Yet it's been carefully documented and clearly established that in our society the poor pay their way. In fact they more than pay their way, because they pay every single tax that we pay. The gentleman member from Maillardville pointed out that the rich pay the same taxes as the poor. He had turned the whole issue on its head. The poor pay social services tax, the 7 percent sales, their insurance and medical premiums. They pay their own way; no question about it. And they use fewer of the services of society than do the wealthy, because they have less access. They can't move around. Being poor, they don't always know what services are available, and, believe me, the rich and the middle class do know what services are available. They make it their business to know which provisions are available to them for tax avoidance. That's why the system has to be restructured to make it fairer, and to reduce the burden of tax on the poor and increase the burden of tax on the rich; a little bit, because as I said, we don't want to take everything away from the rich. But it would require a very small transfer. The rich would not suffer greatly, the poor would benefit greatly and society as a whole would benefit greatly if we took six months out to examine our tax system and the unequal impact it has on rich and poor, and come back with a bill that is fairer in its application.

There's another thing that should be considered as well: disposable income. The more you have, the less likely you are to spend it in the local economy. The less disposable income you have, the more likely you are to spend it for the necessities of life, or the things that are close to the necessities of life, and for immediate creature comforts. So you spend that disposable income in the local economy. You buy gas to do a little Sunday driving, or maybe you'll go to a theatre or a restaurant once a week, or once a month if you don't have very much money. If you're rich you have an opportunity to invest that disposal income. You may buy South African Krugerrands which are of no benefit whatsoever to our economy. Or you may invest in hard currency equities or shares. You could do a number of things. You could put the money in Swiss bank accounts. The poor don't have that option, so a bit of an increase in the disposable income of the poor works to the direct benefit of local economies, and that's what we should be trying to achieve. This bill is totally counter-productive to that effort. The government has never, to my knowledge, accepted a motion to hoist a bill for six months to reconsider what they're doing and to look into the whole issue.

Right now this province is in a state of confrontation, a state I've never seen it in before. The province is looking for some type of movement on the part of both sides. The sides are defined as perhaps labour, Solidarity, the NDP, church groups, etc., on the one side, and on the other, as the Social Credit government, which feels it has a clear mandate deriving from the general election of May 5, 1983. Right now we need some movement which would show that the government is willing to take a more careful look at its legislation and the impact of that legislation, and maybe some movement on the part of those on the other side to cooperate with the government in that type of analysis.

[ Page 2067 ]

This is an opportunity for the government to examine this type of tax legislation to see how they can change the system so that it bears less harshly on the poor and on middle-income people than it does on the rich. I would encourage the government to take a look at the legislation and at the motion to hoist this bill for six months in order to give it some thought. Perhaps out of that consideration we can see far more consultation and cooperation in this province, and instead of the nose-to-nose confrontation that we have now, out of that cooperation and consultation would grow a more cooperative and progressive approach to the needs of this province and a greater understanding of the difficulties that the province faces in economic terms.

We all understand that the province has fallen on some hard economic times and that confrontation clearly is not helping to bring us out of that morass. It's not helping at all. I feet that what is needed at this point is acceptance by the government of a hoist motion such as this. It will give us a little time to reflect, to reconsider, and time to look at some of the things we're doing. It's one thing to say that the May 5 mandate gave us unlimited power to do what we want to do, but that's not how democracy works. We all know that. We all know that democracy requires careful consultation, meeting with the people face to face, finding out what their concerns are.

Of that poll which took place on the weekend and was reported by the Vancouver Sun, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is reported to have said: "Clearly we haven't sold our program well enough. We've got to go out and talk to people about our program." A six month hoist will give the government precisely that opportunity. We could set up a mechanism — we could cooperate in that mechanism — which would allow the government to consult with groups in society, on a public basis, as to what tax measures are necessary to achieve restraint, as to what economic measures are necessary to achieve restraint, and as to what labour relations mechanisms are necessary. Through that process of consultation progress can be made. But in the confrontation that we're facing right now the province is actually being set back and productive energies are being wasted. Energies in this Legislature are being wasted. We all know that, Mr. Speaker; we're all aware of the costs.

We have an opportunity here to take six months out and reconsider these tax measures which, as I pointed out, bear more harshly on the poor than they do on the rich. I support the motion to hoist this bill and would encourage the government to reconsider the position they've taken. I'm certain the people who have done without that tax credit for the last year would have no objection to a six-month hoist, because they haven't expected the tax credit for this year in any case. Maybe out of the considerations and investigations that take place during the hoist they can expect a much fairer income tax system.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: Certainly. The economy might pick up, as the member for Shuswap said, quoting the Royal Bank of Canada, which has been saying that for months — for years. Maybe the government will get lucky and the economy will pick up, because the government certainly isn't doing very much to encourage it.

So that's the reason I support this six-month hoist.

Let me mention one way that this.... I'll have to save it for the main motion, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the attention that was paid to my speech by the members opposite, and look forward to their debate.

[4:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I recognize the member for Cowichan-Malahat, because I do not want to take any of her time, I would like to remind the members once again that we are now discussing the amendment to Bill 4. Although I know it's very difficult, I would remind them of the requirements for relevancy when discussing the bill, and also remind them that tedious repetition is one of those things that is not to be entered into. I must say that the previous speaker did very well in his discourse on this particular amendment, in my opinion, but I’ll just remind all the rest of the members, because when there is lengthy discussion on bills I believe the Chair must be particularly aware and must try particularly to apply the rules of this House in that regard.

MRS. WALLACE: I will try to stay within the confines of debate that you have outlined, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance was out of the House during nearly all of my colleague's remarks. As you said, Mr. Speaker, he made some very interesting and thoughtful points as to why we should be taking a little more time to think about this particular piece of legislation. Certainly his presentation was one which I would hope the minister would consider with an open mind. It was a very thoughtful presentation and brought into play a broad spectrum of the problems we must consider when we are thinking about whether or not we are going to remove this particular tax credit at this particular time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It should be remembered that it's almost a year since the announcement was made that this tax credit would no longer apply. This decision was taken by the government without benefit of legislation, and because of their stated intent to bring in the legislation the federal authorities went along with the proposal for this delayed piece of legislation. In fact, even though many people had applied, inasmuch as there was no legislation on the books at the time the tax forms were being filed, when the legislation was actually introduced those claims were paid out without the benefit of this tax exemption.

I think it's important to remember why we have this piece of legislation on the books. I can do no better than to quote from the minister when he introduced it and talked about why it was to be worded as it was and applied as it was; that it would apply not only to taxpayers but to tax filers, people who didn't actually pay any tax — the very low-income people. He talked about the formula: that the credit would be 3 percent of the personal exemption. He said that was for two reasons: first, the formula would target more benefits to those tax filers claiming more dependants, as well as to the elderly, so those in need would receive more. He recognized that there was a need, he recognized that the formula as applied would provide that greater amount of relief to the neediest. His second reason for choosing this particular formula was that personal exemptions are indexed under the

[ Page 2068 ]

Income Tax Act, and therefore if inflation continues to increase in future years, the level of benefits under the tax credit will also increase proportionately.

When the minister rises in the House and makes that kind of a statement introducing a bill, Mr. Speaker, it indicates to me, and I think it indicates to the public in no uncertain terms, that that is the stated intent — that that will be a continuing benefit and that it is to be applied based on inflation and the greatest need. Those are two very fine principles that we on his side of the House were pleased to welcome and accept. It doesn't happen too often. We find ourselves at cross purposes here most of the time. But in this particular item we were agreed that this was an excellent way to go. The estimated cost that the minister gave at that time was $100 million. That's not much out of a $7 billion budget. It is my contention and it is the belief of those of us who sit on this side of the House that it is the responsibility of government to assist those in greatest need, and particularly to assist those in greatest need in times of recession. I think you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the House, would agree that we are in a recession. Certainly that has been the argument we have heard around this province by government members when they talk of their need to restrain themselves — that everyone must restrain themselves, that we must have restraint. The reason given is that we are in tough times, we are in a recession. But the point that seems to have now escaped the government is that it is their responsibility to assist those in greatest need in times of recession. Certainly this particular piece of legislation, if left on the statute book — if it is not repealed, as is the stated intent of this bill — will achieve that kind of system to some extent.

I think it's worth while to point out just what this would mean in dollars and cents to some typical family in British, Columbia — for example, a couple, both old age pensioners, would have been eligible, and were eligible in the previous year, if they had just the pension as their income, for $266.70 personal tax credit, plus a renter's credit of $150, for a total of $416.70. That may not sound like very much in this chamber, where we talk in millions and billions of dollars, but I tell you, to an old age pensioner who is trying to get by on an extremely limited income, who is being forced to meet increased costs in rent.... We heard figures in the House today that at the minimum cost of building a low-rental apartment, it would have to be rented at $600 a month. When you are facing those kinds of increases, when you have been facing 10 and 11 and 12 percent inflation in the last few years.... It is down a bit now, but even at 5 percent inflation, if your income is not going up and your costs are going up, you are in trouble. This credit is the thing that makes the difference to a couple like the two old age pensioners living on that minimum return. I don't think this government really wants to take it out on old age pensioners. I think they should take a second look. That's why I think it is a good idea to move second reading back for six months. After all, it has been a year since the program was announced. When the bill, if it ever does pass this Legislature.... It is retroactive back to January 1, 1982. So what is six months? We've taken this long. Why not take a little longer and have a good look at what we're doing?

I think we should think about a single mother with two children. She would be eligible to claim $147 personal tax credit and a renter's grant of $150, for a total of $297. When you are trying to raise two children without a partner, that is not very much. There are a great many young women in this position in this province today. In most instances they are in the low-income bracket. I had a report on my desk yesterday — unfortunately I don't believe I have it here today — of an affirmative action study being undertaken by B.C. Hydro. It indicates in no uncertain terms that women are in a low-paid ghetto in the clerical and stenographic field. Many of those women are the sole breadwinner and many of them have children to support. Surely $297 is a worthwhile investment to help the future of those children. It may mean the difference between a Christmas and no Christmas. It may mean the difference between belonging to the skating club or the hockey team, or playing baseball, or many of those things that we have come to recognize as being a necessary part of our social structure.... If we are to ensure that young people grow up with a healthy normal attitude, a good social conscience, and do not later become a charge on society, it would be a good investment in our future to give $300 a year to the single mother with two children in order that she may provide just a little more for those children, help a little more to ensure that they grow up to be good, responsible citizens, that they have the opportunity to participate in community and extracurricular school programs,

That's not too much to ask. We have a lot of unemployment in this province today — a great many people who are in receipt of unemployment insurance. The head of a household who is in receipt of UI, with two children, would be eligible for personal tax credits of $240.30, plus the renter's credit of $150. These are maximum amounts that she would be eligible for — $390. When you are the breadwinner in a family and suddenly, through no fault of your own, your income stops — the mill is closed, the woods are closed, the store that you are working for has had to lay off staff because those people who used to work in the forest industry are no longer able to patronize that store as fully.... When that is cut off, it is a pretty traumatic experience. When you have always been able to go out and earn and support your family, then you have to rely on a percentage, a limited amount of income, not anything like what you had been getting.... You probably bought a house, you have got payments to meet. Again, the children are there. You want to give them the opportunity to play on the hockey team, to participate in school sports, school trips, and to do all those things that normal, healthy young people should have the right to do. In terms of this Legislature, $400 is not very much. But it is a lot of money to the head of the household who is trying to provide for his family and his children. It is important that we take time to decide.

[5:00]

I notice the Minister of Finance has gone again. He is no more interested in my comments than he was in the comments of my colleague, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, there is no standing order in this House that insists that he be in the House when his bills are under discussion. But I think that it important that we recognize that he is not in the House and is not listening to the very sincere arguments that we are trying to make on this side of the House against this kind of ad hockery in coming up with a tax policy for British Columbia. And ad hockery it is, Mr. Speaker. When you announce in one year that you are going to have a continuing program of tax credits that is going to benefit the low-paid, the lowest income people, people that don't even pay income tax, and that it is going to continue based on the rate of inflation, so it will increase as inflation increases, then the next year you announce, without benefit of any change in legislation, that

[ Page 2069 ]

you're going to take it all back.... Six months later you finally bring in a bill that's going to be retroactive to the first of last year — a year and a half of retroactivity. That's ad hockery at its worst, and it shows the lack of thought, time and consideration that has gone into this government's planning of its financial future. It's a bit disgraceful.

It's interesting that at the same time the cuts to the low-income people I've been talking about were taking place, we had the introduction of the so-called Billy Bonds. These were bonds that could be purchased by British Columbians, and for those bonds there would be a tax credit.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise on standing order 43. What on earth could the BCRIC bonds have to do with the amendment on Bill 4 before us in this House?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. We are on a hoist amendment, and the principle of second reading debate on this type of amendment should be the reasons for that hoist and that delay. I'm sure the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat can relate her debate to that.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reason I was talking about the BCRIC bonds, or the Billy Bonds as they've been commonly called, is that I'm talking about the need to hoist this bill so that, rather than an ad hoc tax policy, we can come up with something more comprehensive, more all encompassing and fairer. I wanted to point out that while we're taking away with this bill the kind of moneys — the $416 from the old age pensioner couple, the $300 from the single mother with two children, and the $400 from the head of a household on UIC.... At the same time, if someone has enough money to be able to invest in some bonds, under the tax credit arrangement that the government has set up.... If, for example, they were to purchase $50,000 worth of bonds, the rate for the non-tax-exempt B.C. bond is $5,125, less the....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same standing order as I did before. I very clearly heard the previous Speaker in the chair warn the House about relevance in debate. To speak of those or any other bonds in the debate on the hoist of Bill 4 is certainly irrelevant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again I will remind the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat that the principle of this amendment is that of delay and hoist, and debate should be relevant to that principle. I'm sure the member can do that.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. I think you understand what I'm saying here. What I'm saying is that if we hoist the bill, then we have an opportunity to look at some possible changes and some possible other ways of getting this funding. That person who bought the $50,000 worth of bonds would be getting a tax credit, in effect — or a gain — of some $513. I think that if we reviewed those kinds of policies, we might find that if we did not allow the person who was able to afford to buy $50,000 worth of bonds.... We would be able to fully offset more than any one.... For $100,000 worth of bonds we could cover the entire cost of these three families I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that we need to look at other ways of balancing our budget, or, because what we're doing is not balancing it, keeping our deficit down as low as possible. It is very unfair to always take from the person least able to afford to pay. That's what this bill does: it takes from the person least able to afford to pay.

Church groups, renters' groups and low-income groups around the province have raised their objections to it and expressed their concerns. It's bad enough to think about taking this away now, at the same time that rent controls are being removed.... I'm talking about ability to pay. Without rent controls you’re going to have higher rents. The loss of the incentive program for people in receipt of GAIN means their income is down, yet they're not going to receive these tax credits, have not received them this year.

It all hangs together. You can't look at any one aspect of a taxation bill in isolation from your total taxation policy. That's why it's important to hoist this bill and to review what direction we in British Columbia are going. Are we going to continue adding the burden onto the shoulders of the people with the lowest income? If you don't care about those people, at least think about the economic consequences. Every dollar that those low-income people have in their hands is spent, is put back into the economy to help stimulate an economy that badly needs stimulation. This government, with these kinds of policies, continually increasing the load on people with limited incomes.... I know I can't reflect on other bills, but the increase in the sales tax works a much greater hardship on the low-income person than on the high-income person. That goes right down the line for things that have not been covered by legislation. Increases in various fees, our Hydro bills — one service after another has had fairly excessive increases, far beyond the five-and-six. It's 100 percent in many cases that people have been forced to come up with. It's much more difficult for people on low incomes. It takes away more and more of the consumer dollar that normally buys consumer goods and is put back into the economy.

My friend from Alberni talked about the fact that if the money is left in the hands of the people who already have a great deal of wealth, they are not going to spend it for consumer goods. We've seen so much of it: tax credits, deferred taxes for corporations in order that they may upgrade their facilities. What has happened? True, they've upgraded that facility, and what has that done? They've used taxpayers' dollars to upgrade that facility, to modernize and automate it, and we've seen people laid off, put out of their jobs as a result, with more and more people like parents, the breadwinner, now on UIC — if they're fortunate. If UIC has run out, they're on social assistance, which is more unfortunate. It's a lower income. Fewer dollars pumped back into the economy. It doesn't work.

We've seen it happen across Canada and, to a greater degree, here in B.C. Over the last six or seven years this government has gradually taken more and more out of the pockets of the people who normally reinvest all of their income in the local economy. That has a stifling effect on the economy of British Columbia, the results of which are now becoming more apparent. This bill is part of it. Apart from being heartless, it doesn't make good economic sense to go in this direction. That's my major concern with this bill.

I want to deal just briefly with the other aspects of this bill.

Political parties are required to register. We need to have some concerns about this. Under section 2 of the bill I note there is a requirement that all political parties must register by October 31 — that's not so far away — to be eligible for the next year. Inasmuch as this bill has not yet been passed, and it

[ Page 2070 ]

may or may not be passed by October 31, the time is getting very short to bring this into being. I doubt that you can register when there is no act under which to register. I doubt if it would be an official registration. If political parties are going to be able to register and be eligible for provincial tax credits for political purposes, then certainly we have to make sure that the timing is right.

[5:15]

So I think perhaps it would be a good idea if we hoist this bill for six months. At least then it comes into effect when there is ample time after it becomes legislation for political parties to register before October 31 and have machinery in place to accommodate all of this as far as the political contributions go. That's another reason for suggesting that this be hoisted.

Along with that, if, in fact, we are going to retain political tax credits for political contributions, then surely we should look at just how that is undertaken. To simply allow those kinds of credits without any other provisos is not really in the best interests of overall democracy. I think the federal legislation is far superior to the kind of thing that we do here in the province, because it does specify that if you are going to get those tax credits as a political party, you have some obligations and responsibilities to make some information public about how your party operates. That seems fair to me, Mr. Speaker. So another good reason for hoisting this bill is to ensure that we have a good look at that. If we are going to retain political tax credits, then along with that we put some obligations on those political parties. That's only fair

It also seems to me to be somewhat unfair to have a bill where you have two tax credits discussed. One is for political purposes, and one, as the minister says, is a formula that will target more benefits to those tax filers claiming more dependents, as well as to the elderly. So those most in need will receive more under this formula, and he gave some examples. Secondly, he said that under this formula the personal exemptions are indexed, and that the formula and the tax credit will increase as inflation increases. That particular tax, which was aimed at 40 percent of all British Columbia families — that indicates the need that's out there — and the 75 percent of the elderly that the minister estimated would benefit from this tax, would be withdrawn from this legislation, while the political party contributions tax credit remains intact without any strings or obligations. Strange priorities, Mr. Speaker. If the government so badly needs money, why doesn't it take it from political parties rather than from the elderly, the single parents and the people trying to live on UIC or social assistance? Strange priorities, and good reasons for hoisting this bill for six months.

Obviously it was done simply to cover the statement the minister had made six months prior: making decisions, taking back tax credits that had been legislated in these chambers without authority of legislation and bringing in a bill soon to be two years retroactive. You know, Mr. Speaker, that's not good government — my friend the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) is not here — and that's not leadership. That's an ad hoc tax system — jumping here, grasping there, not knowing where we're going, no overall plan and budgets every year that have a higher and higher deficit. Every year we have increases in the budget expenditures far in excess of the government's stated aim of keeping within or beneath the increase in the gross provincial product. They make a lot of statements, but they never follow and carry them out. They change constantly. We've seen bills brought in that were changed, and this is an example. For those reasons it seems absolutely essential that this bill be hoisted, and that we look at it and consider whether or not it is necessary and essential to recoup or to hang on to this $100 million. Let's look at some of those ministers' office expenses that we've talked about over the last few years.

If you cut back on ministerial travel, office expenses and office furniture, you could easily find $100 million. I could find it with no trouble in those ministerial office estimates. For two years in a row we've identified enough money to cover those tax credits. I think the government has to take a second look at this. That's why we put the motion to hoist, and that's why I believe it's the way to go.

I would like to quote the minister when he introduced the bill that brought these tax credits into place. He said: "No one likes to pay taxes. What we have attempted to do with this bill is spread the burden as evenly and equitably as possible. I believe that we have achieved that." If he believed that this bill achieved that, then why did he change the bill? Why did he withdraw it? If he has to have more tax income, then why not change the areas to where that income comes from people who can afford to invest $50,000 or $100,000 in bonds in order to gain tax credits? Why doesn't he change that instead of changing this particular section, which takes money out of the pockets of low-income families? It takes money out of the economy at the local level and does nothing to stimulate this very badly sagging economic situation in which we now find ourselves.

Those are the reasons why we on this side of the House believe this bill should be hoisted, and why I support the motion to hoist it for six months.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the debate.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

[5:30]

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 8

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 11, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2071 ]

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: My understanding is that we are on a motion that second reading be six months hence, is that correct?

MR. SPEAKER: That is correct, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: That is a very reasonable amendment. It is one that should commend itself to all hon. members. A motion on this bill to read it six months hence will give the government the time that it says it needs to demonstrate clearly to the public that this bill is needed. What is six months? Just think of the possibilities.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: At $80,000 a day.

MR. LAUK: Well, you know, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Environment's (Hon. Mr. Brummet's) salary is close to $80,000 a year, plus expenses and that kind of thing, isn't it? I won't make any negative comments about whether or not he is worth it. I won't make any positive ones either.

Now in six months it may be that the government can convince the majority of British Columbians that this kind of severe legislation is necessary. Frankly, I think it would take all of that to do so.

As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, Bill 11 is an act that confronts the organized trade union movement, not only in the civil service but in the private sector as well. As I pointed out before, this confrontation leads to very harsh labour management relations — lack of consultation, lack of conciliation and lack of negotiation between the parties. A complete absence of all of those things has led to a situation of paranoia in society generally, and especially on the part of the government. There is distrust and a kind of attitude that the civil service is lazy, slothful, incompetent and that they are trying to get the government. I have heard some ministers speak in very paranoiac terms about their own civil servants. That is a sad thing, because it states clearly to their own civil service: "We don't trust you. We don't think you have the goodwill necessary to do what is necessary for the good of the province." That's what you're saying to your own civil servants. In effect you are saying that to a great many people who are in trade unions and in the private sector as well.

The restraint legislation — the stabilization act as it is called — is the red flag before the bull, the bull being the BCGEU. What does it do? Does it succeed in achieving the goals that the government has stated it is supposed to achieve? The answer is no. If its goals are restraint, if its goals are to limit compensation, then I contend that the government would be much better off to form what I have described before as a social contract with the parties and develop an understanding and goodwill between the parties. If you talk to these people on that basis and keep them adequately informed instead of playing your cards so close to your chest. they would be most willing to cooperate. I'm almost sure of it. The question is raised: "How do you get people to cooperate?" Try it first. Don't all of a sudden assume that they're untrustworthy, that they're not going to cooperate, that they don't have the goodwill necessary to cooperate, and bludgeon them to death, as the hon. member is indicating.

But who suffers? It's not just them; it's the whole of society. As I indicated earlier, I charge that this government is deliberately setting up a confrontation with labour, creating that kind of confrontation so as to cause massive job action, and then they can come in on their white horse and play the hero for the public, hoping against hope that their popularity will rise and they'll be able to slide through another year. They've tried similar things before and those things have failed. It's clear that this legislation is designed not to achieve restraint and stabilization of compensation for the civil service; it's designed to create a confrontation and allow the government to come in and play the hero.

A further six months' consideration of this legislation could also help us to determine in a reasonable way where you can save on costs generally in the cost of government. I've stated before that I think it's maximum incompetence on the part of the government to take the very simplistic view of cutting needed wages, staff and programs — and programs are the most important aspect of the whole package. I get the impression that the government had a few phone calls and letters from friends and supporters saying: "Why don't you slash away at the Human Rights Commission; slash away at the rentalsman; slash away at this, that and the other. Cut the civil service salaries; after all, they're all incompetent." I think the back bench and the government really start to believe this sometimes. And believing these kinds of things is very dangerous, because they are acting in a precipitous and most dangerous way.

What is their motive? Their motive is crass, it's political. It is not to govern well in the province. It is not to take care of the future of this province. It's strictly a narrow, political motive. That's not surprising. The government, and the Premier in particular, are not taking advice from experienced politicians who have had to win a nomination, have had to win an election — some of you many times — in the face of some pretty formidable opposition in some cases. You've won your seats in the back bench and in the government. Is the Premier taking advice from you? The answer is no. He's taking advice from high-class, high-paid political hacks from Ontario and elsewhere who are giving advice as sort of experts.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

If they hire these experts and take advice exclusively from experts, this is the kind of legislation they bring down. I think it is, by and large — and certainly in the long term — bad advice, because this legislation will be the undoing of the government. Yes, there is some degree of support and popularity for drastic measures. People out in society are saying to themselves: "Well, I've had to suffer; I've had to cut back; what's the government doing? What are other people doing? If I'm going to suffer, I want other people to suffer." Unfortunately, that's generally an attitude widely held. That's not to say that the legitimate argument raised by the government about efficiency in the civil service shouldn't be wisely and carefully considered, because there are some legitimate arguments; but to create this confrontation and rivalry with the public and the civil service is a very sad thing. It does create the kind of relationship between the employer, being the government, and the civil service that will lead to widespread work stoppages, work to rule, demoralization. Services —

[ Page 2072 ]

those that aren't cut back — will suffer, the people on the bottom end of the civil service will continue to suffer, and so on. Reason and fairness in the approach to negotiating with the trade unions involved in the civil service will go by the board and it will just be high noon all over again.

This is what the Premier and his expert advice from back east are arguing for. It's the old sixties politics, the old-time politics, which is really outdated, where you meet at high noon and draw your six-gun and all this juvenile nonsense. It's the same thing with these marathon sessions, closure and so on. It's juvenile, it's the "so is your old man" attitude. Are we reasonable adults or not? We've got to sit down and discuss a reasonable and rational approach to the problems facing the government — problems which face all of us today. Old-style confrontational politics don't work. It's arrogant and destructive.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I would ask the hon. minister to withdraw that remark. He's suggesting that my remarks are not made sincerely. I am making them sincerely.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thought the hon. minister said: "You sound so sincere."

[5:45]

MR. LAUK: Oh, it was clear, Mr. Speaker, by innuendo and the tone of his voice. It's the only time he's raised it above a monotone and I clearly heard that tone of voice. It was a cynical and facetious attack on this little back-bencher in the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, if in fact you intended to....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I think, as has been pointed out, my remark was: "And you sound so sincere." I'll withdraw that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Clearly, it sounded like a monotone.

MR. LAUK: Yes, the second version did.

The old-style politics as represented by Bill 11 has got to stop. The government is going through heady days since May 5. They're quite enamoured with their election victory. They came smashing into the temple here and they're practically sacking it. Certainly they're sacking parliamentary institutions one by one, and they're destroying whatever goodwill and democratic feeling there was in the civil service in relation to the government of the day.

The civil service now is very paranoid; it's very demoralized. They don't know who is going to get fired next. They don't know whether they'll ever have another increase, even if there's an upturn in the economy. They look at Bill 11 and see that all the power is taken away from the collective bargaining system and given to the cabinet. The decisions outlined in Bill 11, the definitions of productivity and ability to pay — those vague phrases in the legislation — are such that.... Those definitions are left also with the government. It seems clear that collective bargaining for the civil service is over.

Now what's going to take its place? This is the big question we have to ask ourselves. Is it going to be the inefficiencies and costly delays of strikes, work to rule, demoralization, more and more sick days and so on? Are they going to make across-the-board cuts and by attrition only deal with the size of the civil service? This can go on for years. Who suffers? In the short term the taxpayers who are suffering, and who want everybody else to suffer, will say that's great; but in the long term even they will turn around and say: "We are suffering from lack of service. We do not get the kind of service we've been used to from this government. We're getting so much less that it's drastically affecting our daily social and business lives, and at the workplace."

When this legislation passes, when the full package is in place and the effect of it starts to reach the people of this province, their response is going to be one of great anger. It is not for them to foresee those difficulties at this time, but it is for the government to foresee those difficulties and take conciliatory steps now. Eventually the people will see that this juvenile legislation, this shoot-from-the hip, arrogant legislation, is going to cause a great deal of difficulty for them. The needed services to run their businesses and their lives will be directly affected.

People who are not likely — in terms of what is likely in daily life — to seek out increased health care, for whatever problem or injury, will more and more realize that this government is holding back, on the bottom end in the health care system, people who have been underpaid for years and years. I agree with the approach of looking at the health care system, but this act does not deal with the bulk of the costs of the health care system. It deals with that minor portion — it's not minor in the dollar sense, but the portion of the money that goes for those health care workers in the system who have always been on the bottom end of the income scale in our society.

The doctors take almost $1 billion out of the health care system for the fee-for-service program. Are you dealing with that in some way? Have you asked the doctors to cooperate in a way that is intelligible? When those kinds of things happen then you can be taken seriously under this kind of legislation. The tremendous cost of the health care system is largely fed through very high salaries to doctors, and I don't think we can always justify those costs. I don't think we can always say that doctors deserve that kind of income. By the same token, I don't think you can particularly focus on doctors; it would be the same mistake you're making in Bill 11 by focusing on health care workers.

I therefore add to my point that you have not considered this legislation, not considered its impact and its import upon the people of the province. You should take this opportunity over the next six months to do so. I'm not sure that it's an economic philosophical problem, I'm not sure that this government is even practising what it preaches. I don't agree with its economic philosophy, which is a sort of monetarist philosophy. I say "sort of" because there's little evidence in their budget that it's monetarist. Their legislation makes monetarist sounds, but it's all a hodgepodge of confusion and woolly-headed nonsense. The budget itself is inflationary. It's a Keynesian budget. The legislation, on the other hand, is pulling back, holding back the expansion of the civil service — or that's what they claim — but its effect is merely to cut back on services to the taxpayers. There's a strong argument to be made — and Dr. Dobell certainly put it forward very

[ Page 2073 ]

eloquently — that in the long run these cutbacks and this legislation are going to cost the taxpayers more money.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You can call him a dumb-bell if you like, Mr. Minister, but I call him Dr. Dobell.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member is out of place to make a comment like that in reference to the name of the author of the report to which he is referring, and I would ask him to withdraw the comment. I made no such statement whatsoever, and the member is very much aware of it.

MR. LAUK: I withdraw that if the minister is offended. I wouldn't attribute that to the hon. minister.

However, he did say that Dr. Dobell was a Liberal, and I thought....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps, hon. member, we can return at this time to the matter before the House, which of course is a resolution to hoist Bill 11.

MR. LAUK: Wouldn't you agree, Mr. Speaker, that if Dr. Dobell is a Liberal the spelling of his name is wrong?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Of course, hon. member, you are not baiting the Chair to become involved in debate, so I won't answer the question. I urge you once again to get back to the debate before the House.

MR. LAUK: As I was saying before the minister made his cross-comment, Dr. Dobell has pointed out that Bill 11 and other legislation is the kind of legislation that is going to increase the cost to the taxpayer. The government argues restraint, but you haven't thought out the legislation. If you thought out the legislation you'd realize that cutting back in the key areas where you have is going to cause a backup in the system. You're going to cause such serious situations in human rights and human resources that the eventual cost to the provincial taxpayer will be much higher. You've got example after example to show that if you don't deal quickly with some problems in the family and in society they grow larger. They don't go away simply because you've eliminated the legislation. These problems don't disappear or go away; they become larger and more costly. They drain the public purse, and chaos reigns in society. You can't expect the people in the community to work daily for their own lives and families, and then have to concern themselves on a volunteer basis with everything that happens in society. Mind you, I wish there were more of that. I don't argue against volunteerism. I think it's a healthy thing in society when neighbour helps neighbour. But you can't put too much pressure on people, because sooner or later it's going to explode.

The hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is sneering. He is very uncomfortable these days, but I feel that what I have to say is true. The hon. member shouldn't be upset at it, he should think about it. He shouldn't form inflexible, stubborn opinions about the legislation that he's asked to follow blindly and to support.

Dr. Dobell and others have pointed out that these costs will grow, so what is the government trying to do? Is it really a restraint program, or is it a political exercise? Obviously it's a political exercise. They know as well as anybody else that Bill 11 and other legislation does not lead to restraint, it leads to more cost. They know it leads to chaos. They know it is going to lead to a confrontation with the BCGEU. They know it could lead to a widespread massive job action, which they half-heartedly say they don't want. We know what they want. They want a political confrontation so that they can play the hero.

If they were sincere about health costs they would deal openly and courageously with health costs. You attack practical nursing staff, health care staff, their salaries and incomes. This is the meanest possible way to impose restraint. Get to the heart of the health care system; get to the preventive side of it, to the over-use of some of its more expensive areas, and have a close look at the incomes of the doctors and so on to see what can be done about that. Sit down with all of them. I am not saying to isolate the doctors and say, "You are going to have to pay and nobody else will," but is there some way to determine whether some of the more expensive procedures in health care are unnecessary? I don't think it is for lay people such as us to make those judgments, but they should be investigated. We should know something about that. That is going to take time. It may not take six months, but if you take the six months, if you vote for our hoist motion.... I see I am getting through to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I think he is slowly coming around — or is that just indigestion? I live in hope, and if they vote for this hoist motion....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you going to get relevant, reflecting directly on the motion to hoist? I was just about to ask you to attempt to become a little more relevant in your comments, but I think you may have heard me turn the mike on and beat me to it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with your perception. I really am. Clearly, Speakers who have sat in this chamber for 26 years and in that Chair have had a tough time making a judgment about relevancy but you seem to do it with such ease and skill that we are really glad to have you here. You obviously at an early age, Mr. Speaker, made a decision between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility, and I admire that kind of a choice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am very pleased that you are able to admire those choices, but please refrain from personal chit-chat with the Speaker. Perhaps we could get into debating the motion before the House, which is, as I believe you were noting, a hoist motion to defer debate on Bill 11 for six months.

MR. LAUK: Yes, six months.

If the government chooses to vote with us, I hope they do so on the basis that I've suggested, which is to look at the ramifications of the legislation, look at its effect on people and try to get people to the table to work out a rational, reasonable compromise to this package, rather than to slam it through, smash people around and create confrontation. But if they choose to vote for the six-month hoist so they can go out to the people to try to convince them that this rather harsh legislation is going to be good for them, then that would be a mistake. What they are going to do is spend more money on advertising, more money down the tube on political exercises. They have probably one of the greatest opportunities in

[ Page 2074 ]

the history of this province to do the correct thing for the people of the province, rather than the partisan political thing. To do that they could develop the structures necessary, in a very short term, that will prove the government is sincere in its restraint goals, and that they are not, as we strongly suspect, purely political.

[6:00]

Mr. Lauk moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

12 The Hon. W. S. Ritchie to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 12) intituled Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTIONS 16.1 and 16.2, by adding the following sections after the heading Hospital District Act Amendments:

"16.1 Section 20 (2) of the Hospital District Act, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 178, is amended

(a) by striking out '$200,000' and substituting 'a prescribed amount', and

(b) by striking out '$.25 per thousand dollars of' and substituting 'a prescribed rate on'.

"16.2 Section 22 (1) (b) (i) is amended by striking out '$4 per thousand dollars of' and substituting 'a prescribed rate on'."

SECTION 35.1, by adding the following section:

"Transitional- conversion
of non-municipal
assessment roll

"35.1 (1) Where the assessment roll prepared under the Assessment Act for the 1983 taxation year shows the assessed value of land and improvements as percentage of actual value, fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under B.C. Reg. 496/82, the assessed value of the land and improvements shall, for purposes of the 1984 taxation year,

(a) be deemed to be the actual value of the land and improvements, and

(b) for purposes of paragraph (a), be converted to actual value by multiplying the assessed value for the 1983 taxation year by the factor shown in the Schedule which corresponds to the class of property, prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council under section 26 of the Assessment Act, into which the land or improvements or both, fall.

"(2) The amendment of the assessment roll by the conversion of the assessed values under this section is not a matter in respect of which a complaint may be made under section 40 or an appeal may be taken under section 67 of the Assessment Act. "

[ Page 2075 ]

SCHEDULE, by adding the following Schedule after section 36:

"SCHEDULE
(Section 35.1)