[ Page 2169 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Fire suppression crews. Mr. Mitchell –– 2169

Railway passenger service. Ms. Sanford –– 2169

Committee on operations of ICBC. Mr. Macdonald — 2169

Ambulance service at Manning Park. Mrs. Dailly –– 2170

Low-income housing. Mr. Blencoe –– 2170

Use of lottery funds. Mr. Stupich –– 2170

Amendments to Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr.

Curtis.

Introduction and first reading –– 2171

An Act To Provide No Smoking Areas In Public Places (Bill M205). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 2171

An Act To Provide For Adequate Motor Vehicle Insurance (Bill M206). Second reading.

Mr. Barnes –– 2171

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2174

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

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2175

Mr. Skelly –– 2176

Mr. Macdonald –– 2180

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2184

Division –– 2185

Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 26). Second reading.

Mr. Lauk –– 2186

Mr. Lockstead –– 2190

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1983

The House met at 2:08 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I have taken a special look at today's horoscope, and I find from it that we have in our midst an individual who is sensitive, psychic, emotional, a natural psychologist and a teacher. He is creative and could have unusual ability to work with women. I understand that this is the president of our press gallery, Mr. Charles LaVertu, and a happy birthday to him.

MR. PELTON: In the member's gallery today are two friends of mine of very long standing, Jeff and Verna Trant, who are visiting Victoria from Soames Point on theSun shine Coast. With them is a lady with whom I've been having an affair for over 40 years, my wife Louise. I would ask the House to welcome them all here today.

Oral Questions

FIRE SUPPRESSION CREWS

MR. MITCHELL: The Minister of Forests is shutting down the Langford forest office and will be moving it to Duncan. In the past the suppression crews for those areas in the Western Community that are not serviced by volunteer fire departments have worked out of that office. Now that the office will be working out of Duncan, can the minister assure the people in the Western Community in my riding that there will be adequate fire suppression crews provided next year when we get back to the fire season?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: There is absolutely no way that the Ministry of Forests is going to abandon its responsibilities relative to firefighting in the province of British Columbia.

MR. MITCHELL: A supplementary. As the minister well knows, Duncan is on the. other side of the Malahat, and providing a crew to attend the Sooke-Jordan River area is 40 miles or better. Has any consideration been given to coordinating the fire suppression crews with the volunteer fire departments presently situated throughout that area and to having these suppression crews maybe attend the Sooke, Langford or Metchosin area so that they can attend the fires without being dispatched all the way from Duncan?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

RAILWAY PASSENGER SERVICE

MS. SANFORD: I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. On September 13 the minister indicated that the government had not as yet made a decision whether it would intervene before the Canadian Transport Commission hearings into the CPR's application to abandon passenger service on the E&N Railway. In view of the fact that these hearings commence next week, has the government decided now to intervene?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the government hasn't made any decision.

MS. SANFORD: In May 1981 the government released a discussion paper on Vancouver Island transportation policy, and in that paper it states that by the summer of 1982 the government will have in place transportation plans for Vancouver Island. Will the minister advise what steps have been taken by government to develop and implement transportation policy on Vancouver Island, or has that study merely been set aside to collect dust, like so many other studies?

HON. A. FRASER: I recall the study. I think the government will keep on working on it.

MS. SANFORD: I am wondering whether there are any plans in place now in terms of transportation for Vancouver Island. Part of that study refers to the E&N passenger service. Is there anything at all in place at this stage as a result of this discussion paper way back in May 1981?

HON. A. FRASER: No, Mr. Speaker.

COMMITTEE ON OPERATIONS OF ICBC

MR. MACDONALD: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It relates to the committee headed by his deputy minister that is reviewing ICBC and its possible privatization. Would the minister confirm that that committee includes the following: his deputy, Jill Bodkin, Patrick Kinsella, Jake Brouwer, Tom Holmes and Michael Burns?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Does the minister know the names of the people on his own committee?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary, would the minister be so kind as to give the House the names of the people on this committee?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the second member for Vancouver East is a persistent little devil, but the answer is no. It's an internal committee doing a job for the minister responsible for the corporation. In due course I will advise my colleagues of their recommendations, if any.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. minister, notwithstanding the vein in which the response was no doubt given, the Chair must ask that that particular expression be withdrawn.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. He's not a little devil.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh! Well, I'm not objecting, Mr. Speaker. I may need all the friends I can possibly have some time.

Does the minister only have people on that review committee who are against public insurance, like Michael Burns, Socred bag-man, who recommended the destruction of Autoplan in Manitoba; Jake Brouwer, who is a good person, but he is running a competing business with.... Is it not a firing-squad loaded against ICBC? Yes or no.

[ Page 2170 ]

[2:15]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, it's not a firing-squad loaded against ICBC.

AMBULANCE SERVICE AT MANNING PARK

MRS. DAILLY: My question is to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. The parks department's policy of privatizing operations at Manning Park has caused the ambulance operator to be terminated without cause. Because there is no ambulance operator, the ambulance has now been moved to Princeton, which is one hour away from the park facility. What action has the minister taken to restore much needed ambulance service at Manning Park?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I don't know the final state of the negotiations but attempts are being made. The new operators who are taking over the ski hill operation will be providing a form of ambulance service. We do not plan to leave the area without ambulance service.

MRS. DAILLY: Is the minister then giving assurance to the people of that community that ambulance service will be restored very shortly?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'll have to take that as notice, Mr. Speaker, because I am not aware of the details of the negotiations. I don't know, for instance, if the ambulance service has actually been taken away.

LOW-INCOME HOUSING

MR. BLENCOE: I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the minister responded to my question about housing for low- or middle-income families with a rather cheap personal reference. I again ask him what action he or his government have taken to provide sufficient housing for low- and middle-income families.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I generally try to respond to questions in kind. There is ongoing action that the ministry has taken through the B.C. Housing Management Commission — our seniors' housing projects, providing lots, and that sort of thing. There is quite a bit going on to try to provide housing at a low and affordable level.

MR. BLENCOE: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The executive director of the Rental Housing Council of British Columbia estimates the minimum monthly rent of new units to be approximately $600 per month and that sufficient rental stock for moderate- and low-income renters can only be provided with significant levels of government assistance and government intervention. Has the minister decided to reinstate the first-home grant because of the damage its elimination has caused the development of new cooperative and non-market housing?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; that got to be fairly convoluted. Would the member like to try to put down the question that he is asking.

MR. BLENCOE: I'll try to simplify, Mr. Speaker. The government, in its wisdom, cancelled the first-home grant. That grant was used by non-market housing groups and cooperative groups as an equity build-up, and has damaged the cooperative housing system beyond belief. Has the minister decided to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that that grant be reinstated?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer is no.

USE OF LOTTERY FUNDS

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Provincial Secretary —  may I say, welcome back; we've been waiting for some time.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Your colleagues are glad to have you back so now they can take off on some junket.

On August 24 I asked why financial statements for the Lottery Fund were omitted from the first quarterly statement, thus denying this information to the public. In view of widespread concern that lottery funds were used as a campaign tool of the Social Credit Party during the recent election, has the minister now decided to table a special report at some early date?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question is in order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, thank you very much for the question. I missed the last part of your question; I was busy attempting to get some material out of my desk. I'll respond to it this way. There was some information sent to a particular constituency by an MLA saying: "The greatest misconception voiced to me is that because I am not a government MLA we aren't getting our share of lottery grants. A recent independent study of lottery grant distribution in nonmetropolitan areas ranks Nelson-Creston the second-highest in British Columbia. All grants since 1979 are put through a computer study. The $328,071 received in Nelson-Creston was second only to Yale-Lillooet riding. The listing at left shows the highest and lowest ridings in grants received." That was a report sent by Lorne Nicolson, MLA, Nelson-Creston — "working for you in Nelson-Creston." [Laughter.] I've been waiting a long time to use that one.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the minister missed not only the last part of the question but also the preamble. The question was based upon the fact that a report of the lotteries branch was not included in the first quarterly statement. The question was: in view of the concern about how these funds are being spent in ridings other than Nelson-Creston, has the minister decided to issue a special report at some early date?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am giving it serious consideration. Would the member want me to bring the report to the House or just send it out through the media? Which way would you prefer it?

MR. STUPICH: I thought I was supposed to be asking him questions. I want the information and I want it as early as

[ Page 2171 ]

I can get it for the whole of the lotteries branch. That is my answer.

My next supplementary question, if I may, Mr. Speaker. The government has announced plans to start an instant scratch-and-win lottery to add $12 million annually to the Lottery Fund. What assurance will the minister give that these funds will not also appear to be committed to election purposes for the Social Credit Party?

MR. SPEAKER: That question, hon. member, does not fall within the ambit of being in order.

MR. HOWARD: Could I ask leave to deal with an introduction?

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Today is the twentieth anniversary of two members of this chamber. Twenty years ago today two members of this chamber were waiting with palpitating heart and desire to get to this august chamber, because 20 years ago today was election eve. One of the two members has become a recidivist politically. We are glad to see the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) here in that capacity. I wonder if the House would join me in extending our congratulations to the member for Nanaimo and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who were just rehearsing for tomorrow.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We certainly join in those sentiments. I did note that the hon. member for Skeena referred to this as being an august occasion; I think it is more of a September occasion. Best wishes to both of these members.

HON. MR. SMITH: May I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce two constituents who made the overland journey from their riding of Oak Bay to the Legislature. Mrs. Gloria Homer and Phyllis Carter are in your gallery. Will the House make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AMENDMENTS TO GASOLINE (COLOURED)
TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: amendments to Bill 14, intituled Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Amendment Act, 1983.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill 14.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I hear a no. I observe that the member for Skeena seeks the floor.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I don't think leave should be granted, because that runs over the top of private members' business today, and there is an adjourned debate of a bill in the name of a private member.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. A simple no is all that was asked for and it does not then allow a member to enter or engage

MR. HOWARD: Unlike the government, I'm just trying to be cooperative and helpful.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the answer is no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill M205.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE NO SMOKING
AREAS IN PUBLIC PLACES

HON. MR. GARDOM: The bill is printed, and my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) adjourned the debate.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) some time back. I would like to say that I've had adequate opportunity to review it in detail, but I must say that I haven't done so. Therefore I would adjourn debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It is with great pleasure that I now call second reading of Bill M206.

AN ACT TO PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE
MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

MR. BARNES: Being the designated speaker on my bill, and inasmuch as I must say that I am thoroughly pleased, I am nonetheless shocked to find that the bill has been called without warning. We are not accustomed to having the government cooperate on such matters as routine business and following the orders of the day.

I think that this is a subject of vital importance to the motoring public of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll take an adjournment if you want to adjourn.

MR. BARNES: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we should take an adjournment as yet. I would like to explain that the question of third-party liability in the province of British Columbia is one that should concern all of the motoring public. I might state that my reason for presenting this bill....

[2:30]

Interjections.

[ Page 2172 ]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some difficulty in getting the attention of the hon. members in the Legislature.

I'm sure that the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) will want to speak to this bill as well, because unfortunately under the present automobile liability insurance system in the province of British Columbia we find ourselves with contradictions as far as the principle of third-party liability insurance is concerned — and by that I mean the fact that liability insurance is compulsory.

The public liability insurance is by law a mandatory order that all motorists will carry a minimum amount of liability insurance. As you know, the present minimum is $100,000.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: As the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. R. Fraser) states, Mr. Speaker, it is the option of the purchaser of the insurance to select an amount of insurance that he feels would be adequate to deal with his insurance requirements. My concern with the system is not the mandatory, compulsory principle. Surely all of us recognize the need to protect the motoring public from an injury which could be quite severe, with consequences that could affect them for the rest of their lives, if indeed they were fortunate enough to walk away from such an accident with their lives. But the system as we now have it is the remnants of the marketplace insurance system whereby the public was free to purchase insurance by choice from the various insurance companies. In other words, they were left to make a decision themselves as to how much insurance they required. They were able to purchase that insurance and take their chances, and if they guessed correctly they would never suffer the tragic results of having mistakenly purchased an inadequate amount of insurance.

I have suggested that the system is well motivated. The concept of compulsory insurance is an idea that is well understood and well appreciated, and no one denies the need for all motorists to carry adequate insurance. The problem with our system in British Columbia is that we provide the opportunity for people to purchase insurance ranging from a $100,000 minimum to $10 million unlimited. If a person were able to determine in advance of an accident the exact amount of insurance required, then there would be no problem. Unfortunately, that's not possible, unless you have some kind of crystal ball and are able to anticipate through osmosis or some kind of extrasensory perception just what the accident will involve, how many people and the kinds of judgments a court is liable to determine are necessary in order to satisfy the consequences of an accident.

So I'm suggesting with my bill that the government review the present system of selling insurance to the motoring public, with the objective of making the insurance options applicable to the intent and purpose of mandatory insurance. Obviously the reason for mandatory insurance is to guarantee that should an accident occur there will be sufficient insurance funds available to deal with that problem. I don't have before me the details of some of the studies, but from memory I can come pretty close to suggesting that the insurance minimum available a few years ago through ICBC was $50,000, as I recall.

I personally experienced an unfortunate accident in September 1976, when the minimum available to the public was $50,000. I happened to have, unfortunately, a second car which my daughter was operating, as she was a student going to one of the schools here in Victoria. She was involved in an accident while transporting a classmate home after celebrating her sixteenth birthday, and the accident was of such magnitude that her friend was permanently injured to the extent that she was confined to a wheelchair. The prognosis is not very good; she is likely to remain in the wheelchair for the remainder of her life. Now, I had a first car that happened at that time to have $1 million on it, but by accident, or whatever you may suggest.... I certainly don't mind having those people admonish me for not having the foresight to have anticipated that accident and bought the maximum insurance on the car. Nonetheless, being human, or whatever the reason, all of us may make mistakes in judgment, or perhaps not even give it a second thought.

What I'm saying is that the compulsory system which was available and which is available today still allows the same error in judgment to occur. We need only look at the statistical facts of the sale of insurance in this province through ICBC's records to know that people are still opting to buy the minimum amount of insurance, although in the last ten years court awards as a result of bodily injury in motor vehicle accidents are on the increase. They are becoming higher and higher, although I understand the costs are about $10,000 on the average. Nonetheless, there are great ranges in certain settlements, and some of them certainly exceed the amount of insurance that some of the motorists carry. At the time that the accident happened to me personally, it was common for motorists to be opting for the minimum amount of insurance. In other words, something like 30 to 40 percent of the motoring public were purchasing $50,000 or something in that range of minimum insurance.

MR. REE: Eighty-five percent buy over $500,000 now.

MR. BARNES: Today, as the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is pointing out, the public has become aware of the trend toward higher court settlements, and that figure has increased substantially, indicating that the public is becoming educated to the dangers of opting for what the government still allows — a minimum, which is certainly not wise. I am suggesting that the government give serious consideration to removing the option for the motoring public to play Russian roulette with their lives and the lives of innocent persons who may be involved in an accident and who could find that the funds are insufficient to deal with the settlement, whatever it may be. The situation as it stands is one that certainly has been studied not only by ICBC, which is constantly surveying and analyzing its policies.... I know that ICBC is looking at the possibility of a new minimum of around $500,000, I believe. They are considering recommending that to the minister responsible for ICBC and Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). They have the benefit of a committee from the Law Society of British Columbia, which has a committee studying the costs of third-party liability insurance as well. I think that they are also making a similar recommendation.

They are still trying to play with the old concepts. They are still trying to make a case for so-called free enterprise or privatization and the competitive element of purchasing something as important as public liability insurance. The danger with allowing the public to make these decisions about how much insurance they require is that they are not competent to know in advance what is required. This is why we have compulsory insurance: to ensure that it be adequate.

[ Page 2173 ]

If a motorist has $500,000 minimum coverage and has an accident involving $1 million, that person is $500,000 short. It is just a relative problem, whether you have $50,000, $500,000, or $1 million or even $10 million, which is the maximum amount of insurance that is available through our current system. There probably could be a hypothetical case where even $10 million would not be sufficient. I am not suggesting what amount would be sufficient, because I don't think there is an amount of money that any human being can safely say is adequate.

This is why it is about time we recognized the fault in our system and recognized that although most people will be actuarially safe by purchasing $500,000 or $1 million worth of insurance — the odds are quite good that they will not be involved in a serious accident that would require more than that amount of money to settle — there are those exceptions. Those exceptions are the ones we should be concerned about, because it is beyond most wage-earners, which most of us are in this province.... The several hundred thousand people who drive automobiles, I am sure, could not personally pay the shortfall in an automobile accident.

I would like to say that even people who regard themselves as economically independent and well endowed with financial resources and economic means would not themselves have available the amount of hard cash needed to settle an excessively high automobile insurance claim, because their income or their capital would probably be working for them in one capacity or another, and if they were to withdraw it to pay a lump sum to an unfortunate victim of an accident, they would probably find themselves dangerously close to going bankrupt themselves.

It is really a matter that involves all motorists. The system should be one that allows everyone to pay the cost with a premium, which could be established and which probably would only be modestly higher than the current cost of purchasing minimum amounts of insurance. Because of the unlikelihood of having these excessive claims happen, the cost is not that much. It's quite insignificant in terms of the benefits and the protection that the public would have if a system of no minimum insurance were introduced. I know that should such an act take place, it would be a precedent setting initiative in this province and in this country — in fact, in North America.

Nonetheless, it should be looked at seriously. I don't think costs are a concern, but I think the protection of human life and limb is, as is being consistent with the concept of mandatory insurance — taking it out of the realm of Russian roulette and straw-pulling occasions where one simply takes his chances by purchasing the insurance. I feel that we should follow the example of England, where, I understand, they have had a system such as this in place for a long time. Just as we have come to appreciate and respect the importance of universal medicare and a public school system which all of us can benefit from equally, I think we should take a look at the need to have an automobile insurance scheme that recognizes the importance of protecting individuals who, through no fault of their own, may find themselves involved in an accident that could affect them for the rest of their lives.

[2:45]

Of course there are some problems with lump-sum payments, and I would like to comment on that as well. While I am recommending that there be an unlimited system in order to satisfy clients.... For instance, in my case a judgment was made that was very close to half a million dollars. For those of you who have been following that particularly unfortunate situation, my minimum amounted to, with a reinterpretation of the $50,000, something like $100,000, which was still a shortfall of well over $200,000. So what hope has anyone in this Legislature, let alone me, of paying that amount of money in a lump sum? What hope has anyone of even servicing the debt on carrying that amount of money? What hope has anyone such as me of getting any lending institution to underwrite that amount of money on my behalf with the promise that I will pay through whatever means I can? It's not possible; it's not rational. It is a fault in the system. I'm not suggesting that anyone in this jurisdiction has deliberately left it that way; it's just a process of evolution.

We've only had ICBC since the New Democratic Party became the government in 1972. It's a new concept in this province. It's an attempt to begin to recognize that there are some things that are best not left with the private sector, just as we would not rely entirely on private practitioners to handle medicare, hospitalization, education or, for that matter, any number of services that are essential. Certainly automobiles are a major part of transportation in our society and in our system. They are also a main part of our economic survival. They touch upon the lives of everyone, one way or the other, in the province. It's about time we recognize that we can do a lot to improve the atmosphere in the field of transportation where the private automobile is concerned.

Mr. Speaker, on the question of lump-sum payments, there is a problem. When a victim is subject to an award through a court, there have to be certain criteria to determine what that victim should receive. Ages are involved, to determine future earning capacity; their education, field of work and overall ability are involved on some kind of scale that anticipates their future years and lifespan potential. In any event, a formula is arrived at which is calculated month by month, year by year or whatever, to come up with a lump sum based on what is required for that person to be able to function.

Again, the problem with paying that lump sum is that there is a danger that that person.... Once the money is paid into a trust, or however it is paid, it may disappear through speculation or some manner or means that perhaps a victim may not be able to defend against or may not understand, because it takes a fair amount of ability to manage large sums of money, as we all know, in such a way that it would fulfil the objective of the award. If an award is paid to a person, say, of 17 or 18 years of age, with a view that that person has to live a normal lifespan, say, for the next 50 years, the only way you can ensure that is to have a system that will guarantee that the formula will be followed through the life of that person.

The danger of the lump-sum payment is that there is a possibility that that won't happen, because of our view that the person has to receive this money at one time. But it is incongruous; it doesn't relate to the objective of the formula. The formula is based on a 50-year period. We give it to them at one time, and they go and blow it on sweepstakes or whatever.

The point is that they have that option, and that option is not written into the legislation. It's just another fault with the system. It's a mistake. We should be looking at revolutionizing the whole concept and guaranteeing that the objective and intent of third-party liability insurance are effective; that the

[ Page 2174 ]

mandatory system is effective, and that it achieves the objective. The objective is to protect the person who has a just due to receive the amount of money that a court awards him, and the only way that can be guaranteed is to have a system whereby that money will be guaranteed.

There are those who say that unscrupulous lawyers and other practitioners will be anticipating an opportunity to get a large windfall fee for providing service in litigation of such cases, but due process of the court system, as I understand it and see it, I think, will continue in any event, whether there is no fault or no minimum or an option for people to purchase insurance as they are now doing. The court process would not be changed in any way. The only problem right now is that there simply is not a guarantee that after a court has gone through the long process of trying to determine what a just judgment should be — and as you know, these cases can go on for years — the funds would be available.

So I think there is a great need to look into the question of third-party liability insurance with a view not only to ensuring that the funds are there, but to ensuring that the funds will remain there over the years. This suggests that the victim will have no special privilege or right to use that money for speculative purposes other than within his own prudence and saving as he receives his monthly or annual amount from that judgment. But the amount of that judgment should be in place so that there is some guarantee that under the formula used, which involves a printing out of costs over a long period of years, when that person is ten years older he will not find himself again destitute due to faulty judgment in making investments or having had someone undermine him and relieve him of his lump-sum payment.

I hope that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has been listening to the remarks that I have made, because I think that they are remarks worthy of study by all members of the Legislature and all concerned people who believe that we can do a great deal to encourage safe driving and responsible operation of motor vehicles. Also, keep in mind that any of us at any time could find ourselves a victim of an automobile accident. I think it would be worthwhile for the House to consider the justness of the laws as they now stand, because you may not have detected, when I was making my remarks earlier, that while I was the registered owner of the automobile, my daughter, who was 17 years of age at the time, was the operator. I was not operating the vehicle. That again is an interesting twist of justice: the owner has to take responsibility for the operation of a vehicle, whether he be in it or not. In fact, I received a phone call at midnight that my daughter had been involved in an accident while driving her classmate home, and I suddenly had my whole life changed, as a result of that. The point is that that is happening regularly to people in this province because of the system, and it is an unfortunate trap. It's a trap because even though my daughter was a minor at the time, she was on the highway legally. She was driving with the right to drive, having been licensed by the Motor Vehicle Branch. She was not charged with any violation of any acts or bylaws; everything was perfectly legitimate. There were no criminal charges, and the only thing is that it was a disaster for everyone involved. Now, there's something wrong with the system, because none of us would want that to befall any one of us at any time. The system seems to have some faults.

I would hope we will keep in mind that the automobile is quite analogous to.... The owner of an automobile might well compare himself to the owner of a revolver. Or let's say a shotgun. Someone wants to go hunting and he borrows your shotgun. That person could find himself using that weapon in a way that would be criminally negligent and would involve a charge of some sort. Whatever that person does with that shotgun should not reflect upon the owner of the shotgun for having loaned it to him, even though he may have been wise to carefully study whether that person was capable of borrowing the shotgun. The point is, an automobile has to be operated by someone, and the someone driving it has to be responsible. It just happens that that's a throwback in our system, whereby the owner has to take responsibility for the operator. I think that is an unfair interpretation of responsibility. Ownership does not necessarily equate with guilt, but in this instance ownership is guilt. I think we would want to look at that as well.

Mr. Speaker, those are the broad parameters of my remarks. I appreciate the attention of the House in allowing me an opportunity — I'm quite surprised, I might say — to express my interest in seeing that the question of liability insurance be raised, perhaps in a special committee of the Legislature; certainly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will want to reflect on my remarks. I would move that my bill be adopted, and I would now move that it be read a second time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: First of all, I want to compliment the member opposite for stating his case. He quotes a personal example, but we can all appreciate that he does not seek relief but is concerned about others who may experience the same situation. We can also appreciate that there is a mandatory level of insurance of $100,000, which is deemed to be the mandatory level needed to protect the motoring public; the consumer is left with the choice of buying insurance above that mandatory level. If my memory serves me right, approximately 80 percent of the drivers in this province have in excess of $500,000 liability insurance. I appreciate the comments of the member opposite; however, at this time I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[3:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 14

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

[ Page 2175 ]

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

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. D'ARCY: Before we become totally relevant on Bill 4, I too would like just very quickly to offer my congratulations to the jovial member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the gentlemanly member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) on 20 years of distinguished service in this chamber. I wonder whether they would do it any differently if they had to do it over again. In any event, just in passing, I also would like to recognize that along about today the two members from Vancouver East are on their twenty-third anniversary in this particular chamber. The first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) had recently left jail when he came to this chamber, courtesy of the then Attorney-General, Mr. Bonner. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) had recently arrived from Ottawa, where he went for I believe one term; he learned his lesson and came back to British Columbia, where he has been ever since. I congratulate those four members for the efforts they have put in on behalf of British Columbians.

On to Bill 4. One of the groups of what are usually working poor, and very hard-working poor, is students. I think any member of this House who has ever worked his way through any kind of post-secondary training will relate to these remarks. Students, especially those who are not fortunate enough to come from comfortable homes in residential districts near to one of our three universities, or those who didn't have the opportunity when they are young — I think the euphemistic term is "mature students" — have to work very hard to get their training and their degrees, and they are terribly affected by Bill 4. Many people both in and outside of the chamber have asked that the government please consult with the people affected by their legislation. I doubt very much that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who I hope thought a bit about this bill before he brought it in — I hope he gives it some more thought — really thought about students. I really doubt whether he consulted with the student population of this province, particularly those who do not live at home, who are on their own and making every effort, in many cases as working poor, to prepare themselves to make a significant contribution to the economy of British Columbia.

Students who looked at the government's priorities, at the Finance minister's priorities, would see that a lot of money, usually borrowed, was expended on capital facilities during the two fiscal years — the last two — immediately covered by Bill 4. One of the areas of borrowed money that I am sure those with some insight must wring their hands and shake their heads about is the area of borrowing to expand the educational institutions they are going to. Of course all students would like to have bigger and better university and post-secondary training, but when students see $80 million borrowed in each of the last two fiscal years to go into new institutions, I suspect a great many of them would be prepared to trade off some or all of that if they could keep their tax credits and their renter's grants; avoid unconscionable rent increases; avoid unreasonable fee increases; avoid cuts in student aid. We have talked before about the Finance minister's rather strange sense of the government's ability to pay. Clearly he doesn't mind borrowing large amounts of money which, even if he should be able to borrow these funds at 10 percent interest — and I am only speaking of post-secondary education here — would add in this fiscal year, along with the previous year, $16 million to the interest costs that have to be made up through the taxpayers of B.C., once again affecting the ability to pay.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

How do other parts of the population view this kind of bill? I mentioned earlier today that by the minister's own statement, some 40 percent of the population of B.C. is affected by the loss of these tax credits. Back in the previous fiscal year — the part covered by the retroactivity section which we have already dealt with — it is very important to note that the same Finance minister we are dealing with borrowed an additional $272 million to expand the size of the plant facility for the B.C. government. The B.C. Buildings Corporation borrowed that much money additional in fiscal 1982-83. This was at a time when it was quite clear that the government should already have been downsizing. People on this side of the House were asking that the government cease expanding in the exponential way it had for the previous two years and that it stop borrowing money; that it did not need to have these tremendous increases in the size of government in that fiscal year. The government likes to pretend that it invented restraint in 1983-84. The fact is that the opposition was calling for restraint, especially in the expansion of the government into what amounts to the commercial real estate market, in the last fiscal year.

There is no point in the government's having borrowed those kinds of funds on top of $93 million in the previous year. Even this year, when we have before the House an array of 26 bills — I think it's up to 35 — bills that by the government's own boasting involve downsizing and privatization of government, we find once again that the British Columbia Buildings Corporation, under this minister, is borrowing an additional $40 million. As I mentioned, even if we get a very favourable interest rate, which I'm not sure we would due to the loss of part of our credit rating – we’re still in pretty good shape, but a loss of part of the province's credit rating — that still would deteriorate the government's ability to pay by $4 million this year alone, even in this year of downsizing.

Is it possible that the government's borrowing is simply out of order?

[3:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this member most recently but certainly not exclusively has, in the course of debating Bill 4, related to virtually every aspect of the provincial financial picture. In particular, the member now is speaking about borrowing for the British Columbia Buildings Corporation; I am not the minister responsible for that corporation. I think we are dealing with an income tax amendment act, and I wonder if the Chair is inclined to permit the degree of latitude which has characterized most of this debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The particular bill is quite specific: personal income tax credits, renter's tax credits and political tax receipts. I'm sure the member can relate his remarks to those principles contained in this bill.

[ Page 2176 ]

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, we are speaking of a bill which involves close to $100 million that by the minister's own statements will not be available for the people who need it most. When I'm talking about borrowing by various government agencies, which may or may not be under that minister's immediate jurisdiction, I'd like to point out that we're quoting directly from the minister's own budgetary statement, page 32. That comes directly under his jurisdiction. He, as Minister of Finance, ultimately approves borrowings and interest payments.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, if the member feels he can relate borrowing for British Columbia Buildings Corporation, then surely any member could, as an example, discuss more provincial funding for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, or for some other ministry or agency of government. This is not the budget debate, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point is extremely well taken. Although this is the minister's bill, this is not budget debate; it is a specific bill. It is also not the minister's estimates. It is the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983.

MR. D'ARCY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we'll deal then with the British Columbia Systems Corporation, which is under that minister's....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be appropriate in estimates, but not in this bill.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, there has been a wide-ranging debate on this particular bill. What people on this side of the House are attempting to do, I think with a great deal of effectiveness, is point out that when the minister speaks of the government's ability to pay as a justification for bringing in legislation such as Bill 4 — retroactive, I might point out, by 21 months — he refers constantly to the size of government and the amount of money that the government has committed to various projects, not on a pay-as-you-go basis but on a borrowing basis. The minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot bring in those reasons as justification for this kind of legislation, which is entirely based on discretionary decisions that he and his cabinet colleagues made over the last several years; and then when we get into debate say: "We're sorry, that is not strictly relevant." He cannot have it both ways.

In any event, I see that I'm coming near the end of my time. What I would like the minister to do.... He has three months before the new taxation year starts, as far as individuals filing their income taxes are concerned. Surely he will consider the working poor of this province, including the students, the 40 percent he talked about when he was introducing this legislation. Surely he will give that some consideration.

MR. SKELLY: Special thanks to the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and occasionally Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet). It's good to see that they are both awake. I never count on the minister of consumer and corpulent affairs being awake. Actually, I wouldn't blame them if they were sleeping. I suppose they do feel a little foolish debating a measure that has been in effect for the last taxation year. Sometimes the opposition will debate a piece of legislation in the hope that some of their comments will reach the ear of the government and that the government will take some of the suggestions into consideration. I think we saw the crushing end of that suggestion when closure was invoked on the hoist motion earlier this morning when B team was here fighting the battle for the good.

So we have very little hope that the government is prepared to listen to suggestions, prepared to hear our comments. Of course they are critical comments, but generally you would hope the government would respond to the criticism in a positive way, given the way the criticism is intended. You do feel a little foolish making these comments across the floor, knowing that the government, in its bull-headed way, is going to pass this legislation regardless. On the other hand, the opposition has a duty to make its points and its arguments regardless of the bull-headedness of the government, regardless of their refusal to listen. To sit down in the face of a bull-headed government would be bowing to tyranny, and that would be an abandonment of principles, something we do not intend to do. So we have to present our arguments in the hope that someday, somehow, the government, seeing the opposition to its measures, will finally have a change of heart and listen to those criticisms, and perhaps change its course a little to ameliorate the harsh measures that it has brought into the House.

The government talks about the powerful mandate that it won on May 5, 1983, with less than 50 percent of the popular vote.

Interjections.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, there are people here who are capable of counting chairs but not counting votes. Less than 50 percent of the popular vote.

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as with the previous speaker from the opposition benches, I would suggest this speaker too is straying somewhat from the intent of the bill. It is all very interesting to hear the stories of the member for Alberni, but I would ask that you bring him to order because they have absolutely nothing to do with Bill 4.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, the other thing I think you should enforce is that there is room for only one member to stand at a time in this House. When a point of order is taken on, I don't see why the member involved — in this case the member for Alberni — keeps on standing.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That point of order is well taken. A member should always take his seat while points of order are being raised. I'm sure the member is aware of that.

Back to Bill 4. As was indicated to the previous speaker, Bill 4 discusses the principles of personal income tax credit, renter's tax credit, political party and income tax receipts and the income tax collection agreement with the federal government. If we can relate our remarks to those principles the Legislature will be well served.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, in response, I am perfectly willing to sit down on the point of order. I must apologize to the member for Omineca, but when the Minister of Transportation and Highways stood up he didn't say he was on a point of order. I thought he was just up ventilating. If the minister

[ Page 2177 ]

had said he was on a point of order I would have crouched in my chair immediately.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I would have hunkered down; that's for darn sure.

However, we are taking up my 40 minutes, Mr. Speaker, which means I'm going to have to ask leave of the House at the end of this speech to continue, and I don't think leave would be granted.

I think it is important, in the discussion of this bill, to know who and how many are being affected by this legislation and how the votes broke down in the province during the last federal election. We're dealing with a tremendous number of people here, and the opposition does have an obligation to present a case on this bill, whether the government chooses to listen or not. I suppose the object of presenting our arguments here is to persuade the government to take its famous Socred second look. I have been around here for 11 years and I've never really seen that happen. I don't know how that myth about the Socred second look grew up. Some people tell me that under the W.A.C. Bennett administration it did happen once or twice. So we do have an obligation to present these arguments with respect to this bill, in the hope the government might be struck, wake up and hear the weight of our arguments, and possibly change their minds and find out what damage they are doing with this type of legislation.

You have to wonder what type of economic philosophy brought forward this legislation. Over the past few years we've seen a large swing to the right in Canadian politics, and especially in political economics. There's now prevalent in this country a view based on a myth that is propagated by the rich and the powerful, and not based on any kind of economic laws that come out of the observed economic behaviour of individuals in society. I think this myth comes out of the need of the rich and powerful to rationalize their personal greed and desire to take more out of the economy than they deserve.

Often we on this side criticize Michael Walker, who appears to be the Premier's new economic guru. I went to lunch with Michael Walker once, and he appears to be a very nice guy. He told me at that lunch — I paid for mine, he paid for his....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) says: "Remind me not to go to lunch with him." I guess that gives us an idea of the minister's policy. Michael Walker himself said — he told me this at the luncheon — that greed is the engine of the economy. It was the first time that I had heard....

[3:30]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I stand on standing order 43. Clearly this member in this debate, as he has in many others in this House, makes a mockery of the rules of this House in regard to relevancy. Mr. Speaker, I clearly heard you chastise the member about seven minutes ago for not being relevant, and for the last seven minutes I have heard nothing in that member's debate that has any relevance at all. I have the bill before me. I would ask that you bring that member to order.

MR. D'ARCY: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I know time can go slowly or quickly in this debate, depending on one's feelings, but earlier today — or perhaps it was earlier yesterday — the member for Omineca was giving a speech and he raised the same kind of wide-ranging discussion. He was the one, in fact, who first raised the question of provincial government debt in the debate. We welcomed his injecting that into the debate. In fact, speakers wondered whether the Minister of Finance was really happy that he had brought the question of burgeoning government debt into the debate at the time. No one on this side of the House complained, and Your Honor did not complain, did not see it out of order at that time.

We are very concerned on this side of the House that the member for Omineca, in raising points of order regarding his view of relevancy, will have a double standard — one that applies when he and his colleagues are speaking, but that will not apply even to the same type of material, let alone the same scope, when the other side of the House is speaking. Mr. Speaker, when you're considering the relevancy of the point of order raised by the member for Omineca, I hope you will take into account his own remarks in debate.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, I would suggest that if the member for Rossland-Trail was concerned about my debate yesterday, or whenever it was, he should have stood at that time. What I'm talking about now is the relevancy of the member for Alberni in regard to Bill 4. Again I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you bring that member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: All the points of order are well taken. Of course, the Legislative Assembly is well aware that it really is at the discretion of the Speaker to decide whether or not a member is relevant. But other members can bring points of order to the attention of the Chair, and that's encouraged as well. As I've told the member for Alberni, this bill is quite specific in the three provisions that it offers. If we can relate our remarks to those provisions, then we will be well served.

MR. D'ARCY: On a further point of order, just as a correction to a perhaps well-intentioned point of order from the member for Omineca, I do not now nor did I at the time have any objection, or question in any way the relevancy of the remarks of the member for Omineca. The unfortunate part, from the member's point of view, though, is that I perhaps have a longer memory than he would wish me to have, and I recall exactly what he said. It was he, Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate, who opened up the debate on the question of government debt and the wide-ranging aspects of a financial nature, and the minister's justification for the need for Bill 4.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Alberni continues — in order.

MR. SKELLY: In order, as I have been, Mr. Speaker, but now I'm totally confused with all these relevant points of order. I was told that the member for Omineca brought up a point of order seven minutes ago and I've been speaking for seven minutes and still wasn't relevant. I know time flies when you're having fun, Mr. Speaker, but how much time do I have left?

[ Page 2178 ]

In any case, I think it is important that we discuss the economic ramifications of any change in government tax policy, because those changes have a tremendous impact on the economy, the direction in which the economy moves, how the economy of the province impacts differently on certain people and certain groups, and how tax policy favours certain groups over certain other groups in society. I think we have to work out in debate what the rationalization is for these various economic and tax changes. That's why I asked the question initially, before going into this part of the debate, Mr. Speaker. What economic philosophy brought forth this legislation?

I'm relating this directly to that one or two lines in Bill 4 which I've read, as well as the member for Omineca. I'm relating this to those two lines which wipe out, in a stroke, the refundable tax credits granted to renters and to low income earners in the province of British Columbia. I'm questioning why the government brought in this measure, which was so widely accepted and widely praised back on May 19, 1981, when we all voted for it, and why it's being changed now after less than a year in operation.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) says it's because the government's gone broke. I say that that's not true, because in the same legislation here, Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a political tax credit. We're not told exactly how much money is being expended to donors to political parties under this political tax credit, which is being retained. There's no election, possibly, for another four years in this province. We could probably eliminate that political tax credit and save another $91 million or $100 million, very possibly — maybe $400 million, who knows? Because unfortunately, the one thing about the political tax credit, which is also included in this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is that unlike legislation granting political tax credits in Ottawa and elsewhere in the country, there is no requirement for disclosure. That's a real problem, because we're spending the public's money under this political tax credit system, and yet we're not being honest with the public as to the amount and where that money is going.

That's why that disclosure provision is included in the federal tax legislation. As I pointed out in the debate on the hoist motion — and I won't repeat the full debate — that's how we're able to find out that Canadian Pacific donates to the Liberals and Conservatives, and most probably to Social Credit. That's how we found out that Litton Industries donates to those political parties, because there is that disclosure provision, which is not in....

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, going to standing order 43, please remind the member to talk directly to the bill specifically about the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll remind the member for Vancouver South that political contributions to political parties as a tax deduction is in the bill.

MR. SKELLY: I appears that the back-benchers have been ordered to disrupt speeches on points of order. I think that it would be wise to instruct, as you have done — and thank you for that, Mr. Speaker — those back-benchers to read the bill prior to rising on points of order.

MR. PARKS: Point of order. I think that last remark of the hon. member for Alberni is totally unwarranted. It suggests a lack of honour and decorum in this House that is suspect. If in fact all members of the government wish to rise on points of order, his speech has been so constantly and tediously repetitious that it would take more than the members we have in the full ranks....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point I must interrupt. I don't believe you have a point of order. Secondly, the member has moved into new material on this bill, and I'm finding the speech quite relevant and not repetitious and very much in order.

MR. PARKS: Not tedious or repetitious?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The member for Alberni continues.

MR. SKELLY: Thank you for coming to my defence and to the defence of the rules, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to give it my best shot here.

In any case, as I was saying before I was sidetracked into the whole issue of political donations, which is also strictly relevant to the bill.... I regret being sidetracked into that area by the Minister of Agriculture, although it's an important area that I'd like to discuss, because it gives the bill an element of unfairness right on the face of it. On the one hand we're taking away tax credits from the poor, and on the other hand we allow tax credits to go to those who donate to political parties. You and I, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, both benefit from that provision. We're not told how much money is being spent through that provision in terms of tax expenditures. Yet I would rather see this government, if they're complaining about being broke, give up that provision — the political tax credit provision — than take the money away from the poor.

Mr. Speaker, in our society it's very unlikely that the poor make that many donations to political parties. Those donations generally come from people who are fairly well off — I would say that in general, because some people who have very little income feel it's extremely important to change the political system regardless of how much money they have, and they make a tremendous sacrifice.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I think the unions are willing to disclose, as they do and are required to do under the federal legislation. We have never hesitated to support the kind of legislation that shows that we're not only supported by individuals but also by trade unions, which are only democratic collections of individuals. Shareholders of corporations don't have the opportunity to vote, Mr. Speaker, on whether that corporation donates to Social Credit. How many Canadian Pacific shareholders were asked during the last annual meeting whether they wanted to donate to the Liberals or the Conservatives or to the Socreds? My recollection of that annual meeting was that the question was never asked. The motion was never put to the meeting, so there wasn't an opportunity to determine whether the members wanted to support that political party or not. But that's not the issue here. We're perfectly willing to see those campaign donations disclosed regardless of who

[ Page 2179 ]

makes them. We may be embarrassed. There may be some corporate donations in there to the NDP.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I doubt it. I don't think we'd be embarrassed by union donations, because those are groups of workers, their executives are democratically elected and the question is generally put before the members as to which and whatever political parties they want to donate to. No, Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be embarrassed about that at all.

But to get back to the economic rationale for bringing in the refundable tax credit for renters and the provincial tax credit in the first place. You know, Mr. Speaker, it probably dates back to what was almost an economic and social revolution that took place in North America and western Europe in the 1960s. You will probably recall, as a person who matured, maybe I should say during the early sixties, that the world and North America were in a state of ferment and that there were a number of changes taking place in our economic approach. There was the war on poverty. There were organizations like the Company of Young Canadians and the VISTA program in the United States, and a number of organizations that went out to Third World countries, like Canadian University Service Overseas. The whole world was in a state of economic change. I think that that change was taking place, that people were looking outward more, that people were more concerned about the poor as a result of the fact that we were living in relatively comfortable and relatively prosperous circumstances. That was in the pre-OPEC days, Mr. Speaker, and there's no question that OPEC significantly changed our view of the world and that we became more inward-looking.

As a result of this economic change and the social revolution that took place during the sixties, we became more concerned about those who were without those who were poorer, those who were downtrodden, those who were denied access to the political process. We sought methods in the tax system to change their economic state in life. That's where the whole idea of refundable tax credits came into vogue. We felt that one of the ways that we could make our fiscal system, our tax system, work for those people was to implement tax credits that benefited the poor directly.

[3:45]

There were other programs, Mr. Speaker, that more or less brought minority groups into a state of equality with the dominant majorities of the time: the civil rights movements in the United States, Ireland and Canada; the concern about black and Hispanic minorities in the United States, all of which rubbed off on Canada; the concern about the French speaking minority in Canada. All of these brought worthwhile and substantial changes and progress. At that time new governments sprang up in Canada. Three of the western provinces had NDP governments. At that time in the 1960s the Liberals became liberal; they lived up to their name. The Conservatives were even progressive.

But times have changed, and I think that we've seen those changes in political and economic outlook exemplified by the Fraser Institute, by the changes in tax legislation, and by the current theory that what we should be doing is levelling all taxes so that they impact the same on the poor as the rich. Part of the idea of levelling the taxes and freeing the rich from paying taxes is supposedly that the rich will invest in the economy. There's been some interesting scholarship done on that, Mr. Speaker. especially an article done by Neil Brooks. Mr. Speaker will know that Neil Brooks is a tax expert who is a lawyer from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto. Mr. Brooks, in an article in Saturday Night magazine in July 1981, talked about this change in tax policy that's reflected here in this bill that we're dealing with in the Legislature at the present time. He says:

"Remarkably, there is now a growing opinion that government tax subsidies for business should he increased. Some commentators, taking their lead from Ronald Reagan, have argued that taxes on income from capital should be reduced even further so that we will make the rich richer and thereby encourage them to take risks, save money and invest. In the end, the argument goes, the larger economic pie will benefit everyone. This trickle-down theory — now appearing under a new name, 'supply-side economics' — is put forward as a major change in direction for Canadian tax policy. But it is not new. Almost every tax-amending bill since 1972 has contained an array of incentives designed to liberate the entrepreneurial spirit, and there's not a shred of evidence that they work."

Again, in the same article:

"Many investors who take risks — and thereby profit from the government's tax expenditure — do so in ways that benefit no one except themselves: gambling on the commodities market, for instance."

So, Mr. Speaker, some of these tax measures which favour the rich and take from the poor do not do what they are designed or intended to do, and that is to improve the economy so that the benefits of that economic improvement among the rich will trickle down.

There is evidence that some of these tax expenditures that assist the rich and corporations actually distort the economy in such a way as to make the rich richer and to destroy the entrepreneurial spirit. To quote Mr. Brooks again: "...has shown that in the case of tax incentives to corporations, in fact these actually are counterproductive in encouraging an expansion in business."

Let me read another section from Mr. Brooks's article:

"There is astonishingly little evidence that these tax breaks are effective. Although it has been estimated that corporate tax incentives in manufacturing alone have cost the government some $2.5 billion between 1972 and 1975, several recent studies have found that the additional investment generated varied from $340 million to $846 million."

The manufacturers had, in effect, another windfall. So tax measures designed to encourage the rich to invest and to encourage corporations to invest.... In fact, we only receive a very small percentage of that tax encouragement back in investment. What we should be doing is not encouraging the rich to invest but encouraging the poor, as was done on May 19, 1981, through this tax credit and the renter's tax credit.

Another way in which those incentives to the rich thwart the entrepreneurial spirit, Mr. Speaker, is also covered by the Neil Brooks article:

"Since the incentives favour corporations with the highest effective tax rates, they help existing profitable firms as against smaller or more marginal firms attempting to enter the market — and thus they encourage domination of various industries by a small group of large corporations. Since many of the firms

[ Page 2180 ]

are foreign-owned, tax expenditures find their way out of the country or encourage control of the Canadian economy by foreign companies."

So here we're looking at two sides of the coin. The government is pulling back on tax benefits to the poor. They've increased tax benefits and direct government expenditures to the rich and to corporations, and experts have demonstrated that that's actually counterproductive to economic recovery in this country, counterproductive to improving and changing the structure of our economy so that more people can be effectively employed. One of the tremendous advantages of that provincial tax credit and renter's tax credit was that it increased the disposable income of lower- and middle-income people so that they could buy more durable consumer goods, provide a direct incentive to production in this country and thereby provide a direct incentive for increased manufacturing and increased growth in the retail and service industries, which would result in the increase of jobs. Here we are, pleading poverty and taking away this $92 million tax credit, where that tax credit is actually one of the methods that we should be encouraging on the demand side to increase manufacturing enterprise and retail and service enterprise, thereby increasing jobs and vitality of the British Columbia economy.

There are other ways by which the tax system as we have it in effect in Canada today, by allowing certain deductions which are more available to the rich, distorts charity and the growth of the arts in the country. This is an interesting sidelight to the debate on this bill. Again, it's commented on by Mr. Brooks in his article in Saturday Night. He uses the example of the 100 percent tax break for people who invest in movies. He showed how, whereas before money would have gone directly into the arts or movies through direct Canadian or provincial government payments, when the new tax provision took effect, the quality of Canadian films took a nosedive, because people were more interested in the tax subsidy than in the quality of films. So we can see how that tax subsidy distorts and actually thwarts the growth and improvement in the quality of the arts in this country.

The tax system is extremely important as a fiscal policy measure. It can make this country more humane; it can make it less humane. What we're saying is that this measure makes this province less humane by taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The tax system is important because it can make this country more productive. It can make this country provide more jobs by effective tax relief measures or by direct government expenditures, or it can make this country more and more dependent on outside sources and economies, and create less and less employment. We're saying that this tax measure, being put forward by this government, does precisely that by destroying demand among those 450,000 citizens of British Columbia that are affected by this measure. It actually thwarts investment in the economy of British Columbia, delays economic recovery, prevents the creation of jobs in the retail and service sector and, particularly, longlasting jobs in the manufacturing sector. So it is definitely a counterproductive measure. As I pointed out, there are other ways in the tax system. There are other things we could eliminate, in order to have both equity in the tax system and encouragement of our economy. Unfortunately, the government, because of its hidebound economic thinking and because it follows to the letter the new economic gurus in the Fraser Institute, simply cannot see the value of changes which would make the tax system that much more equitable,

There was a particular problem in my riding as a result of the elimination of this tax credit back in 1982 made in a press release by that minister. Many of the people in my constituency — in fact by far the majority — work in the forest industry. There was a strike in that industry in 1981 and then an economic downturn which shut down many of the plants in Port Alberni well into 1982. Many of those people, as a result of structural changes in the industry and the fact that the company was transferring some of its manufacturing capability down to Alabama and Brazil, ended up out of work for 18 months. Earlier in the year they had filed their TD-1 forms on the assumption that they would be allowed the provincial tax credit and the renter's tax credit. As a consequence, they underpaid their income tax and were left with a tax bill of roughly $500 when these people had ended up on welfare and unemployment insurance through no fault of their own.

This measure is directed against the poor and places a heavy burden on them. It is an attack on those who are unemployed and causes additional burdens on those who are unemployed in trying to change their status to look for work because of that extra $500 they were forced to pay on their income tax. It is unfair both in its application in principle and in its application in some specific areas where people lost their jobs. The government should be listening. There is no real imperative to pass the legislation at this time. They should reconsider the legislation, withdraw it and look at ways that they can make the tax system in this province much more equitable and demand less of a burden on the poor and a slightly greater burden on those who have the ability to pay, which the government claims is one of its guiding concepts. I intend to vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that the government would do so as well.

[4:00]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, it is a with a sense of sadness that I find I am the last speaker from the opposition benches who can speak against this bill. I know there are members opposite who say we have been obstructionist in terms of this bill, that we have spun it out and have repeated ourselves. It is true that we have been debating Bill 4 since about 25 hours ago. With brief respite, in terms of some debate on Bill 11 and one other matter, we have debated this bill almost continuously since that time, with very little sleep.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I see the Premier is in his seat at this particular moment, and I want to stress the significance of the bill in terms of Premier Bennett II and Premier Bennett I. I make no apologies for the fact that we on the opposition side have done everything within our parliamentary power to block this little Bill 4 and to force the government to take it back. What we are doing in this bill is repealing more than just a grant to two of the low-income groups in the community — usually the same people, the renters with low enough income and the income-tax recipients of the credit. We are really repealing much more than that; we are repealing the humane side of government, We are rejecting the beginning of the advance that Premier W.A.C. Bennett made in 1972 when, recognizing the inequities and seeking to help those in the lower rungs of society, he began with a $50 allowance to those whose economic circumstances justified it and who were tenants. The present government, in a callous, inhumane way, is

[ Page 2181 ]

turning back on that beginning of a gesture to humanity extended to these groups who have very little income.

There has been a debate that directly relates to Bill 4, in terms of philosophy, between Bishop Remi de Roo, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Victoria, and Premier Bennett of this province. Bishop Remi de Roo, speaking of budget legislation, but speaking particularly of this kind of bill — Bill 4 more than any other — had this to say. He said, speaking of the government: "They don't realize that their narrow, conservative approach, now obsolete in the light of economic history, is creating suffering." We have been trying, with all of the ability that an opposition can muster, to get that message over to the government. They are rejecting the humane side of governmental activity and pursuing this bottom-line philosophy that can be very heartless in its application. That statement of Bishop Remi de Roo is interesting. He says this kind of bill is not only creating suffering but in the light of economic history it is not working. You may ask what Bishop Remi de Roo knows about economics.

We have heard a very eloquent speech from the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who has just taken his seat. He has pointed out that this business of talking about augmenting the profits of the well-to-do in order to create investment capital to create jobs and wealth is not working. In the United States it has been tried under President Ronald Reagan, and the queues of the unemployed at the soup-kitchens are longer than they have been since the very depths of the Great Depression in 1933. This so-called trickle-down theory of making the rich richer regardless of any humanity or justice extended toward the poor has been weighed in the scales in Great Britain too, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Instead of the unemployment rates decreasing there, they have crept up, particularly in terms of unemployed young people. It isn't working.

We on this side of the House are not against high profits, provided they are directed in terms of socially useful investment — directed investment planning into job creation and wealth creation projects and manufacturing, and all of the things that help to create additional wealth in this country. Do you think you can rely on the super-rich to direct their savings that have come from the whole community back into what helps the community in terms of job creation? They have not and will not. They are more interested in the merger of companies, takeover, quick profit, paper, income tax and tax shelters for the rich instead of shelters for the poor, in terms of homes.

The article continues: "De Roo said no one argues with the need for fiscal restraint." He added that it is wrong to abolish one social program after another — and that includes Bill 4 — and "erode the social consensus and the safety net we have build up for the less powerful elements in society." He uses the word "wrong," which is a moral judgment. It is amazing how many of the political decisions we are called upon to make, whether they are in the field of economics or anywhere else, are really moral judgments. I don't subscribe to the theory that some Marxist mechanism can decree what is right or wrong to do in terms of the economy and promoting justice. There are moral decisions that are being made in Legislatures such as this and in the Parliament of Canada. That moral concern for the poor, which we are rejecting by Bill 4, dates back in the history of our civilization at least 3,500 years. The prophet Isaiah may not have been a socialist. Maybe he was, but it was long before that word was invented. He would have been against this bill, and he said this: "But with righteousness shall he judge the poor and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth." That is a message directed right at Bill 4. It is directed at our tax system. It is saying "reprove with equity" — correct with equity — those who suffer at the bottom of the scale through no fault of their own, because they have never had the opportunities in jobs, health or education.

We are doing the very opposite, Mr. Speaker, in this bill that we are debating today. At the very most the bill gives a low-income person making $11,000 a year — and this is the best example in terms of receipts — $459 a year combining the tax credit and the renter's credit. That is the optimum; for most it is far less than that — a renter's credit of up to $150, and things of that kind. Those sums, small as they are, are terribly important to those who have less than enough in our communities. What difference would $300 or $400 make in the kind of household that I am speaking of?

There have been some studies on the effect of poverty on future generations. Everybody knows the effects of lack of means to participate directly in the good life for the parents. What about the children? What does the denial of these sums within that household mean for children? The studies of places like Birmingham University in Great Britain indicate that in a poor family without sufficient means, the job and health opportunities and the educational expectations of the children suffer a decline. Someone who comes out of a home that is reasonably affluent, where the children can participate in good food, have support in terms of their educational achievement at school and have a better health background, are the children who have a very significant advantage in future life in terms of getting a job, getting promotions and a longer life through having better intrinsic health. So with this bill we take $50 or $100 out of some home of the kind I'm speaking about, and we say: "What's that?" And the government says: "We have a debt and we must concern ourselves not with these bleeding-heart notions of humanity but with balancing the budget." The member for Alberni and the other speakers have said it eloquently enough: there are all kinds of ways of balancing the budget and at the same time moving toward social equality in the province of British Columbia.

The savings on this bill are said to be $91 million a year. What we lost by the abolition of death duties on the estates of the very well-to-do and millionaires was, at the time of the abolition of those duties in 1976, about $50 million a year. But it would be more.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I would be out of order to debate that subject in detail with the hon. member, but I'd be glad to do it on any other occasion.

There has been pressure from the greedy and the moneybags and the Lougheeds and the Bennetts — the Premier of the province of British Columbia — to wipe out any death duties. It's remarkable how a lobby of the rich can speak in the corridors of power while the poor can barely whisper. They've got what they wanted; and the member said the other day: "Well, they have to pay a capital gain of 25 percent." On what? A maximum 25 percent on their unearned income — their speculative profits. That's a justification for eliminating succession duties, which you have even in California? Yes, the lobby of the rich has spoken through this government, and this government is their servant, and it's their servant in Bill 4.

[ Page 2182 ]

Let nobody say that this kind of program of $91 million per year could not be financed in British Columbia without a budget deficit if we really graduated taxation according to ability to pay or if we taxed, for example, the speculative profits of the land-flippers, who do not create a new job, who do not improve the real estate, but simply buy and sell it and make a huge unearned capital gain and walk away and pay a capital tax to Ottawa. There's a whole area where the provincial government could be taking speculative capital gains.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is debating....

[4:15]

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I suppose the real estate flippers do occasionally have losses, and that would be written off in terms of a land tax. Of course it would. But let's not make any mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. You could name names quite easily. In the last five or six years huge unearned fortunes have been made in the province of British Columbia by speculation in real estate — homes, businesses, shopping developments, takeovers of companies — not by useful, creative job and wealth creation enterprise but by speculation.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, they won't. The Spetifore lands, the hon. member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) reminds me, made paper profits that enabled them to make mortgage loans at the bank of up to, according to the registered mortgages, $100 million. But we don't tax that kind of thing. We don't tax the unearned income on the transfer of the licences for neighbourhood pubs and things of that kind, which is a valuable franchise given by the public and a piece of paper that leads to speculative profits that could pay for this kind of program. But we don't do it.

Bishop Remi de Roo goes on to say, in summing up: "The legislation favours the rich and powerful."

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: And the Premier disagrees. The Premier is listening, I think — or half-listening — to what I'm saying; I'm glad to have that much attention.

"The legislation favours the rich and powerful." I wonder what W.A.C. Bennett, who initiated this program, would have thought about it. Would he kill it? Would he commit infanticide with one of his own programs to create some greater opportunities for those at the lower end of the scale who pay rents? I doubt it very much, Mr. Speaker,

The Premier's answer, as given in the Vancouver Sun of August 17 this year:

"'Bishop de Roo has a different economic philosophy than I have,' Bennett said. 'He does not trust the private sector. He does not believe in profits!" Well, there is a divide here.

There's a very real divide in philosophy and moral judgments between that side of the House and this. He goes on:

"'He believes the answer is to be found in larger government, and I respect his right to hold that view. I disagree with it.

"When we talk about jobs in the private sector, it isn't to favour the rich; it is so investment, which can be anyone's investment, from the worker that's worked hard all his life and had his savings and makes it as an investment, to those who have larger savings...to give them a climate to invest, create business and jobs,' Bennett said."

That is precisely what has not been working in the economies of Canada and the United States. That is the voice of the Fraser Institute: if you make the rich richer and the poor poorer, augment the profits that are already high....

Profits. The bank profits from 1977 to 1983 rose, in periods of privation for many, from $700 million to $1,700 million a year. Did that give us a greater measure of full employment? The record isn't there. Unemployment has crept up in these times of rising profits. Should those profits be even higher?

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm answering the Premier, who believes in profits, and I'm telling him some of the profits that have been made in the last five years and how they have not benefited those in the lower ranks, how they have not produced jobs.

MRS. JOHNSTON: What about the losses?

MR. MACDONALD: There are some businesses that have had losses; you can't tax that. But sometimes you think in terms of the businesses that have had losses and then you ask yourself: have the individuals, the wealthy people who owned those businesses, had losses? Not necessarily. The Spetifore thing that we are passing in another bill is going to go bankrupt, but that doesn't mean that the insiders who got that franchise to get out of the agricultural land reserve are not going to walk away with a heck of a lot of money. It'll be other people down the way who suffer.

Increasing profits, making them ever higher and higher, is not going to help us produce jobs throughout the economies of Canada and the United States, and that is amply evidenced by the unemployment figures and the hungry outside of church doors waiting for something to eat.

We have, therefore, a fundamental disagreement with this kind of legislation. It's the legislation of the radical right which is at the present time held in pretty high esteem. It's the legislation of the Fraser Institute which has been bought by this government. I thought it was interesting that Peter Pocklington is a director of the Fraser Institute. Peter Pocklington, who made a very presentable run for the Conservative leadership, is now having a little difficulty. He's in court; he hasn't paid his psychic.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: As the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) says, always pay your psychic. Don't end up in court with your psychic and have that psychic reveal what you said, because Peter Pocklington told his psychic — and this is court evidence.... He went even further than Premier Bennett in terms of "enlarge the profits of the rich." he nominated himself as the greatest of the rich, and told his psychic that his ambition is to own the whole world.

[ Page 2183 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: Everybody has their ambition.

MR. MACDONALD: That's a legitimate one. At least he left the rest of us the stars and the moon.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: It's a quote from.... Do you remember that play The Little Foxes — that eat the grapes — of Lillian Hellman? The avaricious. The ones who say: "If they're richer and richer it's going to trickle down and benefit all of us in this economy." I would rather trust the democratic socialist planning, through governments, of the economy in directing the wealth of the country where it is needed, rather than where it will make more money for the avaricious few.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's what this bill is about. There is not a socialist in North America who would approve of this bill. There's not a member of the Fraser Institute who wouldn't get up and applaud it.

Mr. Speaker, we're turning our back on the humane application of the tax system in this legislation. I don't know what more I can say, really. I pretty well defined what I feel about this bill — and this is the second occasion — but I do want to refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. That declaration of human rights was largely inspired by Eleanor Roosevelt and was accepted by the United Nations three years after its birth, on December 10, 1948. It has been adopted by Canada.

Article 22 of that declaration says the following: "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international cooperation...." Mr. Speaker, I think we're violating that section of the declaration of human rights with Bill 4. It's more than turning a back on philosophy; it is stripping away a very modest amount of income from those in the poorer ranges of society.

We're not helping the economy. The $91 million that the Minister of Finance is taking away from the poor, by this legislation, would be quickly circulated back throughout the economy and the small stores, because there is no surplus in those families. They are not going to be able to put that — say it's as high as $459 — money in a bank or invest in a bond; they're going to spend it, because they have to spend it. They need the money. That's the kind of money, circulating throughout the economy, that helps small businesses and job creation.

Mr. Speaker, retroactive legislation is a very sad feature of it. I spoke on that sometime in the wee hours of the morning, and I'm not going to repeat what I said, but it's viciously retroactive legislation. It strips away a right of 1982 that was vouchsafed to people by law. Here we are in September 1983, retroactively stripping away what they were lawfully entitled to in 1982. Would the Premier dare to have done that with his rich friends — pass this kind of retroactive legislation to strip away their tax credits? Never would he have done it. But these are the voiceless poor. When have you ever stripped tax credits from the rich as you're doing to the poor in this bill?

AN HON. MEMBER: The mining industry.

MR. MACDONALD: The mining industry. He's diverting me. I know what he's referring to. It's got nothing to do with the point.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, you're just trying to throw sand in the gears here.

Mr. Speaker, this government is in the hands of the rich lobby of the province of British Columbia. The Social Credit government of W.A.C. Bennett came up as an anti-establishment, populist party. We fought them, because I was a socialist. But they were still anti-establishment; they were not the rich lobby who, all through the decades, controlled the province of British Columbia and wrote its legislation. But the Social Credit Party of today, under the present Premier Bennett, is in the pocket of the establishment of the province of British Columbia. They would never in their wildest manoeuvres retroactively — two years after the event — strip away tax credits from the rich as they are doing under this legislation for the poor.

Mr. Speaker, we're turning our backs on humanity and on a philosophy on economics that says that the economy is better if you don't have a subclass of very poor — people with poor opportunities and no spending power. That's what we're developing in Canada: we're developing a subclass with children who may never work and have the opportunity to find that kind of sense of self-pride and fulfilment. We're developing a subclass of very poor families whom we deprive of that most basic right of all human beings, which is hope. That's what we do in this bill: take away $91 million a year of their lawfully accrued credits from the very poor; deprive those families of hope; deprive their children, very directly, of the kinds of opportunities that everyone in a civilized society and democracy should be able to enjoy.

[4:30]

It's against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It's against the whole moral philosophy that was expressed by the prophet Isaiah. It's a morally retrograde step that we're taking with this kind of legislation. Bishop Remi de Roo is absolutely right when he says that this government is benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor. It's legislation that we have no shame whatsoever in opposing for 24 hours in this House. And if we had any opportunity to oppose it further, we would.

MR. KEMPF: You'll have lots of opportunity.

MR. MACDONALD: We will have no further opportunity. But I say this: the tide will turn. This radical turn to the far right of the government is not going to be accepted by the humane, civilized and thinking people of the province of British Columbia forever. That tide will turn.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, we lost a battle on May 5, and poor people are suffering because we lost. I feel badly that we lost. The appeal was out there from Social Credit, very cleverly monitored to appeal to fear and greed, and they won. I feel badly about it. But they will not win forever. They will not close the book on democratic government exercising its powers in a humane way towards social equality.

[ Page 2184 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all hon. members that under standing order 42 the hon. Minister of Finance closes debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief inasmuch as I spoke at some length in introducing second reading of Bill 4, the Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983. I think that one could summarize the comments made by the members opposite, from the first speaker on behalf of the socialists through to the most recent comments, as really following one central theme.

This was not a decision to be taken lightly by the government. I said that at the time. I said that very clearly in November, and I would like to speak about the press release that has been mentioned by several of those who have participated in this rather protracted debate. It was a decision we viewed in the harsh reality of the late fall of 1982 as we saw our revenues declining at a very alarming rate. It was one of several measures we took in expenditure control. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to transgress the rules, but those have also been debated in the course of the budget debate through this summer.

So let no one suggest that I wakened one particular morning and thought, "Aha, this seems like a good day to cancel a couple of tax credits," one of which had been in place for several years and one of which had been in place for a relatively short space of time. I trust that notwithstanding the heat of some of the debate that has surrounded this portion of the bill, no one will attempt to suggest that it was an act of spitefulness, as has been suggested, or that it was an act of insensitivity. Rather, it was one of a series of acts of absolutely essential character in order that we correct the serious situation to which I have referred.

Fundamental to that which we took reluctantly in November, when we notified Revenue Canada at the last possible moment after considering this for quite some time, was again, Mr. Speaker, this government's commitments to the permanency, the essential nature of a variety of programs which have been in place, which remain in place and which form the real, the legitimate, the absolutely fundamental safety net about which we hear so much.

Again, that is the safety net that we have worked to protect, that we have striven to keep in place through this worst period in some 50 years. And again, as I have said in my place through the course of 1982 and thus far in 1983, we had the unfortunate task of identifying those programs which were desirable as opposed to those that were essential. When we applied that test calmly and carefully, and with a great deal of thought and sensitivity, we knew that inevitably programs such as these two credits fell into the desirable category rather than the essential category.

A few days ago the member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) spoke about — and I paraphrase, but I think I have it pretty clearly; Hansard will correct me if I am wrong — the lack of information during the election campaign: that there was a great deal of election material and electioneering, and therefore somehow this wasn't noticed in the course of the campaign. Reference to that particular aspect of the campaign also relates, I think, to comments made in this House and outside in the weeks since the budget, to the effect that there were many surprises following July 7. I indicated the press release. Here was a government which quite likely within the next several months following November would face the electorate of this province with the truth of our situation, and with a statement of the economic reality of the time and a willingness to extend our best efforts to see us through this period. No surprise about the cancellation of these credits. November 10: the day has been mentioned repeatedly by the members on the opposite side who have taken their place in the debate, as if the press release was somehow negative. It spoke about something which was negative, but it was an upfront statement to the people of the province of British Columbia. It is a public document. I won't read it in its entirety, but on November 10 last it announced the suspension of the provincial personal income tax credit and the renter's tax credit for the 1982 taxation year. It indicated that legislation would be introduced at the next session of the Legislature to ratify the cancellation of these credits. That's the way in which, with respect to this issue, we faced the people of British Columbia, the Premier and our candidates.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "And the only one," the member interjects. I would be reflecting on Bill 11 if I answered that interjection.

Nonetheless, we said these tax credits must of necessity be suspended. We were hopeful that at some time in the future similar credits, or credits of some similar nature, might be reintroduced. I do not, I cannot today make that commitment in terms of time or form, but I do express the hope that at some point, as our economic situation improves we will be able to examine this form of assistance in one way or another. So please, Madam Member for Burnaby North — who is not in the chamber at the moment — do not suggest that this was somehow lost in the rhetoric of an election campaign, because each one of us and each one of you knew it was a matter of concern to the electorate. They knew exactly that it was a matter of concern to a segment of the electorate, and each of us was obliged, as candidates for this party, to explain the reasons why the credits were suspended. We did that. That is one of the most honest aspects anyone could ask of an election campaign: to explain the bad news. Not to cover it up, not to run away, as the NDP did in 1975 — to rush to the electorate before the news was out.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Confusion? There was no confusion with respect to the government's decision on November 10 and reiterated through the early part of 1983, particularly in the period leading up to May 5, 1983 with respect to the two credits which are suspended by Bill 4.

The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) spoke about confusion. I think one of the most unfortunate steps taken by any group of politicians in British Columbia was that taken by some NDP candidates with respect to these two credits. What did they say to the elderly, the disadvantaged, those who had expected, prior to November, to have this credit? They said: "File it anyway. Go ahead, put your claim in. Put it on your form." What tragedy was created for individuals! What difficulties created for thousands of British Columbians who were confused! The government of the day....

Interjections.

[ Page 2185 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: They don't like to hear that, Mr. Speaker. But that is an unfortunate and an unfair treatment of seniors and disadvantaged individuals in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tried to buy their votes. Right.

MR. HOWARD: You're a desperate man.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, if I want to identify desperation I refer to the member for Skeena.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I did hit a nerve again, I think, with that particular member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What are you inferring?

Mr. Speaker, there are questions rather than interjections. The member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has shown an interest in where I had lunch. I had it in the legislative dining-room.

Nonetheless, there was confusion abroad in the province of British Columbia as a result of the desperation of the NDP. "Ignore what the government has said, because we'll reinstate the tax. Go ahead," they said: I wonder how many hundreds, indeed thousands, of tax application forms claiming refunds of varying sizes were held up as a result of the confusion created by NDP candidates in the period leading up to May 5. "Go ahead and claim it," they said. "Mark it in, even though it's not on the form." A cruel trick on the people of British Columbia who were benefiting.... A cruel trick on the people, who were confused as a result. When does one say to fill something in on a tax form, Mr. Speaker?

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Leader of the Opposition delivered what has to be categorized....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would all hon. members please come to order. The minister will continue, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to conclude debate with all the interjections, except that I understand they know about which I speak: that is, the confusion which was created, and the uncertainty.

[4:45]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member, what nonsense, what garbage you offer in an interjection, when on November 10 the government of the day said that the credits were being suspended; and we did so — I don't know if the member was here earlier — in order to avoid all possible....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, let's have order please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We did so in order to avoid the kind of confusion which that group fostered through the first part of 1983.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The interjections in this particular few minutes are reassuring to me because what we had in April 1983 was a crass election promise: "Elect us and we will restore the grants." On the other hand, here is a party which said: "The grants must be suspended indefinitely. That is the way it is, that is the way it must be." And the people of British Columbia, insofar as those with whom we had contact were concerned, understood the necessity.

Again, Mr. Speaker, there are other parts of the amendment act which a couple of members have touched on relating to political party contributions and tax deducibility. I would be more pleased to deal with that, if it's satisfactory to the chamber, in committee stage.

With respect to Bill 4, I move second reading now.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 11

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

Bill 4, Income Tax 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: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 26.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, before we proceed, Your Honour, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) moved to adjourn the debate. Doesn't he want to speak on it?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm relinquishing my place to my colleague. He's quite prepared to close.

[ Page 2186 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, this bill is an example of this government's lack of commitment — without any disrespect in referring to this group of people in this way — and attitude toward the voiceless and the helpless in society. Over the years in Canada's great economy, we've seen — and particularly in British Columbia — that large corporations, rather than make profits by grinding up and spitting out the people who work for them, have had to deal with large trade unions to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of those workers. It is always a surprise to some people in British Columbia to find out that less than 40 percent — I think it's now 36 or 36 percent — of the wage-earners in British Columbia are organized in trade unions.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I wouldn't think it's as high as 48 percent, as the Minister of Labour....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'll even accept that figure for the sake of the argument I'm trying to make. It's still less than 50 percent, far less than it should be. But even among those who are organized in trade unions, we must recognize that some trade unions are stronger than others. A great many trade unions are quite weak in their ability to negotiate even first contracts for the people in their bargaining units.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, that's true, and that's the way it has to be in the free collective bargaining system. Any interference with that would be perhaps shifting the goals and the direction and the way our economy has been going at least since the war. At least 55 percent, the Minister of Labour concedes — I'd say it's probably a little higher — of British Columbia's wage-earners are not in trade unions, and have to bargain as individuals for their own salaries. If you take into consideration those unions that are embryonic, that are starting out with very little power and very few members, and if you take into consideration those trade unions that, for reasons mostly of the industry in which they are involved, find themselves unable to conclude collective agreements to bring their members up to a reasonable standard of living — certainly reasonable in their view and in the view of more objective viewers as well — then a much higher percentage of the workforce of British Columbia — I'd say well over 65 to 70 percent — is struggling, if they're lucky enough to have jobs. They are struggling for a very minimal standard of living in this province.

I was indeed pleased and gratified — and I said so at the time — when the current Minister of Education, the former Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) brought in amendments to the Employment Standards Act to create minimum standards and quasi-judicial remedies for those unorganized people in our society to gain a minimum standard for themselves and their families. I did not consider it an unreasonable interference in the marketplace, and neither did he; and he said so at the time. His reward for his progressive thinking was to be shifted out of the Ministry of Labour and into the Ministry of Education.

I think the amendments made to the Employment Standards Act in Bill 26 are a reflection of a philosophy and really a blindness on the part of the government towards the vast majority of British Columbians and their needs. At least 70 percent of the workforce has a minimal standard of living.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, compared to other jurisdictions in the world British Columbians don't have much to complain about, and in a relative way are really well off.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I want to discuss for a moment what the goals of an economy are. Many members on the government side and their supporters — mostly businessmen and so on, big businessmen — argue constantly that....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Seventy percent of the workforce are taxpayers too. They all are, but the 70 percent I'm referring to which from time to time will be affected by this legislation are taxpayers too. It's a mistake for politicians to refer to an identifiable group as if those people are motivated in all things by being either a trade unionist or a small businessman and so on. They think on their own. They make decisions because of a variety of reasons. I'm not suggesting that because people belong to, for example, a trade union, they're going to vote along with the trade union leadership. Obviously they don't. I'm not saying that because people are poor that they're going to vote in a particular way, and likewise that because people are rich they're going to vote in a particular way. You can't identify groups of people like that.

[5:00]

What I'm saying is that insofar as the principle of this Bill 26 is concerned, at least 70 percent of the workforce, the wage-earners of this province, are being affected. This government has a philosophy that deals exclusively with the concept of the free marketplace — exclusively. Except on the rare occasion when the Employment Standards Act was introduced by the Minister of Labour's predecessor, and a few other rare occasions, this government has not dealt with the realities of economic life in British Columbia. I say the reason they have not dealt with it is that it's not part of their philosophical understanding. Although they know it's there, and they know the needs are there, they choose to ignore those needs and requirements of an economy, and discuss only the goals which fit nicely and precisely into that rightwing philosophy. And that right-wing philosophy of the day is the free-market system. Everybody's expected to be able to negotiate a fair price for goods and services on the freemarket system, when in fact not everybody can, and not everybody is expected to in the free-market system, which does not have the structures to allow them to do so. Seventy percent of the workforce in this province have no access to the free-market system. Now, in a situation of recession and high unemployment, what little power they had in terms of their service, their labour, and the price they were to receive for it is gone. They are as desperate as they have ever been in their lives for work and for income.

[ Page 2187 ]

It is in those circumstances that this cruel and unfeeling government, through a blind, inflexible ideological approach, has brought in amendments to the Employment Standards Act. They are such mean-minded amendments, and I'll tell you why. They're mean-minded because you don't save any money. You're just appealing to the crass greed of a few people in society by bringing in these amendments. You are ignoring 70 percent of the workforce who may come under and need the protection of this act, and certainly the 55 percent who will most certainly, from time to time, in these times at least, come under the provisions of this act.

By eliminating the minimum standards, which is clearly what they've done, in the face of a collective agreement, many — not just a few, and certainly not the majority, but many — employers in these times will be tempted and will negotiate what I would call collective agreements that are employer collective agreements, which will undercut all if not part of the minimum standards of this bill. You'll find, as soon as this bill becomes law, that all over this province unscrupulous — and I say they are — employers will negotiate collective agreements that will undercut the minimum standards of this act, by the simple fact alone of this meanminded government introducing an amendment saying that if there's a collective agreement the minimum standards of this act will not apply.

If I were a lawyer acting for the employer I would reluctantly have to tell him that that was possible under this act. Most employers can afford lawyers, but most of the unorganized and the working poor who I'm talking about, the people who will come under this act, do not have lawyers. They don't even have access to a lawyer. It's an ironical thing, indeed, that we're manufacturing more lawyers every year from the two law schools, but the working poor — the wage-earners of this province — have less access to lawyers today than they did last year and the year before.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, well, the hon. Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) is talking about lawyers' fees. I'll tell you, and I say with great unfortunate humility, that lawyers' fees have not kept abreast with inflation. If his lawyer's fees have, then I suggest that he shop around, because there is a lot of competition out there. If I wasn't so darned good myself I wouldn't have any clients at all.

Even in a sense of good humour, I don't want to diminish in any way the import of this mean-minded amendment to the Employment Standards Act. Seventy percent of the workforce do not even have access to lawyers. Yes, they can't afford it, first of all; and secondly, they don't even have the encouragement or support in fighting for their rights under any statute. We've got to realize the reality of ordinary people in society. They are not well aware of their rights, and even those who are are not sure about pressing their claims, and quite often are afraid to. Yes, that's a responsibility of society generally, but one of the reasons why the Employment Standards Act provided minimum standards of employment was to deal with that reality of life. Now, when times are bad, we need those minimum standards more than ever.

And we need the quickest and most efficient judicial or quasi-judicial remedy for back wages. What could be more justified than the family of the working poor demanding of an employer their back wages? It's been 100 years since the Parliament of Canada and all legislatures of Canada have recognized the priority of back wages. You see it in the bankruptcy statutes, in the receivership statutes and in the building lien statutes. Wherever there is a priority to be made, in decency, the politicians of this land have ordered the priority of back wages. So I was shocked, disappointed and very saddened to see Bill 26 introduced.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: The collection of back wages is in the bill; I wish the minister would read the bill. Let me deal with that provision, and I'll draw the point clear for the Minister of Labour; and I'm certainly relieved that unlike a lot of his colleagues he's at least listening to some of the debate on his bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm listening to them all.

MR. LAUK: Well, I'm sorry. No one said your job would be easy. Take a milk of magnesia and bear with me for a minute.

This bill would allow employers, in bad economic times, in high unemployment, the biggest stick they've had since the war: labour negotiations to force a weak collective agreement. As I say, what I would call unscrupulous employers will force a collective agreement on their employees. It's relatively easy to form a sweetheart-employer-type union and have a kind of collective agreement forced upon those employees, because there's a reservoir of unemployed. There are people just dying to get in and get those jobs, and the competition is hot and heavy. How easy it is for an employer to force that collective agreement and totally undercut the minimum standards in this Employment Standards Act. There are thousands of industries out there that are working on this kind of margin, where it's worth it to them, as unscrupulous as it is, to move to a substandard situation as far as their employees are concerned.

Again I say, what are the goals of the economy? Is this Social Credit Party so blinded and so caught up with their own rhetoric and their own buzzwords that they're forgetting the people as a whole? Deal with the realities of an economic system, not with dreams, not with some theoretical reference to the free marketplace where everybody has a right to go broke. Sure, we know everybody has a right to go broke. What a nonsense, meaningless statement that is, in the reality of the economic system. We all know that. Everybody has a right to be poor, I suppose, too. Everybody has a right to go without. Families can go on welfare, too; they have that right, so far.

What about the vast majority of working families? The entire approach is to talk about business. Every decision made by this government favours business, and business only. When you're designing legislation, surely a government that's acting for all the people will say: "Well, this will benefit business, but it's such a hardship on 70 percent of the working families of this province that that vastly outweighs the benefit to business." That's the politics of conciliation, moderation and representing the greatest number in society for the greatest good. The benefit to business in undercutting these minimum standards is small to these businessmen, even, compared to the hardship it causes to the working families that are subject to these minimum standards. They don't make decisions in favour of the working people and

[ Page 2188 ]

wage-earners of this province. Why is it okay, in all of this legislation, to continue to give favours to big and medium business, but wrong to give ordinary working people a break?

We can see that rather than fulfil the theoretical components of their so-called economic philosophy, this kind of undercutting minimum standards betrays their own theory of the economy, and I'll tell you why. If business has a right to go broke, then it has a right to go broke employing minimum standards for its employees, and not to survive through its own inefficiency and bad management on the backs of its employees. That's the point I want to make under this act, and it was made very eloquently by the previous Minister of Labour. Sure, we agree that everybody has a right to go broke if they're in business, but they have no right to stay afloat if they're living only off the backs of their employees.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It doesn't change anything.

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Labour says that doesn't change anything. The minister cannot disagree with me that under this statute as it is — and you brought in no amendments — an employer can force an undercutting collective agreement on its employees. Wages as well.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, it can. Working conditions and provisions in wages as well. Where are the minimum wage standards?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: All right, let me get to the point. If that collective agreement can undercut the provisions of the working conditions as listed in Bill 26, it can relate also to minimum wage standards. For example, it's easy, if you're familiar with collective agreements, to play off the so-called language portions of a contract and working conditions and benefits against the wage component. We're not dealing here with vastly powerful unions. If you're talking about the really powerful unions, it's interesting that the Social Credit members do not talk about massively powerful unions today. The reason is that the forest industry is on its knees, and the massively powerful International Woodworkers of America is as powerful as the international marketplace. No one can say that they are not willing at this time to go that extra mile to keep their people afloat. How powerful are they today? It's nonsense to say that they're massively powerful. They're struggling too. But even they at least had that minimum power left. There is a huge group of people out there that is not protected by large trade unions.

[5:15]

The provision of the bill which takes away the quasi-judicial board.... I recognize there have been court decisions with respect to it, but you don't eliminate the board and be frightened off by judges. I'll tell you, with that new decision of the federal court with respect to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if the politicians of this land start to be frightened off by judges, we might as well not have elections. There are a lot of politicians who warned against the charter on that basis, and I agreed with them at the time. The charter is marvellous on paper, but the people who get elected every three to five years have to answer to the people every three to five years, not judges. The Minister of Labour should not have been frightened off by one court decision with respect to the judicial board. There are ways to amend it and still have a quick judicial or quasi-judicial remedy for these people who want to collect back wages. This gets me to that point that the minister questioned me on. If you don't have a quick remedy in a judicial way which gives some activating or motivating power on the part of the individual, you don't have any remedy at all when it comes to back wages.

I won't even deal for the moment with the time provisions about back wages, and the six-month provisions. I think that's grossly unfair. I think that if there's a contract for back wages and they're owed, and there's a finding that they're owed, there should be no limitation on the claim. There isn't in contract. The only time limitation in a lawsuit for a contract, for anything else, is six years from the notification to the plaintiff of the damages. Here the government imposes a six-month limitation: you can't go back any further than six months. To me, that is unfair. That's treating a whole class of people with discrimination.

Why are you doing it? I say to the government, you're doing it because you're paying off your masters — the large business employers in the province — in some way. There's no judicial provision, I say, to protect the back wages of the wage-earners in the province. If you don't have sensitivity to wage-earners, how about at least a little noblesse oblige? I mean, can't you see that back wages are owed for work done, labour put in? There should be the quickest possible remedy for back wages, not throwing up roadblocks to people who don't have access to legal advice and don't even know the machinery, and who would just as soon throw up their hands. Is it so terrible to give a quick judicial remedy for back wages? That's so much less welfare that the government and the taxpayer will have to pay. If you don't allow a quick remedy for back wages, there is no remedy at all. We know that from experience.

They're cutting off their nose to spite their face. They are saying they are trying to save money. What happens if there's a wage-earner not protected by a collective agreement, and he's under the provisions of the Employment Standards Act, and he asks to have a year's back wages paid? First, all the power now rests now with the director. His absolute discretion prevails. He first of all says: "I'm bound by the act. You can only go back six months for back wages." So we start from that point. He's only got six months. He's already lost 50 percent of what he's owed by this unscrupulous employer. Does he get a quick remedy? He's got to go through a hearing, and the director may — not shall — file a certificate with the judge; and then after the judge receives a certificate, he can enforce payment of the back wages for an employer. Who knows what has happened by then? You know perfectly well that the average ordinary person is not going to go through that process. He's going to throw up his hands and say: "I'm going to give up. I'm going on welfare." So the taxpayer will be paying that family welfare when at least for a year or six months, whatever this money represents, they could live on the wages of their own labour.

[Mr. Segarty in the chair.]

I compare it to the family court process, where there's an order for maintenance for the wife and children. The husband, who is subject to the order, refuses to pay or neglects to

[ Page 2189 ]

pay. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) on many occasions has argued that we should have a quick remedy for these people to enforce the orders to pay, because we're tired of the taxpayer paying welfare and other payments to these families when a legitimate court order has been made against a person to supply maintenance to that family. The same applies here: if an employer owes back wages, there should be the quickest possible remedy for those back wages to be paid — with no delays and no impediments.

Why aren't wage-earners entitled to a share in this economy for their labour? If you don't respect the efforts of the wage-earners in this province, you don't respect the backbone of the economy. You're talking about the free-market system where everybody's entitled to go broke, and you invest your money. Everything's a great big casino game in the sky for these people. They don't realize that when it comes to the bottom line for many families it's the paypacket, not roulette or a crap shoot. It's real life and death problems for these families.

It's a sort of housekeeping measure for this government to bring in these kinds of changes to the Employment Standards Act, undercutting whatever protection these wage-earners have. I say that it's blindness — and it's wilful blindness — on the part of the government. It's no longer powerful unions and powerful business. There's no reasonable power of redress for low wage earners. They do not have access to lawyers and the courts. They needed this special statute to protect their minimum standards of employment. Would it be so terrible to give some help to these people, Mr. Speaker?

I have a suggestion to make to the Minister of Labour. I suggest he seriously consider further amendments to this statute that will reflect a commitment — some commitment, anyway — to the lowest wage earners in the province. I suggest that a statute allowing a quick remedy, brought by the director himself, through the courts.... You can take it to provincial court level if you amend the act properly. I'm just broad-brush-stroking this; I haven't fleshed it out in terms of what the language would say.

Mr. Speaker, such an amendment would be along these lines: that the director, within so many days of a report of back wages not being paid, will immediately notify the employer and the employee that unless there's a dispute as to the amount of back wages, an order will be obtained from the provincial court which will be enforceable as a judgment. And that director can walk in every Friday morning to provincial court, small claims or whatever jurisdiction, with a number of these certificates undisputed, and within 15 to 30 days that wage-earner has an enforceable judgment against the employer, and under the act that certificate should be a charge superseding all other charges and outpayments of that business until it's paid.

For the past hundred years, back wages have been a priority of all parliaments of Canada. It's a priority under the Bankruptcy Act, labour statutes and receivership; it's a top priority under many forms of statutes, and it's been almost a traditional convention that politicians of Canada recognize that as the first charge on the assets of an employer.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You can be facetious if you like, hon. members, but, as I say, 70 percent of the people out there need this kind of protection, and I hope the minister will seriously look at some way to give them quick access to that enforceability for back wages.

The other thing is that I think an amendment should be immediately brought in that no collective agreement....

You can just not bring in that amendment and eliminate that part of the bill that says that any collective agreement will supersede the Employment Standards Act. That's an unfair amendment. It cannot be supported. Any collective agreement automatically supersedes minimum standards by the very nature of the name "minimum standards, " but you make minimum standards a hollow statement if they can be undercut by collective agreement and forced upon employees in this highly competitive situation we have today.

And remember that if you don't enforce minimum standards on employers, you are subsidizing the taxpayer, and the employee is subsidizing an inefficient business. Those two things should be looked at carefully by the Minister of Labour before Bill 26 passes second reading.

I think the government should back off. What do they have to gain by this? As I say, the benefit to the employer is so minimal compared to the hardship on the employees — a vast number of people. What on earth has struck them to do this kind of thing? It's narrow and mean-minded. I would urge that the government have a close look at that kind of situation.

As far as wages are concerned, again I say that, indirectly, these phony collective agreements are distinctly possible, are likely to occur, and will undercut the minimum wage standards. You can always do that through overtime provisions and through other provisions of a collective agreement that would skirt around this bill. It would take even a sea lawyer 20 minutes to look over this and to do that for an employer who is unscrupulous and wants to live, through his own inefficiency, off the backs of his employees.

There are two reasons why the government of the day has failed in its mandate over the years since 1975. As we mentioned already this afternoon, with the government of W.A.C. Bennett, a government that I very seldom agreed with, you at least knew where that government stood on every occasion. You knew what was likely to happen and you knew where the government stood. It always acted, it seemed to me, in accordance with its own perception of the greatest good for the greatest number. We saw B.C. Hydro become a reality, we saw B.C. Ferries become a reality and we saw many other bold strokes being made by the W.A.C. Bennett government. They were not inextricably bound up in a doctrinaire, inflexible, ideological philosophy. But now we don't know where this government is coming from. Through a doctrinaire approach.... You would think that if they were inflexible in their philosophy, they would be predictable; but they're not.

In the history of Canada there are two things that Canadian politicians have been loath to do, and they only made these mistakes if they did not perceive the state of affairs correctly: lose touch with the land — lose touch with the land in terms of supporting our population — and, secondly, lose respect for labour. I'm not talking about trade unions; I'm talking about labour, wage-earners. Once you lose respect for them, you've lost touch with the basic reality of our economic system — and that's what this bill is doing. It's a back-of-the-hand bill for low wage earners. It's a contemptuous, mean-minded, mean-spirited act on the part of a government.... I think it's because of a mistake in perception. I hope it's because of a mistake in perception.

[ Page 2190 ]

I think that the government has an opportunity over the next little while to have a close look at this bill, take into consideration some of the points that I and other members have made and bring in amendments — or withdraw the bill. I can see that there are some amendments that may be of some benefit, but pull back on some of these offensive sections. Give the ordinary low-income earner a break. You know, it's so long overdue. They've been bypassed by big unions; they've been taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers — not all, but a good many. Now they're being ignored by the government of the day. Now where are they going to go? They haven't got a hope, they haven't got a prayer without this kind of basic protection. Does it save the government money? No, it doesn't save the government money. You start filing some of these certificates in small claims court, and then have the branch quickly enforce them against employers, and the number of cases you have in any given year will be cut in half the first year, cut by a third the next year, and you might even have to have a half-time staff in the employment standards branch. It's quick prosecution of back wages. It's quick prosecution under the act that will cut the backlog of cases and cut back on the required bureaucracy.

[5:30]

So I urge all hon. members, in considering the Employment Standards Amendment Act, to think carefully about this. As I say, it's one of those serious stands taken by this government that can easily be, and is already being, interpreted as an act of contempt against the people who are the helpless and the voiceless in our society. They have families too and they pay taxes. Collectively, they pay a lot more taxes than the rest of us. They deserve our consideration and our attention.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is a very nice, quiet afternoon.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I barely said hello, and you're "To the bill" already. Please, don't get me riled up for about five minutes, and then we'll go at it hammer and tongs. Such a nice quiet afternoon, as I said, and not much heckling. I don't know if the members are tired or dejected. It's nice to be able to speak in the House without a lot of....

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Ah, you went and spoiled it all. But it was so nice in here before that interjection.

We're on Bill 26 — I did mention the bill. I'm pleased to see the Premier in the House. He can listen to my remarks. I'm going to start off with something I was going to say toward the end of my presentation, but the Premier has business elsewhere from time to time. That's understandable. I'd like him to hear these few remarks before he leaves. He's running away. I don't know how fast I can talk.

This bill cannot be considered in isolation. The government has before this House other bills which are basically anti-labour bills distinctly aimed and directed at the working and the unemployed people of this province. Witness Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 11, and the list goes on. At some point before these bills were introduced, the government — and I'm sure the Premier was present in cabinet, and possibly later in caucus — said: "Well, what are we going to do to the working people this year? We've just won the election. There's not another election for possibly three, four or five years."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's beside the point. The member from somewhere says I'm sick. Well, that may be true. But I didn't know he was a doctor and a physician and could tell by looking into my eyes from approximately 30 feet away whether I'm sick or well. Actually, I feel quite good because I've had a reasonable amount of sleep.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's a psychiatrist.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He's a psychiatrist? He should go and see one. That would be more to the point.

At some point the cabinet must have sat down and discussed this legislation, or it wouldn't be before the House. We're talking about Bill 26. We're not talking about Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 11 — all anti-labour legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now, if the hon. member would speak to the principle of bill....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Please, Mr. Speaker, don't get on my nerves, or we're going to be in for a lot of trouble, you and I .

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member....

MR. LOCKSTEAD: What's your problem, sir?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The principle of Bill 26, please.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, if you'll bear with me and stop those interjections, we will be onto the principle of this bill.

What I'm saying is that this is a good example of bills that this government has consciously brought in and directed at the working people of this province, along with other pieces of legislation which I could mention in this House. That is what this bill is all about. This bill obviously undermines the rights of a large number — as my colleague pointed out, 70 percent — of the working people of this province in one way or another. It particularly affects and offends the unorganized people in this province. The bill is entitled Employment Standards Amendment Act, 1983. Isn't it ironic that it was this government that brought in this bill in the first place — in 1980? Let's just review what this bill is about, in short form. The lighting in here is bad, or my eyes are going bad.

This bill would abolish the employment standards branch and invest its authority in the courts. That's one of the effects of this bill. I see the Minister of Labour is not shaking his head, so I must be correct. Thus the only appeal from the director of employment standards is through the court system. Is that not correct, Mr. Speaker? That must be correct. What we're in effect doing is forcing into the courts people who in many cases are working on very minimum wages. This Social Credit government is almost abolishing legal aid — not abolishing it, but it has reduced financing and the criteria for people to apply for legal aid. If you're making $3.65 an hour, the minimum wage in this province — and you may even have a family, and you're trying to survive on $3.65 an hour — you don't qualify for legal aid in this province, or

[ Page 2191 ]

you won't any more. How are you going to go and hire a lawyer if you're forced into a situation with an employer over a dispute that is now going to go before the courts — when the branch is wiped out?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The bill would also allow collective agreements to undermine minimum labour standards. In other words, contracts would now supersede minimum labour standards. There are provisions which would allow an interested person to apply to have the provisions of a collective agreement declared no longer appropriate, and I'm going to talk about that in a few minutes. This would apply where a collective agreement expired before a new one had been signed. I think this means — I'm looking at the Minister of Labour, and I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong — that if a collective agreement has expired, after a certain period of time the employer could apply to have the minimum standards apply. As a matter of fact, it's theoretically possible, under these amendments, for an employer, after a specified period of time, to purposely hold up negotiations or bargaining — stall, delay or whatever — and then apply to have the minimum standards apply. That would mean, in effect, that, say, in a small business or factory where the employer and employees had agreed, under normal bargaining conditions, that the minimum wage at that particular plant was $11 or $12 an hour, the employer could.... Mr. Premier, I hope you're listening. I'm glad to see you back in the House, sir, because this is a fact under this bill. And I'm sure the minister will clarify if I'm incorrect — however, I do have my notes here.

As I understand these amendments, what this means is that an employer could stall negotiations, apply for the minimum standards, and actually reduce the wages of these people to the minimum or $3.65 an hour. The minister shakes his head, and I'm sure he will clarify that when he has the opportunity to speak, but that's my interpretation of it. I am not a lawyer; perhaps the minister is; I don't know. In any event, that's one interpretation we have placed on the amendments to the act.

The bill would also delete the current provisions which require an employer to make a deduction or payment called for in a collective agreement. Directors and officers of a corporation would no longer be liable for workers' wages when a company went into bankruptcy or receivership. This is very interesting. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I'm looking at the Minister of Labour, who'll shake his head or nod if I'm incorrect. But it would seem to me that it's now possible for an employer to declare bankruptcy and not be liable under these amendments for back wages, holiday pay or things of this sort. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the minister will respond to these remarks in his closing remarks of this debate, but I really don't think I am wrong in this case.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, we'll see in a few minutes here what some of the people who are familiar with these things think about this particular legislation.

One more thing. Under these amendments to Bill 26. a claim under the new act for unpaid wages would be limited to the last six-month period of the employment with the employer.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Yes, I agree. I was partially wrong on my last statement. I should have read the whole thing. So I'll grant the minister that.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Well, I'm sorry you're the government. The people of the province are sorry you're the government, Mr. Premier. I have nothing to be sorry about, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm good for another 2 hours and 15 minutes.

I want to quote from this article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun by Michael Bocking, Sun labour reporter. The headline is: "Minimum Guarantees To Be Dropped: Bill Hits Worker Rights." Do you read that paper? Do you read? It goes on to say:

"Thousands of employees may find they do not enjoy the rights they thought they had when the provincial government implements amendments to the Employment Standards Act. Currently, the act serves as a minimum standard of wages and work conditions that applies to union and non-union workers. The Social Credit government intends to change the act so that sections covering wages, vacations, maternity leave and layoff or termination procedures do not apply to union members if they already have provisions in their contracts governing these issues."

[5:45]

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You're quite correct. Governing these issues, not wages. The minister must have read this article.

"The change significantly affects many agreements because labour and management negotiators bargained on the understanding that no contract could undermine the minimum standards of the act.

" 'Before, they (labour contracts and the act) interlocked and gave combined protections,' said labour lawyer Leo McGrady. 'People have bargained on the basis that the Employment Standards Act served as a minimum. So many agreements have rather weak language in some areas, because they figured the act served as a minimum.'"

I’ll just stop there for a minute. This is significant as well. What this could lead to is that when the act is amended.... And I presume it will be, because the government has 35 members and we little freedom fighters over here have 22 members, so they win all the votes, and at some point this bill will come to a vote. Nonetheless, when this act no longer applies, those people with collective bargaining agreements will have to go back to the bargaining table to bargain for the rights that they're going to lose under these amendments. Am I not correct? Because they will no longer exist. So they'll have to go back to the bargaining table to bargain in rights that they thought they already had.

[ Page 2192 ]

"McGrady said there are likely many agreements, covering thousands of employees, that will be affected by the changes."

That's exactly what I just finished saying.

"While most unions have better wages, vacation and overtime provisions in their contracts than are provided under the act, there are many that could be quite weak in the areas of maternity leave and termination or layoff procedures, he said.

"'Women are going to be hit hardest,' McGrady said, because many unions have substandard maternity leave provisions. He added that restaurant, maintenance and other service sector employees, who often have weak clauses covering benefits, will also be hit hard by the changes."

How many people are employed in those particular industries? I would say thousands; many thousands of people throughout the province. Their rights are going to be affected by these amendments. You have to ask yourself why the government would bring in this kind of legislation at this time. I know the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. Michael) — I have a quote from him but I'm not going to read it now, although I may later — is going to speak on this bill during the course of second reading. I know he will because he expressed — I think during the throne speech debate, or the budget — some thoughts on this particular legislation. I hope that member will take his place in this debate and make his views known on this particular legislation.

"McGrady explained that contract negotiators previously assumed the act governed these areas and were not too concerned if their contract language became weak on some issues. For example, the Independent Canadian Transit Union has not negotiated major changes in maternity leave for years. Union president Colin Kelly said union negotiators assumed over the years that the act would apply and there was no urgency to change the contract language."

He was wrong on that one. He didn't anticipate this bill. And that Social Credit government, which didn't discuss these changes during the last election campaign.... Or before; not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If I'm wrong, I'm sure the minister will tell us when and where. As far as I'm aware, these changes were not discussed prior to the last provincial election. As a matter of fact, if the Social Credit government — which received quite a large vote from labour obviously, or they wouldn't be sitting over there — had discussed these changes on Bills 2, 3, 11 and 26, they probably wouldn't be sitting on the treasury benches here today.

"'There are a lot of things which have not been addressed over the years in many unions' contracts,' Kelly said. He added that the number of dramatic changes the government has introduced, chopping programs and laying off staff, has left some union leaders almost numb in disbelief."

That's what I'm saying. People just wouldn't believe the Social Credit Party was going to bring in this type of legislation. They are shocked and surprised, as are most people in the province today.

"'The enormity of the changes has been calculated to desensitize us. We have people who say there is no way the government can possibly implement this.'"

Well, I think we're in for a surprise, Mr. Speaker; I think the government has every intention of implementing this legislation. Which reminds me: while I have the floor I wonder if the minister could indicate, when closing debate on this bill, whether he intends to bring in amendments to this bill. I would hope so. I would hope the minister has consulted with people in the labour movement about the legislation that is being proposed here this afternoon. Perhaps the minister could tell us if he has consulted with the representatives of people in the labour movement.

"'A lot of times I have found myself absolutely speechless in how to respond,' he said. 'This is similar to dousing a cat in gasoline to see what kind of reaction you get. It is vindictive and sick,' Kelly said."

Have you met with Mr. Kelly, Mr. Minister? I doubt it.

"If the government passes this amendment, McGrady said, it could cause a lot of labour unrest as unions scramble to improve contract language covering these issues."

That's just what I was talking about a few minutes ago. Once these amendments are passed, if they're passed in their present form.... The fact is that with most collective bargaining agreements — and I know a little bit about that, having been involved in bargaining and negotiations in years past — many of the items contained within the labour standards amendment act were not bargained in or out, because they were there. They were part of the statutes of British Columbia. So that protection was afforded, particularly to the lowincome and unprotected worker. Those rights will be taken away from those people when this bill goes through this House.

"The changes to the act are included in Bill 26, which was presented by the government last week along with the budget and a flood of other legislation.

"Another provision that could have an impact is a new clause governing working conditions when a contract expires and a new agreement is not readily approved."

I think I spoke about that earlier as well. Where agreement has not been reached by the contract expiry date, if an employer decides to purposefully stall negotiations or to put forward proposals that are totally unacceptable to the people working on that job site, once the contract has expired the employer can apply, after a period of time — I believe it's 45 days, but I'm not sure about that — to have the minimum standards apply. Quite obviously, this section of the act before us should be withdrawn. Presumably we will bring in an amendment to it. We don't know. Maybe the whole act should be withdrawn. I'm not sure.

"Currently, when a contract runs out, its terms continue to govern working conditions and wages until a new agreement is reached. However, the new act would allow an 'interested person' to apply to the employment standards director to rule that the terms of a previous contract no longer applies if it is not replaced by another agreement."

This is exactly what we were talking about a few minutes ago.

"If the director investigates and finds an 'appropriate time' has passed without 'reasonable progress' in reaching a new agreement, he can declare the

[ Page 2193 ]

contract void. As an example, the Independent Canadian Transit Union, which represents bus drivers in the lower mainland, has not had a contract since its last agreement ran out March 31"

Mr. Lockstead moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is my pleasure, on behalf of this assembly, to invite all of you to attend the Ned DeBeck Lounge to honour the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on the occasion of the anniversary eve of his twentieth continuous year of service to this Legislature. It would be a great privilege and pleasure to see all of you attend from approximately 6 o'clock until 7:15 or so. Please accept that invitation.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.