[ Page 4189 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Sheriffs' responsibilities. Mr. Blencoe –– 4189

Mr. Macdonald

Federal report on hiring of visible minorities. Mr. Gabelmann  –– 4190

Compensation for Japanese-Canadians. Mr. Rose –– 4190

Sale of Pacific Coach Lines. Mr. Passarell –– 4190

Group homes in Prince Rupert. Mr. Lea –– 4190

Export of raw logs. Mr. Howard –– 4191

Pulp And Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 18). Second reading.

Mr. Pelton –– 4191

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 4193

Division –– 4193

Pulp And Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 18). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On section 2 –– 4194

Division

On section 9 –– 4194

Mr. Gabelmann

Division

On section 10 –– 4196

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Division on the amendment

On section 14 –– 4197

Mr. Gabelmann

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Reynolds

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Parks

Division

Third reading –– 4201

Assessment Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4201

Mr. Blencoe –– 4202

Mr. Mitchell ___ –– 4203

Mr. Davis –– 4203

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4204

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 14). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4205

Mr. Howard –– 4205

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4206

Royal assent to bill –– 4206

TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 1984

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend the Cranbrook Colts won the Junior B championship in the province of British Columbia by defeating the Vancouver Northshore Winter Club. I'd like today to offer my congratulations and hope the House will join with me in congratulating the coach of the Cranbrook Colts, Terry Minnis, the assistant coach, Don Noble, the manager of the team, John Hall, and the trainers, Mike Penner and Sam Lawrenow. The team is made up of: Mike Daloise, John Beaulac, Lance Lechner, Mike Hall, Russ Faminoff, Jamie McKee, Garvin Tarr, Chris Evin, Derek Fields, Mike Kutzner, Craig Penitch, Jim Gordon, Barry Tusin, Daryl Donald, Brent Fisher, Bruce Pelton, Craig Bedard, Daryl Spooner and Aaron Armstrong. I'd also like to congratulate the Vancouver Northshore Winter Club for their fine sportsmanlike conduct and for being outstanding players in the field of hockey. I'd like the House to congratulate them.

In your gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is the mayor of Cranbrook, key city of the Kootenays, and I'd like the House to welcome Rick Jensen.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, today I had the pleasure of hosting a luncheon for the members of the Canada Day committee, on behalf of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I would like to welcome here this afternoon Mr. Michael Coleman, the president of that committee, and about 15 to 20 members who are either with us now or will be joining us this afternoon. On behalf of my colleague I would like to thank them for the tremendous job they do in vetting the various proposals for Canada Day programs in the province of British Columbia. Would the House please join me in welcoming this committee.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a lady who has been very active in many organizations in Surrey and Delta, and she is quite likely here with the Canada Day committee. I would like the House to welcome Dorothy Giles.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, I have three introductions today. We have just had in our caucus Dr. Allen Tyler of the naturopathic association from Langley and Dr. Malcolm Cass from Vancouver–Little Mountain, and in the gallery we have Mr. Bill Townsend, the executive director of the B.C. Lions Society for Crippled Children. I'd ask the House to make these three people welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, along with all of the very special guests from the Canada Day committee, I would ask the House to welcome one of my very special friends from the city of Vancouver, Mrs. Frances Fridge, one of the outstanding people to work for the ethnic communities in our city.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the members' gallery today Mr. Jean Lacatzis, consul for Greece. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming him here today.

Oral Questions

SHERIFFS' RESPONSIBILITIES

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) on the transfer of sheriffs' costs to local municipalities, a move that is going to cost municipalities millions of dollars and will indeed result in property taxes in the province of British Columbia rising dramatically. All of the municipalities, whether served by their own police force or the RCMP, have protested provincial moves to fob off these costs onto municipalities. Why has the minister failed to stand up for municipalities while the Attorney-General forces them to pay highly skilled police officers to serve court documents, a ridiculous situation in terms of taxpayers' funds?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair rules the question out of order.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I will rephrase the question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister has stated categorically in this House that he is concerned about the taxpayers of municipalities, and here we have a massive transfer of costs to local municipalities. Is the minister prepared to stand up for local government and ensure that they receive adequate financial compensation for this transfer of costs? He has a responsibility to answer these questions.

MR. MACDONALD: To the Attorney-General, Mr. Speaker, I understand that in the great city of Vancouver the police will serve summonses, not subpoenas, in terms of major crimes such as murder, but very few. So the Attorney-General has an impasse. Has the Attorney-General decided to take further action or to reconsider this unloading of costs onto the city of Vancouver?

HON. MR. SMITH: The member hasn't got it quite right, Mr. Speaker. Vancouver city police are serving documents that are urgent for trials and matters that are pending, and that includes subpoenas. Summonses would be served in cases where they were not proceeding by way of arrest. In murder they would be proceeding usually by way of indictment or arrest, and not by summons. The situation in Vancouver is not an urgent one. The police board is obtaining, as I understand it, a legal opinion on the direction that was given to the police to do this, but in the meantime they are serving all urgent court process.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Then there's going to be a pile-up of unserved summonses and subpoenas to witnesses. It's going to create enormous congestion, delays and problems in the courts. What steps, if any, has the Attorney-General decided to take in this situation?

HON. MR. SMITH: I don't believe that the situation is as alarming as the member might suggest. The matter is being dealt with in Vancouver on all matters pending for trial. As to what I've done or am going to do, I think I said yesterday in question period that I did direct the chief of police of Vancouver to serve court process, which is my authority to do under the Police Act. If a legal opinion is being sought in the

[ Page 4190 ]

meantime by the Police Board, that is a matter for the authority of the Vancouver Police Board and the chairman of that board.

He might direct his conscientious inquiries to the chairman of the Vancouver Police Board. I have given my direction. I am convinced that the urgent matters are being served and that process is not piling up and clogging the courts, but if he's concerned about the legal opinion, he might ask the chairman of the Vancouver Police Board.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary. The Attorney-General has a Police Commission under the authority of the same Police Act he speaks of. Has the Attorney-General — I asked him this before but he didn't answer — sought an opinion from the Police Commission as to whether or not this loading onto the police officers of the serving of summonses and subpoenas will affect the safety of citizens?

[2:15]

HON. MR. SMITH: There has certainly been consultation with the Police Commission on this matter right along. But I don't seek legal opinions from the Police Commission; I seek legal opinions — as the member knows, because he occupied the same position — from law officers of the Crown. Those legal opinions indicate to me that the authority resides, and the authority was exercised.

MR. BLENCOE: A further question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister let this House know whether he believes that police officers should be glorified paper-chasers rather than doing their duty in catching crooks and apprehending those that commit serious crimes? Does he believe that they should be glorified paper-chasers?

FEDERAL REPORT ON HIRING
OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

MR. GABELMANN: I've a question for the Minister of Labour. A parliamentary committee in Ottawa has issued a report promoting the hiring and training of visible minorities in the public and private sectors. Will the minister advise whether his staff have studied this report and whether or not he has decided to issue a statement?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Like you, Mr. Member, the report has just arrived on my desk today, and I'll be studying it.

COMPENSATION FOR JAPANESE-CANADIANS

MR. ROSE: On a subject that's not dissimilar, Mr. Speaker, and in the absence of the Minister for Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), I would like to direct my question to the Premier. I would like to ask whether the Premier is aware of the Prime Minister's statement that he's not inclined to compensate Japanese-Canadians for their losses when they were interned during World War II — I wonder if the Premier has considered taking issue with the Prime Minister on this subject, since he has on many others.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I only have incomplete news reports on the Prime Minister's statement. But you are correct: the Prime Minister and I have disagreed on many things.

MR. ROSE: I think that's fair, except that you agree on the Crow rate and interest rates. But I wonder if the government of British Columbia has a position on the subject of Japanese-Canadians who had property and other possessions confiscated without compensation and who should now be compensated in some manner for their losses in World War II — a black day for civil rights in Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Of course I'm concerned, and I know that the federal parliament will do the right thing. If we have a number of MPs who don't represent us well there now, I'm sure we'll change them at the next election.

MR. ROSE: I don't quite understand the response, and I think it is unfair for the Premier to malign the Conservative members for British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To clarify for the member, I wasn't.

SALE OF PACIFIC COACH LINES

MR. PASSARELL: A question to the Minister of Human Resources, who is responsible for transit in the province. It is now reported that some 250 employees of Pacific Coach Lines Ltd. are losing their jobs as a result of the liquidation of the company by the government. Will the minister advise whether there is anything in the agreement of sale to protect the jobs of these 250 employees?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have undertaken to table all of the transactions between the PCL and the sale to the private companies. I'll be glad to do that in the next short while.

MR. PASSARELL: On February 29 the minister indicated there was a commitment by the purchaser to follow the same routes: "the same towns and communities that were serviced before." Has the minister determined how the same routes can be serviced with 250 fewer employees than were employed by Pacific Coach Lines Ltd.?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the interpretation of my remarks. I don't think that I ever said "a commitment." I said that I think there was an understanding and discussion regarding most of the same routes and somewhat near the same prices. I have no authority to make that kind of commitment, because, as you know, it was a line that was subsidized heavily by the taxpayers of the province, and we were selling that to private companies who have jurisdiction over their own routes and fares. I would not want to try to interpret, Mr. Speaker, how fewer staff can operate it. But if they are successful in that, they certainly won't be losing $10 million a year, as that line was doing under the government's jurisdiction.

GROUP HOMES IN PRINCE RUPERT

MR. LEA: A question to the Minister of Human Resources. In Prince Rupert there has been a meeting between members of the minister's staff and the association who look after group homes there. The association were given what I would describe as an ultimatum of a new system that is going

[ Page 4191 ]

into place. I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of that and the specifics surrounding that ultimatum.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I'm not, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Would the minister undertake to do a study, or to have a review done, of that situation in Prince Rupert — not necessarily to come back to me in the House but to let me know?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I think the member for Prince Rupert knows from past experience that if he has a concern about something in his constituency, I would be glad to look into it. Please let me know the details, and I'd be very glad to do so.

EXPORT OF RAW LOGS

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to ask the Minister of Forests whether his colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) was enunciating government policy the other day when he said in this House that it is the policy of the government not to export raw logs.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm afraid I wasn't in the House when the minister is alleged to have made such a statement. It is a policy in British Columbia, and has been for many years, that logs will not be exported if they are needed for the manufacturing sector of British Columbia. That policy remains in effect, and it will continue to be in effect in the future.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if the minister would mind drawing to the attention of his colleague the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that as of this month, April, he should stop advertising in official government publications that there is a company seeking exporters of four million thousand board feet of Douglas fir logs with the bark on. Would the minister draw it to his attention that the Minister of Industry is contravening government policy by advertising that we should export raw logs?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development does read Hansard. If the member would like a message delivered to him, I would suggest that perhaps he do his own messenger work.

MR. HOWARD: One other supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister of Forests could tell us how many potential jobs in the sawmilling segment of the industry would be involved if there were four million thousand board feet of Douglas fir sawlogs exported in the raw. How many jobs would go out of the country as a result of that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid I can't answer the member's question for him. I guess it presumes that there would in fact be a market for the sawn materials that would have been manufactured from these sawlogs.

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

Leave granted.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a lady from my riding in West Vancouver. She has worked very hard not only for British Columbia but for Canada. She's part of the Canada Day committee. I wouldn't want the day to go by without asking the House to welcome Miss Pat Prowd.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I also ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. STRACHAN: I'd like the House to recognize Mr. Roy Yip from Prince George, who is also with the committee.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, during question period I made a quotation from a government document called " B.C. Export-Import Opportunities," April 1984, from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development. I wonder if I could have leave to table that.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 18.

PULP AND PAPER COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to rise in my place again this afternoon to perhaps try, in my own simple little way, to put the bill that we have been debating for a day and a half now into just a little bit of a different perspective.

I would like to start out by saying that, probably like most members of this House, I don't like this legislation. On the other hand, I really don't find a great deal of difficulty in supporting it for a number of reasons, a primary one being that it seems to me at this particular juncture that it is the way to resolve the problem, if not immediately, perhaps on a long-term basis. Secondly, I think that the time was almost long overdue when the wishes of so many people out there in my constituency, and I am sure in yours, who were asking that we please do something about this, were taken into consideration.

In this fast-moving world marketplace I think that governments must be both able and willing to act forcefully and decisively when disruptions in the collective bargaining process threaten the vital long-term welfare of the economy and our prosperity and threaten our ability to fund an outstanding system of health care and other social benefits in this province. That, I would suggest, is precisely the position we find ourselves in today.

[ Page 4192 ]

As far back as 1982, with the Scandinavian currency devaluation, North American pulp producers found themselves obliged to sell into European markets below cost, just to maintain a precious foothold in those markets. That kind of international competitive pressure set the stage for very difficult negotiations. The frustrations of the IWA workers — many of whom have experienced much more unemployment than the pulp workers — at the effects of secondary picket lines appearing in front of their sawmills at a crucial time in the year boiled over into an unprecedented degree of hostility between the rival unions.

[2:30]

There is a great deal of history involved here, but I am not going to recount it in detail at this time. I suggest that it must be realized that long-term rivalries and personality disputes have served to greatly complicate an already extremely difficult situation. It must be further realized that all of the natural resources of the world, even at competitive prices, will not create or sustain a market unless the potential customer has a high level of confidence in consistent and reliable performance and delivery. Government recognizes its important supportive role in providing a first-class transportation infrastructure of ports, roads and highways. It follows that if government is determined to overcome natural obstacles to industrial development and employment, so too it must judiciously be prepared, when the times so require, to overcome artificial, man-made obstacles such as an indefinite impasse at the bargaining table. This is not — and should not be — a partisan issue.

There is never a best time for government intervention of this kind, and I think it is regrettable that such action should be required. I should like to suggest that it would be a great mistake, as some in our community have suggested, for government to leap in too quickly to resolve private disputes. I believe it was our colleague the member opposite for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who spoke very well yesterday, and I listened very carefully to what he had to say, who asked — and I'm not quoting, but I think I'm repeating his meaning — how much real bargaining would occur between parties who were in expectation of imminent government intervention. Very little, I would say. Those who expect government to play that kind of role might as well be looking, I would suggest, to some sort of permanent new mechanism for resolving large-scale industrial disputes — perhaps through a system of compulsory, independent arbitration.

I certainly don't like the position in which governments now find themselves of being under almost constant suspicion of partiality in industrial disputes. The timing and detail of intervention is inevitably a judgment call, and a highly subjective one at the best of times. If you move quickly, for example, you are likely to be branded a management stooge. If you are more cautious, you will undoubtedly be called down for covering up for or cowering to the unions. The government — be it NDP, be it Social Credit, be it whatever — should not, in my opinion, be put in the position of appearing to choose between the competing interests of management and labour in these situations. To my mind, this is part of the type of confrontation of philosophy which all but destroyed Britain and which has really, I believe, had a most derogatory effect, if nothing more, on Canada's potential for growth in recent years. In my opinion — and I've said this before, but probably in a little different way — the first obligation of every member of this House is not to the management interest or to the labour interest; it's to the public interest.

I'm supporting this bill because I think it's necessary. But I want to go on record with my belief that the government must continue the process of reform in the field of management-labour relations, particularly in respect of finding greater joint consultation and, where possible, some common ground on long-term provincial objectives. This may mean looking at many approaches, from profit-sharing to tripartism. I don't know. I hold no particular brief for any one proposal. But I hope that the current crisis which we see around us will prompt all members to reflect on the drastic need to modernize approaches and attitudes toward industrial relations in our province.

The value of industrial stability is enormous. We must all come to appreciate that, to a greater extent than has been the case in the past, this applies. We must recognize, too, that the price of that stability may be high in terms of abandoning entrenched elements of the status quo, a status quo which, I say, is every day in every way becoming more demonstrably inadequate. Last Thursday the Premier spoke of frustrations when he was announcing the action that we are debating today. I want to underline his words this afternoon, because I do not believe there is really any word or words in the English language to adequately express the frustrations of the average person at the current state of affairs.

In this Legislature we represent far more than even today's public interest. We are called on to serve the young people; for that matter, we are called on to serve generations not yet born. The Premier said we have prevented the buildup of the $12 billion in debt that had been forecast by 1988, and by that we were, in a very real and tangible way, protecting the vital interests of our children and their children. Today we are likewise called on to safeguard the potential for economic recovery, which is so precious to them and to all of us. If we are custodians of the short- and the long-term economic future, so too are we custodians of the very institutions of a free society which have made prosperity possible.

Another point, Mr. Speaker. I have been deeply disturbed by what appears to be the erosion of law and order in the process of industrial disputes. This erosion, to my mind, threatens the confidence of our people in our democratic system, and we must consider that to be a situation of the utmost gravity. We need only look to Poland or Lebanon to consider the alternatives to democracy. Briefly put, they are oppression and bloody civil war. This is not a wild prediction but merely a caution: that in our deliberations we must constantly consider the moral position which is being transmitted with respect to our institutions. If the law of the jungle is seen to prevail in one instance, it will eventually spread to others. The dignity of the human person must be upheld by our law, whether that person is union or non-union, employee or manager. There is not in our province, and there must never be, any special permit to be a hoodlum, either in law or in fact.

I don't want to take any more of this House's time. All I would like to do — as I have done many times before, I think, when I have had the opportunity to speak — is to ask all members to consider this very carefully, and to consider the future of our economy and our society, and how we could

[ Page 4193 ]

work together to find better permanent mechanisms of resolving disputes without loss of valuable employment, production, contracts or contract opportunities. In the meantime, I would urge all members to support this sensible and essential legislation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I'm going to be very brief, Mr. Speaker, because I don't think I could sum up any more eloquently than the member for Dewdney did.

Although the member isn't in the House, I would like, for the record, to make a comment or two about some of the debate made by the official labour critic, the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I think the questions he raised deserve some answers, particularly those about the offering of assistance, the timing of the offering of that assistance, and how much assistance should have been offered, particularly with respect to his comments about the opportunities under current legislation to introduce a mediator or an industrial inquiry commissioner. He's correct. What he was not correct in, however — in my opinion — was when he called them built-in remedies. They aren't built-in remedies, as we've seen in the past. The member himself referred to the dispute in 1975, which has been the subject of some debate in the Legislature in the last day and a half. I'm not going to get into that at this present time, but exhaustive remedies were sought under the Labour Code and under the auspices of the Minister of Labour and the Premier, and settlement was unable to be reached. So they aren't built-in remedies; they are opportunities that can be pursued.

We thought very carefully about many of those opportunities for settlement. I guess anything you do is a judgment call. We looked very carefully at what had happened in the past and what was happening at the time we were formulating our decision to introduce this legislation, and came to the conclusion, based on those studies, that the opportunities for settlement in this dispute were almost none. There was, in fact, no opportunity to put a mediator into a no-win situation; it was very clear that the parties, at the point at which we decided to introduce legislation, were unable to come to settlement. I'm not putting blame on either side; they simply were unable to come to settlement. If you're going to introduce a mediator into a dispute, it seems to me that you've got to have at least some element of chance for settlement. It was our judgment that in this particular dispute that element simply did not exist. So we had to reject some of those opportunities which were in the Labour Code. We decided instead that the dispute was important enough at that stage to take the drastic — and it is drastic — approach of introducing special legislation.

[2:45]

1 don't think it's necessary for me to comment too much on the other debate that's gone on. I think it's been a good debate. I thank those members who participated in it, and I'm looking forward to the next stage of this legislation. I want to make one comment, however, about.... Perhaps I misunderstood the comments made by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), but it seemed to me that that member and a couple of other members on the opposite side were, by implication at least, attacking a very honourable public servant and accomplished mediator in the person of our executive director of mediation services — whom I have asked to mediate this dispute — by suggesting in this debate that there is some kind of setup in this legislation to have the mediator fail. Mr. Speaker, no professional mediator in this country would be drawn into that kind of a position. I hope anyone who thinks that would rethink that position and perhaps make some public statements outside of this Legislature that that was not what they meant.

Mr. Speaker, the essential thrust of this legislation has been misunderstood. Yes, it does contain the opportunity for the government to impose a settlement, but only as a very last resort. First of all, the most important part of the legislation is to end the lockout; the lockout ended. Secondly, it was to get the workers back to work; unfortunately, that has not happened at this point. I can only express disappointment that that has not happened. Families in our communities are suffering as a result of what seem to be decisions of a few labour leaders, a few labour bosses. In at least two instances in British Columbia — Woodfibre and Mackenzie — I'm told that the members in their locals voted to go back to work, and when they went back to work they were told, one way or another. that they must close those facilities down again.

Mr. Speaker, the whole thrust of this legislation is to get some stability back in the workplace, with people back on the job, and then to get back to the table, not to impose a settlement; and then to offer our top mediator in the province to help the parties come together. I know it's a difficult task. In fact, it may even prove to be an impossible task. Somewhere in the ultimate resolution of this there either has to be a resolution at the table, or the legislation will have to be used to its last resort again and a settlement imposed. Nobody in this government wants to do that.

In moving second reading of this legislation, I would appeal again to all of those union leaders — who are getting what I believe is bad advice, from wherever they're getting it — to say to their workers: "Look, folks, we want you back on the job. Let's go back to work. Let's honour the intent of this legislation, even if you disagree that it is law today, or will be law on March 30 as a result of the retroactivity. Even if you disagree, honour the intent and go back to work and start earning a living for your family again." I would urge that on all of the workers involved in this dispute. I would hope that perhaps now, with a chance for some sober reflection on what's happened in the last few days, it would happen. If it does, this province will be better off.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 15

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

[ Page 4194 ]

MR. SEGARTY: On a point of order, did I hear the names Lea and Brown in that roll-call?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move, with leave, that Bill 18 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

[3:00]

The House in Committee on Bill 18; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

PULP AND PAPER COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

Section 1 approved.

Section 2 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 14

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, when you report to Mr. Speaker, would you ask that this division, and any others that the government feels constrained to demand, be recorded in the Journals.

Sections 3 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

MR. GABELMANN: We cannot let section 9 go through without a few comments, Mr. Chairman. I outlined the reasons for our disagreement with this particular section during the debate in principle, but I want to reiterate briefly those comments here in committee stage.

Section 9 introduces, for the very first time in the history of this province, the settlement or the solution or the resolution of the collective bargaining process to be put into the hands of cabinet. It says that if certain things happen or don't happen, the cabinet by order-in-council can write the terms and conditions of a collective agreement. If anyone wonders at what I thought was a surprisingly high vote yesterday among pulp workers in this province not to return to work, if anyone wonders what the motivation was for that particular vote, they can find it, I believe, in section 9.

There are any number of ways that the resolution of the collective bargaining process can be achieved, short of this. Obviously the one that everyone prefers or at least professes to prefer is that it be achieved through collective bargaining. But when you introduce a section like this that bypasses all of the traditional ways of resolving a dispute, and those traditional ways are many and varied.... In 1975 the method chosen was to allow the parties to continue to bargain during the course of a cooling-off period and reach their own settlement, which, as I pointed out yesterday, was aided immeasurably by the introduction of the AIB. Other industries and other sectors in our society have chosen other methods to reach agreement. Clearly the one that is preferable is that free collective bargaining take place, with the right to strike or to lock out if it fails. That's the one that I am absolutely committed to, because I think it is essential for the long-term economic prospects of a society that it happen that way.

The government did have other choices, which they didn't take. They could have asked the parties if they were interested in voluntary arbitration. To the best of my knowledge, that question was never asked. They could have used section 122 — the industrial inquiry commissioner section — of the Labour Code. They could have done a variety of other things. But to take into the hands of cabinet the right to determine the terms and conditions of the collective agreement is to take a right that does not belong in the hands of government, period, and I would have thought there would have been no argument about that.

I understand that there are two issues — maybe three, but probably two — that have some commonality with the previously agreed-to IWA-FIR agreement. But there are any number of other issues that are peculiar to the pulp dispute itself. I wonder how the cabinet will decide to resolve the outstanding question at the Port Alice mill that's on the bargaining table at the present time. If it is not settled to the satisfaction of both parties, which can only be done in collective agreement, it will lead to industrial unrest for many years in that particular mill. Is the government going to pick one side or the other in that particular dispute, or in any number of others? It is a power and an authority which is not properly to be held by cabinet.

I want to suggest that there is one reason why this startling departure from practice has been introduced. The government is determined to bring in a collective agreement that the industry is happy with. They have succumbed to the requests of the management negotiators, prominent among them being former Socred candidates. They have succumbed to requests that any solution which might saw off the differences would be unacceptable — the only acceptable decision is one that the companies want. It is going to cabinet so that a political decision can be made as to the terms and the conditions of the collective agreement — rather than some independent process through section 122 of the Code, for example. That's why we have this totally unpalatable and heretofore unheard-of legislative intervention in what is in effect best settled privately. This comes from a government that goes around the province during election campaigns, and at other times, talking about getting government off the backs of the people. If there's one area in society where government doesn't belong, it's at the bargaining table.

I suspect that the strong vote yesterday to reject the legislation, to reject going back to work, can be traced to the

[ Page 4195 ]

fact that this bill contains section 9. We oppose it; we will oppose it as strongly as is humanly possible.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I understand a lot of the problems that the member for North Island has, given his background — and that's not critical at all; it's just an understanding. In closing debate I did answer some of the questions that the member had. Unfortunately the member wasn't in the House at the time. Voluntary mediation was offered to the parties. It wasn't done on a formal basis, but some very respected people in the labour movement were asked to deliver the message to the parties that mediators were available. Names were put forward. They were rejected. As I said in closing debate on this bill, you've got to have a chance of success before any mediator will take on this kind of a job. The objective judgment of all the people involved was that there wasn't any chance of success at this time. This section, I admit, is unprecedented. My colleagues and I felt that it was necessary in order to bring some seriousness to the collective bargaining system in this particular dispute. The member says we should have gone for a cooling-off period. We have a cooling-off period. The cooling-off period is right in this bill, in which a mediator is imposed and the parties are urged to get back to the table. There's no time limit. It doesn't say: "Come to an agreement in three days or 10 days or 60 days." But we do want to see some meaningful bargaining. We are not going to allow this province to go down the tube because of the intransigence of the parties in this dispute. It's as simple as that. We're prepared to take any action that's necessary to prevent the economy of this province from being not only cracked but crashed because of the actions of people who, for their own reasons, can't come to some voluntary agreement.

The cooling-off period is there. There is no time limit. Again, I'd urge the parties: get back to the table, bargain your own collective agreement because you've got full opportunity in this bill.

[3:15]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, the minister talks about taking this action because he wants to protect the economy of this province. Precisely the opposite result will occur. They may well achieve some economic benefit in the short term — I said that yesterday. For the months of April and May and perhaps the rest of 1984 there will be an economic benefit from having the pulp industry at work. But governments have a responsibility also to look beyond the immediate time. What this does — the bill in total and this Section 1n particular — is to guarantee that there will be industrial chaos and turmoil in the pulp and paper industry in this province for at least another decade. We've already had more than a decade's worth of turmoil and trouble in that industry.

When the government takes upon itself the right to write the collective agreement, it opens the door, in my view.... I believe this is a view that's echoed by both sides of the table. The minister may make references to my allegiances as a result of work I've done in the past, but everything I've said in this debate, both in second reading and now, is stuff that people from both sides of the table believe. Both sides of the bargaining table — people who are experienced in this business — know that if you want lower production, higher absenteeism, wobbles on the job and difficulties the next time the bargaining comes up, you interfere in this way. I appeal to the minister to understand that what he's doing by including this particular Section in this bill is not to repair the economy — although I grant it will help in the next few months, presumably — but to understand that this in fact will impair and hurt the economy of this province because it will virtually guarantee that we will not get back to a proper bargaining climate in that particular industry.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I must say again that the opportunity is there for full collective bargaining, and if the parties don't take that opportunity, that's their responsibility. The parties now have the chance to get back to the table with a good mediator and come to a collective agreement. They've got that chance, they've got their cooling-off period, and they should be getting back to the table and back to work immediately.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if the companies through the pulp bureau — the bargaining arm for the respective companies in this dispute — know that they can have their terms and conditions imposed by the cabinet, why should they bargain? What incentive is there for one party to bargain when they know they'll get what they want if they wait? It's clear.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who says so?

MR. GABELMANN: I say so.

I'll make a prediction, Mr. Chairman, that this whole process will flounder over this section because one side — the industry side — has no incentive to bargain. For the minister to say that the parties should go and bargain — and they can while this act is in force — is pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 15

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the Speaker, would you advise him that a division took place in committee, and have the same recorded in the Journals of the House so that we may maintain a running count on the vote.

[ Page 4196 ]

On section 10.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, having listened especially to the member for North Island and the comments he made regarding the move that would be the last resort in terms of a collective agreement being imposed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, I wish to move an amendment to section 10, which I hope will give some comfort — it certainly won't be full comfort — to the member, given the comments he made. The motion is to amend section 10 by renumbering the section as section 10(l) and adding the following, subsection: "Notwithstanding sections 6 and 9, a collective agreement referred to in section 9 has no effect until the Legislative Assembly has adopted a resolution that it approves the collective agreement." And a subsection (3): "Where the Legislative Assembly has adopted a resolution that it approves the collective agreement under subsection (2), the period referred to in section 6 ends and the collective agreement extended under section 6 no longer applies."

Mr. Chairman, that was rather a hasty amendment. Because of the debate in this Legislature, we've decided that this would be a good amendment. I would ask the Chairman, because it is handwritten, that you might consider a short recess while typewritten copies can be delivered to all members.

[3:30]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the amendment is in order — in terms of being parliamentarily in order; however, I think it would be to the benefit of all members of the committee if we did stand at recess in time to have this typed and circulated to all members of the committee. I so order, and I will ring the division bells when we are ready to reassemble into committee.

MR. HOWARD:...for the Chairman to declare a recess?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there consent of the committee?

The Committee took recess at 3:31 p.m.

The Committee resumed at 3:54 p.m.

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: During the debate on this bill, Mr. Chairman, I haven't made much of the fact that I think the legislation is simply political rather than a truly serious effort to resolve what is a difficult dispute, but I wish I had. Because if this amendment does anything, it proves conclusively that this whole exercise is simply a political sham.

The minister, in introducing this hurriedly prepared amendment to section 10, suggested that this somehow is a response to my criticisms about the cabinet having the authority to write a collective agreement. If the minister was the least interested in responding to my criticisms about political interference in the collective bargaining process he would have deleted section 9, not made it worse by having even more politicians involved in a process they have no business interfering in.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll just withdraw the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: I would be delighted if you would withdraw it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes or no?

MR. GABELMANN: If you want a yes or no answer, the answer is no.

Mr. Chairman, in my view it simply is proof that the minister and his colleagues will do anything to politicize this particular dispute. If they were genuinely interested in having a solution out there where it matters, they would not do anything to further politicize this difficult dispute. This amendment further politicizes this issue.

I'm sure they're all chuckling over there about how cute it is, I suppose, that they can suck us into getting involved in approving a collective agreement. The important issue is that the dispute be resolved between the parties. This does nothing to assist that. This further politicizes the entire issue and makes the resolution of the dispute more difficult. If the government can't understand that they are making a solution to this dispute more difficult by politicizing it, then they will understand nothing. In my view it confirms clearly that since Thursday evening last this whole exercise has been nothing more than a political exercise designed to maximize, or to extract for the Social Credit Party, whatever political benefit it can from what has been a difficult dispute in the private sector.

I want to make it as clear as I can — because the minister didn't understand me the first time — that politicians have no place at the bargaining table, and that's why I oppose section 9. The amendment that the minister brings in adds more politicians to the bargaining table. There should not be 57 politicians in this province, or 19 or 20 in the cabinet for that matter, interfering at the bargaining table. There are processes in the private sector, whereby that can be resolved. If this government is so interested in promoting the private sector and turning over functions of government to the private sector why don't they start here, where it is most important that the issue be resolved? To politically involve the 57 members of this Legislature in the terms and conditions of a collective agreement by asking this Legislature to vote on a resolution approving language that has been written by cabinet is sleazy, it is wrong, and we reject it completely.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I thought an amendment such as this, which brings a very major decision back into the Legislature, is perhaps the most democratic of all opportunities. Those who would argue against the Legislature, would, I think, be called into question by the people of British Columbia.

I was quite interested in the member's statement that politicians shouldn't be at the bargaining table; I say amen to that. I think the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is trying to tell his party that as well. The interests of the working people of this province aren't served when those who get jobs to become union bosses put their politics before the resolution of disputes or the welfare of their workers. I could imagine that the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) could understand what I'm talking about in this regard.

Yes, I think I would like to see industrial disputes settled in the workplace. I would like to see politics taken away from

[ Page 4197 ]

the bargaining table. It's about time our working people had a decent break and were not dragged out in political strikes when they aren't asked to vote to support Solidarity, to lose a day's pay, two days' pay or five days' pay on a political strike in which they have not had a vote and made a decision. I'd like to see that. This is the only time I'll probably ever agree with the member for North Island. I find it passing strange that that member finds something wrong with bringing a major decision into this Legislature to give some credibility to what is being said around this province today.

The NDP love issues. They love them until they're asked to take a stand. They love them until they're asked to place their name on the line and vote. Every issue, as long as it embarrasses the government.... To take any issue and try to embarrass the government with it is just lovely, until you have to try to do something, and you have to put your name on the line. As all members know, we're required to vote when in the precincts of this Legislature. It's interesting to note, Mr. Chairman, what has taken place today.

I support this amendment as being the most democratic answer to a difficult situation. If the member is fearful of having to vote on a resolution, I don't anticipate that we'll ever have to use it. I believe the collective bargaining system will work. I believe that the mediator will make it work and bring the parties together; if he doesn't, then such an unusual step as this will be dealt with in the open. All legislators representing all political opinion in this province will have a chance to have their say in this assembly, on the record for the people of British Columbia. That is as it should be. We should have had this in the original bill. I think the concerns that were raised were valid, and that's why it's an amendment now. I support the minister.

[4:00]

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 16

Hon. Mr. Bennett requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 10 as amended approved.

Sections 11 to 13 inclusive approved.

On section 14.

MR. GABELMANN: Very briefly, I want to register our objection to the principle contained in section 14 of this bill, that of retroactivity. What this section does is to say in effect that this bill became law....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. I'll ask the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) not to interrupt.

MR. GABELMANN: What this section does is make this bill law, effective March 30, 1984. During the debate in principle I said that retroactive legislation has its place in certain tax measures, and the reasons for that are obvious. No parliamentarian would object to that. But making laws retroactive, short of those situations, is wrong. It has never been part of the British parliamentary system. In my view, it should be resisted at all times.

If the government was so determined that this particular law needed to take effect on Friday, March 30, having waited all week so they could take advantage of Thursday evening as the right evening to have the telecast, and obviously not having some urgent imperative that this kind of bill be law particularly on March 30, they could have done it earlier by introducing it earlier and forgetting the TV show. Clearly, they could have acted earlier if they had chosen to.

Also, if they had chosen, instead of introducing the bill at ten to one on Friday they could have introduced it at ten o'clock, and the debate could have proceeded on Friday at ten o'clock, or after a reasonable recess of half an hour or an hour so that people would have had an opportunity to consider it. The debate could then have proceeded somewhere around 11 o'clock, leave could have been sought to proceed with the bill in all stages in one day, and the debate could have been concluded sometime Friday — perhaps Friday evening. It might even have taken all night Friday. We've got plenty of precedent for sitting all night.

If the government was really serious about having this particular bill become law by the magic day of Friday, March 30, it had two alternatives which I think it should have chosen, rather than this route of retroactivity. The first would have been to introduce the bill earlier in the week when they had already made up their minds to do it. The Premier taped his television statement on the morning of Wednesday, March 28, so the bill clearly was known about at least by then — no doubt earlier than that, following Monday's caucus meeting. So if the government indeed believed that there was some urgency and that the state of the economy was in such dire straits that the legislation needed to be in place quickly and early last week, it could have done that by bringing in the bill before Friday. But giving them the benefit of the doubt — that they couldn't prepare the bill that quickly and they needed until Friday morning before they could introduce it — if it was as urgent as they said, they could well have debated that bill on Friday. And I'm sure that leave would have been granted to....

Interjection.

MR. GABELMANN: Leave was granted in 1975, unanimously, even though there was a division of opinion, and let

[ Page 4198 ]

me remind the House that leave was granted today to proceed from second reading on to committee stage. We're not obstructionists. The same result could have been obtained on Friday. Instead the government chose to bring in the bill on Friday and to have the debate commence on Monday, with no sense of urgency, and have it resume again on Tuesday — today — and then say that it was the law last Friday.

One of the things legislators have as a fundamental responsibility is to engender in society some respect for the law. People were being asked over the last four days to respect a law that they didn't believe was a law. Lawyers will argue about whether or not it was a law going back to last Friday, once it's approved here in the House, and the government will no doubt argue that it was a law effective Friday. Many of us would argue that it was not a law and will not be a law until the Lieutenant-Governor assents. That debate aside, some consideration should be given to the fact that we expect members of our society to respect and obey laws. When laws come into disrepute or when they're seen to be cynical or to be introduced in a way that appears to be unfair and undemocratic, respect for law diminishes. I've made this speech many times over the years in this House. There are not many things more important for the preservation of a society than respect for the rule of law. And this kind of retroactive provision in a bill like this does nothing to encourage respect for the law; in fact, it does the opposite and encourages disrespect for the law and the lawmakers.

HON. MR. McGEER: I feel obliged to remind the House that it was only yesterday afternoon that the Leader of the Opposition begged the House to adjourn, not to debate this bill and not to bring to resolution a situation where the government, I would have thought with the support of the opposition, would say: "Enough! Enough damage has been done to yourselves as workers and to the companies as producers. Enough damage has been done to the communities as hosts for these industries, and enough damage has been done to the good of every citizen of the province — in heaven's name, end the dispute." That's what the Legislature has said with this particular bill. But far from acknowledging that that is the state of affairs, the Leader of the Opposition begs us not to debate it. The member who has just spoken has said....

MR. MACDONALD: On a point of order. As I understand it, we're on section 14, which deals with whether the act should come into force on Friday night. The minister isn't directing his remarks to that at all.

HON. MR. McGEER: I am, indeed. It's exactly what I'm directing my remarks to, Mr. Chairman — the appropriateness of the timing of this bill. The member opposite has been completely out of order in this debate because it was that party that begged us not to debate the bill. After all, the member opposite was the one who said how inappropriate it was not to debate the bill on Friday before the deadline came into effect. He was arguing in favour of that. Yet on Monday his leader said: "Don't debate it." What's the government supposed to do when faced with two people on the same side of the House giving exactly opposite views on what the government should do?

We know there are six leaders in that party, each with different points of view, except for one thing: their obligation to the trade unions of British Columbia. That's all they hold in common. But I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the public might be excused if they appeared to be confused over the stand taken by the members opposite. The first thing, it seems to me....

[4:15]

MR. MACDONALD: Speak to section 14, for heaven's sake.

HON. MR. McGEER: I am speaking to....

MR. MACDONALD: No, you're not.

HON. MR. McGEER: I'm speaking precisely to this section. Even more importantly, I'm speaking to their debate on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. With respect to the point of order raised by the second member for Vancouver East, section 14 clearly deals with debate with respect to timing. The term of the legislation as it applies under this Section 1s in order.

HON. MR. McGEER: That member said, Mr. Chairman, that this section should have been debated last Friday. Yet his leader said on Monday that we should postpone the bill. That's the problem. The whole burden of that member's remarks was that when the government brings in bills of this kind, it encourages disrespect for the law. But I can recall, Mr. Chairman, when a New Democratic Party candidate, a trade union leader in a former industrial dispute, stood up and held his arms like this before a crowd and said: "We'll make the laws around here." That's the problem that we face, Mr. Chairman.

MR. REID: Who said that?

HON. MR. McGEER: Paddy Neale. He was the New Democratic Party candidate in the very riding that the former Attorney-General, the second member for Vancouver East, now represents. That's the difficulty that you face, Mr. Chairman, in getting respect for the law.

Unfortunately, there are people in British Columbia who believe the law should be respected when they agree with them, and only when they agree with them. We must have universal respect for the law, whether we like it or whether we dislike it. The first obligation is placed on members who are elected as legislators. That member over there should be the first one standing up and saying: "I may disagree with it, but everybody, including the union leaders that I used to represent in British Columbia when I was director of research for the B.C. Federation of Labour, should be the first ones to do that, and I'm going to set an example here in British Columbia." But no, that's not what we hear from this member. We hear: "Do it the way I say, or people will have no respect for the law." How can we do it the way that member says when it's exactly opposite to what his leader says? You can't operate in a democracy that way. You cannot accept the arguments of the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). We must accept the rule of law whether we agree or disagree with the particular law. But in this case the government has said, I submit — strongly backed by the people of British Columbia — that enough is enough. If ever the statements of Mr. King, the former Minister of Labour of that government, should be

[ Page 4199 ]

echoed and re-echoed by you members over there, it is that no one has absolute rights to destroy the health, welfare and safety of the people of British Columbia. Respect what that man said, because he's right. This is a situation where it applies. Yet we have a member saying: "There will be disrespect for the law, because I disagree with it."

Mr. Chairman, every member of this House should accept this particular section.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, section 14 says, "This Act shall be deemed to have come into force on March 30, 1984," which was last Friday. Section 4 says that every employee shall resume his duties within 72 hours after the coming into force of this act, which was last Friday. Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday. So suddenly, by this section, we are making all of the pulp workers of British Columbia people who are in breach of the law.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, because in accordance with.... Although the act has not been passed and the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has not come down, you decide to make them all lawbreakers. Why?

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Ask why the union leaders didn't tell their men to go back to work.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Hon. members, please.

MR. MACDONALD: What in the world is going on here, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. I agree. Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Nobody denies that you've got a serious situation in the province of British Columbia, and action of a proper kind was required. But so sloppy! Why bother making all of the pulp workers of the province of British Columbia into lawbreakers by saying to them, when the Lieutenant-Governor gives his approval of this bill: "You should have obeyed that law last night, and you're in contempt." That's no way to behave. So make an amendment, Mr. Minister. You've already had to patch this thing up, or tried to, in one respect. Don't make them all lawbreakers.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think there's another solution, which the member opposite can seek right this moment. He and his party could recommend to the union leaders in British Columbia that they advise their men to go back to work. That's the intent of the legislation: to go back to work. That's what the advice should have been, public and private; instead, it worked in the reverse direction, didn't it? The union leaders refused to go back to work and they told the New Democratic Party to vote against the bill. It's just the reverse of what it should be, Mr. Chairman. But it's not too late for the New Democratic Party to redeem itself. Confess your sins right now and support this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think we've had quite enough latitude in this bill. As I pointed out to the committee earlier, this bill deals specifically with a date, a matter of timing, and that should be the scope of our debate under this section.

MR. REYNOLDS: I won't be very long. On this section that the act should be deemed to have come into force on March 30, 1984, I would especially like to tell the second member for Vancouver East that the union workers in Woodfibre in my constituency voted to go back to work and to obey the law as laid down in this Legislature and introduced last Friday.

MR. COCKE: There's no law yet.

MR. REYNOLDS: We hear from that member that there's no law yet. His own party brought in legislation just like this and expected the people of British Columbia to obey it, and they did. That's what this law is all about. The workers in Woodfibre wanted to obey the law, but the union bosses have not allowed them to. It's not the workers; it's the union bosses in this province that are advising their people to break the law. I want to congratulate those workers in Woodfibre; they wanted to go back to work, like a lot of other workers in this province want to go back to work. They're embarrassed by the activities of not only their union bosses, but those in this Legislature who are just following the dictates of the union bosses in this province, and of the Solidarity movement in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond in part to the second member for Vancouver East and his remarks to do with the date. Quite frankly, the legislation was introduced as an attempt to end a dispute, and to end it quickly in a reasonable time. A date was given that coincided with the introduction of the bill. That is not an unusual practice. It's been used by Finance ministers for years. The argument that it is incorrect would mean that.... Taxes have been collected federally and provincially through a number of administrations across this country over the years, Mr. Chairman, by utilizing the same technique.

MR. BLENCOE: Why are you so defensive?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I am not defensive. You should hang your head in shame. You play politics with everything. Hang your head in shame!

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Over here we call it the "gravy train;" some call it the "dole." But it's the same thing being in here. You should be out there, where those people want to work, and you're in here playing political games with their jobs.

Mr. Chairman, that date gave a realistic time-frame in which the lockout imposed by the companies could be ended. No strike being in place. the workers could go back to work, the companies could start up their pulp mills, and we could start our people working, our shipments going to the rest of the world, and the communities could have some financial stability restored to them where they have been very hard hit. That is not an unrealistic thing for us t8 have done. What is unrealistic is that there are those who didn't want the dispute to end — those who are playing politics with the jobs and the production of people and goods in this province. Anyone

[ Page 4200 ]

who says that this date and that reasonable time-frame are an impediment are completely off base.

The politics being played out there and in here with people's jobs and the British Columbia economy is intolerable. To argue against this particular section, when it allowed ample time for all parties to be informed, for all parties to cooperate in mutual interest, for all parties to get back to the bargaining table, for all parties to have the assistance of a mediator with no unreasonable time limit imposed on them to achieve success.... I think it is the height of political gamesmanship, that this particular Section in this bill and the very thing it set out to do are being politically sabotaged.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) may think he is clever and funny, chirping form his seat, but I've got to tell you a lot of people no longer think you're funny. A lot of people no longer think that your type of politics and your type of attitudes can be afforded in this province, and you're going to get a chance to find out, my friend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps you could avoid the personal references as well.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier completely missed my point, and I want to restate it in a slightly different way. In a free democratic society people don't jump to obey a law, and they shouldn't have to, until it is passed by the Legislature and approved by His Honour. That has still not happened. Here we are on Tuesday deciding by this legislation to make the pulp workers of the province of British Columbia, who have been locked out and may for the last period of time have been on strike, all lawbreakers because they didn't prepare to work last night. It's Kafkaesque and totally unnecessary and part of the clumsy handling of this legislation that has marked the government effort.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's nonsense. What the second member for Vancouver East, who is a former Attorney-General of this province, is saying is that all those people who disagree with tax changes, introduced in a provincial legislature or a parliament in this manner and are not yet passed, should not obey them because it's not the law. It is exactly the same thing. You're giving the same bad advice you always have. That's why your clients have always lost, but I would tell the people of British Columbia: "Don't take the advice of that member. Don't become lawbreakers." There is a spirit to the law that has existed for the common good, whether it is in the collection of moneys, the distribution or in the resolution of industrial disputes.

MR. COCKE: A personal smear!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and the Premier will come to order.

[4:30]

MR. PARKS: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the sanctimonious remarks that we have heard not only this afternoon but this morning and yesterday afternoon with respect to the concept of retrospectivity not being well known in this Legislature. For the record, I would like to recollect for the members of the loyal opposition who, to the best of my way of reading the bill numbers and dates involved, were part of a government which brought in a number of retroactive bills, such as an act to amend the Mines Regulation Act, an act that was not assented to until November 7, 1973, but had a provision to come into effect August 1, 1974; the Municipal Amendment Act, assented to November 7, 1974, but retroactive to January 1, 1974; and another non-tax bill, the Special Funds Appropriation Act, assented to June 9, 1975, but retroactive to March 31, 1975. There are a myriad bills through those three years alone. I don't think I need to go through each and every one. Yes, the majority are tax bills, but there are a number of non-tax bills, including labour legislation.

When the NDP were in government, they understood the doctrine of retroactivity, and they understood the doctrine of rule of law. I am most surprised to hear the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who very well enunciates the principle of the rule of law, stand up here somewhat piously and suggest now that he's on the other side of the fence, that it shouldn't be followed. I support the section.

MR. MACDONALD: I only want to say three or four words, Mr. Chairman. You do have retroactive tax legislation, which, until it is effective, nobody can be accused of breaking. When it is effective, you go back in time and collect the taxes; that's retroactive legislation, and we've seen lots of it. But we have not seen legislation which retroactively proclaims people lawbreakers for having broken the law before it is passed. That's what you're doing and you don't see the distinction.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one more point. It appears obvious that there will be a difference between the NDP and the government on this section. However, I've already publicly stated that what is going to happen next is another appeal to the workers to go back to work, and to the union leaders to advise those workers to go back to work, to meet with my mediator immediately and begin the process of collective bargaining. Regardless of the differences we have in this House today, I would appeal to the other side as well — the NDP opposition members in this House — to go back to their constituencies and advise their constituents, if they've got a hangup about when this bill becomes law, to forget it for now. Once the Lieutenant-Governor gives his royal assent to this bill, go back and ask your constituents to go back to work. That's in the best interests of all British Columbians.

Section 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 15

Hon. Mr. Bennett requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

[ Page 4201 ]

Title approved.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move that the bill be reported complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 18, Pulp and Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 18, Pulp and Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 7, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1984, and welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks with regard to this legislation.

The bill is intended to undertake a number of reforms in the Assessment Act. It does a number of things. It makes it clear that incomplete improvements are subject to property taxation. It permits exemption by regulation of particular types of improvements from municipal taxation. Most importantly, it introduces the concept of a biennial assessment roll. It provides, however, for transition — i.e., that the assessment roll prepared in 1983 for the 1984 taxation year be based on the December 31, 1982, assessment value. It changes the dates of various events in the assessment cycle. It requires landlords to supply tenants of designated types of property with assessment notices upon request. It also introduces a series of housekeeping amendments that provide for clearer direction to assessors and, I believe, better administration of the assessment appeal process. Each of these actions, after very careful consideration, is a necessary part of the government property tax reform initiative.

One of the important measures in the bill clarifies legislative provisions regarding the taxation of incomplete improvements. This action is made necessary by a recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, which exempted this type of property from taxation. The court decision created a situation where, in the absence of corrective measures, municipalities, school districts, other local governments and the province would not be able to tax buildings and machinery until they were completed. I think a number of members of the House will know that this reversed a long-time practice in British Columbia of assessing this type of property. In fact — and I'm subject to correction by a year or two.... I know that it goes back into the 1940s. It would have the effect of reducing the value of property subject to taxation, and as a result property taxes would need to be shifted onto other taxpayers in order to maintain current revenue. Such shifts in property taxes would result in tax increases for many tens of thousands of property owners. These increases would be most significant in the industrial sector, but not exclusively in that sector; they would reach to other classes of property as well. Tax increases of this type, in the government's view, are unacceptable during a period of fragile recovery. Therefore the bill contains measures which ensure that incomplete improvements will be subject to property taxation. This action will protect the financial position of local governments and will ensure property tax stability. It is strongly supported by municipal, school district and other local government officials, elected and appointed.

[4:45]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

A second measure introduced with this bill provides for the regulatory exemption of particular types of improvements from municipal taxation. This step is being taken to deal with another aspect of the incomplete-improvements matter. In dealing with this, the court indicated that they would have to consider the items — a zinc smelter and a paper machine were the items discussed — to be structures or landlord's fixtures rather than machinery, as they were previously thought to be. This would have had the effect that the completed items would be liable to both municipal and school taxes rather than just school taxes, as has been the case for a very long time. The application of this principle of assessing large pieces of machinery as structures would have profound implications for industry in British Columbia. Property taxes on many large industrial complexes would, by our estimate, nearly double, thereby significantly increasing overall industrial tax costs. Such changes are clearly unacceptable, so this provision allows the government to deal with such changes, thereby maintaining stable property taxes.

A third measure introduced in Bill 7 is the concept of the biennial assessment roll. I believe that the introduction of this reform — in fact, I know — will reduce the cost of the assessment system and provide the British Columbia Assessment Authority with the means by which it can achieve a 25 percent staff reduction. This, as you will know, is consistent with the government's policy of restraint. It parallels staff reductions in other parts of government.

The concept of an assessment roll every two years, rather than that which has been the practice for as long as I can recall, was first introduced in Bill 22, the Assessment Amendment Act. 1983. That bill, as the House will recall, was permitted to pass into the great beyond, or — the more usual phrase — permitted to die on the order paper. The idea of a two-year assessment cycle has now been significantly revised. Now both the reasons for appeal and the reasons for inclusion on the revised or mid-cycle assessment roll have been broadened. This follows a period of consultation on the provisions contained in the 1983 or the original bill. The changes made deal effectively, I believe, with the concerns expressed.

The fourth measure provides for the assessment roll prepared in 1983, which is the basis for '84 property taxation, to be based on December 31, 1982, market levels. The two-year assessment cycle thus commences with the December 31, 1983, roll.

[ Page 4202 ]

A fifth measure in the bill changes the dates of various events in the assessment cycle. This was spoken of in the consultative process which the then Minister of Municipal Affairs — the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) — and I carried out in the latter part of 1982 and the early part of 1983. Such action, we believe, will provide for better financial planning by both the property tax payer and taxing jurisdictions.

The bill also introduces a provision that requires landlords of designated types of properties to provide lessees with a copy of the assessment notice upon request. This measure was requested during those 1982-83 public meetings on property tax reform. In particular, but not exclusively, it will allow lessees whose rents are affected by property tax levels to be aware of the assessments on which their taxes are based and to take action through the appeal process if they, the lessee, disagree with the assessment. That aspect was particularly welcomed by both sides of the House in Bill 22 when it was introduced last year.

Finally, the bill contains a series of administrative measures to improve the clarity of some statutory provisions and to facilitate better administration of the assessment appeal procedures. Many of these measures correct archaic systems that no longer conform to accepted practice.

In summary, it is my view that this bill provides for continued stability in property taxes and for a more efficient and effective method of assessment. For these reasons, I commend it to the Legislature. Again, I move second reading of Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: Let me say initially that we are in general support of this bill. We will be supporting Bill 7. However, there are a couple of things I wish to comment upon vis-à-vis some of the specifics in the bill and in terms of the whole question of setting up a system of assessment for municipal purposes. However, the whole question revolves around the fact that municipalities always continue to have a shortfall in revenue. You may have the best system for assessing. Of course, I know that many members in this House remember that last session I laid out a number of alternatives for real property tax, but we won't get into that today. What I'm trying to say is that we can have all sorts of tinkerings with systems for collecting taxes and assessing properties. The critical thing for local governments, of course, is ensuring that they have adequate supply of senior government funding for their essential work. Unfortunately, today I recall that in question period I did ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) about a particular issue. For example, we are seeing a transfer of some heavy costs onto local governments and are not getting a response about that particular issue. The point I make — and I'll leave it, Mr. Speaker — is that okay, we're going to get the tinkering, but that won't help. More and more we begin to see the costs to local government continue to rise, and we see the provincial government remove itself from the traditional role. Again, the sheriffs issue is another example of that.

This kind of tax assessment amendment act is part of the property tax system or the local government revenue system. It will do nothing to aid that real problem. That's the issue we have to face. Again, I'm not going to reiterate.... I was most concerned that today the minister, for whatever reason, wasn't prepared to respond to that financial situation.

The minister has indeed introduced changes that will take care of the MacMillan Bloedel court decision back in September, and Cominco, I believe, that had managed to achieve a decision from the court, whereby property that was only partially improved would not be taxed on the improvements. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs are very well aware that it created a deep scare in local government; not only I as critic but municipal officials across the province were most concerned that the government was aware of the court decision in September, while we were debating some pretty heavy municipal issues and costs, etc. For whatever reason, they did not decide to plug that loophole at the time the court decision came down.

Here we are now, well into the tax year for local government, and rolls have been completed, budgets have been in preparation for some time. Mr. Speaker, I know you're well aware of that process. Of course there has been the distinct possibility for a long time.... I believe government inaction and wavering on this issue created a deep apprehension at the local level. They weren't at all sure whether they were going to be able to tax those improvements. Of course, the implications would be there of a fairly substantial shortfall in municipal revenue. At the time, a number of us said quite clearly what we thought about that wavering. I won't go into that again. Suffice to say, Mr. Chairman, I hope that that sort of thing won't happen again. It did, and I think the minister is aware that.... The minister had some problems at the time. He may be able to go into it. Maybe there were some problems. But the apprehension and the real financial concerns that it created and the apparent indecision on behalf of the government whether they were going to plug it....

Because we thought it was such a serious matter, we were prepared for the House to be called on that specific issue. We thought it had severe financial implications for local government, that we couldn't wait around for what we perceived might be retroactive legislation. The minister did finally say that he would be introducing something in this session.

I'll conclude these remarks about the process. I believe it was not a very good process, and I think all local government officials really wished that the government had taken some very quick steps to say: "Yes, we don't believe that that court decision should stand. Yes, those properties which have improvements should be taxed fairly so single-family owners, if they have improvements, are taxed or partially taxed." They should have said categorically right away that they didn't believe there should be some special system set up for major corporations or companies that through this challenge in the court would be getting some special report. That kind of commitment didn't come forth. However, we've got it here today, and I am pleased to see that. I know that all local government officials are very pleased to see it. I hope that that process, that delaying, won't happen again, because it sent shock waves through local government, They were really concerned that there was going to be an immense shortfall in revenue.

[5:00]

We do have a few concerns about revising the changes and dates of the assessment cycle, the introduction of the new interim revised assessment rolls which will operate in the second year. If I recall — it seems so long ago, because I think it was probably at four o'clock in the morning that I was talking about that particular idea — we did have some concerns about that. I think the minister has answered some of those concerns, and I'm optimistic that perhaps this will

[ Page 4203 ]

work. We'll see how it goes. I think the minister, having been in local government for a long time, is aware of.... If there are problems, I'm sure he will act, along with his Minister of Municipal Affairs, to try and see if we can correct some of those concerns, At the time, I had some concern about going away from the one-year assessment to two-year, but today I and, I think, our party are prepared to see how this will work, despite some of the initial concerns and concerns that we still have.

One of the other things that the minister mentioned was removing the sum of $5 and $2 charged the appellant for first entry appealed against subsequent entries. I'm glad to see that happen. The other extends the deadline for appeals to the Assessment Appeal Board from 14 to 21 days, and I welcome that, Mr. Speaker.

One of the things I have detected over the last few years — as have those involved in the local level of government — is the increased interest of citizens in their assessment notices, and there have been very good reasons. A few years ago we saw some substantial anomalies, given what was happening to the market, and their assessments stayed up. The appeal process was quite hectic, So anything that permits an owner of property to have a little extra time to lodge an appeal is reasonable. I think the minister should be....

It's a good move, and I endorse that.

Requiring landlords to supply tenants, mainly those in commercial properties, with copies of the assessment notice on request is a good thing. Again we endorse that and compliment the minister for bringing that in.

Mr. Speaker, in general it does some things that I think have been needed. The only slight issue I have, of course, has been with the process, and the minister heard those words. So I'll leave it there.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to make an introduction. I've checked with the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who is quite agreeable.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: I just noticed in the gallery Rev. Michael Holman of St. Peter's Anglican parish in Hazelton. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming him.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm bringing this to the attention of the minister again, and I think he's aware of the Section 1'm going to deal with. I know I'd be ruled out of order if I started referring to sections, so I'm talking on the principle of the bill. I feel assured that the minister will recognize the particular section when we deal with it, and I will deal with it in detail in committee stage. I would rather have the minister take it into consideration and if it comes in as a recommendation of the government, I know it would be accepted. That's section 26(4). Basically it's the section that was brought in, I believe — and if my research is correct — in 1964, when the assessment of land in James Bay and West Vancouver was skyrocketing because of the influx of builders developing highrises.

The government of the day felt that people who had lived in the community for a long period of time shouldn't be faced with the massive increases in the assessments of their homes. They brought in legislation that basically said that if you owned property for five years — and it referred to January 1959, which is still in this bill — then your assessment would stay at what it was at that time, providing you hadn't changed the use and the home remained residential. I imagine there have been many changes in the assessments over the years, but this date of January 1959 has stayed in the bill. I think the principle that was brought forward at that time that there would be a five-year.... If development around your home affected your assessment and drove it up, and you hadn't changed your use of that land — you were still using it as a residence — then that five-year limit could be construed.... As time went on, areas other than West Vancouver and James Bay.... Other areas in the province are now affected.

I would like to see the minister look at that section. He has amended it from January to November 1959; he could look at it with his officials and change that date to those who have owned their property for five years. I'm not asking him to change the principle of the 1964 legislation, but that the benefit given to certain areas within the province in 1964 to go back five years, that benefit for our senior citizens....

In my case, one of my constituents who is a war veteran happened to buy his property in 1960 under the veterans' land act. They've been living steadily in one area. Because of the economic development that happened around them, and property being bought up when he didn't want to sell, his assessment went from $70,000 to $200,000. I think the minister.... I know that if it's affecting one person in my riding, it's affecting thousands of people throughout the province. That one small amendment, keeping the principle that was brought in in 1964 that if you've owned the property and it has been your principal residence for five years....

An amendment that turns it over to the spouse so that she would be considered to have held it for five years is a simple amendment. I know the minister could look at it, and I would ask him on behalf of a lot of people that he consider that when we get into committee stage. I'll bring it up again, but I would rather that the minister brought it up and that he corrected it. I know there would be a lot of people — one especially — who would be more than happy to have that minister give that leadership.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, there's one aspect of Bill 7 that concerns me. I believe it concerns some other members as well — it should. That is its retroactive aspect. Several large companies and a few small ones went to court over the assessment of what was essentially their machinery and equipment. They went to court back in 1981, and proceeding — first through the Assessment Authority, where they lost — finally to the Supreme Court of Canada, they overturned the legislation. Now we're in the process of changing the legislation so that it will catch those kinds of investments, principally heavy machinery and equipment which becomes a fixture in a plant. Several companies whose names are well known were involved — Cominco, MacMillan Bloedel, Scott Paper — but there were several small companies as well. They did what you and I have to do if we are to protest an assessment. It doesn't do to protest orally, it doesn't do to protest in writing and it doesn't do to withhold payment, What you have to do under our legislation, or at least under the practice of the law in this province, is go to court. You have to proceed to court immediately; you have to pay lawyers' fees; you have to continue to press your case right through to the highest court in the land to get a resolution. This legislation reverses a court finding. I gather that if I, for

[ Page 4204 ]

example, had not been enthusiastic about an assessment of my home and had merely protested, had indeed only withheld my taxes, I would have had to pay at some time. But in their case they did what practice demands. They pursued the matter in the courts. Now because it is deemed — and I'm not persuaded that this is the case — that others might be able to recover taxes because of that particular court decision, the government is proceeding with retroactive legislation.

I find it interesting that the members opposite, the members of the New Democratic Party, can be opposed to retroactive legislation if it applies to organized labour, but they haven't a qualm if they believe that retroactive legislation applies to organized business. We are making it impossible for those few companies to avoid paying taxes which they would not have had to pay under the legislation. We're not only doing that; we're also making it impossible for them to go to court in the future, relative to those particular investments. We're upsetting a court decision and we're reaching back as much as three years. It isn't a matter of, as is customary now at budget time, announcing on a particular date that henceforth the law will read differently and subsequently passing the law through the Legislature days later, weeks later or even months later. This is a case of the law having been written, having been established for many years and finally being found wanting because someone — in this case several companies — took the law through the full court process.

I know that the Minister of Finance, his officials and a number of municipalities feel that to recognize that court decision will, in their view, expose them to having to compensate others. I don't think this is true. It's never been the practice of compensating others. If I had taken my home assessment through the courts and won, there is no way my neighbours could obtain a reassessment reaching back to the date when I first went to court. That is certainly the opinion of all the legal authorities I've discussed this matter with. I don't believe that the exposure of the provincial government, the treasury, municipalities, regional districts or regional hospital boards is anything like that which some people have suggested it is.

[5:15]

It does bother me that we are reversing the law, that we're reaching back, not days or weeks, but years. We are wiping out a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and we're making it impossible for those who took to the courts in order to prove their point.... We're wiping that out and making it impossible for others to ever hope that if they take their assessment to court it won't be reversed by another government. This is a bad precedent. It's very bad law. It's the kind of legislation which people who believe in the democratic process should be ashamed of, and that's the reason why I'm going to vote against the particular clause, which is retroactive. It is not only retroactive in a blatant way, but it removes from those litigants their right to ever go to court in the future with respect to this matter.

There are other aspects of this legislation. We tax machinery and equipment, obviously imperfectly in the past, but we've taxed them. Most other provincial jurisdictions in Canada do not, and very few states in the United States do. They certainly don't tax machinery and equipment which has yet to be installed, or which is in the process of being installed. This is a deterrent to capital formation and industrial development. That, I realize, is a matter for another day, and I hope that in the not too distant future it will be possible for this administration to give some relief, if not total relief, to industry and business in respect to modernization and installing new machinery and equipment.

Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to get up and speak on this matter of retroactivity. I think retroactivity is reprehensible not only in respect to labour matters or individual situations but also in respect to businesses, large and small. It's a bad practice, and this province doesn't need a reputation along those lines. I feel that I must voice my strong feelings in that regard.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to some of the matters. I've made notes as I could in the course of debate on second reading.

In chronological order, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) spoke about alternatives for real property taxes. May I simply say, sir, that I have already indicated that I intend to undertake a study of tax in its broadest form, commencing this summer and going through into the fall, and that, of course, would not exclude the question or issue of property tax and the assessment leading to property tax. I look forward to any and all interested organizations and individuals in the province making oral or written submissions, as they wish, on this topic and the whole question of tax when those meetings are scheduled.

The court case. The second member for Victoria is not in his seat at the moment, but he may be listening. Nonetheless, for Hansard, I wouldn't want to leave the impression that the government simply vacillated on this, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that following the decision in the B.C. Court of Appeal, we asked leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and we awaited a decision with respect to that leave. That took us well into December and then at the earliest opportunity, having had that leave denied, the government announced its intentions, which are contained in Bill 7. So we were awaiting events rather than wondering what should be done or how it should be done.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The member also referred to the volume of assessment appeals. Happily this is one beneficial sign of the reduction in property values. The number of appeals has lessened significantly, and the volume has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years, and I think that indicates that most property owners feel the assessed values assigned to their properties are generally in line with the value. They may not be happy with the value, but they're not arguing with the assessed value for tax purposes.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) mentioned the 1959 rule, which, for reference, is part 3 of the Assessment Act, section 26(4). He can raise it again in committee, but I must say that I'm not prepared to consider altering that date of 1959 at this particular time. Rather, let us wrap that into the next general review of tax and assessment matters, which as I indicated will take place later this year.

The member for North Vancouver—Seymour (Mr. Davis) and I have exchanged correspondence on the question of the retroactivity contained in this section of the bill. Indeed, we've exchanged more than one letter. I appreciate his point of view. I don't agree with it in this instance. However, I think that in my own defence I must point out that in this exhaustive process of meetings on property tax, to which I referred at the opening of debate today — some 13 or 14 public meetings,

[ Page 4205 ]

which went on for many hours; perhaps the Chair is tiring of hearing of these meetings, but the fact is they were hold in all parts of the province — the question of that retroactivity was not raised by any intervener or by anyone who made a submission on behalf of a very large company or on behalf of himself. It simply was not alluded to.

MR. NICOLSON: It's before the courts.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, something to do with assessments is always before the courts in one way or another. That's just the nature of the beast.

MR. LAUK: How did you describe the courts?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, the "nature of the beast" being assessments.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now with all the interjections, I don't want to be misunderstood. The nature of the beast, i.e. the assessment of property taxes.... There is always something before the courts to do with that topic, and that did not seem to dissuade those who made presentations in the course of those meetings around the province. That fact did not discourage them from expressing their views.

I have examined — indeed, the government has very carefully examined — the points made by those who subscribe to the view espoused today by the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. But as I said at the outset, the practice, the convention and the pattern in B.C. with respect to incomplete improvements should come as no surprise to anyone operating in this province, having been in place for longer than I've been out of high school, if you want to put it in that context. It's that long ago — 1948 or 1949. I accept the fact that, as with other tax measures, assessment matters are going to be tackled in courts of revision, in Assessment Appeal Boards and in the courts themselves on a continuing basis. I become concerned, however, when I sense that the number of attacks on assessment matters seems to be increasing. That is certainly the right of the individual or the firm or the property owner. Nonetheless, I have to tell the House that it appears — as a layman, I observe — that this is an area where tax law appears to be under increasing attack. In the long run, it may be healthy for the process. It may be healthy for the raising of money through assessments on property for local government use, for school use, and in the case of non-municipal areas, for regional districts of the province.

It means, I think, that we are going to have to have a continuing series of assessment amendment acts over the years to come. I do agree with the member for North Vancouver-Seymour. Without anticipating presentations which will be made later this year, I trust that we can reach the point in British Columbia where machinery and equipment are not assessed for property tax purposes. I do not make that as a commitment, Mr. Speaker. I don't say that it can happen by 1985, 1986 or 1987. But clearly we are in the minority in this regard in Canada. I would be very happy when we can readjust the sharing of cost associated with property tax and get out of the taxation of machinery and equipment. I know there are those who will strenuously agree with that point of view; there are others who will not. I express my view for some time down the path.

It is a pleasure therefore that I note the comments which have been made. I understand the critical comments which have been offered. Nonetheless, I believe that this amending act is appropriate at this point in 1984.

1 move second reading of Bill 7.

Motion approved.

Bill 7, Assessment Amendment Act, 1984 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. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 14, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984. This bill amends the act as a consequence of similar amendments introduced and approved in the Income Tax Act (Canada). All of the amendments proposed in this legislation have been requested by the federal government, under the terms of the Canada-British Columbia tax collection agreement. Adoption of the amendments will allow the federal government to administer the income tax system under one set of rules. Failure to adopt the amendments, as we now function with respect to the federal government, would be a breach of the tax collection agreement.

The requested amendments pertain to the calculation of tax for individuals electing to forward average, as well as the computing of the foreign tax credit. In addition, the amendments expand the types of payment from which deductions at source are required to be made. Further, adjustments are made to the installment base for farmers and fishermen who are subject to the low-income reduction factor. Finally, the amendments enhance and clarify the tax collection authority of Revenue Canada with respect to liability of directors for source deductions, the issuing of demands on money seized by the police in criminal matters, and the ability of the minister to acquire property for satisfaction of tax. The bill provides that the amendments to be enacted have the same effective dates as the comparable legislation adopted in the Income Tax Act (Canada). It is in effect an omnibus bill. I look forward to answering specific questions at committee stage of debate.

I move second reading of Bill 14.

[5:30]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, over the last 15 years or thereabouts, commencing, I think, with the time that the Minister of Finance for Canada, Mr. Benson, introduced the very complex set of alterations to the federal Income Tax Act following a royal commission report on income tax matters, we have seen an increasing and confusing complexity in income tax law. We have seen it filled with loopholes and potholes and sinkholes, and it's got to the point where the average citizen is perplexed more and more each taxation year with the demands placed upon him or her with respect to filing income tax returns. Instead of seeking to find simplicity in the law, we've got complexity in it. I'm not sure offhand when the current federal-provincial tax collection agreement comes due for negotiation, but it would seem to me that would be a prime opportunity for the minister to try to

[ Page 4206 ]

negotiate some simplicity in the law and not make it such a mishmash and a porridge of complexity that the average person can't find a way through.

This bill before us, while as the minister said it's a requirement, a result of the federal-provincial tax collection agreement, is in itself a hodge-podge of incomprehensibility — cross-references and the like. It deals to an extent with the forward averaging concept in income tax law, the fundamental of which is that if a person thinks that his income in subsequent years is going to be less than it is in the given year, then he can go back three years, I believe it is, and use a set of formulae to elevate his income in those preceding years, presumably taking account of some inflation factors, or tax factors, and then end up with a credit on the tax payment side in anticipation of earning less income in the future. Because it is a requirement, as the minister said, under the Canada-B.C. tax collection agreement, and because if it isn't passed the government will be in breach of that agreement, I assume we're in breach of it now and have been so for some time, and the passage of this law will correct that breach.

We certainly wouldn't want the government of B.C. to be breaking the law. I'm sure the minister wouldn't like to be breaking the law. But perhaps we have. All I'm saying is that there is a demand factor upon us to support this particular bill, and we respond to that in a favourable way, with the caveat that it is complex, with the caveat that tax law is becoming more complex, and with the hope that if this Minister of Finance has anything to do with the negotiations with respect to a new tax collection agreement between Canada and British Columbia he will open those negotiations with a demand for simplicity in the law, and not complexity, in order to satisfy the everyday needs and requirements of average taxpayers in this province and in this land of Canada as well. If we can show the way to the feds in this complex area of personal and corporate income tax, we can do something beneficial for the rest of Canada as well.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker. It is rare indeed that I find myself in agreement with the member for Skeena, but that's the nature of this place. I am in this instance — let it not be precedent-setting — in complete agreement with his observations. Not to do this, of course, the member observed, would further complicate an already complicated and frustrating process, and we would be in violation of the agreement.

The ultimate solution — and I certainly am not yet ready to recommend it to the Premier and my colleagues — is that British Columbia give notice that it collect its own income tax. That requires three years' notice as of a certain date, and I'm sure that a number of us would be sharply divided, whether that occurs in terms of corporation tax or personal income tax or both. As we all know, it has happened elsewhere. That's a matter of record. As an example, in Alberta there is a separate corporation income tax system. But there are some negatives. Perhaps I'm straying beyond the intent of this bill, but to the extent that any provincial minister is able, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member of Skeena (Mr. Howard), I certainly shall continue to point out the absolutely incredible complexity of the tax form and the income tax system. I know I will hear a great deal about that in the hearings which are proposed for later this year and to which I alluded earlier.

We can deal with this in greater detail in committee, as I said at the outset. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1984, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour is in the vicinity.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.