[ Page 2077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On the amendment

Mr. Lauk –– 2077

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2077

Mr. Mitchell –– 2077

Mr. Rose –– 2082

Ms. Brown –– 2087

Mrs. Johnston –– 2092

Division –– 2092

Mr. Macdonald –– 2093

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2093

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2094

Division –– 2095

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

On the amendment

Mr. Stupich –– 2095

Ms. Brown –– 2100

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2104

Mr. Lea –– 2107

Mr. Hanson –– 2111

Mr. Macdonald –– 2115

Mr. R. Fraser –– 2119

Division –– 2120

Mr. Gabelmann –– 2121

Mr. Howard –– 2124

Ms. Sanford –– 2129

Mr. Blencoe –– 2134

Mr. Barnes –– 2139

Mr. Nicolson –– 2146

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, before the supper adjournment I was trying to draw to the attention of hon. members on the government side the tremendous advantages in supporting this motion by the opposition; and I pointed out that they had two ways to go. On the one hand they could take the six months and waste it by spending taxpayers' money on advertising and so on; on the other hand, if they analyzed Bill 11 and other legislation from the point of view of conciliation and compromise, and tried to get cooperation from the various trade unions involved, I think they would be pleasantly surprised. To do otherwise would be clear evidence that the government is only interested in political exploitation of these issues, rather than for their stated goals, which we clearly can see are hypocritical. The stated goals of the government are restraint and reducing the deficit, However, the legislation, particularly Bill 11, is confrontational and will increase labour-management strife not only in the public service, but in the private sector as well.

As we move into the evening debate, with our great efficiency I have so much more to say on this particular motion that I'm at a loss as to which topic to start on. I think it's fair to point out on this motion that the government can be more discriminate in their approach to restraint if they see the opportunity to reduce expenditures, for example, in their personal ministries. In the 1981-82 and 1982-83 periods the opposition gave them every opportunity, and there may be other areas that they could examine over the six-month period.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce you to the A team, who will dazzle you once again this evening.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to speak long on this rather silly hoist amendment. I'm glad to see that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) supports me on that thought.

I just want to say one thing, and that is how interesting it is to note the change in debating tactics by the NDP over the last couple of days. It seems that the results of a Goldfarb poll published in the Vancouver Province a couple of days ago showed that the people of British Columbia were very much in favour of restraint, but somehow had reservations about the methods being pursued to achieve it. As these debates go on and on this evening, tonight, tomorrow and the days ensuing, I'm sure you'll see that the members opposite, who are always criticizing the government for paying any attention to, or using, polls, are in effect trying to parrot exactly what those polls said. They are saying: "We are in favour of restraint." They have never been in favour of restraint, as demonstrated by their tactics when they were the government, by their campaign position during the last provincial election, and by their speeches in this Legislature up until now. They've always taken the position that they can spend and borrow their way into prosperity. But as a result of the Goldfarb poll, all of a sudden the tactics have changed. They're now saying they are, and always have been, for restraint, which I think is a rather nonsensical statement. But they are saying they would do it differently. They would be the epitome of reason and would negotiate with all of these people to achieve restraint, and by doing so would not achieve restraint at all.

As this debate goes on we can watch how these members are playing to a recently published poll.

MR. MITCHELL: After listening to the Minister of Forests talk a lot of nonsense, I realize why our forest industry is in the situation that it is. It's because of leadership: the type of leadership he has given for the last seven years, and the type of leadership the Social Credit government gave for 20 years. Through all those years they still allowed the large multinational companies to come into British Columbia, to cream off the resources of this province and send that money down south to build modern plants, and now we are in this situation.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are directing this debate toward the hoist, not toward any other subject. I would request you to remind the member about that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am confident the member is aware of the relevancy of debate and will maintain his debate to the principle of the hoist as such.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping you would bring me back to order, because I know if I....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The member who is now speaking started out by providing misinformation to the House. I'm not sure whether it is deliberate or unintentional, but he is making statements that are absolutely untrue. I would caution him that he should not do that even though it may be unintentional.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Mr. Minister. I am confident that you are aware that if you wish to correct any member in debate you will do so when your chance and opportunity comes to stand and speak at your desk.

Would the member please continue on the hoist on Bill 11.

MR. MITCHELL: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate you bringing me back to order, because when I get....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests got up and said that the member from Esquimalt was telling untruths. It used to be in this House that perhaps one of the most serious forms of disorder was to rise on a point of order and then in effect to say that a member was lying. No matter what is happening in this House, that's something we really can't allow to slip by.

[ Page 2078 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, Mr. Member.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the member for Nelson-Creston, who should be aware of the rules by now, is reading a newspaper, which is not allowed in parliamentary procedure. You can check the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth versions of Sir Erskine May.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you; I'm sure the member is aware of the long-standing tradition of the House.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will please continue on the hoist of Bill 11.

MR. MITCHELL: I hope the people keeping the clock are going to deduct all these completely unnecessary and facetious interruptions from my 40 minutes.

Getting back to the motion that we are debating this evening, it is a very positive and constructive approach from the opposition to attempt to get through to this government that British Columbia is facing — and I say this very seriously — a serious situation. It appears that this government is determined to have a head-on clash with the civil servants. It's not only that they want a head-on clash with their own employees, but they are going out of their way to drag in the trade union movement and the working people of this province, which will have a great effect on the small business community. You cannot go out to any segment of our population and attempt to run roughshod over agreements that have been negotiated, agreements that have been taken in good faith. These people have dedicated their lives to working for the province of British Columbia, for the municipalities of this province, for the school boards or Hydro — all the various Crown corporations that make up the working force that keeps this province running.

[8:15]

MRS. JOHNSTON: And the IWA.

MR. MITCHELL: The IWA, the construction trades, and every other organized trade union in this province definitely support the right of free collective bargaining. They accept that right. They have fought for it and they have earned it. They are not going to stand back and watch one group of fellow British Columbians trampled and legislated out of their rights — legislated out with the power of 49.7 percent of voters that gave a mandate to 35 people who have set themselves up as super-gods. They are going to change the lifestyles, the conditions of work. They are going to change something that didn't happen overnight. It isn't something that was given to them written in stone. Those rights evolved from discussions, arguments, from give and take. They are rights that are written into the collective agreements of this province, precedents that have been set by various ministries. They set up certain conditions, and they have evolved over 20 or 30 years of negotiations either as a union or an association. Now this government, who campaigned on restraint, are going out with the jackboot attitude that we do not have to accept something that we promised in negotiations in good faith.

The Premier himself entered into the negotiations that settled the last labour trouble with the government workers of this province. He was the highlight. He gave the leadership and he set down an understanding between the bargaining committee for the employees and the employer, which is the government. He gave that leadership. Then he went out and campaigned throughout the province, saying how the program he had negotiated, the restraint package that was part of the Social Credit government record, was the record they campaigned on. Granted, 5 percent more people voted for the government than for my party, but still, over 50 percent of the public voted against the government.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I refer to standing order 43, which reads:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, " — and that is the part I am referring to, Mr. Speaker: tedious repetition — "either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

I called the Speaker's attention to this standing order 43 some hours ago in this particular debate. The member is persisting in repetitious debate and I would ask you to consider imposing standing order 43 at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I fail to see how you brought it to the attention of this member in this debate, because this is the first time he has stood to speak on the hoist motion of this bill. Your point, as I'm sure the member is well aware....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm afraid you misunderstood me, Mr. Speaker. I advised that I brought it to the attention of the Speaker who was controlling the debate in the Legislature. This member, and previous members on this particular motion, have resorted to tedious and repetitious debate. The standing order refers to "a member" or "other members in debate." The same type of argument is being pursued time after time after time. Nothing new is being added to the debate, so again I implore you to invoke standing order 43.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. This member has only been speaking for approximately five minutes and I think he should have an opportunity.

I'm sure, hon. minister, that your comments have gone to his heart and he is well aware of them, and will act appropriately in the balance of this debate.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, one final word on my point of order. The standing order very clearly states: "tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members." Even though this member has only been speaking for a short time, his entire speech so far has been a repetition of nonsensical points previously made by other members of the opposition.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for bringing that to my attention. We will consider it accordingly.

MS. BROWN: Further to the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it's very clear that the minister is deliberately trying to prevent the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) from having the right to state his opinions on

[ Page 2079 ]

this bill. I would like to bring to the Speaker's attention.... I'm sorry, I don't know what the exact citation is, but I know there is one which admonishes the Speaker to protect the minority rights, the right of the opposition in this House to be heard.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) says there are no such rights.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't pay attention to him, hon. member; he hasn't got the floor.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's the kind of leadership I think this House has been waiting for.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm waiting tediously for your point of order.

MS. BROWN: My point of order is that the minister is deliberately trying to prevent that member from taking his rightful place in the debate, and I want to bring to your attention the citation which gives you the power to protect the rights of the opposition to be heard.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your comments, like those of the hon. minister, will be considered. I'm confident that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is aware that standing order 43 refers to not only his own arguments, but that arguments of others may be considered with respect to his own. I'm sure he'll take that into consideration during the balance of his debate.

MR. MITCHELL: I really appreciate the support that you have given me, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: This minister keeps on jumping up and down. He's completely uncontrollable. His particular m.o. in life is that he does not have his actions or his facts right, so he just jumps up and down trying to disrupt the orderly debate of this House. I say to that minister and to the government members over there that there is nothing they can do that is going to change my right to get up and give the opinions of the people of Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who have elected me to come here and enter into the debate on every piece of legislation, every bill and every amendment that may be submitted to this House.

In entering into the debate on why we feel this particular motion should be hoisted for six months, I am going to repeat an argument that I have made in other debates on other pieces of legislation, and I'm going to make it because it follows in the traditions of parliament: that is, the establishment of a parliamentary committee with members from all sides of the House. You and I do share a parliamentary committee, Mr. Speaker, and through you I'd like to tell all members of this House that that committee — which was dominated by Social Crediters, with a minority group of three NDPers — accomplished more positive action in a 20-minute meeting than there has been in all the debates in this House up until this point. We sat down as a committee and attempted to establish some ground rules to study the resolution passed by this House of privatizing the inspection services of motor vehicles. But we did it positively. We exchanged ideas, we all gave suggestions. The lovely young lady who was our chairman and secretary took the input that each one of us gave. It wasn't dominated by the interruptions of cabinet ministers or little legal beavers. It was a positive approach.

This is why my party and I feel we should set up a parliamentary committee and be prepared to travel throughout British Columbia, if it's needed, to meet with not only administrators in the public service or elected municipal and school board officials, but also with government managers and representatives of the trade unions involved, to talk about how this legislation is going to affect their employees and their operations.

A few weeks ago I met with a person whose job is to train managers for government services, and I put it to her quite straight. I said: "We have all this feedback from the press and the public, snide remarks of certain members of the government that the civil service is full of deadwood, that seniority doesn't work, and that a lot of people are not doing the job they are being paid for." So I said: "Okay, we hear these stories. What are the actual facts?" She said: "If there is any problem with any employee, the problem ties with management."

The top management is the cabinet of this province. If there is any employee down the line who is not doing the job he should be doing, then there is some manager in charge of that particular operation who is at fault. If there is any line of command, then that line of command goes up through the management staff. As my good friend the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) always says: "The can stops at my desk." When I come in as I have in previous debates on his estimates, and I bring to his attention some of the mismanagement of his particular ministry and the granting of certain rezoning for subdivisions, when the highways have been relocated in the wrong spot and I bring it to his attention, then that is his fault.

[8:30]

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of of order. Occasionally I wonder if relevance to that member means a K-car from Chrysler. Mr. Speaker, I refer you again to standing order 43. We're not talking about the Ministry of Highways; we're talking about a hoist to a particular bill. If you would be kind enough to remind the member to stick to the reasons for the hoist — or the lack of reasons for the hoist- I think that would be correct.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sure the hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is cognizant of the hoist and should be relevant on the hoist per se.

MR. MITCHELL: You and the Minister of Highways realize the arguments I was using were positive arguments to show why we should study the faults of any problems within the civil service, that we should be attempting to identify where those problems lie. I use that as an example. I was not discussing the Ministry of Highways estimates; I was using it as an example.

The first member for Vancouver South knows that the arguments that I was using were sound, positive and to the point. To stand up and continually interject with a lot of nonsense and rules from the red book.... All he is trying to do is to distract from what we are trying to get....

[ Page 2080 ]

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, will you stop that ex-Speaker from trying to push a lot of his past into this debate. If he wants to get into the debate on the hoist motion, then he should....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Mr. Member, I presume your debate is relevant. Discussion with other members is not. Would you please continue on the hoist.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm just answering some of the gibes that have been thrown at me by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) as he tries to twist the facts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you would address the Chair and ignore the rest, we could maintain order in the House.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, that is the wisest advice that I have ever received from that side of the House. I know that after the next election all of the public will accept that advice and ignore that side of the House.

Getting back to the reason that I feel we should hoist this motion, I would recommend that we set up a parliamentary committee and someone like yourself, or the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), who has the ability — when taken away from these particular surroundings — to listen and to relate to problems.... Let's get away from the cross-debate and the interjections, and bring to that committee the people who are going to be affected by legislation that is going to destroy the morale of the workforce of over a quarter of a million people.

When a quarter of a million people are being paid to do a job for the citizens of British Columbia and when good money is being paid out for their wages, conditions and fringe benefits, the public of this province have a right to demand that they get the maximum return for that investment. But you bring in legislation of this type that is going to gut and change the agreements that were made in good faith after give-and-take negotiations. You bring in legislation that is going to jam something down their throats, something more consistent with the laws that you would get in Chile, Germany, Poland, or Argentina. They are not the type of laws that we in a free western province of Canada should be even considering.

Mr. Speaker, I say to each one of those here tonight that if we don't take that second look, if we don't set up the parliamentary committees that are a tradition of parliament....

They are not something new that some radical member of the NDP for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been advocating. These are committees that have come from traditions of parliaments throughout the free world. They started in Britain and came to Canada in different forms. They are all through the democratic parliaments of our democracies. It gives the opportunity for the public who are going to be affected to come down and meet with those who are going to make the laws, who are going to enforce a type of restrictive legislation. It gives them a chance to appear before those parliamentary committees in an atmosphere of freedom, of goodwill, and of a committee that is determined to listen and to come together with the best type of legislation that is going to affect all of us.

Maybe a lot of you have not worked in the public service. I have had the good fortune to work in public service and in the private sector, and I have been self-employed. I have had the opportunity to share my experiences, to share the knowledge that I have gained over the years. I have learned one thing, and it goes right back to when I entered the workforce at 15, when I joined the army at 19, when I came out into the private sector in construction, when I was self-employed, and when I went into public service. The most important thing of any business is the morale and the attitudes of those who are employed.

When I am employing people or when I am one of the employed, when I am managing, as I have done for 10 or 15 years as a shift sergeant.... When people are not happy in their life, or not happy with the attitudes of their foreman, their supervisor or their employer, they are not doing the job that must be done. A young lady who is a consultant in this particular field, and has consulted and done a lot of training for both governments and private industry, says the most important spark of any operation is the supervisor of that particular group. It is that supervisor, whether he is a lowly foreman down the line or a director in one of the ministries, or if he is the minister himself....

MR. KEMPF: How about she? You're going to get in trouble with Rosemary.

MR. MITCHELL: Or she. You are so right. It must be something today. I have had two good pieces of advice from that side of the House, and especially from that member for Omineca. I know that you with your wisdom and legal training will know that I mean both he and she, or both she and he, whatever way you want to take it — the supervisors, the directors, the ministers, the employers.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order. I really don't care whether the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew talks about he, she, or it, as long as it is relevant to the hoist before us on Bill 11. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you bring that member into line and into order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew will continue his debate and make it relevant to the hoist amendment to Bill 11.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, he knows it is relevant. He knows it is right to the point, as you know it's right to the point. You in your position have not challenged what I have said, because you have been listening to the train of thought as I have been saying why this motion to hoist should be passed; why this Legislature should set up a committee to study this piece of legislation; why we should consult with the employers affected by this legislation; why we should consult with the employees affected; why we should consult with consultants and experts in labour management, both from the profit side of the employer group and from the service side in government. We should consult with these people and ask the questions that need to be asked: how we are going to get the maximum ability out of all employees; how we are going to utilize the resources of those employees. Every employee in any particular program, be it education, highways, police or firefighting, is a resource that has ability. It is our job — and I accept that responsibility, as one of 57.... Those resources must be given the opportunity to

[ Page 2081 ]

be utilized to the maximum. If there are some people not doing the job they are being paid for, then it is management's fault; that management rests directly on the benches of this cabinet. My good friend the Minister of Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) said in this House that he accepts those mistakes, because he is an honourable man.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that we are debating a motion to hoist a bill before the House. I also understand that the debate in the House is irrelevant to the motion before the House. It seems to me that the member now speaking is revisiting all those arguments that were made on the main motion and is not in any way debating why he thinks the motion before the House should be hoisted. I would ask him to be relevant to the particular motion that we are now debating.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. It seems that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has been debating a hoist, but possibly some of his subject matter is more relevant to a hoist of Bill 3 than of Bill 11. Possibly he could be more relevant to Bill 11, because we are dealing with a hoist motion on Bill 11. Would you continue, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I had a lot of faith in you. I've read Bill 3 and Bill 11. Bill 11 goes into the collective agreements of all public servants in this province, and the Minister of Forests is completely aware of it. The whole package of legislation that came in with the budget....

Each and every piece of that legislation is interlocking in one way or another, to the point where the Minister of Municipal Affairs can dominate the budgets of any particular municipality; the Minister of Finance can dominate....

[8:45]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under standing order 43, everyone standing in debate in this House must be relevant to the subject matter before us. I've been listening very intently to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, and in no way can I see any relevance to anything whatsoever in what he's saying, let alone to the hoist on Bill 11.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Member for Omineca. Possibly one of the problems of the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is that he's trying to develop something; but I'm sure he did not have an opportunity between the last point or order and the one before that. I would appreciate it if he were given an opportunity. If he is not relevant then, raise the point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I think that what you should do is name the member for Omineca and name the Minister of Forests for their continual repetition of arguments that are not even valid.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. That is the position of the Chair. Hon. member, your position in the House at the moment is to debate and be relevant with respect to the hoist motion.

MR. MITCHELL: I was just giving a little bit of advice, and if you don't want it, I will withdraw my advice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your place in debate at the moment is to debate the hoist motion. Possibly you'll continue.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman — Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I withdraw that. You keep jumping from committee to second reading, and I will confess that I do err at times.

Getting back to the argument I have been trying to develop — and I know you have been following me, because you have been listening to the argument that I have been developing — I confess that I realize that there might have been a little repetition from another speech I made before, but I've enlarged it a little. If you go back into the Blues and Hansard, you will realize that this is a policy that we must develop in this House. We must develop an attitude that we are going to get the best legislation through that we are going to develop and exploit — maybe I shouldn't use the word exploit — and get the best out of the resources, which are our employees, in this province so they are performing for the people of British Columbia in the best manner they can.

I believe — I am convinced — that if any committee is put together with members from all sides of this House.... I don't care if they are put together on a political basis or if they are put together with all the hawks or all the doves or all the glow-worms that sit over there, or all the forward, progressive-thinking people who sit with me. If they are all put in a hat and pulled out together, and that committee is put together, I know that if they — that committee....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I seek your advice. Has the member had long enough to develop some relevance in his debate? Since you last asked the member to become relevant in the debate which he is now engaged in on the hoist of Bill 11, he hasn't been relevant at all, in my estimation.

I would ask that you take some drastic action in regard to that member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, standing order 43 also refers to tedious repetition, and even the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew admitted a few moments ago that he had been repetitious in his argument. Again, for about the third time, I suggest that it is time to invoke standing order 43 and direct the member not to be repetitious, even though he himself admits that he is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll answer the member for Omineca first, and possibly that will satisfy the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Forests.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has another two minutes in this debate. I am confident that he will endeavour to be relevant during that period of time, and we will await the consequences of those two minutes.

MR. MITCHELL: We often look across the floor and listen to the various ridiculous arguments that come up. When those government members will not get up and participate in real, honest debate, we have the Minister of Forests, say, twisting something that I said out of context. I did repeat it from previous debates on other legislation. So I say I am voting for this motion to hoist Bill 11, and I'm asking that this House set up a parliamentary committee to study this legislation and listen to the people of this province.

[ Page 2082 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the hoist motion to Bill 11, the hon. member for Coquitlam–Port Moody.

MR. ROSE: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that not too much of my short time is going to be used up by the thunderous ovation that I usually receive when I get up to speak. As a matter of fact, I was tempted to get up on the point of order, because I think on the question of standing order 43, where my colleague was accused of being irrelevant and tedious....

MR. R. FRASER: He wasn't accused. He was!

MR. ROSE: I think the operative word there, Mr. Speaker — and you picked it out, because you are cunning, shrewd and highly perceptive, and you see these things.... It isn't a case of whether or not he was repetitious — I think we can all agree to that. But was he tediously repetitious? That, Mr. Speaker, is a value judgment, and you came down on the right side, as you must do, according to Beauchesne. It is a value judgment by the Speaker, and the Speaker is required always....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Are you calling a point of order? I am really on this point of order; if you want to call it, then I can speak to it.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's not a point of order.

MR. ROSE: It is a point of order, because....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair asks the hon. member for Coquitlam–Port Moody whether he has risen on a point of order or whether he is rising to debate the hoist motion to Bill 11.

MR. ROSE: Yes I am, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are what?

MR. ROSE: I am either on a point of order or I am rising to debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May I ask which?

MR. ROSE: Well, I haven't decided that yet.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, will you please take your chair until you make your decision. Please advise the Chair as to what your decision....

MR. ROSE: I wanted to make that point of order before I began my speech, and I am now ready to commence my speech. This is my speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I thank you for your point of order. I do not see where it was relevant or if it was necessarily set out in the standing orders. Now would you continue on the hoist motion on Bill 11.

MR. ROSE: I am interested in being a speaker on the hoist motion to Bill 11, because I think if ever there was a motion that deserved to be hoisted, it is Bill 11. I am pleased to be here tonight once again in prime time, among my friends, rivals and competitors, to speak to Bill 11. I think it is really central to the differences that exist between our two parties. The two parties in the House cleave on the basis of Bill 11, and the basic difference or cleavage, if I may be so bold — if that is not unparliamentary — is to be decided on whether people who work in the public service can maintain the kind of rights that they have fought for over the years or whether these rights are to be taken from them.

That is essentially what Bill 11 is all about, and I think that it is a matter of rolling the clock back. It is not merely an opportunity for the government to restrain wages; it is an opportunity for the government to roll back salaries. Anybody who is caught in the squeeze between inflation and the lack of an adequate income to meet those increased costs, which are uncontrolled, is going to resent his wages, working conditions and whatever being controlled. There is no question about that in my mind, and there is no question that this whole thing needs to be reconsidered. I said that other countries have had different approaches to this; I said this last night. I can probably be accused, at this point, of being repetitious.

AN HON. MEMBER: And irrelevant.

MR. ROSE: Oh, not irrelevant, but perhaps repetitious. I am saying that this is the kind of legislation that this government has opted for to meet a particular kind of problem. The particular kind of problem is: who is running the store? That is the concern of the government, because it is concerned with its shrinking revenues. And it has reason to be concerned about its shrinking revenues; no one disputes that. This afternoon someone said.... I think it was the hon. Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who stopped chewing his gum long enough to make the point, if I can recall the point, that this was a matter of extreme consequence, that the government had to be in charge and that it was not going to brook any kind of interruption from anybody, whether they were public servants or not.

What I am saying is that we should look upon this hoist as an opportunity to reconsider the course we are taking. Speaker after speaker on the government side and this side have gotten up to say that the economy is fragile and recovery is not necessarily guaranteed. We hear again that the Conference Board has said only tonight that recovery is not guaranteed. The "happy days are here again" boys over there who say we are the doom-and-gloomers and we are spreading the fear, we are spreading the gloom.... We are not cutting wages, we are not rolling people's salaries back, we are not leaving them open to rent increases, we are not sitting silently when it is a matter of interest rates or whether housing starts are going down.

Consumers are going to have to lead us out of this recession, and if you want to talk about something being routinely and repeatedly repetitious, it is that line. I have used it at least a dozen times since I have been in this House, but it is true. It is not only me that says that; lots of people say that, and I can give you a whole list of them. Of course, some of them are academics, and therefore I think maybe we should distrust their views, because if they are academics, of course they are not good, practical, hard-headed people who have to meet a payroll, because that is really important. Man's highest achievement in this life is to meet a payroll. There are other forms of accomplishment that perhaps could be considered

[ Page 2083 ]

equally worthy. I don't imagine that Wordsworth met a payroll; neither did Beethoven but, by golly, they are probably going to be remembered far longer than Andrew Carnegie, who was very good at meeting a payroll, exploiting all the people and then giving away large libraries to every city in North America.

But that is beside the point. I must come back to Bill 11. We cannot have a consumer-led recovery if people do not have the confidence in either their jobs or their future incomes. If they are not sure about their jobs, they are not going to be spending money in the local stores; for example, witness the unbridled free enterprise in Nanaimo which has allowed probably four times the average commercial space to develop there. There were no controls, and the right to go broke is the inalienable right of every free-enterpriser, so the downtown core has got a hole in it like a doughnut. It doesn't require much imagination to suggest that the public servants in Nanaimo are going to be very, very careful about spending any money, whether it's downtown or in the shopping centres which ring the place.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

I don't think the small entrepreneurs' management skills make any difference when you listen to a statistic like this. Mr. Speaker, it's far worse in British Columbia than it is in the remainder of Canada. My colleague laughs.

[9:00]

MR. A. FRASER: We're going to recover faster.

MR. ROSE: Yes, we will. But not because of government. It's because once the resource market turns around, regardless of what you do, we'll be selling resources.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: To be fair, that is true.

I was talking about Nanaimo and then there was an interjection that I think was deliberately designed to distract me when I was in full flight — perhaps out of control, but at least in full flight.

Anyway, what I was attempting to say was that, yes, because we're in a resource-based economy, when resource markets recover throughout the world we will be able to recover more rapidly than other jurisdictions that have a greater and more diversified economy. At the same time, we go down faster — and perhaps stay down faster if things don't recover, So I think the whole gamble on Bill 11 and the other bills that make up the dirty dozen is the hope and gamble that things are going to recover in the world economy, regardless of what is done to people.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I had a boss one time who was a school superintendent. It follows that if he was a school superintendent he probably hasn't got a great deal of ability, according to some people across the hall. But I thought he was a very wise man. I said to him: "One of these days I would like to be an administrator." I never really made it but....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It's going to be a long night. Unless we have speakers from the opposite side of the floor — who, incidentally, brought in this hoist — speak to the hoist, it's going to make this long night almost unbearable. Before we get too far into the wee hours, I would seriously ask that you bring members — such as the one who is on his feet now — to order, asking them to be absolutely relevant to a hoist motion on Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think the point is well taken. This is a hoist motion. Accordingly the debate, I would respectfully suggest, should be narrowed to explaining to the House why the government should or should not hoist this matter for six months. I would ask the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody to refrain from digressing any more than he has to this moment.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I might have strayed somewhat, but I was being distracted. If the member for Omineca, and others, wish me to stick strictly to the theme that I was attempting to develop, then don't tantalize me by throwing in irrelevancies and asking me questions which, I think, courtesy demands that I follow up.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, obviously you are the only one who has the floor at this time. I think it behooves you to ignore interjections from the floor, unless the Chair has recognized those members. If you can ignore the interjections and keep your comments to the hoist motion, I'm sure we'll have no further necessity to call you to order.

MR. ROSE: The only thing I would ask of you, Mr. Speaker, as a new member here, is that you protect me from the kind of catcalls that I've been receiving from across.... I will be scrupulous in my terms of order and I will try not to cause any excruciating pain to the member for Omineca, because he's got a high pain threshhold — or is it low? Well, I'm certain he's got one, whatever it is.

Bill 11, which we're attempting to hoist, is going to be, I think, a momentous assault on the confidence of people who work in the public service. It is going to have a rippling effect, like a stone droppeth upon the water, throughout the whole economy. It is a very fragile economy, an economy that is affected by world trends, and anything that happens in the economy, the government or the social setting that interrupts that delicate balance is not going to be good for our economy — which isn't that good in the first place.

I would like to read some figures to you about bankruptcies. Here's January to July 1983 inclusive: in B.C. there were 775 bankruptcies, a 50 percent increase in the same period over 1982. We had our election in May. I don't know what the figures have been since May. I hope they're not as bad as they were then, but it's hardly happy days are here again. In Canada, on the other hand, there were 6,012 bankruptcies, a 2 percent decrease over the same period in 1982. So, clearly, what we must do is nothing, and do it slowly, in many cases, so that we don't disturb the delicate balance that destroys confidence, prevents investment and prevents job creation. That's the point that I'm trying to make about Bill 3.... Bill.... Oh, Bill 3, fine; it doesn't really matter, since they're all part of the same....

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's the trouble. They don't know what bill we're on.

[ Page 2084 ]

MR. ROSE: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there again I'm being harassed by the people across the hall.

We're asking people in Bill 11, in many cases, to sit still for cuts and for an assault on their incomes, while everything that they've purchased is going up in price. What's happening? What are we having here? We're continuing what is called the restraint program. Bill 11 does that. What it does, really, is to take what was an interim program and make it permanent. That's number one; that's what we've done, right? What's that going to do to people's confidence?

People are complaining that we're speaking a lot on this legislation. I don't know what my constituents sent me here for if it weren't to fight on their behalf. That is the legitimate duty and responsibility of anybody who's elected to this parliament, not to roll over and play dead just because somebody may be tired of my voice. I'll tell you somebody else who's tired of my voice: me. I wish I didn't have to fight you guys — excuse me, and ladies — on a bill that I consider an assault on the basic fabric of a generation of advances. We can no longer afford the standard of living we have, so in order to protect the standard of living that we have, we've got to lower it. What a contradiction in terms that is.

The whole package here is to lower wages. What else does it do? If you give the government complete control of what the payments are going to be, then why would you need any public service organization at all, in any way? What can they do? What are they going to argue about? What are the representatives of workers collectively, getting together in the freedom of assembly, guaranteed by the Charter of Rights, going to do? Are they going to be able to come to some sort of agreement through collective bargaining? To what end?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Work hard? I think that there are probably lots of people who work hard in the public service. There are a lot of golfers in private service, too, who don't do a hell of a lot.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would request that you refrain from entering into debate with the members across the floor and restrict your comments to the Chair. Once again I would urge you to restrict your comments to the matter before this House, which is a hoist motion; and that, I would respectfully suggest, is debate centered around why this matter should be hoisted for six months.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Speaker, the reason that the matter should be hoisted for six months is that it takes everybody's rights away; it leaves the rewards that people get in the public service for their efforts up to a czar from whom there is no appeal. So it means that it's destroyed any kind of collective action that public servants may take. That strikes at the very heart of the things that have been won over the years through the efforts of a lot of people. It almost indicates, Mr. Speaker, that there is a group of people here who feel that we've been involved in labour chaos over the last 15 years. That's not been the case at all. We haven't had prolonged work stoppages. Why do you need these powers?

HON. A. FRASER: Where have you been? You've been in Ottawa.

MR. ROSE: I've been in British Columbia as well. Oh, Mr. Speaker, he's after me again. The holy ghost over there. He thinks he's the B.C. spirit.

I heard that maybe the ferries were going to be shut down a couple of summers ago, but they weren't closed down. I was going up and down theSun shine Coast and I didn't have any problems there. I think that they've acted extremely responsibly. As a matter of fact, the former Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Matkin.... I'm saying this in connection with this bill, Mr. Speaker, in case you're getting up on the balls of your feet and getting ready to whip out Erskine May and beat me over the head with him. What I'm saying is that we have had responsible labour organizations in the public service, and we haven't had a sorry record of strikes. We have not been suffering from what a lot of people popularly call the British disease or the English disease. We have not.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would request that the hon. members on the government side of the House allow the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody to continue on debate. At this moment he is diligently attempting to remain relevant, and as it would appear he is easily distracted by interjections, let the interjections cease.

MR. ROSE: I think we need to take time to look at this, because Bill 11 came as a real shocker and surprise. During the campaign there was no indication that this kind of legislation was going to be the result.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Oh, yes — they're after me again, Mr. Speaker — restraint was talked about during the campaign; certainly it was. Restraint is in. Restraint's a big word. It's a buzzword now. You hear that one can't spend his way to prosperity. I don't think you can restrain your way to prosperity either. You can throw a lot of people out of work and on welfare, you can kill all the markets, you can savage the local small businessman and destroy all kinds of confidence, but how's that going to add up to a confident, flourishing economy? This is put in to lower wages, and nothing else. You lower wages in the public sector through Bill 11. You lower wages in the private sector through Bill 26. That's what it's all about. You want us to get down so we can compete with the Koreans or the Taiwanese or somebody.

I don't know about restraint. We've heard of Mike Bailey, who didn't get much restraint. I heard that the minister's office.... I don't know whether it's true or not, but I hope to ask him tomorrow; or maybe somebody else will. Did the people in your office just get a big raise, like about 18 percent?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm sorry, hon. member, I'm having a difficult time understanding how that is relevant to the necessity of this matter being hoisted for six months.

[9:15]

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing here with a bill that restrains the wages of public servants, while people who work for the government, such as Mr. Bailey and others — and, it is rumoured, also the people in the minister's office — have received substantial increases. If that isn't relevant to the debate, I don't know what is relevant. We're talking about a contrast between how certain people are treated and how

[ Page 2085 ]

other people are treated, and that is blatantly unfair. If we were willing to spread the sacrifice throughout all segments of society, I think it would be more acceptable. It would be perceived as fair. If a bill such as Bill 11, which we're attempting to hoist tonight, is perceived to be unfair, discriminatory, vengeful and punitive, then it is not going to be accepted. It might be. You might cow a lot of people so they're not going to make any racket. On the other hand, you're risking a social chaos which could very well result in seeing the kind of recovery that we need to have in this province delayed far longer than need be.

That is the point I'm trying to make about this. It is removing the basic rights that people in the public service have achieved over a generation. To allow this to go without a fight is not to do the kind of job that I was elected to do, and that perhaps others were as well. That's what the particular relevance is, and that's why I'm concerned about it. That's why a lot of people are concerned about it, but they don't have voices. We have voices here. We were elected to.... To be self-disparaging, we're word-merchants, you and I, Mr. Speaker. We're in the business of language and communication, and that's how we fight, even though we have two sword-lengths between us and my friend over there from Omineca. I'm sure glad of that because he is much more muscular, determined, probably crueler, than I, who, a gentle little fellow, has only his voice to protect him. And the Speaker. The Speaker protects me as well.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I said that about the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) and his office — about the 18 percent. My notes say it's 23 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're wrong again.

MR. ROSE: We'll ask you tomorrow or someday soon and you can tell us. You can say: "That decision has not been made yet." That's the reply we'll probably get.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again you are being baited perhaps by interjections, and I would ask the members on the government side of the House to desist from interjecting. Actually, I'd ask members on both sides of the House to come to order, and allow the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody to continue on debate of the hoist of Bill 11.

MR. ROSE: Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, back at the hoist, I was attempting to say that what really divides us here in our attitudes is Bill 11. Whether or not you want power to be spread democratically throughout society in a kind of quasi-industrial democracy, if you like, or whether you want to have the boss on top with all of the rights. That's really the basis of it. If you really determine what someone is to receive, not by a kind of bargaining but by what is defined in this bill as the....

MR. KEMPF: The employer's ability to pay.

MR. ROSE: I was just coming to that. If you define it not by what a person receives for the value of his work....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Come on! Cut out that nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, that minister over there knows as well as I do that people don't receive money on the basis of their worth. They receive money on the basis of how much power they can exert on others. That's the way it works. You know that.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Of course I know that, and so do you. If you don't, you should know that. As the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) you should know that.

The ability to pay is determined, really, by the government. If I don't like a particular program or I want to get somebody out of that program, if I want to scapegoat somebody, I can say: "I'm sorry, I don't have any money for that program any more." It really is a decision. When you talk about ability to pay, you are talking about certain kinds of priorities. You have determined what kind of priorities. It isn't just a case of the public service using up....

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: What has gone up? Has social welfare gone up because you put a lot of people out on the street? Are you going to spend more money on northeast coal? Are you going to sell a few ferries and then lease them back?

I think the minister is right, as a matter of fact. The ability to pay, though, becomes the matter of a judgment: what do you want to spend the money on?

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether you have any money. Your budget is up 12 percent. If you haven't got any money, why is your budget up 12 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: To pay for people services, that's why.

MR. ROSE: They are not all going to people services. They are going to such things as Human Resources because of people you put out of work.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: You can do all the bread and circuses stuff you like. You've got all kinds of money to spend on that stuff. I think that's a reasonable argument. You could say: "We built B.C. Place not as an edifice, not just because we have an edifice complex, but because we wanted to provide some work." That's not a bad argument. But that is a judgment about what you intend to spend your money on and what you do not intend to spend your money on. That is a political judgment in terms of your priorities. What you've said is that you have no money for child-care workers. Not that they are getting too much money.

If there are any child-care workers....

HON. A. FRASER: Get back on the subject, and no more of that Ottawa rubbish.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do you require my assistance again?

[ Page 2086 ]

MR. ROSE: I haven't been so vigorously attacked for a long time, but I think the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. A. Fraser) made a wrong turn again.

Bill 11 also gives the government supreme powers to move in on any kind of operating budgets in any institution — things that were pretty well autonomous. We're concerned about that. We're concerned about the fact that we no longer have the autonomy of particular institutions. Take a particular program offered by a junior college or a community college. Let's suppose the government decides, in its infinite wisdom, that it doesn't have the ability to pay for that program. It can offer to have this program continue or it can decide to discontinue it — at a whim, at the stroke of a pen. I think that is a direct threat against autonomy and may have little or nothing to do with the value of the program to that particular area. If you feel, and maybe some people do.... At Langara College, which I believe is in the member's own riding — I don't know the riding boundaries that well — I understand they are using lottery tickets for their athletic program. They are raising money for their teams through lotteries. That's a decision that can be defended.

I don't know how many thousands of dollars I raised on behalf of schools while I was a teacher, for various things such as music programs. I don't object to that particularly. I worked night and day, but I never felt I was exploited, because I was really intrigued with the kind of work I was doing and I loved it. I think there are a lot of people who feel that way. They are in the public service too. But one of the things that really bothered me and made me leave the kind of job I had in Kelowna in the sunny Okanagan was when the school board did something that I felt was intellectually wrong. During a salary battle they published everybody's name in the paper along with his salary, and at that point I resigned. I thought it was a small, snotty thing to do and I resigned because I felt some integrity. I was sorry to do that but I did it. I think you will find there are public servants with guts too, and if they feel they are being pushed all over the place, they're going to stand up, regardless of the cost, and let people know how they feel. That wasn't a particularly big risk with me; I wasn't being rolled back. But I was certainly being rolled around, and I've never forgotten that.

AN. HON. MEMBER: Did you take it up with your MLA?

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, I shouted across Mill Creek at him, and he said, "I'm sorry, I'm not home tonight," or words to that effect.

One of the other things that concerns us, and why we think we need a hoist on this, is that this compensation thing that was brought in to meet a particular problem will go on ad infinitum. What was an interim measure.... Its very failure must be that it needs to be perpetuated, because if it worked well for the two years, why is it needed any more? Why is it needed forever and ever?

AN HON. MEMBER: If it works well, why quit?

MR. ROSE: It's more than that. It will destroy any continuation of a contract. It's not merely because the contract is going to be renegotiated. If we start from scratch and terminate the contract — say, with the BCGEU — then you don't have any kind of holdovers from the previous contract, and that kind of perpetuation is gone. So you effectively destroy collective bargaining, which is what I said a little bit earlier.

It seems to me that our society rewards entirely at the whim of the government, in many cases, and of powerful groups that have loud voices and can get to that government. The power of the commissioner is awesome, really. I suppose he's answerable to cabinet, and if the cabinet doesn't like what the commissioner does, he can be removed. I don't know what pressures are on him to approve programs, or to disapprove them in a particular time. He can dawdle, like a lot of lawyers do, in order to justify a healthy fee. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I didn't mean to offend you, because I know that you're not like that and that you have a great sense of integrity as a member of the bar; you don't believe, as many lawyers do, that no decent inheritance should be frittered away on the beneficiaries, or anything like that. You wouldn't dawdle like that.

But I think it's an important thing here. The effect of a supreme court order is what Mr. Peck and his Compensation Stabilization Commission have in terms of their decisions. That is pretty awesome power, and it's without any particular arrangement or grounds for appeal. This is not the case with the New Zealand Higher Salaries Commission. They have full consultation, an opportunity for both parties to bring their views to that commission, and a right of appeal if they don't want it. I would suggest that maybe the Higher Salaries Commission might be something this government might study. It may be something for my friend's committee to study to see how this works. As I said last night, New Zealand, a unitary state, doesn't operate the same way. It can control its own currency and all the things that we can't control as a province. But nevertheless, I think the various parties affected by the decisions should have the right to submit evidence, and this is not here in this bill. Supposing someone is damaged by a decision of this commission? What's their redress? They don't have any.

I don't think I have a great deal of time left, but I would like to conclude by saying that our society frequently decides the winners and losers on the basis not of fairness but of power. If you happen to be in a monopoly situation, such as some crafts or industries like the banking industry, you have unlimited power to do pretty well what you like. Yesterday's Province indicated that we have, as many people describe, an economy which is somewhat less than vibrant. The word used, I believe, by Allan Gregg and Decima survey people is "fragile." It says: "Bank Profits Soar Despite the Economy." Here we have another point: "Corporate Earnings Rebound." Corporate earnings are up 20 percent over last year.

. Banks, incidentally, are not taxed at the source. Sometimes they don't even pay their taxes. Two banks last year didn't pay any taxes at all. They have tax delays and all the rest of it. But I want to know that while I and other members of this House pay at the rate of about 40 to 50 percent on income tax, the effective bank rate is 10 percent. And profits now are into the billions. It seems to me a basic contradiction that while we ask people to take less and less, certain industries in society are taking more and more out of it. As long as that persists, the people are not going to accept that kind of arrangement forever, and they're going to fight and resist that and try to work to develop a more equitable society. That, after all, is what government should be all about — to protect the little fish from the big fish, not to make the world safe for the big fish.

[ Page 2087 ]

[9:30]

MS. BROWN: I want to express my disappointment in the government. We've put forward an idea. We suggested that Bill 11 be hoisted for six months so the government can have a chance to do some rethinking on it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: This is the working team over here. We want to get some things done.

MS. BROWN: Well, that's fine. If you're the working team, then do some work. We would like to hear from the government members whether this a good idea or a bad idea. But we haven't heard anything. We are supposed to be having a dialogue here. We are supposed to be talking to each other. If the government members agree with the hoist, then it seem to me that someone should rise....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member speaking now seems more intent on lecturing the government members than on making a point. I can assure her that should any one of their members make one reasonable point during this hoist debate, we will be very happy to respond to it. So far we haven't heard any.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. minister. I don't believe that is a point of order, but I do believe that the hon. minister has a salient point when he noted that, rather than taking part in the debate on the hoist resolution, you were seemingly digressing from the purpose and principle of your resolution. I would ask you to restrain from digressing.

MS. BROWN: I appreciate your concern, and I thank you for expressing your opinion. All I am trying to say is that it is very difficult to have a dialogue with a person who doesn't respond.

Maybe silence means that the government agrees with the idea of a hoist. But we have no indication as to whether the government agrees or disagrees with this recommendation.

I was really pleased yesterday and last night when the government decided to participate in the proceedings going on in the House. I congratulated them on that fact.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you did mention to the member now addressing the chamber to stick strictly to the motion before us, which is the hoist. I would ask you to remind her one more time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds was developing a line of reason, and I would suggest that her rhetorical questions may well have been in order. As long as she quickly comes to the point of developing this line of discussion, I'm sure we will allow her to continue.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The speed with which you were able to grasp what I was doing explains why you are in the chair, rather than that bleeding heart member for Vancouver South, who sobbed all over the floor of this Legislature yesterday.

I am speaking in support of the hoist, and I want to give a couple of reasons why I think the government should lift this bill off the floor of the Legislature for six months and get involved in some consultation and some rethinking in terms of the content of the bill.

I want to support an idea which was put by Professor Dobell to the MacDonald commission on Canada's economic future. He said, in talking about the government's bill, that the public service downsizing component of the government's program is tragically flawed by the classic failure: namely, impatience for results, which lead to an unwillingness to invest in the slow process of building trust in an open, consultative undertaking, We are supporting the hoist because we agree that really what we need, even though it is a slow process, is some open, consultative undertaking on the part of the government. We recognize that the government's job is to govern. But we realize that no one person or no one government, by themselves, really knows better than all of us, though there are many governments that may think so. There isn't a government on earth that cannot learn something by consulting with the groups or the individuals who are going to be affected by the decisions which that government is making.

Now to back up that argument, we have a poll, whether you accept is as being scientific or not, which was conducted by the Vancouver Sun newspaper and which said that people did support the body of what was contained in pieces of legislation like Bill 11, but they did not support the method. It seems to me that one of the things the hoist would do would be to give the government an opportunity to meet with community groups to find out exactly what it is about the method of implementing their program that people do not agree with. If the government's really interested in doing a good job, they should welcome the opportunity to hoist this legislation for six months. It's not a new piece of legislation. It was originally introduced in April 1982, under a different title but primarily the same legislation dealing with restraint. At that time we were told by the Minister of Finance and the Premier that it was a short-term program. It was not intended to exist for more than a couple of years. Within two years it would be phased out and everyone would live happily ever after again.

HON. A. FRASER: That's no reason to hoist.

MS. BROWN: That is not a reason to hoist. The reason to hoist is that if the program isn't working and hasn't achieved its goal, and the government has decided to extend the program indefinitely, then it seems to me it needs to do some consulting. It needs to consult with people who are involved in the program, who are going to be affected by the program, and who may be victimized by the program. That's the reason for a hoist, not just to put the bill aside for six months and forget about it. That's not what the opposition is suggesting, Mr. Speaker. The opposition is not saying pull the bill for six months, file it in the archives somewhere, and come back in six months and reintroduce it. The opposition is saying take six months to do some homework, because very clearly the homework has not been done. There would not be the hue and cry, the uproar around this legislation if the homework had been done. There would not be the criticism about the methods by which this restraint program is being implemented if the homework had been done.

That is all that Mr. Dobell was suggesting to the MacDonald commission when he said that there was a tragic flaw. He pointed out that it's not an unusual flaw, because he referred to it as a classic failure, which means that this is

[ Page 2088 ]

something that has happened before: the impatience for results. I understand that; everyone is in a hurry to get where they want to go. We're all in a hurry. When I first became involved in the struggle for equal rights for women, I was in a hurry. I thought we could achieve that goal in a matter of five years at the very most. Twenty years later I find myself still struggling, because I too was guilty of the impatience which Mr. Dobell talks about, To hoist this bill for six months will give this government an opportunity to look at some of the things it's trying to do, and to meet and talk with some of the groups who should have been consulted in the first place.

I want to make a suggestion to the government, and I know that the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), although he's not in his seat, is taking notes. I want to suggest that one of the things that the government do is meet with B.C. Hydro during the six-month period.

HON. A. FRASER: Meet with who?

MS. BROWN: B.C. Hydro. I have a confidential internal report which B.C. Hydro did on affirmative action within that Crown corporation.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Affirmative action — he doesn't know what that is. I'm not going to digress except to say very quickly that what B.C. Hydro was doing was looking at its employment profile in terms of where the people are who work in that Crown corporation: where they are concentrated, their salary scale, their avenues of promotion and moving ahead, and those kinds of things. This particular affirmative action program — the recommendations contained in this report — is at jeopardy as a result of Bill 11. The people involved in this program are going to be victimized if Bill 11 is implemented in its present form.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: The Minister of Forests asked for some positive recommendations. My positive recommendation to him is that he meet with B.C. Hydro. They have struck a management committee...

HON. MR. WATERLAND: How do you spell Hydro?

MS. BROWN: H-y-d-r-o. He keeps asking how you spell Hydro, Mr. Speaker.

...to look at the employment profile of B.C. Hydro. The report says: "It reflects traditional patterns of occupational segregation which indicate a possibility of systematic discrimination." These are not my words; this is not something that I dreamed up or thought up. When the government hoists this legislation for six months, I suggest that they spend a part of that time meeting with the B.C. Hydro committee which did the research and drafted this particular report. I will table it. I'm surprised that the minister doesn't have a copy of it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, if you're using the report as an analogy for the government to utilize the six-month period, I believe that's in order. But if you're going to get into the report itself, I don't believe that would be relevant.

MS. BROWN: No, no, Mr. Speaker. I'm not using it as an analogy. I'm going to be giving a list of suggestions to the government of groups that the government should meet with during the six-month period.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Certainly that would be in order.

MS. BROWN: I'm not using it as an analogy. I have to explain to the government why they should meet with this group. It doesn't make sense for me to say, "Meet with B.C. Hydro," because the first thing that the Minister of Forests would say to me is: "Why should I meet with B.C. Hydro?" So in anticipation of his question, Mr. Speaker, I am giving a response. He should meet with the establishment of B.C. Hydro and with this particular committee because of their findings.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: That's not going to take us six months.

MS. BROWN: This won't take you six months, but by the time I'm through with the list you may move an amendment to the amendment asking for an additional six months.

The committee found that among the salaried employees of B.C. Hydro, something like 65.6 percent were males and 34.4 percent were females.

[9:45]

MR. R. FRASER: I rise under standing order 43, Mr. Speaker. The relevance of the argument escapes me. Whether or not they have more males than females working in B.C. Hydro would seem to me to have nothing to do with the motion to be addressed by that member.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I certainly share the conclusion of the hon. member. As I suggested earlier, if you are using the report to indicate one of the types of committees that the government can refer to, that certainly would be in order. But when you start getting into the actual merits of the report or its findings, I believe that's out of order.

MS. BROWN: I'm not getting into the merits of the report, Mr. Speaker, I am explaining to you the kinds of people who are going to be victimized by Bill 11. If the member for Vancouver South who raised the power of order would now listen while I continue with my thoughts, he would understand that the reason they should meet with this committee is that, despite the fact that the breakdown is in the neighbourhood of 34 to 65 percent, the study goes on to find that 89.1 percent of the women employed by B.C. Hydro fall into group 7 or below, while 79 percent of the men fall into group 8 or above.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

You must take these notes down, Mr. Minister. Bill 11, by freezing these people's incomes, by giving itself the power to decrease the percentage of the increase, will jeopardize the affirmative action program which B.C. Hydro decided was necessary to right the inequity which is embodied in the fact that 89 percent of their female employees fall below level 7 while 79 percent of their male employees are above level 8. Now do you understand it?

[ Page 2089 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has been listening with interest and has been patiently waiting for the member to relate her remarks to the hoist, or at least to the bill. With all due respect, Madam Member, the Chair is still having that difficulty. At this point, I would ask if the member could return to the hoist which itself deals with Bill 11.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, you are forcing me now to start at the beginning again, and I know you don't want me to do that. All I'm trying to say is that Bill 11 victimizes certain people. During the six months when the hoist is taking effect the government should meet with these various groups that will be victimized by Bill 11 if it's implemented in its present form. One such group is the group that recommended affirmative action in B.C. Hydro, based on the fact that when they did a personnel profile, they discovered that 89 percent of the women were at the bottom of the economic pile in B.C. Hydro and 79 percent of the men were at the top. To introduce Bill 11 in its present state is to freeze that, and to ensure that the women on the bottom remain at the bottom and that the men at the top remain at the top, and that we have no equality.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, the story about how many men or women work for Hydro or which end of the scale they're on is very interesting but is absolutely irrelevant to the hoist to Bill 11. I ask you to call that member to order.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, while we are always in a position to refer briefly to something which surrounds the matter under discussion, to make that outside matter itself the point of the debate is beyond the scope of the debate allowed at this stage in the bill, and I would ask the member now to return to the hoist.

MR. COCKE: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what the member for Burnaby-Edmonds is talking about is the fact that certain people are affected even more severely than others, and those happen to be women.

MR. SPEAKER: Regarding the point of the member for New Westminster, while that may or may not be the case, it nonetheless would preclude a singular debate on that particular issue. It might be part of a broad reference, but only a passing reference and certainly not the main thrust of the debate, which I'm sure the member is well aware of. She will now continue with her remarks.

MS. BROWN: What is clear to me, Mr. Speaker, is that I'm failing miserably to get across to the government benches the seriousness of the impact of Bill 11 on the female workers in the public sector, and the reason why hoisting this legislation and meeting with those groups is so important. It's very easy for those male members over there, with their access to private executive boxes for football games, and their tax write-offs and whatever, to tap their desks and say, "Hear, hear," when I talk about the low-paid workers who work for Crown corporations and in the public sector, and who are going to be victimized by Bill 11. It's very easy for them to stand on points of order when I say that this bill should be hoisted while the government has an opportunity to meet with those groups.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it's quite clear what the CSP will do and what you can do with low- and high-paid workers under CSP, but what the member has been requested to do is speak to the hoist, which she has not done thus far.

MS. BROWN: I'm going to keep on saying this, Mr. Speaker, until it gets through their thick skulls.

AN HON. MEMBER: My skull's no thicker than yours.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I didn't say his skull was thicker than mine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Notwithstanding our individual desires to express points at any particular time, we unfortunately — or fortunately, depending on your point of view — are guided in what we can say with those remarks by the rules that bind us in this assembly. The rules have been recited to the member now, and I'm sure that upon reflection the member will realize that now she must address the hoist motion itself.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I support the hoisting of this legislation for six months so that during that period this government can consult and meet with groups in the community who are going to be victimized by Bill 11 if it's implemented in its present state. One such group that they must meet and consult with is the group which was struck by B.C. Hydro to look at its personnel profile. One of the reasons they must meet and consult with them is because that group found that the majority of the women who were public sector workers in B.C. Hydro are in the low-paying jobs in that Crown corporation. Seventy-nine percent of them are at level 7 and below, whereas over 80 percent of the men are level 8 and above. It is not possible for B.C. Hydro to implement the recommendations of that particular committee in terms of dealing with equal pay and closing the economic gap between those male and female workers if Bill 11 is implemented in its present form. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, to you, and to the members for Vancouver South and Omineca, and to whoever else is listening, the government must use this six-month hoist to meet with that committee.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 43, and I'll read that standing order....

MR. SPEAKER: That's not necessary, hon. member.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, Mr. Speaker, the relevance here is the tedious and repetitious debate by a member repeating himself or repeating the argument made by other members. This member has at least ten times in the last 20 minutes gone over the same ground, and I would think it's almost time for you to invoke standing order 43.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, hon. members, is always reluctant to invoke the provisions of standing order 43, but the Chair also has a responsibility to the remainder of the members, and I would ask again that the member relate.... There is a very broad debate that could be allowed

[ Page 2090 ]

and could be in order in this particular debate, hon. member, and I'm sure that if the member put her thoughts to the issue at hand, the debate could very well be in order. I ask the member, bearing in mind the restrictions of debate, to confine her remarks to the principle, which is the hoisting for six months of Bill 11 and the need therefore.

MS. BROWN: I certainly accept your statements, and I agree with the Minister of Forests that I have repeated myself more than once — perhaps four, five or six times — because it has taken me that long to get through to the government members precisely what I wanted to say. However, you've got the message, and I am pleased that the minister has finally got the message. He's showing me that he's made notes and that he is agreeing, I hope, that during the six months that this bill is hoisted the government will use that period to meet with various community groups such as the one which I will not repeat, and also to avail himself of this report, which shows, for example, that of the 124 executives on the payroll, not one single one is a woman.

There are other groups that I think the government should meet with during this six-month period, because, as I said before, I don't want them just to place the bill in the archives and forget about it. I want them to meet with community groups. I want them to meet with some of the women who work in the office assistant 1 and office assistant 2 categories of the public sector. Those are the women who have take-home pay in the neighbourhood of $1,500 a month and under; the women for whom their trade union, in negotiations, was trying again to close the economic gap, and talking about bottom-loading the contract so that their income could increase.

MR. R. FRASER: To the hoist, please.

MS. BROWN: In any event, Mr. Speaker — because it's clear that I'm never going to get through to the member for Vancouver South, so I think I may as well ignore him — what I mentioned before and what I want to mention again is that something like 51.1 percent of the people employed in the public sector who are going to be affected by this piece of legislation are women. Most of these are concentrated in the office assistant 1 and office assistant 2 categories: something like 70 percent of the women in the public sector are making incomes of less than $1,500 a month. I think that that government, during the six-month hoist, should meet with the representatives from those two categories and try to understand the reason why implementing Bill 11 is going to destroy every effort on their part to achieve equal pay — or if not equal pay, even to improve the kind of wages they earn.

[10:00]

When I say the government should meet with these groups, I'm not talking about bureaucrats meeting with these groups. I'm talking about the minister himself and some of his colleagues, either from the back bench.... Or, as was suggested by the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), maybe members from both sides of the House should meet with these community groups. They should also meet with the women's groups. One of the things that the Minister of Labour has done is hire a deputy minister responsible for women's programs. But clearly there was no consultation with the women's office in the Ministry of Labour, because I cannot believe that the deputy minister responsible for women's programs would have agreed to the implementation of this piece of legislation.

MR. PARKS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have listened most attentively for approximately the last 30 minutes, and the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds has wandered in and out of relevance, but unfortunately, time and again having been brought to order by the Chair, she has persisted in wandering into the tedious and repetitious category of standing order 43. Should the Chair not feel that she has not totally digressed from standing order 43, may I direct the Speaker to Sir Erskine May's nineteenth edition, page 440, for some further assistance as to why she should be brought to order. I'm referring to the passage which is intituled:

"Obstruction of the business of the House otherwise than by disorderly conduct or persistence in irrelevance or tedious repetition.

"A member who 'abuses the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House, ' that is to say, who, without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate, uses" — her — "right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House, or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House, is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct. It would seem, therefore, that a member so obstructing the business of the House cannot be required under our S.O. No. 23 to withdraw from the House.... He may be, however, guilty of a contempt of the House, and may be named.... "

I would suggest that this speaker has attempted to abuse the rules of this House by persistently going outside of relevancy and insisting on being tediously repetitious.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Before I recognize the member for Prince Rupert, it might be an opportune time for Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twelfth edition. I read from "Rules of Debate," page 283, and, hon. members, it is most appropriate for this particular point that has been raised:

"It is not regular to discuss the merits of a bill or other order of the day upon a motion for its withdrawal or postponement, and debate must be strictly confined to the object of the motion. A similar restraint has been placed upon the debate upon a motion to recommit a bill. Otherwise, the merits of a bill might be debated not only upon its several stages but whenever its postponement is proposed."

Now, hon. members, with due respect, I cannot imagine a more concise or precise reference for us to consider.

The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I commend you for reading that bit of information for us, because it's exactly the information we needed. There is a motion before the House to postpone the bill for six months. As I understand it from the objections being raised from the opposite side, unless we stick specifically to the hoist motion, then we are out of order. But if we were to stick strictly to the hoist motion, in a certain respect all we could do is say, "We would like to hoist the bill for a period of six months," and that would be the end of debate. On the face of it, that would seem ridiculous, because it would seem to me that you would have to say: "Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 2091 ]

I would like to speak in favour of this motion to hoist for six months for these reasons." You don't have to discuss the merits of the legislation, but you should be given the latitude to point out that you want to postpone it for six months, and to name the reasons that you want it postponed. As far as I can see, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds has said that, yes, she agrees with the motion, and here are the reasons, because here will be the effect of the bill on people. If we can't make that sort of argument, Mr. Speaker, then there's no argument at all, or no debate, and all we can say is: "I want to hoist it for six months."

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Nonetheless, what we would often like to do and are not able to do is not the responsibility of the Chair; it is the responsibility of the Chair to uphold the regulations, rules and traditions that guide us in our debate. I will read the first sentence, as I did before: "It is not regular to discuss the merits of a bill or other order of the day upon a motion for its withdrawal or postponement, and debate must be strictly confined to the object of the motion." Hon. members, I commend that to the member as she continues.

MR. LEA: Again, it's not clear in my mind, and I think it's to the benefit of the House that what you have said be absolutely clear. You said that we must speak to the point of the motion, but are you saying that when speaking to the point of the motion we can't give our reasons that we want it hoisted?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, if there is an opportunity for members to research the remarks of the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) earlier today, I would suggest that members do that. They could see how a debate was confined virtually entirely within the confines of the standing orders, and how there is a possibility and opportunity for members to make their remarks in order during that period of time.

MR. LEA: Then, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker, it would be perfectly permissible for me to stand up, when I take my place in the debate, and say: "I agree with the motion because it's going to do certain things. The effect of the bill will be certain things, and for those reasons I want the bill hoisted for six months."

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, it is not the responsibility of the Chair to answer questions of supposition; it is the responsibility of the Chair to rule on the proceedings as we encounter them. The Chair, with due respect, has on numerous occasions given instructions for the procedure of orderly debate this evening, and I would hope that members could take those remarks and proceed as we do so into the remaining time the member has.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I'm sorry that so much of my time was taken up. I am supporting this hoist because the bill is part of a systematic onslaught on the women workers of this province, and I wanted to use my 40 minutes to convince the government to use the six months to look at the victims of this piece of legislation and to look at the kinds of horrendous things they're doing to the women workers of the province.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: Every time I stand on the floor of this House and talk about the way this government victimizes women, the whole government gets into an absolute uproar...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...leaping up and down on points of order. It's not possible to stand on the floor of this House and talk about the destructive things this government is doing to women and the way it stands in their way of fighting for equality, dignity and decency. It's not possible to do that because this government leaps up and down on specious points of order and interrupts every time. The attitude that this government has towards...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: ...women is disgraceful and disgusting. There's absolutely no end to your onslaught on women workers, families and children. You're a disgraceful government.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Order, please. On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston seeks the floor.

MR. NICOLSON: May I draw your attention to Sir Erskine May's ninth edition, page 387, part 6, which says:

"They are not to disturb a member who is speaking by hissing, exclamations or other interruption. The following is a declaration of this rule by the House of Commons, 22nd of January, 1693: 'To the end that all the debates..."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that the point is being made very well for me at this moment.

MR. SPEAKER: I was about to say that.

MR. NICOLSON:

" '...in this House should be grave and orderly, as becomes so great an assembly, and that all interruptions should be prevented, be it ordered and declared that no member of this House do presume to make any noise or disturbance whilst any member shall be orderly debating, or whilst any bill, order, or such other matter shall be in reading or opening; and in case of such noise or disturbance, that Mr. Speaker do call upon the member, by name, making such disturbance; and that such person shall incur the displeasure and censure of the House.' "

I might be honest and go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that this also goes on to say that this rule is too often disregarded.

[ Page 2092 ]

"In the House of Commons the most disorderly noises are sometimes made, which, from the fullness of the House, and general uproar maintained when 500 or 600 members impatiently waiting for a division, it is scarcely possible to repress."

But, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that in a House that has but 57 members, while the strictest adherence to this rule is perhaps impossible to achieve, it is something that could be considered equally important to the observance of standing order 43.

MR. SPEAKER: A timely observation, hon. member. Thank you.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, it has been obvious throughout this debate that there is definitely a lack of interest in putting forward proper and significant debate. It's also obvious by the poor attendance in the House by members of the official opposition that they are anything but serious in their desire to participate in any meaningful dialogue with regard to this legislation. I would bring your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that on more than one occasion we have been fortunate to see more than two people on the opposite side of the House, so it really goes to show that they aren't very serious in the performance that's being put on here this evening.

Each member of the opposition who has taken the time to participate in the debate on the hoist motion said virtually the same thing. One has only to refer to the number of objections registered under standing order 43 for verification of this point. At the count of 20, I lost tally; it has exceeded 20 since 5:50 this evening.

[10:15]

The repetition and irrelevance of statements made during the immediately concluded debate would, in my opinion, suggest that the official opposition has truly exceeded all acceptable rules of debate. We have had 18 opposition....

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do believe it's against the rules of this House to read your speech.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I believe it is against the rules of the House. I realize it may be difficult, when you're going to lead up to what I suspect the member is going to lead up to, to do it off the top of her head, but I suspect that to be absolutely precise in what the speaker is going to be doing before she's finished, I ask for leave that she be allowed to read her speech.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is not a time that one member can ask leave for another member to do something, and the member, I'm sure, is....

MR. LEA: Well, then, Mr. Speaker, if she would ask for leave, I would be more than willing that this side of the House go along with it.

MR. SPEAKER: That would have to be a matter for the member to determine. The member continues, and, hon. member, we're currently on a hoist to Bill 11.

MRS. JOHNSTON: The official opposition has suggested on more than one occasion that this is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be dealt with during this session, but their poor showing in the House during the debate and the votes shows the hypocrisy of this statement. Up to this period of time, we have had 31 speakers on the bill — 15 hours — and we have had 7 speakers — approximately 5 hours — spent on the hoist. Since most of the debate on the hoist has really been on Bill 11, possibly we should get back to debate on the bill.

Under standing order 46, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the question be now put.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. While debate is not allowed, on a point of order the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would just draw your attention to the point which says: "...unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority...." then the question is put without debate. I would suggest that having prepared to speak on this, I would feel that as a member of the minority my rights are impinged upon.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, hon. members, having heard the motion and having given consideration to standing order 46 and the point raised by the member for Nelson-Creston, I now declare that the question shall be put.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 9

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 9

[ Page 2093 ]

NAYS — 30

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

On the main motion.

MR. MACDONALD: I guess any government anywhere in the democratic world can disregard all the traditions and run roughshod over the rights of individuals. That's what you've done. You're wiping out debate....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly at this point the member is reflecting on a vote.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm speaking on Bill 11, which discriminates and picks out for special punishment and discrimination the 240,000 public sector employees of the province of British Columbia, the kind of people that the Premier — although he denied it later — referred to as not doing their jobs, not engaging in production employment and as nothing compared to his great friends out in the private sector, the real estate flippers, the guys who engage in merger and takeover of companies. You're insulting the good public sector employees of the province. You have this crazy mindset that they don't do any worthwhile work for the people of this province, so you pick them out. You don't have controls for everybody — for profits, for rents, and all the rest of it. You let the millionaires and all your friends who support you with money go free and you pick out our good public servants of British Columbia for special discrimination and punishment in terms of the economic market. Everybody else can go ahead and make their bundle. The government just refuses to listen to the people of British Columbia, for whom it has an arrogant disregard. Do you know what the people out there are saying, Mr. Speaker? They're saying: "Why doesn't the government sit back and take its time and consult and cooperate and work out some solution to the difficult economic problems we have? Why ram things through with the heavy hand of government, using whatever you want to use to ram through your legislation in a stubborn, arrogant way? The people of British Columbia want to sit down and cooperate and be consulted about the kinds of problems being faced in this province. They don't like you just to pick out one section and discriminate against them. They want some real solutions. This is not going to solve the problems of inflation.

[10:30]

Mr. Speaker, it's a very sad night in the Legislature of British Columbia when this kind of debate is cut off in this way. The well-expressed feelings of people for consultation and cooperation are being ignored by a government that's determined to carry on in its heavy-handed way. We have one-man government in British Columbia, and the one man is a very stubborn individual. He has said: "I'm going to go with my program, and to heck with anybody who wants to discuss compromises, creative solutions....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Not true.

MR. REID: That's leadership.

MR. MACDONALD: No, there's been none of that. Leadership? Stubborn arrogance, that's what we've got in this province, with a far-right, radical ideology like Reagan and Thatcher that says you've got to cut down government that helps people, whether it helps them or not, and let all the rest of the profiteering economy run absolutely free. This is a very sad night in the province of British Columbia. The government is ignoring the expressed wishes of the people of this province for consultation and cooperation. This bill should be defeated.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of Bill 11, the Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, let me say that this program which was introduced in 1982 and further amended in 1983, has proven to be the fairest means by which public sector compensation can be given market factors similar to the private sector and yet still allow collective bargaining.

I think we've got a good contrast with the federal program of six-and-five, which is an arbitrary measure. It does not allow for collective bargaining on other items; in fact, it takes the place of collective bargaining. Yet with the guidelines that are given under our compensation stabilization program, collective bargaining has been preserved, albeit with guidelines and limits forced upon us to provide some measure that will reflect the difficulties being placed on settlements in the private sector or the ability to pay.

New items that were reinforced in legislation this time were always part of the compensation stabilization program. They are not new, but they are now more clearly stated in this legislation: that is, the ability to pay. It's been suggested by some who oppose this bill that the government somehow can control the ability-to-pay argument by the way they allocate money. Yet the ability to pay is really the ability of our taxpayers — be they individuals, small business or industry in total as individuals — to send money to government.

This government right now, not because we aren't managing well but because the economy has plunged our export markets and hurt our forest industry and employment, this year, even with restraint, will have a deficit of $1.6 billion. This deficit will continue for years and will have to be repaid. Hopefully, we can improve on the picture before us, but recovery should not be taken for granted. Wishful thinking should not take the place of sound planning. Everyone must recognize that the high-growth decade in the industrialized world of the sixties and seventies is not forecast for the balance of the eighties and nineties.

Our province and its people must be positioned to be able to compete on world markets and to have affordable government, not a government that is beyond our ability to pay or create taxation levels that will hamper or impair our business and drive it away from British Columbia to more affordable political jurisdictions.

[ Page 2094 ]

The compensation stabilization program was a major issue in the last election on May 5. People of the province understood it well. To suggest, as has been done, that it be hoisted for more consideration rejects the fact that the public spoke out very strongly on the compensation stabilization program. The criticism that was so poorly aimed at this program by members of the opposition in 1982.... They should hang their heads in shame and blush when they read what they said. They weren't correct then about the program, and they haven't learned their lesson yet and are unable to even understand the program and how it works. The debate during this bill and in subsequent motions has been the most ill-informed discussion I've ever heard about legislation that's been in place in this province for over a year.

If this debate has reflected anything, it is that the New Democratic Party cares not for what the voters told them in the last election. Since the election they've privately said that their leader slipped in Nelson when he told the public that they were going to dismantle it and that that was their big gaffe in losing the election. It means that they haven't learned their lesson at all. They're continuing to play politics but, above all, they're continuing to disregard what the people said very loudly on May 5.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair would remind hon. members that under standing order 42, the mover of the debate closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier has spoken most eloquently with respect to the bill which has been before us for some time, and which indeed is a companion to legislation that was debated at length in 1982 and was a focal point, as was observed just a few moments ago, in the election campaign, and indeed in the election on May 5.

These amendments mark, in my view, and as I attempted to say in opening debate, an important stage in the evolution of the way in which compensation is to be set in the public sector. The amendments are built on an established, successful program and there can be no doubt that the program announced by the Premier on February 18, 1982 and later implemented has been a success, has been a benchmark and is indeed setting a pace for other parts of this country, ensuring that there is a focus on providing the most cost-effective service to taxpayers, who have a limited ability, a limited capacity, to send their dollars to government. I wonder when the opposition — which appears decimated at this point, with only three members in attendance — will understand that government does not, as we have said repeatedly, have money of its own; it spends taxpayers' hard-earned dollars. Whether those are individual dollars, small business dollars, corporate dollars, they are tax dollars which are sent.

I don't intend to reflect on a vote but it was clear earlier that the opposition would have had us withdraw the bill or postpone it and therefore, it follows, raise taxes. Ask the IWA member who has just returned to work after a very difficult period of many months if we should raise taxes to pay higher salaries to the public sector worker. Ask the business that has managed to survive through very difficult times, that has struggled through the recession, if we should raise taxes on business in order to pay wages to public sector workers, who admittedly already have among the highest wages in the western world. Surely all of us at this particular point in time have to share the burden of our difficulties and contribute equally to the recovery which is on its way.

In Bill 11, government has moved the concept of the taxpayers' ability to pay — or, if you wish, the employers' ability to pay — to the heart of the compensation stabilization program. The argument has been made in the House and in my office, and I've listened carefully, that this unduly centralizes decisions on government, that it centralizes decisions on compensation levels in the public sector, because the government of the day would then ultimately set spending levels through its budget. That's not really correct. The taxpayer sets the spending levels. The taxpayer tells us how much money he can afford and the taxpayer spoke most clearly and eloquently on May 5. The additional prominence which is given to the ability-to-pay concept, together with the amendments directed specifically at arbitrators and arbitration boards, should ensure that the reality of our limited resources in the public sector is broadly recognized when compensation levels are to be set. Centralization, therefore, is not the issue. It is not an issue, although it was raised as an issue in the debate and in some discussion. More importantly, the issue is living within our means — as a province, as a people, as a government and as taxpayers. Living within our means: it is as simple as that. Living within the means of the taxpayer today and in the immediate future. Sharing the burden among all of us. No special privileges for the few.

The program is also designed to ensure that public sector settlements not lead private sector settlements in the period since February of 1982. That is demonstrably correct, notwithstanding some nasty or ill-tempered interjection by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). That is fundamental, Mr. Speaker. It is fundamental that the private sector should not lag behind the public sector and rush in an attempt to catch up, in a rush to attract individuals into the workforce.

The debate has been lengthy, it has strayed from time to time; nonetheless, I believe earnestly that the people of British Columbia said to this party, in the period leading to May 5: "Compensation stabilization, as you announced it in February and as you enacted in this chamber later in the spring of 1982, is what we must have for an indefinite period."

[10:45]

I want to make a couple of technical comments, Mr. Speaker. It should be kept in mind that for every drop of about one percentage point in public sector settlements, there is a $45 million saving to public sector employers and, therefore, to the taxpayers who send their money to Victoria. Simply put, thus far, and now for some time to come, CSP has helped to save very significant sums of money. We spoke about productivity gains, ways in which we can increase productivity. I think these are the ways to generate revenue, in fact. Productivity improvements are the way to gain wage increases, and that is fundamental in the bill that is before us now. Productivity advances improve life for everyone: not just for the employee, but for the public sector employer and ultimately, again, for the taxpayer. If we are to survive in an extremely competitive and volatile world, then we also have to be committed to productivity gains. To deny that is to abandon our role in the world community. To deny that is to abandon our role, to deny our own future in the world and in the world community. It is the way of the future, and this government is setting standards in this respect that will and are now leading the way.

[ Page 2095 ]

Further, Mr. Speaker, other Canadian jurisdictions have watched our experience very closely — comments to the contrary from the opposite side notwithstanding. They are following B.C.'s experience. Officials from Prince Edward Island, from Quebec, from Ontario, have contacted their counterparts here to discuss the program, to discuss its merits, to examine ways in which it has worked thus far and ways in which it will continue to work. Legislation is on the books in one other jurisdiction at least, in Prince Edward Island particularly, and it parallels very closely the approach in British Columbia. But that is just the start, in my view.

In closing second reading, it is obvious that the leadership offered by the Premier and by the government through the intensity of a pre-election period and an election campaign where stabilization of public sector compensation was out front, was fundamental. It was discussed regularly by both parties — and by other parties as well in British Columbia — and showed that we had a clear intention with respect to this kind of legislation. I reject any suggestion tonight, any suggestion made in the past or to be made in the future, that this somehow is a surprise. Indeed, it could not be a surprise; it was identified in the heat of that spring election campaign. It was debated at length, and we know why the members opposite did not achieve government, which they so dearly, so sorely sought.

This government is committed to working for all British Columbians: not just for the public sector, not just for the private sector, but for all British Columbians who send their money in trust to this city, to this government. We recognize the value of productivity. I believe the majority of British Columbians tonight will support us in recognizing the value of productivity and the value in some modest control on the levels of compensation offered to people employed in the public sector. This government has no doubt that the people of this province have risen and will rise again to the challenge of this bill, to the challenge of our times, and will support us in this legislation.

I now move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 8

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

Bill 11, Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 4.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give the Premier a few moments to leave the room. He doesn't want to hear anything about the arguments as to why Bill 4 should be hoisted for a six-month period.

In closing second reading on Bill 11, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) spoke about problems facing our community. I suppose that one of the ways out of these problems is to find some solutions to them. One of the solutions proposed in Bill 4 that should be reconsidered some six months hence.... First, I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the solution in Bill 4 is that the poorest people in the community should bear the most disproportionate share of the cost of solving the government's problems. I say "the government's problems" because the problems we're experiencing in the province right now were not created by people who would have received low-income tax credits. They were not created by people who would have received renter's tax credits. The problems we're experiencing today were created by the government we have in office in the province of British Columbia, who have been in office for the last seven years. It's not individuals out in the community who are being asked to pay the price of solving the government's problems. These problems are not made by individuals; they're made by governments.

[11:00]

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

One of the ways in which the current administration created those problems was when the Premier of the province argued in favour of the high interest rate policy established and followed by the federal government. The Minister of Finance said that the taxpayers set the limits; indeed, that the taxpayers collectively said that we couldn't afford to pay low-income tax credits. On the other hand, the taxpayers say that it is quite all right to pay substantial increases in rentals to BCBC, so that they could go out and borrow some $200 million to buy shares in B.C. Place. On one hand the taxpayers are quite prepared to put $200 million into that project, but they have collectively made a decision that they can't afford to pay low-income and renters' tax credits. Mr. Speaker, that argument makes no sense to me. I don't believe the taxpayers said that in the last election campaign. I believe the government should reconsider this now, for some six months.

The minister said that the taxpayers spoke eloquently on May 5. But, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers weren't told the whole truth. I'm tempted to say something much stronger than that, but for the moment I'll simply say that the taxpayers weren't told the whole truth on May 5. You will recall that we had the latest budget ever in the history of the province. The budget did contain some elements of truth but

[ Page 2096 ]

certainly not the whole truth. The truth was not revealed to the voters when they were voting on May 5. So for the minister to say that the taxpayers spoke eloquently on May 5, when the taxpayers spoke without any knowledge at all as to what had happened in the province of British Columbia since the financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1981, is not fair. They were uninformed, largely, about what had happened in the province of British Columbia.

This is one instance where the taxpayers really were told the truth. The taxpayers, when they voted on May 5, while they were not told the rest of the government's program, were told that the government intended to take away from the poorest people in the community some $91 million that was voted by the Legislature for low-income tax credits and renter tax credits. They were told that part of the truth, but they were not told a lot of other information that was in the budget.

The minister said that the taxpayers spoke eloquently on May 5, but the taxpayers were not told about the 26 pieces of legislation that were introduced with the budget on July 7. The taxpayers did speak eloquently on May 5, but they were uninformed taxpayers. The Social Credit Party was afraid to tell the taxpayers what was happening, what the current situation was in the province of British Columbia and how the Social Credit Party intended to govern in the event that it was re-elected. They withheld that information from the taxpayers when those taxpayers were going to the polls on May 5.

The minister said it is more important that we live within our means. Important in 1983? In 1981 we didn't live within our means; we were some $330 million short of living within our means, and that is four years ago as far as fiscal years are concerned. In 1982 we didn't live within our means; we were some $600 million short of what the Minister of Finance said we would accomplish. In the year ended March 31, 1983, we didn't live within our means. The budget tells us that we were $978 million short of living within our means that year. The budget for the year 1983-84 — the one for the year ended March 31, 1984, tells us.... I don't believe it, Mr. Speaker, but it tells us that we are going to be $1.6 billion short of living within our means. For four years in a row this Minister of Finance has produced budgets all of which have been hundreds of millions of dollars out, none of which has shown that the government now leading the province of British Columbia is prepared or able in any way at all to conduct the affairs of this province so that we will indeed live within our means.

Having wasted this money over a period of three to four years, they are now taking revenge on the people of the province for the terrible job that they have done of handling the affairs of the province. He said it is important that we share the burden among all of us. It is great to be sharing, isn't it? Anatole France said something about it. I don't recall the whole quotation, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you can help me. "The law, in its majestic equality, prohibits the rich as well as the poor from stealing a loaf of bread, from sleeping under a bridge, from begging in the streets." So the law is equal in that respect. All of us have to share equally. The rich as well as the poor are going to share in this fight that the government has embarked upon. After four years of profligate spending, the government has now said that we have to start living within our means. The government is determined that the poor as well as the rich will share the burden of this fight. But to date he hasn't told us any way at all in which the rich are going to share. He has simply taken aim at the poor and told us how they are going to share.

The situation, I submit, is not as bad as the budget tells us it is. For that reason I think we should postpone consideration of Bill 4 until we know better. There is evidence that the situation is not as bad as the Minister of Finance predicted. There is evidence in the budget itself, where the figures included, for the first two months of this year.... Since then we've had the first quarterly report, and once again the figures indicate that the situation is not nearly as bad as the picture painted by the Minister of Finance in that budget. If that is really the case — and I say that there is that evidence — then there is no need to proceed with Bill 4 at this time. We could afford to spend $91 million out of an $8 billion budget to pay these tax credits to the poorest people in the community. Anyone who can qualify for that kind of assistance needs that kind of help. Anyone who can qualify for the low-income tax credit needs that kind of help. Anyone who can qualify for the renter's tax credit needs that kind of help. In light of knowledge about what is happening in the province and in the country, there is the argument that can be well made that we should defer consideration of this legislation for some six months.

There was an article in the paper this morning quoting from the Royal Bank's Econoscope. Again, this doesn't necessarily mean that the situation is as good as they say it is, but they do say that things are going to get better in B.C. In 1984: "In 1984 B.C. should lead the country, growing by 5.7 percent in real terms. The national average for 1983 is 3 percent growth." If the growth in B.C. is going to be that good compared to the rest of the country, if our economy really is going to improve that much in 1984 and going to start.... It says that 1983 is going to be better than the Minister of Finance said in his budget. Then why is it necessary at this time for us to consider legislation that takes $91 million out of the pockets of the poorest people in the community?

The minister said that this program was debated at length in the campaign. The government had threatened to withdraw from the poorest people in the community this $91 million, but the government made none of the other threats contained in the 26 pieces of legislation or in the budget itself. The government didn't threaten the community in the way the budget and the 26 pieces of legislation do.

The budget itself talked about the need for recovery. This article I quoted about B.C. leading in recovery.... If indeed we are going to have recovery, then we need some consumer confidence.

The annual inflation rate in Canada right now is running at 5.5 percent. That means that these people who were waiting and hoping for these income tax credits are going to need that money more than ever, much more than was anticipated when the vote providing for that credit.... When the Legislature voted approving $91 million to give these people that credit in the spring of 1982, the money was needed. The Minister of Finance recognized it. The government recognized it. The opposition recognized it and supported it. We knew that those people then, 18 months ago, needed this kind of assistance. How much more important is it to give it to them now?

If we really want to build confidence in the community, then surely, if we can afford it, we should be paying that kind of money out to the poorest people in the community, who

[ Page 2097 ]

immediately they get it will start spending it in their communities and building some confidence in their communities. Confidence in the future is what we need more than anything else.

The inflation rate in B.C. is higher because the government has made certain changes. There's a reference to it in the Globe and Mail of September 23. Speaking about increases across the country, this article reads: "Other notable increases included higher gasoline prices, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia, and higher tobacco prices in British Columbia, reflecting the delayed impact of provincial taxes." The one thing they didn't mention was increases in the sales tax, which, again, have to impact most heavily upon those who have the least to spend.

The legislation before us is taking revenge against the poorest and most defenceless people in the community. We can't afford, it would appear, on the basis of information contained in the budget — not the forecast of a $1.6 billion deficit, but rather the forecasts that the deficit, if you look at the figures, is actually going to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of half that amount.... That being the case, why not postpone consideration of this legislation for six months, at which time we can look at it in the light of more recent and more certain knowledge as to just how bad or how good things are in the province, and consider whether this legislation should be passed, withdrawn, amended, or indeed whether the amount available to be paid to the poorest people in the community should be increased?

I repeat, the problems of which the Minister of Finance spoke, and for which he's trying to find solutions, were not made by the people who are suffering most from them. Those problems were created by government itself. Those problems were created in part by the government that has been in office in the province of British Columbia for some seven years.

It's great to talk about restraint, but when you're a person waiting for the low-income tax credit or the renter's tax credit, you don't have a choice as to whether or not you're going to restrain your spending. You don't have much election in the choice of how you're going to spend your dollars. You're simply trying to live, to exist. Some people were trying to continue their education. I spoke much earlier in this debate about students who came to me and were waiting for their low-income tax credits and their renters' tax credits to pay part of their tuition at Malaspina College. They needed that money in order to continue their education. What has happened to them since I don't know.

The possibility of postponing consideration of this legislation for some six months and giving some hope to the people out there that the government might change its mind and that this money might be available to pay to the poorest people in the community so that they could go out and spend it would certainly increase their confidence and would increase the confidence of the storekeepers who are waiting for customers and for money to be spent in their communities. It would increase the confidence of the business sector generally, and what we need above all else right now is more confidence in the province of British Columbia. The other legislation that was brought in did much to discourage people in the province of British Columbia. What we need is some encouragement.

[11:15]

An article from the Sun dated August 25; it's actually a column by Marjorie Nichols: "On Tuesday" — and that would be Tuesday, August 23, 1983 — "Statistics Canada reported that the wide-ranging tax increases incorporated in the new restraint budget have added more than a percentage to the cost of living in Lotusland." For those people waiting for these income tax credits it was bad enough before when the legislation was first passed; bad enough when we voted that money for them some 18 months ago, and when the Minister of Finance threatened in the fall of last year — just about a year ago — to withdraw those credits. They waited in some apprehension, wondering when the government would do it and what they were going to do about it. They had to wait from the time the minister first threatened to withdraw that tax credit, probably in September 1982, until July 7, 1983 before they knew for certain that the legislation would indeed be introduced. Not necessarily passed, Mr. Speaker; there's still hope that this one bill might be withdrawn by the government. There's still hope that the government might listen to the arguments in favour of postponing consideration of this bill, because these people in the community are the ones who need help most.

It's all very well for the Minister of Finance to say that we have to be concerned about the taxpayers' ability to pay, that we have to show fiscal responsibility. What about some moral responsibility? What about some responsibility for the people in the community least able to look after themselves? Should we not have some consideration for them as well? Should we not show some care and concern for the people in the community who need our help, especially when the evidence is there that the government is able to offer that help, the budget notwithstanding? The budget predicts $1.6 billion, at the same time showing figures which indicate that in the first two months of this year our deficit was in the neighbourhood of $126 million, at which rate, if one can prorate it, the deficit for the year would be less than $800 million — close to $700 million. That being the case, there is evidence that we can afford to pay the income tax credits provided for in that legislation which the legislation before us now intends to wipe out. That's why I think we should postpone consideration of this for six months.

Let's have some indication from the government that they're prepared to let up, to relent, some indication that they recognize that the measures they introduced in that budget and in the 26 pieces of legislation introduced with it were much more than were necessary, and were actually harmful for the economy of British Columbia. Any indication that they're prepared to take a second look at this legislation could do nothing more than help the economy of British Columbia right now. The government has advanced no arguments to indicate that finances in the province right now are so poor that they can't afford to pay these low-income tax credits and these renters' tax credits. The government itself should be willing to admit now that they don't know just how bad this year is going to be. The government itself must be aware that the forecasts are for a further improvement in 1983, and for the improvement that I've mentioned, which was quoted in the papers this morning, of some 5.6 percent in 1984.

The government knows that the cost of living has been going up at the rate of 5.5 percent over the last four months. That being the case, why not do the right thing for the poorest people in the community and agree to postpone consideration of this legislation for some six months? These people aren't in that position through any wish of their own. They're in that position because the government has mismanaged the affairs of the province, and has done so for some four years now. The government has to accept the responsibility for these people

[ Page 2098 ]

being in such low-income positions. It's all very well to say that the private sector has some responsibility. The private sector is limited as to what it can do, and even taxpayers are limited as to what they can afford to pay. But the government has a greater responsibility than have private investors and the private sector generally. The government has a responsibility to maintain reasonable standards of living for all of its citizens. That is not the responsibility of the private sector. The private sector is responsible to the shareholders of the various corporations. The government is responsible to all of the people in the province: not just those who voted for a program that was not revealed to them, but even those who voted against that administration. The government has that greater responsibility, and whether it pays people for working or pays people for not working, the government is obliged — in fact, it is morally responsible — to make sure that everyone in our community has a decent standard of living. The government has the ability to do that. I can't believe for one moment that the government that got us into this mess couldn't, if it chose to, get us out of this mess.

A paper was presented to the Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada on August 20, 1983, by Kenneth McAllister, which I found rather interesting. I'll read briefly from it:

"Unemployment in Canada is a vintage effect, a problem which reveals that our economic structure is not serving the interests or the needs of the citizens or the nation. There are alternate ideologies which do not have unemployment, so we realize that it is not a necessary experience. In a family all members sit down at the table."

The poorest people in the community, who are being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of trying to get us out of the mess that this government got us into, are members of the same family in British Columbia. We're all sitting down at the same table. We all have the same needs and wants. We can produce everything that everyone in the province needs. Why, Mr. Speaker, can this government not devise a method for all of us getting everything that we need in the province of British Columbia?

It goes on: "A nation which has a resource base" — and if B.C. has nothing else, it certainly has a resource base — "a skill base...." We do have skilled workmen and workwomen. We have skilled workers in all trades; we could do with more. We have institutions that have the ability and would like to have the money to be able to teach more skills. But we do have a skill base. We have an energy base. We're selling some of that energy too cheaply out of our own province, but we do have the energy base here in the province of British Columbia "...capable of furnishing the needs of all the citizens...."

Mr. Speaker, we have everything we need to furnish the needs of all the citizens of British Columbia, with the one exception: that is, we don't have a government that wants to furnish the needs of all the citizens in British Columbia. There is nothing lacking but a desire and a determination on the part of the government to do that. We have everything these people need, yet we have to go to the poorest people in the community and say: "Your needs will not be met, because our government can't figure a way of doing it, can't figure a way of putting together the resources and skills and providing for your needs; we just don't know how to do it, or we don't want to do it." Which is it, Mr. Speaker? Let's take six months to consider whether this particular group of people has to pay such a disproportionate share of the cost of fighting against the mess that this government got us into.

To repeat: "....furnishing the needs of all the citizens, plus a generous margin for a healthy and rewarding life...." There's no limit to what we could do, within reasonable terms, for the citizens of our province if we had a government with the determination to do it. We have the resources and skills; we have the people waiting to do it; we have the needs. There is nothing missing other than the government's willingness and determination to take the necessary action. "...but suffers from massive unemployment plus a substantial number of citizens with an income below the poverty line...." That certainly describes B.C. Those people who were waiting, who were hoping.... I think they've given up hope now, but that hope could be restored. We could tell them this evening that the government is ready to postpone consideration of this legislation for six months. We could do that if the government would do it. Give those people some hope. Show them that the government accepts its responsibility and recognizes that it has the ability. With its control of resources and skills, with the energy we have in the province, we can furnish the needs of all of our citizens, plus a generous margin for a healthy and rewarding life. Yet in spite of all that, we do suffer from massive unemployment. Even more, a substantial number of citizens have incomes below the poverty line.

This article goes on: "...that nation" — in this case I would like to say "this province" — "is being grossly distorted by incompetence or priorities which are as criminal as any other form of theft." How else can we describe it? We have everything we need. But if we're not doing for these people what we should be doing, then the government is grossly incompetent or is actually stealing from those people. Mr. Speaker, I would invite the Minister of Finance to tell us which it is: are he and his administration grossly incompetent, or are they deliberately making the poorest people in the community suffer needlessly?

We've done it previously; we have put our skills and our resources to work in this country and this province to create a good life for all of us. It has been done on previous occasions. Mr. Speaker, you won't recall it, but during the war we had a million people under arms and another million people working to produce war weapons that were being shipped out of the country, many of which made it across the Atlantic. It was all being wasted, from the point of view of providing a reasonable standard of living for the people of the country. And yet, in spite of all that, we did it without borrowing one nickel outside of Canada. We simply put together the resources, skills and energy that we had. We fed and clothed all of our own people. Everyone was working except for the million who were under arms — in uniform — and the million who were wasting their time producing munitions and war materials.

With two million people taken out of the workforce and, in effect, being idle from the point of view of contributing what we wanted to distribute to the people in the country.... We could have had those two million people on relief, for all they were contributing to what was going on in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I have to explain this. The million people in uniform were contributing nothing to divide among the citizens of Canada, and the million people who were working to produce munitions and weapons of war were contributing

[ Page 2099 ]

nothing to be divided among the people of Canada. Yet the standard of living during the war was higher than ever before and for years afterwards. There was rationing of imported goods, but there was no need to ration anything that was produced in Canada; there was no borrowing outside of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Meat.

MR. STUPICH: The member says that meat was rationed. Yes, meat was rationed, but most people were eating more meat than they ever ate in their lives before. They could afford to buy it then.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Proof? I lived through that period. The minister is questioning what I'm saying. Perhaps he is too young to remember.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not at all.

MR. STUPICH: Well then, Mr. Speaker, if he does remember and know about it, why is he making the ridiculous interruptions that he is?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry if I said nothing was rationed. Yes, beer, liquor and butter and all kinds of goods were rationed. What I should have said was that nobody went short of anything that was produced in this country during the war. There was a rationing process to make sure that what we had was distributed fairly, but nobody went short in the period. It was nothing like the experience we have today, when the poorest people in the community are being told by this government that they have to give up $91 million in low-income tax credits.

There are other things I'd like to refer to, but they're not in this legislation. We will be referring to them when we're debating other bills.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, the bill before us now should not be before us at this time. We should defer consideration of it for six months, because the picture is not nearly as bad as the Minister of Finance says it is. I recall on a previous occasion when the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) offered to wager with me that the situation would be as bad. Well, it'll be a couple of years before we know, but if there is any reasonable wager that he and I could enter into at this time, then I'd be willing to enter into it and say to him that the picture will be at least $91 million better than the Minister of Finance threatened us it would be — the $91 million that would have been required and that was voted by the Legislature in the spring of 1982 is in there so that the poorest people in the community would have it.

The Minister of Finance talked on the previous bill and said that a 1 percent cut — or reduction, or lack of increase — in wages in the public sector would save the province $45 million. I wonder if he took into account how the people would spend that money or this $91 million. When they spend it, it's not gone from the country. They don't use it to pay off debts in New York. They spend it in their communities, and every time it turns over, the government takes a rake-off. The government is now getting 7 percent tax on everything that's taxable. These people wouldn't be spending very much on restaurant meals at $7 dollars plus, but they spend their money on a lot of other things on which they pay 7 percent tax. And the other taxes have gone up, such as user rate and hospital fees. The government gets that money back, and starts getting it back immediately.

The Minister of Finance talked as though if that one-point increase was awarded to the public sector employees they were going to take the money and go to Hawaii with it and there'd be nothing coming back to the government. It's not that simple, and he knows it's not that simple. There would not be a net cost of $45 million to that one-point increase. As far as the $91 million is concerned, that money, too, would be spent in our own communities and province, and in all likelihood the increase in confidence that it would give the people spending it would generate much more than the $91 million in government revenue.

There are people out there with money to spend. The Minister of Finance said we had to all get together and fight this fight against the recession; we have to share the burden among us. If we could persuade the poorest people in the community to spend a little more money by giving them that money to spend, then it would persuade others in the community — the ones who have the money, the ones whom the Minister of Finance says are going to share the burden, although he has imposed no sharing upon them. The only ones upon whom he has imposed any burden of sharing are the public sector employees. We've dealt with that in previous legislation, so I won't talk about that, but he has imposed upon them the necessity of sharing the burden. In this legislation, unless there is agreement to postpone consideration of this bill, we are going to say that the poorest people in the community — the ones who could establish their right to collect low-income tax credits, the ones who could qualify for renter's tax credits — are the ones upon whom he is going to impose sharing.

The Minister of Finance said during the election campaign that taxpayers set their limits as to what they could spend. The taxpayers said....

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would say that the Minister of Finance has shown total and utter contempt of the House, never having sat in his seat during the entire debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That's not a point of order. The member for Nanaimo has the floor,

MR. STUPICH: I come again to the opening remark of the Minister of Finance in closing the previous bill, because it's so appropriate in this instance. The government created the problems; the government alone has the responsibility and the opportunity to solve the problems. The problems will not be solved by picking on the poorest people in the community and saying that they shall solve them, because they are the ones who contributed nothing to the problem in the first place. They did not cause the problem, and they have no opportunity to do anything about it. The problem was caused by this administration: by the fact that this administration, for four years in a row, has shown its complete incompetence, and now in the fourth year has said that it's going to demand of the poorest people in the community that they shall be the

[ Page 2100 ]

ones to share the burden first, because the government is not interested in going after the better-off people in the community and insisting that they share the burden. The government should take a positive approach and defer consideration of this legislation for six months, put that money out into the community, build some consumer confidence among the poorer people in the community and hope that that consumer confidence will spread to other members of the community, and the $91 million will come back into the government several times over in increased economic activity in the province.

I say again, we have the skills, the resources and the energy. We lack only a government with the initiative and the imagination to put all those things together and provide for all of the citizens of our province not only the bare necessities of life but something better than that, as was mentioned in this paper presented at that royal commission — a royal commission that this government felt wasn't worth considering. I urge the government to seriously consider postponing consideration of this legislation for six months.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak in support of this hoist, and I know that I'm wasting my time. I know that the government is not going to lift this legislation for six months, because if there's any group in our society that they have more contempt for than women it has to be the elderly citizens and the poor.

I'm going to be supporting the hoist, because I have to represent the groups whom I've been elected to represent. I ask the government to take six months off to take another look at the bill, but I'm under no delusions about the government doing this. All one has to do is look at the government's history. Whenever it's needed any money in the past, the first thing it does is to put its hands into the pockets of senior citizens, and into the pockets of the poor, whether by wiping out the denticare program, increasing the bus passes, increasing the impost on Pharmacare, user fees, wiping out services to children and families, and cutting off funding to women's services, such as transition houses or the health collective or post partum counselling. It doesn't matter where you look: whenever this government needs money, the first thing it does is to put its hands into the pockets of the poor.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that we are debating a motion with respect to delaying for six months consideration of a bill, the content of which is quite limited with respect to that which the member has been speaking about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order is well taken, and I would remind the member for Burnaby-Edmonds that she must be relevant to the hoist of Bill 4.

MS. BROWN: It doesn't matter how relevant I am....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members that we will have an orderly House.

MS. BROWN: It is too late for that now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please proceed, hon. member.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member for Burnaby-Edmonds has the floor.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Minister of Finance remembers what this bill is doing. This bill is going to be taking $91 million away from elderly citizens and the poor. The comments that I am making are very relevant indeed to this bill. The motion asks for a six-month hoist, and I'm being very honest about it. I am speaking in support of the hoist, but I know I'm wasting my time. That's all I'm saying. All one has to do is to look at the history of this government to know that this hoist doesn't have a chance on earth of being supported by this government, because now they are making $91 million on the backs of the poor. This is just the last in a long string of instances when the government has put its hands into the pockets of senior citizens and the poor in this province when it needs money. So I'm not deluding myself when I speak in support of this hoist by thinking that the government is going to agree to the hoist, and I'm certainly not going to beg and plead with them over this, because I know what's going to happen. There are going to be one or two speakers. There are going to be a number of points of order, and then the jackboot will come down with closure. That is going to be the end of the debate, and the government will continue on its merry way with its hands in the pockets of senior citizens and the poor.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'd like to remind the member on her feet that we must be relevant to the hoist of Bill 4.

MS. BROWN: I am speaking in support of the hoist. All I am saying is that I know I'm wasting my time but I'm doing it anyway, and I'm explaining why I'm wasting my time. All I'm saying is, look at the history of this Minister of Finance and look at the history of this government.

One of the things that could happen during the six months that this bill is hoisted is that the Minister of Finance could go back and read from Hansard of May 19, 1981, when he introduced the Income Tax Amendment Act, which embodied in it the tax credit and the renter's tax credit, which this present bill is now wiping out. What did he say when he introduced it? He said first of all that the bill was estimated to assist at least 40 percent of British Columbia families, and 75 percent of the elderly would benefit from the credit. He went on to say that this credit was being introduced because it would help these people to offset increases in other costs which they were facing.

It is as true today as it was in 1981 when the minister introduced it. Nothing has changed. He said that this bill was going to help the people who needed it most; that the renters' tax credit and the personal income tax credit were being introduced by his government to help the people who needed it most, such as students and senior citizens with low incomes — to help them to offset other costs which they were facing. That's what he said when he introduced it on May 19, 1981.

He went on to talk about all the benefits that would accrue to pensioners and to various senior citizens, married or single, who really needed this assistance. He did more than that. He then went forward and introduced a press release. During the period of the six-month hoist, maybe the minister could read his old press releases. Do you know what it says?

[ Page 2101 ]

[11:45]

"The intent of this personal income tax credit is to bring tax relief to those who need it most. By this I mean those families, many of them with low incomes, who have felt the impact of various cost-of-living increases. It could assist 75 percent of all elderly citizens.

"I said in the budget speech: the larger the family, the larger the credit; the smaller the income, the larger the credit. I am pleased that the elderly in particular will benefit from this measure."

That's what he said in 1981. That's what he said in 1982, when he issued another press release reminding people to be sure to file for their personal tax credit, which was introduced in the March 1981 budget to help offset the impact of several tax measures. That's what he said then.

He went on to talk about this wonderful tax which was designed to help those people who needed it most in 1981 and in 1982. In fact it did help. An old age pensioner — a couple on the personal tax credit — could go out and get as much as $266.70, and if they were renters they could get an additional $150 for a couple, for a total of $416.70. Maybe during the six-month hoist the Minister of Finance could look at how that elderly couple spend that additional $416.70 and could see the small businesses that benefit from it — all the ones that are now going bankrupt. The increase in bankruptcies is above and beyond that for Canada as a whole. Maybe he could look to see what they spent that $416.70 on in terms of the kind of accommodation which they were able to afford as a result of having that renter's tax credit.

A single mother with two children was eligible, under the personal tax credit, for $147, and if her income was so low that she was also eligible for the renter's tax credit she would receive an additional $150 for a total of $297. When the Minister of Finance talks about raising money he should probably look at that single parent with those two children to see how that $297 is spent — what kind of accommodation that single mother and her two children are now going to be forced to live in as a result of losing that $150 in renter's tax credit. What is going to happen to the amount of money spent on food, on clothing, on incidentals, and on increases in utilities and transportation, which that personal tax credit helped to offset, as the minister said it was intended to when he introduced this legislation on May 19, 1981 ?

Maybe he should look at a household with two children in it and the head of the household receiving unemployment insurance. If that person were eligible for the personal income tax it would be $240.30, and if that person were also eligible for the renter's tax credit to help offset the rent for that family, it would have been another $150 for a maximum of $390.

We're not talking about people who save. We're not talking about people who used this money to buy stocks and bonds or put it away in a retirement savings program or something like that. We're talking about people whose incomes were so low, whose need was so great, that they were eligible for this tax credit and for this renter's credit.

What kind of government, when it is looking for money to meet its bills, to support its profligate ways, its wastage, its incompetence and its ineptitude, would look first of all at the poor and the elderly; would penalize the people who have the least; would penalize the most vulnerable members of our society — the ones who couldn't fight back? I'll tell you what kind of government would do that: a bullying government.

And that's the same kind of government which would ignore a request for hoisting legislation for six months, as this government has every intention of doing.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Sure they'll listen, Mr. Speaker, to the members of the opposition state their case, and when they have heard one or two speeches they'll bring in closure on this bill, as they brought in closure on the bill to reward their friend Spetifore and allow him to take his land out of the agricultural land reserve, and as they brought closure in on Bill 11 so they could continue to exploit the working women of this province. They will bring in closure on this too, so they will be able to continue to rip off the senior citizens and the poor and the disabled, whose incomes are so low that they were eligible for this pittance which the Minister of Finance, when he introduced it with such fanfare in 1981, said was being given to help them offset the other costs which they were facing. In 1982 he issued his press release saying: "Be sure to remember to file for it." And again he bragged about it in the beginning of 1983 just prior to an election, saying: "This is for the ones who need it most. Look how compassionate we are. Look what a great government we are. Vote for us because look how much we take care of you." As soon as that's over, one of the first pieces of legislation they introduce — the fourth bill introduced by this new government with this mandate — is to rip $91 million out of the pockets of elderly citizens and the poor.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) told us about another group of people who depended on these tax credits: students, who because of the impoverished nature of the student aid program, and because of the incredibly high level of unemployment in this province, were not able to secure enough employment so that they could meet their fees and expenses to return to Camosun College, or the University of Victoria, or Malaspina, or Douglas College — wherever. They used to look forward to and always applied for the personal tax credit to help them defray their costs. They were eligible for the renter's credit because their income was so low. They are being victimized by this piece of legislation.

When one looks at the package of legislation which this government has brought down since the budget in July of this year and the people they've singled out to victimize....

Always the elderly, senior citizens, families, children, the poor, and, of course, in this instance as well, students. When the minister introduced his budget and talked about this tax credit and how great it was, he said: "I believe that this credit will effectively bring tax relief to those who need it the most." He was right, because you have to be really destitute to be eligible for this tax credit. He went on to talk about how the elderly in particular would benefit from this measure, in the same way as the elderly benefited from Pharmacare and from the bus passes and from denticare, and all those other programs which the government have taken away from them or increased the cost of in terms of user fees and imposts. Whenever they need money the first groups they turn to, the first pockets they put their hand in are the pockets of the elderly. They zero in on them. Then, of course, when they're through with the elderly they start ripping off the poor. They're a wonderful government, Mr. Speaker!

Then he goes on to say: "Seventy-five percent of the elderly tax-filers will receive the credit. This important measure to assist them will be implemented in the 1981 taxation

[ Page 2102 ]

year." So he could use the six months if there were a hoist to read over some of his speeches, read some of his press releases, look at some of the research he did that led him to decide that these two tax credits were important in the first place. He could use the six months to do that and to read his February 11 personal-tax-credit-reminder news release where he said: "I urge British Columbia residents filling out their tax return forms to remember the personal income tax credit introduced in the budget last March." He could talk again as he did then about how effectively this measure was supposed to bring relief to those who need it most.

But do you know what happened on November 10, 1982, exactly nine months after this reminder urging all British Columbians to be sure when they were filling out their tax forms to file for the tax credit? On November 10, 1982, the Minister of Finance announced the suspension of the personal tax credit; he made a mockery of his own statements about the commitment his government was alleged to have made to elderly citizens and to the poor. Less than a year — nine months exactly — after he did that he wiped out the personal tax credit. Now, if they were willing to accept this motion of a hoist, he would give himself six months to reconsider, to think, and to talk with some of those senior citizens who have lost that tax credit, single families who have lost that renter's credit, and students who can't find work and can't afford to go back to school because they've lost both the tax credit and the renter's tax credit.

He could also use that six months to read some of the research being put out by the Canadian Council on Social Development. One of their studies is called "Bearing the Burden, Sharing the Benefits, " and is a report on welfare and on taxation distribution. It says:

"However progressive tax rates may be, the redistributive consequences of the collecting side of taxation are limited to taking proportionately more from those with higher income than from those with lower and middle income. This undeniably can reduce income disparities, but it does nothing about the most fundamental problem of the poor: their lack of an adequate income in the first place."

This tax credit put money in the hands and pockets of people who lack an adequate income in the first place. The study goes on:

"If the tax system is to provide benefits in such a way that the inequality of after-tax income is decreased, deductions and exemptions are not the answer. What has to be used instead are tax credits."

This side of the House supports that concept. We realize that you can't give an income tax deduction to someone who is not filing income tax, because they haven't got the income to be taxed in the first place. If they're going to get any benefits at all, it has to be in the form of a tax credit. That's the only way the poor get any benefit through the taxation system. Isn't it cynical that the government should start out its fourth bill, at the beginning of its new mandate after the election, by wiping out and taking away that tax credit from the people who need it most, the elderly citizens and the poor. I include in that not just single families and unemployed people on UIC, but students as well.

[12:00]

The Minister of Finance issued a press release in November when he announced the suspension of the personal tax credit and the renter's tax credit. In it he said: " The suspension of the provincial personal income tax credit will ensure that more essential assistance programs such as GAIN and SAFER can continue during this necessary period of government restraint." What an absolute mockery! Of course GAIN has increased, because this government is throwing people out of work, it is creating unprecedented unemployment in this province, and it is budgeting for that unemployment by taking money away from the elderly and the poor and putting it into the GAIN program so that it can throw people out of work and pay them income assistance. It has made a deliberate, political and philosophical decision that it would rather have people collecting welfare than working, and it is going to pay for it by taking money from the elderly and the poor. The old divide-and-conquer concept. You say to the elderly: "You should hate those people on welfare; you can't get your renter's tax credit or your personal tax credit because we need that money to pay those people who are on welfare." That's the old divide-and-conquer routine. Say to the disabled and elderly: "We've got to take away your personal tax credit and your renter's tax credit because we've got to use it to pay all those lazy people on welfare." The old technique of dividing the poor against themselves. There are going to be deserving poor and undeserving poor, so the senior citizens can hate the people on welfare.

The Minister of Finance has issued a press release telling them they're going to lose their personal tax credit and their renter's tax credit but not because this government has deliberately made a political and philosophical decision to throw people out of work and onto welfare. No, that's not what this press release says. This press release says to senior citizens and to the elderly: "You're going to lose your personal tax credit and your renter's tax credit because we have to pay all these people on welfare."

As far as SAFER is concerned, that really is a mockery. They've changed the rules so often that almost nobody is eligible for SAFER any more. Despite that, the press release says to the elderly: "You be sure and hate all those welfare people, all those single parents and unemployed people, because if it weren't for them you would be getting your personal tax credit and your renter's tax credit." The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) thinks this is a joke. He thinks it's funny that the Minister of Finance has chosen to scapegoat the unemployed people of this province, most of whom are unemployed because of the failure of this government's economic and job creation policies. It is deliberately throwing people out of work, and having done that it turns around and scapegoats them in a press release, deliberately saying to the elderly citizens that they're going to lose their renters' tax credit and their personal tax credit because all that money has to go to pay welfare recipients. That's the kind of immoral act that the government is guilty of indulging in — scapegoating the poor. When they're not ripping them off, they scapegoat them. That's the way they continue to show their contempt for senior citizens, poor people, women and children in this province.

The United Church, when talking about the economics of injustice, said:

"The poor are poor, with scant exception, not because they choose to be, but because they have no other choice. They are casualties of the way in which we have chosen to manage our economy, an economy which produces mountains of frivolous consumer goods and yet cannot provide the basic amenities of life: housing, clothing and food for nearly five million Canadians."

[ Page 2103 ]

When you look at the poverty statistics in this country.... Every time I talk about this, I have to remind myself and everyone else that this is not an underdeveloped country, this is not a Third World country. We are talking about a government that brags about its economic policies, and yet when you look at the government's own statistics you find that 68,000 people and 600 families in British Columbia live below the poverty line. That's something the Minister of Finance should address himself to during the period of the six-month hoist. In a resource-rich province headed by a government that brags about its financial acumen, how can he explain the existence of 68,000 people and 600 families living below the poverty line? How can he explain the fact that while unemployment in the rest of Canada is going down, it is increasing in British Columbia? How can he explain that the rate of bankruptcies of businesses in British Columbia continues to escalate faster and above the national average?

Those are the kinds of questions the Minister of Finance should be asking himself during the period of the six-month hoist. Of course he won't ask himself, because they're not going to accept the idea of a six-month hoist. They don't care that they are pulling $91 million out of the pockets of people who, by their own definition, can least afford to lose that kind of money.

Mr. Speaker, the National Council of Welfare tells us that if you add the number of children in these families, we could possibly have in British Columbia something like 200,000 people living below the poverty line. And if you took at the report on poor kids, you'll find that B.C., far from being one of the richest provinces in taking the best care of its children, is one of the lowest, one of the worst. The July 1983 Ministry of Human Resources statistics tell us that 226,144 people in this province are in receipt of welfare, and that includes 78,040 children.

Some of those people were eligible for and recipients of the renter's tax credit. The Vancouver housing survey — and other housing surveys — shows us that most of the people in receipt of income assistance are paying rent far beyond the shelter costs allowed by the Ministry of Human Resources. They were eligible for the renter's tax credit and they were receiving it. Many of those people were eligible for the personal income tax credit and they were receiving it. But do you think the government, when it tries to balance its books, would protect the people who have the least, would try to cushion the impact of the ravages of the economic system on those people? Do you think that this government would extend itself to try to protect our elderly citizens and make their lives a little bit easier? If you thought so, you're wrong, because in fact they do the very opposite, whether it's increasing the impost on pharmacare, wiping out the denticare program, increasing the cost of bus passes, wiping out the services to families and children and wiping out the funding for women's services, such as transition houses, health collectives, post partum counselling, child-abuse teams or whatever. When the government wants to save money, it goes straight to the senior citizens and poor people first. They are the first services cut and the first people whose pockets are emptied. They're the first group to be targeted by this government. This legislation is taking $91 million away from the poor and the elderly, who can least afford it. Of course they bragged about it prior to the election, saying how wonderful they are and what they'll do.

I don't know why we even continue to talk about this hoist and the kinds of things that the minister could do during this period of time. But I'm going to continue to make some recommendations to him. For example, I would like him to read, if he hasn't done so already, the "Ethical Reflections" of the Catholic bishops. I particularly want him to address himself to what they say about people on fixed incomes:

"...working people, the unemployed, young people and those on fixed incomes are increasingly called upon to make the most sacrifice for economic recovery. For it is these people who suffer most from layoffs, wage restraints and cutbacks in social services. The recent tax changes, which have the effect of raising taxes for working people and lowering them for the wealthy, add to this burden. And these conditions in turn are reinforced by the existence of large-scale unemployment, which tends to generate a climate of social fear and passive acceptance."

The elderly citizens who lose their personal tax credit and renter's tax credit are not going to fight back. They're not going to do anything to the Minister of Finance. If he had thought that they were, he wouldn't have touched them. Unemployed people and people on welfare and on low incomes can't touch the Minister of Finance. They're so insecure in what is referred to here as "this climate of social fear." What are they going to do? Write letters to their MLAs, sign petitions or phone the Minister of Finance? What good would that do them? As much good, Mr. Speaker, as us, the opposition members, trying to get the government to reconsider its position and take six months off to think about this piece of legislation. They will treat them exactly the same way as they treat the opposition. They'll move closure on them; they'll axe them and treat them with the same brutality as they treat the opposition when they're through listening to what we have to say — the same cruelty, lack of compassion and lack of caring that they exercise toward all disadvantaged groups, whether they're disadvantaged because they're poor or old or belong to a racial or ethnic minority. They'll treat them exactly the same way and they know that. However, we were elected to stand here and speak on behalf of those people, and so we do.

[12:15]

I'm hoping that, in rejecting this hoist, the minister will recognize that he is depriving himself of six months in which to meet with those groups of senior citizens and students who are unable to continue their education because they've lost this tax credit. I hope they meet with some of those single families who are unable to have decent accommodation because they've lost this renter's tax credit. Read the research, the studies and the bishops' "Ethical Reflections." Read Senator Croll's report: as old as it is, the statistics remain true; they are more true now than when they were first introduced. Look at the face of poverty in British Columbia. It's a province that is going counter to the rest of Canada and has unemployment going up when it is going down in the rest of Canada. It's a province in which bankruptcies are increasing when they are going down in the rest of Canada. It's a province in which the government chooses to balance its books by cutting services to families, declaring open season on children and allowing them to be victimized through incest or rape without any services being in place to deal with their trauma.

In addition to cutting those services, they are deliberately putting their hands into the pockets of elderly citizens and

[ Page 2104 ]

low-income citizens who the Minister of Finance.... I notice my light is on, so I want to quote one last time the words of the Minister of Finance when he introduced this legislation in 1982, and reintroduced it by press release in 1982, because I don't want to be accused of having said this. The Minister of Finance said it. "The intent of this personal income tax credit is to bring relief to those who need it most. By this I mean those families, many of them with lower income, who have felt the impact of various cost-of-living increases. I am pleased that the elderly in particular will benefit from this measure."

We are moving that the minister hoist the bill and take six months to reread some of his old press releases and some of the justifications for introducing these credits in the first place.

MR. D'ARCY: In keeping with the debate as it has been going, it is our desire on this side of the House to have the government reconsider this bill for six months. Not the least of our objections — and I'm going to get to that later on — is the element of extreme retroactivity in this particular statute. We know that when the Social Credit Party was in opposition in 1972 to 1975 they ranted and raved, on occasion for weeks and months on end, because the government of the day brought in some legislation which was of a taxation nature and had a month or two of retroactivity attached to it. This bill is retroactive by the amount of nearly two years; at this point, as we reach the end of September, it's a year and nine months, and by the time it gets royal assent it could be nearly two years. In fact, the grants and legislation that it repeals had scarcely been in effect a year. While the Social Credit Party claimed that there was a tremendous amount of retroactive legislation in place, and while they have criticized the federal government — and in my opinion quite rightly so — over the years for retroactive elements of its legislation, they are quite happy to bring in a retroactive piece of legislation which removes $100 million worth of tax benefits for the people who the government by its own admission intends to hurt the most.

As has been mentioned — and we're going to discuss it over and over again — the minister, when he was introducing this program and reminding people not to forget to apply for their grants, said: "We're doing this on behalf of the people who need it the most." Surely the people these tax grants helped the most and who needed it the most are the people who are being hurt the most by the reduction in their incomes by this particular piece of legislation. There is no excuse for this kind of retroactivity in a time of economic downturn.

We all expect to have to tighten our belts in times of economic difficulty, and surely we are in great difficulty in this province today, and have been for some time. This is in part due to national and international conditions beyond any government's control, but also in major part the difficulties we face have something to do with the fiscal and resource-use mismanagement of the Social Credit Party over the last seven or eight years.

The notion — if I could use that term, and I don't use it lightly — of a renter's tax grant, in particular as it applies to senior citizens, is not one that originated with the New Democratic Party, although the New Democratic Party, in office, added to and expanded the renter's tax grant. It was a result of the W.A.C. Bennett Social Credit administration. That's why I want this government to consider this legislation for a further six months. Way back in the early 1970s it was realized by the then Minister of Finance, W.A.C. Bennett, that senior citizens were people who had paid their dues, worked hard and contributed to and invested in the province. It was recognized that while the government had brought in substantial assistance for homeowners in terms of annual taxation grants to offset education taxes, and while the government of the day had also brought in assistance for people who wished to purchase a home for the first time, there was no assistance whatsoever for the tenant in this province. There was no protection for the tenant, and in particular there was no protection for senior citizens who did not own their own home, either by circumstance or by choice. Therefore they brought in a senior's rental tax grant, which was, as I mentioned, subsequently expanded in a major way.

I'd also like to note that the fine populist interest in the welfare of senior citizens and other renters in this province that the original Social Credit government had was to some degree shared by the current Social Credit government in the middle and late seventies, and resulted in the current Minister of Finance bringing in the legislation that resulted in these benefits to the elderly, to low-income people and, I think most importantly, to a group which has not been talked about a great deal in this House — the working poor. There are large numbers of people in this province who rent, but not by choice, and who, while they are not necessarily unemployed, may be underemployed. But their incomes from their own work were low enough to qualify them for the renter's grant as well as for the income tax rebate grant. As has been noted it was, quite frankly, an incentive for low-income people, whether they were unemployed or on welfare or, as I said, the working poor, who perhaps had a full-time job or a series of part-time jobs but who desperately wanted to avoid depending on public largess. They desperately wanted that pride of working however hard in whatever sort of menial or low-paying job, so they could say: "Look, I'm standing on my own two feet. I'm looking after myself and my family."

The kind of legislation that Bill 4 repeals directly attacks that kind of work ethic. People who had regular jobs in industry, as I'm sure you know, Mr. Speaker, would earn incomes far in excess of anything that would be needed to qualify for any of these grants. Yet the people who we on this side of the House used to think all legislators wanted most to help to take pride in themselves and the way they lived, in the way they worked and the way they could contribute to their community, are the people having the rug pulled out from under them by this piece of legislation. In keeping with the philosophies expressed by former Social Credit Finance Ministers, by former Premier W.A. C. Bennett, philosophies expressed even by the present Minister of Finance and by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) when he was housing minister, we want the government to have a good, long, second look at this particular piece of legislation.

I know that the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis), in justifying his approach, is very fond of talking about this vague concept of "ability to pay." We know that philosophically the government's ability to pay for anything involving poor people, elderly people, handicapped people, is.... They philosophically have difficulty with ability to pay, but we know, of course, that while times are tough, for certain discretionary things the Minister of Finance has absolutely no inability to pay. We also know, Mr. Speaker, that there has been a great deal of discussion in this piece of

[ Page 2105 ]

legislation and in others because the government, while preaching a philosophy of less government being good government — and we on this side of the House would subscribe to that philosophy — in fact are bringing more and more government here to Victoria and leaving less and less discretionary power to these bodies duly elected out there in the community. However, tax benefits for the poor and elderly is one area where the government really does believe in less government, and in fact has removed benefits from that area of the population.

[12:30]

The government had no difficulty with ability to pay during the two previous fiscal years, even including the one — that is, the most recently completed fiscal year — when it abandoned, without legislative sanction, these particular tax benefits to the working poor and the elderly. As you well know, Mr. Speaker, because you were a member of this chamber in fiscal '82-83, as you were in '81-82, members on this side of the House, in the name of restraint, logic, reason and common sense, quietly and politely suggested to the government that they reduce their additional spending on office furniture, ministerial travel and rent for new and expanded office space. Even then we were calling for no increase in the size of government. We asked that the government reduce its allotments for ministerial advertising — not eliminate, but merely reduce them to the 1980-81 level — resulting in motions from this side of the House to reduce those amounts by $80 million in each of those years. The savings under Bill 4 may amount, at most, to $100 million a year. That's why we want the government to consider this. In the year they chopped off these benefits they had an $80 million increase for those comparatively frivolous discretionary matters that had to do with ministers' output for new office furniture, travel costs, new rental facilities and additional ministerial advertising. If the government had $80 million in discretionary money for increases in those things, it certainly was showing a strange mind-set, in terms of morality, that it did not have the $80 million to $100 million to maintain in fiscal 1982-83 these particular tax credits.

How can we expect the the tax-paying poor, the working poor, the senior citizens who are on fixed incomes and don't have the hedges against inflation of most people in their so-called productive years, to have faith in the philosophy of government, in the legislative process, in the people in this chamber, if they see this sort of profligacy and discretionary spending increases when they themselves are being chopped back in chintzy little ways? Of course, they would have read the press about the limousines and dancing girls on Broadway. They would have read recently about the expenditures through the VIP lounge at that magnificent B.C. Place stadium. Why has the government no respect whatsoever for the working poor? Why have they no respect whatsoever for the senior citizens who have built this province and invested in this province the most important thing that anyone has to invest, and that's their lifetime of work?

If someone with discretionary income loses a few hundred dollars in benefits, or has a few hundred dollars in benefits added to their income, they may or may not go out and spend that. They may or may not save it or invest it. But one thing we can all be assured of — I don't think we need expensive economists, using big words and with PhDs after their names to tell us the obvious — and it is that if a working poor person or a senior citizen has $100 or so added to their income, up to $400 or $500 under this legislation, there's no question they're not going to be in a position to save or invest that. There is no question that that is instant retail sales in the province of B.C. There is no question that poor people go without a number of things that we in this chamber, that people with regular professional incomes or even regular industrial job incomes take for granted. There's no question that removing these tax benefits from the elderly and the working poor, as the government has done, immediately has a depressant effect on retail sales equivalent to the amount of the cuts. There's absolutely no question about that. I don't think a single member on the government side of the House would question that economic reality. Spending by government is immediately added to what an economist would call the velocity of the retail sales, because the working poor and the elderly immediately spend that money.

The federal statistics-gathering agency — which I believe to be politically untarnished; I have no reason to believe otherwise — has stated that they have some concern about a consumer- and production-led recovery, which both federal and provincial politicians have talked about as important in leading the way back to the economic levels of 1981 in this province and in Canada. We know that our real gross provincial product fell by 7 to 8 percent in the last calendar year. We may be lucky enough to get back 2, 2 1/2 or, at the outside, 3 percent of that in this year. So we're a long way from expansion. Just to divert a little, according to the federal statistics agency in the U.S., they are already in an expansion phase. At some point in July they went into an expansion phase. They gained back all the losses of the recent mini-depression. Let's hope it's a mini-depression; I think most people are not calling it a recession any more. If we make these slow strides that we in Canada have been making economically, we may get into that situation late this year or early next year. We still have quite a way to go in B.C. As I mentioned, we will be lucky to gain back 25 to 35 percent of our losses in 1982.

If we are to see a consumer- and production-led recovery, the retroactivity that is in this bill is not the sort of thing that's going to lead to that kind of confidence and discretionary spending. Obviously if you take $100 million out of retail sales in B.C. when in a recovery, you are not contributing to that recovery phase whatsoever. That is another reason why we on this side of the House would like the government to seriously consider taking another look at this over the next few months. Clearly it makes no difference in this particular taxation year because people have already filed their returns. If the government had a good look at this bill over the next few months, they would be in a position to rescind their intentions in time for the filing of the 1983 tax returns, which people will be filing in the first quarter of 1984. This being late September, this respectful request for a six-month delay is clearly in keeping with that philosophy.

We know of course that the public sector and the Crown corporations have had to drastically cut back, but they've been across-the-board cuts. They have not picked on people who can least afford to be picked on. I think that is our major complaint with this particular piece of legislation. Sure, the government has demands on its revenue. The fact is that some people can afford extra impositions better than others. We needn't go through it again, but many speakers on this side of the House — both on the main motion and in the request for a six-month delay — have talked at great length about people and agencies in society: that if the government is so desperate to have this $90 million to $100 million in this fiscal year — it

[ Page 2106 ]

would be the next fiscal year now — there are other ways it could be managed.

I want to deal a little with one of the areas where seniors and the working poor in particular are going to be hammered. This is the area of that relatively small part of the housing stock which had, but no longer has, rent controls. Clearly, many of these housing units were occupied by people who wanted, needed and used this particular legislation. So they're getting it in two ways: they are losing their renter's grant, the philosophy of which, I want to repeat, was pioneered by W.A.C. Bennett. It wasn't a New Democratic notion at all, although the New Democrats of the day certainly supported the legislation. At the same time, they are seeing rent increases far in excess of the 10 percent. I would also point out that the rent reviews which were in place are also having an effect on many of these people.

The government's spending priorities are not, certainly in the short run — and one could question whether they are even in the long run, but I think we have to be concerned here with the short term — conducive to recovery. They are not conducive to a consumer- and producer-led recovery, which would not put the government in a position where it feels persuaded that it has to bring in this type of legislation, which attacks the poor — especially the working poor — and the elderly. For instance, the government proposes to add $1.1 billion to B.C. Hydro's debt in this fiscal year alone. We know that B.C. Hydro has a massive amount of unsaleable power at this time. We also know that due to the enormous debt load that has been added by the Social Credit government over the last three or four years — additional debt load which, at the end of this fiscal year, will be in excess of $16 billion — the international financial agencies have been forced to downgrade the credit rating of the province, which of course adds to the amount of interest the province has to pay and further reduces, to use the Finance minister's own words, the government's ability to pay. We on this side of the House — and indeed, Mr. Speaker, the international leading agencies — fail to understand why the government, when times are so tough, has to continue to borrow on such a massive scale. In fact, one could well make the case that this fiscal year and the previous fiscal year will see — whether one measures it in actual or real terms — the largest amounts of borrowing this province has ever seen.

What happens with the private sector when times get tough? They certainly do not do their major amount of borrowing, their major amount of expansion. They do that sort of thing when times are good. While the per capita debt of British Columbians is still slightly below the per capita debt of British Columbians as Canadians, through that disgustingly fiscally inept free-spending Liberal government in Ottawa, the fact remains that under Social Credit for the past four years the per capita debt load of British Columbians has grown at a faster rate than the federal per capita debt load. That clearly has affected our credit rating internationally, and has helped to persuade the minister that he needs Bill 4.

We simply want to give the government a chance to reconsider what we think are some of its not very rational spending and borrowing — in particular, borrowing — priorities. We know that all of the proposed borrowing — and according to the Finance minister he intends to borrow, as I said, $3.9 billion this year — has not taken place. If the minister had the opportunity, through a delay on Bill 4, to reconsider some of that borrowing, it is entirely possible that when the minister and his Treasury Board colleagues consider a budget for 1984-85, they may find it in their hearts and in their purses to rescind this legislation, or perhaps not even proceed with it. At least we want to give them that chance.

[12:45]

We know that that magnificent stadium at B.C. Place has been completed, but we also see that in this fiscal year the minister intends to borrow, or perhaps already has borrowed, nearly $90 million for that particular project. Where that money will go is hard to say now that the project has been completed, but clearly it does affect the minister's ability to continue with these particular tax credits and grants.

We know that the British Columbia Railway, in building this new line to the Tumbler Ridge coalfields, is, according to the minister, going to borrow an additional $200 million in this fiscal year. The change in the interest rate rating of that government agency is once again going to shave the government's ability to pay. But what a strange set of priorities! We know these projects, once started, need to be finished; but we also find out that with open-ended pricing contracts and contacts that require us to deliver but not the Japanese to take, there is some considerable doubt whether there is not going to be a reduction in price of 20 percent, from $94 to $75 a tonne, and also mines that might operate at only 60 percent of capacity for the next few years. The government has, by its own discretionary actions, seriously impaired its ability to pay for anything, and that has resulted in the need for massive borrowings at higher rates of interest than we are wont to pay. That is going to give the government problems for years to come.

We want to give the government, with this delay on Bill 4, a chance to reconsider these borrowings where they are not totally locked into a project. We fail to understand why the government, at a time when, as it says itself, through this bill it intends to downsize government or it intends to privatize various agencies, needs to borrow $40 million additional for the B.C. Buildings Corporation for new and expanded government facilities. It makes absolutely no sense at all. At the same time it's cutting off the renter's grant to senior citizens and income tax credits to the working poor. It simply has no logic to it whatsoever. Whether one subscribes to what one believes is a right- or left-wing point of view in our democratic society, it makes no economic sense either.

We have another amount of borrowing that, again, is difficult to justify in light of government operational cutbacks, It may be needed in terms of furthering our post-secondary education, but it's interesting that the educational institutions of this province, at a time when their funding is being sharply cut — as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) well knows — and various programs are being eliminated, are borrowing an additional $80 million. Clearly that money is going to have to be paid back by future generations, both interest and principal. That is quite an imposition on the financial rating of the province, and clearly has had an effect on the government's ability to do other things which certainly are needed if we are to have any sort of economic recovery, whether it be consumer; producer- or people-led, or whatever buzzword the government wishes to use. Most people don't really care how it comes about; they simply want to see it happen.

We note that the government, of course, with all these extra interest charges and interest amounts on debt, is going to have to try to control the deficit. Deficits used to be bad news in this province politically. It seems as though the

[ Page 2107 ]

Social Credit Party and their present Minister of Finance are almost making a theatrical attempt to make a virtue out of deficits. Recently we even had a boasting in this House of borrowing an additional $300 million for B.C. Hydro, as though it was something to be taken as: "Isn't it wonderful that we've done that?" I would suggest that in a time such as we have in the province of British Columbia you don't find responsible financial corporations or responsible corporate management of any sort of business, whether it be a manufacturing operation or a resource operation, borrowing massive amounts of money. Many, of course, are in the situation where they have to borrow to meet the payroll or else shut down, and I think everybody recognizes that.

However, we know that in this province we lag far behind 1981, and we are going to continue to lag behind 1981. We know that this particular bill, although it did not exist at the time, was an issue for people in the previous few months. We know that both the Social Credit Party and the New Democratic Party took a position that these tax credits and renter's grants were needed, and we also know that at the time these grants were brought in the government of the day and the Finance minister — and I'm glad to see him coming back into the House — were very pleased with themselves. They felt that it was the sort of thing that was going to humanize the appearance of the government out there with the working poor and with the elderly people who had done so much to build this province and who we in this House all felt should have this kind of relatively trivial, but to them important, recognition.

The minister knows full well that in the brief period these grants were in effect since he brought them in in the March 1981, provincial budget.... In his justification for bringing them in — not that he really needed any justification — he said that one of the things this would do would be to offset some of the tax increases brought in in that budget in that particular year, especially for those who had the greatest difficulty in meeting tax increases or taxes of any sort. He recognized the unemployed, low-income British Columbians, working poor, large families and, of course, the seniors of this province — who not only should not have to work, but in many cases could not find employment even if they did want to work.

To repeat the minister's words.... He had a good phrase here, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt that he fully meant it at the time; I certainly hope he did. He constantly used it, so I guess he felt he had a good line and might as well use it. I agreed with him, and so did every other member of the House. He was constantly saying: "This measure will effectively bring relief to those who need it most." He further went on to say that some 40 percent of all B.C. families would receive some benefit — a small amount in some cases, but a large amount in others. The minister surely knew, when he withdrew this benefit after such a short time, that if the benefit was going to bring relief to those who need it most, then taking it away was hurting people who could least afford to be hurt. You can't have it one way without the other.

Mr. Speaker, it is the feeling of some observers — it's not one I necessarily share, but it should be mentioned in passing — that there was some element of callousness in cancelling this tax credit retroactively. It is nearly two years, since the retroactivity of this bill goes back to January 1, 1982. This was done before this bill came in, without any reference to the Legislative Assembly. Clearly it was an attempt by the minister to eat into the burgeoning 1982-83 deficit because of his overestimation of revenue and underestimation of expenditure. And clearly, while there were other avenues for the minister to move the goalposts further together, he chose in this particular case to move against some of the most powerless and defenceless members of our society.

I want to reiterate that it amazes us on this side of the House that while the government can't afford these kinds of relatively minor tax benefits for the working poor and the elderly, it can afford to borrow massive amounts of money for the B.C. Buildings Corporation, at a time when government is downsizing and when various functions of government are being privatized. We find it absolutely amazing that in the fiscal year these benefits were cancelled, the minister and his colleagues on the treasury benches voted against $80 million worth of reductions in additional ministerial travel, office rent, ministerial advertising and, of course, new furniture. Those increases alone — I'm not talking about the total amount budgeted for those amounts — in fiscal 1982-83 were nearly enough to meet the amount of the tax credits to the working poor and the elderly that the minister so callously removed in November of last year, a mere nine months after he had issued several reminders, by going on television and radio and issuing several press releases, that people make sure they did not forget to apply for these grants even if they were not otherwise filing an income tax return, because that was the only way that they would get their money.

So we want the minister to reconsider this. He's got until the first quarter of 1984 to change his mind or convince his colleagues to change their minds. We know the minister isn't all bad, and if we could persuade him here to reconsider, perhaps he and his colleagues could reconsider — for the coming fiscal year, because as far as these tax credits are concerned, this fiscal year is gone. If the minister and the House Leader would be happy to accept this delay so that they could have a good, hard second took at this legislation, then we know full well that they could make the changes that the working poor in this province and the elderly people, who have paid their dues, are patiently waiting for the government to enact.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that we're asking that the hoist take place for humanitarian reasons, as opposed to economic, because surely any society can be judged by how it treats its poor and its elderly. I think we will fall short of being adequate in that regard in this province if we allow this legislation to go through. For those reasons we're asking that the government take some time to think about it and reconsider.

[1:00]

This hoist motion points out, I think more than any other, the difference between that side and this side of the House. There is a difference of philosophy. The government believes that it's their role to help the rich to get rich and then the rich will help the poor — the old trickle-down. We see the role of government as let the government help the poor and let the strong look after themselves, and that's a very different philosophy. But we 're hopeful that the government will come to understand that after all we're talking about people who have dedicated their lifetimes to this province and now find themselves up against it.

I know the government feels that people who are elderly and have handled their lives prudently and looked after their money judiciously won't need this kind of help. So in a way,

[ Page 2108 ]

it's the government saying to them: "You've acted like fools all your lives, and don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out." That's not the way life should be. "If you didn't have enough sense when you were young to put a little money away so you'd be well off in your old age, then that's tough; don't expect the taxpayers to bail you out. You're going to have to suffer." It almost has a fundamental religious tinge to it, that it's really good for them to suffer, because they have sinned in their lives by not being prudent, and therefore should suffer, and maybe they'll learn, if there's ever a reincarnation, not to do it in their next lives. Or maybe it will be an example to the young. If we can point to the people who are suffering in our society, the elderly and the poor, we can say to the young: "Unless you act differently, you're going to end up like those people who don't have enough money to pay their rent or even to measure up to the subsistence allowances needed just to survive without eating dog food or cat food."

It seems ludicrous to me that in a society of our affluence we are asking the people whom this bill affects to suffer needlessly. I am convinced that if the government were to take six months and go out and actually talk to these people who are going to be affected, and take a look at their circumstances, the government, not being callous human beings but only misguided, would come back to this Legislature and say: "We've been in error. We don't see it as our role to make people who cannot afford the subsistence to live like human beings.... We will replace what this legislation would take away." We're talking about a total of $91 million. I know that there was a politician in this country who got socked for a lot less by saying: "What's a million?" But when you look at the need for this money, and how this money would be used, with the size of the budget today you have to ask: what's $91 million, compared to the havoc that this bill is going to bring upon some of the citizens with whom we share this province?

What possible reason could the government have for wanting to persist in pushing this legislation through? Is it pride? Let's hope not. Let's hope the people don't needlessly suffer because we have a government that's too proud to take that famous second look that this province is famous for, made famous by a previous Social Credit government. I think it may be worthwhile taking six months to consider this bill if the party opposite would look back on its history and on the leadership given to the Social Credit Party by W.A.C. Bennett, a man who was born into poverty and who worked hard, bettered himself in business, and obviously bettered himself by coming from New Brunswick to British Columbia. That's probably a bit of chauvinism on our part, to think that.

Mr. Speaker, surely the Social Credit, that great populist party that had its beginnings in the thirties, along with the populist party that I represent, was not a party that would have done this. Only could a coalition or amalgamation of parties do this. I think it's because they don't have a clear-cut philosophical approach to life. They have Liberals and Conservatives, and one or two Social Crediters, I suppose, but there are not very many left. It would probably be fair to the people if this government changed its name to what it really is, the Conservative Party of British Columbia, and surely not the Social Credit Party. I cannot see anything left of a once proud, populist party. I think it is worthwhile spending a few minutes talking about what a populist party is. What I have to do is to explain to the government, through you, Mr. Speaker, why I feel a hoist is necessary, and I can only do that by pointing out the reasons. If that's not allowed, then all I can do is stand up and say I'm in favour of the hoist and sit down. Is that it? That's what the House is coming to.

We're saying that we need a six-month hoist for the government to think it over, and we would be remiss if we didn't say to the government: "Here are the things you'd better think over, so you can decide how you're going to vote on this amendment." It's our duty to say to the government: "Here's what we'd like you to think about in making your decision as to whether you're going to take the six months to reconsider." I think the government has to reconsider what government is all about in this country and in the United States.

Most political parties began as populists. What is a populist political party? A political party that is called populist is a party that takes up the cause of farmers, small business people and working people — in other words, the heart and the engine of a society. Populist parties are here to protect the people who really make the country tick. That's what we're all about. I find it difficult to believe that a party like the Social Credit that had its populist beginnings.... It probably isn't any use to this assembly, but I think it's worth saying that one of the great leaders of our party, Tommy Douglas, ran — when he ran for the first time, I believe — sponsored by two populist parties, the CCF and the Social Credit, who saw their interests....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Who?

MR. LEA: Tommy Douglas. He ran for both of the parties that we represent.

HON. MR. SMITH: Is he running this time?

MR. LEA: I wish he were.

AN HON. MEMBER: Husky Oil needs him.

MR. LEA: Husky Oil, that little oil company, and I would include that as one that needs a little bit of populist movement too against the giants.

That has been the background of both parties: that we fight those interests that would take away from the backbone of the country; we would fight those interests and stick up for the people who've made this country great and who've made these two parties great. We're not doing it any more.

Mr. Speaker, I can't imagine why a political party with an $8 billion budget would consider that one of the cuts they're going to make is $91 million — some of it from the elderly, some of it from the poor and some of it from a combination of the elderly and the poor. Why should the government reconsider? I think they should reconsider because, first of all, it's not the right thing to do. If government is going to cut back on expenditures, then there have to be other places that would be more humane, that would make more sense and that would be the right thing to do.

Let's take a look at some of the areas that the government should consider before voting on this amendment. The Highways budget. You can take $91 million out of the Highways budget just like that and never notice it. What would you not put in? Would you not help out the shoulders on some highway somewhere for a few miles? Would it mean that a bridge would have to do? I'm not talking about a bridge that would be unsafe; I'm talking about a bridge that maybe should be replaced....

[ Page 2109 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: If those people are laid off, I would much rather see a young person laid off than an elderly person not able to buy proper nourishment.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I'm not at all against laying off public sector employees, but I believe in doing it in the proper way. When you see a woman who's worked 19 years for a ministry transferred to the rentalsman's office for a promotion, and then because that program is cut out she loses her job, while someone with less seniority in the ministry she came from is still working, I say that's not the proper way. Seniority should be taken into account when you're laying people off. That's what I believe. Even if you had to lay people off on a seniority basis to make sure that these people who were going to be affected by this legislation would maintain what they have, then I would go along with it. I think the BCGEU and any right-thinking person would go along with it.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, much as I am enjoying the rambling and fascinating remarks of the erudite member, it's difficult to find some relevance to Bill 4. I wonder if he could be relevant to Bill 4.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point is well taken, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can see it all coming. What could be more relevant when asking for a hoist on a bill than to give your reasons for wanting it hoisted for six months? I understand that from the Speaker's chair you can find anything irrelevant if that's the desire. If that's the desire, it's a matter of judgment, isn't it? But I don't see how you can debate a hoist motion without saying: "Here's why I think there should be a six-month delay; here's what I want you to think about; here's what I want you to do."

[1:15]

I would be very pleased — and I know some of my colleagues would be very pleased — to join with the committee of the government to go out and actually take a look at the circumstances of the people who are going to be affected by this legislation. And I'd be really pleased if that committee were made up of back-benchers and opposition, and leave the executive bench out. I think more of that should be done. Even the numbers should be changed to get some kind of democracy. If we're going to appoint a committee such as I suggest, it should be a committee of even numbers, and we should choose our chairman from those even numbers. It wouldn't take that long for us to go out and satisfy ourselves whether this is a tax credit that should be taken away and whether or not this legislation should go through. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that if a membership of equal numbers on both sides of the House were to go out and take a look at this, they would do it in a responsible way. There's no doubt in my mind that that would happen, no doubt that the committee would come back to this House and recommend to the government that this piece of legislation not pass, that it remain on the order paper. Surely that's our job and not to do it blindly.

What evidence has the minister put in front of us that this legislation is necessary except for the saving of $91 million?

If we were to put our heads together in a cooperative way over a six-month period and took at the situation, look at other areas where $91 million can be cut, we would really be serving the people of this province. But for us to vote for this legislation without knowing the circumstances of the people who are going to be affected by it is not doing our duty to the people who elected us. Are we so unfeeling? Are we so zealous to get this legislation through that we can't take the time to find out who we're hurting and in what way? Is six months asking too much? It's going on now anyway. It's not as if this legislation hasn't been in effect for some time; it has been. But to pass this bill into law without the members of this House going out and finding out exactly what the circumstances are, is, in my opinion, immoral. As I said at the beginning, for us to take away a break from the elderly and the poor, without being fully cognizant of all the details, is the height of irresponsibility.

I don't think it's political. I don't think any one of us in this House treats the elderly and the poor in our own constituencies with contempt. I don't think any one of us would knowingly do anything to hurt them. I suggest that this is going to hurt people who shouldn't be hurt. Is it worthwhile for us as political parties to be so opposed to one another that we can't see the light on anything at all? Are the government back-benchers going to jump to their feet and vote for this legislation without knowing the facts? And if they know the facts, if they can honestly stand up in this House and on their honour say that people who shouldn't be hurt are not going to be hurt, then I'd like to hear it.

I'd even put a bigger challenge than that. I challenge any one of the back-benchers to join with me over the next six months.... Even if closure is brought in and this bill goes through, I challenge any one of the back-benchers on the other side of the House to go with me, to travel around this province at our own expense and take a look at the people who are affected by this legislation — not from afar; not from Victoria, not from fantasy island, but go into their homes, into their apartments, actually talk with them and meet eye to eye with citizens who are going to be affected by the kind of legislation we're talking about tonight. I would be more than willing to meet with any one of the back-benchers to make that trip, and if we were both to come back here and.... If two of us went out over six months, we would know the truth when we came back. I have enough faith in the individuals in this House that we would both come back and tell exactly what we saw, with no b.s.

There are bills here that I know the government is philosophically tied in with and we are philosophically opposed to. So we have no recourse but to divide, have filibusters and have closure. But surely this is not one of the bills. As human beings we cannot be divided over the needs of the poor, over the needs of the elderly. What would be so wrong in taking a good look at it, as back-benchers? And we're all backbenchers here, except for the government benches, and we have an obligation to seek information and bring it back. The reason I'm suggesting that not just members on this of the House do it, but that we do it together, is so the government can feel assured we're not coming back and giving them a political snow job; that we're actually coming back and speaking the truth as we found it and as we have seen it.

This bill is not a bill that should be passed without that kind of investigation. We're not talking about taking on trade unionists who are making $17 an hour. We're not talking about taking on the corporate world or the banks. We're

[ Page 2110 ]

talking about whether we as a Legislature are going to treat our citizens in a humane way, especially those who have given their life so that we can have what we have, and who have dedicated their life to hard work, whether it's working for someone else for wages or working for themselves. I'm sure there are a lot of people that this government says they represent, small business people who worked hard all their life, and who, for no reason other than circumstance, didn't end up with a big pot of gold they can live comfortably with for the rest of their lives, who are very glad to have had the tax credits that are going to be taken away by this bill. There are people who, through no fault of their own, are in circumstances that are not very nice and who are suffering needlessly. Why would we, as elected representatives, prolong that suffering or make it even worse? It doesn't make any sense to me. Mr. Speaker, I know that you yourself are not the kind of person who would want to do that. There may be somebody in here, but I doubt it. I don't believe anybody here is so hard-hearted that we would purposely go out of our way to hurt people who should not be hurt, and tell people they're not worthwhile.

I would hate to think that the next generation coming along would treat us callously in our old age. One of the things these days that sort of frightens me as I head towards the twilight zone is that I've run into a number of young people who are resentful of the kind of income some elderly people have. Is that what we're coming to, that kind of greed and self-centredness? I think the only way we can show young people coming along that there's more to life than yourself.... You can be a social being or an anti-social being. One of the greatest assets to a democracy and to a country that has a little bit more going for it than just the buck is that we have an obligation and a duty to be humane, to say to our elderly: "Thank you for the country that you've given us through your hard work; thank you for the kind of system you've helped evolve that makes us democratic and free." To ask for six months to go out and find exactly who we're doing what to is not too much to ask.

The Minister of Finance has not yet said in this House, nor has the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), who is responsible for some of these people in another way, nor has the Premier, who has the overall responsibility of looking after government and setting government policy.... Not one of them has stood in the main debate and said: "We can assure all of you legislators who are not in the government that what we're doing is okay because here is the income of the people we're affecting, here is the kind of rent they're paying, here is the kind of expenses they have, and we can assure you by looking at the ledger that here is the kind of money that these people are going to have left over. Here's how much they would have had without this legislation, here's how much they're going to have with this legislation, and here are the circumstances of the citizens we're to affect." Surely we have the right to know that, and surely the government has the duty to let us know.

If we pass this legislation and we go out voluntarily as members of this Legislature to find out what we've done and we find out that we've done the wrong thing, we won't be able to hold our heads up in this House until we've rectified it. So why do it now? Why not together, cooperatively, go out and talk to the citizens who are going to be affected, look at their circumstances, and see exactly what's going on out there? It's our obligation to do that.

It would be a beginning, too, of something else. Maybe it's the kind of project that we can get together on, that we can cooperate on. Once you start, it's maybe a hard practice to stop. If we were actually to go out and work together as committees, instead of this crazy Committee of the Whole House.... And it is crazy, in my opinion, that we're still running this House with a Committee of the Whole House. It's a little harder to sit down at a table with four or five of your fellow citizens, regardless of political make-up, and look them in the eye across the table and make the kind of decisions we make in here two sword-lengths apart. If we worked together more to solve problems, I think we would solve a few more and we might have just a little bit more respect from the people who elect us.

Wouldn't it be nice if tomorrow morning the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition, or the critic for Finance and the Minister of Finance, could go onto television together and say: "We have decided that we're going to cooperate on a piece of legislation"? What do you think would be the reaction out there to us all? Do you think we would have a little bit more respect? Do you think the institution of parliament would have a little bit more respect? Do you think, if we gained a little bit more respect, that we'd get a little bit more cooperation out of the whole of society? Do you think those kinds of things are possible? Or are we so afraid that our own political parties won't get elected next time? Are we on this side going to be afraid to cooperate in case the people are going to look at us and say: "Oh, well, these people are cooperating with the government. I guess we won't elect them, ever." Or are they going to say to the government: "Oh, look at those crazy government people; they're actually cooperating with the opposition to try to find a solution to a common problem that affects some citizens whom we're all concerned about. We sure won't respect them now. Look at them talking to one another. Look at them working with one another. How can you respect them?" Are they going to say that, or are they going to have a little bit more respect for us and therefore a little bit more respect for the process, and in the final run a little bit more respect for themselves? I think it's all possible, Or are we going to continue to be two sides that are only so interested in our own political welfare that we won't deal with the welfare of the citizens of this province?

[1:30]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the back bench of the Social Credit, whether this is hoisted for six months or not and even if this bill goes through. We on this side, of equal number, will go with them to meet the people who are affected by this bill and bring back our own independent report. Regardless of whether the Legislature sets us up as a committee, or we get any travel money or per diem, we, as legislators, should have the guts to go out and check to see whether what this House has done has been the right thing — the guts to go out and sit down in their living rooms and activity centres and look these people in the eye and say: "We're here to find out the truth and we're going to take the truth back to the government and let the chips fall where they may." Do we have that kind of cooperative guts that we can fly in the face of everything to try to find some amicable solution to a problem that shouldn't even exist?

Mr. Speaker, how can we put money into things when we have people, such as the elderly, who don't have enough money to pay their rent? How can we do that and hold our head up? Who over there is going to make the motion of closure on this one? Who over there is going to go on radio or

[ Page 2111 ]

television along with me and hold his head up high and say: "Yes, I'm the one; I moved closure to cut off the money for the poor and the elderly"? Who's going to be that proud? Who's going to take his place in the public debate of this province, hold his head up high and say: "Yes, I'm really proud to have moved closure against the elderly and the poor. And you know why? They were obstructing us"?

Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that anyone in this House would have the guts to go on television and brag about moving the closure motion on this one. Oh, they would do it against the civil servants, because they know there's not much sympathy out there in the public, rightly or wrongly, for the civil service, or much happiness with trade unionists at the moment out there in lotus land. So they'll go on television and say: "Yes, I moved closure against them." But are they going to go on television and say: "I moved closure against the elderly and the poor"? I think not. But we do have a way out; we could leave this bill on the order paper. And if the government won't do it, if they won't form us into a committee of investigation to find out who we're hurting with this legislation, than we should do it on our own. It's our duty to do it and bring back the truth.

I don't believe that even if the government brings it in and we just sit here voting against it we can hold up our heads, because this House, the process, and we, most of all, will be shamed.

Who's going to stand up and vote for this legislation? Is the first member for Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) going to vote for this legislation? Then she has an obligation to stand up and tell us that she knows for certain that we're not going to hurt somebody who's elderly, poor or both. Is the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch) going to vote for it without knowing the truth? If they know the truth and if I'm the only one in the House who doesn't, then, by God, I want to hear the truth. I want to hear those backbenchers get up and tell me that they can, in good conscience, because they know the truth, vote for this legislation.

If those statements do not come from the government backbenchers in the debate of this hoist. then the silence will damn them, and out of the silence will come a vote, and the vote will double-damn them, because we're not playing politics here against the strong, but against the weak.

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to close with the same phrase I started with: the government and the government backbenchers have a chance to disprove it, but unless they stand up and are counted and tell us exactly what they know about this legislation and how it's going to affect people, they have not done their duty, and it will be true that the Social Credit believes that government is to help the rich get rich and then the rich will help the poor. But if they will stand up with us join a committee — paid or unpaid — to find out the truth and bring it back, then maybe once and for all, Mr. Speaker, all of us in this Legislature will be able to stand up and say that the British Columbia government will help the weak and let the strong look after themselves.

I'm even going to give them a few more minutes to think about it. I'm going to give them an opportunity to vote now; that's what I'm going to do. Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 7

NAYS — 27

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

[1:45]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, we're asking the government to set this bill aside for six months. This bill takes $459 away from a family that has an income of $11,000 per year. That family's income is the same money that they gave Mr. Kinsella for relocation allowance to come to British Columbia. They gave him $10,000 just to do the tidying up in his apartment and make the necessary changes to get here to British Columbia. Ten thousand bucks. They gave Mr. Heal.... You know how much they gave him?

AN HON. MEMBER: Thirteen five.

MR. HANSON: Thirteen thousand, one hundred dollars, to be exact. Just to make sure that the cobwebs were dusted off and he was comfortable in his new surroundings, making his way from Ontario to British Columbia.

It's very interesting on the vouchers, Mr. Speaker. There's lots of money for the creature comforts of those around the government, especially around the Premier. The people around the Premier are treated extremely well. But little people who make $11,000 a year as a result of this bill are going to lose $459 this year because of the loss of the renter's tax credit and the low-income tax credit.

I think it is absolutely incredible. In the vouchers there are other things. When you compare what they're doing to the poor and the tenants with the vouchers.... This government really likes to have photographs taken of itself. Cabinet ministers just love going to photographic studios downtown in Vancouver, in Victoria and so on, having pictures taken of themselves. Do you know, the Minister of Labour — these are the vouchers under consideration during this session of the Legislature — had a little photographic session: pictures, the developing and so on. He ordered 400 photographs of himself These are just black and whites, I believe — $2,000. The whole bill for the current Minister of Labour's photographs, one session in one little studio, was $2,853. Who does he send these to, Mr. Speaker? Where do all these photographs go? There's money for Mr. Kinsella to offset any little dislocation and inconvenience he may have had by moving here from Ontario. He gets a cheque — and do you know, Mr. Speaker, there weren't any receipts.

[ Page 2112 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there any chance the member would get to the hoist motion, please?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm unable to follow the debate. I would ask that the member be called back to the question of the hoist on this bill.

MR. HANSON: For the information of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the point I am making is that there appears not to be any kind of understanding and connection between robbing away the renter's tax credit and the low-income tax credit from the poorest people, and the generosity that flows to those around the Premier's office. There is ample money for photographic sessions, which are many in number — the $2,853.24 session that I pointed out is just one. The $10,000 for Mr. Kinsella's relocation allowance, the $13,100 that Mr. Heal got to come to British Columbia, are just added expenses — and there are no receipts. All there is in the vouchers is a little statement saying: "Pleased to grant you $10,000, or $13,100, to offset any inconvenience." It's absolutely incredible.

And here we have Family A: one income earner with a dependent spouse and three dependent children living in. rental accommodation, with a total family income of' $11,000. Less the standard deductions of $670, which is UIC, CPP, employment expense, etc., and less $10,330 in personal exemptions.... With zero taxable income those people will lose $459.90.

Mr. Speaker, many thousands of people in my own constituency are affected by this bill. That's why we're asking that it be set aside for six months while the government comes to its senses. The Social Credit candidates who ran against us here in Victoria denounced this bill, ran against this bill, and said that if they were elected they would be standing in their place tonight voting against it. It's hard to believe, isn't it? I think they would be thumping away their acceptance of this particular legislative change.

The thing that intrigues me most is that this bill, along with others that we've seen in this package, dismantles things that were initiated by the former Premier of this province, W. A. C. Bennett. I mentioned the other night and in reference to this bill that Bill 9, demolishing the regional planning.... The former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, sat on the Perry commission, the post–Second World War reconstruction commission, and advocated regional planning for the lower mainland to make rational planning decisions for the future. That was demolished in Bill 9. In this case, this bill....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, I would ask the Speaker to call the member to order. I can't find any reference to regional planning in Bill 4, and I think the member should get back to Bill 4 and the hoist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would remind the hon. member that he is on the hoist motion and that a reflection on other bills and votes is not in order in this particular debate.

MR. HANSON: This was just a passing reference.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we have had a loving background, we often want to emulate parents, and we don't want to dismantle what they have achieved but build on it. In that case, it was the total demolishing of a concept created by a parent. In this case the elderly citizen renter's grant, which was started by W.A.C. Bennett in 1972 and built upon by the New Democratic Party in government, is demolished again by the son. This is what I can't understand. That's why we want the thing set aside for six months: to give the Premier a chance to reflect and study the history of this particular provision that was granted to the poor and to tenants.

Let me just mention that particular time in 1972 — it was March 13 — when this particular provision that we are doing away with this evening — not we, but the folks over there.... This is what Mr. Bennett the elder had to say on that evening:

Mr. Speaker, ever since introduction in 1957 of the annual provincial homeowner grant to assist homeowners in paying their local property taxes, this government had been continually carrying out studies on home-ownership and living habits of our citizens.

Commendable.

As a result, to further assist individuals to own their own homes, effective on April 1, 1966, the Provincial Home Acquisition Act provided a grant of up to $500 towards the purchase of a home.

The former Premier was giving a bit of an historical account as he was laying the groundwork for the announcement of the elderly citizen renter's tax credit, which is what we have before us tonight. He said that in 1968 the act was amended to encourage the building of new homes, and so on.

In addition, the department has received letters and briefs from individuals 65 or over pointing out that at this stage of life they don't wish to purchase a home, but they will be continuing as renters and they would like some relief. Therefore it is considered sound policy to make available to this group of citizens the same amount of $50 per year...

Very small, but helpful at that time; $50 in 1972 was more than double that in value today.

... which has been made available to those elderly citizens...

Only those who were over 65 years of age qualified.

... who presently own their own home.

That makes it $235, an additional $50 — an extra amount of $50 to present homeowners.

But this renter's grant of $50 this year establishes a new policy...

And listen to this; I think this is very interesting.

...of the Social Credit government which will be extended, and extended greatly through the third great decade of the Social Credit government.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading."

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I'm quoting W.A.C. Bennett. Nice try. So W.A.C. Bennett made the statement on March 13, 1972, that they were commencing a program to subsidize tenants, and that that program would be extended throughout the next three decades of Social Credit administration. Little did he know that his own son some 11 years later would be sitting in this Legislature overnight, ramrodding through the Legislature a bill to take away what his own father had started 11 years before.

AN HON. MEMBER: Six days, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: I don't mind if we spend two or three years on it. It's an unjust bill. There are 16,000 people in my constituency who are tenants. It's the second-largest number of tenants in all of British Columbia after Vancouver Centre,

[ Page 2113 ]

where, as you know, Mr. Speaker, there are 24,000 tenants. In my constituency 16,000 are to be affected by the stripping away of the renter's tax credit, and those members think it's unreasonable of me to indicate that I'm willing to stand here, to sit here, day and night for days and weeks on this issue, because it affects the people in my riding. It's unjust to take it away, and I'm saying to the government that if they understood the history of it and what former Premier W.A.C. Bennett was trying to start in the incipient stages of this program, they would have great difficulty sleeping, especially if they understood what they were doing to people, particularly to the elderly.

[2:00]

I want to give you another example. Let's compare the impact of this bill on Family B. Family B is of the top 2 percent in income in this province. Family A had an income of $11,000 a year, and this bill takes away $459 right out of their pocket. Family B represents 2 percent of the population and is headed by a Kelowna millionaire with an annual income of more than $100,000. The tax is paid on interest income at the highest rate, The effect of the tax exemption for Billy Bonds is calculated by comparing the after-tax return of an investment of $50,000, with the maximum allowed for purchase of Billy Bonds. After a number of calculations with this person in this income bracket, by utilizing the Billy Bonds program of the government — we weigh up this bill with the Billy Bond program — we find that this particular Billy Bond program results in a gain to the Kelowna millionaire's pocket of $513.30. So what we have is a redistribution of income when we compare the bill and the program: by utilizing the tax credit, the Billy Bond program puts $513.30 into the pocket of a person whose annual income is more than $100,000, and this one takes $549.90 out of the pocket of a family whose income is $11,000.

That's why we're asking that this be set aside: it doesn't seem to make sense; it isn't fair. It isn't fair that Mr. Kinsella gets $10,000 to make his way from Ontario. It isn't fair that Mr. Douglas Heal gets $13,000 to get on the bus or come on the plane....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I don't know what you had for a break, but you are suffering from a large dose of imagination somewhere along the line. You are reflecting on a previous vote, and this is the third time I've called your attention to that. I would respectfully suggest that you stick to the hoist of Bill 4, please.

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pointing out to the House that this is an unjust bill. It takes $150 away from tenants. The purpose of the renter's tax credit was to, in many respects, look at the provisions granted to a person who owns a home — the home-ownership grant — and provide some modicum of equity to tenants by granting them a provision of $150. It was started by W.A.C. Bennett. It was then developed further by the New Democratic Party. The name has been changed, but the money is the same. The Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act was W.A.C.'s bill in 1972. That was followed by the current member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) bringing in an expansion of it, moving it from the initial subsidy just to those over 65 to $30 available to everyone, no matter what their age. This was fair, too, because you have a lot of poor people and people of all ages with low incomes who are very thankful to have received — and I have it in the past tense — that renter's grant.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

So the Hon. Lorne Nicolson, who was the Minister of Housing at the time on May 21, 1974 — moving through time — amended it, and he said: "Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to amend the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act by raising the amount of the grants for tenants aged 65 years and over to $80" — so there was a bonus for those over 65; they got a $30 increase — "and for the first time provide tenants aged under 65 years with a grant, which this year will be $30." So that was the increase.

Governments never like to have a program that has the name on it of a previous government. That seems to be a peculiarity of governments; they always want to change it with their own little name change. And that was true also of our government. They changed the title from the elderly citizen renter's tax credit to the Renters Resource Grant Act tax credit.

So that provision was built upon the one initiated by W.A.C. Bennett in 1972, and then on May 21, 1974, our good minister enabled those over 65 to get $80 a year and those under 65 to get $30 if they were tenants. That was a very important thing. And moving through time a little further — and I know you're a little fatigued, Mr. Speaker, but I'd like to give a little historical review so that the government understands what we're saying when we say cease and desist for six months, push it aside, get onto something more productive like any number of things — to December 30, 1975, the newly elected Social Credit government expanded on this program once again, and a $100 ceiling was set for a maximum benefit under the new program. The program was announced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) — at the time he wasn't Minister of Finance; he was the Housing minister, although I think he had the same deputy that he has now.... The deputy has moved right along with him all the way. Was quite interesting when you follow that.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I'm not attacking the senior officials. I'm noting that your deputy at the time is your deputy now. It's an historical fact that from 1975.... For eight years he's followed you through different ministries, and I think that's of historical interest.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I never do that. You do it through legislation. You take money from the poor.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will come to order, and the member will address the Chair and the hoist.

MR. HANSON: The minister is awfully touchy about a comment that indicated that he has the same deputy now as he had in 1975 under a different ministry. I don't know what his concern or his objection is. If he's sensitive about it, I won't talk any more about it. I don't want to upset him at this time of the morning.

This bill must be set aside, because something that has been developing.... It's been growing from an initial grant of $50 for those over 65 to $80 over 65 and $30 under

[ Page 2114 ]

65, to a maximum of $100 in 1975, based on some kind of benefit test. It was $100 less 1 percent of the person's taxable income, and for those over 65 the minimum was $80, no matter what the taxable income. They called it Rentaid — they're constantly changing the name. Under Rentaid no benefit could exceed 10 percent of the total rent paid by an individual in the past year, and no one other than senior citizens could receive assistance if they had a taxable income over $10,000. " 'So to receive Rentaid, ' said Curtis, 'an individual must fill out the federal income tax, and return form T1 and the attached Rentaid claim form. Folders dealing with the program are to be made available by mid-January at banks....' " and so on. There again, it was being built on and developing, and here we have a situation where it had been boosted to the point of $150 and made available to everyone. Now we are sitting in the early morning, stripping away a benefit which has been counted upon by a great number of citizens of this province.

When you take away what people have been building their lifestyle and income around.... That $150 gets counted upon, and when you couple it with the low-income tax credit you find that it's a substantial loss of real income that low-income families were counting on. As I stated earlier tonight, and also pointed out to the House when I spoke on the main motion, a low-income family making, say, $11,000 would lose $459. That could pay six weeks or a month's rent, or something in that order. It could buy a substantial amount of groceries. It could clothe children in a modest way — $459 can buy a lot of clothing. It can provide a lot of the basic goods and services that a family needs to keep flesh and blood together.

Why do they take the money away from the poorest people? This is the question that we raise over and over, Mr. Speaker. Is it because they've been insulated for some period of time by their own personal and family financial circumstances? Are they so insulated from wondering where the mortgage, hydro or car payments are going to come from, or from the general clothing and grocery needs of the family? Or is it some kind of an ideological thing? Do they feel that somehow it will be good for poor people to take more money away from them, that it will make them tougher? Will it make them work harder at non-existent jobs? What is the philosophy behind it?

The reason I make passing references to the vouchers and so on — which we can't look at right now because we're here all the time.... It's one of the things which is to the benefit of the government. We can't get a good hard look at all of the vouchers which we want to look at so much.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the hoist, please, hon. member.

MR. HANSON: We can't sit down and look at the vouchers and let bills pass that hurt our constituents — I'm just responding to the member's aside. Cabinet ministers have money to spend. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) buys $1,228 worth of Christmas cards.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. member that he is straying greatly from the principle of the hoist amendment before us. This is a hoist to Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983. It's quite specific in its principle and I'm sure the member can address his remarks to the debate that we should be carrying on.

MR. HANSON: I just wanted to give you a bit of a profile of my constituency, Mr. Speaker. We have, as I say, the second-largest tenant population, but we also have the largest seniors population. I believe only White Rock has a demographic profile in terms of age similar to Victoria's. We have many people who have come from elsewhere. They sold homes and took the equity capital. Often they're single and often they're women — I think that the greater number would be single women over 65 years of age. When they sold their homes in Saskatchewan or Alberta or Vancouver, or wherever they were, inflation had not proceeded the way we saw it proceed over the last few years prior to the depression. They took the equity capital from their home and.... Say, for example, they sold their house for $25,000 or $30,000, which at the time seemed like a lump sum that was going to see them through and be their nest-egg for the rest of their life.

They rented a small one-bedroom or bachelor apartment in James Bay or somewhere downtown — James Bay is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, where most of the tenant accommodation is. Then they started paying their rent, and when the government changed in December, 1975, all of a sudden their rental protection was lifted and more and more of the suites came out of controls. All of a sudden that nest-egg in the bank, drawing 6, 7 or 8 percent interest, was being eaten into faster and faster because they were having to take their equity capital and use it for day-to-day operating expenses in terms of their rent, grocery bills and so on. So they built up a bit of reliance around the renter's tax credit and the low income tax credit, because $450 is a fairly substantial amount of money, even today, for those individuals. Continuing with the profile of my and my colleague's constituency, I want to say that there are many people who have exhausted their nest-egg, who are now living on the Canada pension and the GAIN supplements, and who are having great trouble making ends meet. As the cost of living rises — and you know those terrible, tiny little increases that come from time to time in their pensions are virtually negligible — those individuals cut away at their groceries, their clothing, their bus fare and their entertainment expenses, and so on, just to live. Then along comes a government that is taking away a substantial amount of money that could be seeing them through these very tough months ahead.

I've pointed out before that I have watched senior citizens shopping in the supermarkets, and — I'm not kidding, Mr. Speaker — I see people pick up a small item of fresh fruit and vegetables, go and weigh it, look at the price, and put it back. They look at very cheap cuts of poultry and meat and so on — things that normally you'd use for making soup stock or something — pick the cheapest one they can possibly get, take that home, and I'm sure that that's their dinner. That's not just one night; that's lots of nights. The government doesn't like to hear this. I don't even think it sinks in. They are generally at the top of the income scale. Their stipend as MLAs or ministers is really just some kind of background noise — a nuisance — to their chartered accountant, because most of their income....

[ Page 2115 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, once again we are straying from the principle of the hoist. Please return to the hoist.

MR. HANSON: I'm pointing those things out because I'm trying to indicate that there are contradictions between wealth and taking steps that hurt the poor. We're moving this amendment to set this bill aside in order to have the government understand those contradictions. I think that's entirely relevant.

When you have a low-income family that has built up a reliance around a very modest tax break.... It's not just a tax credit in the sense that it's something that when you don't pay tax you'll get money. This is cash in the jeans, in the little purse to buy a decent meal, to go to a show, to get a bus to go across town to Helmcken Road hospital to see a friend, to maybe go on the ferry over to Vancouver. Obviously the ferry fare for a senior is not a lot of money, but to go to Vancouver, to have lunch, to ride the bus and go and visit and come back costs money. I hear people who say they cannot afford it. They can't afford to go to Vancouver.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) thinks this is a bunch of humbug. But I can take him around this constituency and introduce him to people who have a lot of trouble making ends meet. It gets tougher and tougher as this government proceeds, night after night, pounding away at the poorest people in society. Why? I asked the question earlier: why, when W.A.C. recognized that tenants had some rights...?

I don't know why members on that side of the House have such contempt for the rules that they have electronic devices and use Walkmans and earphones and so on in the House. We're not going to take you seriously when you call us to order if you won't take them seriously, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, if that's going on, I'll ask the members who are offending to cease.

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: I think he has contempt for the rules, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, let's not get into this. If there's a member who is doing something he ought not to be doing, would he please cease?

MR. HANSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fair is fair, isn't it? I think that's the way it should go.

The low-income tax credit is another whole area, because rather than having a graduated income tax system — talking about ability to pay.... We hear a lot about ability to pay. Poor people don't have the ability to pay. Rich people — very rich people — have the ability to pay. So what does this government do? It does the reverse of what it should do. Rather than taxing those who have the ability to pay, they tax the people — they take away money — who have no ability to pay. See? These are the contradictions. This is why your program is so phony. This is why it's so full of venom. This is why it hurts people so badly. You pound the people at the low end of the income scale. This is what's so unacceptable to our side, because we believe that ability to pay means exactly that. Those who have great amounts of personal income can pay tax. Here we have a situation where a tax is levied against the poorest people — $459 that you are absolutely taking out of the jeans of a person whose family income, with three dependents, is $11,000 a year. What do you think about that? Doesn't it bother you?

Interjection.

MR. HANSON: Not in the least? So they go merrily on their way, Mr. Speaker, having their pictures taken, having big blowups of their pictures, paying their aides and assistants enormous bonuses, circumventing Mr. Peck's ruling by reclassification, by phony job description rewrites....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will come to order. The bill is a tax amendment act and the motion is a hoist.

MR. HANSON: If the government was to set this bill aside for six months and sit quietly down and look at some of their own vouchers over the last couple of years, and then go and visit some of the poor people affected by the stripping away of the renter's tax credit and the low-income tax credit, I think they'd come to their senses. I think if they were to do that, they would be helping 16,000 people in my own constituency and many thousands of people all over this province: people who could take that $459.90 for a family of $11,000 income, go to their neighbourhood store and buy groceries, or a few clothing items for their kids, and go out and make the necessary repair on their car so the local service station would benefit, the local small business community would benefit. It would put $459.90 to work per low income family. It would get that sort of money ploughing around. What are they going to do instead? They're going to take that $459 and spend it on photographs of themselves, or relocation allowances for their key aides. Mr. Speaker, what other conclusion can we come to? They're going to plough it into some capital sinkhole in northeast coal or some phony scheme or Billy Bonds or some other....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, your time has expired.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

HON. MR. HEWITT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member was advised by the Chair that his time had expired. I don't think he has the opportunity, after his time has expired, to make a motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The motion will not be accepted.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I paused for a moment to see if any of the members of the government side wished to speak on this hoist motion. The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) thinks that's a bit of a joke, because it's not....

[2:30]

Interjection.

[ Page 2116 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I know perfectly well what the Minister of Forests thinks. He thinks this bill that takes away the renter's tax credit and the income tax credit for poor people doesn't affect the fortunes of the Social Credit government, because those people didn't vote for them on May 5.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they didn't, not the people affected by this kind of legislation. They didn't vote for the Social Credit Party. They had a very good idea of where the philosophy of the Social Credit Party lay.

I'm arguing for a hoist of this particular bill on many of the same grounds that have been ably stated by my colleagues, and in particular the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) who has just taken his seat. He has pleaded for a second look at this legislation on the basis of an example which should command the attention of everyone in the Legislature. He has said that the taking away of these two credits would deprive a family, or an individual, with an income of $11,000 of $459 a year. I gathered from the hon. member's remarks that he was referring to both the renter's credit and the income tax credit. It's the combination of the two. The renter's credit was only $80, and at the present time it is $150.

Some of the hon. members, I regret to say, are saying that we should rush ahead with this legislation, even though it's depriving the very poorest in our society of, as in the case that the member gave, $459 a year — in the case of the renter, $150 per year. We're asked to believe that we're dealing with pretty small sums. We're dealing with very low incomes, and we're dealing with elderly tenants, who get the biggest of the breaks. I guess that's the $150 a year, which is not very much; but that kind of a renter doesn't have very much. We're saying to the government on the hoist motion: pull back and consider the implications — not political, but moral and economic — of what you are doing.

This person who lives in our society — and there are very many of them with very low incomes, sometimes only a pension and sometimes a welfare cheque.... If we are generous, in terms of the economy they quickly pour that money back at the corner store. They don't go into the better butcher shops and order steaks and roasts, as many of us are able to do. But the money quickly circulates again throughout the economy. This is a point in arguing for delay of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, which I think has completely escaped the attention of the government opposite. The origin of the renter's credit, as some of the hon. members have pointed out, the thing we're rushing into abolishing at this time of the morning — 2:30 — began with the Hon. W.A.C. Bennett, who was Premier of the province of British Columbia for....

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty years.

MR. MACDONALD: I thought it was 21 years. But 20 years. Why should we rush, without sufficient reflection, to repeal this particular grant when it was only in the process of beginning back in the time of W.A.C. Bennett? W.A.C. Bennett no doubt made mistakes in his political career, but he was a very warm-hearted person deep down. I always found that to be so, although when you got into a political fight with him it was all sabres and swords, kicks and scratches. He was an in-fighter of the first political water. But he had a sympathy for and received a lot of support from — as the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) would know — the very poor people in our society.

I recall, when I was running in elections, a place in Vancouver East called Skeena Terrace, where people with very low incomes lived. They were renters. This kind of a.... I don't say it's a gesture, but the kind of thing W.A.C. Bennett started made a big impression on them. It wasn't the only thing he did to attract the support of those people at the polls. But he was not just attracting the support of those people at the polls; as a populist — not a socialist but a populist — he thought the economy should be bent in favour of the poor and downtrodden, at least to some extent. I remember the difficulties we used to have in a place like Skeena Terrace. We'd come along, as members of the CCF or the NDP, and here were people who were down and out, or pensioners barely getting by, and we'd say to ourselves: "Well, that vote's sewn up for us." But it wasn't so. It was amazing. Today we carry that poll very handily, but in those days we had a great deal of trouble with it. As a matter of fact, the Conservative Party often took a lot of the votes, because they ran candidates provincially at that time.

So here, Mr. Speaker, we are rushing to repeal the beginning of some equity in these two fields of tax credits and renter credits....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are debating a hoist motion to Bill 4. It would seem that the line of debate carried out by the member currently speaking is better suited to committee stage on Section 1 of the bill, rather than to the motion currently before the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, I will comment that the member's comments have been maybe relevant to the main motion, but this is a hoist motion. Perhaps if he could relate to the delay that they're encouraging, the Parliament would be well served.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East has been pointing out that the government should be reflecting on certain aspects of this bill for a period of six months. He's entirely relevant. The Minister of Forests is the one who is irrelevant and not listening at all to the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver East continues. I'm sure that remarks from this point on will be entirely relevant to the hoist motion.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order first, the suggestion that I could make this kind of speech on Section 1 of the bill in committee is suggesting an abuse of the rules of the House. I'm surprised, you know, because when we get into committee there is relevancy to the strict wording of the section. I appreciate that the hon. Minister of Forests wants to give the opposition latitude in committee, and longitude presumably, but that is going a little too far in terms of the traditions of parliament. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that privately you will have a chance to talk to that member and bring to his attention the necessity of being strictly relevant and brief in terms of sections in committee. I don't want to lecture the hon. member, who I know is very familiar with the rules, but it seems to me he was very wide of the mark in those remarks.

[ Page 2117 ]

I'm arguing the reasons for delay, as to why we should rush through legislation which is going to very seriously affect the lives of a great number of people. The hon. member for Victoria had the numbers and he gave a very capable speech. But even if there are only two or three out there, why don't we pause for six months and consider just how seriously this kind of deprivation is going to affect these people? You might want to — and I think it would be a very good thing for this Legislature to do — authorize a committee to sit during the six-month period, and go out into the field to talk to people and find out some of the living conditions we're talking about, some of the things W.A.C. Bennett understood.

He understood, when he initiated the renter's tax credit in 1972, that a great injustice was being done as between those who rent and those who own their homes. He was very proud of his homeowner's grant and he won two and a half elections on the homeowner's grant, going on to three and a half at least. At one point one of our speakers in the CCF opposition — I don't think I was in the House at the time — opposed that homeowner's grant, and W.A.C. Bennett made sure the people of B.C. didn't forget that for the next 20 years.

But there is, if we take time to consider this matter, a great injustice as between those who own and those who rent. The homeowner's grant has been creeping up, although it has not crept up by regular progression in the last few years of this present Social Credit administration the way it did in the years of W.A.C. Bennett. Nevertheless it has crept up — I think it's $480 this year — to become a significant benefit out of the public treasury for those who own a home. For those who rent, who often are in greater need of that kind of help from the public treasury — and who contribute to it when they go to the store and pay their sales tax, and when they pay the other taxes that are imposed upon them — what is the countervailing benefit to them?

In this Bill 4, if we were to rush ahead with it and not give it the time for consideration that we're arguing for tonight, you would be grossly increasing the inequity between owners and tenants. Thus we would be repealing completely what W.A. C. Bennett thought would be a continuing program that finally would bring some kind of equity between the two groups; $150 a year toward a tenant — and that's the elderly tenant, I would think — doesn't do that, as compared to the elderly person who owns their own home, but at least we had made a start.

I would also say that we ought to consider, in terms of reflecting upon this, the opinions of Mr. Herb Capozzi. As some people will remember, he fought this issue very strenuously. He had, of course, a political interest in putting forward his views, and he put them forth very forcibly to W.A.C. Bennett — so forcibly that finally a Mr. Lau ran against him for a nomination and lost it. But his views were listened to. He had a political interest because he was running in Vancouver Centre where there were a great many tenants. He took the position, which finally the Premier accepted, that we had to begin redressing the imbalance as between the benefits out of the same public treasury that they all contributed to — tenants and owners.

So if you look at this bill in terms of that kind of equity, it is surely something that has to be explored in depth before we embark upon the repeal of a program that has put money into the hands of poor renters — poor in terms of income; poor only in that sense — who then spend that money as consumers; and that money flows through the economy and helps small business as a result.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

This particular legislation — and we should have an opportunity to reflect upon this as well — is part of the legislation that is inspired by the Fraser Institute. I realize that at the present time, September 1983, the Fraser Institute is very much in vogue in right-wing circles. But if we were to pause for a period of six months, we would find that the theories being enunciated by the Fraser Institute will turn out to be very spurious theories indeed. One of the directors of the Fraser Institute which has inspired this kind of legislation that crunches the poor and leaves the rich untouched is Peter Pocklington. While I didn't have a vote in the Conservative leadership race, I thought Mr. Pocklington's presence on television was very impressive. He has very ably expressed the same philosophy — avarice — that is behind this bill, and he has expressed it in a touching way. In conversation with his psychic, who still remains unpaid at the present time, he revealed that his ambition is to own the world. He is not ambitious with respect to interstellar space, so it is a limited ambition.

[2:45]

One of the reasons I'm arguing for a six-month delay of Bill 4 is my conviction that within six months — which is a moderate period of time — the kind of philosophy that is being espoused by the Fraser Institute will be shown to be absolutely bankrupt. It will be shown that by making the poor poorer and the rich richer the goodies do not trickle down from the rich in terms of job creation and wealth creation investment; that the unemployment rate does not pick up as a result of increasing the inequities in our society. Bills such as Bill 4, which takes from those who have so little, will no longer be in vogue, not even in these radical right-wing circles that are so predominant in North America at the present time. If we were to delay this bill for six months, I don't think it would be passed by this Legislature.

I think the tide is turning. People are listening to the voice of conscience and the laws of economics, and saying: "We can't have a great pool of people in desperate circumstances, with too little money, at the bottom of our economy: people who can't support the small businesses that generate employment outside of the great industries of the province." I think they'll be listening to the voice of conscience and saying to themselves: "What about this theory: To those who have shall be given; and to those who have not that little they have shall be taken away." If we proceed with this bill tonight and push it through by the majority of the government, we will be accomplishing an act that, after six months of reflection, we will realize is a grossly immoral act, and an act that does not contribute to a healthy economy in the province of British Columbia.

Those are some of the reasons why I say we should pause and reflect. It seems to be a very little bill. I suppose to many of the members opposite it doesn't seem to involve a great deal of money. It's nothing, in terms of money, to what's being poured into northeast coal. It's nothing compared to the money that we would have brought into the public treasury of British Columbia if we had continued the scale of death duties that we had until they were arbitrarily repealed in 1976, presumably so the rich could invest in the province. They

[ Page 2118 ]

didn't do it. It was mostly spent on condominiums in the south and it was left to heirs who left the province.

Six months, Mr. Speaker, would give us time to reflect upon and find solutions for the difficulties which the Minister of Finance says are his. I think the total amount that we're speaking of tonight is about $91 million a year: around $21 million to maintain the renter's credit and the rest to maintain the income tax credit, which again went very much to those who had very little income. What is $91 million dollars compared to the money that has been lost through the repeal of succession duties? What is that compared to the money being expended in the northeast on a subsidized coal export proposition — a proposition which admittedly creates many jobs, but at what cost? At what cost, compared to this $91 million that we're talking about in these two bills?

You know, Mr. Speaker, when I argue for delay I'm thinking of the history of this proposal, and it's an incredible history. It's reflected in the bill. The legislation as to the income tax credit repeal portions is retroactive — and it's hard to believe when I say these words — "to come into force on October 29, 1980." Surely six months is not going to make any difference when you have this kind of retroactivity. In justice, should not six months give us time to reflect and say: "Let's not strip away even the past benefits that were lawfully there and existed since October 29, 1980"? Then you have that crazy section in this legislation that says if you had already achieved your credit, presumably by filing your income tax returns before November 11, 1982, then those people — who are the sheep, I suppose — keep their credit. But if you hadn't filed your return by that time and got your credit, you are part of the goats and you lose it. What kind of legislation is that? Really! There is no element of fairness whatsoever in that kind of legislation. It's hard to believe that something that dates back to 1980, that credits already earned by the laws of the province of British Columbia should, on this night of September 29, 1983, be taken away. Six months is nothing compared to those times that have passed — six months for reflection and a second look.

I recognize that there is sometimes retroactive tax legislation. I've seen it in the case of the federal government, when they file income tax resolutions and move as quickly as they can to implement new income tax provisions which may benefit or hurt particular individuals. But what happened in our particular case? We sat as a Legislature in British Columbia, in session in 1982, up to about the month of October. Bear in mind that we're stripping away these credits for 1982. Did the Minister of Finance rise up in this Legislature and say: "I've run into a difficult budgetary situation. I've got a bad pain in the exchequer and I have to save $91 million at the expense of these poor groups"? No, he didn't. I can't hear the hon. minister. He's so busy.

We didn't have anything of that kind. Instead we had a press release toward the end of 1982....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Your firing squad, which you set up for ICBC. Is that what you're reading? I'll give you the names of the people on the committee.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's return to the debate, please.

MR. MACDONALD: The hon. minister keeps pulling me out of order. I'm speaking to a six-month delay, and I don't want to be diverted from my particular purpose of urging delay — for six months — of this particular legislation.

We had a press release which said that the Minister of Finance had suddenly found dire financial conditions and had to not find revenues in the many other areas that might be available to him, but take credits away from those with the lowest incomes in our society.

What happened after that? We would not be urging a six-month delay at the present time if this question had been addressed early in 1983. But in spite of the pleas of the opposition, through the, Leader of the Opposition, and in spite of the obvious wishes of the people of British Columbia, the Legislature was not recalled for a normal spring session in 1983. Mr. Speaker, when you're going to affect the livelihood of a large number of the poor people of this province, then at least have the justice to bring their case before the Legislature and pass your taxation legislation. Don't do it by press release, and defer, defer, defer, and then come along and present to the Legislature a bill retroactive to 1980.

It's just an incredible kind of parliamentary performance, and it's very unfair, because the people who were left hanging.... The family which the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) described, with an income of $11,000, losing $459.... That's a lot of money in that kind of income situation. They were left hanging. They had a press release from the Social Credit government saying they were going to lose it for the whole of 1982, and that's all. They didn't hear the debate. There was no law. They were left in the position of saying: "What will I do? Shall I file the income tax return in such and such a way, because it's the law? Shall I apply for my renter's grant? Can I count on it or can't I?" I suppose, had they had legal advice, they might very well have been told: "Well, yes, it's the law. Count on it. File for it." But they were thrown into this state of confusion.

In six months' time we would, on reflection on grounds of humanity, if nothing else — if not on grounds of law and natural justice — say to ourselves: "Let's amend this legislation." Wipe it out for the future, if that's your radical right-wing philosophy, but for heaven's sake, restore to people in 1982 what was lawfully theirs at that time. Even to have gone into 1983 without a session was bad enough, but for us now, in September 1983, to be passing this kind of legislation, making it retroactive right for the whole of at least the 1982 taxation period, is something that we should reflect upon.

[3:00]

We're not doing justice to owners and tenants. We're stripping away the beginning of justice, which was started by W.A.C. Bennett and enlarged under the New Democratic Party during its term of office. Speaking of the renter's tax credit, it was increased during that term of office. But the second important step was taken when the Hon. Lorne Nicolson was the minister in charge of negotiations. The negotiations took place with Ottawa and were finalized, resulting in transferring a straight grant to the tenants into a credit which they could claim through income tax procedures. Although that was the accomplishment of the NDP government before December 31, 1975, the new government of Social Credit, when they came into office, announced the successful conclusion of those negotiations which had already been successfully concluded, and claimed credit for the renter's tax credit. That's politics. I'm not going to be particularly

[ Page 2119 ]

shocked at that, because they claimed credit for many things — even Robson Square and the new courthouse in Vancouver, and many other things that they had nothing to do with in terms of the hard work of putting them together and getting them built. That was politics, but to come....

Mr. Speaker, a delay of six months, as I say, would not have been called for if we had had a legislative session in 1983 and hashed this thing out in a full debate in the Legislature before the election. In that case, I don't think the members of the opposition would have moved a six-month hoist. We would have had to take the consequences of legislative debate and the people would have had their opportunity to judge, based on that debate and their opinions on this and on other things that came up during the election campaign. But we're not at that stage. We're long past that stage where another six months will make no difference in terms of the legislation itself, what's happened and how it's been stripped away. But it might make a lot of difference in terms of a new bill, after proper reflection, that would restore these credits that have been stripped away from the lowest income-earners in our society.

Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is ready to make a speech. As I glance at the clock, I can see that it's almost my bedtime.

I move that this House do now adjourn.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 6

NAYS 27

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Vancouver South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill's not here; we can't heckle.

MR. R. FRASER: You can heckle me all you like. As a matter of fact, I've had a lot of heckling, and I really quite enjoy it.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today and with some pride speak against the motion to hoist. We've already had nine speakers; we've listened to a great deal of debate about how we're going to look after this person or that person. There can be nothing more cruet than to hang people on a string and not tell them the answer. During the last election the people were told: "No, the tax credit will not be forthcoming." It was very clear. The answer from the public was: "Yes, we would like the Social Credit Party to govern the province of British Columbia." That was very clear. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to all the members and to the public that everything we've said all along — before May — and will say from now on, as we always have: "It's better to be clear than to dangle people on and on forever.... You cannot do that. If you're going to get into serious material....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hallelujah!

MR. R. FRASER: If you're really going to do your job, you'll tell people straight out where you are and how you think. To hang them on a string for six more months makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, with no further ado I move that the question be now put.

[3:15]

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, relating to my rights as a member of this House representing a considerable number of electors in this province, I have not had an opportunity to speak on this. I've been sitting here quietly and patiently this evening fully expecting to take my place in what I think is the most important aspect of the debate on these bills, and that is the debate about delaying so that there can be some time for reconciliation and healing in this province. Thousands of my constituents expect me to take my place in this debate, and I ask you to allow me to do that.

MR. REYNOLDS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member has stated that his constituents want to hear him speak. He has a chance to speak on the main motion; he can also put in another amendment, if he wishes to try to, and he has had ample opportunity to speak up until now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, before I recognize the Leader of the Opposition, I must point out that the provisions of standing order 46 indicate that the motion does not anticipate further debate. While some points of order, or a point of order, may be entertained, clearly the question must be put if that decision is made, and it is not an opportunity for debate. On that, I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on that very point, standing order 46 (l) says: 'After a question has been proposed, a member rising in his place may claim to move 'that the question be now put,' and, unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the rules of the House, or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question, 'that the question be now put,' shall be put forthwith, and decided without amendment or debate."

It is a fact that this is a very unusual motion. It is very rare, and because it is rare in this House, there is that additional provision in standing order 46(l) that asks for the Chair to be sure that it appears that the motion is not an abuse of the House or an infringement on the rights of the minority. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to tell us, under this ruling, when the rights of the minority get abused. How many hours must take

[ Page 2120 ]

place before this is not in order or in order? When a member stands up as an individual member....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly, the member has made his point under standing order 46, and at this point — please be seated — it is the judgment of the Chair that the member is currently engaged upon a course of debate. Hon. members, that is not permitted under this particular standing order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm certainly not engaged on a question of debate. I'm asking for your interpretation of standing order 46(l). How many hours...? When a minority member makes an appeal and wishes to speak, is he not defining himself as a minority? Is that member not expressing his opinion that his rights are being abused under this section?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. Notwithstanding the fact that the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) is on his feet, it is the Chair's determination at this time that sufficient points of order have been heard. In regard to the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition, the Chair's determination, obviously, in this particular case is that the rules of the House have been....

Let's read the section: "...and unless it shall appear to the Chair that such motion is an abuse of the Rules of the House...." On that matter, the Chair does not feel that any argument has been made or, clearly, that the question raised — "that the question be now put" — does qualify in that particular case. Insofar as the infringement of the rights of the minority goes, hon. members, it is also the Chair's responsibility to determine that the rights of the majority are not infringed upon. Hon. members, the determination is that the question will now be put.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there's nothing about the majority in this section.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down! There's no debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the determination of the Chair is, again, that "that the question be now put" shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. Now, hon. members, I see you continuing to stand — the member for North Vancouver–Capilano and the Leader of the Opposition — and the Chair has determined that the question will be put. That is the decision of the Chair, and I now put the question.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member! If it is the determination of the Chair that the member at this point is continuing on a course of debate rather than a point of order....

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not.

MR. SPEAKER: ...the Chair would have no other choice, hon. member, but to say that the member is abusing the rights of the House and certainly not showing proper respect for the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I stand on standing order 46(l), wherein clearly it says "the rights of the minority, " and makes no mention whatsoever of the rights of the majority. You, sir, refer to the rights of the majority as if it was in this standing order which rules us all. Of course the Speaker must make a judgment, but there is nothing in this section about the rights of the majority. How can you rule on words that are not in the section? And if that is your ruling, I have a right to challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member. Clearly, at this time it is the decision of the Chair that the question shall be put forthwith, and I so now put the question.

Question approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 6

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 6

NAYS — 28

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

On the main motion.

MR. REID: Now we'll listen.

[ Page 2121 ]

[3:30]

MR. GABELMANN: Clearly it would be out of order for me to make much comment on what has just taken place, but let me say by way of introduction to my other comments that I find the behaviour in this Legislature of late to be absolutely reprehensible. I think, Mr. Speaker, the government must be mad, individually and collectively.

Interjections.

MR. GABELMANN: Why would the government be so determined, through its legislative program and its legislative action, to try to create class warfare in this province? To try to create divisions between poor and rich, between those who have it made and those who are attempting to eke out a proper living in this society? Why would they exacerbate those already difficult feelings in the community by treating this Legislature in the way they do, and treating democracy as if it means nothing whatsoever to them?

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Commenting just briefly on why there are six of us here....

MR. REID: How many?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. GABELMANN: There happen to be two of us in the Legislature right now, but there are six of us here and there were six of us voting.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I know it's very early in the morning, but have I missed something? Are we not debating Bill 4? I see no relevance whatsoever in the debate of the member opposite in regard to Bill 4.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. We are at the introductory remarks stage, hon. member; this is the member's first address on Bill 4 and while some latitude is allowed in those remarks I'm sure the member will get to the subject matter of his debate in close order.

MR. GABELMANN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize the rules and intend to follow them, as I believe I do on most occasions.

Just in passing I will very quickly say that when opposition members are charged as they are by the public to speak on their behalf, and when we are expected to be in this Legislature from 20 to 22 hours a day, if we are to speak appropriately on behalf of the public and do our job effectively, it is required that we organize ourselves in a way to be able to do that. If we're just going to sit and do nothing in this Legislature, then sure, all of us could be here all of the time, like most of the government members.

Enough said on that.

Mr. Speaker, I said a moment ago I think the government must be mad, and I believe that. As a result not just of this bill but of the whole legislative package which this one symbolizes so well, we are unfortunately and regrettably approaching a state of anarchy out in the community. That state which is being created by this government and exacerbated by the actions of this government is, I believe, being deliberately and consciously created. There is a desire on the part of some madmen — and perhaps women — in that cabinet to try to create civil war, in effect, in this province so that they can impose even harsher measures to impose their draconian, right-wing — and I won't say fascist, but I sometimes feel it — measures, certainly authoritarian measures.

We're debating a bill tonight.... I wanted dearly to talk about why I believe we should hoist that bill for six months, as I believe we should hoist the whole legislative package, so that discussion can take place between some rational people who might still be left on that side of the House and some people in the community who are affected by this and other bits of legislation.

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, members can shout across, "On the bill," and I will be on the bill, but it's more important that somebody talk also about what might be done to try to get us out of this madness in this province at the present time. I wouldn't be doing my job as a representative in this Legislature if I didn't make that plea. I don't expect us as opposition members saying the things we are in this Legislature to be involved necessarily in that process of reconciliation and healing that must take place. It must be initiated by someone on that side, but I fear there is almost no one left who has the ability, the capacity, the decency or sanity. I did have some hope for a couple of members, and that hope has been fading as the days and nights go by.

[Mr. Parks in the chair.]

Specifically to the bill. On February 11, 1982, the Minister of Finance said, in a press release:

"I urge British Columbia residents filling out their 1981 tax return forms to remember the personal income tax credit introduced in the budget last March. The tax credit is intended to offset the impact of several necessary tax measures, and is equal to 3 percent of total personal exemptions less 1.5 percent of taxable income."

The press release goes on to quote the Minister of Finance.

"While a significant number of British Columbia citizens will benefit from this tax credit, I am pleased that it will aid both elderly and lower-income families. This measure will effectively bring relief to those who need it most, since the credit increases with family size and as income decreases."

What changed between February 1982 and November 1982? Did those poor people suddenly become rich? Did they suddenly find other sources of revenue to pay their food and accommodation bills? What happened in those short few months?

Mr. Speaker, what happened to the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) and the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who were so involved in the Year of the Disabled not so very long ago? One of the recommendations, no. 19, of the report that was done for the

[ Page 2122 ]

Year of Disabled Persons reads as follows — and let's remember that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain chaired this committee:

"Many recipients of the handicapped person's allowance administered by the Human Resources ministry must pay rent in excess of the ministry's shelter allowance. Some provision should be made to protect such recipients against undue hardship because of this. The SAFER program recognizes the hardship experienced by the elderly who pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent. Disabled people of all ages who are on fixed incomes should similarly receive cash rent subsidies."

Was the involvement of the government in the International Year of Disabled Persons just a symbolic phony gesture that could be forgotten after the UN-declared year was over? Was the only reason they spent so much money in putting on such a show for the Year of the Disabled to pretend? If they cared, they wouldn't be introducing legislation such as we're facing here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak more generally for a moment, and I will not be off the bill. I want to talk about what I see as the primary thrust of this legislative package, as symbolized by the bill and as contained in this bill. The primary thrust of that package and of this bill is to redistribute income, not to create new wealth, which is always what's being talked about by the so-called free-enterprisers, who really don't believe in free enterprise. It's not to create new wealth; it's to redistribute wealth. And for the first time in the history of this country, we have a government that overtly and deliberately wants to redistribute wealth in the wrong direction. By this legislation they're taking money out of the hands of poor people. No other comparable legislation exists to take it out of the pockets of rich people. My income taxes haven't gone up. People who make considerably more money than I haven't had their income tax go up. We have not had restrictions on the very many other benefits that are available to those of us who make above average in our society, and we have not had any comparable legislative initiatives to restrict or redistribute our income.

Why is it that this government is so determined to make the poor poorer and the rich richer? No one disagrees that government expenditures need to be restrained or curtailed or that new sources of revenue need to be sought. No one argues with any of that. The public may be 75 percent in favour of restraint. This Legislature is 100 percent in favour of restraint. But we, on this side at least, are not in favour of measures like this which are not restraint measures. They have very little to do with generating new revenue.

What's $91 million in the scheme of things? I know C.D. Howe got in trouble for a similar phrase. Nevertheless, when you're spending more than that on a stadium, when you spend 10 or 15 times that on developing a coal field that may well not be able to sell its product, and when you spend considerable amounts of money on other projects, which are desirable, which we would all like, like rapid transit and many more, the $91 million pales. So why would it be? It's not because they can pay for all of the programs that they want to initiate and continue on the megaproject side of government spending, because the $91 million doesn't pay for much of that. I see it simply as the first government in the history of this continent that has made a conscious and deliberate decision to step on the poor people, to make them poorer than they already are and to assist those people who have money to make even more money.

I don't need to go into much detail about the state of poverty in this country, but I do want to talk a little bit about the state of poverty in this province. I don't think very many of us really recognize what poverty is like in this province. I'm reminded of that every time I go on the B.C. Ferries and use my ferry pass. It occurs to me on occasion that I don't know how much money it costs ordinary people to use that ferry, because I don't pay for myself. I've had to check on occasion to find out just how much they pay. That tells me something about what happens when you're well off or when you have privileges. You forget very easily what it's like not to be well off or not to have privileges.

I don't think there's one of us in this Legislature, no matter how well motivated, who can begin to comprehend what poverty is like in this society, because we're not poor. No matter how many people we may talk to who are poor, no matter how many books we might read about it, no matter what research we might undertake, none of that can ever allow us to feel how poor people feel.

[3:45]

In 1979, which are the best and latest, most accurate figures, StatsCan tells us that almost 11 percent of B.C.'s total population included families with incomes below the poverty level — 272,000 people with incomes below the poverty level. This was in 1979 when things were much better than they are now. Undoubtedly the figure is well beyond 300,000 at this time. In that group, 63 percent of the adults were women. When we're talking about poverty — and that's what we're talking about with legislation — some meagre, minor and small steps leading toward making life a little bit better for those people who are poor.... For the most part, we're talking about women and children when we talk about poverty in this country. We don't even have the chivalry of the old days — not that I want to go back to those days — when women and children were at least treated first. If this government were ordering the evacuation of the Titanic, the able-bodied men would be the first off and the women and children would go down with the ship. That's the mentality we see across the floor of this House.

StatsCan figures tell us that 25 percent of the poor in British Columbia are children; 49 percent are between the ages of 18 and 64; and 26 percent are over 65. Almost all of those people would be helped one way or another by this legislation, but they will not and have not been helped for some time. Before my 40 minutes have elapsed, I would like to deal with the question of retroactivity, which I find necessary in some cases but quite appalling in this particular one.

I want to read a letter that may or may not have been mentioned before in this debate. It was sent to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) on November 16, 1982, following his announcement that the tax credit and the renter's grant would be eliminated. It's from the Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C.

"Dear Sir:

"The Federated Anti-Poverty Groups of B.C. are appalled at the recent announcement of more cutbacks aimed at the poor. We refer to the termination of the B.C. renter's grant and the B.C. personal income tax credit — programs which were specifically designed to assist those on low and fixed incomes. More than 50 percent of B.C.'s senior citizens live in poverty, and the money they received from these programs was

[ Page 2123 ]

needed to purchase goods and services which they otherwise could not afford. Surely we have a duty to respond to the needs of those who have spent their lives building our province and our country.

"Furthermore, many low-income families — both single and two-parent — need the money returned through these programs to help provide for their children, children who are our greatest future resource. Surely you could find the money needed elsewhere. What about those who have high incomes and could contribute more to those who need help? This is a time for people to pull together, not to take advantage of the already disadvantaged.

"We hope that you will reconsider your decision and not reduce even further the services to the poor people of this province.

Yours truly,
Ann Peters,
President."

I don't know whether the Minister of Finance replied to that letter — I'm sure he did. But I wonder if he thought about what was being said by that particular group. I wonder if he's thought about what is being said by many other people who commented on the decision by the Minister of Finance and the government in late 1982.

Chuck Bailey said in his January 25, 1983, column — about two months after the announcement was made — in the Vancouver Sun:

"A reminder of cuts came through the mail last week with our income tax forms. A maximum of $150 renter's grant and a possible $154.50 tax credit have both been cut, both of them designed to help those on low income. 'Those cheques took care of things that had to be fixed or replaced, like a new pair of shoes or a coat,' delegate Bill Anderson told the meeting." This was at a meeting of a senior citizens organization.

"Anderson rejected the argument that SAFER made the renter's grant unnecessary. 'There are many renters who are just out of reach of qualifying for SAFER. I'm losing both the $150 and the $154.50, so I know,' he said. 'Add in the loss of denticare and you can see how much we have slipped back.

" 'We were not consulted so that something might have been worked out.' David Smith, pensioners' specialist in incomes, agrees. 'Those cheques went to seniors who would put the money right back into circulation. Spending is how people are kept in work. Better to have added a point or two in income tax, which is another way of keeping money moving.' "

What's the motivation? Why would the government do it? On November 23, 1982, there were several letters to the editor of the Sun on the same topic. I know there have been many others. Obviously I'm not going to read the entire press on this subject, but I do want to read a couple.

"The recent move by the Social Credit government to abolish the renter's tax grant and personal income tax credits is a very disgusting and callous move by a callous government. The $72 million that would be saved is going to pay for megamonster projects nobody wants. Premier Bennett should resign and call a provincial election to prove he is not wanted. The poor of B.C. are going to suffer, not the friends of Bennett and company. It's already enough that the Socreds have cut away aid to the poor in other areas. This is the last straw."

The letter was signed by someone named Dave Woodall.

Mr. Speaker, we're talking, in discussing this legislation, not about just a handful of people or even hundreds or thousands, but about hundreds of thousands of British Columbians whose incomes at best are marginal and more often than that are below the margin. Yet we've not had the government members, either in the cabinet or in the back bench, stand up and tell us why they think this $91 million needed to come from this source and what economic justification they believe exists for such a move. Do they believe that if that money is in the hands of government rather than taxpayers that money will somehow generate more jobs or a better economy? If it did that, you might — though you might not want to — be able to make an argument that that money being taxed and collected is better off in the hands of the government. That's an argument you might hear socialists make. Is that the argument they want to make — that that $91 million, which poor people in this province would have been spending on accommodation, food and very basic things like a new pair of shoes, is better off in the hands of the state? At the same time some of us — not many on this side, but certainly quite a number in this House whose incomes are at least five and in some cases more than ten times the incomes of people we're talking about — can use our disposable income for trips abroad or for a new pair of shoes. I bought a new pair of shoes the other day and didn't think twice about it. There are hundreds of thousands of people in this province who couldn't do that. Why are their taxes, in effect, being increased and mine not — even at my moderate level of income? Is there an economic justification? I don't believe so. I don't believe the government would want to make the argument that potential disposable income is better off in the hands of the state than it is in the hands of taxpayers, spenders and consumers.

But what other argument might they want to make? Would they want to argue that W.A.C. Bennett was wrong — that their own government was wrong in arguing for some protection for this group of people in our society? Are they going to argue that W.A. C. Bennett was wrong in saying that if there is a homeowner's grant for people who own their own homes, there should be some kind of equivalent subsidy for those people who rent? That's basically the argument that W.A.C. Bennett made when he first began this program. Is the government now arguing that homeowners are a favoured class? Why is it, to go back to something I said at the beginning, that the government is so determined and so happy about aiding and abetting those people who want class warfare?

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned earlier that I wanted to make some comments about retroactivity. In the normal course of events legislatures have the right, in my view, to introduce and pass retroactive legislation when it deals with specific tax measures that need to be in place at the time of the announcement, so that people can't benefit from a proposed change which may not come into place until the bill is debated and passed. So there are occasions when retroactivity is appropriate because there might be some possibility of benefit by prior knowledge. That principle is sound and is applied in every legislature in this country and in the House of Commons. But the principle doesn't apply to this bill. There is no advantage to any individual in this province because of prior knowledge, and when there isn't that advantage there is no

[ Page 2124 ]

excuse, in my view, for retroactive legislation, particularly retroactive legislation that takes us back more than three years, as this bill does. I must say that the comments by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), when he talked about the arbitrary choice of November 11, 1982, when the bill says that tax deductions, reductions and grants credited and paid under those sections before November 11, 1982, shall be deemed to have been validly credited or paid........ It's totally wrong in principle to include that kind of provision in legislation.

[4:00]

I want to go back to my main theme, and that is that rather than attempting to introduce legislation and develop programs that would be designed to create new wealth and make sure that that new wealth and the existing wealth are distributed fairly in our society, the government has embarked upon one narrow course, and that has been to ignore the creation of wealth in this society — because I don't know of one of the bills in this package that deals with it — and then they have decided to take this appalling course which calls for the redistribution of income in the wrong directions. I don't know whether the biblical injunction that the poor will always be with us is what motivates them, and they're a bit afraid that poverty might be wiped out and somehow that would be unchristian; I don't know what their motivations are. There certainly aren't, as I talked about earlier, any economic motivations in their actions. There can only be political, ideological, philosophical motivations. Clearly, the government has no commitment whatsoever to making life just a little bit better for those hundreds of thousands of people who rent, who are seniors, who are poor, who are single mothers, and who are so dramatically affected by this legislation. It's easy for those of us in this Legislature and those we might consort with to say that $400 or $500 isn't very much, but for a lot of the people we're talking about it's as much as 5 percent of their total annual income. I haven't detected much sense of caring about that from the government.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The one good thing you can say about this bill is that they did, in this case, unlike many other cases, have the courage to say during the election campaign that they would do it. That's the one bill they had the courage to do that on, and I give them full marks for that. But it's only part of a package.

There's a report done by the committee of the city of Vancouver that I want to refer to. "Almost half the households cannot afford to pay for adequate housing, a study by senior officials at city hall has found. In a report on low-income housing released Tuesday, the officials say only a fraction of poverty-level households have government assistance or subsidized accommodation, while the majority has neither." The majority of poverty-level households has no assistance in Vancouver. "They trace the problem to a lack of federal and provincial government shelter aid for low-income families, seniors and others, and say there should be a rent supplement program to relieve the uncertainty of changing incomes."

Those are words that are easy to read quickly and not let sink in, but what they say, if you take the time to think it through, is that half of the households in the city of Vancouver cannot afford to pay for adequate housing. That is an appalling indictment on our society, let alone on our government. What is it that is the purpose of government in society if it is not to attempt to redress problems like that that exist in our midst? This government not only doesn't attempt to redress those problems; it is determined to exacerbate them. If it was true in May 1983 that half the families in Vancouver couldn't afford adequate housing and that only a fraction of poverty-level households have government assistance or subsidized accommodation while the majority has neither, how much more true is it now?

There is much that could be said about poverty and about the direction the government is obviously moving in — we've obviously been denied the right to say all of those things by the curtailment of the debate that has taken place tonight — but since my time is up and I'm not going to be able to have the kind of time that I expected, in closing I would like to move adjournment of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

[4:15]

YEAS — 12

NAYS — 26

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

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

MR. HOWARD: In rising to examine this bill at a quarter after the hour of four in the morning, looking at the bleary-eyed members opposite, who just enjoy torturing themselves and everybody else, while the Premier is sleeping.... I don't blame them; they'll be away for another short nap. Anyhow, there are some hardy souls left.... I was going to say "including the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications" (Hon. Mr. McGeer), but he's going to leave, because the dear, learned and respected doctor is going to go back to his office and work on the great master plan that he has involving some timetable that the government appears to have. Oh, I see the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) nods his head and says: "Yes, there's a timetable." Nothing will stand in the way of the government to satisfy that timetable, regardless of whether they run roughshod over the rights of every human being in this province. That's their attitude. There is no care or concern about the affect that this

[ Page 2125 ]

legislative bundle that came in with the budget has upon the general public. They're going to get it.

This bill has probably the most offensive feature of any piece of legislation. It's bad enough, to start with, that there be retroactive legislation, but to be retroactive for more than a year and a half.... That's pretty nearly 20 months of retroactivity in a piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's unheard of.

MR. HOWARD: It's unheard of, but it sure ain't unheard of when this crowd opposite, my friend, is running the show here. Nothing is unheard of, and nothing is beneath them in terms of their desire to injure the economic and social fabric of this province.

This is part of the budget; it's a budget bill, a tax bill. It imposes a tax upon citizens in this province — only some of them, not all of them. It's a selective tax. Particular groups are singled out and subjected to this tax. The particular groups singled out are those who have to rent their accommodation from somebody else, and — and there may be a combination here — those who are at a level of income that puts them in the category of being poor. Those are the ones singled out, and it's interesting to note that earlier this morning, when closure was invoked, it was invoked against the poor and the tenants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where were you?

MR. HOWARD: If I thought it was any of your business where I was, I'd tell you. I don't think it is any of their business. It's this crowd opposite, Mr. Speaker, that....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The second member for Victoria on a point of order.

MR. BLENCOE: In another outburst, the member for Surrey, Mr. Speaker, asked the member to shut up. I think that's not respectful, and I don't think it's appropriate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I heard that, and I was just about to mention that. I'm sure the hon. second member for Surrey knows that such language is considered unparliamentary, and I would ask that in the interests of good relations on both sides of this House he retract that statement. The second member for Surrey, please.

MR. REID: I made the remark, but I'll withdraw it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry, that's not satisfactory. Would you please withdraw the remark unequivocally?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: And apologize.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just withdraw the remark, please.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: There is a great deal of discussion about the necessity of reducing government expenditures; that is part of what this bill is supposed to be all about — reducing government expenditures. Restraint is the other label that is applied to that. I don't think there is anybody in this chamber — certainly no one that I know, and no one with whom I am associated — who is now, or ever has been, opposed to the concept of restraint. I have to go back to the earlier remarks that were made to point out that we took the initiative on restraint a couple of years ago in this party and had the Socreds vote to oppose the idea of restraint. That initiative was taken, and I don't want to belabour the point. But they continue to talk about reducing government expenditures, and at the same time as the government is talking about that, they have a budget, of which this bill is a part, increasing government expenditures this year by 16.7 percent, when the inflation rate is about 5 percent and when the rate of increase in the gross provincial product is nowhere near 16.7 percent. When they talk about reducing the expenditure of government, and you compare that statement with the fact that the budget has increased by 16.7 percent, which one of those statements is inaccurate, Mr. Speaker? Which one is not in accordance with the facts? Which one is not a true statement?

The statistics and the figures are there in the budget to prove that the 16.7 percent increase this year is the factual, correct and true statement, and not this other declaration by government — this propaganda comment by government that it is reducing the expenditures of government. That is propaganda. The truth and the fact of the matter is the 16.7 percent increase in expenditures this year. It is interesting to note that, with respect to the bill before us, because it is part of the budget, there was only one brief reference in the budget speech of the Minister of Finance that I have been able to find, only one brief sentence relating to this bill. Let me read it: "I am also reconfirming today that legislation to cancel the renter's and provincial personal income tax credits will be presented during this session of the Legislature." That's it, with no explanation as to how much this is going to cost the taxpayers of this province — those who are tenants or those who, at the same time, may be in the low-income categories — no indication of how much is coming out of their pockets for this particularly onerous, discriminatory tax; just a brief, bald statement, indicating that the Minister of Finance was ashamed of what he has been forced to do by the Premier.

I know the Minister of Finance wouldn't do this himself, but he got caught up by the domination of the Premier in the way things are going to run in this province so he inserted one sentence only in the budget — either that or he didn't care to explain to the people of B.C. how much it was going to cost them. There was no indication in any of the budget papers, no indication in the tables in the back of it, and no indication in the speech of the minister itself as to how much people on low incomes and tenants are going to dish out of their pockets this year, through the imposition of this kind of tax.

The government can say, as it does: "But we need the money. We need that extra money, because if we don't have that extra money, we are going to be further in debt than $1.6 billion." I think I could say without equivocation that the $1.6 billion projected deficit is a padded figure, and it will come in lower than that, so that the Minister of Finance, who historically and traditionally has padded his budgets, will be able to say at the end of the fiscal year: "See how well we have managed things in this province fiscally. We don't have a $1.6 billion deficit; we have something less than that."

The argument of government is: we need the money because.... Although they don't tell us this, they increased the budget by 16.7 percent over last year. So they

[ Page 2126 ]

need extra money, and we are entitled, I think, in that alternative, to say that if this bill is defeated and there is a shortfall of income, as expected by the presentation and the preparation of the budget: "Why don't you look elsewhere to find the money?" Is that reasonable? We put the alternatives forward to them at different times, and I want to thank the sleeping member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) for having yesterday — I apologize for that; he is not sleeping, he is just resting his eyelids — given me the opportunity to explain....

AN HON. MEMBER: He's bored.

MR. HOWARD: You may be bored; that is tough. I have no sympathy at all for you being bored, either here at 4:30 a.m. or at any other time.

AN HON. MEMBER: We have no sympathy for you for what you are either.

MR. HOWARD: The only way they can stay awake in this chamber is to chatter from their seats, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting that of those members now in the back-bench, who are prone to making interjections from their seat, not one has had the courage to stand up and speak on this bill. The member who just took his place, who adjourned the debate, was the one exception. This is the official record put out by this place; it shows that on September 16, in the morning, "Reynolds adjourned debate." That is what it says. The only other person who spoke was the minister; nobody else on the government side, but they sure love to heckle. All that indicates is that they are ashamed of themselves. They haven't got the courage....

[4:30]

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: There is another one: the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. Does the member for Vancouver–Little Mountain know that there is $300 million in this budget for consultants' fees so the government can step outside of the public service and hire its friends to do consulting work? Do you know that there is $300 million hidden in there for patronage? Well, it is there, and that is an increase over last year in the amount of public funds secreted in the budget amount. There is $300 million for outside fees to do what — so that friends of the government can be put on the payroll but not show up on the payroll as numbers? That's deceitful budgeting, Mr. Speaker.

We have estimated that the removal of the renter's tax credit and the tenant's tax credit will cost the taxpayers of this province something in the neighbourhood of $90 million this year. That is our estimate. The government won't tell us what it perceives the amount to be, but that is our estimate: some $90 million. I tell you that you could cut $90 million out of the consulting fee budget of $300 million and withdraw this bill. I will tell you, $90 million in the hands, pockets and bank accounts — for those that are fortunate enough to have them — of the underprivileged people in this province would do a damned sight more good than money to the friends of the government by way of consulting fees.

Yesterday the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke identified another area where funds could be found. Last year, the pre-election year, the Minister of Finance attacked the private chartered banks in this nation, and particularly in this province. He said: "They haven't been paying their fair share; they haven't been carrying the load that they should. We need to get more money from the banks." Mr. Speaker, he spent almost a whole page of his budget speech last year talking about how he was going to get more money from the banks and one sentence this year about how he is going to get more money from the poor. The difference is that last year was before the election and now it is afterwards, and it was a good political ploy to take off after the banks.

He said: "We are going to get more money out of the banking institutions; they are making too much profit." In fact, he called it excessive profit. He points out the increase, and how little they paid the province of British Columbia, and how the federal government was involved in this, and how he just had to get more money. He said: "At the time when many families, individuals and businesses are struggling to cope with high interest rates, are paying their fair share of taxes and are faced with widespread economic uncertainty.... He could apply that now to the people who are going to be hit by this bill. He went further: "This privileged position for banks is both unfair and inappropriate," so he said he wanted some more money from them.

In this year's budget we don't hear a word about the banks, except that the other day the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke had a newspaper in his hand quoting the largest bank in Canada in terms of assets and everything else about its projections about the economy. Maybe you didn't read the Vancouver Sun. I think that was the paper it was from. In any event, it was one of yesterday's daily metropolitan newspapers from Vancouver or Victoria.

The Vancouver Sun had another editorial dated September 23, which said: "The banks can be forgiven for an occasional arithmetical lapse.... They were talking about the Canadian Bankers' Association making a mistake of $3 billion in revealing the asset profit picture of banks. That's a lot of money, but the editorial said it was less than 1 percent of the assets of the bank. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no idea how much $3 billion is — I don't know that you do. I don't know if anybody in this chamber can relate to or identify with $3 billion. It's a fantastic amount of money. But it's only 1 percent of the assets of the banks when they made this little mistake. So they issued an alteration which said: "We made the error; this is revised and corrected." The Sun said: "The banks can be forgiven for an occasional arithmetical lapse, but not for extracting more from a struggling economy than is necessary to ensure their financial health. That is being greedy." And that's the end of the quotation.

When interest rates are rising, bank profits go up. When interest rates decline, bank profits go up. When interest rates remain the same, bank profits go up. How much did they go up last year? Again, I have to rely upon the research of the Vancouver Sun. I'm sure it is accurate as anything. It said: "Bank profits for the first three-quarters of the year had an increase of 29 percent over the same period last year and even ahead of the banks' high-flying record of 1981."

There is an area.... If the Minister of Finance wanted to find a measly $90 million, he could have found it there. He made a great show last year about how unfair the banks were to this province, how they weren't paying their fair share of taxes; in fact, according to him, they were paying practically no taxes at all. When you have a 29 percent increase in profits.... The Minister of Finance said that in 1980, in spite of large profits — this year they were even larger than they were last year — these banks paid only $5.8 million in

[ Page 2127 ]

British Columbia income taxes; $5.8 million from the private chartered banks with hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of assets and profits; $5.8 million in taxes, and $90 million in taxes from the poor and the underprivileged. That's where this government is at.

I wish the member for Revelstoke, who had occasion to mention something about banks, had expanded his vision a little bit and looked up from the paper that he was reading to other papers around, like the business section of the Province. Look at it, Mr. Member; you can see across here. There's a line that moves upwards — as you can see, Mr. Speaker — at a fantastic rate, by leaps and bounds. It's called "net profits," as they have gone in the last four or five years. They're off the top of the page. Assets of banks have also moved upwards, and they're nearly going off the top of this page. The people who are profiting in hard times are banks.

I remember reading about the origin of Social Credit. It had a vision about money in this nation and in this province. It had a commitment to deal with it on behalf of human beings. It recognized the power that banks have over our everyday life. Social Credit at one time realized where the misery was coming from. Social Credit at one time realized that it doesn't matter who controls your government; what counts is who controls the money. Banks control money because they have the authority under federal law to create money with a stroke of the pen, basically out of thin air. They have the ability and the legal authority.... It is limited, yes; there is a restriction on it, and this figure that I am about to use is a variable that goes up and down a bit, but it is not too far off the mark at any given time. Banks are limited in the amount of money that they can create to the extent that they cannot create by a stroke of the pen more than eight times the money they have in the bank. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Brummet) goes in and deposits $100 in his savings account. Right away that gives the private chartered bank that he deals with, if he does deal with a bank, the right to create $800. That is why their assets continue to go up and they dominate what's happening in this province.

But this government doesn't care about that. This government doesn't concern itself about that type of power and that type of authority, except just before election when it seems they should attack the banks and maybe get a little benefit in the ballot-box from the general public, who think it is a good idea to get after these groups that the Vancouver Sun identifies as being greedy. Isn't that the curse of the economy, greed? Members opposite will agree that we are in the problem we are in because of greed, somebody wanting more and more and more. Government wanted more two years ago when they increased the budget by 20 percent, and the following year when they increased it by another 20 percent. Government exhibited its greed in collective bargaining. Corporations exhibit their greed by taking a particular stance in negotiations. Unions exhibit their greed by taking a particular stance on the other side during negotiations.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if I can continue when there isn't a quorum in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we will just take a count, if you don't mind.

MR. HOWARD: I don't mind. There are eight, with you, Mr. Speaker. You have no choice but to adjourn the House.

[4:45]

HON. MR. ROGERS: The established procedure in this House when there is not a quorum is for the Speaker to write down a list of the members present and if there are sufficient members present the bells need not be rung. That is a standard established procedure in this House.

MR. HOWARD: The other established procedure, Mr. Speaker, is to write slowly. I still count eight, not any more than we had a while ago. Oh, there is another one, and another.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your patience, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD: We now have a quorum.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.

MR. REID: You have two standing in the hallway who won't even come in and listen to you. I wouldn't if I didn't have to.

MR. HOWARD: The hon. member for Surrey can leave any time he likes; it won't offend me. If he wants to leave the chamber, I am sure it will add tremendously to what we are doing here.

MR. REID: I am the designated listener.

MR. HOWARD: I am pleased that he is the designated listener.

MR. REID: You have to be designated to listen to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's proceed in a orderly manner.

MR. HOWARD: Don't be smart-ass now; pay attention. Be orderly. See what he is doing now? Please protect me, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's continue with the debate.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Surrey is showing what this government is all about: provocation, confrontation. They have a timetable that they want to run things through this Legislature, over anybody's interest whatever. That is what the member for Surrey was doing just now: trying to provoke me, a poor, innocent back-bencher, a private member, one trying to provoke the other. He is upset because he is the designated listener. He wishes he was home in bed sleeping and, Mr. Speaker, so do I wish that he was. But remember that he's here because the Premier decided he's got to be here.

MR. REID: I'm here because I want to vote on something.

MR. HOWARD: You'll be able to vote on something in a short while.

[ Page 2128 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think this has gone on long enough. I would like us to get back to Bill 4.

MR. HOWARD: I was doing well until the second member for Surrey woke up and realized where he was. The only thing they want to do is take a vote. You'll have an opportunity to take a vote in moment. I've got a motion here. It's a reasoned amendment, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to move in a moment or two. That will probably give the House an opportunity to express its opinion about something.

Mr. Speaker, now that members opposite have dozed off again, perhaps I can get on with my comments. As I said, this is part of the budget, and in the budget is a very perceptive statement about money. It's the foundation of what we're talking about. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said, on page 3: "The simple message is that without the vital creation of wealth there will be no means of paying for increased living standards." That's quite accurate, and that's what we need to examine. Government is a significant part of the economy, as are corporations and the workforce. They are the three elements that need to cooperate and have one common goal and objective, and need to understand that objective in order to move towards the creation of wealth. The creation of wealth does not take place in a vacuum; it doesn't take place just because someone wishes for it to take place. The creation of wealth is the deliberate result of....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, are you disturbed by your own colleagues' chatter?

MR. HOWARD: No; the second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) is continuing to chatter away like a monkey in a cage.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It takes more than one person to make a chatter.

MR. HOWARD: That's right.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask all members to please have the courtesy to hear out the hon. member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: The creation of wealth doesn't come about accidentally. Three of the largest elements in society and largest groups in our economy are business, the workforce — some organized into unions, others not — and government. Japan has shown the way, the mechanism necessary. In terms of its productive capacity and wealth creation opportunities after 1945, in the short space of about 30 years it moved from a nation that was destroyed — levelled, and with no productive capacity — to one of the most, if not the most, vibrant nations in the western world. And it's still growing, expanding and creating wealth. In the aftermath of the war, after the U.S. occupation forces left the government of Japan, business and the workforce made a determination that they would cooperate for the general good of Japan; that they would work together for what would be beneficial to Japan as a whole. Within that framework, that cohesiveness, yes, there were forces that said they wanted a little bit more than the next one in this three-way cooperative venture, with their eye on world markets. It functioned well.

In this province, in our pursuit of the creation of wealth, we are not headed in that direction of cooperation. The government is ignoring the necessity of cooperation with industry and the workforce. In the large, broad general sense it ignores and denies it. In specific minor ways it functions, but that is the exception to the rule — one or two exceptions to the common rule of this government to remove itself from an attempt to participate in the creation of wealth. It was that removal of government that got us into the difficult situation vis-à-vis northeast coal and what that may cost, because government was not a part except in the supplemental way of saying: "We'll pick up the tab." That's not cooperation; that's subsidy.

Earlier today hon. members on the other side appeared to be upset over something or other — I don't know what it was — and said no further opportunity to debate whatever was then before the House; Bill 11, I believe. Closure was invoked — another sad moment, I suppose, in our lives — and obviously invoked out of spite. Because of the manner in which it was done and because the provisions of Sir Erskine May demand that a certain thing can only be done by way of a substantive motion, I want to put to you a substantive motion as follows. This is a reasoned amendment which says: that the motion be amended by leaving out all the words following "that" and substituting therefore the following: "This House declares that the statement of Mr. Speaker Davidson earlier today, that the minority has no protection under standing order 46, is unacceptable and constitutes an abandonment of impartiality by Mr. Speaker."

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: May I speak on the motion, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair rules that the motion is out of order because there is a requirement that a reasoned amendment refer directly to the bill which is under discussion. A reference for that, hon. member, is Sir Erskine May, eighteenth edition, page 487, which gives the rules that govern the contents of reasoned amendments. The very first rule is that "the principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must 'strictly relate to the bill which the House by its order has resolved upon considering,' and must not include in its scope other bills then standing for consideration by the House."

MR. HOWARD: If I could have just a moment of your time, could Your Honour explain then...? How it is possible then to get such a substantive motion before the House if not by this mechanism? Rulings have been made that I can't do it another way, and when I do the government blocks it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is no.

MR. HOWARD: It can't be done?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair is really in no position at this time to advise you on the question you just put. The only thing that the Chair can rule on is the reasoned amendment as presented, which, I am sure you will agree in view of what I've read, is out of order.

MR. HOWARD: I think we should test that with the House by way of a challenge, and I so challenge your ruling.

[ Page 2129 ]

[5:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 8

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

MS. SANFORD: I'm just going to wait for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, until the government members can get back to bed.

Interjection.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. member for Comox has the floor.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just waiting for the Social Credit members to leave the House so they can resume their naps.

Here it is, 6 minutes past 5:00 a.m., and we're analyzing the contents of Bill 4, which is rather a typical Socred bill, Mr. Speaker, in that it first of all demonstrates the arrogance of this government through the retroactive provisions. They denied all of those people the right to claim on their income tax this year the renter's tax credit and the income tax credit, even though the legislation was still here and it was quite lawful, according to the statutes of the province, to make those applications. But it's rather typical, in that we saw this government spend money without authority for some months while trying to make up their minds whether to call a session, introduce a budget or go to the polls. We have seen this government bring in retroactive legislation on a number of occasions, so it's rather typical of the arrogance that's currently displayed by the government of British Columbia.

The other aspect of this bill which makes it rather typical of the kind of thing we have come to expect of this government is the fact that the people most adversely affected by the legislation are those who can least afford it. I don't think most of the people on the government side would even recognize the difficulties of those people who would benefit under this renter's tax credit and this income tax credit. They wouldn't recognize the difficulties those people might have to face.

We have seen this government introduce one piece of legislation after the other that demonstrate the government is completely without compassion for the people it's supposed to represent. That's rather tragic. I know many of them have never had to worry about finances. It's always been easy for them.

Interjections.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not saying all of them, but some of them. My, they get very agitated, but I know there are many on the government side of the House....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would remind the member on her feet of the rule of relevancy in the interest of quiet and orderly debate in the House.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, I know it is late, Mr. Speaker, and that you are not used to the chair, but that is the most astounding intervention I have ever heard. This member was speaking and was constantly interrupted by government....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that....

MR. LAUK: Do you mind if I finish my point of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I don't. It is not a point of order.

MR. LAUK: It certainly is, and I insist on making it. Don't you tell me it is not a point of order.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please come to order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: On a point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: State your point of order.

MR. LAUK: I am stating it — without interruption, I hope.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: The hon. member was on her feet....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Would this member please come to order. I do not intend to take that kind of treatment in this House. I would ask for an apology to the Chair, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: For what reason?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I want an unequivocal apology to the Chair.

[ Page 2130 ]

MR. LAUK: For what reason?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. LAUK: Don't say "order" and ask for an apology. You have no right to do that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please apologize to the Chair?

MR. LAUK: For what reason?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the outburst.

MR. LAUK: There was no outburst, Mr. Speaker. On the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: State your point of order.

MR. LAUK: The member for Comox was on her feet giving a speech that was relevant to debate. She was interrupted by several government members in a loud and obnoxious way, and the Speaker felt compelled to tell the member for Comox that she was out of order. That was an incredible intervention.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member, I was calling for order in the House at that time.

MR. LAUK: Well, could you call the hon. members to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was also asking the member for Comox, as I ask all hon. members in this House, to be relevant to the bill before us. With that I ask the member for Comox to proceed.

MS. SANFORD: I cannot think of anything more relevant to this debate than the comments that I was making just prior to the interruptions by all these people, particularly those in the back bench, Mr. Speaker. You see, I was trying to explain to the Legislature why I feel that this government has no compassion towards those people who can least afford the kind of repressive measures that have been taken by one piece of legislation after another, including this one.

[5:15]

You have people on the government side who have never had to worry about their source of income. They have never had to worry about meeting payments or getting a pair of shoes for their children when they have to attend school. They have never had to worry about ensuring there is food on the table.

MR. REID: Speak for yourself

MS. SANFORD: I am just saying that there are members on the government side who are in that position. We all know it. I don't know why that disturbs the government members. When you have a number of people who have absolutely no understanding based on their own experience of what it means to be able to claim on an income tax form, even if it is only $170 — or even $400, as a senior citizen couple would be able to claim.... They don't understand that. I think that is one of the reasons that we are seeing this kind of punitive legislation. It is punitive to those people who can't afford it. It seems to me that if you have a government that is so lacking in compassion because so many of its members have never had to face the kind of problems that the people who are affected by this piece of legislation have had to face, then it requires that we on this side of the House argue time and time again. If the government is concerned about the funds that are involved — some $91 million, we were told when this bill was first introduced — the government should use every possible avenue it can in order to ensure that that money comes from other sources and not from those people who would benefit under this bill. This kind of legislation is a tragedy for those people.

During the months of April and May people were filling out their income tax forms — most of them before the end of April. They were coming into my office, and you should hear the stories they were telling us with respect to the financial problems that they found themselves in. They didn't create those problems on their own. It wasn't their fault. These people had been looking for work and had been unable to find it. These people were trying to hold their families together. They talked about the difficulties that their financial problems were presenting in terms of just keeping their marriage together. These people were worried about the kind of psychological impact that their children were facing because they were not dressed in the clothes that had the same labels as so many of the peers did. To children and teenagers, the ability to wear the kind of clothes that their peers are wearing is extremely important.

Many adults underestimate the psychological impact and the damage that occurs to the young people when they are not able to compete in that area — and I use the word "compete" in quotes, Mr. Speaker. It affects them and they become morose. They quite often display anti-social behaviour. It affects the parents, because they feel that it's very difficult for them to bring their children up as other families do. They simply cannot afford to meet these — what adults may consider to be trivial — requests by young people.

When those people came into my office and were filling out their income tax forms, they told us stories like this. The seniors who came in were often hard-pressed to meet their rents and their commitments in terms of basic survival and nothing extra. When you understand that and see the plight of so many of those people when they come to ask about the renter's tax credit and the income tax credit — the forms were missing this year from their regular income tax forms....

If the members of cabinet, or whoever is responsible for denying these tax credits, had taken the time and listened to the problems that those people presented to the MLAs in their offices during the month of April, I don't think we would see this bill before us today. I think the government would have found some other means to ensure that the deficit doesn't go below what they are predicting — $1.8 billion, or whatever it is. Is it really worth it to penalize and be so punitive to those people who are at the very lowest income levels in our province by denying them this kind of tax credit? What sort of people are they that they would take this kind of action? Surely they can come up with a thousand other ways of ensuring that that $91 million is found elsewhere. We've given lots of suggestions.

Mr. Speaker, if you were a single parent with small children and you were eligible under the act for the renter's tax credit and for the income tax credit.... A single mother with two children would be able to claim, under the

[ Page 2131 ]

personal tax credit, $147 — not very much in terms of what some of the people on the government benches are used to. Nonetheless, for a single mother with two little children, $147 is something very important. In addition to that, under the renter's tax credit provisions of the bill that's before us — or at least was before us; this is going to eliminate all of this — she would be able to collect, through the income tax credit system, a total of $297. I want you to visualize this, Mr. Speaker. This single mother with two children is already facing very serious problems. She is responsible for those children 24 hours a day. She does not have any additional income that would enable her to hire someone to look after those children, even for a few hours, in order to give her a break and enable her to go shopping, or to a movie, or out to visit friends. She has that responsibility and doesn't have the finances to be able to do anything other than stay with those two children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: How old are the kids?

MS. SANFORD: How old are the kids? Well, I don't know that it would make that much difference.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Maybe they're 26 and 28.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, no. I thought maybe the Minister of Health might know that under the act they have to be under the age of 18 in order to qualify.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: They could be. They could also be one, two, three, four years old, and require the attention of a mother almost 24 hours a day.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: Well, could be. He could be deceased. He could be divorced. He could have taken off somewhere. Maybe she has that additional worry of trying to collect maintenance payments from him, which is still a very difficult problem for single mothers. If he's gone off to Ontario or somewhere she has a terrible time, or Alberta....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On to the bill, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm responding to the questions posed to me by the hon. House Leader for the government, Mr. Speaker.

But this single mother, with these two children, is now denied this $297. Let's try to look at what this $297 might have done for her. We know she doesn't have any additional funds. We know she may be worried about having to chase down her husband in order to obtain maintenance payments. And you'd be surprised, Mr. Speaker, how many single mothers in this province are trying to get maintenance payments and are unable to get them. I have those coming into my office too. They have to appear in court. Then the court is adjourned, and they then have to try to see if they can get some legal advice — because the government has now eliminated legal aid for these kinds of cases. So she finds herself in a very difficult position. She may have been one of those mothers who, before she was on her own, had been battered. But even the transition houses, where she could escape to at that time, are now denied to her because the government has decided that they're not important enough to fund either.

[5:30]

This mother, with that $297 that she would be entitled to under the personal tax credit and the renter's tax credit, could do all kinds of things. She could hire a babysitter, and maybe get out three or four times a year. To someone who never gets out, that would be a big advantage. She might even get to the stage where she could go to a concert. Wouldn't that be a treat for a single mother in those circumstances? But instead she has to stay at home with those children and worry about the increase she is going to have in her rent because the rent controls have been removed, and the rentalsman's office and the rent review is going to disappear. So here she is with those two children, and under this bill she is now going to be denied this $297. People who are put in that position, tragic though it might be, sometimes abuse children.

The pressure is tremendous on a single mother with young children in circumstances that so many young mothers find themselves in: no money, no hope of getting a job, and no hope of any kind of training to enable her to change her circumstances. So this $297 is extremely important to her. If she is driven to the stage where those children become abused, then even the children will have no assistance, concern or compassion from this government, because the child abuse teams are gone too. The government would probably save money in health costs if that $297 were available to that single mother. It might save her from a mental breakdown. It might save the government the money that it would cost to put those two children in foster care while she is undergoing expensive — we know it's expensive — medical treatment. The situation that this particular mother with two children finds herself in leads to the kind of stress that leads to mental breakdown. If she were able to get out now and again, or even have enough money to take her children out for a day in the park.... If she could scrape together the money out of that $297 they would be able to take quite a few bus trips, to the planetarium and all kinds of things. They could take the bus and go down to the art gallery or the library. There are all kinds of opportunities open to them. That $297 spent on bus fare, just to get her out of her circumstances in a small apartment, would go a long way to saving the government money through health care and the psychological damage that results in children under those conditions. That damage which occurs in children at a young age very often manifests itself in many ways later on — antisocial behaviour and vandalism of various types — and those children later on could well end up in the court systems and require the attention of the Attorney-General's ministry. They could well require their own special medical treatment because of the situation that this mother with her two children finds herself in.

I do not understand at all why the government would attack a single mother with her two little children in this way, or why they would want to deny them that $297, which in so many ways would assist that mother facing a very difficult life. I had the opportunity to travel and to own a vehicle, and I didn't have to worry about ensuring that the children had shoes. I didn't have those problems; but even at that, the stress and difficulty of dealing with two young children on a daily basis, even though I was able to get away — I could afford a babysitter — are horrendous. That mother has no option. The $297 to which she would otherwise be entitled

[ Page 2132 ]

could, and would, make a great difference in her life. There are lots of other ways of getting that $91 million.

Yesterday we talked about the ability to pay. We talked about the kinds of assets that the banks have, and the ability they have to ensure that that single mother with two children is not denied the $297 to which she would be entitled if we didn't have this repressive legislation.

When this concept of some aid to renters was first introduced.... Mr. Speaker, did you know that this concept was first introduced in the Legislature in 1972 by the father of the present Premier? W.A.C. Bennett recognized the need for this kind of legislation. It certainly wasn't because he had a lot of spare money around; we still had the Columbia River Treaty to pay off, and all those other debts that had occurred. It's not as though W.A.C. Bennett couldn't have used the money somewhere else and reduced the debt — at that time it was hardly significant compared to this government's debt. W.A.C. Bennett recognized the value and the necessity — the need — to ensure that those people in very difficult circumstances, such as the woman with two children and on a very low income, located in an apartment building.... He introduced this concept. He had compassion. As I recall listening to W.A.C. Bennett in those years, it seems to me that he had far more compassion than do those people who sit on the government benches today. He was concerned, even though the money that would go to the renter's tax credit when he introduced it on March 13, 1972, could have been used elsewhere. He could have paid off some of the debt or done other things, but he had a bit of compassion. He understood the plight of senior citizens and single mothers with children.

Actually, I shouldn't say that he understood the single mother with the two children; when he introduced it initially, it was just for senior citizens. It has been expanded since then. He knew what it meant to senior citizens. He made some very interesting points about the people who would most benefit from this kind of legislation, those people who needed it most. I think W.A. C. Bennett recognized the contribution that the seniors had made to the province of British Columbia. They are the ones who worked and struggled and strived in order to make this a great province. W.A. C. Bennett recognized that they had made this contribution and decided that the introduction of this kind of legislation was the least the government could do to recognize the contribution they had made; to recognize that people who had worked hard all their lives were being faced with rents they probably could not afford; that at least they should be able to claim a tax credit on their income tax. He had that much compassion.

It is very unfortunate that the government doesn't display that kind of compassion today, because the circumstances today are probably more difficult for seniors and for people on UIC, for students. Do you have any idea what a boon it is for students to be able to claim back money through the renter's tax credit and the income tax credit? I know a lot of students who are just barely surviving. They eat the cheapest food.... In fact, I know students who actually go each evening to the back of the major supermarkets to see what it is that they might be able to obtain in order to ensure that they are fed so they can get to class the next day. It is that difficult for them. There is no work, and rather than sit at home watching TV, they try to go to school on very very limited funds. This kind of thing is a real boon for students. They are not entitled to the same student aid that they used to get, because the government doesn't think — the green light is on — it is suitable.

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker, I had so much to say under this bill. I am really sorry that the green light is already on, but I am really concerned about the members on the other side of the House who find it difficult to keep their eyes open. I would move that the House adjourn.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: As this same motion was put to the House at 3:05 a.m., a little over three hours ago, I decline to propose the same question to the House at this time.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, there has been intervening business since that motion was made. Is that your ruling, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I decline to put the question to the House at this time, because the same motion was presented to this House a little over three hours ago.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to raise with Your Honour is.... Your Honour is required, I understand, under standing orders, when dealing with a point of order to cite the standing order and the authority for doing whatever it is Your Honour seeks to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not only was the motion to adjourn put to this House at 3:05 a.m., but it was also put at 4:10 a.m. Using standing order 44, I decline to propose the question to the House at this time.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what are you saying with respect to standing order 441 — that a motion to adjourn shall always be in order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I have cited the standing order under which I decline to propose the question to the House. I said that at 3:05 a.m. and 4:10 a.m. motions to adjourn here put to this House. Pursuant to standing order 44, I decline to propose the same question to this House at this time.

MR. HOWARD: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it your opinion that you are declining to propose the question to the House, such that...? "If Mr. Speaker ... shall be of opinion that a motion...."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. For your edification, and that of all of the hon. members of this House, I will say again that the motion to adjourn was put to this House at 3:05 a.m. and again at 4:10 a.m. Using standing order 44, I say again that I decline to propose the same motion to this House, as I feel it's an abuse of the rules.

MR. HOWARD: Then I challenge that decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a decision, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I raised a point of order with Your Honour...

[ Page 2133 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member!

MR. HOWARD:...and I rise on another point of order. Standing order 44 is the citation that you gave me:

"If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the House, during any debate, or that the Chairman do report progress, or do leave the chair, is an abuse of the Rules and privileges of the House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or he may decline...."

You have opted to say that the motion proposed by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) is an abuse of the rules and the privileges of the House, and you have therefore declined to put the question, ruling that it is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House. I submit that it is not and I challenge that decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I made no ruling, hon. member; I merely stated facts. The facts are — I repeat them for all hon. members — that at 3:05 a.m. and again at 4:10 a.m. the same motion as the one just proposed by the member for Comox was put to this House. On the basis of standing order 44, which the member has just read to the House, I decline to propose that question.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A new point of order, hon. member?

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed, if you'll permit me.

It may be fact, as you say, that certain things occurred at 3:10, 4:10 and some other time, but it is your opinion that we are dealing with. If Mr. Speaker shall be of a certain opinion, then he may do a certain thing. It is your opinion....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Let me clarify....

MR. HOWARD: But I'm trying to deal with a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. To clarify the matter in the member's mind, I have stated an opinion in accordance with the standing orders of this House, which is that I decline to propose the question.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you have....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Unless the member has a new point of order, I would ask him to take his seat.

MR. HOWARD: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and it's a new point of order. With due respect, the Chair did not permit me to complete the point of order that I was embarked upon before. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, if you will bear with me — and I'm not trying to be difficult....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll listen to the point of order from the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: "If Mr. Speaker ... shall be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of the House" — that's what we're dealing with — "is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House...." If you are of that opinion, Mr. Speaker, then you may decline to propose the question. It's not your opinion as to whether the question should be posed or not but your opinion as to whether the motion is an abuse of the rules and the privileges of the House. You must make that determination first. My point of order is that I took it, by your declining to propose the question — and you can only do so if it is your opinion that it is an abuse of the rules and privileges of the House.... Having come to that opinion, that is a decision that Your Honour has made under standing order 44 that needs to be tested in the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I challenge that ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have made no ruling, hon. member. I have simply stated an opinion in accordance with the standing orders of this House.

MR. HOWARD: You have not stated an opinion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have simply stated an opinion, in accordance with the standing orders of this House.

MR. HOWARD: You have not stated an opinion....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. If the hon. member has nothing new to add to this discussion I would ask that he take his seat or get on with debate on Bill 4.

MR. HOWARD: I have challenged your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not made....

MR. HOWARD: I have challenged your decision.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have not made a ruling, hon. member....

MR. HOWARD: Can I not challenge your opinion?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: I challenge your opinion.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order. In my opinion, the question before the House is not your opinion as to whether the rules have been abused or whether it is an abuse of the House; the question before the House at the moment is that you have not offered an opinion; you have simply declined to propose a question to the House, as you are permitted under standing order 44: "The Speaker may decline to propose...." I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in declining to propose the question to the House you have not made a ruling; you simply have acted under the authority granted under standing order 44.

[ Page 2134 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will consider one more point of order from the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: In order for Mr. Speaker to decline to propose the question to the House, Mr. Speaker must make a decision. A decision must be made as to whether or not Mr. Speaker is of the opinion that it is an abuse of the rules and the privileges of the House. You must make that first decision. You must come to that first conclusion and I am challenging your conclusion on the basis that you are wrong.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. In order that all hon. members understand what the Chair has done, again I will recite for the House what I have done.

MR. HOWARD: We know what you did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: At the hour of 3:05 a.m. and again at the hour of 4:10 a.m. the motion to adjourn was put to this House. Using standing order 44, I declined to propose the same question to the House again.

Hon. members, I would suggest that we proceed with debate on Bill 4.

MS. SANFORD: On a point of order. I have become the designated speaker on....

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member moved a motion and was unsuccessful. I would suggest she has lost her place in debate.

MS. SANFORD: It wasn't unsuccessful — he didn't accept it.

[6:00]

MR. BARNES: You can't have it both ways.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I don't want it both ways. I want it my way

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the member for Comox did not lose her place in debate because she moved adjournment and that adjournment was being considered by the Chair prior to the red light going on. The member for Comox chose to move that amendment and to enter into that kind of debate. While that was going on, the red light did show. Therefore I cannot accept her contention about her right to continue on in this debate. I so rule.

MS. SANFORD: I challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS 7

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena rises on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is partially dealt with in standing order 9, but it is more particularly dealt with in the historic position of Mr. Speaker being impartial and neutral and appearing to be impartial and neutral. Earlier, I think, Your Honour, if you'll reflect, during the time the House was in a moment of silence and Your Honour was considering a procedural question and had consultations with the gentlemen at the table — which is quite proper and correct — and the gentlemen at the table had come back to the table to look at some other items.... In that period Your Honour permitted the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), government House Leader at the time, to approach the Chair and have a private conversation with Mr. Speaker. I have no idea what that was all about. I think that is not germane to the point at the moment. But I think Your Honour should be very cautious about allowing members to approach the Chair to discuss matters with Mr. Speaker when Mr. Speaker is considering a procedural matter on a point of order, because you could very easily leave the impression that a secret communication from the government to Mr. Speaker took place and Mr. Speaker put himself in a compromising position by permitting that to happen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The point is well made.

Debate continues on Bill 4.

Interjections.

[6:15]

MR. BLENCOE: The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) is concerned about the time, but it's his side of the House that has forced this craziness upon this House. We believe there should be normal and timely debate in normal hours. Unfortunately, here we are at a quarter past six, debating a very important bill which takes away certain financial support for a lot of people in this province. Many people had hoped that the government would reconsider, during this recession or this depression, a bill when a lot of people feel that in time of need — and desperation on behalf

[ Page 2135 ]

of a lot of families and citizens — the government would consider the plight of those in greatest need. Unfortunately it's daily becoming more evident that we have a government that has turned its back on those in greatest need; a government that has decided to turn its back on the handicapped in this province, to turn its back on children and families, on child abuse, with cancellation of all sorts of programs for families. This bill cancels assistance for those in greatest need.

If there is ever a time when government is needed most, when it has to reflect on need, it is during times such as this. It's unfortunate that we have a government in British Columbia currently that has lost the well-accepted norm in terms of what government should do in times of need. Government, according to the old adage, is by the people and for the people, and for the people at a time of heavy economic difficulties, when many families are indicating to the government on a daily basis that they cannot pay for their apartments or buy certain kinds of commodities that they used to enjoy. That's when a government is most needed. Politics is about priorities, assessing priorities in terms of greatest need. I call upon this government to relook at and rethink their attitude to what government is all about. You are not just public bank managers with a bottom line or cash register to consider. Obviously that's very important, and we all support that in this House, in terms of fiscal responsibility, but I would remind the government and their supporters that people are involved. People in a very troubled time are involved in your decisions and what you do to them. You've got to be very careful when you implement legislation of such a financial impact that you don't forget those people who, when there are difficult times, relate to the government and turn to it for some kind of support. That's accepted, that's civilized, that's normal.

It's unfortunate that we have clear evidence that government members appear to be escaping restraint because many of the funds for their offices have dramatically increased. Ministers' travel spending has soared 83 percent in four years. We witnessed before the election the spending of millions and millions of dollars on advertising at taxpayers' expense. We had cabinet ministers flying, jet-setting, all over North America. We had cabinet ministers wining and dining....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order...

MR. BLENCOE: And here's one of them.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: ...Mr. Speaker, I think that the member on his feet in this debate should be brought back to the proper debate. He's wandering already, and if this is an indication of what we can expect throughout the balance of his speech, I can see where we're going to have real difficulty.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Hon. member, please stay as close to the bill as you can.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm staying very close, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the principle behind this bill. What I'm doing is comparing the wasteful attitude of this government in terms of tax dollars and its priorities. Ministers appear to be able to utilize taxpayers' money at will. They were able to use taxpayers' money — money that would have gone into the tax credits for renters and low-income people in this province — for very shameful use, and I think we all know what I'm referring to. We currently have an information section of this government that spends between $18 million and $20 million basically to sell the government's — in our estimation — regressive package.

Politics is about priorities and assessing those priorities in terms of greatest need. I would suggest that when you take a look at the ministers' travel spending — 83 percent soaring in four years — the ministers escaping restraint in terms of their offices, the spending of money on fine foods and fine advertising, you really have to wonder about Social Credit priorities.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the ministers' estimates have to come before the House in the near future, and you will have an opportunity to discuss estimates at that particular time. If you could, for the moment at least, get back to Bill 4, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, all I'm trying to do is reflect on the impact of Bill 4 and the cancellation of funds for those in greatest need. I reflect upon where money has been spent which could have been utilized for low-income credits and renter's tax credits.

That is the very principle and an important fact to dwell upon, because, as I keep saying, politics is about priorities. In our estimation the government's priorities do not reflect the difficult times that many people are facing today. That $18 million to $20 million to sell information could very well have been utilized for low-income people. A high proportion of the population of this province are the 355,000 renters and their families, and that little support they received was very meaningful. I think it is very important to reflect on those priorities. They certainly aren't ours. A number of years ago, before the government really cottoned on that there was need for some fiscal responsibility in this province, we suggested a number of budget constraints that could save the taxpayer a lot of money and yet at the same time maintain some of the very human and essential services in this province.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) may laugh, but it is clear that he has no real understanding of what is happening to thousands and thousands of British Columbians. Totally out of touch with reality. I'll take that minister down to St. Andrew's Cathedral between 9 and 10 o'clock this morning, and I'll show him a minimum of from 100 to 200 people in a soup-line in the city of Victoria. I'll show you that, and you can say that your priorities are for people in need? All you can do is throw insults and personal abuse across the floor, because you know, Mr. Minister, that you have abandoned the people of this province in terms of their needs. You are a disgrace to this province and to this country.

That's a challenge to that minister. I'll take you to St. Andrew's this morning, and you can face those people and look them in the eyes, and say that you're cutting their allowances and tax credits at the same time that your travel funds have soared 83 percent and you have no restraint in your offices. I dare you to look them in the face, Mr. Minister. Come down with me. I'll take you down at 9 o'clock. You look those people in the face. No, you wouldn't do that, because you haven't got the guts or the determination to face those people.

[ Page 2136 ]

I had to give the minister a few lessons. Now I want to quote....

MR. VEITCH: He's not the only one who needs a lesson.

MR. BLENCOE: Do you want to come down, too? Mr. Speaker, I'll take the Whip down to St. Andrew's and show those people what this government has done to the people of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the member come to order, please. The Chair would appreciate it if all hon. members would come to order and allow the member on his feet to debate. I would remind the hon. member that he has been warned about three times now to get back to the provisions of Bill 4, and I would suggest that he keep the debate as narrow as possible and relevant to Bill 4, please, and address the Chair.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, all I would like to be able to do is show certain cabinet ministers.... Boy, I would love to take the Finance minister down there, because this is his bill, and he's going to have to face the people one day on this kind of stuff.

I'd like to take some of these cabinet ministers down to some of the things that are happening, and reflect on Bill 4 and what they're doing, and what they're taking away from those people. I think it might be good to look those people in the eye and say: "We're really helping you by cancelling some of these important services and this little help we can give you during a depression." It might bring them back to a sense of reality. All they can do is throw personal abuse across the floor. That minister certainly knows, because he's been getting messages about a lot of things in this province.

I'd like to read a little poetry this morning for the Finance minister, who is the author of this particular piece of legislation. This poem was written in the United Kingdom after Norman Fowler, the Social Services Secretary, did the very same thing that this Minister of Finance is doing, cutting services to the poor and the needy. I think it's very appropriate, and when the name of Mr. Fowler appears, the government can insert whatever name they would like to utilize in place of Mr. Fowler.

I think it's very appropriate. Let me quote this poem, Mr. Speaker. It's from a satirical verse by Roger Woddis, from the New Statesman: " 'Tis the voice of the Fowler...." And you can put in there any cabinet minister you want.

"Tis the voice of the Fowler,"
I heard him declare,
As he nervously clutched at
The straws in his hair;
"You can see from these figures
And glean from this chart
I've rejected soft options
To harden my heart."
As a certified woodman
So he with his axe
Laid his hand to his task
With his ears full of wax....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, for the last time, okay? Please, to Bill 4.

MRS. WALLACE: This relates to Bill 4.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't know what's wrong with your imagination, Madam Member, but you've got....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, it's very relevant. Wait till I get to the good part.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order. I would suggest that the member who is presently speaking was reading a piece of poetry that was very appropriate to this legislation. It was talking about a similar case where certain tax measures were removed from low-income people in another jurisdiction. I think it is very appropriate and very much in relation to the bill we are presently discussing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for your counsel, Madam Member. I would ask the member to return to Bill 4, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'm reflecting on Bill 4 by this piece of poetry that was written about a certain kind of legislation very similar to what we're considering today, and I think it's very appropriate. I would like to finish it, if I may.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you may not. Just continue on Bill 4, please.

MR. BLENCOE: I may not read this piece of poetry? Is that what you're saying?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm asking you to return to Bill 4.

MR. BLENCOE: This relates to Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, sir, as you've gone along, I haven't heard any reference to Bill 4 whatsoever. All I've heard is "wax in the ears" and so on and so forth.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, you picked up on those, eh?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is there anything in there relating to the bill?

MR. BLENCOE: Yes.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, Mr. Member. I don't know what's wrong with Victoria's water this morning, but it is certainly affecting you somehow. Please return to Bill 4.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's very obvious that the Finance minister doesn't want to hear it, and you don't want to hear it.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, in the past it has been customary for the Chair to respect a member's interpretation of the material he is presenting. The member has indicated that the poem he is reading is relevant. I would hope that the Speaker would appreciate a member's right to interpret the material in a way he sees fit. With that respect.... Mr. Speaker, of course it's relevant. But as you know, we do have differing opinions in this House. I would hope the Speaker wouldn't reflect on the member's choice of drinking water, as well.

[ Page 2137 ]

[6:30]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would hope, Mr. Member, too, that you would respect the Speaker's interpretation of the material. To the bill, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, yes, I certainly do respect your position. In fact, I have the highest regard for the role of the Chair and the difficult task you have. I'm merely asking that the Speaker would keep in mind that it's a lot of stress on all members, this early hour of the morning, and the government is pressing on and tempers do get out of hand. But I can respect the difficult job we're all having this morning.

MRS. WALLACE: Further to my colleague's point of order, I would like to point out in the interest of fairness and even-handed treatment that we have often had a member in this Legislature read poetry that in his opinion was relevant to what he was saying. I refer to the hon. government Whip, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon (M. Veitch), who is very prone to quote poetry when he speaks. I have never heard him ruled out of order, and I think that in the interest of evenhandedness we should allow the second member for Victoria to continue reading the poem, which in his opinion — and incidentally in mine — relates to Bill 4.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Personal references to members in this House, as related in the poetry, are not acceptable in this chamber.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I haven't named anybody yet. If there are certain people who are taking this personally, I can't help it. I don't mention their names; if they want to take it personally, that's up to them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'm taking it personally. I'm a member of this chamber, okay? I expect the same respect from you as you would expect from me. So please continue on Bill 4.

MR. BLENCOE: So you're saying I cannot read a piece of poetry in this House? Well, Mr. Speaker, I have to say I object most strongly to that. Clearly you are indicating a bias you have, which is most unfortunate.

Are you saying I can or cannot read the poetry?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don't make personal references to any member of this House.

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; then I will continue.

Second verse:

As a certified woodman
So he with his axe
Laid his hand to his task,
With his ears full of wax.
And his eyes brimmed with tears,
But his actions were bold
As he hacked at the helpless,
The sick and the old.
There were some who applauded
And others who wept,
While the rest made a rumbling
Noise as they slept.
And a handful revolted
By stirring their tea,
But not one was as half
As revolting as he.

Mr. Speaker, there are many pieces of legislation before us in this House but I think this bill, particularly in these difficult times, has to be one of the most obnoxious pieces of legislation. How, during a recession, knowing the incredible unemployment rolls, the welfare rolls, the difficulties families are having maintaining any kind of semblance of decent living standards, can a government decide that a priority is to hit so low at those in greatest need? That has to be probably one of the saddest reflections on the government's current course.

Unfortunately, while we in the opposition and thousands of other British Columbians are trying to ask this government to rethink its course of action, those words of advice and requests for compromise are going unheeded. We only have to hear from certain ministers who laugh and joke about the unemployed and think it is not a problem, that somehow it will go away. It is very telling that we have a government that has totally lost touch with the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Have you ever had a job?

MR. BLENCOE: I've had many jobs, Mr. Minister. I will send you my curriculum vitae in the morning, when you come down with me to St. Andrew's. I will give it to you then.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'd rather go to the Alliance.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could call the minister a little more to order.

One of the major responsibilities of any government is to assist those in greatest need.

I would like to reflect, in terms of the dollar value, on what this government is doing to those in greatest need and the loss you have passed on to them. An old-age couple, and in this riding there are many.... There is no question that the voters here knew exactly what this government was all about and what indeed they might embark upon, because over 60 percent of this riding rejected the Social Credit government and its shenanigans. The highest percentage of retired folk and old-age pensioners is right in this riding. All of them have given their time, effort and support to this country and this province, and they don't ask for very much. I'm sure many of the government members have family who are retired, and they know how difficult it is to get by; yet we have a government that is prepared to eliminate some sort of support during these difficult times.

The personal tax credit for a couple on an old-age pension will be $266.70; the renter's credit will be $150. What this government has done is cut off from that old-age pension couple, of which there are many in this riding, a total of $416.70. That's a lot of money to that couple. It may not be a lot of money to whose who are still active in the workforce, or to cabinet ministers on very large salaries, but to a pensioner $416.70 means you can do certain little things in your retirement.

[ Page 2138 ]

How can anyone really support a government action that hurts and deliberately takes on old-age pensioners, particularly when you compare it with where the money is being spent in this province: the non-essential items like $20 million on information, or travel, or 50 percent increases for employees who are friends of the Premier — the Tozer affair, the Mike Bailey affair? Really, Mr. Speaker, where are the priorities in terms of what Bill 4 stands for, in terms of the $416 to an old-age pensioner in this riding and many others? What are the priorities of this government? They have to be questioned by every single British Columbian. This government is in the job of assessing priorities and determining where the greatest need is, and they have abandoned those in greatest need. The budget did not hurt the $40,000-plus people. It hurt the lower-income people. The wasteful actions of this government over the last seven years, in running up a deficit of $14 billion to $18 billion — we're not sure how much.... This government's fiscal mismanagement is going to be paid for on the backs of old-age pensioners, single mothers, renters, handicapped people, children and families.

Bill 4 is a result of the Finance minister, who should resign because he cannot run the Finance ministry.... In seven years that minister has tripled the provincial debt in this province, and that's why we have Bill 4 before us. He allowed his friends who are cabinet ministers to go crazy with public funds in many areas of their operations, and now we have things like Bill 4 before us. A single mother with two children has a personal tax credit of $147 and a renter's credit of $150, for a total of $297 that this government is stealing away from these people in need.

I think this government should perhaps close down the Legislature for a few weeks and just go out there and visit some of the people you're hurting. I challenge the Minister of Finance to go down to St. Andrew's to see those 100 to 200 people, minimum, this morning — people who at one time did get the personal tax credit or the renter's credit — and others in this and other ridings. Face them. There is no finer thing to do, if you believe in a piece of legislation as the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) does, than to go and face the people, right up front, as they show their need, and tell them that you've got their real interests at heart. But I would suggest that that minister, particularly, won't be able to do that.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Can you call an ambulance, Mr. Speaker? I don't know if he's going to make it over here. Are you okay? He's okay; he's back with us. It's very hard, at twenty to seven in the morning, talking about an awful piece of legislation, to have the hon. member beside me interrupting my speech. However, I can understand it. Maybe in caucus today he'll have a word with those in power in the Socred caucus, and say: "Look, let's not do any more of these night sittings. I can't handle them."

AN HON. MEMBER: At least it was a reasonable interruption.

MR. BLENCOE: Yes, a very good point: a reasonable interruption.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Go speak to them on the soup line; this is serious stuff.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the soup line, and I have challenged the Minister of Municipal Affairs, my direct counterpart across the way.... I'll take him out at 9 o'clock this morning, and we'll have breakfast on the way. As a matter of fact, we'll have breakfast down at St. Andrew's, and he can have a chat with those people, and he can tell them that this morning he voted to cancel their various low-income tax credits. I would like other ministers.... I'd like the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith), who lives in this area, to come down to St. Andrew's with me this morning — and the Finance minister and other members for this area — and tell the people that they know what's best in terms of Bill 4. Come on down and see those people, and look them right in the face, Mr. Attorney-General. I dare you. Come down, or I'll take you over to the Mustard Seed or St. Vincent de Paul. Let's go take a look, because many of them are your constituents, Mr. Attorney-General. Come down and see them and tell them that Bill 4 is in their interests. Mr. Speaker, I dare the Finance minister from Saanich, the Attorney-General from Oak Bay and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to take a little walk this morning and see those folk. Tell them that you've just passed Bill 4 and that you really have their interests at heart and care about them. At the same time you fly all over the province and spend taxpayers' money on the fineries.

[6:45]

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Do you want to come down, Mr. Minister?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They won't come, Mr. Speaker. The Attorney-General just reads his newspaper. He doesn't want to listen. I suppose he feels he doesn't have those kinds of problems in Oak Bay. But in Oak Bay there are caring people.

How about the head of a household, with two children, on unemployment insurance? Personal tax credit, $240; renter's credit, $150; that's a total loss of $390 to the head of a household on unemployment with two children. On unemployment with two children $390 is a considerable amount of money, and this government, in its wisdom, has decided that it is going to remove that amount of money.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It is really hard to imagine why a government would affect approximately 250,000 tax filers, including those most severely affected by this recession — a government that believes in its constitution and principles, and in the individual, and that cares for people and has their needs at heart. Yet Bill 4 has to be one of the most damaging pieces of legislation before us, and we've known for some months.... Unfortunately this government continues to be able to spend tax dollars in areas which are not essential, and I refer to the Heal area — $18 million to $20 million. At the same time they can cut off essential funds for those in greatest need.

I have a copy of the 1981 budget here. This is what the government of the time said — of course it was this Social Credit Party — about the provincial personal income tax credit. I presume it was the Minister of Finance who was saying this: "I believe that this credit will effectively bring tax relief to those who need it most." Those are the words of

[ Page 2139 ]

the Finance minister. They are saying right there that it 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" — of which we have a high proportion in this region; and I would remind the Attorney-General and the Minister of Finance once again that they are abandoning the elderly in this area — "in particular will benefit from this measure."

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They laugh when we talk about the elderly. What a sign of the times in this province when cabinet ministers can laugh about help for the elderly and those in need. It's a very sad time in this province when you can laugh. Continue to laugh, Mr. Minister. "It is estimated that 75 percent of elderly tax filers will receive the credit. This important measure will be implemented for the 1981 tax year." A big splash in 1981 when this credit "will effectively bring tax relief to those who need it most." The government should now say: "We believe this credit should be cancelled because we don't believe there should be effective tax relief to those who need the most."

MRS. JOHNSTON: Oh, rubbish!

MR. BLENCOE: Well, where are you coming from? Flip-flop government from 1981 to 1983.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Where are you going to get the money — pick it off a tree?

MR. BLENCOE: Cancel Doug Heal and save $20 million, Madam Member. Will you support that?

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No? She won't support that, Mr. Speaker. Cancel ministers' travel plans. Cancel their office expenditures. Cancel some high increases for friends of government.

So, Mr. Speaker, here they are saying in 1981 that this tax credit will bring great relief to those who need it most, but today they feel they can abandon.... This legislation can't be supported by decent British Columbians, caring British Columbians, understanding British Columbians, of whom this government is not a part. So because I believe this government should rethink its priorities and consider some sanity in its legislation, I would like to move an amendment. I move that this House is of the opinion that standing order 44 is being inappropriately interpreted to the detriment of the rights of residents of this province pursuant to the Income Tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the motion fails for the following reasons. In the first place, hon. member, it's not signed, which is a small technicality. But there are others. I cite Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition, page 487: "The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must 'strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering.' " Further, hon. members, Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 226, reasoned amendments: "It must be declaratory of some principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill." In these instances, hon. members, the motion fails.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like clarification, Mr. Speaker. I realize the difficulty that the Chair finds itself in with respect to reasoned amendments, because you have simply a textbook to follow, which is somewhat obscure from time to time. Is Your Honour interpreting the word "strictly" in "strictly relate to the bill" to mean exclusively — that no other subject matter can be contained within such a reasoned amendment, only subject matter that relates to the bill and nothing beyond that? Is that the interpretation of that word "strictly"? We're trying to find our way to have these in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, hon. member, the Chair couldn't possibly rule on future actions that would be considered, only on present ones. And in this case, pursuant to the two references given, the motion as outlined would fail. In relation to the member's question, he has on occasion submitted amendments which are in fact very much in order, and I'm sure that with his expertise and knowledge of the rules he will be able to do so on future occasions. At that time they would then be considered by the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: But obviously not on this occasion?

MR. SPEAKER: Correct, hon. member.

[7:00]

MR. HOWARD: Then that decision must be challenged, and I do so.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 7

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

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it is now 7:05 a.m. We've had a very long evening, well into the morning. We're experiencing one more stone being placed on the grave of democracy in this province. It is with regret that I stand to have to further condemn this government on their insensitive attitude toward the opposition, who are desperately trying to find some hope, some way of communicating to the government that it is being extremely cruel with the measures it is taking in its current budget and with its package of bills, particularly

[ Page 2140 ]

the "dirty dozen" pieces of legislation that it has brought down, including Bill 4, which removes the long-standing personal tax credit and renter's tax credit.

It is as though the Premier wants to prove that he doesn't need to operate in the shadow of his father. It was a Social Credit idea as a result of much pressure by the public some years ago. In the late 1960s the then Premier recognized that senior citizens, first of all, deserved a break. Many of these people over 65 years of age — the retirement years — were not likely to purchase homes. In fact, W.A.C. Bennett recognized that many of these elderly people, who had contributed so much of their lives to building this economy and society, were now retiring and living on fixed incomes. Those who were fortunate enough to have pensions, or living on some form of income assistance, or on the meagre earnings from their savings, or if they were in business.... In any event, once these people retired, it was obvious that their ability to compete in the economic community was considerably diminished.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of these realities the Social Credit Premier of the day thought it wise to pay tribute to that class of citizen and give them, the people who were renting, special assistance similar to the homeowner grant. I think that was a good concept, because they too should have some protection from the loss of their homes. They too were contributing to the health of the economy by paying rent in whatever quarters they could find.

Today the Premier is breaking a tradition started by his father — although I must say his father did not start the tradition out of his desire to be a compassionate Premier, but as a result of pressure. He was a listening Premier — at least he listened to the opposition. He listened to the public. He could recognize the wisdom in at least being fair. I think that's an essential concern of government.

It was pointed out by the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) that being perceived to be fair is taking the time to look at the total needs of the population and being able to go to them and say: "We are bringing in measures after consideration of what is fair." I think the Premier understood the concept of equality much better than does the current administration. So when he introduced measures to assist senior citizens who were renting, he was saying that we've recognized the need to assist people who own their homes, and if they're going to receive a grant, why should we not recognize those people who cannot afford homes? After all, rental accommodation has as valid a role to play in the health of the economy as does the private property purchased by those who can afford to buy their own homes.

Conceptually, Mr. Speaker, there was some reason for the tax schemes being developed. These personal income subsidy schemes and tax credit schemes were developed to assist those people who necessarily are going to be on the lower end of the economic spectrum. As long as we have the kind of structure we have in this society, the competitive system, that recognizes the power of capital investment and the ability to....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You of all people!

MR. BARNES: Well, it's true.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, listen to the member for Intergovernmental Relations.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I hope the members will be patient. I'm trying to express my interpretation of what our economy looks like.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's another subject, but I won't divert. I see the minister of — what is your ministry? You've been so quiet lately. Municipal Affairs, I believe. No, that's Ritchie; that's the other member. It's kind of late in the morning. You're Education. Well, then you'll appreciate this as an historical fact. I'm sure you will want to see that the students in our schools — high school and university — understand how that government is radically revolutionizing this province.

[7:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill, please.

MR. BARNES: Bill 4 has an historical relevance.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Bill 4 has its significance with respect to the history of British Columbia. The students will be very interested to know how the concepts introduced by that government are being removed without any relevance to those fundamental principles of equality.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could the member now get back to the fundamental principles of Bill 4, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would like to advise me as to what is irrelevant about those last remarks I have just made about the historic significance of how the the tax credits were introduced some years ago, in the late 1960s, and how this government is removing them today. Mr. Speaker, are you suggesting that that is not relevant to Bill 4? I think it's quite relevant because, as I suggested, the government is making a radical change. Bill 4 is just one piece of the stone that will go on the grave of democracy, fair play and equality in this society. That has been well stated by previous speakers.

To put things in context, we're describing one piece of legislation; there are many others. But basically we have called 12 pieces of legislation the dirty dozen because they are dealing the deadliest blow to the citizens of British Columbia. They are the people whom the previous Social Credit Premier recognized and attempted to promote. In fact, if you were to review some of his earlier remarks.... I have them here someplace, and I'll try to reflect on them for the benefit of those members who questioned the accuracy of what I'm suggesting. In the Hansard of March 13, 1972, Premier W.A.C. Bennett was talking about the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act, and said:

Ever since introduction in 1957 of the annual provincial homeowner grant to assist homeowners in paying their local

[ Page 2141 ]

property taxes, this government has been continually carrying out studies on home-ownership and living habits of our citizens.

...approximately 37,000 heads of families age 65 or over are renting living accommodations. The government considers this a considerable number of citizens who are not likely at that age to start buying a home. In addition, the department has received letters and briefs from individuals 65 or over pointing out that at this stage of life they don't wish to purchase a home, but they will be continuing as renters and they would like some relief.

The Premier of the day responded. He said: "Therefore it is considered sound policy to make available to this group of citizens the same amount of $50 per year" — that's what the homeowner grant was at the time — "which has been made available to those elderly citizens who presently own their own home." At the time, that meant they were receiving a total of $235 per month. The grant made available an extra $50 to homeowners.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could ask the member on his feet how he can relate the homeowner grant to the bill before us?

MR. BARNES: I don't think that point of order was very well taken. Obviously that member is very exhausted. It has been a long evening, and he may very well have been nodding. I think if he were to refer to the document that I am reading, March 3, 1975, he would quite clearly see for himself....

MR. KEMPF: What about the document before us called Bill 4?

MR. BARNES: The document before us certainly is Bill 4. Bill 4 is an outgrowth of this piece of historic information. I find it very revealing that that member for Omineca would bother to interject when a member is clearly in order. It reveals that the member has not been able to pay close attention to what I am trying to express.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the point of order raised by the member, the member does have a valid point. If the hon. member would stick to the provisions of Bill 4, the Chair would appreciate it.

MR. BARNES: In any event, the Premier said he was going to treat the $50 for renters as a refund to ensure that it was not included in their income, clearly recognizing the need to give them an economic advantage. This was recognizing a disparity in the system. People like senior citizens and people with dependents would have a chance to compete for consumer goods at least on a minimal level with the rest of the population.

[Mr. Reynolds in the chair.]

I want to let the House know that those of us on this side of the House, in opposing this abolition of the renter's tax credit and the personal tax credit, see this as a callous incentive and unplanned initiative on the part of the government. In fact, it was about 10 months ago — November 10, 1982 — that was a day of doom. It was unplanned because it was precipitous, knee-jerk, unilateral, without consultation, arbitrary, dictatorial and irrelevant as far as the economic realities were concerned. The pressures were on those people in society who clearly were living at the lower income level — most of them at the poverty line, most of them on social assistance, unemployment insurance or some kind of income assistance scheme courtesy of the government.

We are concerned. As the member for Omineca points out, it was decided upon some months ago, but nonetheless it was acted upon before the legislation was in place. That reflects negatively upon the government's ability to be efficient. It is becoming very common for the government to make decisions that affect the economy and people's lives without appropriate statutory authority. It is a further example of this government's attitude toward managing the affairs of the province by order-in-council — by unilateral decisions with or without statutory authority, with or without legislation being in place.

In no time in history have we experienced such circumvention of due process as we are experiencing during this government's reign in office. It's a "reign of terror, " as the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) suggests. It certainly is not a reign of benevolence and it certainly is not a reign of concern for the effects of its legislation; it's as though the government has decided to take upon itself the very direct responsibility of transforming this society. I certainly would like to know how the government arrived at those decisions. When we say that this bill and the abolition of those people's rights is one of the stones on the grave of democracy, one has to relate the significance behind the loss of these two credits to those families who were benefiting by them. I will read a brief statement by the Minister of Finance, who introduced this bill. He had some things to say about its value a year and a half ago, back in 1981, when he had a different point of view.

The government is doing something far more sinister than just offending this one group of people with this legislation. These people have been hit in other ways by initiatives on the part of this government. The Ministry of Human Resources has indicated the philosophy of this government, particularly with respect to the same group of individuals who are affected by this piece of legislation — renters, people on fixed incomes, families, single-parent families particularly, children and persons who have varying disabilities and require social assistance of one form or the other. Elderly citizens, for instance, were hit in another way by an initiative on the part of this government with the loss of community involvement programs that were providing services through the use of volunteers at a very nominal cost of $50 per month. This was buying some 20 hours of voluntary work, which was used in such places as seniors' centres, where these elderly people were able to experience some pleasure and receive information and benefit from people who were sensitive to their needs and who recognized the difficulties with the waning of years and tried to give them experience which would assist them in having a higher level of morale and an opportunity to enjoy the pleasures that they certainly should have, having served most of their lives in the marketplace as the younger people are doing today.

[7:30]

The government also arbitrarily decided to stop funding many of these seniors facilities. There are 24 that the government has pointed out that it would no longer assist. We have yet to understand the economies and the cost efficiencies involved. What we do know is that many fund-raising organizations, such as the United Appeal and the charities which have existed in the past, have only managed because the government was playing a major role in participating in the

[ Page 2142 ]

funding of essential services to the community. The government has now decided to totally radicalize, overnight and abruptly, programs that have traditionally existed in our society, have become part of our culture and have played a main part in maintaining the cohesiveness that we need in order to enjoy the pleasures that we all like.

I challenge the government to explain why it is taking this action against this particular group of people who are certainly faced with no guarantees of being able to maintain their monthly incomes at the cost-of-living rate, and who are slowly finding their incomes eroding. As you know, the cost of living continues to escalate, and yet these people are going backwards. The CIPs, as I said earlier, have lost their $50 per month. Not only do they lose their income, but they're losing the services the government provided, which, incidentally, only amounted to something like $1.50 per hour that the provincial government had to put up because of the federal government's cost-sharing. It just doesn't make any sense that they were doing it because of economies.

It seems as though the government feels that is has to be brutal in order to do something that is going to be beneficial. The public is fully aware of the need for restraint in spending of tax dollars, which are less and less available as the result of a slowdown in the economy on most fronts. They too have an interest in what those decisions should be and how the strategy should be put in place in our fight toward economic recovery, but they have been denied this. In fact, they are very tragically being alienated, because the loss of this income, these tax credits and the subsidies for personal income — many of them do not even have taxable income — further takes away their ability to participate on an equal basis with their fellow citizens. They find themselves victims of circumstances beyond their control.

Use your imagination and consider what it must be like to be suffering from the pressures of aging. I suppose it's difficult to imagine it unless you are aging, but I can assure you that those people who have reached a point in their lives where they have begun to feel the effects of aging, where they don't have the agility they may once have had, they don't have the opportunity they once had for social intercourse with the community surrounding them, they cannot afford to purchase goods and services that are constantly going up, because while their budgets are fixed there are few controls on the costs of consumer goods.... They are slowly being pushed further and further back from the normal stream of economic and social activity in the community. It is not just the money that the government claims it is saving — we do not know yet where those savings are coming from.

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would draw your attention to the fact that there is no quorum.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not too familiar with the rules here, but I watched the member who just stood on a point of order arrange for her colleague to leave the chamber.

MRS. WALLACE: I didn't arrange for my colleague to leave the chamber.

MR. BARNES: I'm wondering if the member who just took his seat was being facetious or was showing some disrespect for the Chair, because my colleague next to me had no microphone that I know of. I don't know how you could hear what's going on, because you're over on the other side of the House. What is your point, Mr. Member?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Carry on.

MR. BARNES: He has no point.

I would point out to the Speaker that as no one has been designated on this side of the House to speak on Bill 4 — as you know, we had some difficulty designating the person we had chosen because of the method in which the Speaker interpreted the rules — I would like to advise the Chair that I will assume the role as designated speaker.

We're attempting to put into perspective the thrust of the government's economic recovery package, to put into perspective what it is attempting to do overall, and not to fall prey to the limit....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, it's been brought to my attention that there is no quorum. I would bring that to your attention. There are nine counting the Speaker, so in order to recognize the standing rules of this House I think I should request that we have a quorum.

HON. MR. SMITH: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it all depends, of course, on whether you count clockwise or counter clockwise as to the total you get in respect to a quorum. If the member raising that point of order were to count in a counter clockwise direction instead of in a clockwise direction I think he would find there is a quorum. I ask him to be as imaginative in his counting as he is in his speech so we can get on with listening to his remarks, which I'm enjoying.

MRS. WALLACE: You can't count the Clerk; you're counting the Clerk.

MR. BARNES: Oh, I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs is trying to make a comment. When I take my place, I hope he will respond to some of these queries that I'm raising.

We now have a quorum with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), the architect of this particular piece of imagination, which I'm sure he was using on November 10, 1982 when he conceived, probably at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, the idea of removing the personal tax credit and renter's tax credit that have existed in this province since the days of one of the leaders of the Social Credit Party, W.A. C. Bennett.

I've indicated that my concern about this bill is its impact on those people who truly are in need. We often speak in the House of the people who are poor. We say this so much that it is taken as just a frivolous, trivial observation; it's not new news. But as the first member for Victoria pointed out, sometimes you have to go out and look eyeball to eyeball with the people who are being affected to get a full appreciation for the consequences of the actions that the government may be taking.

I think that was good advice given by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) when he suggested that certain members on that side of the House who are in the cabinet, particularly the Minister of Finance — he mentioned as well the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) and others — should

[ Page 2143 ]

go with him to some of the facilities that are providing food for people who are waiting in long lines for sustenance. It is hard to believe that this government would consider that a normal course of events. They stand charged, as the second member for Victoria said, with laughing at a matter which is really very tragic. It's a very unfortunate characteristic of our current system of government that it sees itself as having no responsibility — to be fair, I won't say no responsibility, but minimal responsibility — for those people who are without a fair chance to manage in society.

Those elderly people we are speaking of, those families suffering from broken homes, those people suffering from various disabilities, have a great deal of difficulty finding a way to survive. Who do they go to? Where do they go? If a person who is suffering from some of these unfortunate handicaps — social handicaps in many instances — as a result of their age or....

MRS. WALLACE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, some five minutes ago I clearly heard the first member for Vancouver indicate that he was the designated speaker. It's the normal procedure for the light to go out at that point. I've been waiting for it to go out and I wondered whether Mr. Speaker heard that statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would imagine the light will be going out very shortly.

Before the first member for Vancouver Centre continues, may the Speaker be allowed to make an introduction? Would he have leave to do that?

MR. BARNES: I would be pleased to take my seat while you do so, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is a gentleman sitting up in the gallery, Judge Robert McCleave from Nova Scotia, who was the former Deputy Speaker in the House of Commons and also my roommate. Maybe I could just say that he is here to have breakfast with me at 7:30 and I hope to leave the chair at 8 o'clock.

MR. HOWARD: I would join you with respect to that introduction. I thought I recognized the gentleman in the gallery, but I wasn't sure. Bob McCleave and I had the pleasure of serving different parts of Canada in the House of Commons some years ago and I am delighted to see His Honour here.

[7:45]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to develop the theme that the government's move with this bill is of far greater significance than merely taking funds from this particular group of individuals. It ties in with a whole sequence of events that will affect their lives. I was beginning to suggest that these people.... Perhaps it would be appropriate if I tried to locate the statements that were made by the Minister of Finance in Hansard on May 19, 1981. He had some things to say about the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981, which I think would help us to see the class or the group of individuals being affected, and why I am suggesting it not merely takes away their access to this very small amount of money in order just to function, but handicaps them further in their ability to participate in the economic and social life of the community. What does this do to these people? If you give them this additional disability, someone has to pick up the slack. You are suggesting, along the same lines as Margaret Thatcher — and as I have heard said particularly by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) — that we cannot hold their hands. That is not really responsible, because the Premier has just announced that he will be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars holding the hands of potential investors, all over the world. In fact, some of the ministers are probably travelling at this very time trying to prod the private investors, trying to shake loose some investment capital someplace along the Pacific Rim and other parts of the world.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the need to do that. In fact, I recall going on a trip some years ago to China with the Premier of the day, Mr. Barrett. We had a member from the lumber industry who went with us; IWA representatives were with us. That is necessary. But in so doing we recognize the bias that is taking place when we do so without concern for the domestic situation of the people we claim we are trying to assist. It is a matter of philosophic viewpoint. You see nothing wrong with social assistance at the top end, because in your view you are willing to just about hock all of the resources of this province, to give away practically everything in order to interest people in investing in this province, to the extent that you would jeopardize the very delicate fibre which this province is developed upon.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order. Designated speaker or not, I would think that the member now on his feet has to adhere to the rules of this House. Standing order 43 is very explicit, as far as relevance is concerned. I see no relevance whatsoever in the member's debate at this time in regard to Bill 4 before us.

MR. HOWARD: The member for Omineca doesn't see much relevance in anything. That is why he is able to declare so easily the way he has declared. But I am sure Your Honour will have a much more perceptive view of what that rule means in the context of the speech of my colleague.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind the first member for Vancouver Centre that we are on Bill 4, repeal of provisions for personal income tax credit and renter's tax credit, and I will ask him to stick to the bill.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your assistance, because Bill 4 is really a pretext somehow of being a device to assist the government in recovering from the depression we are currently experiencing. This bill has not been shown to have any relevance whatsoever to the problem of economic recovery, because as I am trying to point out, the government is spending a great deal of funds it does not have, which contradicts its whole concept of having no money, something like $1.6 billion anticipated deficit, which perhaps is inflated because the Minister of Finance constantly does that in order to appear as though things are better than they are. Nonetheless, they recognize that they are going to be experiencing a deficit, and we know — this has been pointed out by numerous speakers — that the government has not cut out any of its expenses for travel, advertising or the junkets it may from time to time feel are appropriate, such as taking the government jet home each evening for

[ Page 2144 ]

personal use or whatever. Those things have been going on so long in the province it hardly seems that anyone believes anything can be done about it.

MRS. JOHNSTON: It was okay for you to go to China, but nobody else could go.

MR. BARNES: No, I would like to tell the first member for Surrey that I recognize the need for these economic trade missions. We are suggesting that they are also speculative, they are gambling and you are hoping to attract people. In fact, Mr. Speaker, what is happening with this government is that it's telling investors: "Come to British Columbia; you'll have it made if you come here, because we are going to remove all barriers, We're going to take away the rights of the workers, get rid of trade unions, take away human rights, and do everything we can to encourage people to come to this province and invest."

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, again I rise on standing order 43 to ask the Chair that he give serious consideration to bringing this member to order. If we have got to listen to him for the next X number of hours as a designated speaker in this House, at least we could listen to him speaking directly to the bill before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I would suggest that the first member for Vancouver Centre was sticking to the bill until he was sort of egged on by other members of the House, If they would allow him to continue in his speech, I would ask the member to pay strict attention to Bill 4.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that member's concern, and it's nice to know that he is wide awake and paying very close attention to my remarks. I am honoured at this late, late hour of the morning, as the sun begins to rise....

AN HON. MEMBER: Early.

MR. BARNES: That's true. We're now into another day; I'm not sure which one, but officially it's probably still Wednesday. Maybe it's Thursday. But whoever's on first, second and third is not the point. I would just like to indicate that the member for Omineca was successful in bringing my attention to the fact that there are some rather specific things I could say that will assist us in recognizing the relevance of my remarks to Bill 4.

I would just like to continue to read for the record just how the Minister of Finance described these particular pieces of legislation a little over two years ago.

In the March budget speech for 1981-82 fiscal year, I announced several major changes that will affect British Columbia personal and corporation income taxes in the 1981 tax year. These changes are contained in the bill before us, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981. Perhaps I could touch on a few of the main points which are contained in the bill. One provision is for the new provincial personal income tax credit for the full year of 1981 and subsequent tax years.

Subsequent tax years, plural, Mr. Speaker. At that time the minister was indicating that this is a very good deal and that he would certainly be doing his best to ensure that it stayed in place, recognizing its real value, as you will see as I read on.

The credit will be equal to 3 percent of the tax-filer's personal exemptions, less 1.5 percent of the tax-filer's personal income.

You will note that I've used the term tax-filer, and not taxpayer. This is a very important distinction and one that has been generally overlooked in the commentary immediately following the budget this year. The word tax-filer is used because the tax credit is fully refundable. Therefore many British Columbians who do not pay income tax, such as students and senior citizens with low incomes, will still be eligible to receive the full amount of the credit in the form of a cash refund from the government. To claim the credit, all they shall have to do is file a 1981 tax return.

This is the Minister of Finance, the very minister who is now wanting to take this tax credit away. He goes on:

I'd like to point out that the basic amount of the credit will be 3 percent of the tax-filer's personal exemptions. This formula has been used, instead of a fixed-dollar amount, for two reasons. First, the formula will target more benefits to those tax-filers claiming more dependents...

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is recognizing the dependents, for very good reason.

... as well as to the elderly, so those most in need will receive more under this formula. For example...

He shows why this is a just system and a fair system based on a scale that we on this side of the House happen to agree with.

...the maximum credit for a single tax-filer will be $95; for a single pensioner it will be $155; for a married tax-filer it will be $178: for a married tax-filer with two children under 18 years of age it will be $214; for a married tax-filer with four children under 18 it will be $246; and for married pensioners it will be $235.

The second reason we've chosen this formula is that personal exemptions are, as hon. members know, indexed under the Income Tax Act.

Not only did he recognize the need to provide those credits to those people, but he recognized that they had to be indexed. Clearly the minister was very aware of the need for that program, but something has happened. Under the Income Tax Act the indexing was to take place.

Therefore, if inflation continues to increase in future years, the level of benefits under the tax credit will also increase proportionately, without any further legislative action being required.

Perhaps the minister did not have the foresight that he got by November 10, 1982, because very soon after making that statement he decided that those people should be abandoned and that all those relevant, very sensible ideas about how to provide assistance to single families and individuals, families with three or four dependents and the elderly people that I just suggested were no longer relevant.

The basic credit will, of course, be reduced by 1.5 percent of the tax-filer's personal income, so that if the tax-filer has no taxable income, he or she will receive the full basic credit; however, as income nses the tax credit is designed to phase out.

He goes on to illustrate the importance of this new tax credit. He says that he would like to point out that

...the credit will not be reduced to zero until certain income levels are reached: for a single tax-filer approximately $10,500, for a single pensioner approximately $16,500, for a married tax-filer about $18,500, for a married pensioner approximately $24,000, and for a married tax-filer with two children under 18 approximately $22,500.

[8:00]

If people were being considered as needing assistance for those astronomical amounts of money in May 1981, and if the cost of living is going up the way it is today, then how can the minister now suggest that these people can manage on their own, after he has just described the assistance they needed? They've got to be much worse off today. Certainly he has some scheme in mind to assist these people. He's not just going to shovel the responsibilities the government has for the people of this province out of the back of a truck. You

[ Page 2145 ]

accuse us of shovelling money out of the back of the truck, but you're shovelling out values and people. One year you say people deserve compassionate government and the next year you change your mind, arbitrarily. And you wonder why we on this side of the House are concerned. We don't know what you're doing. We don't know what your strategy really is. It's ad hockery, except it's diabolical and sinister in the sense that there is a relationship to the overall package and the overall thrust of this government. There seems to be a move in a direction that is unheard of anywhere in North America and perhaps in any jurisdiction in the free world, where this government is now saying that it will eliminate non-statutory responsibilities and will abolish those existing statutory responsibilities to which, with its new ultra-right views, it is ideologically opposed. It will eliminate the law and it is doing so in sequence, in all departments, categories and areas, and this is why we say that it is the "dirty dozen" at the very minimum.

They are not just changing the law in an organized fashion, but they are changing the law precipitously, as this bill has been changed. It was changed well in advance of the ability of the government to bring down the legislative changes that should have been in place. That should say quite a bit for this so-called gang of people over there who call themselves "the fiscal geniuses of the free enterprise community." These people are making a mockery of due process and fiscal responsibility. I don't know how many months it's been since we've debated a budget in this Legislature. It's been a long time, I can tell you.

Bill 4 is truly one more brick in the grave of democracy. This government is moving very cynically towards radicalizing society in such a way as to effectively exterminate a class of people by denial, by taking away their access to participation in this society. As a result of these initiatives, we will find a whole new wave of reactions and responses that this government has very unwisely created by making these moves without due care and attention to the very delicate balance of our society.

There are at least 26,000 renters in my constituency, and probably there are half that many, or more, in the district of Victoria. As we know, there are well over 200,000 throughout this province.

We are watching a transformation of society in a most cynical way. When the Minister of Finance was describing the benefits of the personal tax credit and the renter's tax credit, he said: "It's estimated that at least 40 percent of all British Columbia families and 75 percent of the elderly will benefit from this credit in this tax year." He stated again: "I should like to stress that the credit is fully refundable." His emphasis on "refundable" is worth note. He is suggesting that they want to guarantee that the people get the cash in their hands because they need it and that that was the strength of this legislation. Again he states: "I should like to stress that the credit is fully refundable. Those paying no income tax may claim the full amount of the credit by simply filing their own income tax return. If the credit is greater than the provincial income tax otherwise payable, the difference will be refunded to the taxpayer." He states that all British Columbia citizens 16 years of age or over who are not claimed as dependents by another tax filer are eligible to claim the credit, starting with the 1981 tax year. He states that he would like to point out that while the credit will not have an effect on 1981-82 provincial revenue, the personal income tax revenue will be reduced by a mere $70 million. Well, $70 million was at least a figure to work with. We don't know what the figure is today.

If the Minister of Finance will take the responsibility of telling us, on the one hand, what the cost-saving will be and, on the other hand, what the consequences will be to those families whom he just described.... What will happen to those families now? Where will they get that extra assistance that the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has so eloquently suggested is available in the community of volunteers — the churches, the extended family — and all those places that she says have traditionally been available to those people willing to help themselves? How will those people in need be able to go out and will themselves an endowment of some $50,000 or $60,000 from some rich relative whom they have to locate? How will they will themselves a department store or a thriving business?

We've made jokes about people being able to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and go out and make it in the hard, competitive world. But the reality is that as a society we are contradictory. The government is failing — and I'm being generous when I say "failing" — to recognize the error of their ways. When I say that they're failing to recognize, I'm assuming that they just haven't been able to see something that is tragically wrong with their system and their approach. It may well be that they are not failing to recognize but that they know full well that the move they are making will ultimately transform the social and economic community in the province; that it will more and more disadvantage those people who are already disadvantaged. As a consequence, we will have created or magnified the classes that have at least been able to function together. We will create additional stress for those people, and that is where I question the economic benefits to be derived by removing these two benefits from people with marginally low incomes.

[Mr. Kempf in the chair.]

I think we have made our case opposing removal of these tax credits. To summarize, they represent one of the dirty-dozen blows that families and individuals who are economically disadvantaged must suffer from this government. We have drawn the analogy of the dirty dozen which, as I have said in the past, has a very sad history. In some deprived communities in the southern United States, the dirty dozen is a means by which you insult a foe. You deride that person, humiliate that person by talking about that person's family in ways which are uncomplimentary, by talking about that person's relatives, by describing that person as unscrupulous, immoral, or not deserving of the dignity that human beings should have.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom) suggested I was extending myself beyond my ability to represent — in other words, that those values were incorrect. What I am saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the dirty dozen is a very sinister concept. It is a confrontational concept, a concept that prods, provokes, attempts to undermine a person's integrity and their ability to function. You try to force them into overreacting so that you can ridicule them, break them down, break their spirits. That's what the dirty dozen is all about. Read up on how it evolved in the ghettos in

[ Page 2146 ]

the southern United States, how those economically depressed people began to fight among themselves because of the oppressive governments around them and the insensitive regimes that were influencing and affecting their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I am suggesting that these bills have an analogous effect. There are relationships between all of them. The removal of planning in the community is one; regional districts was one; removal of education with respect to human rights; removal of human rights complaints investigations.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I am going back to Bill 4; I can see you are getting twitchy.

Bill 4 is just one. The loss of consumer protection, the loss of fundamental bargaining rights — all of these things are demoralizing. All of these things will take away a sense of confidence as far as the population is concerned. All of these things will make people feel more and more that they are under seige, make them feel more and more that their rights are being confiscated, that the government does not care. The people's government, elected by the people and for the people, has now decided to abdicate responsibility. All of those things, when added up, represent a cause for concern.

[8:15]

Mr. Speaker, you know there is merit in what I am suggesting. I realize it is going to take time. You just got your mandate on May 5 — you yell that across the floor all the time. You say, "Sit down and relax; let us get on with the job. We are going to close on you anyway. We just want to make it look sort of respectable before we close the door on you, but we are going to do it to you. And we are going to make sure you never ever come back again, nor will any of those people who support you. When we get finished cleansing the public service there won't be a single one of you left." They described 50,000 people in Empire Stadium as nothing more than a bunch of Reds, lefty sympathizers. That is what you are doing: confrontation. Unfortunately, one has to anticipate a negative response and reaction in due course. That will rest on your shoulders. We will see if this has anything to do with restraint.

It is very curious that people all over the world are having doubts about whether this government is sincere when it talks about restraint. Restraint is a word that is popular, but when you try to analyze it, a more appropriate word might be constraint. Put the rope around their necks. That's what you're really doing. You're creating ripples in the social and economic community that will indirectly cost the private individuals in this society a lot more than it did through taxation and organized, effective support for people in need. I feel we are going to lose on this vote ultimately, because this is not a government that listens. This government has not listened, it will not listen, it does not wish to listen. It is on a planned return to a kind of community and lifestyle in this province that we experienced in the past.

MR. NICOLSON: There are two parts to this; one part abolishes the renter's tax credit. I think it is necessary to understand who is being discriminated against in this abolition, which replaces a wrong that was instituted for the first time when the.... I suppose there was a wrong or an imbalance, but not just in a dollar sense but in a moral sense, when in 1957 the annual provincial homeowner grant was brought in to assist homeowners.

Renter's tax credits really began in 1957 when the homeowner grant was brought in. It was often argued that while registered homeowners could qualify for some kind of assistance, some kind of share of the resource revenues of this province in the form of tax relief.... Everyone pays taxes; tenants merely pay their taxes through the landlord. So in 1972 W.A.C. Bennett introduced Bill 39, the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act, under his name as Minister of Finance. In introducing renter's grants, W.A.C. Bennett drew to the attention of the House the whole history of the homeowner grant. Of course, home acquisition grants were also brought in, which he mentioned as well in order to show that the government was recognizing that tenants also deserved some kind of recognition. He talked about homeowner grants:

This opportunity, which initially was only for a one-year period, was extended last year for one more year ... because of the demonstrated use of the incentive and to continue to encourage the person presently renting to own their own home, the time for such applications is extended indefinitely.

That was for the home acquisition grant.

To round out the studies on this subject the Department of Finance has estimated from the federal government census figures that approximately 37,000 heads of families age 65 or over are renting living accommodations. The government considers this a considerable number of citizens who are not likely at that age to start buying a home. In addition the department has received letters and briefs from individuals 65 or over pointing out that at this stage of life they don't wish to purchase a home, but they will be continuing as renters and they would like some relief. Therefore it is considered sound policy to make available to this group of citizens the same amount of $50 per year which has been made available to those elderly citizens who presently own their own home.

And he again ties it in with a reference to the homeowner grant. That was taken from the partial Hansard which was available prior to 1972.

Then a second step was introduced in the House — the renter's resource grant. That was introduced in the 1973-74 session. That gave an increase of $30 to all renters whether or not they were over 65 years of age. In other words, renters under 65 years of age who had been getting zero dollars for a renter's grant then got $30 per year. Those over 65 years of age qualified for a grant of some $80 per year. It was introduced at that time with the intention that it would continue to increase over the years, as the homeowner grant had continued to increase. So in those two acts it's quite clear that the original intention was to bring some equity, if not in absolute dollar terms at least in the spirit of fairness, between citizens, whether they be tenants or homeowners.

The administration costs for this particular piece of legislation were surprisingly modest — and that latter act happens to have been one piece of legislation that I passed through this House; I think there was a little bit of critical debate but I don't think anyone voted against it — so the Renters Resource Grant Amendment Act was passed. Then we saw that there was an opportunity, through the cooperation of the federal government, to bring in a somewhat better program, and we started negotiations with the federal government in order to bring this in in the form in which it more or less exists today: that is, to bring it in as an income tax credit. But sight shouldn't be lost of the origin of this grant and what it was intended to do. The renter's grants were then.... Negotiations were made; the government changed in December of 1975, but on December 30, 1975 the

[ Page 2147 ]

then Minister of Housing announced a $100 ceiling on a new program called Rent Aid, and brought in the program that had been prepared. The announcement says:

"From Victoria, Housing Minister Hugh Curtis Monday announced details of Rentaid, a provincially financed tax credit program to help offset rental costs. Rentaid, set up by the NDP government, replaces the $30 renter's resource grant cancelled last March 31, and the $80 elderly citizen's renter's grant, which expires Wednesday. 'Maximum benefit under the new program is $100 a year,' said Curtis, 'and anyone over 16 years of age who has paid rent for his principal residence in 1975 can apply.' "

The act provided for a grant of $100 less 1 percent of the person's taxable income at that time. The act was promulgated, leaflets were prepared and distributed, they asked the question, "What is Rentaid," and they said, "Rentaid is a program financed by the government of British Columbia to help offset high rents, especially for senior citizens and those with low or moderate incomes." Then Rentaid, which had gone from the Ministry of Finance to the Ministry of Housing, continued. Also, of course, over the years there were some increases. Rentaid was then placed, along with another program that came along called SAFER, which is still intact and not being changed, under the Ministry of Human Resources. So if we look at the Ministry of Human Resources annual report of 1979 we see that under "A Description of Rental Assistance Program": "Rentaid is a tax credit program to help offset high rents" — the very same wording that was used in the Ministry of Housing. In 1979 it was still $100 less 1 percent of the applicant's taxable income. In the 1980-81 annual report there had been an increase, and the maximum benefit was raised to $150 less 1.5 percent of the applicant's taxable income.

This, then, is a thumbnail history of the renter's tax credit. It appeared in the regulations of the Ministry of Human Resources, and has remained for quite some time.

What we're taking about when we talk about repealing this piece of legislation is turning the clock back to the spring of 1972. In a way, we're talking about creating two classes of people such as occurred when the first homeowner grants were given out. It just isn't fair. Again the government is targeting one group of people. In this particular situation, the government has been reckless in terms of its over ambitious spending programs, and now we're saying that there have to be special saving programs because of the sins of the past. We've heard arguments about how this shouldn't continue because of the ability to pay. This particular program has cost in the low twenties of millions of dollars per annum. Yet this government spent more money than it collected in revenues in 1980, in 1981 and in 1982, and the government is projecting, once again, the same kind of performance for 1983-84. Those changes have been in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

[8:30]

There has to be a better way of making the sacrifices, of finally bringing to rein a government that has actually been given a mandate — I suppose — to continue that kind of spending, because that spending went on for four years before the last election. Perhaps in the May 5 election the people gave the government a mandate to continue the kind of fiscal policy which I don't support. I never did support the government in spending far more money — especially in buoyant economic times — than it was collecting in revenues. But because the government spent more money than it was collecting in buoyant economic times, they're now arguing that we have to cut back renter's tax credits, which have become a very integral part of the financial structure in British Columbia. The ability-to-pay argument therefore doesn't wash in this instance.

This bill is taking money away from the people who need it most. If a person's taxable income is such that when multiplied by 1.5 percent it wipes out the renter's tax credit, then obviously these people don't need it anyhow. In designing a program for restraint we should have looked at a better target group, and indeed this government is looking at ways in which to give tax credits to the rich, and yet taking away these very meagre tax credits from the poor. When W.A.C. Bennett brought in this piece of legislation it was criticized by the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) for being only about $3 a month — as being such a meagre little amount. He said it wasn't enough at that time, and yet today, almost 12 years later, he is arguing that it should be done away with altogether.

AN HON. MEMBER: Until times improve.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, because times are so bad this particular credit should continue. If the argument is that we can bring back all of these programs when good times return, they won't be needed in the good times as much as they are needed right now. They couldn't be needed any more.

One has to wonder how this province ever got into such a state that it's had to dismantle all of the programs. One really has to wonder who has been the government of this province for the past eight years.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: One can look at the economies of most Canadian provinces and see that they have done a lot better than the province of British Columbia. One can look at most provinces and see that the employment prospects are better elsewhere.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister who is interjecting is the same person who two years ago, when I told him that we had not even begun to see the depths of the recession we were in, laughed across at me in a jocular way and I can go back and dig out Hansard — and said: "Well then, how long do you expect it's going to last?" I told him, and I still expect, that it's going to last, at least in Canada, through to 1986.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I hope you're wrong.

MR. NICOLSON: I hope I'm wrong, too. But perhaps I have been a better forecaster than the Minister of Finance, in terms of where the economy has been going. I'm only echoing information and opinion given to me by some very successful business people whose opinions I respect. There is a real question as to whether some of the current up-trends in the United States are going to be permanent. Right now the informed sources that I rely upon for economic forecasting

[ Page 2148 ]

are still cautious. I guess you could characterize them as cautiously optimistic. Some of the current up-trends are things that could reverse. Things are very tenuous.

I note that in the United States the president has dropped the term "recovery" and is now using "expansion" as a term, but that's still very semantic and very much rhetoric.

Back to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I would sooner just talk to people whose track record is more in terms of their financial performance than their political performances. That's why I think it's a good thing to keep in contact with some people in the outside world.

Mr. Speaker, I'm being dragged off this bill kicking and screaming.

Also, of course, we have seen a move toward having a provincial personal income tax credit separate and distinct from the renter's tax credit administered through the Income Tax Act. We are in a transition. It's been said many times, but it's very hard to come to grips with the fact that we're in a transition when we speak in these hallowed halls, with the marbled walls and the oak and all the other accoutrements of the Legislative Assembly. At the same time as we debate in this manner — which, although a very crude instrument, is still the best instrument to bring about stable, gradual but responsive change in society — there is a revolution. We are an instrument of evolution, but there is a revolution underway in Canada, the United States and most parts of the developed world.

This revolution is not the kind of revolution with guns and violence. It is a revolution of the mind. It is a revolution like the Industrial Revolution, and it is taking place not over a span of a couple of hundred years but in this very decade. If we wanted to conveniently come up with a time when it began, we could say it began in 1980. One could go back to 1964 when a group — I suppose about 30 or 40 — of the finest minds in the United States wrote a joint letter to President Lyndon Johnson talking about the cybernetic revolution. Now the buzzword is the information revolution. But it is a revolution based upon computer technology and robotics. It's, a revolution brought about by the cheap availability of hardware and the very sophisticated software which has been developed over the past several years, with the earlier computers.

We are creating an age in which tax credits might be the way to sustain our economy. While these tax credits that we have here are just the beginning, I think it is a very retrograde step to repeal income tax credits. Income tax credits could be the first faltering step towards something that W.A.C. Bennett had the foresight to talk about and to recognize. Maybe he did some reading or listened to some of the people who were talking to Lyndon Johnson in his day. A few theories have been put forward, one of which is by Robert Theobald.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

Mr. Theobald calls for guaranteed consumer spending and a guaranteed annual income. We're at the stage where we might be able to produce more consumer goods than we can actually consume. We are in danger of eliminating consumers. As we automate and put people out of work — I don't necessarily say that this has to be looked upon from a negative point of view — every employee who is out of work takes a consumer out of the market, out of the economy. Income tax credits could be one of the ways of starting towards a guaranteed annual income, thereby guaranteeing consumer spending. We need these. Where are the jobs going to come from?

The other day Lloyd Axworthy made what is perhaps a clumsy statement. I suppose it's at any politician's peril that they would even raise the reality of what we are in today. But we are in a situation today where we do have to look at new solutions. Lloyd Axworthy talked about job-sharing. Maybe that's one approach. We really do have to thank Lloyd Axworthy for at least identifying the problem. Lloyd Axworthy said that no matter what happens with the economy, we won't be returning to the levels of employment that we saw yesterday. I think that was a very realistic statement. In some ways, he was one of the first politicians whom I've seen with the courage to make a statement of that nature. While people might argue that the one solution he put forward about job-sharing could at best be a partial solution, the problem he identified was an extremely critical one,

[8:45]

I guess Robert Theobald has been trying for about 20 years — for almost one generation — to promulgate his thesis. It is being refined, and other people are picking it up. Other futurists have modified it. Toffier and others have various versions of these terms.

When W.A.C. Bennett talked about a guaranteed annual income or guaranteed annual wage, I don't know that I fully understood it or appreciated it at that time. Certainly now that we are currently in the context of.... When I see what has to be done, for instance, to revitalize the automotive industry in North America, the way we have to get into robotics, as the Japanese have done, the solution to the problem of becoming competitive again is to bring in new technology which would eliminate a lot of the jobs we're trying to save.

After we become competitive, or after, say, we restore the North American automobile market — if we are ever going to have automobile production here in British Columbia — or whatever, we're going to have to do it using a type of highly automated robotic machinery. By doing that, we are going to eliminate a tremendous number of jobs.

In our coal industry we're now doing strip mining.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I really do believe it is.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We don't do strip-mining in British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, we do surface, open-pit mining. The point I would like to make is that a great deal of the coal — the majority, to my understanding — is beyond reach of that technology and would have to be reached underground.

We won't have a problem in creating wealth in this province; we will have a problem in distributing wealth in this province. We have made a major capital investment in northeast coal, but the capital investment is producing about one coal-mining job for every million dollars produced. We will be producing wealth in this province if everything goes well — the best case scenario — but we will have the problem of distributing wealth. If we kick out this first tenuous little

[ Page 2149 ]

toehold on one of the solutions of the future, I argue that this is a very retrograde step. We might spend millions of dollars — even billions — experimentally. Indeed, northeast coal is a $1.5 billion experiment. Not all the data are in, as it is an experiment of huge proportions.

The renter's tax credit and the income tax credit, as first faltering steps toward a guaranteed annual income, is a very minuscule experiment, but it is a start toward something which may enable us to create an orderly transition from this society to another. It is an idea and as long as that idea is here....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It has to be national.

MR. NICOLSON: I agree it has to be national. How did we get a national medicare scheme? We got it because one province had the guts to really fight that battle. When all the doctors were leaving the province, Tommy Douglas went to England, recruited, did everything and fought a battle against the American Medical Association. I say that we have to keep these ideas upfront. Something I think that British Columbia can be very proud of is the fact that we have had a provincial income tax credit scheme, a type of an instrument which is a first faltering step toward guaranteed annual income. If we don't start to address ourselves to these problems, then I fear that instead of having the peaceful kind of revolution with the very beneficial side effects and the raising of the standards of living in both the economic and spiritual sense, I would say — as we saw in the final result of the industrial revolution.... We have the opportunity now, but it is something that is happening in such a short time-frame. I think that this piece of legislation is the opportunity for us to look at the whole concept.

Provincial personal income tax credits are something that I think British Columbians can be very proud of. Provincial income tax credits are something that the Minister of Finance and the Premier could take to interprovincial conferences as part of a position towards a better Canada. We should be looking at the type of leadership that should be shown in this province. If you want to sustain a society in which entrepreneurship has a relevant place and sustain a decent society in which we can widely enjoy so many of the benefits that we have today and continue to enjoy them, we must have a fair distribution of income.

Accepting perhaps that the current trends in the United States are going to continue — and Canada is a little further behind — but assuming that they continue without any more downward blips, the kind of recovery we are looking at is not the recovery that we have seen in the past. The kind of recovery that we are looking at today is one in which a good number of the economic indicators are going to look a lot better, but employment is not going to be looking all that much better. We will see that inflation is down and that interest rates stay down in the United States — and, hopefully, in Canada. We might see that the gross domestic products of both countries grow slightly, but even when all of those other things are going up, one would normally expect then that employment would rise, but we might not see that rise in employment because companies that have been expanding in the high-technology field have been doing so without hiring one new employee. They have had tremendous rates of growth and no new employees.

Mr. Speaker, I use this opportunity to try to suggest to government that they start some think-tank work on two concepts. Canada — and I suppose maybe even the United States — has to think in these terms; we have to think about ways of distributing wealth. What we're talking about is two things. We're talking about guaranteed consumer spending, thereby maintaining our entrepreneurial capacity in this province and in this country. In order to have that, you must have some forms of guaranteed annual income. We could also simplify the welfare system of this province — the Ministry of Human Resources.

[9:00]

We must look at ways of creating and distributing wealth in the province, not just at ways of creating wealth and expecting it to trickle down. We must took at ways of seeing that reinvestment takes place in this province and not allowing excessive profits to be taken out of the province and reinvested elsewhere. We must make sure that they are brought here. I'm afraid that the government's philosophy right now is simply to look desperately for foreign investment of any kind as a signal that things are going well.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will test the House Leader and see what his mood is by moving adjournment of this debate until later today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:02 a.m.