Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1992

Volume 2, Number 17

[ Page 1139 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

R. Neufeld: It gives me a great amount of pleasure to introduce someone from my constituency. It's not often that people make it all the way from Fort St. John to Victoria. I would like the House to join me in making Annette Reeder truly welcome to Victoria.

F. Gingell: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce today two members from the B.C. Real Estate Association board who we met this morning: Rosemary Barnes, and a good friend and a very lucky person because he lives in my constituency, John Eastwood. I ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Pement: I would like to introduce some members from the Cariboo Real Estate Association: Charlie Northrup from Smithers, and Rory Conroy, my brother, of Prince George.

B. Jones: Hon. members, we have joining us today a prominent educator in this province, somebody I had the pleasure of working with for nine years on the Burnaby School Board, Dr. Elmer Froese. Dr. Froese is superintendent of schools in Burnaby and has had opportunity to make contact with Russian educators in recent years. With Dr. Froese today are some distinguished Russian educators in a delegation headed by Dr. Vladimir Sobkin, who is head of a delegation and councillor with the Russian ministry of education. Also, Irina Iazvina, Tatyana Kromchenko, Yuri Kotelnikov, Dr. Irina Sofieva, and from Washington, Dr. Franklin Hill. Again, with apologies to Hansard and to our Russian guests, My imeem bolshuyu chest imet vas zdyes s nami. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

L. Hanson: On behalf of the members of the third party, I'd like to welcome all the realtors in our gallery, and particularly one from my home town of Vernon, Mr. Stan King. Also, on behalf of my colleague from Okanagan West, I'd like to welcome Fred Brown and his wife, Wendy, who were very kind to us and hosted us to dinner last night. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Giesbrecht: I too would like to welcome all the guests from the B.C. Real Estate Association, particularly the northwest rep who's a constituent of mine from Terrace, the home of the Kermode bear, Dick Evans. Would the House please make him welcome.

D. Symons: I would like to introduce to the House, Bernie Waatainen and Ellen Waatainen, Bernie's mother, who's come all the way from Thunder Bay, and her granddaughter Gail to visit us today and to see the House in action. Make them welcome, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: On behalf of the member for Langley and myself, I would ask all members of the House to welcome 28 grade 6 students from Langley Central Elementary School and their teacher, Mr. Hilson.

J. Beattie: Hon. Speaker, it's my pleasure today to welcome to the House two constituents of mine: the outgoing president of the South Okanagan Real Estate Board, Keith Bevington, and the incoming president of the South Okanagan Real Estate Board, Doug Ashton.

Actually, now that I look up, I see another honourable constituent from Okanagan-Penticton -- or at least one who was a constituent -- Mike Ingraham, an editor of the Penticton Herald. We've had some differences over the years, but I would very much like to make him welcome to the House as well, so please help me.

Introduction of Bills

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 37, the Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.

This bill contains amendments to a number of statutes administered by the Ministry of Attorney General. Those statutes are the Commercial Arbitration Act, the Court of Appeal Act, the Evidence Act, the Expropriation Act, the International Commercial Arbitration Act, the International Sale of Goods Act, the Offence Act, the Parole Act and the Sheriff Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

Hon. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Bill 37 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

RESOURCE COMPENSATION
INTERIM MEASURES ACT

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 32, the Resource Compensation Interim Measures Act.

The province is currently involved in a number of proceedings concerning claims for compensation for forest and mineral interests that have been taken by the Crown for a public purpose. The absence of an established and accepted basis for determining compensation in these cases has resulted in significant differences of opinion as to what constitutes a suitable settlement.

To address this problem, the government established a commission of inquiry to examine principles and processes to be used in determining compensation for 

[ Page 1140 ]

forest and mineral interests that have been taken by the Crown for a public purpose. Pending the findings of this commission, it is considered necessary to introduce legislation which will place a temporary freeze on all such proceedings. This will save unnecessary costs to all parties in these proceedings and will prevent any actions or findings that might influence the independent nature of the commission.

Bill 32 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

DOCTORS' PENSIONS

G. Wilson: My question today is for the Premier. It comes as a sad day in British Columbia when doctors find themselves having to take themselves from their offices and gather together to try and have some fairness from this government. Is it the opinion of this Premier that only those who are union members and have collective bargaining rights have the right to have a deal honoured in this province?

Hon. E. Cull: It seems the Leader of the Opposition is under the misimpression that many physicians in this province are under: that we are not prepared to negotiate with them. On the contrary, since March 26 we have made it more than clear that we are prepared to negotiate with the physicians of this province the same way we do with anyone else, union or otherwise, that receives money from the taxpayers of B.C.

G. Wilson: I note with interest that the Premier seems to have 18 opinions, and today I've got the Minister of Health on that opinion.

My question, once again to the Premier, has to do with this question of a deal being a deal, which I think was a word that was used by the Premier when it applied to teachers in this province. Can the Premier tell us: when is a deal not a deal in this province? When is it possible for this government to break contracts? Is it only members of the unions in this province who can expect to have their contracts honoured by this government?

[2:15]

Hon. G. Clark: It's important for members opposite to know that we take this issue very seriously. The question of the doctors' pension plan, which was a 100 percent taxpayer-funded plan, was a perpetual contract signed a few days before the election campaign. We made our position very clear in this House; we made our position clear during the election campaign. We're fulfilling the mandate that we campaigned on, and that's why we had to take this step.

G. Wilson: A further question, once again to the Premier. I see I've had two opinions from two different Premiers, but maybe we can get the right one this time.

It seems there is a very common trend coming from this government: no consultation on fair wage; no consultation on tax increases; no consultation on all-night ferry sailings; no consultation with teachers with respect to budget cuts; no consultation on the spraying of gypsy moths; no consultation on negotiation of contracts.

Deputy Speaker: Question, hon. member.

G. Wilson: My question to the Premier is this: if indeed we had a perpetual contract -- perpetual in my definition means ongoing; contract means a deal in law -- why did this government not sit down and negotiate with the doctors in this province prior to the doctors' being served notice that their contract would be nullified?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think you have heard that this government is more than prepared to sit down and negotiate with the doctors, but doctors, like teachers and others who receive remuneration from the taxpayers of British Columbia, have to realize that there are limits. The promise and the commitment that I made was that we would live within the means of the people of British Columbia; if the money wasn't there, we wouldn't spend it. We are keeping that commitment in this budget that we have brought down. We had to clean up the financial mess from the previous government; we're doing that. Mr. Speaker, you've heard from the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance that we're going to continue that commitment to capping and reducing the deficit while maintaining basic services.

On the issue of a pension agreement for doctors funded solely by the taxpayers of British Columbia, we philosophically disagreed with that. We disagreed with it before the election campaign, during the election campaign and after the election campaign. The previous government snuck through that contract, which is unfair to the taxpayers of British Columbia, six days before the election campaign.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. Premier.

Hon. M. Harcourt: We are prepared to sit down with doctors and negotiate a fair pension agreement like anybody else, where they pay their fair share too.

C. Serwa: Point of order. Once again the hon. Premier goes on and on at great length, trying to answer a simple question with a long, complex answer that says nothing. Mr. Speaker, just the other day you reminded both sides of the House about rule 47. I would hope that the hon. Premier remembers that.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. The point of order is well taken. I would remind both sides of the House that question period is for asking questions and giving answers, and not for debate. It would assist the Chair if members would keep that in mind.

[ Page 1141 ]

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

R. Neufeld: In the absence of the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, I'll direct my question to the Premier. Can the Premier confirm that the former NDP MLA Gordon Hanson is earning approximately $600 a day under contract with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, and can he tell us how much the taxpayers are shelling out for this patronage appointment?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can't supply that information. I'll take the question on notice.

Deputy Speaker: There is no supplementary, member. Do you have a new question?

R. Neufeld: I have a new question directed to the Premier. Clearly the intent of your private member's bill of 1991 was to prohibit elected members from using their experience in government for personal profit or private gain for two years after leaving government. Can the Premier explain why it's okay to provide patronage posts to former NDP opposition critics, using taxpayers' money, while it's not okay for former government members to use their experience in applying for decent jobs in the private sector for at least two years?

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, the question appears to be asking for an opinion. However, if the Premier is prepared to respond, he may.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'm not quite sure what bill the member is referring to, but I will certainly let him know that we are going to be bringing in tougher conflict-of-interest laws. I am not sure that the bill we presented dealt with the kind of situation that you're talking about, but I'd be prepared to get back to the member in the near future with information about both.

We will be introducing the toughest conflict laws in the country when we bring in the new conflict law, so that the taxpayers of British Columbia are sure that we're here to take care of the public's business, unlike the previous government. To hear that coming from the previous government when we all have memories of the Knight Street Pub, the Expo land deals and the use of agricultural lands for golf courses.... You shouldn't throw stones when you live in glass houses.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Prince George-Omineca, I believe, has a final question.

R. Neufeld: Yes, just for the Premier's clarification, it's Bill M201, a private member's bill, by Mr. Harcourt, who is now the Premier. So he should know it quite well.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

G. Wilson: Mr. Speaker, back to the Premier. Since the Premier has said that he can't tell us when a deal is a deal, maybe he can tell the people of this province the difference between Bill 82 and the recision of a contract with teachers and what this government is doing with doctors. Can you explain the difference between what was done to teachers -- and they took such a strong position against that when they were in oppisition -- and the position that they're taking with doctors today?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Before the election, the government made it very clear that we didn't believe in unfair labour legislation and that we didn't believe in the restriction of collective bargaining; we thought that was part of a free democracy. We made that very clear before the election, as well as making our opposition known to doctors, who are very valuable in our society and perform an extremely important role. We thought it was unfair to provide pensions to doctors that were 100 percent paid for by the taxpayers. So our positions in both of those were known very clearly before the election, and the election results speak for themselves.

L. Reid: I'm rising on a supplementary question to the Minister of Health. I quote from a letter that the Minister of Health sent on March 27, 1990. The NDP is committed to honest negotiations with doctors in this province. Hon. minister, is this not your signature on this letter?

Hon. E. Cull: I think it's an excellent letter, and I stand by everything in that letter. The letter refers to negotiating with physicians in an honest, fair and equitable manner. I think that that means to negotiate with them the same way that we negotiated with nurses, hospital workers or teachers. Nurses don't get to negotiate how much money is spent on nursing; they get to negotiate their wages, benefits and working conditions. Teachers don't get to negotiate how much money is spent on education; again, just their wages and benefits.

What we are saying is that we are willing to negotiate with doctors about the fees, distribution of the money, the utilization and a whole range of things, but the role of setting the budget and priorities is that of the Legislature.

L. Reid: Again to the Minister of Health. These questions are about process. This is not an NDP government of No Due Process. This has to be an opportunity for you to deal with the physicians in this province in an adequate fashion. I take the example of the recent commission -- 25 people who've come together to advise on health care in this province. You did not do anything with that in terms of consulting widely. We believe that the royal commission has already asked those questions. Is the Minister of Health stacking this board with insiders? Are we to understand that the NDP patronage machine is working overtime?

Hon. E. Cull: The minister's advisory committee on the royal commission has been struck to develop an implementation plan, not to redo the work of the royal commission. There was widespread consultation about the membership on this committee. In fact, there are four physicians, five nurses and people from every part of the province on the committee.

[ Page 1142 ]

When it comes to a question of due process, the ball right now is in the court of the B.C. Medical Association. I have written to them and said: "Let's get our teams together and talk about what we can negotiate." I'm waiting to hear from them.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

H. De Jong: My question is to the Premier. As the Premier tabled a list of all government appointments of the past administration yesterday in the House, and as the Premier in his comments wanted us to believe that all qualified applicants will be fairly considered for appointments to boards and commissions regardless of political stripe, will he guarantee that Mr. Pollard does not become the czar of patronage, and will he further agree to make public the resumés of all applicants to any public position filled by appointment?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I'll just briefly recap what I said yesterday. What we have done is to open up a process that was previously very closed. We have done that because British Columbians want to make sure that the appointments to the 4,000 positions on the 1,100 boards, commissions and agencies are representative of British Columbia; that we have an equal number of men and women; that we have representatives from all regions of the province; and that we have representatives of the minority communities in British Columbia. We have a process to make sure that happens.

The problem with the previous process was that it was as representative of British Columbia as the members from the opposition party sitting over here. The facts speak for themselves: they're male, middle-aged, white members of the Legislature. There wasn't any representation. British Columbia is more than that; and this is what we are going to be assuring in this open, democratic process -- to have all British Columbians represented.

STEWART-FIRESTONE CASE

A. Warnke: Given that a letter was tabled by the Attorney General in the House yesterday that the Attorney General might be subpoenaed in the Firestone case, would the Attorney General now confirm that a similar letter was also sent to the Premier?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It would be very difficult for the Attorney General to do that, because the letter wasn't sent to him. My office cannot find a copy of such a letter, and because of that, we have checked with Bud Smith's lawyer and asked him to send us a copy of the letter. He has refused to do that.

I don't know why a Liberal member of the Legislature would be trying to take part in this unseemly exercise of Bud Smith trying to exact his revenge on the member from Esquimalt. I don't know why the Liberals would be participating in this sordid effort at revenge.

Deputy Speaker: The bell terminates question period, hon. members.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: You rise on a point of...? You'd like leave of the House to table documents?

Leave granted.

A. Warnke: What I'm just about to table has some reference to yesterday....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, you may table, but it doesn't require any....

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 23.

[2:30]

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
(continued)

On the amendment.

L. Reid: To reiterate points and open debate, I was stating very strongly prior to the break this afternoon that this bill requires some process, that we need to stand back and take a look at it; we need to believe in the value of giving these issues public input. That's a process question we need to evaluate very clearly. I'm trusting that both of those issues will come up for debate when the Ministry of Advanced Education considers the proposals that are before them, tours the province and tries to define -- to refine -- a position in terms of where advanced education in this province is going. There is no urgency in taking both of those items forward today. They would both benefit from some increased guidance, and quite honestly, if we're going to reform the package, we take a look at reforming the entire advanced education package.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to rise in debate opposing this hoist motion. I wasn't planning to participate in the debate, because I had thought that the opposition would support this bill, which provides collective bargaining rights for university professors.

It's interesting that they're complaining about and demanding collective bargaining rights for doctors; and yet when a bill comes in that talks about collective bargaining rights for university professors, they want to hoist it. It's interesting that we have these kinds of motions to demonstrate yet again that there is no difference between the Social Credit Party and the Liberal Party. Once again, the true colours come out with the Liberal Party. They're opposed to giving collective bargaining rights to university professors. There is no other explanation for their hoist motion. It proves that these two parties are cooperating. Of course, we've seen in recent days -- I perused the Blues when I was away -- that they were doing a kind of tag-team during question period on the same questions, which showed this commonality of interests between those two parties. I thought that the Liberal Party....

[ Page 1143 ]

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. Despite the level of entertainment that we receive when the minister rises, I don't believe his comments about past question periods are in order with regard to the hoist we've proposed as the amendment to this bill. I would hope that he would keep his remarks strictly to the amendment of this bill.

Hon. T. Perry: On the point of order, the government House Leader was making a simile. There's a long and honourable tradition in this parliament of using the English language to the best of our ability. Simile is not unparliamentary at any time in this House.

Deputy Speaker: The points of order have been noted, and I would ask all members to keep them in mind.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, they are duly noted.

I must say that all I was doing was saying that what we've seen today, and particularly this hoist motion where the Liberal Party is opposed to unionization or collective bargaining rights for university professors, demonstrates the similarity between the two parties who are in opposition.

L. Fox: Point of order. Not being extremely familiar with the orders of the House.... We are debating an amendment that suggests a time-frame delay in the process; it does not change the intent of the bill. I would ask that the Speaker honour the intent of the amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the same point of order, I know that the minister is minister of many things, including the apparent Premier, but I doubt that he is minister of similes. It is very presumptuous of the minister to assume that he knows what the opinion of the third party is on this bill, since they haven't spoken yet. I would hope that he would confine his remarks to the amendment and to the gist of the amendment.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair can only advise hon. members that the standing orders should be adhered to to assist debate, and I would ask all members to conform accordingly.

Hon. G. Clark: I've got news for the Liberal Party members. It's well known that the Social Credit Party is opposed to collective bargaining rights for university teachers and intructors, because they were in office for the last 16 years and refused to grant it. I'm surprised that the Liberal Party would join them in this blatant exercise to deny rights to university professors.

J. Tyabji: Point of order. We're getting a little bit tired of listening to things that have nothing to do with the amendment that's been introduced. If the hon. minister would like to speak to the amendment, we'd love to hear what he has to say. I can only think that perhaps he doesn't have anything to say against the amendment, and that's why he's going on and leading us down the garden path with something totally irrelevant.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair should point out that this is an amendment to second reading of a bill. The debate does have quite wide parameters in terms of rationalizing what the purpose might be for the amendment. I would ask members, however, to try and address the principle of the bill as much as possible.

Hon. T. Perry: On a point of order, for those hon. members opposite who aren't familiar with simile, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale used simile and metaphor yesterday, however ineptly or inappropriately. The hon. government House Leader and Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is equally justified in referring to tag-team during question period as simile as was the member for Surrey-Cloverdale to oink in the Legislature or the official opposition leader to use a pictorial metaphor.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: I congratulate all the members on relaxing a bit and being themselves. But you should keep in mind that we are now using points of order to debate instead of dealing specifically with the violation of standing orders. I would ask all members to realize that there is a danger of our losing decorum in the chamber unless we pay strict attention to the quality of debate.

Hon. G. Clark: In my experience here I always find that discomfort with the remarks that are made is usually indicated by the number of points of order that are made. We've seen all these points of order. That proves that they are uncomfortable. They know that the truth hurts.

The truth is that both opposition parties are as one on this question. To bring in a hoist motion to delay this for six months would be to effectively kill this bill. That is what we are opposed to. This bill confers collective bargaining rights on those employed in post-secondary institutions in this province -- something which is long overdue.

I might also say that when we listen to members of the Liberal Party, we hear a divergence of views on this question. It's clear that the hoist motion is an attempt to appease both sides of the debate within that one party, which seems to happen often. When you listen to the debate, however, it's pretty clear that they're uncomfortable with this. They're opposed to this, just as the Social Credit Party has been opposed to this.

Let's be clear about what the bill does. It does not unionize those workers; it gives them the right, should they choose to exercise it, to unionize. That's a fundamental difference. All this bill does is extend those rights to those individuals -- as should every other individual worker in society be afforded those rights. It's a fundamental democratic right that we on this side believe in. It's unfortunate that those members of the Liberal Party would chose, yet again, to side with the discredited Social Credit administration on such a 

[ Page 1144 ]

fundamental right, which all people in British Columbia support.

It's very clear that this is a veiled attempt to kill this piece of legislation. We're opposed to it. It is a fundamental right. We're proud of that. We would have hoped that the Liberal Party would have been different from the Social Credit Party, but we have seen again the stripes -- people of the same colour. It's very unfortunate. I hoped they would see the error of their ways and vote against this motion and in favour of this bill.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to speak to this amendment, following the hon. minister, and I will speak slowly so that he may understand the concept that I am going to introduce to him. We are in support of the principles in this bill. Is that slowly enough?

However -- and here's where the concept gets a little tricky for some of those on the other side of the House -- we believe in long-term planning and vision. Long-term planning means that we would like to see a six-month delay before we finally look at this bill in conjunction with the whole portfolio. We want to have the long-term vision and the planning of the portfolio....

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

J. Tyabji: It seems to me that the minister, who gave us such an entertaining debate a minute ago, is not listening. I'm speaking slowly and deliberately for him, so he can understand that you can be in favour of the principles and disagree with the process. That is what we are saying.

We're trying to educate those on the other side of the House who don't understand that there can be a difference, and that it's very important to delay the passing of this bill until we get the long-term plan of the portfolio. We don't feel it's in the best interests of this bill to be advanced at this time, although we support the principles of the bill.

With that, I hope I have made it very clear to members on that side, particularly the Minister of Finance. I'd be happy to write it down for him if he would like it in clear terms, and that is: support in principle and oppose the process. Therefore we've introduced an amendment to the process that we believe will address this issue much more effectively.

D. Symons: I find some irony -- maybe that term could be noted by the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain -- in the argument used by the Minister of Finance, when he tries to project what our thoughts are on this and associate us with the third party. This is the very party that introduced the repeal of Bill 3, the Taxpayer Protection Act, on which they simply supported the third party not long ago. Who can talk about who's siding with whom?

What we're trying to do here is to refer this bill -- we would prefer that the House refers this bill -- to our House committee. We've set up these House committees for the very purpose of looking at legislation and seeing if we can come forth in a way whereby we can have an all-party committee that can discuss the bill. In light of any changes that may come about to the labour act, or the industrial relations review, we can make sure that this bill is the best bill possible.

We are certainly not against the bill, but we feel that it would be advisable to wait until the industrial relations review takes place and then look at the bill in light of that and have the House committee actually do something useful. We are all represented in that committee. It could be an all-party committee that would come back to the House, and we could certainly support the bill under those circumstances.

[2:45]

F. Garden: I rise to speak against the amendment. As a new MLA here, I've tried to understand the position of the opposition on certain subjects in the House, but it's becoming more and more confusing to me. This particular amendment proves that in my mind.

There is nothing more simple than the government wishing to extend collective bargaining rights to this group of people. We have heard the opposition stand in favour of those for another group of people. It doesn't need a six-month delay to any council to decide what to do about this. These people have needed these rights for over 40 years in this province. Do we need six months, or is the opposition saying to us that they don't have the intelligence to understand what is being put forward here? It's plain and simple. I could get a high school class to come out tomorrow and say this is right, but the opposition needs six months. I'd like to remind the opposition that justice delayed is justice denied. They should be ashamed of themselves for standing up here to delay a fundamental human right to a group of people.

G. Farrell-Collins: On the amendment. It's important that we re-evaluate and discuss in an open manner the exact purpose of this amendment so government members understand. It's very clear. In the earlier portion of the debate we said that we agreed in principle with what this bill was trying to do; however, we have some severe and profound concerns about the process. Once again we're having to talk to this government about process. If we are so concerned about a six-month delay in this legislation, why did it take this government six months to call the House? Perhaps the member for Cariboo North should go to those same high school students and ask them to figure that one out.

We had some comments by the Minister of Advanced Education, and he used some word -- I believe it was "simile." Let's look at another word, for example, and how it relates to this amendment, and that's "juxtaposition." I'd like to use that word in reference to the process that this government has used to bring in this legislation and many other pieces of legislation.

If we juxtaposed the present government and the last government, we could then look at their similarities with regard to process. All of us in this House agree -- except for probably six or seven members -- that the last government was a knee-jerk government: it set 

[ Page 1145 ]

policy and consulted later, in some way, over the telephone. As far as the process goes for our new government, they are doing exactly the same thing. They have brought in a piece of legislation that affects the labour process in this province and they want us to pass it, while they have two commissions reviewing labour legislation in this province. One is the review by the Industrial Relations Council, and the other the member for Surrey-Cloverdale will speak to in just a few moments. These processes are in place. They are going to be debating this very issue -- among other issues, I hope. Here we have the government legislating first and consulting afterwards. As far as process goes -- and that's what this debate on this amendment is all about -- this government is exactly like the last government. I find it ironic that the Minister of Finance would compare the Liberal opposition, which wants to consult first and legislate later, with the Social Credit government that has done just the opposite.

The member for Okanagan East told the Minister of Finance she would be glad to write her comments regarding process down for his perusal. I don't think that this is necessarily a worthwhile task, because we now know that the Premier doesn't read his own mail; and we also know that the Minister of Finance doesn't read his own mail, either, because we sent him copies with regard to the jet fuel tax and he didn't read that.

If I may use another word for the members of the government side, and particularly for the minister, let's talk about an oxymoron for a minute and how it relates to this process.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's similar. We have the words "New Democratic" and....

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's why I referred to the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order! Hon. members, please respect the person who has the floor, and keep your comments quiet, please.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I thank you for your intervention, because it is a very serious matter that we're debating here today.

The word we are dealing with is "oxymoron." It's important because if we take the words "New Democratic" and "legislation," we have democratic legislation. That has to be an oxymoron, as far as this government is concerned, because they're bringing in the legislation first and they're going to consult later. That is not the new democratic process the people of this province want.

This government has failed on this piece of legislation. While the Liberal opposition agrees in principle with the gist of the bill, we have very serious concerns about the process. We have put forward what I think is a very reasonable and a very rational amendment to this bill: to hoist it or suspend it for six months until the very process this government has put in place develops, continues, reports. At that point we can revisit this piece of legislation and see how this one element of the legislation fits in with the recommendations of the two processes that are now in place. That is a very reasonable and very rational process. It's the new democratic process that the people of this province want.

B. Jones: The previous speaker implied that there had been no change between the current administration and....

Interjections.

B. Jones: Let me assure members opposite that there is one thing that's changed in this chamber: if you look at previous hoist motions in this chamber, they were on very serious matters that denied fundamental rights to British Columbians. What we have in this bill is the restoration of fundamental rights to a group of British Columbians that has been denied them for years. I wonder if members opposite think that the minister just dreamed this stuff up out of his head. It didn't happen that way. The process of consultation has gone on for years and years.

Let's take the section of the bill dealing with the restoration of fundamental rights to university faculty. Guess where that one came from? It came from the Confederation of University Faculty Associations. CUFABC, which represents university faculty in this province, has been after this amendment to the legislation year after year and has gone so far as to take this to the United Nations and the International Labour Organization. The consultation has happened. I'm sorry that you weren't in the Legislature when all of this was happening, but it was happening.

Take the second point on the question of associate degrees. Guess where that one came from? It came from colleges. College students, college presidents and college faculty are interested in establishing associate degrees to recognize the work of college students in this province.

This is an absolutely absurd motion, and I hope that members opposite who support this hoist motion will go out there and talk to CUFABC, university faculty and college students.

Interjections.

B. Jones: No, you go talk to them and find out how absurd they think your attempt to delay this good piece of legislation is.

K. Jones: Speaking to this amendment, I'd like to remind the government of the fact that order-in-council 338, which was approved on March 6, 1992 -- one of your bills signed by the Premier -- established the commission of inquiry into the public service and public sector. Its purpose was to look into the delivery of public services through an independent professional 

[ Page 1146 ]

public service and at the personnel and labour relations environment in which those bodies created, financed or maintained by the provincial government for public purposes operate. It was to recommend the most appropriate role, if any, for government to rationalize compensation levels, to define collective bargaining structures, to standardize employee benefits and to collect, analyze and distribute information concerning the cost of services by employees or through contracts described in section 3 of these terms of reference. In other words, it was to look at the broad picture and to bring forward a most progressive approach to the entire process of labour relations -- not just in the colleges or the universities, but in all sectors of the public service.

We as a House should have sufficient respect for this commission to not bring in legislation that would give them another piece of regulation to deal with, when they could be coming forward with new progressive approaches to this. Therefore you are hampering them in the whole process of their commission. They should be able to come forward within a reasonable time -- we're suggesting a six-month period is quite reasonable -- to provide that alternative; to come forward with this opportunity for good, fully identified review, with all parties involved and no political aspect of it involved -- a full open review.

Your government brought this type of legislation in, and now you're trying to emasculate it. Surely you must do something about this.

D. Schreck: I find myself grateful for Hansard at this point in the debate. We have the benefit of being in the afternoon session when the members opposite repeatedly contradicted each other in the morning session. That allows us to find the true reason for the opposition amendment. As my colleague for Burnaby North pointed out, there has been an extensive consultation process in this province for years. We have introduced, from the government side, a routine bill that implements amendments for which there's a broad consensus within the province. But where is there not a consensus? Where is consultation necessary? Consultation is necessary among the members of the opposition caucus, because they have not caught up with the people of British Columbia.

Let us point to Hansard for some concrete examples. My good friend the member for West Vancouver-Capilano quite correctly states that he, as Education critic and a former instructor, supports the principle of unionization of college and university faculty. I congratulate the member for West Vancouver-Capilano for taking that position. He must find it very lonely in that caucus, because when we turn to the comments from this morning from that new successful coup leader, the opposition caucus chair, we find that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena....

[3:00]

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. Once again we have to remind the members opposite to refer to members in this House by their riding, and by no other means at all.

Deputy Speaker: The point is well taken, hon. member. I would so advise all hon. members.

D. Schreck: I certainly apologize for embarrassing the opposition members by revealing their disunity. It is not necessary to talk....

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order, hon. Speaker. We had a rather lengthy session about a half-hour or hour ago with the Minister of Finance doing things similar to what the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is doing now. The rules are very clear. The debate that we're involved in is to relate to the amendment, and so far virtually nothing the member has said relates to the amendment. I would ask him to refrain from making his politically flippant statements and refer to the amendment itself.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, I would take your objections to the comments on the basis of what has been happening this afternoon, and I would say that all members could pay much more attention to the principle of the amendment. However, there has been wide latitude, and the member, with all due respect, is not that much out of line with what has been happening, unfortunately.

D. Schreck: Hon. Speaker, I thank you for your guidance, and if the number of interjections is proportionate to the heat being felt on the opposition benches, I am truly flattered.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena, the current opposition caucus chair, made the shocking statement this morning that when you get certain professionals with very good qualifications -- some with master's and PhDs....

C. Serwa: On a point of order, the member knows full well that he cannot quote from the Blues. The Blues have not been corrected by the members. He can only quote from Hansard

Deputy Speaker: The member should be guided by those comments. Proceed, hon. member.

D. Schreck: I would particularly like to thank my friend from the third party for showing the unity on those benches between the third party and the official opposition, which is precisely our point. We can quote this morning's debate from memory, and what we find is that the member for Vancouver-Quilchena has come out with a clear statement strongly in opposition to the presence of unions among faculty at universities and colleges, putting himself quite distant from the official Education critic.

In the presence of the opposition House Leader we find true Liberalism. When we review the comments of the opposition House Leader in this debate, we find he has come down squarely on both sides of this issue. We find that the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, in contributing to this debate, has indicated that the principle is very good, but it should be implemented sometime in the far distant future, thereby supporting 

[ Page 1147 ]

his colleague for Vancouver-Quilchena on opposing unionism, but giving lip-service to his colleague from North Vancouver-Capilano on supporting the principles.

The reason for the amendment before us is that the opposition benches are in disarray, and they must have six months to caucus between themselves. The members on this side of the House were elected on a clear platform that we are implementing. We are leading the province in a clear, positive direction, and we don't have to wait for the opposition benches to get their act together.

L. Fox: When I was elected to this House and since, I have been taught that all the members in the House are honourable and all words that they speak are honourable; therefore I took to heart the Premier's statement through the throne speech that the standing committees were going to mean something during this session. When I look through the standing committees, I find the Select Standing Committee on Education. This issue is something that could be referred. It's true that I wasn't here during those negotiating times and the dialogue that has apparently taken place in the past; I do not apologize for that. I want to be sure that I understand the full impact of this bill and the opportunities for those the bill will affect prior to putting my support behind it.

I also want to point out that the Minister of Finance suggested earlier that the Social Credit Party was not in support of collective bargaining; and yet if you look back to 1987, which government gave the teachers the right to organize their union under Bill 20? A Social Credit government; it was not an NDP government.

I have to wonder why this government wants to push this forward so fast. Is it that they want to see another union fund formed prior to the next election so they have another source for election revenues? What is the cause? That is the underlying question here. Therefore I have to say that I have not had the opportunity, either through a report of the Select Standing Committee on Education or any information brought forward, to see that there has been dialogue by this government and the affected parties. I cannot stand for the bill and will vote in support of the amendment.

G. Janssen: I stand to vote against this amendment, to speak against this hoist motion that will delay giving rights that other workers in this province enjoy and have enjoyed for many years.

I want to congratulate the Liberal Party here for becoming a little more democratic. I want to congratulate the member for Vancouver-Quilchena on his election to caucus chair. Now perhaps if they were to have an election for leader over there, we might see some real leadership.

Many members of the Liberal Party want to hoist this motion because they have no platform, no policy, no leadership and, before October 17, they had no party. Since October 17 they have had plenty of time, and certainly the allowances that they are afforded give them the right to go around the province and seek public opinion on this issue and many others. But have they done that? No, they've been busy squabbling among themselves, trying to decide who's the leader, who's the caucus chair....

J. Tyabji: Point of order. I find it offensive that we're supposed to be talking about an amendment, and he's talking about leadership in our party. I think that is totally irrelevant.

Deputy Speaker: That matter is perhaps not a point of order, but the member should address the principle of the bill -- the amendment.

G. Janssen: I take your advice, hon. Speaker.

What I'm talking about here is affording democracy to workers in this province. That democracy I equate to the type of democracy that exists inside the Liberal Party, because we know that the workers in their party do not have bargaining rights or a collective agreement. They do not have benefits -- not in this House, not in their constituency associations. That is why they are delaying this bill. They do not believe in bargaining rights, and they would not afford members of society who work in colleges and universities this option, because they don't want it for their own workers. They don't want to set the precedent, because they would have to give to their own workers the benefits and bargaining rights that they have denied them until now. I say shame on those members for trying to delay this bill so that they can save their own political butts and face.

A. Warnke: I speak in favour of this amendment. I heard this morning from the member for Kootenay that essentially what we are doing is a little tidying up, simply because there is a little oversight. Yet on the other hand we hear from other members that this is a tremendous breakthrough somehow. I find this incongruity quite disturbing.

Therefore I think it is necessary to support this amendment to delay for a period of time, simply because forcing professionals -- and this is not just a mere allowance to professionals -- to form a union.... While unions sometimes are encouraged, unions forcing....

Interjections.

A. Warnke: Yes, it is forcing people into a union situation. This is not simply, as some hon. members put it, a restoration of rights. This we have seen from time to time -- how a new union comes into a situation and after a while extracts and exploits a particular situation. The reason I'm pointing to the member for Kootenay is because she is the Minister of Energy. I would like to remind this House and that particular member -- who is, surprisingly, the Minister of Energy -- of this particular situation. There was a very important case in the early 1960s in Edmonton, Alberta, where a major oil company that does not have the best reputation in the world -- a multinational corporation -- bought out a Canadian firm that was not unionized. The workers working for that particular refinery east of Edmonton 

[ Page 1148 ]

liked their situation. They enjoyed their relationship with their company until they were bought out. The interesting thing about this is that this multinational corporation then invited a union, and the union put pressure on. They thought this was a great idea: here's a bunch of unorganized workers; wouldn't it be great to unionize these workers. The company thought it was a great idea.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: There's very good reason why we don't unionize our own, hon. Speaker, since the hon. member is so quick to raise this. You can actually achieve more; people work more; people work better. There's no doubt about that. In this particular case in the early 1960s, workers were in fact better off. They were far worse off when they invited a union into that situation. And multinational corporations were the first to exploit this situation to their benefit. Knowing this from firsthand experience, the result....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: No, we're not anti-working people at all; we're for the working people, and that's the reason we're in favour of this amendment. The fact is that professionals....

Interjections.

A. Warnke: Okay, let's face it. The other members are talking about....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, it would assist if you would address your remarks through the Chair. Members should extend courtesy to the speaker who has the floor.

[3:15]

A. Warnke: Members who are against this amendment operate from an old paradigm in which there are only two classes. This thinking clearly belongs in the past, because in the context of modern and contemporary organizations and institutions, there are more than two classes, more than just employers and employees. Indeed, in areas besides the professions, there are employers and employees and -- guess what? -- there are also consumers, who are often forgotten. In this particular amendment we're dealing with, more than just employers and employees are involved; there are also students and other people are involved in institutions and organizations. This is the reality of the 1990s and will be the reality in the following century. The old paradigm of just conceiving two types of people and saying that that's all there is in the world, belongs in the world of Karl Marx. Thinking that the only way to develop a society is to create unions and nothing but unions against those nasty employers is a thinking that belongs in the past, in the nineteenth century. If anything has happened in the twentieth century to prove otherwise, that thinking is long gone, out the window, and it's about time it went out the window.

This particular bill -- and hence the reason why I'm supporting the amendment -- is also concerned about some fundamental ways to approach colleges and universities. I find it very disturbing that we're talking about maybe creating a new kind of degree -- an associate degree. Now some of my colleagues on this side have in fact said that with certain kinds of qualifications, maybe -- they didn't say absolutely -- an associate degree is a good idea. But it has to be followed up with something else, and that is to make the colleges and the universities in this province a high-quality education. Some of the problems we are facing here -- and the reason we are asking for six months to re-examine this situation -- are because we have seen this happen before.

When the previous government introduced a new program upgrading the potential of a college program to offer third-and fourth-year programs, guess what? Maybe the idea prima facie looked okay, but there was no follow-through. The library facilities weren't there as a follow-through. The computer facilities were not there. The classrooms available to students simply were not there. Therefore we have every right on this side to suggest that we need time to re-examine a new, innovative idea, because bringing forth something like an associate degree -- introducing a new status to students in this province -- will not necessarily improve the quality of education.

It misses a fundamental point of the problem that faces a college and university these days. It misses the point that however you try to gloss over and create cosmetics to improve the system in the universities and colleges these days, that does not necessarily translate into a good-quality education. So the trick, which I wish all governments....

N. Lortie: Point of order. We're debating the hoisting amendment that the members of the opposition put before this House. This member is insisting on debating the full bill. I think we should deal with this. If they're finished discussing it, perhaps we should vote on the amendment, and then he'd be in order. But right now, the hon. member is, in my opinion, out of order.

Hon. T. Perry: A brief point of order. The hon. member opposite is shouting so loud that I'm finding it difficult to hear him.

Deputy Speaker: The member for Rossland-Trail on the point of order.

E. Conroy: It's not on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to have the opportunity to speak, so I'll sit down and wait my turn.

Deputy Speaker: Yes, hon. member, all members will have an opportunity in due course.

A. Warnke: We do not increase the quality of education simply by calling something a new two-year program or something like an associate degree. Can you hear me now? You do it by improving the quality of.... 

[ Page 1149 ]

I believe the hon. member was shaking his head the other way, so I'll be louder now.

You don't increase the quality of education simply by calling for a new two-year program and dressing it up in a way of an associate degree. You do it by improving the quality of the degree that means something. The member for Vancouver-Quilchena raised a very important point as to the transferability of this degree: what does it mean? Somewhere in the United States, in the rest of the world, an associate degree might actually connote something that's quite different. I have not been reassured -- and I don't think members on this side have been reassured -- that members of the academic community throughout Canada, the United States, western Europe and indeed the rest of the world understand the meaning of an associate degree.

It was a very valid point that my colleague raised earlier. I have to be very skeptical in principle as to whether there is something wrong with this, and I want to have a second sober look at this. There's nothing offensive about the term "associate degree." Indeed, on the earlier matter I raised in terms of collective bargaining, we believe in the principle of collective bargaining. One thing that is very difficult to understand is that the principle of collective bargaining automatically means, ipso ergo facto, that therefore we must have a union. Yet I've heard the term "unions" and indeed "international labour organizations" used by members opposite. So this disturbs me; perhaps what we have here is a bit of cosmetics, but not enough follow-through, not enough thought given to what has been offered here in this bill. Therefore I have to speak strongly in favour of this amendment.

E. Conroy: I'd like to remind the member for Richmond-Steveston that maybe he's making an error in judgment. I know from the constituency that I represent that the child care workers have had the opportunity to organize for a number of years. For a number of reasons, they haven't done it. Maybe it hasn't been attractive enough to them -- whatever the case may be. Here we have people who have gone through two years of university or college training making $8 or $9 an hour. That's totally unfair. It's not correct to make a blanket statement that when you have the right to organize, that's automatically going to happen.

An Hon. Member: You miss the point.

E. Conroy: I think you miss the point. Another point you are missing is that we are a global economy now. If we're going to move into the 1990s and the next century, we have to recognize that. What I've seen is a fairly parochial argument by someone from whom I would not have expected that to come. I expected he would have had more of a global understanding of the nature of what we have to deal with in the next ten years or so. I'm really disappointed in that, quite frankly.

Another thing is that I heard the hon. member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove refer to our government as a knee-jerk government. I would suggest that if the members opposite got off their knees, quit being jerks and really dealt with what they felt was important -- instead of trying to talk to the press and talk to the cameras -- and did what they really felt in their heart of hearts was correct, then we would be a lot better off.

U. Dosanjh: It's my pleasure to stand up and oppose the hoist motion. One member of the opposition tried to tell us that the Liberal opposition supports the bill in principle but disagrees with the process. Now, their position is bare naked -- or naked bare -- with the member for Richmond-Steveston standing up and saying that perhaps unionization among certain sections of the population should not exist. Perhaps the members of the opposition are afraid of granting a certain degree of democracy and freedom to the highest institutions of learning in this province -- those places of learning which mould future generations in this country and in this province. These opposition members are afraid of imparting a certain amount of freedom and democracy to those institutions. I'm surprised that they make huge claims about planning and process, yet they don't understand that if we don't have freedom in our democracy and freedom to associate in the places of highest learning, then we're doing a great disservice to future generations of British Columbians.

In view of the amount of disunity and discontent that's seen on the Liberal benches, perhaps they should be making a motion not to hoist for six months but to hoist for 60 years, in keeping with their leadership.

G. Farrell-Collins: Point of order. I appreciate the wonderful speculation on behalf of members of the government with regard to....

Deputy Speaker: Is this a point of order, hon. member?

G. Farrell-Collins: It is a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

However, if they would refrain from engaging in these flippant and ridiculous comments while we're debating a very serious bill and stick to the gist of the bill and the concern of the bill, that would be much more in order.

Deputy Speaker: Of course. That is good advice, and all members, I'm sure, are aware of it.

Please proceed, hon. member.

U. Dosanjh: This kind of point of order speaks volumes about the strategy of this opposition. They say that they want to discuss the bill; they say that they want to hoist this bill for six months. They say that they support the principle of the bill, and then their members stand up and oppose unionization. They oppose the real nature of this bill. They oppose granting freedom to those in the highest places of learning: to the professors, intellectuals, scholars and academics of this province, who are moulding future generations of British Columbians. Then they say that we shouldn't be discussing their politics.

[ Page 1150 ]

Why are we here? Why are we in this House? This House is not a place for cowards of spirit; this House is not a place for the timid of spirit; this House is a place for those who want to make points and then are able to hear, with silence and with some respect, the views that oppose their own.

This Liberal opposition talks about supporting the bill in principle. In practice, in the guise of hoisting it for six months, they want to keep this bill from coming before this Legislature. I stand here and I say to them that those kinds of strategies and tactics will not work. The people of British Columbia are able to see very clearly that there are many positions on the Liberal benches, not just one position of supporting this bill in principle but hoisting it for six months.

That's not the only position on those benches. There are many positions on those benches. That's why they're pleading for time. It has nothing to do with their desire to hoist the bill in order to study it. They don't want to study it; they've already studied it. They have 17 opinions on it, not one opinion. Perhaps in 60 years they may be able to resolve those differences of opinion. The people of British Columbia will not wait those 60 years.

[3:30]

C. Serwa: It's a pleasure to stand up in this debate and support the six-month hoist motion. This is a very serious matter. It's not simply a matter to be discussed and to justify your being right simply by the amplitude of the voice. There's merit in the debate in this Legislature in a more civilized fashion, and I hope that I can do that. I will strive to do so.

Fundamentally, the responsibility of all members of this House is to shoulder their responsibility to the electorate of the province. What we are discussing here today is important to a specific group: college or university professors. I appreciate that importance, and I appreciate the anomaly in the situation.

Nevertheless, I will say this on a point of principle. At the present time there is a task force going throughout the province looking at Bill 19, or the labour relations act, that will come in with recommendations on the potential for change in labour legislation. If there is value and validity to the arguments that government members have put forward, it would appear prudent that after they come back, that should be looked at.

When they indicate the rights of individuals, one of the things that this House has not really addressed is that individuals must also shoulder a responsibility with those rights, a collective responsibility for the success and survival of our society as we know it in Canada and, most definitely, in British Columbia. On the element that we're discussing at the present time, that has been cast aside.

Hon. Speaker, I don't know if there was a clawback on the contributions of those who supported the government in its political campaign. That may or may not be so; I suspect it is not so. Nevertheless, the reality is that the perspective of government members is probably dramatically different from the perspective of opposition members. In my party we come from all elements of society. On the government side of the House the reality is that the majority either have direct ties, have come directly from public sector employment or have spouses in public sector employment. I would suggest that their perspective is based on that association.

The reality is that in striving to serve the public, which is our fundamental responsibility, I'm very confident that we can best do this once the labour legislation is brought in and reviewed. Then if it's appropriate to recognize the anomaly that exists, I'm certain all members of the House would readily agree to that.

The crux of the whole matter is that remuneration for employment should not be determined on the basis of how much you can hurt society. The aboriginal people have a system for dispute resolution that has been in existence for thousands of years, and it works. They live in a tight, harmonious community. The Quakers have a technique for dispute resolution that has been in existence for 300 years, and it works. They live in harmony; we do not. We tend to portray wages and working conditions in an eighteenth-or nineteenth-century context, and we fight the battle on a confrontational basis. We are destroying ourselves, our competitive base in the world today, our economy and the opportunity to shoulder our responsibilities to our fellow citizens who are in need: those who require medical services and social services and, most definitely, those who require education.

In supporting this hoist motion, I do so on the basis that when the task force comes in and when new labour legislation is presented to this House, we can make a more objective and realistic decision, acknowledging and appreciating the mechanisms that the government is going to bring in to ensure not only that rights are honoured, and honoured universally, but that responsibilities also are dictated, so that individuals know that they have an obligation -- in spite of fighting for their specific rights, wants or needs, or being unable to determine the difference between wants and needs -- and that there is a collective responsibility to all of society. We're all players in it; we all have responsibility in that area.

In conclusion, it is entirely appropriate that we take a little bit more time on this one specific issue. I'm confident that the university professors would not be ill disposed, and I am also confident that all of the members in this House could make a more objective decision on this matter on the basis of the accumulated initiative that the government will utilize when they bring their new labour legislation amendments into the House.

F. Gingell: Recognizing that it is inappropriate to quote from the Blues, I've managed to find some quotes from Hansard that I'm sure will be of great interest to members across the room. This comes from April 9, 1987:

"I think we all recognize that in order to bring about the type of economic development that I referred to earlier, we have got to have a harmonious labour relations climate. The trick of the trade, it seems to me, is to be able to draft legislation that does its best to ensure a harmonious labour relations climate in the 

[ Page 1151 ]

province -- something that both management and labour can live with, something that government can be proud of and something that keeps the field level, as they say in the business, to ensure that there is no undue favouritism between one of the bargaining powers in labour law matters...."

"That is really the challenge. Therefore it seems to me that the appropriate thing to do at this stage of the game is to take the legislation that the government has introduced in the House and put it in front of the public and invite response, in much the same way that the government members went around the province and asked for input on the matters of the labour legislation."

Further, Mr. Speaker, on the second reading of Bill 19 on April 9, 1987:

"Going through the exercise of listening to people, and then turning around and introducing labour legislation, and then being bent on putting it through the House, is not consistent with the hearing process that led up to the introduction of the legislation that's before the House."

D. Streifel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure all the hon. members in the House have enjoyed the latitude that's been allowed on this debate, and my delay in getting up on this point of order is because I fully expected the member from Langley or wherever -- from down the end -- to rise and bring the member back to track on the hoist amendment on this bill. I would appreciate it, hon. Speaker, if we could have some direction for the opposition benches as to what they should be speaking on. Bill 19 was quite a number of years ago.

Deputy Speaker: I would say to the member that it is permissible to quote from Hansard. However, extensive quotes do violate the standing orders. Just keep that in mind. Proceed, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you that I am speaking on the question of a hoist motion to do with labour legislation. I'll slip through to the last paragraph.

"Therefore it seems to me prudent, in light of our desire to achieve that economic development and in light of our own recognition of the need for harmonious labour-management relations in this province, to vote in favour of the motion that's on the floor right now, to delay the passage of this bill for a period of six months, with the hope that the minister will see fit to come back a second time with legislation that adequately deals with concerns of all of the parties."

We have expressed our concerns, and I quote from your Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin. That's what he said then. That seems to me common sense. Do not rush; there is a consultative process going on. Listen to the advice, fellow members, of your own Minister of Labour. Allow us to move this back to committee, to think the whole thing through and to ensure that we're doing the right thing for the people of this province.

Deputy Speaker: There being no further speakers, I call the question on the amendment that Bill 23 be amended by deleting the word "now" and substituting therefor the phrase "six months hence."

[3:45]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

V. Anderson: We have made our objection to process quite clear. We also want to make quite clear that we support the bill in principle and that we would be prepared to discuss it further in committee when the opportunity arises.

H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Giesbrecht: I have the privilege of introducing two gentlemen from my constituency to this Legislature. In the gallery today are the chief band councillor of the Haisla of Kitamaat Village, Gerald Amos, and one of the village elders and hereditary chiefs, Cecil Paul. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Perry: I will close debate in the absence of other speakers at second reading, as quickly as I can. I remind hon. members that we will have a chance in the near future to revisit some of these issues during committee stage debate. I will simply reply to a few comments made by opposition and government members during the debate on the main motion and also on the comments and questions they asked of me during the debate on the hoist motion.

The member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi raised a number of questions in effect addressed to faculty members at universities, who will be affected by this bill through the removal of section 80 from the University Act. The questions were good ones: they were thoughtful and provocative questions, but in all 

[ Page 1152 ]

likelihood not unfamiliar to university faculty members and their associations. Most hon. members would likely agree that the role of this Legislature is not to decide those questions for university faculty members, but to restore the freedom to make those decisions for themselves. Having spent more of my life as a pupil of university professors than as one of them, I suppose I still have some deference to their abilities, and they can probably think these things through for themselves quite easily without instruction from us.

The member for Vancouver-Quilchena and the member for Richmond-Steveston raised questions about the ability of colleges and institutes to design associate degrees that will be worthwhile in the world of work, in the world of education, which will assist transfer between institutions and assist in achieving effectiveness and efficiency in our post-secondary system. That is precisely the intent of the bill: the responsibility will lie ultimately with the boards of those colleges and institutes and, through the boards, the administrators, faculty, staff and students of those organizations to achieve a worthwhile result. It is beyond the ability of this House to ensure that our ability is to permit that possibility.

I will close by saying that I am glad we did succeed in defeating the hoist motion, because the practical impact.... Unless the opposition members have some remarkable prescience and know for sure that we will either be sitting continuously for another six months -- heaven forbid -- or that we will definitely return in the fall six months from now, it's possible that the effect would have been to deny the colleges and institutes the associate degree program for another year, to deny the historic right of the ability to organize to the university faculty, one which, as I said earlier in the debate, had been recommended as an international minimum standard by the International Labour Organization.

I am confident in closing debate on second reading to say that it has been a very productive morning and early afternoon. Not only are British Columbians safe in the salons, they may be confident and competent in the colleges and, in contrast to the spectre of chaos raised by the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi, let us hope that British Columbians will be ubiquitous in the universities.

I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 23, University Amendment 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.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading on Bill 5, hon. Speaker.

[4:00]

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992
(continued)

F. Gingell: I will hold my peace for a moment while I see everybody leaving the House. It was my privilege yesterday to adjourn debate on this subject, and I do not intend to repeat and regurgitate all the things I said at that time.

This is an appropriate day for us to be dealing with Bill 5, because it's April 30. I'm going to take this opportunity, if I may, to remind all members of this House to file their personal income tax returns, because today is the deadline. If you don't have your tax return filed or mailed today, you will be subject to a 5 or 10 percent penalty on the amount of the unpaid tax. And you should file it, because this return will be much more pleasurable to file than the one our Minister of Finance will require us to file in 1993. I can assure you that the one you're required to file on April 30, 1994, is going to be even more painful.

So it is, with those few words, a reminder to you to ensure that you file your return, and to tell you to be aware to steel your backbone for worse things to come in the future that I close the remarks I have to make on Bill 5.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

L. Krog: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Krog: I have great pleasure today in introducing a group of grade 7 students from the Qualicum Beach Middle School, and their teacher, Miss Frampton. I would ask the House to make them welcome, please.

C. Tanner: I would like to bring to the House's attention the Alberta budget address of April 1992, in which they made a tax comparison of the provinces. It is very appropriate in this particular case and this particular bill that we should pay attention to what they're saying in Alberta, because these are the most recent comparative figures available to us with our province and provincial taxes and the intention of this 

[ Page 1153 ]

bill. The basic rate of tax in British Columbia is 52.5 percent. The basic rate of tax in Alberta is 45.5 percent. The high-income surtax in British Columbia is going to be 20 to 30 percent; in Alberta it is 8 percent. The flat rate tax in British Columbia is nil, and in Alberta it is 0.5 percent. However, when we get to the retail sales tax, in this province we pay 6 percent; in Alberta they pay nothing. When we talk about a gasoline tax, in this province we pay 10 percent, with more to come; in Alberta they pay 9 percent. The tobacco tax in this province is 2.63 percent; in Alberta it is 1.75 percent.

You can see a pattern here. In Alberta they are trying to fight their competition. They are trying to make business more viable. They are trying to create a climate in which business can flourish. In this province, before this new bill is even arrived at, we are already creating a situation where business is going to be more difficult, revenue generation is going to become more difficult, and we will not be able to sustain the outflow of taxes as has been suggested in this budget.

The small business rate in British Columbia is 10 percent. The small business rate in Alberta is 6 percent. The general rate in British Columbia is 16 percent; in Alberta it's 5.5 percent. It goes on and on. I bring this to you attention because this government is labouring under the misapprehension that on the one hand they can increase their expenditures by 5.4 percent, and on the other hand they don't think they have to put money in, and they think they can raise taxes on the businesses that are going to generate revenue for this province.

I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to rescinding this particular aspect of Bill 5, and at the very least, leaving the tax rate as it is today so that he can, in the future when revenues will hopefully increase, afford the outflow of income to those very departments that require it. This side of the House is not saying that there isn't a need. This side of the House is saying -- for the minister's consideration -- that until you generate revenue you shouldn't be spending it.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak and address some of the remarks that were just made and those made yesterday by my hon. colleague the opposition Finance critic. They raised some interesting questions about Alberta, Washington and Oregon, and our own personal tax rates here in British Columbia. I think that we have to separate the two issues. He seems very fond of Washington and Oregon, but comparing them with B.C. is rather like comparing apples and oranges. They're two totally different tax systems, two totally different countries and two totally different ways of looking at things. Medicare, for example, is completely different here in British Columbia from the lack of a system in Washington and Oregon. That system -- what they do have and the way it's being funded -- has nothing in common with British Columbia.

But he likes to talk about Alberta and the rest of Canada. He feels that we really don't have much in common with the rest of Canada and that, really, Alberta is all we should be worried about. Well, I think he's mistaken there, because as we move to tear down trade barriers in this country, our tax rates vis-�-vis other provinces' are going to become extremely important. So I think he should realize that Canada doesn't end at Alberta; Canada goes all the way to Newfoundland. What goes on in each province is every bit as important as what goes on in Alberta or in this province. We need to talk about apples and apples. We need to talk about Socreds and dinosaurs, Liberal whines and pig swill. They're all the same thing.

In the Alberta budget they increased their deficit to $2.3 billion, and they have one-third fewer people than we have here. Their tax cuts benefited only the top end of the scale. They don't benefit those at the lower end of the scale; they punish those at the bottom end of the scale. The benefits in Alberta flow to those at the top end of the scale.

In British Columbia we're proposing to raise the tax rate a point, but everybody pays their fair share. In particular, those who earn more and have the ability to pay will be paying the most -- not those at the low end of the scale, like in Alberta. In Alberta they raised MSP premiums -- again, a regressive tax. In British Columbia we kept those premiums frozen, and our goal is to eventually eliminate them. In Alberta, as I said before, they increased the deficit and postponed the day of reckoning.

They're playing games with their citizens in Alberta. They're still living in a dream world, and it seems like that's where the opposition wants us to go -- to that dreamland of Alberta, where they're just postponing the day of reckoning, and where they will have to bring in huge tax increases to start to address their deficit problem.

While their BS fund does have money in it, they're rapidly draining it. They took $1 billion from it this year, and they still ended up with a $2.3 billion deficit. But then that's what they want us to do: look to Alberta. They want us to be like Alberta.

There are some significant differences, but then again I think they want to bring those differences here. In Alberta they get 24 percent of their revenue from resource rents. In British Columbia we get only 9 percent of government revenue from resource rents. So if we're to be like Alberta -- you know, raise the deficit and cut taxes -- we've got to triple our resource rents. We have to triple our revenues from mining, from our Hydro taxes and from our stumpage fees.

Who's advising them on economic policy? Bud Smith's advising them on their legal policy. Who's advising them on their economic policy -- Major Douglas? They don't have a clue. You can't say that British Columbia should have a tax system like Alberta's, because it's a different province, with different problems and different ways of raising revenue. Yet you want us to have the same tax structure as Alberta. You want us to cut taxes and to follow Alberta's lead. Well, it doesn't work if their idea is to address a deficit, like we're doing, and to take tough decisions now. This is why this bill is so necessary. They just don't understand. I think they need to do their homework more.

A. Cowie: I wish to speak very briefly on this bill. I'll refrain from speaking on any section but section 7. It's to do with small business and the increase from 9 to 10 percent, or an 11 percent increase. We all know that 

[ Page 1154 ]

approximately 70 percent of the workers in this province work for small business. Small business supplies the opportunities for people in this province, and it is small business that we have to nurture. In a recent trip to Cominco in Trail, we found that the smelter was going to let some of their employees go because of the recession and high taxation generally. They were offering the opportunity for some of their workers to set up small businesses, and those businesses would have guarantees that they could manufacture certain items that keep the smelter going. They were very creative in finding a way of helping those workers.

If you start a small business and you find that suddenly you're going to have an 11 percent tax increase as soon as you get your business going, it just isn't appropriate at all. If we're trying to get jobs going in this province, and we're going to have to over the next few years.... In the resource, forest and mining industries there are going to be major adjustments. Very good workers will have to be retrained. One of the opportunities they will have, once they get retrained -- or use their present skills -- is to go into small business for themselves and gradually grow. It's an inopportune time, especially in this time of recession, to be adding 11 percent tax. It just simply isn't appropriate.

[4:15]

H. De Jong: It's unfortunate that while we're discussing such an important bill, which will affect every British Columbian, we have less than 10 percent of the government members in the House listening to the debate. I'm not sure that it's any indication as to how serious the government takes these tax measures, but surely when they want to implement these measures, they should be cognizant of the comments made by the opposition members.

The basic tax hike in this bill will affect every taxpayer in this province. It's about to raise an additional $86 million per year from British Columbians, taking away the small bit of relief they had been led to believe they were getting from the federal income tax reductions. One of the biggest tax grabs in this act is the major expansion of the high income tax surtax. This tax considers anyone earning over $60,000 a year to be a high income earner. The previous figure was $86,500. For a single breadwinner and for a family with three or four children, this certainly is not taxing the rich man; it's taxing the hardworking individual that is trying to provide for his family. People earning over $60,000 will pay the 10 percent surtax. I believe it's an outrageous tax measure on the families and individuals that have the initiative to do things on their own and not become dependent on some of the services provided through government such as day care and others.

This is typical of the socialist panacea here for any problems: stick it to the rich. However, this is not only sticking it to the rich; it affects every hard-working breadwinner, as I mentioned earlier, and the measures of this bill will in fact take away a lot of the incentive that people have to make things on their own without any government support. Abraham Lincoln said: "You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer." That is as true today as when it was said in 1864. There are very grave economic implications when you remove millions of dollars from the economy, and there are personal considerations such as removing people's incentives for hard work and encouraging avoidance of tax through a growing underground economy.

Since this government seems to view the upper-income jobs as merely patronage plums to hand out to political pals, they may not be fully aware that most of the higher-than-average income earners work hard to earn the levels of income that they achieve. This government's initiative appears to be: the more people, for one reason or another, dependent on government services -- such as I mentioned, day care or otherwise -- the better they like it. While 9 percent of British Columbians made over $50,000 in 1989, we can expect most of these people to be paying a new high-income surtax by 1992 or 1993. Most of these people have families and at least two or three dependents. You are, again, expanding the tax hit of the surtax to more than one-third of British Columbians.

These increases to the corporate income tax rate and the small business income tax rate are further punitive measures against the wealth-generating sector of our society. They alter and directly contradict the message of the NDP election campaign that said that they would foster the small business economics in this province.

Last fall the Premier pledged to anyone who would listen that he would encourage and promote the generation of wealth and that he would lend a sympathetic ear to the concerns of small business. Is this one of the promised measures that he is undertaking? Taxation revenues from personal income tax have gone from 23.6 percent of all revenues in 1981 to 27.05 in 1991. When they were in opposition, the NDP routinely criticized the last government for not bringing this number down; yet the biggest tax grab they made in their first budget was a 1 percent income tax increase across the board and a 10 to 20 percent surtax for 30 percent of British Columbia families who are unfortunate enough to be part of the upper middle class.

This government's track record from 1972 to 1975 proved that the only things they knew how to do well were to squander the surplus funds that were in the kitty, to go deeper into the pockets of the average taxpayers and to increase the deficit position of this province. Perhaps in order to prove the point that this government can operate a leaner administration -- as they've said in previous speeches -- they should defer the implementation of these tax measures for at least one year to provide for a fair comparison between the operations of the two administrations and, secondly, to provide a one-year testing period for the tax initiatives of the federal government, which were to be complementary to small business and the average worker.

It is a known fact that higher taxation has a dampening effect on any economy. British Columbia, being a province very dependent on its rich resources, should be given a chance to prove that increased activity and the processing of resources can indeed be beneficial to the economic standards, as well as to the revenues, of this province.

In conclusion I would just like to say that the increased tax measures proposed in this bill will only 

[ Page 1155 ]

harm economic conditions in British Columbia. While governments at all levels -- right down to municipalities -- are attempting to improve the economic strength of the country and everyone is trying to cut back without increasing taxes, this government seems to be going in the opposite direction, and I believe that will be detrimental to the economy of British Columbia.

V. Anderson: As we look at the question of taxes, the manner in which we raise them and who we raise them from, sometimes -- as it seems to be indicated in this particular bill -- we think that we're raising taxes from people in high-income brackets and, therefore, that we have a right to take the taxes from them for other purposes. But I'm not going to get into that particular argument.

In this discussion I do want to raise the question about people who are paying taxes but who are not recognized in this bill: people who are paying taxes by themselves by their very lives. The implication of this taxation system is that it puts pressure upon the people in our community who are without food, clothing and shelter, because they are the ones who are paying the highest tax in proportion to their income and their needs. We need to respect that in our discussion.

When we're looking at percentages -- 16 percent, 10 percent or 20 percent, or whatever the case may be -- in this part of the raising of funds, we need to realize that the percentage is far higher for those who are not even considered within this particular program. They pay it on everything they buy. They pay it on the services they are not able to receive from the community, on the advantages that they are not able to share, which others in the community share.

It's unfortunate that at this moment those who are being charged to pay the maintenance payments that they receive for their children.... Those are taken from them by this system, and they're not able to keep them for their children. In the announcements that were made recently by this government, it's unfortunate that persons would be able to retain not $100 but $200, as families, of their income.... When they came to their paycheques this month from the government GAIN cheques, they discovered that that did not apply to those who received that $200 through maintenance payments. It only applied to those who received the $200 through "work-related jobs." Those people are paying from the payments that they are receiving, and this taxation does not seem to keep this before us and remind us of it. I rise simply to remind us that we must look at the total program of our taxation before we can consider just one part of it as we are doing here.

I remind us that as we increase the taxation on a portion of our community, whether they be middle income or high income, this filters down, and this taxation increase automatically falls heaviest upon those not considered here in this program and in this taxation system. We need to re-examine the whole system, not as has been happening in so many of the programs being put before us, doing it bit by bit and piece by piece. A total re-examination must take place, and I hope the government will undertake that rather than continuing to do this piece by piece and trying to gloss over as if they are benefiting us by the program they are putting forward. There are thousands of people in our province who are not benefiting from this particular tax program.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak against Bill 5. With the continuing increase in personal income tax, corporate tax, small business tax, the 10 to 20 percent surtax that will take effect after earning a certain amount of dollars, where does it all end? That's probably what each member here is asking: when will it end? When will we finally reach the point where the people of British Columbia will say enough is enough? During the election most people told me that they'd had enough. They'd had enough increase in corporate tax, small business tax, personal income tax, surtaxes. They wanted less taxes. They wanted smaller government, and they wanted less regulations. That was the continual debate that I heard.

[4:30]

So what do we have in Bill 5 but a total opposite to that? They are increasing every tax they can, and on what they feel is the back of the high wage-earner. Well, when you use $60,000 as a benchmark.... When we go to Fort Nelson-Liard, for instance, 10 percent of the people filing tax returns were over $50,000 a year. Peace River North, in fact, was about 9.5 percent. On the average a lot of those people were over the $50,000. This is not a high wage earner in the north. The one that really stands out is Stikine; it's 20 percent over $50,000. You'll see that what happens in the north is that the costs are tremendously different from what they are in the south, so obviously the people may make a little bit more money. But they work hard for it. They work long hours and lots of overtime to get to those dollars. It's not that they have all that extra money to put into taxation; it just costs them that much more to live up there.

Some people might say: "You chose to live up there." I can tell you that a lot of people chose to live in the north, and they will continue to live in the north, the same way that a lot of people who chose to live in southern British Columbia will continue to live in southern British Columbia. It's all a matter of choice in where you want to be.

The continual escalation of taxes on people who are in the north, who live in my constituency, does not seem to end there. When you see the removal of other forms of tax relief, such as the supplemental homeowner's grant, you see that they are also probably some of the hardest hit in the province. People with homes that are assessed at $60,000 may be paying another $300 a year with the removal of that grant, yet the continual barrage from the NDP -- both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- is that all we're doing is taxing the high-wage earner. We're taking from the rich to give to the poor.

You can't continually take away from the rich to give to the poor, because it doesn't work. It's been tried all over, and that type of philosophy will not work. Go to Sweden if you want to see what happens with that type of philosophy. They have the highest tax rates that we know of in the world and an economy that's in 

[ Page 1156 ]

shambles -- an economy that's now looking for a free-enterprise or private-enterprise organization to take it over. They've had it for 50 years.

At some point we have to look at what we can do to get the economy going. Having said that, I don't think we just go out and give massive tax breaks to every corporation to get the economy going. There are ways that it can be done. We can reduce the number of government employees. We can reduce the amount of government that we have and thus be able to reduce the taxation -- or at least hold it in line to where we are now.

We were told yesterday that we're in line with the northern states that border us, and that we're higher than Alberta. Corporations tend to move to those areas to set up shop, and we find that happening now. We find corporations moving south of the border at this time. They must be doing it for some reason. Obviously it's because of the higher taxation that seems to be coming from this government. We have to expand the ability of corporations to earn more money, and thus we receive more taxation to provide the services that the people of B.C. should have.

It's interesting to note that just a short time ago the now Minister of Tourism wanted the past administration to drop the tax on small business from 9 to 8 percent, because they felt that it was going to take that to keep small businesses going. All of a sudden, with the shuffle from this side of the floor over to the other side of the floor, we find a different policy. They want to increase it another 1 percent, and they're going to survive quite well.

I realize that the government had an onerous task. For how many years did they say that it would be so easy to be able to go over there and run the province? Now all of a sudden they find that it is a little more difficult. All the promises that were made to be broken are a little hard to keep. But I think that holding the line or possibly cutting back in the ministries and allowing industry and small business to grow in this province, so that we are competitive with our U.S. neighbours and with Alberta to a greater degree, would be better for all British Columbians.

We will find that people will move from British Columbia -- corporations -- and some people will live in Alberta and work in British Columbia. They'll get the benefits of British Columbia, but they'll be spending their wages someplace else. That does nothing for British Columbia. So I in no way can support Bill 5. I thank you very much for listening so attentively. Thank you.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to close debate on this, and I thank members for their participation. As I said, no one is happy with any kind of tax increase, but we did inherit a difficult financial situation from the previous administration, compounded by off-loading from the federal government which is inflating our deficit. We tried to move in a very fair way, and I think this bill embodies a sense of fairness.

I must say that I was surprised to hear the critic opposite praising the Alberta budget. As you know, it has a significant deficit which in British Columbia terms would be over $3 billion. I'm not sure that's a responsible course of action, and I'm disappointed that the Liberal party would choose to support such initiatives and oppose this legislation.

It's this kind of prudent fiscal management that I think has been well received by the rating agencies. As you know, our rating was confirmed yesterday. I see the member opposite shaking his head, but Moody's from New York has confirmed our credit rating, and we are now the highest rating in Canada. We are the benchmark credit for the first time in Canadian history, and this action is a result of a variety of factors: a low per-capita debt, our stronger economy here because of our natural advantages and the fact that our diversified trade is a great source of strength to British Columbia.

The Premier, I might add, is taking a leadership role in enhancing that trade, which is a source of strength in British Columbia. On top of that is the budget, which was well received because, although difficult in some respects, it is fair and responsible. It comes to grips with some of the fiscal problems that we've inherited.

With that I am delighted to move that the bill be now read a second time.

[4:45]

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 5, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1992, 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. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 9.

SOCIAL SERVICE TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 9 introduces four amendments to the Social Service Tax Act. First, the bill imposes a sales tax on purchases of legal services to 

[ Page 1157 ]

help fund the increasing costs of providing legal aid. The government's contribution to legal aid has doubled over the last two years and will cost an estimated $72 million in 1992-93. In light of the difficult fiscal situation the government inherited from the previous administration, which has been compounded, of course, by federal government cuts to transfer payments that increased our deficit significantly, an additional revenue source had to be found to offset the cost of this program.

This is a difficult program. The previous government doubled the amount going to legal aid lawyers, and that has increased costs by more than double, because it has induced more demand from lawyers. We had a difficult choice whether to literally cut legal aid services to people or to find additional revenues. We chose in this case to find additional revenues by expanding the sales tax base to legal services.

There's been some concern about that, and I understand that, because obviously it's not something particularly popular. So I just want members to know that in terms of the equitability of such a tax, a little more than 50 percent of the revenue from a sales tax on legal services will be paid for by businesses. That's Statistics Canada information, which I'd be delighted.... I'm trying to think of the source here for members, but we can provide that. The other 50 percent, of course, is disproportionately on those of higher incomes. I'm not saying that it is something which I'd like to do. I'm going to be honest: this is not a particularly popular measure. However, the reality is that $35 million is a lot of revenue. It is a progressive tax measure, and it's one that helps us deal with this burgeoning legal aid budget.

Secondly, Bill 9 expands the application of the sales tax to include non-voiced telecommunication services; in other words, fax machines. Prior to this amendment, only telephone and voice communication were subject to the tax. Lines dedicated to non-voice transmissions, such as fax machines or data transmissions, were not. Bill 9 brings the application of British Columbia sales tax to telecommunication services into line with that of every other province, and ensures that taxpayers are treated equitably regardless of the type of technology used.

Again, so members know, in this province -- and I think this is a good move and I give the previous government some credit for this -- we do not have the sales tax on local billings for telephone use, which everybody uses, but we do have the sales tax on long distance costs, which are predominately business-based. Every province in Canada, to my knowledge, taxes that service, and most provinces tax regular local telephone use as well. In this budget we chose not to expand the sales tax to local telephone service, as almost every province has, but we did choose to expand the sales tax onto fax machines in keeping with the same kind of philosophy. That will raise about $2 million for the government of British Columbia, and probably more in years to come as fax machines continue to escalate in use.

Thirdly, Bill 9 provides a retroactive exemption for certain interprovincial and international aircraft and parts for the period May 5, 1983 to March 31, 1992. This exemption is provided because British Columbia is not constitutionally able to impose a provincial sales tax on all international aircraft operating in British Columbia. Again, so members are familiar with the background, the previous administration applied the sales tax to aircraft, and tried to say that they should pay the tax for certain things when they are in British Columbia. The problem is that aircraft, of course, move between provinces, and it became extremely difficult to apply the tax. Rather than attempt, yet again, to bring in more loopholes or try to close those loopholes, the application of the tax to Canadian-based airlines, but not their competitors -- which is the case right now -- would have been unfair. Rather than try to capture international aircraft with the sales tax, we chose to go the other way and exempt Canadian aircraft from the sales tax. Again, that's a positive move.

Although the exemption is provided retroactive to remove outstanding tax liabilities from airlines, there is no revenue effect, because airlines essentially stopped paying the tax, and there were, initially, legal challenges. Again, as is in the past -- and you may recall this -- in most legislative sessions I've been in there is a Social Service Tax Amendment Act, which tries to close all these loopholes. This loophole was extremely difficult to close. Again, rather than try to do that, we simply decided to get out of the field. I think that is positive for the domestic airline industry.

In addition to retroactive exemption, a prospective exemption is provided effective April 1, 1992 for jet-powered aircraft and parts. This exemption will ensure that Canadian-based airlines operating internationally and interprovincially are taxed on the same basis as their international competitors.

Finally, Bill 9 adds dolomite to the definition of mineral. This amendment allows dolomite-mining operations to receive the existing tax exemption for explosive supplies, which is available to limestone and all other mineral-mining operations.

I move second reading.

F. Gingell: Bill 9 is an interesting document. This bill does those things that ought not to be done, and does not do those things that ought to be done.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things this bill doesn't do in the field of the social services tax.... It is very disappointing to us as the opposition, as it is to all of the manufacturers of British Columbia. It will also be disappointing to the chamber of commerce, the boards of trade and the organizations for small business, because it is something that they have asked for continuously. It doesn't take the tax from manufacturing inputs which create products that are in turn subject to tax when they're sold; it doesn't take the tax from energy or from manufacturing equipment. If you took the tax from those things, and that caused the costs to be reduced, people would be able to buy more of them and you would be recovering those things.

This tax is not charged in Ontario; it's not charged in other provinces, and that makes our manufacturing industries uncompetitive. We recognize, as do they, that the products these businessmen manufacture are sub-

[ Page 1158 ]

ject to consumer taxes and to provincial social services taxes when they are sold. The fact that the exemption is not there causes double taxation.

I was pleased to see in these amendments that there is some assistance for farmers. Now farmers need a lot more help. Again, in the question of what is and isn't taxed, they produce a product that is not taxable. Food is not taxable in this province. But it is, in fact, because the producers of food are required to pay provincial consumer taxes on many items that form part of the inputs into their production. Again, that adds to the cost of food in the province.

Now I'd like to deal with the first item the minister mentioned: the social services tax on legal fees. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most discriminatory taxes we have ever seen. We have, for the first time -- not completely for the first time, but a move into it -- the application of the 6 percent provincial sales tax on services. They are only taxing legal services. They're not taxing the services of engineers. They're not taxing the services of architects. They're not taxing the services performed by brokers.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: You should be writing them down; you'd get a list.

They're not taxing the services of land surveyors. They're just taxing legal services. And that really is discriminatory. Why have they selected legal services? If we go back to the quote from the minister's budget speech on March 26 and the statement that he made in the introduction to this bill this afternoon, it's going to be used to fund legal aid. I simply fail to see the logic of that. Why are law-abiding citizens in this province who perhaps only just earn enough money -- have sufficient income -- to be above the level to which legal aid is applied being taxed to pay for the costs of the legal defence of people who are involved in our criminal justice system, normally on the wrong side of it? It simply isn't logical; it is fuzzy thinking.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

If legal aid is desirable public policy, as I think we all agree it is, then government should provide it. It should be paid for from general revenues; you shouldn't be taxing the law-abiding side of the system to pay for the defence of criminals. It simply isn't logical, and it's more fuzzy thinking.

[5:00]

There has been a great deal of talk about consultation during the election campaign and promises by our government -- the New Democratic Party government -- that from this point on there would be consultation. I can assure you that from the raft of letters and communications we have been receiving from lawyers -- I'm sure that for every 17 we received on our side of the House the government received 51 -- there clearly has been no consultation. This whole proposal was a great shock to the legal profession.

I'm sure that if there had been some consultation, the government would have realized that they've created a quandary. If an individual is seeking income tax advice, they have a choice of where they can go to seek that advice. If they go to a lawyer, that advice and the cost of it will be subject to 6 percent tax. If they go to a chartered accountant to receive that advice, it will not be subject to 6 percent tax.

I'm sorry that I gave up the practice of my profession some 20 years ago, because now I would have an automatic advantage over my competitors. I don't know why the Minister of Finance has suddenly decided to give an unfair leg-up to the poor chartered accountants and certified general accountants and people like H&R Block and so on. Perhaps this is some private arrangement that they have with some very large chartered accountancy firm, which shall of course be nameless.

It was very interesting to hear the Minister of Finance suggest to us that the tax is progressive rather than regressive. The imposition of this tax is in no way related to the level of income or the ability to pay of the person who is required to pay this tax. It is primarily going to be paid for, in the end, by many low-income taxpayers: people who are trying to get support for their children; people who are trying to enforce custody orders -- often single parents -- who may be just above the level of receiving legal aid.

In his speech the minister talked about the large amount of this tax, at least 50 percent, that will paid by large corporations. Let's just examine that. First of all, the bill exempts from payment of this tax the value of legal services performed by the staff of the corporation for which they work -- referred to in the trade as "house counsel." That is exempt. Let's see, who has house counsel? MacMillan Bloedel has house counsel, so any legal services performed by their staff lawyers won't be subject to tax. Does B.C. Telephone have house counsel? Yes, I think we're fairly safe to assure ourselves that they do. The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, do they have house counsel? Yes, they do, so they won't have to pay this tax. That particularly applies to the cases where they are defending their liability concerning policies issued by them against their insureds, who are just individual people having to hire their own lawyers. Those people will have to pay the 6 percent social-services tax. When ICBC uses their house counsel to defend themselves, which they do on many occasions, they will not be subject to the tax. That doesn't seem to be fair. Mrs. Jones is trying to get custody of her children from an errant husband. Does she have house counsel? No, she doesn't. She will have to pay the tax if she's just above the level of income that would make her eligible for legal aid.

Let's examine this question about large corporations -- or any business -- a little more. Which segment of our population is this tax going to hit the hardest? The real key to this is that businesses will pay this tax with pretax dollars. Their legal bills are deductible for income tax purposes. When they employ one of the large legal firms, they can properly write it off, as people say, against their taxes. They actually don't write it off against their taxes; they write it off against their income and so reduce their income prior to the calculation of their income taxes. So they can do that, 

[ Page 1159 ]

but can individuals do that? No, they can't. If they go to a lawyer to get a will written, or to transfer some property, or to sue their next-door neighbour who's throwing garbage over the fence, or whatever, they cannot deduct their legal costs. They don't pay for it with pre-tax dollars. If the corporation is in the 50 percent tax bracket, it only costs them 3 percent. But if you're not a corporation, if you're an individual, the tax rate is 6 percent. Does that seem to be fair? It doesn't to me. Is it a progressive tax? It isn't a progressive tax; it's a regressive tax.

The next problem is the question of enforcement. The tax carefully includes the tax to be applicable to and payable on legal work performed by non-British Columbia lawyers out of the province if the subject of the legal work being done is situated in the province of British Columbia. I don't know how the province is going to enforce that. I have a real problem understanding how they're going to collect this tax. Are they going to put in place some series of regulations that will delay the registration of documents; that will delay the registration of title until it is satisfied that the tax has been paid? I can really see that this is going to be a very serious question of enforcement, and if it turns out that having the work done by lawyers outside the province causes the tax not to be paid because of the impracticality of getting it collected, I certainly hope that won't result in a whole movement of British Columbia lawyers to the province of Alberta. We'll have our businessmen going south and our lawyers going east.

There is also in this act a section that deals with the ability, by way of regulation to be brought in by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to include the tax to apply on disbursements. When you get a legal bill, it is usually in two parts. The first part is the large bit usually, which is the lawyer's fee, and then secondly, there is an additional charge for telephone calls, use of the fax machine, payments they have made, travel expenses, whatever, which have been incurred by the lawyer on your behalf. At the moment there is not any suggestion that this will be taxed, but there is the ability in the tax, by way of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council regulations, to include it. So if any of those disbursements have already had tax paid on them, you will then be required to pay tax on that tax and tax on the original amount for a second time. What will this cause to happen? In the normal course of events, the lawyer isn't selling you the value of these disbursements. You aren't buying them; he or she has just, as a matter of convenience, made the payment of these items on your behalf and is now collecting them. This bill indicates the possibility that they could be taxed a second time.

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that it's very important for us to start simplifying our lives. We live in a complex and complicated world, and it seems to me that every time we deal with some legislation that's put forward by this government, it makes it a little more complex, a little more complicated and a little more expensive. There are more forms to file; it will probably require businesses to add additional staff at some point to look after these things. What does this bill do? Again, this complicates our lives.

Legal firms will be involved and will have to bear the cost of preparing the billings. They will have to bear the cost of the collections, of preparing the returns and of reporting them to the social services tax department. It is going to be more burden, more overhead and more time spent doing unproductive things. It just makes us more inefficient.

They're not only going to bear the additional costs of the administration, the accounting and the reporting and filing, they are also going to be required to remit this tax not when they receive it or when they actually get paid by their clients, but when they bill it. In addition to those costs I have just mentioned, they will have to bear the costs of financing this tax. They have to pay it to the government prior to collecting it from their clients.

Most lawyers, contrary to what has been indicated, aren't partners of large law firms. They're not partners of the Farris company, the Davis company, Russell and DuMoulin and so on. The majority of lawyers are in small firms or small practices with single practitioners who don't have the ability and the time to suddenly take on these additional burdens.

[5:15]

When you have a large firm, there is an organization there. They employ accountants and clerical staff. They have the ability and the facilities for handling this additional burden. The small practitioners -- the majority of lawyers -- are going to have a difficult time. Those small lawyers aren't the large-income earners of this world.

It always surprises me when the statistics come out that show the income that is earned and reported through our tax system by the various professional groups. The average for lawyers is such that although there may be some very high earners in some of the large firms, a lot of lawyers are struggling along, looking after small clients like your mother, Mr. Speaker, and mine, if she were still alive, preparing wills and doing work that doesn't earn large fees.

That brings me to another subject that I think the minister should take note of. If a lawyer does work for $1,000 and is now required to add the GST, which is $70, and also will now bill $60 for the provincial sales tax, to make the bill total $1,130, and he sends his bill off to his client, and the client looks at it, writes him a cheque for $100 and sends it back in partial payment of the account, and never pays another penny -- they simply ignore the remainder of that bill, and perhaps leave the province or the country -- do you know who gets that $100? The regulations and instructions carried out by the consumer taxation branch of this province determine and assess that the first $60 collected is for the social services tax and is paid to the minister sitting across the House. They don't say the $100 consists of GST and provincial sales tax and some small amount for the lawyer. They say: "Oh no, we get our money first."

The provincial government didn't contribute anything to that. They didn't do any of the work or worry about the poor client morning, afternoon and night, but they take the very first penny that is paid. That may be bit of a shock to you, but I assure you it is true. I was fairly certain of it, but I did phone the consumer 

[ Page 1160 ]

taxation branch of the province this afternoon and confirmed that that is their policy.

An Hon. Member: Everyone should have a global account.

F. Gingell: That's right.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the question of the social services tax on legal fees and the two items that I'm really sorry to say have been omitted from this act, which I believe would have been good to have been included. But it does lead me to the conclusion that Bill 9 is the commencement of the integration of the provincial sales tax with the GST.

In a non-discriminatory manner, I guess they put all the names in a hat. I guess the way that the lawyers got taxed and the engineers, accountants, architects and other people who deliver services didn't was that they probably wrote down the names of all the various professions, put them in a hat, shook it up and then the Minister of Finance, blindfolded, put his hand into the hat and came up with lawyers. So they decided to tax lawyers first and see how it goes and what the reaction of the people of the province of British Columbia to that is. Then, if there's not too much of a scream and a shout, we'll start taxing all the other services and we will be in a position to integrate the provincial social services tax with the federal GST.

That's a policy that, if they were to make the manoeuvre revenue-neutral.... I'm not sure they understand what that means. It means that you don't collect any more from doing it this way than the way you were doing it before. We keep hearing about revenue-neutral changes that have come through in various acts, and they always seem to work out to the benefit of the tax collector rather than the taxpayer.

I think that a discussion about a revenue-neutral change and integration of the PST and the GST in British Columbia is something that the minister should consider. It's a discussion that we would be very willing to enter into. I would be really happy if the government decided to hand that subject to one of the select standing committees -- probably the Select Standing Committee on Finance, Crown Corporations and Government Services -- and asked them to consider the subject and to talk to people in the province to see if we could come to some non-partisan agreement on the best and most effective, the least regressive and the most efficient way of handling consumer taxation in this province. It is a suggestion I make in all seriousness. I think that the time has come that we should consider it.

With these few words, I'm going to close my remarks on Bill 9. I can assure you that because of the discriminatory, unfair and non-consultative character of Bill 9 and these proposed changes to the Social Service Tax Act, this caucus will be voting against it on all appropriate occasions.

L. Fox: I too rise to speak against this bill. Let's make no mistake about it. With respect to the tax being charged on legal fees, it is not a charge on lawyers. It is a charge on the people of British Columbia. I concur with the individual before me who spoke and correctly suggested that this particular tax would not be felt by business and industry if they were in a profitable situation. However, there are many businesses throughout this province on the verge of bankruptcy. If ever they needed legal consultation, it is now. Those businesses will definitely feel the hurt of this 6 percent.

I suggest as well that this government, at least through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Recreation and Housing, is looking at a program to put forward affordable housing. Yet what does this tax hit? It taxes directly the conveyancing of the titles of those homes.

I suggest that the other individuals who will feel this tax the most are those just marginally over the income that is required in order to get legal assistance. Those who can least afford to pay the 6 percent tax will do it. I submit to you that the budget as a whole has taken a lot of dollars out of our pockets with respect to the removal of the supplementary homeowner's grant, income tax increases, the capital tax, ICBC increases, licensing increases -- I could go on and on. They actually took the dollars out of our pockets, leaving a bit of change, and this bill takes the change.

The cost on legal fees. Presently we have lawyers from both Alberta and the U.S. who have been called to the bar in British Columbia and who operate offices in both of those jurisdictions. I would suggest that if they don't want to play fair ball with this government, it would be quite easy for them not to do so, and it would be difficult for the government to police.

I can, however, congratulate the minister with respect to the taxation on airplane parts. Although perhaps that has been seen to be a legitimate tax from many perspectives, it has been a very difficult tax to collect. In fact, I understand that the province has yet to collect any. It was a good move on behalf of the minister to deal with that particular issue.

Let's talk a little bit about the increase on fax machines. Fax machines are a growing phenomenon. They are a very integral part of business. Once again, this is one other area that this government has seen....

Interjection.

L. Fox: Yes, it's fax-inating, all right. It's more like tax-inating, because this government has seen one other little opportunity to put their hands back into the pockets of small business.

With the exception of the one area that deals with the taxation on aircraft parts, this is a regressive tax, certainly not a progressive tax. We will see this grow. We will have a new phenomenon: NDP-GST. Under this particular bill, we'll see it expand substantially.

V. Anderson: I too must speak against this bill. It's one more example of the people who can least afford it being indirectly charged extra funds that they do not have. I speak particularly of those people on low incomes. When these people need legal advice, they are going to be charged directly for it. It falls on them disproportionately, according to the income level they are in. Many of these people who need legal fees cannot even afford proper housing at this time. They do not have adequate food and clothing and the other facilities 

[ Page 1161 ]

they need for themselves and their children. Some of these people are working full-time on the minimum wage. Some of these people are receiving limited assistance from Social Services through GAIN. But all of these people have the opportunity to use legal services from time to time, and not all of them come under legal aid. In fact, the majority of them do not, so it falls disproportionately upon them. Yet this is not considered in this.

Once again it's presented as if high-income earners and professionals -- a very small proportion of society -- were paying this. In fact, it's limited almost entirely to those who can least afford to pay it, because often they are the ones who have no means to write it off in any other way but have to pay it directly. They have no means to pay but by taking away from the very necessities of life. In this sense, it's a direct, disproportionate people's tax, like so many of the taxes being brought forth.

This is unacceptable, particularly from a government that is trying to portray itself as being a government of the people who are in greatest need. If there was a clause in it that exempted or protected those people, then you might be able to say, from that point of view, that it had reason and validity. But there is no exemption for those who have this kind of pressure upon them.

[5:30]

Mr. Speaker, we also wonder about the motive behind this. Is the motive to begin to implement a legal care program? This also has it's own validity. But if it is a process of beginning to implement a legal care program, they should be honest enough to state that that's what it is and to display the total picture in which this program is to be found, so that we would understand not only the action of the moment but what's behind the action and the direction in which it might or might not be leading. If it was leading to a legal care program, of course, we would want to know the nature of that program. There are many who would applaud if it was moving to a legal care program, if it was honest enough to state that fact -- and there would be others who would question it. But we could do neither, because the opportunity is not presented here.

One of the areas this government has said they're very concerned about is that of volunteer and community groups. These are volunteers who operate without resources who try to serve the community at large. They also have needs, even the need to register themselves as a non-profit society so that they can operate their business in a logical manner on behalf of the people. This tax also falls upon them -- disproportionately, once again, on those who are trying to provide service to the community -- and this gives no opportunity for them to be protected from it.

The speaker just before me mentioned the use of fax machines. Nearly all of the community programs I go to now are using fax machines, because it has become a very efficient way for them to communicate and undertake the community programs. They're now being charged through this undertaking for the very community service work they do on behalf of the government; they're being charged by the government in this program for those particular services that they undertake.

They have not indicated the extra cost that's going to be, as was mentioned earlier, on the small business person who is paying the legal service tax or the small business person who is a lawyer and has to pay the cost of the operation, the setting up and the management of this program. The government has not indicated to us how much of the 6 percent they're going to receive: is it going to cost them 1, 2, 3 or 4 percent to collect this particular tax? Is it going to be an indication of something that they will be doing to make a point, but there will be very little income coming to them because of this?

When we talk about consultation, which this government has been very clear in putting forth as a way of meeting the people, the question has already been raised: have they consulted with the lawyers? No, they have not. Have they consulted with members of the community? Have they consulted with the people of their constituencies? I would ask the Finance minister if he's consulted with the people of his own constituency, to whom he is directly responsible, and asked them what they feel about this kind of tax being placed upon them.

He does not come from one of the wealthy areas of the community. He comes from an area where people are having very difficult times trying to survive. Is he going to go back to them and say: "I've just cost you another 6 percent, and aren't you glad that I've done that for you, because now you're going to be so much worse off than you were the day before?"

An Hon. Member: Give them jobs.

V. Anderson: The other question is their jobs, because even if they apply for jobs, these days there will be legal work involved in that for many of them. They will have to be paying the extra tax for that.

I do really ask the government at this time, when they are putting forward this kind of a tax on legal services, if they have taken into account the people of the community who are at the lower end of the financial scale, who are going to be most impacted by this and who will not have the opportunity to respond in the way that they would like to.

L. Reid: I wish to rise in discussion on Bill 9, because it is a tax on clients, not on lawyers -- contrary to recent public opinion. I need you to consider the following point: there is no rationale for singling out legal services for taxation when no other services are being taxed. This type of selective taxation should not apply to essential services. Legal services are essential services, not luxuries. People need lawyers' advice and assistance to protect their legal rights.

This is a regressive tax that will impact most severely on low-income and middle-income people, and which may discourage people from seeking legal help. The government's stated purpose for the tax -- preserving legal aid -- is not met. The legal aid plan needs $92 million in 1992 just to provide its current level of service. The government has committed only 

[ Page 1162 ]

$72 million, leaving a $20 million shortfall regardless of how much money the new tax generates.

There are all kinds of interpretation problems with the imposition of a tax on legal services, some of which are described in the notice from the new Law Society taxation committee. The tax may give a competitive advantage to non-lawyers who offer some of the same law-related services, such as mediation or investment advice. These providers are not obligated to charge tax on their services. These are crucial issues.

It appears that it will now be necessary for lawyers to put their minds to the question of whether or not the services they are providing are taxable. Numerous other matters remain unresolved in determining the application of and transitional arrangements for the sales tax, including: retainers and prepayments -- we have no clear sense of how that's going to be resolved; fee adjustments, taxation adjustments and write-offs -- how that is going to be figured into the equation; and work in progress relating to tariff or fixed-fee work.

Considerable uncertainty exists in the interpretations of other provisions of Bill 9. For example, section 2.01(2) provides that no tax is payable under subsection (1) if the legal services have no connection to British Columbia. This provision is ambiguous in relation to lawyers' advice to clients on the free trade treaty and on federal and international legislation. This dilemma exists regardless of whether the purchaser is a resident or a non-resident of British Columbia. No guidelines have been published to assist in the interpretation of this section.

Similarly, certain overhead costs now absorbed by some law firms but characterized as disbursements by other firms may require specific rulings in order to maintain tax equity among firms. But it is difficult to determine how a ruling could be applied equitably to firms that provide such services in-house and those that require the services from outside providers. I cannot support this bill, and I would urge its immediate defeat.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

C. Serwa: I too speak in opposition to this bill and am very pleased to enter the debate on the philosophy and principles of Bill 9. I suppose I should say that this bill reflects probably the collective attitude of the current socialist government and their politics of envy and greed. Virtually every bill that the Minister of Finance has brought forward has been aimed at a group that they love to hate. Certainly the envy aspect of it is directed. We've certainly attended to the doctors. We're endeavouring to hide behind that differential and attack the lawyers in this particular manner.

What this government fails to realize is that the only security for providing the income required to operate government is based on a strong and viable economy. Virtually every measure has been brought forward from that position of envy and greed. In attacking those who create the strength of the economy, they are taking job opportunities away from the people of the province and they're taking away the opportunity for the provision of services to the people.

What we're looking at in Bill 9 is obviously the trial balloon, or the prelude, to harmonization of provincial social services taxes with the federal GST -- nothing more, nothing less, than harmonization. Who joined Social Credit and the former administration when we spoke and made protest in opposition to the tax on goods and services that the federal government imposed? Who joined with us in solid support? The then members of the opposition; the socialists who are now in government. Like other measures where they were in harmony with us -- certainly Bill 82, the taxpayer protection plan; the commitment to balance the budget.... On all of those things that government should be responsible for striving for, they joined in unity with us.

In this particular example, what a difference a day makes! Here we have a government that was adamant in their opposition to the GST and indicated strongly that we hadn't made strong enough protest, and here they are working on the first step of harmonization of the goods and services tax with the provincial social services tax.

The tax is regressive. The tax will hurt the economy of British Columbia; the tax will hurt those who require legal services. The minister spoke of the philosophies and principles of this bill, indicating that 30 to 50 percent of the revenue will come from small businesses. The minister knows full well what happens to businesses and who will ultimately pay those bills: the taxpayer of British Columbia. In every case, the end result goes back into the taxpayer's pocket. They're the ultimate consumer of services.

What is the revenue going to be used for? Do we require the revenue for education? Do we require the revenue for social services and housing? Do we require the revenue for health? I would suggest that the revenue required here is because of the political debts that the government in power has accumulated, and it has to pay off those political debts. It's not a matter of requiring the additional revenue to provide this money. It's the repeal of regulations, such as Bill 82, which will expose this government and the people of the province to a little over $300 million over the next two years. It's the fixed-wage policy that the Minister of Finance has introduced, which will expose the people of the province to a little over $200 million over the next two years. It's the 1,500 FTEs that the government has decided they would increase the civil service by, which is more than we had introduced into the civil service over the past ten years. Between that additional amount and the wage expectations of the public sector, fully $1 billion is required for that.

Surely the government of the day has to recognize that tax rate increases are regressive, and they will hurt the economy, they will hurt the jobs, and most of all they will hurt the individuals that these members of the government side stand for and say they protect: the working people of the province. They will be hurt worst of all. The reality is that when you look at the growth of unions in Canada you have to recognize that while 20 to 25 percent of the labour force of Canada is involved in the union sector, 75 to 80 percent of the public sector is 

[ Page 1163 ]

unionized; and that's primarily where a great increase in these funds is going.

I find it difficult to accept that the additional $35 million in revenues that will be required from those consuming legal services in British Columbia.... That is all of the people in British Columbia, not simply businesses, not simply high-income people. It's a direct tax against them, and it is going to hurt British Columbians and our economy.

In some areas, such as the aircraft parts the minister was talking about, the matter of tax revenue was being strongly contested, so the recognition that they would exempt that does absolutely nothing; it only pays lip-service to something that was initiated but wasn't workable.

The reality is that the sales tax on fax services is another aspect that is going to hit all elements of the economy. It's going to hit non-profit groups -- certainly all sorts of organizations that will have to pay a great deal more for services that today are very necessary for conducting the day-to-day matters of any organization.

I violently oppose the philosophy and principles of Bill 9. I believe that it's simply another tax grab, and it's not the only tax grab. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being taken from private citizens in the province, as well as from businesses in the province -- the large and small businesses that generate jobs and the mom-and-pop operations that exist in my constituency. We're denying the opportunity for those businesses to flourish.

The Minister of Finance and the government have to recognize -- and preferably sooner rather than later -- that they must exercise initiatives that will generate economic activity. They must recognize that they have to work on less of a margin and more of a volume. That is the only security; that is the real advantage of the people in the province.

I believe that the minister knows that, and he must inform his colleagues of that. Rather than continuing with this policy of envy and greed -- and that's what it is -- we have to encourage the dynamics of the economy in the province. With that, I'll take my place and register my firm opposition.

Hon. Speaker, with the lateness of the day, I move that we adjourn until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada