[ Page 11863 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 11863

Taxpayer Protection Act (Bill 92). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11863

Mr. Clark - –– 11s64

Hon. Mrs. Gran –– 11866

Ms. Marzari 11867

Mr. Reid –– 11868

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 11870

Municipalities Enabling and Validating, 1990 Amendment Act, 1991

(Bill 84). Committee stage. (Hon. L. Hanson) –– 11872

Mr. Blencoe

Third reading

Property Rights Act (Bill 90). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 11874

Mr. Sihota –– 11874

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of and on behalf of the member for Comox, I would like to introduce a group of students who are here with us today and with whom I was visiting before you all arrived. Would the House join me in welcoming the Comox students in the gallery today.

Hon. Mr. Weisgerber, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources for the year ended March 31, 1990; and the 1990 report of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Assessment Authority of B.C. for the 1989 fiscal year.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I call second reading of Bill 92.

TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, the Taxpayer Protection Act implements two of the most significant components of the government's 12-point taxpayer protection plan announced by the Premier on January 29, 1991. Part 1 of the act introduces measures to prevent an increase in provincial tax rates for the next three years. Part 2 commits the government to responsible fiscal management based on the taxpayers' ability to pay, by requiring the government to balance the provincial budget over a five-year cycle.

Taxpayers throughout Canada are complaining of the excessive burden of taxes. Increased taxes and new taxes, especially at the federal level, have pushed taxpayers' tolerance to the absolute limit. Our government intends to relieve the burden on taxpayers and give them the assurance that their taxes in British Columbia will not rise.

Accordingly, part 1 of the Taxpayer Protection Act prohibits tax rate increases in provincial taxing statutes as listed in the bill prior to March 31, 1994. This means that income tax rates, the sales tax rate, the hotel room tax rate and others will not increase over the next three years.

The formula that determines the tax rates for motor fuels is also frozen for a three-year period, although adjustments in response to changes in the consumer price index will continue. Tobacco tax rates are not included in the tax rate. Property taxes are also excluded from the legislated tax rate freeze; however, we expect property tax rates to decline for the majority of taxpayers in British Columbia.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Culture has advised local governments that they should not increase their demands on taxpayers. For our part, the provincial government will not be asking for more revenue from property taxpayers. In fact, most homeowners will pay less in net school taxes this year than last, as my colleague the Minister of Education has previously announced.

Let me also point out that although this bill prevents the government from increasing tax rates, it does not prevent us from lowering them as our budget situation permits. As well, the act prevents the provincial government from introducing any new taxes whatsoever.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's right, no new taxes.

The central purpose of part 1 — in conjunction with the expenditure and deficit control measures in part 2, which I will discuss — is to protect provincial taxpayers from higher taxes now and in the future.

Part 2 of the Taxpayer Protection Act ensures that the government's budget will be balanced over a five year-period and that growth in government spending will be tied to the rate of growth of the economy over a similar length of time.

Specifically, part 2 requires the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations to table a balanced budget plan in the Legislative Assembly annually on the day the estimates are tabled. In this plan, general fund expenditures cannot exceed general fund revenues over a five-year period beginning in the fiscal year to which the tabled estimates apply. This will ensure, at a minimum, that the general fund budget is balanced over this period.

In addition, total expenditures in the first year covered by the balanced budget plan cannot grow at an annual rate faster than the average rate of growth in the economy. This means that the provincial government's share of the provincial income will not increase. In short, the size of government will be limited by law. The act also requires a debt reduction plan to be tabled each year at the same time the estimates are tabled.

It is intended that this plan show how the minister plans to reduce the government's direct debt. This is a major aim of our government, and we have been very successful over the previous two fiscal years in reducing direct government debt. During that time, the government's direct debt has been reduced by $800 million. Now we propose to put that commitment into legislation.

The act requires the tabling of a balanced budget progress report, which will show very clearly to the Legislature the annual and accumulated surplus or deficit for each fiscal year from March 31, 1991.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the act provides for transfers from the budget stabilization fund to the general fund for the 1990-91 and 1991-92 fiscal years. Following these transfers, the act dissolves the budget stabilization fund and repeals the Budget Stabilization Fund Act. Later next month, when I bring down this government's next budget, because of the type of good fiscal management that this act puts into law,

[ Page 11864 ]

the accounts for the year ended 1990-91 will be balanced. That's right. This government will repeat an accomplishment unequaled by any socialist government, including the New Democrats: two balanced budgets back to back done without raising taxes, as some would do.

The tax freeze in part 1 of the Taxpayer Protection Act, combined with the controls of expenditure growth and deficits in part 2 of the act, will ensure that government remains affordable for taxpayers today, and that deficits and debts are not shifted onto future generations.

This side of the House has been listening to the people of British Columbia. Whether in Burnaby or Burns Lake, Victoria or Vanderhoof, the people are saying they don't want bigger government and higher taxes, and that's what this bill is all about.

[10:15]

This act is consistent with previous legislation introduced in this session, in that it respects the ability of the taxpayer to pay. It's too easy for government to simply tax and spend, as others would have us do. Ours is not a government of big public sector unions and special interest groups which have a vested interest in liberal spending policies. Social Credit is a government of the people, and the people want low taxes and small government. The people want legislated tax limitation, and this bill is going to specifically provide that for British Columbia.

Some may choose to vote against this legislation because it limits the growth of government. I know there are sectors in this province and, indeed, in this chamber, which would like to see larger government. That's not the British Columbia way; that's not the Social Credit way. Let me state that a vote against this bill, which is a vote in favour of tax increases, is a vote against the rights and desires of the people of the province — rights that this Social Credit government, as all Social Credit governments past and in the future, has and will always uphold in the face of infringements by socialist regimes.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with protecting taxpayers. It's nothing more than an empty election ploy, something we've seen time and time again in this very short session. It should be retitled; instead of the Taxpayer Protection Act, it should be called The Social Credit Death-bed Repentance Act.

This Social Credit government, during its four-year term in office, has raised taxes on middle-income and working British Columbians, and introduced an unprecedented degree of unfairness in our tax system. Now they claim, with a straight face, that they're going to freeze taxes if they get re-elected. The Socreds have run up huge spending increases in their last two budgets in a fruitless attempt to buy their own re-election. Now they're promising to change their ways — to repent — if they're given another chance. They claim that now they'll curtail their spending and balance the budget within five years.

The Socreds have used the budget stabilization fund — sometimes called the BS fund — to conceal their deficit financing from British Columbia taxpayers. Now they say it was a mistake, and they're proposing to abolish the budget stabilization fund — four and a half years into the mandate. We applaud this decision. Of course, it repudiates the last four and half years of fiscal management of this administration. It represents a deathbed repentance that will fool nobody. British Columbians no longer trust this Social Credit government. They know that it will say and do almost anything to get re-elected. British Columbians know that they've been in power long enough.

Mr. Speaker, part 1 of the bill purports to freeze taxes. In his January address to the province the Premier promised to "impose a freeze on taxes." But now we have a bill that says the government is only promising to freeze tax rates. What this Social Credit government is really proposing to do is freeze a tax system that has been made more unfair by this administration. I'd like to look now at the record of unfairness that they are now proposing to freeze.

Personal income tax. In its first budget brought down in 1987, this government raised personal income taxes from 44 percent to 51.5 percent of basic federal tax payable, while at the same time cutting the income surcharge on high-income earners. Income taxes paid by British Columbians have increased by 64 percent since 1987 in terms of total tax payable. That far outstrips the 42 percent growth in the provincial economy over the same period. British Columbians are now paying $1.4 billion per year more in income taxes than they did when this government took office.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Because they're earning more money.

MR. CLARK: The property purchase tax, a major new tax which affects homebuyers, was introduced in 1987. The property purchase tax, imposed by this administration on homebuyers, now brings in to this government $200 million in revenue every year. Now they say: "We're going to freeze it; we won't raise it anymore" — after they introduced it.

Large increases in Medical Services Plan premiums were introduced by this government in 1988 and again in 1989. They were increased by 33 percent in 1988 alone. These now cost British Columbians approximately $200 million in additional premium payments per year. That means they get $200 million a year more as a result of their increases in medical service premiums. Now they say: "We're going to freeze it at that level, and we won't raise it anymore" — and they expect kudos for that.

We have seen major fee increases introduced in each of the last four provincial budgets: a total of 784 fee increases and of those, 229 brand-new fees on everything from drivers' licences, up 150 percent, to extended-care fees for seniors, up 27 percent, to marriage licences, up 150 percent. Every single fee imposed by this government has been raised since

[ Page 11865 ]

they came into office - as well as 229 brand-new fees, licences or permits in British Columbia. Now they say, with this bill: "We're going to freeze them there; we won't raise them any higher."

Mr. Speaker, the fuel tax rate was increased from 20 percent to 22.5 percent at a cost to B.C. motorists of $45 million per year. They're paying $45 million per year more in fuel taxes because of a tax increase by this administration. Now they say: "We're going to freeze it there; we won't raise it any higher."

B.C. Hydro has imposed a hidden tax on electricity consumers. This government ordered B.C. Hydro to pay a new dividend in 1989 — an extra $124 million from the pockets of electricity consumers in the 1990-91 fiscal year alone. That's a hidden tax on electricity consumers, which they say is now frozen. "We won't raise it anymore, " and that tax is frozen.

At the same time British Columbians were subjected to this unprecedented tax attack by this administration, large corporations enjoyed tax breaks totalling some $500 million per year. It's very simple, Mr. Speaker. They have raised taxes on working people, on the average family in British Columbia, and they have cut taxes on large corporations. Now they want to freeze that unfairness with this legislation.

It is clear that now, on the eve of a general election, they're saying: "We won't do it anymore." Given the long-standing failure of this government to tell the truth, to distinguish between right and wrong, does anybody really believe that this promise will last more than the two or three weeks of the election campaign?

Even a cursory glance at the bill reveals that the so-called tax freeze — even the tax rate freeze — is full of holes. For example, this bill does not include school taxes. It does not include rural property taxes levied by the province. It does not freeze motor fuel taxes or tobacco taxes or medical service premiums. None of the 784 fees that have been hiked over the last four years is included in this legislation. Nothing prevents this government from raising those 784 fees, licences and permits again. This bill doesn't do that.

The markup charged by the liquor distribution branch is another hidden tax. Is that frozen by this legislation? No, it's not. The hidden taxes on electricity consumption — could they say to B.C. Hydro: "We want another $2 million. Raise electricity rates"? Yes, they could. That's not frozen by this bill.

The bill doesn't even guarantee a rate freeze on those taxation statutes that are listed. It says that the Income Tax Act is frozen. But we all know that if they wanted to raise the income tax, they would have to bring in a bill to raise it. All this means is that they have to bring in a bill to raise income tax with a consequential amendment to amend this act now before the House. Even for the taxes listed in the act, it doesn't do anything beyond what was already the case. They still need legislation to change that, and that legislation could still be forthcoming with this legislation.

The bill also contains clauses which limit government spending increases and require balanced budgets over a five-year budgetary cycle. Balancing the budget and spending within the means of British Columbians are objectives that we on this side wholeheartedly support; however, let us consider the record of this government in achieving those objectives.

Bill 92 states that government expenditures shall not grow faster than the growth of the economy over the preceding five years. But this fiscal year, this government's spending grew by about 11 percent, and the economy grew by only 8 percent. They are violating their own act this year. The previous fiscal year, government spending increased 12 percent, compared to an economic growth rate of 8 percent. In the last two budgets, we've seen spending increases of 11 percent and 12 percent, but the growth in the economy was 8 percent in both of those years.

Even with respect to the legislation which says we should freeze spending to the rate of growth in the economy, they haven't done it. They come here and repent. They say: "We won't do it anymore. We're going to keep our spending at the rate of growth of the economy.” But if the government feels it needs legislative constraints to make them behave more responsibly, then we on this side have no difficulty supporting those restraints.

This government has run up a large operating deficit this year, probably over $700 million. It may be higher. Both the previous and the current Finance minister have been laying the groundwork for an even larger deficit in the next fiscal year. This bill requires that the budget be balanced over a five-year time-frame. That's the first time you've heard that, Mr. Speaker, and the reason is obvious. It's because they need it to justify a large deficit in this budget coming down at the end of April. That's why they brought the bill in before the House.

Finally, the bill winds up the BS fund — the budget stabilization fund. British Columbians have known for some time that this so-called fund was nothing more than an accounting device designed to hide the true bottom line. There's no money in it. I remember what Peat Marwick said: that it's not a fund in the sense that there's any money in it. And, of course, the certified general accountants and others said that. It's very clear. The auditor-general has said that. It's an accounting device designed to conceal the true bottom line. The accounting community and the broader community have seen through that. The previous minister has admitted that there is no money in the fund. So we welcome the government's move to end this accounting charade. It's long overdue. We're glad they've repented with respect to the BS fund.

However, we hope the government is not planning to use the BS fund, and I suspect they are. Because they are liquidating this fictitious fund, it appears that they are going to try again in a budget — if they bring it in; if they last that long — to hide a large deficit at the end of April or whenever it comes forward. That's clearly the purpose of the bill. They need to liquidate the fictitious amount in the BS fund to try to pretend there's a balanced budget. If there's no money in the BS fund and no prospect of putting any money in it, then they might as well abolish it.

[ Page 11866 ]

That's why we have this part of this legislation before us today.

[10:30]

This bill represents nothing more than an empty election ploy designed to convince British Columbians that the government has changed its ways. It represents a death-bed repentance, which will fool absolutely nobody in British Columbia. Nevertheless, British Columbia taxpayers urgently need some relief from the tax unfairness of this government. They deserve a government that's prepared to live within its means and to come clean about the true state of the province's finances.

Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to support this bill. We will be moving some amendments to try to deal with the tax unfairness, but with this bill the public can at least be assured that in the budget, which will come down very shortly, this government will not take the opportunity to raise their taxes yet again, as they have done in every single budget since this administration came to office.

HON. MRS. GRAN: I rise to speak in support of Bill 92, not just as the Minister Responsible for Women's Programs, but as an MLA from the Fraser Valley, and in particular from Langley, where we have the largest majority of families per capita in all British Columbia. This bill is extremely important for those families to guarantee the future for their children. In the near future, as has been alluded to by the previous speaker, the people of this province will be asked to make a choice. That choice needs to be very clear.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We hear lots of political rhetoric from both sides of the House in this wonderful room filled with mystique and tradition. I want to talk about where the public are today. I want to talk about the public from my point of view, because, after all, we are still all members of the public. I want to say that the public are tired of political rhetoric. They're tired and distrustful of governments at all levels, and they're tired of the media.

That brings us to a place in our society that's very sad: where the public no longer feel that they can believe those people who should be the most trustworthy in our society; where they no longer believe what they read in the newspapers or what they actually see before their eyes; where they no longer believe politicians, because of the promises.... I agree with the second member for Vancouver East. Political parties have for far too long made far too many promises at election time. Sometimes those promises have been empty, and sometimes they have been fulfilled to the detriment of those people we all represent.

Bill 92 speaks to many of those issues. The public are tired and burdened by taxation. We're not talking about the taxation of just the provincial government but also the federal and municipal governments, regional districts and all the other levels of bureaucracy that take from the same pocket year in and year out.

The public, particularly those in their senior years, are worried about change and wonder what that change means for them.

But back to my opening statement about families. It's families I'm most concerned about — children, and what the future holds for those children. For our grandchildren and for their children, all of us in this room need to be concerned about what government does.

The unfortunate part about the debate at this particular sitting is that there is a pending election, and it makes for a debate that perhaps would be different if it were at the beginning or in the middle of a mandate.

We all want to be re-elected — those of us who are running again — particularly the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who I sincerely hope doesn't get re-elected. I say that with no malice, because I believe that there are things done by politicians that simply shouldn't happen and that colour all of us. There's a lot of soul-searching for every one of us in this room and in our political parties to do. Have we grown with the times? That includes the Social Credit Party.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. GRAN: The member from Burnaby, who is extremely absent and not very well known, is asking me about the Justice Institute. It isn't part of Bill 92, which I'm standing here to speak on, so the calls for me to talk about the Justice Institute are not appropriate.

I want to talk about where British Columbia is and why Bill 92 is so appropriate today. British Columbia is in the most enviable position of any province in this country, and we all know that. We all know also that it isn't just because of government. It's because of the kind of province that we live in and the attributes here. That's why most people in the rest of Canada want to live in British Columbia. They know that this is the only province that's had a balanced budget for the last two years. They know that British Columbia spends more money on social programs than any other province. They know that British Columbia has reduced its overall debt and that our overall debt picture is the best in all of Canada. They know that our taxation system is the fairest in Canada, and they know that less debt and debt payment means more programs for people.

I think it needs to be said.... Much is thrown across the floor from the members opposite about the spending by this government in two particular areas, and Bill 92 is going to be very helpful there.

Health care accounts for one-third of the total government expenditure. To make it more easily understood, we should break that down to $13 million a day every day of the year. There will never be enough money to fulfil the needs of our health care system. That's why we have to look at more innovative and better ways to address the health care

[ Page 11867 ]

concerns of the citizens not just of British Columbia but of Canada.

Education expenditures under this government since 1986 have increased 52 percent. In a discussion with the president of one of our universities, he told me that no other government, including Social Credit governments, has ever been as responsible in the area of post-secondary education. And that's true; it is a simple truth that no one can argue with.

There's no question, Mr. Speaker, that we are behind in our education needs. Education is the most important component in our society today, not just to educate our children but to educate our entire population. People going to post-secondary institutions today are no longer young people from high school. Many of them are 35 and over — much older — and those people want to keep up with the changing times. They want to assure themselves of good-paying jobs. It includes women, because women are often the victims of poverty in this country. Bill 92, in my view, is going to ensure those people a far better future than if government spending is allowed to continue out of control.

The federal government has decided to put on the brakes. We all know where the federal government is at. We know that this is a bankrupt country, and we have to come to terms with that. We live in a prosperous province, but we're also part of a country that has great difficulties. We have to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. I believe that British Columbia needs to take the kinds of leadership positions that are being taken in this House today.

I'm pleased to hear the second member for Vancouver East, whom I have a great deal of respect for, say that the NDP intend to support this bill. It makes me feel good to know that we can come together in this House regardless of our political differences on issues of such great importance to the citizens we represent.

When the day comes that we all need to make a choice in this province between two political parties who both have the very best of intentions, one party is going to be more popular than the other. And I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it's not going to be based on manufactured scandals. It's not going to be based on a lot of the innuendo that we've heard. It's going to be based on policies. It's going to be based on bills like Bill 92.

It has given me great pleasure to stand up today and speak to Bill 92. I support it 100 percent.

MS. MARZARI: Mr. Speaker, Bill 92 raises the question: when is a tax not a tax? When can government claim that they're not going to be taxing people when in fact every day and in every way taxes are increasing for the ordinary person in this province by leaps and bounds? My colleague from Vancouver East spoke to some of those.

Let me try to answer the question of when a tax is not a tax. You can talk about ability to pay with your clever language, and you can talk about protecting the taxpayer. But let me suggest to you that what you're protecting the taxpayer from is himself and herself. You're protecting the taxpayer from the very benefits, services and other things that people in our country and our province have come to take for granted — part of their citizenship and heritage.

Ironically, by bringing in Bill 92 and promising no more taxes, you're basically saying that citizens will be protected from legal services, from building sewers and sidewalks, from mental health services and from adequate universal medical care. You are protecting people from themselves. The only thing you're not protecting people from is your government, as you continue to overspend and spend us all into oblivion. You are guilty of 12 percent expenditure increases over the last two years.

When is a tax not a tax then? A tax, in your minds, is not a tax when it's a licence fee. You've increased licence fees throughout the provincial administration, very often without consulting municipal administrations, who also charge the taxpayer licence fees for various developments and for various improvements. Where's the coordination on those increased licence fees that the provincial government has brought in over the last three years?

When is a tax not a tax? A tax isn't a tax, you say, when it's a user fee. What senior citizen in this province hasn't had to pay that first $125 for Pharmacare, a service which in most other provinces is free to senior citizens? Our seniors are now forking over that first $125, plus user fees on other necessary services that seniors have considered a necessary complement of medical care that they have received over many years.

In fact, one senior day care coordinator told me in Vancouver that every second Wednesday a podiatrist came to the centre to help seniors deal with aching feet, bunions and those diseases and ailments of the feet that can cripple people and land them in chronic care wards. But a little bit of preventive help at the podiatry level can help them out. The day the $5 user fee came in, the number of people who came to that clinic actually decreased — all of them too proud to say they weren't coming because they had to pay $5. None of them would claim that, but the coordinator of the centre knew that.

So much for when is a tax not a tax. You're taxing people with user fees. That is a tax.

When is a tax not a tax? You're saying that you're going to be working closely with municipalities to encourage municipalities not to increase property taxes. You're actually trying to promise people in this province, across the airwaves, that they're not going to be faced with increased property taxes. Because the provincial government is cutting back on necessary services and funding to municipalities, when those cities have to increase their property tax, you guys are going to say: "That's the city's fault; that's not our problem. Throw out your city council. They're not being responsible; they're increasing the property tax."

[10:45]

Let me suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is one taxpayer's pocket; it is that pocket which pays

[ Page 11868 ]

the whole show — everything from sewers to sidewalks to legal services to police to courts to economic development to the Supreme Court of Canada. It is that one taxpayer's pocket which is paying the whole shot. To say that you're going to be blaming the municipalities if they increase property taxes, because they are going to have to face the increased burden of dealing with provincial cutbacks, is blatantly unfair.

I can think of one case: mental health services. This government does a brilliant job of deinstitutionalizing our mentally ill and putting them into communities — a fine and laudable thing to do. Then this government refuses to pay the price to ensure the quality of care and that the homes in those neighbourhoods — in my neighbourhood — are properly staffed, properly run and properly supported. That money is drying up, and you're talking about freezing taxes.

When is a tax not a tax? When you're not raising it? I fear not. The municipalities and cities will have to raise that money through their property tax, Mr. Speaker, and you are going to blame them. You're going to be blaming the local level of government that is actually providing the service — which we are here to have an overview of, to have the big picture on.

When is a tax not a tax? Well, according to you, if it's not actually there in the income tax, it doesn't exist. Let me suggest that it's equally taxatious — if that's a word — on the general public when government does not collect revenues that it should be collecting; when government neglects its duty, its trust responsibility or its contract with the people and does not collect taxes when it should. And, Mr. Speaker, the list for this government can go on and on and on.

The Expo lands. This jewel in the crown of privatization and a billion-dollar piece of property is sitting in Vancouver waiting — public land — to be sold. Needless to say, this side of the House would have leased that land and would have received the revenue on it for hundreds of years to come. But this government, in its attempt to pull money in, fell far short of the real market value of that land and basically blew a $1 billion opportunity by selling it for its real dollar value of $150 million. Then we found, of course, that it was going to cost about that much to clean up the land from toxic wastes and disposal of poisons over many years. In other words, we took a $1 billion opportunity and we blew it. We blew it not just in financial terms, but we blew it for all kinds of reasons that have to do with the morale and spirit of a community and with the ability of citizens to plan their own downtown area in Vancouver. We blew that opportunity. We have a $15 billion budget in this province every year, and we blew a billion.

You might say: what's a billion? That is uncollected revenue. When is a tax not a tax? I suggest that by not collecting properly on the Expo lands, we blew $1 billion. I'd say that by not collecting properly on our forest resource, we are blowing millions of dollars — perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars — a year. And you say that you're going to protect the taxpayer. I say: look to the revenue side of the ledger, not just the expenditure side, and we will see then when a tax is not a tax.

Mr. Speaker, my personal favourite part of this bill is the fact that it's going to disband the budget stabilization fund. Much has been said about the smoke and mirrors, and the now-you-see-it-now-you-don't nature of the BS fund. But perhaps the best words that were written about this fund were written not by rhetorical socialists ranting about provincial budgets, but by Peat Marwick, when it reviewed the 1990 B.C. budget. The words of Peat Marwick — a very reputable management consultant which is used by most governments across this country — come across with all the candour and non-rhetoric that can be mustered: "In reality this is not a fund at all — at least not a fund in the sense that there is money in an account identifiable with this fund. In fact, a review of the balance sheet of the general fund, budget stabilization fund and privatization benefits fund discloses that liabilities are projected to exceed assets by $2.667 billion at March 31, 1990. In other words, the accounts are in deficit by $2.667 billion."

March 31, 1990 — a year ago — was the time that our government told us we had a balanced budget. They patted themselves on the back for their fiscal responsibility and tried to let it be known that they were running a tight ship, that they knew how to manage our economy. May I suggest that our government is full of baloney. It's a sham. It's smoke and mirrors. When you have reputable companies that deal on a day-to-day basis with corporate finance and public administration across this country speaking to the smoke and mirrors.... I'm using the political terms. They are using the hard bottom-line terms that have to do with $2.6 billion worth of deficit in a year when you were talking about a balanced budget. This is testimonial enough to the fact that Bill 92, the Taxpayer Protection Act, is more rhetorical garbage coming from a tired, desperate government that wants to protect no one except its own political behind.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in taking my place in this debate on the Taxpayer Protection Act. I'd like to read one more time the explanatory note on the purpose of the bill: "The purpose of this bill is to keep the costs of government at levels that the taxpayer can afford. Consumer and business tax rates are frozen for a full three years. Government expenditures will be tied to the growth in the economy, with any increases to be at or below the rate of economic growth."

Mr. Speaker, that says it all, except that we must elaborate some, because the people out there in British Columbia, the taxpayers.... There is only one taxpayer who pays all the bills, whether it be federal tax, provincial tax, municipal tax or school tax. But there is a fear in the taxpayers now that for some reason governments have lost control of managing

[ Page 11869 ]

their money and will just keep coming back to them, to their so-called deep pockets.

The evidence across Canada today, without a doubt, is that taxpayers in every province are facing very difficult times during recessions. There was evidence just yesterday: the Quebec government froze wages and benefits of all provincial government employees for the coming year. We did not have to do that in British Columbia. We did not have to freeze all the increases, but we did put a lid on them.

The reason why British Columbia is able to offer some compensation to the employees in the province is that we have managed well over the past years. We did create a rainy-day fund, which allows us to do the kinds of things we've been able to do. But there is a fear on behalf of the taxpayers out there today that governments don't understand the dilemma that when employees are laid off and plants close and communities freeze, we're still going to have to go to them for more money. We need to have some security in the community that it isn't going to happen. So the tax rate freeze for three years is a very necessary thing.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Also, Mr. Speaker, expenditure limitations are being put in place; balanced budget plans are being demanded. A balanced budget is something this government believes in, and we will balance the budget again during the current fiscal year. That's a tremendous explanation or description to the taxpayer out there that this government, by virtue of planning for the future, has been able to put us in this position — and it's a tremendous position to be in. But the taxpayers require in the coming years some comfort that that will stay in place.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, in my community alone.... I'm sorry the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley has left, because we have a very big dilemma in Surrey: it's the fastest-growing community in British Columbia and the fastest-growing school district. The budget for the Surrey School District alone is over $208 million, and 80 percent of that is wages and benefits. Our school board and our teachers have just settled for a 7 percent benefits and wage increase, plus other increments, which is creating a shortfall for our district right now, on settlements made, in excess of $10 million.

I received a letter. I wish I had brought it to the desk; I would have liked to read it to the audience. The letter was from the schoolteachers in my district asking me to appeal to this House to not pass budget restraints, increase restraints, because they've settled on what they determined they need. Unfortunately, I don't think the taxpayers agree with that. The taxpayers in Surrey are not looking forward to a $10 million referendum. But unless the teachers who have received this increment and this wage promise decide to roll back what they've asked for, there will be a problem in relation to the number of teachers we can retain in Surrey, which will be sad. And the size of the classes will have to increase, which they've just negotiated.

[11:00]

Unfortunately, the taxpayers are saying to me: "When is this going to stop? When are we going to get some control over what we have to put in the kitty?" If the province doesn't have the money, where is it coming from? The fact is that it has to come from the local taxpayers, by virtue of a referendum. In my district — in the Surrey municipality — that means an additional.... This year the Minister of Education gave an incremental increase of $19 million to the Surrey School District; that is $10 million short of the demands as a result of the settlements just being made out there. It's incredible.

Somewhere along the line, our taxpayers need the protection of government, which will say: "We're not coming to you any longer. We're going to manage. We're going to budget well. We're going to balance budgets. We're going to cut the suit to meet the cloth." We must. Taxpayers, with the economy the way it is and with businesses struggling, especially in Surrey, with its close proximity to the United States border.... We have that other dilemma the Minister of Agriculture just announced: the businesses that pay their fair share of local costs and taxes have lost a major portion of their income because of across-the-border spending.

Taxes only come from one person; the same person pays them all. I want to reiterate that. There is only one taxpayer. There's only one pocket. There's only one wage-earner, and that's the one person we need to offer some protection to. The federal government comes for more; the municipal government comes for more; the provincial government comes for more; then the school district quasi-government comes for more. Mr. Speaker, the municipalities can't handle it any longer.

Right now, health care in this province takes the largest portion of our budget. I know, as the previous speaker said, that health care is a priority of this government. That's the reason this government put an additional $300 million-plus into the budget last year, and we're putting hundreds of millions of dollars into it this year. It's $4.8 billion, up in excess of $300 million.

The Education budget for the province, as the previous speaker said, is up 56 percent since 1985 or 1986. It's in excess of $3.2 billion. The Social Services budget is $1.5 billion, up in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars. This government has considered, and does consider, all the people in the province who are needy. We have provided programs and services that have been demanded and that are necessary for our public and for our taxpayers.

We also appreciate that, because we had a rainy-day fund.... We created a rainy-day fund in the province when the economy was strong, when there was sufficient money coming in from all resources and all sources. We positioned all the services that must pay their fair share, and we were able to accumulate the kind of money we need through the tough times we're in now and the tough times we're

[ Page 11870 ]

heading into in 1991-92. We're in a position to look after those needs as they accumulate and increase.

But I'm troubled that the members opposite want to continue to propose that, never mind, whatever the pockets are.... It's like what Ontario's going through with the socialist government they put in place. They're going to have the worst dilemma of any government in Canada. Well, they have it right now. Within months, they will come out with a budget that will indicate without question what their type of government, their type of leadership, is. "It doesn't matter what the cost is. Go to the taxpayers. Put it in the bill, and we'll collect it and divvy it around."

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you I have a major concern for the taxpayers out there — each and every one of them. There's only one of them. I want them to know that this government has a major concern. I want them to know that we're putting this bill in place in order that they have some assurance over the next three to four years that government will not be heading to their pocketbook anymore for incremental amounts, because we've managed well over previous years. We offer fiscal management, good budgeting and a government that has seen the problems that were developing. Other governments didn't do that; we did. For that reason, I'm happy to stand in my place to speak on behalf of this bill.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm pleased to rise and close debate on the second reading of Bill 92. I listened with great interest to my critic, the hon. second member for Vancouver East, soon to be the first member for Vancouver East. Unfortunately, he treated this legislation in what appeared to me to be a very cavalier fashion.

This is an important piece of legislation for the people of British Columbia — probably one of the most important pieces of legislation that any government will ever bring down. For the first time in the history of this province or indeed in the history of most provinces across Canada, we are actually freezing tax rates by legislation. We're actually doing it.

The opposition, and in particular the hon. second member for Vancouver East, complained that we were spending more than we had in previous years. Yet time after time after time during estimates and at other times.... I realize I'm not supposed to refer to another motion, Mr. Speaker. During debate in this House I have heard critic after critic say that the way to get out of a problem in education and health and all these areas is to spend, spend, spend.

Listen, hon. members, the reason we have been able to spend more is that we have been able to manage better. I sat in this House along with some of the other members — one of whom is retiring now, and I have a great deal of respect for him, the hon. House Leader for the opposition — when we heard the place literally rock with thousands of people out on the front lawn all spelling doomsday, they said, for the Social Credit Party. Do you know why they were doing it? Because we had the intestinal fortitude to limit the size and scope of government in this province. I sat here night after night around the clock, and I watched member after member.... They even had ratings, A, B and C. They had buttons on them, I remember.

If we had not taken those steps back then to reduce the size and scope of government in the province, you wouldn't be enjoying, your children wouldn't be enjoying and the people of British Columbia wouldn't be enjoying the relative protection that we have from that made-in-eastern-Canada recession that's blowing in on us. That took courage, and this act is another leap of courage.

I hear the hon. members complain that this bill hasn't gone far enough — from an opposition that says they want to tax and tax and tax. Not just any taxes, mind you. What they want to do is raise corporate taxes. Unfortunately, unless I have the press clippings wrong, the second member for Vancouver East said that he wouldn't raise just any taxes; he'd double corporate taxes. Maybe it was the fellow up in Nanaimo who said that. What's his name? The chap who's going to be between "kremlin" and "krugerrand." Krog — that's him. He's the fellow that said he was going to double corporate taxes. There's nothing that makes a socialist's blood run more pure or pumps the adrenalin up more than to get at corporations. It's like Aesop's fable — if you can somehow kill the goose, you'll get all the golden eggs at one time.

I remember another member in this House, the hon. Leo Nimsick. After he was defeated from office, he was giving an interview. I think it was on CBC or BCTV. They said: "What do you think about all the bills, the Mineral Royalties Act that you brought in, the super-royalties and all of those things that that government brought in from 1972 to 1975— those 1,200 dark days and dark nights?" They asked Mr. Nimsick: "How did you affect the mining industry?" He said: "Well, I turned it around." Well, he sure as heck did turn it around, I'll tell you. He turned ore into rock in this province. And this opposition has the audacity to stand up there and complain about fiscal management — to complain about revenues being increased in the province of British Columbia.

Do you know why revenues are increased? Because there are more people working than have ever worked before in the province at any other point in time up until this point in time in history. Last year....

MR. HARCOURT: Bring in a budget.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We'll bring in a budget in good time and you'll see it, hon. Leader of the Opposition, and I'll be pleased to debate with you on the hustings any day of the week, any time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Minister of Finance has been recognized and has the floor. It would be appreciated if he would direct his comments to the Chair. Other members will have their opportunity to stand in place.

[ Page 11871 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, they were complaining that revenues have increased. Do you know why they've increased? Because we've got more people working.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Well, you're talking about expenditures — government revenues increasing. Do you know why taxes and revenues are increasing? It's because there are more people around working to pay taxes than there were before. That's why; that's the answer. We intend to keep it that way in British Columbia.

In this province we have about 11 percent of the nation's population — give or take a point — but we created almost half the jobs in Canada right here in British Columbia. That's why we're doing well; that's why we've been able to spend.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

You'd better start looking at some of these Ontario numbers. If you want to start talking about what has happened in Ontario. They say we've lost 6,000 jobs in the last year or so in British Columbia. I was reading about what happened in Ontario. Just in the first few months of socialist bliss in that province, they drove out 158,000 jobs. Take that kind of socialism and bring it to British Columbia. I don't want it at all. The people won't vote for it. This legislation opposes that sort of legislation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He wants to tax corporations.

Another complaint that is interesting to me that the hon. member would bring up in this House is about the government's markup on alcohol. If you took alcohol and the problems that it causes across this whole province, the amount of money that we collect in a year would provide hardly a portion of the health costs, social costs and other costs. He's complaining about the markup on alcohol, cigarettes and tobacco. I don't understand. You can't have it both ways. You can't have those double standards that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew spoke of.

He complained also about the budget stabilization fund and said that this marked the death-knell for something in British Columbia. He complained that there was never money in the fund.

[11:15]

The hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, as well as you and I know — he understands some of the pressures on the Canadian dollar — that one of the reasons we are having trouble selling our commodities around the world is that the Canadian dollar is inordinately high. Why is it so high? Because governments in Canada are going to the bond market first and putting pressure on those dollars, and they've got more foreign debt out there around the world than they have ever had at any other point in history up until now. That's what is keeping our dollar up.

That's what is happening in Ontario. The Ontario government is borrowing and borrowing, to the point where they're driving down their credit rating, shoving their interest up, shoving up the expectations in this country and keeping the dollar high.

What we have done with the budget stabilization fund is take that money, and rather than borrowing on the international marketplace and being part of the problem, we have been part of the solution. Hon. member, the people of British Columbia, when they look back on the fiscal management of the last four and a half years of this government, will thank it for the budget stabilization fund and for the vision that it has had.

We are now moving into a new era. We don't stand static. We're not like the socialists; we're not trapped in the nineteenth century. We're moving ahead in this province, and we're moving into a new type of budgeting, realizing that there are those economic peaks and valleys. We have promised British Columbians by legislation that we would take over a five-year business cycle and balance the budget, and every single year we would provide an update on where we're at.

Name me another jurisdiction in all of Canada that has the courage to bring in this kind of legislation. There isn't an NDP jurisdiction that would do it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You wouldn't do it, hon. member. I've seen the legislation you have put forth here by way of private members' bills. We've done some costing on them, and I tell you that you would put us into the mire that they are into now in Ontario within a few months of your taking office. You're not going to get that opportunity, because the people won't give it to you. They took a chance back in 1972 in British Columbia, and they're not going to take a chance again.

The hon. member talked about where we're spending money. He said we weren't spending correctly. I want to tell you where we're spending money. This is for the first nine months of the current year. The Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology expenditure of $813 million was up $88 million, or 12.1 percent, from the same period last year, due to higher contributions to universities and colleges. What is happening in the province of Ontario? They are raising tuition fees and passing on their inefficiency and socialist ideology to the students in Ontario. That's what's happening, and that's the model the opposition leader wants to impose upon British Columbia. We won't have any part of it.

The Ministry of Education, with an expenditure of $2,199,000,000, was up $209 million, or 10.5 percent, from the same period last year. The Ministry of Health, with an expenditure of $3,502,000,000 for that period, was increased by $381 million, or 12.2 percent, from the first nine months of last year, as a result of increased contributions to hospitals and

[ Page 11872 ]

higher spending on the Medical Services Plan and Pharmacare — services for people that we could afford because of good fiscal management in British Columbia, and which we will continue.

Bill 92 is just another step in that whole process of consecutive Social Credit governments. From the time of W.A.C. Bennett in 1952, through the time of Bill Bennett and to the time we are in now, we have been fiscally responsible. This is another move, hon. members, in that direction.

Debt is a tremendous problem to the people of Canada. I've talked with some of the members of the opposition in the hallway. They're good friends of mine. Some of them are retiring, and I hate to see them go. I appreciate them. I appreciate where they're coming from and their integrity. They're all honourable members. I don't believe in their philosophy, that's all.

Somebody said: "Why, at the age of 62, are you running again?" I'll tell you why. It's not because I need the job, hon. members; it's because I don't want to see the three children and four grandchildren that I have be given a legacy such as the NDP government is trying to deliver to their people in Ontario. I believe that socialism is wrong in Sweden; it was wrong in eastern Europe; it is wrong for Ontario. It is wrong for British Columbia, and that's why I'm here. That's why I'm working. There's no other reason —no hidden motives. It's right out in the open, hon. member — no double standards. I simply do not believe in socialism. I do not believe it will work. I think it's the wrong medicine. It never worked before, and it won't work now. No matter how you dress it up, hon. Leader of the Opposition, you can't take it out. You can't take it out, because it won't work.

What is happening across the country? Do you know that today 37 cents out of every tax dollar that is sent to Ottawa is just to pay the interest on the accumulated debt — and it's rising.

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Oh, oh, oh, oh! And I'll give you some more, hon. member. I'll talk about Ontario — that great, wonderful, new province of Ontario. What do they call it in this edition of the Toronto Sun? They say: "Welcome to Gulag Escarpment Ontario in the 21st Century." I didn't say that. It was said by a writer in the Sun — some guy by the name of Michael Bennett — when he spoke about the possibility of a $10 billion deficit in the next fiscal year that's upcoming in the province of Ontario. "But," he said, "$15 billion may be closer to reality." All that for a year and a half of socialist bliss in the province of Ontario.

What's happening in Ontario? It's important. It's instructive for us to look at some of these numbers, because it's important in relationship to this particular bill. In Ontario it used to cost them — up until the New Democratic government took power just a few months ago — 10 cents out of every dollar. That wasn't too bad. It was too high, but it wasn't too bad.

It looks now — by the middle of next year — that it will cost them 20 cents out of every dollar just to pay the interest. They've only got 80 cents left to pay for services, for tuition — for people in school, for education — for health care. And they are borrowing and borrowing to pay for the daily operation of the government. We have not been doing that in the province of British Columbia, because we have managed well.

Do you know what the servicing cost is in British Columbia? The interest cost is 3.3 cents, the lowest of any place in Canada, and that's because of good fiscal management.

The federal government is going in the hole at about the rate of $57,000 a minute as we sit here. By the time we enter the new fiscal year, they'll probably have a debt of some $400 billion to service. In their own way, Ontario has learned nothing from that. They're travelling down that same road, hon. member.

We don't want socialism in British Columbia. We're not going to tax the people of British Columbia beyond their ability to pay, which is the essential point of this legislation. We have no intention of doing that. We realize that when the people have no ability to pay, government shouldn't be going out and mortgaging the future of our children and our children's children so they can pay for the wanton spending of a group of politicians that don't have the courage to say no once in a while.

This legislation is good for British Columbia. It leads the way in Canada. I wish Ottawa and Ontario would take a leaf from British Columbia's notebook. I move second reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 92, Taxpayer Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[11:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 84.

MUNICIPALITIES ENABLING AND

VALIDATING, 1990 AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

The House in committee on Bill 84; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

The member for Victoria.

[ Page 11873 ]

MR. BLENCOE: I see the staff are arriving. I'd like some background on this section and on why there's a change in property tax exemptions for farm property. Maybe the minister could give us the rationale and tell us why it's good.

HON. L. HANSON: As the member who asked the question is probably aware, the community being discussed here is probably, in terms of square miles, predominantly a farm community. The interest of the community in forming their own municipality, and thus their own government, is partially predicated on the fact that the change in taxation that the farmland may experience would be a severe shock if it was encompassed all at once. We really don't know what tax implications that will have until a municipality is formed and they do in fact set their rates and so on.

This would give the farming community a sense of comfort, in that they would have the ability to phase in any implications of taxation changes as a result of becoming a municipality over a five-year period. It spells it out: 20 percent the first year; then 40 percent, 60 percent and 80 percent, until finally at the end of five years there's 100 percent application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria.

Would you kindly advise which section you might be on? Technically we have passed sections 1 and 2, hon. member. There are only two sections in the act.

MR. BLENCOE: Actually, Mr. Chairman, we're on section 2. In the explanatory notes it refers to tax exemptions for farm property. If you wish to move to section 5.... Is that what you're saying — that the questions are better on section 5?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is part of section 2.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: We'll consider that section 2 is divided into subsections and take them seriatim.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On subsection 5, hon. member.

MR. BLENCOE: On the same line of questioning, I presume this is just in anticipation of a request for the formation of a municipality.

HON. L. HANSON: Yes, that's a correct assumption. We don't know what the result of that referendum may be. The committee that has been going through the process of the study to see the impact of municipal incorporation hasn't yet decided on a date. It's expected that it will be this spring and that this would allow, under those circumstances of phasing in the taxation, a municipality to be formed with those special considerations.

MR. BLENCOE: If there is a change by referendum, then this section will come into place. I presume that this has no implications for existing municipalities or regional districts in terms of tax changes, notices, revenue shortfalls or anything else like that.

Subsections 5 and 6 of section 2 approved.

On subsection 7 of section 2.

MR. BLENCOE: I am not familiar with this requirement for Anarchist Mountain electric power. I would like to have some description.

HON. L. HANSON: The Anarchist Mountain Power Authority was originally formed to extend hydro to a residential area. The recapture of the costs of doing that extension was originally intended to be on the basis of a parcel tax. Unfortunately, when it actually came to be assessed, they did it on the basis of assessment. The error was discovered in the original philosophy. This subsection would, first of all, validate what has happened up to this point, and would then return it to what the original intention was — on the basis of a parcel tax.

MR. BLENCOE: So this is basically a correction of past legislation. When that sort of thing happens, it sometimes creates problems for things we really have to correct. Have there been any negative impacts of this — I don't want to call it a mistake, but an oversight — that you have to correct or that we have to be forewarned about?

HON. L. HANSON: First of all, it was regional district legislation that was applied incorrectly as to the way it was originally drafted. I would be wrong to say that it is not going to affect some taxpayers negatively and some positively. The original intention, of course, was what we were concerned with, and that is very clear. Despite all of that and despite what has happened in the past, the majority of people are comfortable with going back to the original intention.

MR. BLENCOE: Then I presume that this change is a request from the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen. They're the elected people; they live with the consequences of that change.

Subsection 7 of section 2 approved.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Bill 84, Municipalities Enabling and Validating, 1990 Amendment Act, 1991, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 11874 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call second reading of Bill 90.

PROPERTY RIGHTS ACT

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I thank you very much for permitting me the time to get into the chamber. As you might have expected, I was otherwise occupied.

As I mentioned in the introductory remarks, the bill is designed to extend the policy of the Land Title Amendment Act, 1989, which covers general conveyancing documents, particularly land transfer and mortgage documents. That came into force on April 1, 1990.

The objective of the reforms was to make conveyancing documents short, legally effective and understandable to most people. The idea was to eliminate the use of traditional documents that are too often very lengthy and unusually verbose. By emphasizing plain language and standardizing the form of such documents, the 1990 reforms have clearly made the land title system more accessible and more understandable to most people.

The 1990 reforms focused on two types of conveyancing documents: the freehold transfer and the mortgage. The reforms contemplated in this bill are directed primarily at other conveyancing documents, such as lease, right to purchase and restrictive covenants. In effect, they will standardize the form and preparation of these and other kinds of general conveyancing documents, and in some cases supply the legal validity necessary to make the document effective.

The bill provides for one-page conveyancing, with the flexibility to add an additional page if such is necessary in order to deal with the fine print....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You should be on Bill 90.

HON. MR. FRASER: Oh.

Those other documents become a little more understandable.

Basically, what we're talking about in this bill, the Property Rights Act, which is an extension of what we might have been talking about before.... It gives the right of property to every British Columbian. It is a special stand-alone bill that is the first of its kind in Canada, although there are other bills in Canada that refer to property rights.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: If indeed there is some evidence that we're not the first, I'm pleased that we're part of the system. But my understanding is that we are the first.

The sense of it all, of course, is that we want to make sure every British Columbian enjoys the right to property; whether it's real property, as we understand it, or intellectual property. We want to make sure that everyone who deals with government with respect to property is dealt with fairly. By this bill, we are making it more difficult for governments to take real property away from people. We will have to go through more hurdles. As a consequence our work will be more difficult, but in view of the fact that we seem to have rather immense powers anyway, this seems to me a particularly good step.

With that, I will move second reading.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to deal with this legislation, first by just letting the House know that this side of the House, for the purposes of this debate as it relates to this legislation, will be supporting the legislation.

There are a lot of reasons why we will be doing that, and I want to get into them in a few minutes. I am somewhat mindful of the time, because my comments might take us past the noon hour, but I think I'll start and then try to finish, hopefully, within the next 15 minutes.

[11:45]

There are several reasons why this bill is going to be handled in the fashion that we've chosen to handle it. First of all, I think it's fairly obvious that this is very political legislation, The government has introduced this legislation as part of its own political agenda, and it has been put before the House in order to achieve a certain political objective. I'll let the Premier- who I see carefully crafting notes there - know right off the bat that I don't see any reason to fall into the kind of political trap that he thinks he has cleverly laid here.

Secondly and more importantly - and that's all I'm going to say about the politics of the bill - I want to talk about the principle of the bill and why we're going to support it in principle. The principle of the bill really is a principle of due process, which is enshrined in this legislation.

Of course, Mr. Speaker, in a free and democratic society - in an open society like the one we have in this country - people's rights ought not to be denied without the provision of a good justice system. I think these comments are perhaps important in light of the day's developments.

It is absolutely essential that we have a judicial system in this country that has the confidence of the population at large. It is essential that we have a judicial system that is fair and independent, and it is essential that individuals feel that if their rights are being denied in one way or another, due process will accord to them the opportunity to state their case, speak their mind, articulate their position and have the trier of fact- be it a judge or administrative tribunal - make a decision based upon the facts that are before the trier of fact.

It is that attribute that makes due process and our judicial system work. It is the sense of confidence that must be attached to the judicial system that will make it work, and there is no right more important than the right of due process - the right to know the case against yourself, the right to have the opportunity to state your case, the right to rebut the case from the other side, and the opportunity to cross-examine the other side if necessary.

[ Page 11875 ]

So we on this side of the House certainly embrace the concept of due process, but I see from today's comments that others perhaps do not pay as much homage to the concept of due process as should be the case.

Dealing with property rights and the due process provisions in this legislation, there are two approaches that deal with the Impact of this legislation. I want to deal with both. Some will argue that this legislation is simply political and will have very little substantive effect on the state of law in British Columbia. Others will argue that it will have significant substantive effect. I want to deal with both elements of the argument because it is essential that we have a calm, rational debate around not just rights or property, but the denial of those rights through a system of due process.

So 1 want to begin first with the argument that this will not have any substantive effect on the state of law in British Columbia. It's important to preface those comments by pointing out to the House that we in Canada - unlike the United States - have not put the right of property and the denial of property under due process in our Charter of Rights. We've made a conscious decision not to do that.

It is, however, wrong for the Attorney-General of this province to say, as he did in this House a few minutes ago - and then quickly try to divert attention from it - and as he did in his press release, that we do not have rights to protection of property in this country and in this province. We indeed do. In fact, Mr. Speaker, if I may quote in particular from a legal instrument that has existed in this country since the Diefenbaker era, the following right is enjoyed by all Canadians, be they British Columbians or otherwise: "It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist... (a) the right of the individual to life, liberty and security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law....”

This right was given to all Canadians around 1958 under the provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights. That law still stands. That law has been a part of our jurisprudence in this country for well over a generation. I find it surprising that the chief law enforcement officer in this province is not aware of this. The comments he makes in introducing this legislation, and the press release accompanying this legislation, indicate that he is unaware that: (a) Canadians have a Bill of Rights; (b) that it has existed for a generation; and (c) that it provides the very rights that this legislation seeks to provide to British Columbians.

Of course, that begs the question, as my colleague said. "Why are they doing it?" I've alluded to the reasons why. They are obviously, either, on the one hand, ignorant of the state of the law in this country, or desirous of embarking on some type of political course, thinking that this is some type of political minefield for one party or the other. More about that a little later on - in particular, the comments of the Premier as they relate to the ownership of land.

I will not fault the Attorney-General on this point. I will not fault him for not realizing that this law exists - not simply because of his background, but more importantly because there has not been a lot of jurisprudence on the matter of the Canadian Bill of Rights and the rights of property enjoyed thereunder. Many have argued that those rights are not substantive, that they have not had a substantive effect on the state of law in this country. There's good reason as to why the courts in this country have refused to go in the direction of the American courts vis-à-vis the rights of property. I'll talk a little bit more about the extent of American judicial interference and adventurism in a few minutes.

Traditionally in this country, we as Canadians and as British Columbians have set up another system distinct and apart from our Canadian Bill of Rights - and distinct and apart from this legislation - which seeks to protect the rights of property and provide to people the protections of due process.

Let me give the House some examples, if the Attorney-General is not familiar with these. We have, for example, developed statutory law which seeks to give people the very rights that this legislation seeks to give. For example, we have provisions in the Land Title Act and in the Expropriation Act that say very clearly that one cannot lose one's property without a form of due process. We have provisions, apart from land, with legal statutes such as the Personal Property Security Act, which was introduced by this government as part of uniform legislation.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the attitude taken in this country, historically, has been that the type of legislation before this House is duplicitous; that those rights are already enshrined on a statute basis; that they already exist in our law; that they are, for example, already provided for in the Expropriation Act and the Personal Property Security Act. You cannot be faced with the threat of losing property without due process.

We have taken a different approach instead of having the broad brush of a vague constitutional provision like the Americans, we've done the opposite. We've gone to very specific legislation that enumerates very specific rights. We've provided that through statutory law. That, in part, is why the Canadian Bill of Rights has been deemed to be duplicitous.

Of course, statutes do not cover all aspects of property; of course, statutes do not deal with every effort to alienate property. Therefore a studied analysis from someone who understands the law on this matter would lead one to want to examine the provisions of our common law. If the Attorney-General, in his capacity as chief of law enforcement of this province, is not aware, the common law has also gone out of its way to provide common-law remedies, process and rights as they relate to property for hundreds of years - since the Magna Carta, which I'm sure most members in this House understand to be part of this country's founding documents.

At the time, the purpose of the Magna Carta was "to guarantee against the oppressions and usurpa-

[ Page 11876 ]

tions of the royal prerogative." From that point on, we developed a system of common law to make sure that there is due process as it relates to the alienation of property. We have provided people with all sorts of common-law rights with respect to the protection of their property.

Let me give you a few examples. We have provided riparian rights under our common law. We have said that you cannot, for example, interfere upstream with a watercourse so as to affect the use and enjoyment of the water of someone who lives downstream. That's not stated in our statutes, but it's part of Canadian and British common-law jurisprudence. It's a right, a protection of property. If that right is in any way alienated, hindered or meddled with, then a citizen has the protection of due process, of our courts and our common-law scheme, to make sure that that right is preserved.

We have, for example, in a more contemporary sense, provided common-law remedies and common-law protection through our courts, in terms of foreclosure law. Of course, people can possibly lose their ownership of property because of provisions with respect to foreclosure.

Mr. Speaker, we have said that there ought to be protections for individuals so they do not find themselves turfed out on the street tomorrow because of an action by a large financial institution. Our common law has developed a set of rules that gives people, for example, six months of protection-six months of relief - and, in the event that that practice is not accepted by a financial institution, the right of an individual to seek recourse before the courts - to seek due process, to be able to go in front of the courts and argue that they are entitled to that six-month provision.

So we have it not just in the area of riparian rights, not just in the area of foreclosure law, but in general real estate law -in general law dealing with real property in this province as well as personal property.

Some will argue that the provision now before the House is duplicitous; because, first of all, it exists under the Canadian Bill of Rights, and therefore any Canadian can seek redress under the provisions of our Bill of Rights; second, because it exists in our statutory laws on a specific basis; and third, it exists in our common laws. With respect to those common laws, not only does it exist in the area of property but with respect to the alienation of any rights. For example, it is a well-known tenet of administrative law with respect to any matter where any of your statutory rights.... Even if it isn't specifically spoken to in a statute, individuals have certain rights. Those rights are the same rights they would have of, as we would call it, due process: the right to know the case against you, the right to argue that case, the right to rebut the evidence against you, the right to cross-examine the party on the other side and the right to a fair and independent hearing. Those rights exist as a part of our common law. It's our British heritage.

It seems to be lost on this government, as it embarks on some type of political escapade in the introduction of this legislation that these rights exist in common law, in statute and in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Speaker, that gets me halfway through what I wanted to say, because so far I've talked about the non-substantive effect of this legislation. There will be others who will argue that it has substantive effect. I will comment on the substantive effect of this legislation after the luncheon adjournment.

Mr. Sihota moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.