1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 647 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the first

Member for Vancouver-Burrard and myself have great pleasure today in

introducing to the House 32 students from the Kitsilano Secondary

School together with their teacher, Mr. John Ippeu, and I hope the

House will give them a very nice welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

galleries today 55 students from the David Thompson School in Vancouver

South constituency. They are here with their vice-principal, Mr. Wally

Moult, and their teachers, Mr. Robert Ellis and Miss Judy Robertson. I

would ask the House to join me in giving them a hearty welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FJ. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I have two groups I'd

like to introduce today. We have the executive directors of the

I.O.D.E. from Nanaimo, Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Killeen, and Mrs. Zico, and

then representing the Chase River ratepayers Mr. and Mrs. Al Gruber. I

ask you to extend to them a cordial welcome.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 1,

An Act to Amend the Evidence Act .

Bill No. 1 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 4,

An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961 .

Bill No. 4 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 6,

An Act to Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961 .

Bill No. 6 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 7,

An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Bill No. 7 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 8,

An Act to Amend the Court of Appeal Act .

Bill No. 8 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 9, British Columbia Railway Act.

Bill No. 9 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 29, The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 29 is

an Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act . This is a public Act, a public bill that governs the activities of the chartered accountants in the province.

We have been requested to make some amendments by the institute to their present Act. This bill contains those amendments.

While they're not too substantial there are some changes proposed in

the makeup of their council and other amendments relating to the

disciplinary powers of the institute. Hence, following second reading I

am going to recommend that it be referred to the committee on standing

orders and private bills for consideration in a detailed way. I move

the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted

that the Minister, the Honourable Attorney General, has decided to send

this bill to committee, so that it can have some free discussion and

some outside witnesses can come in and give us some reasons,

particularly reasons why we should set another group aside or at least

apart from the regular group of chartered accountants.

I noticed that now we're deciding, according to this bill, that

there will be a designation "C.A. Honourable, " so that an honorary

C.A. is something very much like the designation for Queen's Counsel,

in my view, in that those people that are chosen by a board of their

so-called peers will be honoured in this way and therefore they will

have more status in the community and be able to attract business that

much more readily.

Frankly, as far as we're concerned we're very suspicious of this

kind of thing. We're therefore delighted that it's going to the

committee. But we certainly don't like the idea at all at this point of

this matter of a designation — just like a Q.C., separating those that

are much more acceptable in the eyes of

[ Page 648 ]

the particular group that are being set up to choose who are going to be the C.A. (HON).

So we will see you in the committee, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this

bill seems a step in the right direction and our party will certainly

not only support the principle of the bill but will support the

procedure which the Attorney General has recommended be followed in

this particular case, namely to refer the bill to a committee so that

we can hear testimony on whether or not the detailed provisions of this

Act will work in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

I would have preferred, Mr. Speaker, if this bill and indeed all

other bills which we introduce into the House could be referred to

committee for the kind of vetting that is evidently intended by the

government in this particular case, before the principle of the bill is

agreed upon by the House.

I would hope that the Attorney General will take this as a precedent

for many other bills that might be introduced into the House, namely to

refer them to committee and after we get the information then vote on

them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General says that this is a bill of no particular importance.

HON. MR. PETERSON: No, I didn't say that at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, with no new principle?

HON. MR. PETERSON: No, I didn't say that either.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, anyway…(Laughter).

HON. MR. PETERSON: Please quote me correctly.

MR. MACDONALD: It's all on Hansard , it's all on the

record here. We'll see what the Attorney General said — if necessary

we'll wait for the film. But there is a very momentous new principle in

this bill. Without referring to the

section I suppose in any detail,

the Attorney General is proposing that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may appoint one member to the Institute

of Chartered Accountants council who need not be a chartered accountant.

So I don't know of any other profession in which this step has taken

place and I think it is a very important new principle and one which I

may say that my colleagues and I have espoused because we believe that

in a professional body of this kind there should be an ombudsman or

ombudswoman to represent the public or the clients or the patients, if

it's the ease of the medical association. Clients, if it's the legal

profession, the businessman if it's chartered accountants and the

public generally.

We see in this some kind of a lead and a bit of a victory for an

argument that's been raised on this side of the House. Yet at the same

time it's going to be very important if we embark upon this matter of

appointing ombudsmen for the public interest to the bodies of

professional associations, that they be not political appointees, that

they be broadly representative of the community and not merely selected

by the cabinet. In other words that some kind of sifting process take

place.

It happens today in the case of the award of the accolade of Q.C. — it's not followed through but I think the opinion of the representative

groups within the public sector of the public should be sought, and

some kind of public nominations of suitable people to perform these

important functions should take place.

I think that should be done publicly so that the nominations of

consumers' groups and labour groups and business groups and so forth

should be publicly known before the selection is made. Perhaps a better

way of selection entirely can be worked out than straight cabinet

appointment.

But I congratulate the Attorney General in moving in a small way in

a direction which I think this Legislature should take and that is, as

I say, to establish the new principle that a profession should be

governed not only by the members of that profession but should have

present in their deliberation a watchdog representing public interests

as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): If I'm permitted to speak

to this bill, the Member who just took his place was referring to a

principle in the bill wherein the council of the chartered accountants

would have permission to expand and introduce members who are not in

fact members of the institute.

Actually what this requirement and principle involves is the

introduction of non-practising accountants. It seems to me this is a

step in the right direction. This profession has a very respectable

percentage of non-practising accountants who are in their membership,

and the council I think would benefit from the introduction of a

broader base of nonpractising people, who are well-qualified.

Secondly, it refers to honorary memberships and I know this raises a

great degree of concern because of the debate recently with regard to

lawyers. And it seems to me that within the accounting profession, what

we know as a fellow of the chartered accounting profession are very few

in number. They are extremely few in number and this merely suggests

that they would not have to be unanimously accepted by the institute.

I'm in favour of the bill and I'm happy to see it brought before a

committee of this Legislature to give the institute itself an

opportunity to explain some of the ramifications of it.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 29 ordered referred to the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 30, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 30. The Honourable the Attorney General.

[ Page 649 ]

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 30 is the Family Relations Act .

It's a bill that proposes some new concepts in the law governing

matrimonial and family relationships, and it will also serve to codify

much of the law on this subject in one statute as well as making our

family court procedures more understandable to the public and more

serviceable for the purposes for which they are required by the public

today.

Basically the bill is divided into six parts. The first three parts

deal with the matrimonial and family relationships generally, judicial

separation, alimony maintenance and custody of the children. In other

words these are the sections whose jurisdiction traditionally lies in

the Supreme Court of the province.

What we have done in this

part is to reduce some 54 sections from

other Acts into the 14 sections that you find in this particular Act.

Most of them were found heretofore in the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act , but there are some provisions as well from the Supreme Court Act and the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act that find themselves in this first part.

Many of the existing provisions of the Divorce Act

are obsolete. If you take the trouble to read the statute you will find

application here whatsoever. We considered at the time the new federal Divorce Act

came into effect in 1968 the possibility of revising the legislation

but it was felt that we should wait to determine first of all the

constitutional validity of the changes that were made in the federal

statutes.

I shouldn't say there are no major changes, but the changes

primarily are those to bring our statute into conformity with the

federal statute.

Some of the actions that are available at the present time do not apply, with the theme being matrimonial breakdown in the new Divorce Act

and hence such things as the common law action for restitution of

conjugal rights and loss of consortium, these will be done away with in

the new bill.

The fourth part of the Act deals with the principles which are now set forth in the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act

and this you will recall was the subject of a bill at the last session

which was introduced in the House, given second reading, referred to

the select standing committee on social welfare and education, and the

committee did not recommend whether the bill should proceed or not.

They did recommend that there wasn't sufficient time and that a

committee have the opportunity to review the provisions at another

session, and that will be my intention in respect of this bill — to

allow it to be considered by the committee on social welfare and

education.

There are two fundamental changes proposed in this fourth part which

I say deals with wives' and children's maintenance. The procedure in

the family court will be more readily available to an aggrieved spouse

or child, and with a widened area of discretion family court judges

will be able to provide the remedy for the problems that come before

them more effectively and with greater dispatch.

The second significant change, Mr. Speaker, is an expansion of the

definitions of "spouse", "child" and "parent", thus liability for

support and maintenance will be widened and it will be dependent upon

the factual relationship between the parties involved to a greater

extent than at the present time.

As an example, those who although not married have lived together as

man and wife for two years within the last three, will be considered

spouses. One who assumes a parental relationship over a child will be

regarded as a parent of the child. The provisions in this respect are

quite detailed in the statute.

Part five of the bill sets forth what is presently known as the Parents' Maintenance Act , and this other Act will be repealed and it will be included in this one comprehensive statute.

There are some changes in the applications procedure to make it more

effective rather than having to proceed before a magistrate as in the

past and the maximum amounts payable have been altered under this

particular section.

The last part, Mr. Speaker, deals with the reciprocal enforcement of

maintenance orders and there aren't any major or substantial changes in

this respect. It is primarily a consolidation bringing it under this

one comprehensive code, relating to family relations. With the intent

that the bill will be referred to the social welfare and education

committee for detailed analysis and consideration, I now move that the

bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, we are very

pleased to hear that the bill is going to committee because it's a very

far-reaching bill with a lot of new amendments in it which, of course,

we did not have in the last session. That is one of the reasons, of

course, the committee wanted it to have a further year, and we're very

pleased to see the bill in this form.

I would like to just comment briefly on the fact that in this day

when women are asking for equality we have to be consistent and we

certainly agree with the recommendation there that the matter of

maintenance and family support should apply to the woman also, if that

is the way the judge sees fit to give the order.

On a whole, the bill certainly seems to be a great improvement on

past legislation. As the Attorney General said, many sections were

pretty archaic going back to the 1850's. We look forward to discussing

this in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): To comment on

the bill, I'm pleased too, to see that it is going before the committee

and will get the appraisal that it deserves.

I would suggest to you that perhaps with such a fast-changing

society that we have, that this particular bill will perhaps be before

us many times again, for changes. In fact in reading the bill over the

weekend I see a reference in one of the sessions to the Wives' Protection Act ,

and I would suggest to the Attorney General at this time that perhaps

when we are taking this broader point of view in terms of separating

the wife from the husband — the man from the woman sort of thing — rather than doing that to bring it into the spouse, that perhaps indeed

we might even have to change the Wives' Protection Act to the Spouse Protection Act .

The principle of the bill, and of course the most important

principle of the bill, is that it addresses itself to the family court

matters which really at this present time bear a hardship on the

children who go through the family court

I think that is the most important principle and I would

[ Page 650 ]

hope that it would return to this House and have

approval in this year so that in the following year we will not have

the cases of hardships that we have seen in this past few years and

particularly in the past year when we could have had a trial of this

particular action and then brought it back for amendment.

I would hope that it would have the kind of perusal in committee

that it certainly deserves. I think as one of the Members said last

year, and I believe this is an improvement on that bill; "It is one of

the most important bills to be brought before the session." And I

certainly agree that it is in this particular session the most

important bill to be brought before us.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I

can't agree with the previous speaker that any cases of hardship

because of the lack of legislation existed during a past year. But

since we are addressing ourselves essentially to the principle I will

confine my remarks to the principle, except one specific further on.

Mr. Speaker, no legislation — no matter how well-intentioned and I

will grant that this legislation is well-intentioned — no legislation

no matter how well-intentioned can cover all the problems in terms of

human relationship and no political party has a monopoly on that.

But what I'm deeply concerned about is that the legislation itself

does not make provision for a number of specific things that have in my

opinion to be done, to ensure the intent of the legislation is carried

out.

I have not seen any evidence, for example, in the estimates to

increase the number of staff working in family courts in this province.

To put into effect the kind of protection that we are moving towards in

this bill in terms of family relation we must embark upon a programme

of hiring and training staff, so that these programmes can be fully

used to the benefit of the people in the community.

The second point I want to make beyond the question of hiring staff

is the use of premarital counselling. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a

great deal of social problems caused in marriage breakdowns could be

avoided if the provincial government would assume the responsibility to

get involved in the area of premarital counselling. This Act deals with

the companion legislation of the federal Divorce Act and

the separation and maintenance orders that will be enforced in

provincial jurisdictions through this Act. The provincial government in

following the federal government's lead in divorce reform, is updating

its regulations. But in my opinion the principle should include

provincial government involvement in premarital counselling.

Again, Mr. Speaker, without going into too much detail I think that

the principle does accompany the possibility of a six-week waiting

period before marriage with the young couple having option of

premarital counselling from a counsellor, or minister of their choice,

and I'll go into more detail of that in committee.

One of the other things, Mr. Speaker, that I think is absolutely

essential — and I'd like to see a commitment from the Attorney General

when he closes this particular debate — it is my opinion that the bill

will mean nothing unless accompanying literature, explanatory

literature, is made available to lawyers, social workers, and

ministers. They are the three largest professional categories who get

involved in the intricacies of family relation. And in many instances,

although they are the professionals who are involved in the field, they

do not have specific knowledge of the new legislative changes, and the

impact of those legislative changes.

I strongly urge the Attorney General to ask his department, or the

Department of Rehabilitation, to draft simple explanatory pamphlets for

the use of professionals in the field, for the use of hot-line radio

commentators, for the use of anybody that is involved in communication

in terms of these kind of problems cropping up — and they do crop up on

the radio, even.

Some of us drive along and we listen to people phoning into hot-line

commentators asking them for advice on: "What will I do with my

children?" Sometimes they give good advice and perhaps some of them

have had the opportunity because they have been asked the question to

go and find out what's going on.

But I find many lawyers don't know what's happening. And many social

workers don't know what's happening in terms of legislation. And a

great number of ministers as well. Simple pamphlets should be available.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think that the people who are most

confused when this is happening are the parents involved. There is such

an emotional upheaval taken place in a marriage, at a time of breakdown

that the whole legal machinery seems to be a fuzzy experience.

They are rushing through the legal part of what they're going

through without really knowing the kind of commitment they are making

to each other or to their children. And they come back after signing

agreements, or making arrangements, they come back to go over what they

have done and they find that they're surprised they weren't fully

informed.

That doesn't mean somebody didn't talk to them. Somebody did talk to

them. But in the state of mind they were in, they weren't listening.

And I suggest to help them over this time that written material is also

absolutely essential.

I'll make more comments in committee, but I do want to refer to the

Attorney General's special attention to a principle that he's

introducing on page 9,

section 25. Now it's the principle, I'm not

talking about the details.

The principle is that the requirements of maintenance for a child

may include "such special requirements that may exist on his physical

or mental condition, educational potential, or other circumstances,

that in the opinion of a judge may entitle the child to additional sums

for support and maintenance." It's good. What we are saying is that the

judge in his wisdom may evaluate a child in need of special mental

health services, and we are saying as the provincial government that we

will make the financial responsibility go toward that spouse who the

award has been against or for.

In other words we are saying now as a government that a parent is

responsible for the payment of special mental health services to his

child. Excellent.

Take the concept one step further, in this day and age — through

you, Mr. Speaker — let's say that the provincial government now

recognises more than just physical shelter. More than just educational

responsibility but comprehensive mental health services to a child. And

children generally in care have a relatively higher percentage of their

numbers, who need intensive counselling, intensive psychiatric services

and that is one of the great gaps in the picture of the provincial

government services.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion on speaking

[ Page 651 ]

of the principle, if we are accepting the principle

that an individual parent out of a broken family has a responsibility

for additional financial burdens to ensure good mental health services,

the provincial government has even a greater responsibility to those

children whom they take in care out of broken marriages. We must

guarantee for the sake of that child that we have these services

available while that child is in the care of the provincial government.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): To the Leader of the

Opposition, I'm only going to deal with one point — the question that

additional staff is not in the vote. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition

and all other Members know full well we have already passed in this

Legislature vote No. 81, under Department of Finance which shows the

amount available for employing new staff this year in all departments

of $2.25 million.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I think

this is a good measure. It's good social legislation and I'm delighted

to see the government is taking this step forward.

It increases without any question of a doubt dramatically the areas

to which support of children, wives, husbands or home-makers can be

sought. But my greatest concern is along the lines that have been

discussed by the Leader of the Opposition and that is to whether or not

the provincial courts and the provincial court facilities are today

equipped both judicially and administratively to handle the job.

I would seriously question the fact that they are. I think there

will have to be an enormous infusion of money and personnel, and I

certainly subscribe to the suggestions that have been raised by other

speakers dealing with that particular point.

I'm rather sorry, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the general principle

of the bill that the government did not really go all the way insofar

as women's Lib is concerned. Because they have not altered whatsoever

the age-old and I think very, very archaic situation of the law,

whereby a husband does not have any remedy against a wife in tort at

all and a wife's remedy against the husband in tort is only for the

protection of her separate property.

Just by way of a short illustration, Mr. Speaker, supposing a

husband and wife are separated and he comes to visit her, and there's a

dreadful row and he breaks her jaw. Well, he may be subject to criminal

action and no doubt would be convicted and maybe fined, sent to jail or

put on probation, whatever might happen. Howsoever she would have no

remedy against him whatsoever for damages.

But if the same situation occasioned and he visited her and broke or

tore apart a bedroom suite or broke one of her favourite vases then she

would be in the position to sue. So it seems to me that a woman should

be worth a little more than a vase. I do hope that the government would

give some thought, perhaps, to putting in the necessary amendment

whereby this situation could be covered.

I regret very much that the government did not go the whole way. But

I don't think it's yet equipped to go the whole way. But I think before

the time of everybody in this room, in this Legislature has dissipated

we will eventually see in British Columbia and I would say pretty well

all over the western world a totally new concept in the field of family

law. I think that we will find it — all of the facets of family law — under one roof. The first and foremost rule will be the preservation of

family life.

Up until now, Mr. Speaker, the law has really acted more in a

surgical manner than it has in taking the preventive medicine attitude.

I think once we can go ahead and have everything under one roof — call

it a family forum — who would deal with every facet of domestic

relations, the support of children, the custody of children, a divorce,

judicial separation, the division of matrimonial property and so forth

and so on all along the line.

But in order for that to happen, Mr. Speaker, it would be totally

necessary to obviate and delineate the old adversarial system that we

have. The family forum would have to equipped with psychologists and

psychiatrists, social workers and everyone whose direction would be to

keep the family unit together. In the long haul, Mr. Speaker, without

any question of a doubt there would be a terrific saving of dollars to

the community.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, first on a

matter mentioned by the Premier, and that is he says he has extra money

and that this may result in the employment of additional staff in the

family court.

But that money should have been put under the vote for the family

courts. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier had made his little

speech about 4 a.m. on Friday morning when this kind of matter was

under discussion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Finance wasn't discussed then.

MR. MACDONALD: Family court, no. The Attorney General's

office, no. But the Attorney General's office was discussed in the

middle of the night. If there's additional staff that's where the money

should have showed up and that's where the staff should have been

voted, and that's where the Premier should have made his little speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. MACDONALD: In the middle of that night.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on another point this bill, coming back to dry land, I don't want to be out of order, Mr. Speaker …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want the Premier to divert me into

being out of order, either. But coming back to another point. This bill

enshrines a kind of a new principle in that we're recognising again

common-law spouses — husbands and wives and children who may be

illegitimate or said to be, but there are really no illegitimate

children, there are only illegitimate parents as the Member for Saanich

(Mr. Tisdalle) of course knows. (Laughter).

We're increasing the financial security of common-law spouses by improving this definition — living together for two

[ Page 652 ]

years and that sort of thing. We're increasing

their financial security, and that's good. And yet on the death of

either one of those parents, common law, then the Premier comes in as

Minister of Finance and under his succession duty he taxes the estate

of that poor common-law spouse as if she were a stranger.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that under other laws

of the Province of British Columbia as they are now presently

constituted we're destroying some of the financial security which in

this Act we're trying to give to this kind of a relationship.

There are many cases where the estate taxed by the Premier at

stranger's rates — everything over $10,000 taxed — destroys the life

security of this wife who happens to be a common-law wife, or a husband

who happens to be a common-law husband, or a child who happens to come

from a common-law marriage. I bring this up at this time because

there's ample time, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to take cognizance of

this and forget for a moment his exchequer in the sense of bringing in

every last cent and do justice to this kind of a marriage in the

succession duty law as the justice is attempted to be done under this

law.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I

would unhesitatingly suggest that this is probably the most important

piece of legislation which the government has placed before this

assembly this year. As a matter of fact, maybe for a number of years.

Only those who have become directly involved with the problems which

are dealt with by this Act can know of the almost excruciating torture

that husbands and wives and children go through when faced with the

problems which this Act is, designed, if not to remedy, to at least

ease. Members have spoken of the need for counselling services at

various stages in the family development, either before there is a

marriage or before there are any children or after as the case may be.

I would second those suggestions. Because, Mr. Speaker, quite often

the parties to a family dispute are really not conditioned to the kind

of advice which is currently available either from the legal profession

or for the kind of treatment which they will receive at the hands of a

court — no matter how just, no matter how carefully the matter has been

examined, no matter how right in law the final decision may be.

Because of an inability to be conditioned to receive either the

advice or the results of the advice, other difficulties arise which

very often have long-lasting effects on the parties individually.

The second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has

suggested that counselling should be given in the hopes that the family

unit can be kept together. Certainly I support that view. But there are

also circumstances, Mr. Speaker, where counselling properly given can

result, perhaps, in the severing of the family relationship in those

cases where a family relationship should never have been created in the

first place.

By bringing that kind of assistance to the participants in a family

dispute it can result in decisions freely made on their behalf which

allows each of the parties to go ahead and make his or her own future

and make a better life for themselves than would be the case if they

were advised to stay together.

I know of many instances when if there could have been this kind of

advice available to them very serious tragedies would have been avoided.

I hope that when the Hon. the Attorney General closes this debate he

will advise the House — in view of the comments from the Hon. Minister

of Finance — that he will advise the House as to the information which

he is given by the judicial council or by the senior judges of the

family courts as to the adequacy of our present family court

establishment to carry the kind of loads that this Act will place upon

them.

Surely the Attorney General, when introducing this bill, Mr.

Speaker, must know whether he has the judges, the court workers, the

social workers who are needed to carry out this responsibility. He must

know in advance of preparing a bill of this magnitude what is required,

what physical facilities are required and what personnel. Since they

aren't apparently in the estimates which we considered last week then

they must come from the block vote. I would hope that we would know

what they are, because we must be assured that when we put these words

on paper as I have said before that we've got the organisation to make

them work. Otherwise it's only a sham.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I

would just like to mention one more point that I believe is embodied in

the principle of this Act —

an Act which I personally welcome. And that

is that by tradition notwithstanding the fact that there is a great

need to forestall family break-up if it is possible, or acknowledge

that if it is inevitable and should never have been that the very best

care for the children should be considered, I feel that in this Act we

will see a change in the traditions of always or nearly always placing

the child with the mother.

By bringing in the principle of equal responsibility on the part of

the male and the female or the male or female parent we will see the

judge have a great deal more latitude in placing the child in the

custody of the parent who is directly better capable and perhaps

through his relationship with the child or her relationship with the

child to provide a better home and a better future for that child.

I'm sure the Hon. Members of the House will be aware or will be

interested to know that for the first time, particularly in the United

States, there is now a tendency towards giving the father very much

equal opportunity to have custody of his child if he is adjudged to be

the one most capable of meeting the child's emotional needs as well as

financial needs.

With the principles embodied here I think that where there is a

mother who is more capable of earning a greater income and yet the

father is adjudged the better parent, then he will be able to

contribute to the care of this child but the child will be placed in a

better surrounding. I will strongly support this principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): I want to add another group to the list

of people that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned hopefully will

receive some instruction, some direction and possibly some training

following the passage of

[ Page 653 ]

this bill through the House, in whatever form it

eventually is discharged. That is the question of the police forces of

our province. It's been my experience, Mr. Speaker — and I've had

something to do with this kind of problem in my municipality — that so

frequently the police reaction to problems of marital dispute, marital

fighting, is that they can do nothing about it.

The position worsens until eventually in the middle of one night

sometime, some place, somewhere the lights are flashing and the black

and white cruisers are outside the door. It's too late when that

happens.

Certainly I think that our police forces should be, no matter as I

say what comes out of this committee, advised that there's got to be

some personnel to whom they can refer these initial complaints that

come from people in distress. So frequently less than a normal quota of

our police forces are available in terms of total members, like at

night time.

I'd like to know when the Minister winds up this debate on second

reading what interdepartmental liaison is going on at this moment? What

conversations are taking place between the various branches of this

government? What are his plans for recruitment in view of the Premier's

announcement?

Because I don't want to see this piece of legislation on the books

being looked at in jurisdictions all around the world and held up as a

model to other people when we here know that it's not going to be that

kind of situation as indeed we've seen in other statutes where you

don't buttress, you don't support, the legislation by the attendant

expenditure of money, training and recruitment and putting people on

the job.

My last point, Mr. Speaker, is may I make a request of the Minister

to make sure that a joint civil service committee is immediately set up

to attend the committee hearings to which we're referring this bill?

That a joint civil service committee comprising the Attorney General's

Department, the Department of Welfare, the Department of Education and

the Department of Health attend every committee hearing once we refer

this bill through to committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Hon. the Attorney General will close the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the

widespread support for the important principles contained in this bill.

I exercised considerable self-restraint in moving second reading

because the bill was going to committee for detailed analysis.

However, I do want to say this. That the bill that's before the

House at this moment is the result of two years of extensive work in

this field of family relations law. It is, I think, one of the most

important, comprehensive and far-reaching proposals for social

legislation that we've seen for some while.

I think too, as some of the Hon. Members have expressed themselves,

it is very progressive legislation. With reference to some of the

points that have been raised I think it was the Hon. second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that expressed the wish that we could

have all aspects relating to family life confined to one court.

Certainly this would be desirable but there is no way we can do it at

the present time. Constitutionally, of course, we could not legislate

on matters relating to divorce and those items to which the Supreme

Court has been given jurisdiction,

If you read the present bill carefully, you will find that it's

related primarily to the present work of the family court judges and

the matters that are additionally assigned are really incidental to the

main tasks which they now have.

In other words, a family court deciding on maintenance, the question

of whether the father or mother has access to the child comes up in

discussion, into question. This allows such matters to be dealt with at

that time by the family court. We can not, presently at least, have

everything in one court unless we chose to put it in a higher court

than the family division.

On the question of staff which has also been raised, I'm sorry that

the Honourable first Member for Vancouver-East, (Mr. Macdonald), has

such a hazy recollection of what happened the other evening.

I think perhaps I was the only Member of this Legislature that sat

through it all and therefore I can tell him that this question came up

during my estimates, when the Honourable Member was obviously absent

from the House.

I indicated then, on questions of staff, that there was this block

vote to which application was being made. So while the Honourable

Member was sound asleep in a cozy room somewhere, we were discussing

these matters, Mr. Speaker, in the House.

Certainly as far as the provincial staff are concerned, the number

of family court judges are concerned, this comes not under this Act, of

course, but under the Provincial Courts Act .

We do now have as a result of that legislation, a family court judge

having province-wide jurisdiction. This is just another division of the

provincial court under supervision of the senior judge, under

supervision of the judicial council, and this sort of thing.

Certainly as the need is apparent, additions will be made to the

family court judges and we are doing it now, not always directly to

additional family court judges but where they are in some areas doing

both types of work we will add a judge to do other work, giving the

senior judge the responsibility of doing more in this family field.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The Honourable Member refers to refresher

courses. You know, perhaps the best course of all in this area is the

experience of dealing with these matters.

This is fine talk coming from a legal member. What courses? We added

three new judges to the Supreme Court, the federal government did. What

course did they have to make them competent as judges? They have to

acquire that through their experience in life, there is no course.

There is no course for a family court judge either, Mr. Speaker.

I would be very reluctant as a principle to have the government

dictate to judges what they should or shouldn't know in terms of

performance of their duties because we recognise fully the independence

of the judiciary in this respect.

We will certainly make all the information available to them and the

point made by the Leader of the Opposition was a very good point of the

preparation of a pamphlet and this will be done to not only communicate

to those directly involved but to other interested citizens as well.

But we haven't started, of course, on the pamphlet until we find out

precisely what will be contained in this legislation after it receives

detailed study by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

[ Page 654 ]

HON. MR. PETERSON: I move that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on social welfare and education.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, all those in favour say yea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yea.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On the motion,

Mr. Speaker, while we will support the motion, in so doing I think that

it shouldn't pass without some statement of regret that after a similar

bill having been before the committee last year and the committee being

unable to make a firm recommendation because of the lack of time, I

think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Attorney General has done two

things this year, or maybe failed to do.

First of all he has brought the bill in on February 28 and when it

is considered that the committee that deals with this bill will have to

first of all advertise, try to encourage people to come to the

committee — and this will take a week or 10 days if previous committee

experience is any judge — then attempt to deal with this new Act which

goes much further than the Act last year. I think it's regrettable that

the Hon. Attorney General has waited so long.

Secondly, it's also doubly regrettable because the social welfare

and education committee is already engaged on an important matter which

has been placed before it by the Hon. Minister of Education and yet we

thrust this additional responsibility on them this year in the hopes — and I join with the lady Minister without Portfolio — that we will get

this into law this year.

But if we are to have proper study, I wonder whether or not the time

will be available unless some very specific direction is made to the

committee to give it some priority.

While I don't oppose this motion, because I think it should go to a

committee, I would wonder if the Hon. Attorney General would not

reconsider making a special committee so that it can sit full time on

this matter. Let's get it done.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one remark …

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment please. I am undecided whether or not this debate is in order.

I am not quite clear myself whether leave is required. I think we

will allow the Member to proceed unless objection is taken. So proceed.

MR. GARDOM: The statement I would like to make is this. When

it is in front of the committee; it would be exceptionally useful and

helpful to the committee if the government would furnish the research

and the reasons that it has received or that which it has done on its

own initiative behind the particular section. Because there are a

couple of sections in this bill that are, I think, rather

controversial, to say the least.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would advise the

Honourable Member that our staff will be available to the committee but

it will be a matter for the committee to determine what assistance they

require or wish in respect of any specific provision in this bill.

I think the debate on this motion whether in order or not but — nevertheless with leave we've allowed it to go ahead — indicates just

how hard it is for the government to win. Here we want to put a bill

before committee and the Honourable Members opposite object that it

should go before this particular committee.

Furthermore, the Honourable Member said it wasn't introduced until February 28 — I think he said. If he will check Votes and Proceedings

he'll find that it was introduced on February 15, 1972. Then, Mr.

Speaker, the major, the controversial aspects of this bill, were

introduced a year ago. All groups in the province have had one year to

consider this. They've made representations, they can make more

representations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven, eight and nine weren't in there last year and you know it.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Members of the bar have studied this bill

and I'm not going to accept that kind of criticism from the Liberal

group in respect of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It's still early in the session and the

committee will have ample opportunity to consider the bill

section by

section and if the Members that are presently on that committee feel

incapable of doing so perhaps we can arrange for substitutions through

orders of the House if the Liberal Members or anyone else feel so

inclined. But certainly there's no reason, I suggest, why this bill

cannot be adequately considered by the select standing committee on

social welfare and education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Close the debate.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I close the debate. I made the motion and I closed it. We've got to have some rules.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Obviously when I speak for a second time I close the debate if the debate is in order. You must know the elementary rules.

Interjections by Hon Members.

MR. BARRETT: Now you want to bring sanity back to your chaos.

I'm entitled to speak under your chaos, Mr. Minister. I want to say

through you, Mr. Speaker …

Interjection by Hon. Members,

MR. BARRETT: You mean to say he announces what the rules are

going to be, gives leave to himself and then ends the leave right there

— that's absurd, absolutely absurd.

AN HON. MEMBER: If the Leader of the Opposition is out of order, then the Hon. Attorney General was out of order.

[ Page 655 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What you should be doing is calling the Attorney General out of order, and because you failed to do that …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. BARRETT: No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yea.

MR. BARRETT: I quote from standing order No. 42, paragraph 3.

"In all cases, Mr. Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the

mover of the original motion closes the debate." That indication was

not given — it was not given.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave was requested, leave was not granted.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't ask for leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair asked for leave.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: I ask you to rule on subsection 3 of standing order No. 42.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has gone beyond that. The Chair has

asked for leave of the House to ask Members to speak. The House has

denied that leave and there is no alternative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question, question.

MR. BARRETT: No. Question on what? I'm on my feet on a point

of order. O.K.? I ask you to please interpret page 12,

section 42,

subsection 3.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all, it is not up to the Chair to

interpret rules. The rules are there. The House was asked leave to

consider the matter. The House has refused leave and I must rule that

the debate is finished on that particular item and the question must

now be put.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, excuse me. I would like to draw

something to your attention. You came into the debate in exchange of

place with the Speaker, and it was at that point in the midst of the

debate the Speaker left the chair and perhaps there was a lack of

communication when the exchange took place that subsection 3, rule 42

should have been put in order and the confusion in asking for leave I

think is a precipitated error and I would ask you to call the Speaker

back, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must still point out to the Honourable

Member that if something transpired before I took the chair that the

Honourable Member felt was out of order, he should have immediately

raised that point as he does on other occasions.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, nothing took place by the time you

got to the chair that was out of order, because leave of the House had

been granted for that motion to be debated.

The Attorney General gratuitously made that announcement in his

speech. He said that "leave has been granted, I will now participate in

this." At that moment you exchanged places with the Speaker. At that

moment the Attorney General put it in order, the Speaker left and I'm

asking that the rules of the House be enforced. No notice was given

after the Attorney General announced leave, that you were closing the

debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member must realise that the rules of the House are being enforced and the Chair has made a ruling and is …

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division.

YEAS-31

Ney

Tisdalle

McDiarmid

Merilees

McCarthy, Mrs.

Chabot

Marshall

Jordan, Mrs.

Skillings

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Chant

Kripps, Mrs.

Bennett

Loffmark

Mussallem

Peterson

Gaglardi

Price

Black

Campbell, D.R.J.

Capozzi

Fraser

Brothers

Vogel

Wolfe

Shelford

Little

Smith

Richter

Jefcoat

NAYS-17

Brousson

Hall

Macdonald

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Wallace

Calder

Barrett

Cocke

Clark

Dailly, Mrs.

Hartley

McGeer

LeCours

Lorimer

Williams, L, A.

Motion approved. Bill No. 30 referred to the select standing committee on welfare and education.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II BRITISH COLUMBIA

CENTENNIAL SCHOLARSHIP ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 13 the Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act , The Honourable the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Her

Majesty Queen Elizabeth's visit to British Columbia during Centennial

Year 1971, the province wishes to perpetuate an event that is both of

interest to Her Majesty and will benefit our students. It is therefore

the desire of this bill paid each year to a student of unusual worth

and promise.

[ Page 656 ]

The scholarship will be of $5,000 annually, and

will be awarded to a graduate of a British Columbia public university

or postgraduate studies in the United Kingdom. Mr. Speaker, I move

second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Just a few

remarks at a time when it seems to be popular politics in Canada to try

and dethrone the monarchy. I'm glad to see that British Columbia isn't

ashamed in doing something in her honour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I too support

the bill. I think it's a tremendous addition to the scholarship list.

My comment of course though is that we are very short of scholarships

and research scholarships in the Province of British Columbia. I would

hope that eventually in an addition to this bill we would see bills

that would broaden and outline the amount of scholarship funds for

graduate students. I certainly believe that it's an area in which we

have to increase the amount of grants.

Our total overall programme in education and the amount of grants

that are available through the assistance provided is an excellent one.

And the Premier is well aware of this. If we have any shortcomings it's

in that particular area of grants to people in the graduate studies.

I'm very much in favour of this particular Act, I would only hope that

each year for the next several years we would see additional bills

brought in providing additional scholarships to people particularly

within the Province of British Columbia for graduate studies in British

Columbia universities.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 13 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 14, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PROVINCIAL HOME

ACQUISITION ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 14

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. The Honourable Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In 1957 this government introduced the

provincial home-owner grant, to assist homeowners in paying their local

property taxes and to encourage families to acquire their own homes.

This annual grant was originally set at a maximum of $28, and has

been progressively raised until in the coming year it is recommended to

be a maximum of $185, with an additional $50 available for persons aged

65 years and over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh …

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is Bill 14, a little patience my

friends, I'm leading to it. I'm on the right notes. The Opposition as a

rule is always completely wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to check, though, and find out.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, no…my friend I'll start again.

(Laughter). I will start again and repeat exactly what I said before

because this is my second reading.

In 1957 this government introduced the provincial homeowner grant to

assist home-owners…The Liberals always heckle this because they've

always opposed it, they've always opposed it, and they are against it

again today. And so did the N.D.P. when it first came in.

No wonder they all get so nervous when the Premier takes his place

on this very progressive legislation for the better of the people.

In 1957 this government introduced the provincial homeowners grant,

to assist home-owners in paying their local property taxes, and to

encourage families to acquire their own home.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not going to get another chance. (Laughter).

This annual grant was originally set at a maximum of $28 and it's

been progressively raised until in the coming year it is recommended to

be a maximum of $185 with an additional $50 available for a person age

65 years and over. To further assist individuals to own their own homes

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have order in the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT: …effective April 1, 1966 the Provincial

Home Acquisition Grant Act provided a grant up to $500 towards the

purchase of a home. In 1968 the Act was amended to encourage the

purchase or building of new homes and an applicant could obtain the

grant of lip to $ 1,000 for that purpose — a non-repayable grant. The

first in the world my friends.

In 1969 to additionally assist in this field a loan by the way of

low interest second mortgage less than first mortgage rates for the

federal government up to $5,000 was introduced.

In 1970 with tight money conditions caused by the federal

government, and high mortgage interest rates the provincial government

extended assistance, the Social Credit provincial government extended

the assistance to persons that had rented a home for at least two years

in the province. A grant of $500 or a second mortgage loan of $2,500

towards a purchase of an existing home was made available.

This opportunity which initially was only for one year period was

extended last year for one more year. And now in this bill, because of

the demonstrated use of this incentive and to continue to encourage

persons presently renting to own their own homes the time for such

applications is extended indefinitely as long as Social Credit is in

power.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long is that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You won't be around my friend when it happens.

To ensure there are funds available to carry on this programme $25

million is to be paid additionally into the fund on March 31, 1972 And

the Minister of Finance is

[ Page 657 ]

empowered to pay from a consolidated revenue fund

or the revenue surplus account or partly from each, such additional

amounts that may be needed to carry out the provisions of the Act.

The government believes one of the greatest assets to build permanent communities is to have people own their own homes.

Since the conception of this Act well over 90,000 families have been

helped to home ownership. Over 90 per cent of them were renters,

previously, and the others new owners. The home ownership is by either

a grant or a low interest second mortgage, and at the present time

2,000 applications are being received per month and they are nearly all

coming from renters in the province.

It is the government's hope to propose provisions to carry on the

grants which with second mortgages indefinitely for older homes, will

allow many others who are presently tenants to own a new home.

This is one of the finest policies of this Social Credit government.

And each and every year for years we'll have to add millions and

millions of dollars to this fund because this way we build up not only

home ownership — which is a great thing in itself — but we as well

create thousands of thousands of new jobs for our workers. I have the

great privilege, Mr. Speaker, to move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I'm

inclined to agree to a degree with the Premier when he says that this

is good legislation. And I think he's right in the fact that the second

mortgages certainly have helped a large class in our society to become

home owners.

However, as I see it this bill has two basic principles. One, is the

adding of $25 million to the fund which is good. But the second

principle as I see it is the idea that in the event that the

breadwinner passes away that the mortgage will be forgiven.

Now, this principle which is in the present Act, is being changed so

it doesn't apply to those over 60 years old. And I really think this is

a retrograde step and as a result I think we are discriminating against

a certain number of people in our society, because of their age. Not

because of any other reason. And I would certainly think that this

second principle should be looked at further by the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Premier in his

statements here, indicated to the House that the prime motivation in

this bill was to ensure that people would own their own homes. And he

made great bay of that fact, and it's a good measure.

However, it's very much straw to the wind, insofar as one

section of

B.C. society is concerned and the Premier knows whereof I speak,

because I've spoken about this before.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, why the government cannot extend these Home Acquisition Act

rights to the Indian people in the Province of British Columbia who

live on Indian reserves. They are the only people in the province who

are denied the opportunity to apply for this grant. And probably

without any question of a doubt they have the worst housing per capita

in BC.

The government has stated its philosophy, I quote the Premier, he

says: "This is one of our finest policies." Why don't you extend this

fine policy to Indian people on Indian reserves? There's not one single

solitary reason or one single solitary obstacle to prevent that

happening, and make no mistake of it.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'll sit down in one second. Don't please

start raising the "old red herring" that people on Indian reserves do

not have to pay land taxes. Everybody's aware of that fact, an Indian

on an Indian reserve does not have to pay land taxes. But think of the

hundreds, indeed the thousands of homes in this province who don't have

to pay land taxes by virtue of the home-owner grant. So that won't

wash, that won't wash at all. The Indian people in the Province of B.C.

pay each and every tax, that everyone outside of the Indian reserves

pay, save and except the land tax, and save and except income tax for

any income that might be earned upon an Indian reserve. That figure

would probably be ziltch in the Province of B.C. The income that the

Indian people earn is not on the reserves it's off the reserves, and

they are subject to federal income tax laws in which the province

receives its share, the same as anyone else.

So there's absolutely no reason why this social measure cannot be

extended to these people and don't for goodness sakes, Mr. Premier,

when you stand up raise this old constitutional wiffle-waffle, that

you've done before. Because there's not a constitutional law in Canada,

North America, or Kingdom Come, to that matter that would prevent you

from extending this to these people, and they need it,

They are the only people, the only

section of B.C. society, who are

not able to claim the privileges that you are setting forth and making

available to the rest of the general public under Bill 14. It's just

pretty darn small in my view.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to make some comments on the principle of the bill. But

before I do I would just like to make some comments on those that have

been made in regard to giving the same privileges to those on Indian

land. I would think that if the Liberal Party, who did not seem to be

enamoured by this principle when it was first introduced by this

government, would show the same enthusiasm towards their counterparts

in Ottawa, so that perhaps Ottawa would see why there should be some

reason, indeed, for giving some special consideration to those who live

on Indian lands under federal jurisdiction.

I know that the Premier will answer the federal Indian problem in

full and what I did want to bring the attention of the House to is that

this whole programme, which is recognised throughout the world as the

most progressive housing legislation in the world, Mr. Speaker, is

enacted by the government and administered by the government with a

minimal amount of administrative help. I think that great credit should

be given to the Minister of Finance, but particularly to the people who

look after the home acquisition grants and administration, Mr.

Chatterton and his staff, who've done a tremendous job in this regard.

I would think too that we should consider the suggestion that was made by the Premier that very many people benefit

[ Page 658 ]

in terms of employment through this programme

because when older homes are bought, older homes are fixed up. It not

only benefits the community from an increase in value point of view

because the input of that family into a home of their own is always

greater than that which the rental family gives to that home — the

attention they give to it. Not only does it benefit in that way but it

certainly benefits in terms of added employment on the older homes'

acquisition.

One other thing that I think that we should consider too is that it

gives an opportunity to a vast number of people who heretofore were

paying more in rent than they pay today in mortgage payments. This is a

fact of life that's happened all over this province. It's a fact of

life that can't happen anywhere else in this country.

There isn't anywhere else in this country of Canada that opportunity

can be given to that section, that low income, moderate income group

and that's a very important principle embodied in this bill — where we

give an opportunity not to those people who are making very high wages,

not to those people who have had money left to them, not to that small

group of people who never did have any concerns over home ownership,

but to that group of people who would have been denied a home of their

own in Canada today, under the present interest rates, under the

present land rates, and under the present cost of living.

Also I would like to just mention in closing, my remarks on this

progressive home ownership legislation. I'm very glad to see the

Liberals get so excited over it because, like the N.D.P., they weren't

terribly excited when this legislation was introduced into this House

and it's about time they got excited.

I remember reading in Votes and Proceedings how you all voted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I too would

add my support to the bill and I'm not getting up merely to add support

because the Premier knows that we're very enthusiastic about the bill

itself. I am however commenting in particular in this regard and that

there's been some suggestion over the past because of discussions on

the tenants and the tenants' requirements, et cetera, that I might have

been opposed to the home acquisition and the homeowner's grant. I

certainly didn't want that impression to be left in any way.

I would suggest, however, to the Minister that there is a rather

interesting concern because in the discussions which I had with him

from time to time in regard to what the tenant should receive and the

rights of the tenant, the statement was made by the Minister that the

tenant did have and what we were trying to do was to encourage tenants

to home ownership and home acquisition.

It does seem that this statement does in most cases fall true, but

once a person reaches age 60 this new Act does change the concept. If

the Minister will recall some of our discussions, he will recall the

statement that the grant was available to everyone but it seems we are

putting in a separate condition that a person after the age of 60 will

not be entitled to the insurance clause. While I can understand the

Minister's concern in this field I wish to ask if he would consider the

possibility of a small amendment in this where though the repayment

wouldn't be cancelled that if it were a husband, for example, dying and

leaving his wife with the house and she had to repay that loan would he

consider the possibility of cancelling the interest charges and

cancelling the debt payment at that time, that only the obligation of

what was left to be paid would remain as a lien against the house?

Would he consider giving the other partner, the spouse, that

possibility that the debt is still owed, but instead of continuing the

interest payments and continuing payment of the principal, would he

consider just leaving the balance, the outstanding balance, against the

property until the property would be offered at eventual sale and claim

that? Now I feel that this consideration would be a much more fair

possibility and would be more than happy to bring in such an amendment

to the bill if there would be some consideration.

I do believe that the Minister understands the point I'm making,

that we're trying to encourage people at all ages to buy their own

home, to go into property, and particularly there are couples who

retire and who consider retirement at age 65. Their families have gone

and they want to acquire an older home.

They've never applied for the grant in the past. They apply, they

continue along hopefully in good health, and suddenly at age 63, 64, or

if they've applied at even 65, the husband unfortunately may suffer a

heart attack and will no longer be there to pay the bills.

I would ask Mr. Minister, if you would give some consideration. Keep

the debt. I can understand the concern on the question of their

mortality rates you know what the insurance rating is on such an

investment — but certainly the other alternative would be one, I would

think, which would show a great deal of compassion and a great deal of

justice in this particular case. I would ask you to consider that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, the idea is a good one and we've always supported it, just for the records.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: Don't give us that. Oh yes, of course, there's the

Premier playing politics again. But let me suggest this. That

government's own policy with respect to the municipalities in this

province, is driving people out of homes and into apartments, so you

know you're not being very consistent. So, let's not give too many

accolades to that government for all their largesse, the fact of the

matter is…. .

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't be nasty, Bennett.

MR.COCKE: …you just go to my municipality and just have a

look at what's happening. People are being driven off the land in this

province so let's not …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you deal with the principle of Bill No. 14?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, after the last speaker I decided I could get up on that point, because he was all over the block …

[ Page 659 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's beyond himself. You're all mixed up, Dennis.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Just in reference

to remarks made earlier by the lady Minister for Little Mountain (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) who suggested that she was not here when this bill was

passed. I've heard of people being mixed up, but this was passed in

'67, Madame Minister, and you were in the House. And I would assume

from that, that you did not have to read about it in Votes and Proceedings . But, Mr. Speaker …

MR. BARRETT: You can make a mistake, you're human.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong Act …

MR. CLARK: If the Member says I'm on the wrong Act, well, if

I'm on the wrong Act, so is the Premier because we're discussing the

Home Acquisition Grant Act, not the Homeowners Grant Act. So that,

maybe, now we're all on the right Act, Mr. Speaker, through you to the

Honourable the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) …

AN HON. MEMBER: Tough Act to follow, isn't it?

MR. CLARK: The Honourable Minister of Finance who's busy

talking to the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Campbell), there has been some advantage to this legislation and let's

admit it. But there are, with all deference to my friend from Point

Grey, two other groups who are by statute omitted from benefiting from

this Act.

Now that we are opening it again, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to

the Honourable the Minister of Finance, who I'm sure is listening. .

AN HON. MEMBER: Always listens, though.

MR. CLARK: He always listens. Mr. Minister of Finance, there are two groups that are exempted from this Act.

First of all those British Columbia citizens who happen to be

transferred by their company out of the province for a short period of

time in the two years prior to buying a home.

This can be a British Columbia citizen who's lived here for 30 years

— I'm thinking of one in particular transferred by a British Columbia

firm to the Yukon for research purposes for a short period of time. He

returned married, wanted to build a home and was exempted by regulation

from this Act. I think you could get around this.

The second group, Mr. Minister of Finance, is all members of the

Canadian Armed Forces who are transferred out of the province.

Particularly, I'm thinking of British Columbia citizens, members of the

Armed Forces on peace-keeping duties. If they are transferred out of

the province two years prior to this, they lose their rights to the

Act. So while it's open, I would think this is an opportunity to

correct those two areas where I think people are unjustly treated by

the regulations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak

briefly in support of this Act which provides a $500 grant for the

purchasers of older homes and $ 1,000 grant for the purchasers of new

homes. But I would like to put in my annual suggestion that at some

future date we might consider paying a grant of a greater amount to

people on low income, and alternatively to people on higher income who

would purchase a home without the benefit of a grant, that we should

discontinue the grant. There should be an exemption level.

For instance, to a person over an income of $12,000 per year, I

suggest that we're providing hundreds and perhaps thousands of home

purchasers with this grant to people who would purchase this home

regardless. So it seems to me that we could well be encouraging an

increased development of new homes and older home purchases by an

increased grant to people on low income. Say for instance, if the grant

were, instead of being $500 and $1,000, to a person on a lower level of

income it were $ 1,000 and $ 2,000.

I just believe that this would bring the purchaser of a home within

the reach of a greater number of low income people who just would not

be able to buy a home otherwise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the provincial

home acquisition grant in relation to the Indian people. I have

probably had more to do with negotiating what the Province of British

Columbia would like to do with the questions involved with Indian lands

and taxation and the home-owner grants and the home acquisition grants

than anyone else not only directly with the Minister of Indian Affairs

for Canada but also quite specifically with the Indian people

themselves.

Now coming first of all to the home acquisition grant, I think we

must understand one thing and I'm sure my friend from Atlin (Mr.

Calder) would understand this very clearly. When we're talking about

the home acquisition grant, we're talking about the ability of the

provincial government to transfer directly to the individual $1,000 or

$500, as the case may be. Now that would go directly to those Indian

home-owners who in British Columbia we have encouraged to reside within

municipal boundaries.

Now, very specifically, in the letters patent — which were designed

not by this government but in consultation with the other federal

government levels involved, and the Indian people — British Columbia,

to make absolutely clear that the question of forming an Indian

municipality would place no liens whatsoever on the Indian land, the

idea was that the second mortgage part of the home acquisition grant

principle would simply not be applied because the second mortgage

implies a lien against the individual's property.

I think you can appreciate historically that that would not be an

acceptable proposition, insofar as the Indian people themselves are

concerned. They certainly went to great lengths to underscore that and

I agreed with them because this is the way it is.

We certainly want to make certain that no group of Indian people who

are moving in the direction of municipal status have anything to fear

that the provincial government through a taxation system will place a

lien against their property nor is there any intent to place a second

mortgage lien against their property.

[ Page 660 ]

Point No. 2. When we come to the principle of the home-owner grant,

the home-owner grant is applied against taxation. Now if we take the

area outside of Indian municipalities, that's unorganised territory. I

want to make it clear that the taxation which is referred to in an

Indian municipality is not the result of provincial government action

but is the right of the municipality itself, once formed, to levy its

own tax. Having done so, the provincial government undertakes that the

home-owner grant, the full effect of the home-owner grant, will apply.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I know it's the next bill, but I'm tying

it in. I'm tying it in to this whole question of municipal status

because I'm sure the Member for North Vancouver Seymour doesn't

understand. I know that from what he said.

In the unorganised area, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government…Oh, I came in especially to listen to him …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The taxation which would be levied within

the Indian municipality, once again, would be theirs, through their

council and that would in turn be offset by the provincial home-owner

grant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Member should try and come closer to Bill No. 14.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: In wrapping this up, Mr. Speaker, in

wrapping this up, the agreements that have been reached have been

self-determined by the Indian people themselves. They agree 100 per

cent with the principle that we established in the letters patent which

were arranged by the Indian people, the federal Ministers, the

Department of Justice for Canada which took some time in trying to find

a way around the constitutional problems.

I have said this before, and I say it again, we have been very

pleased with the cooperation received from that federal department in

working this out.

I have no hesitation in saying that if you depart from that

principle, you will not receive the response from the Indian people

which is envisioned by having the bill read exactly as it is and

certainly I have no hesitation in supporting the principle of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier closes debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have the

opportunity of listening to these different discussions taking place on

this bill today because it is so important. I sometimes wonder if — and

I don't offer it as criticism, I just put it in a different way,

perhaps — I would hope all the M.L.A.'s in their own ridings would

explain this bill because I find in talking to people, even in spite of

ads and so forth, that people don't understand it.

I think that a great job should be done in the Vancouver

constituencies, especially Vancouver Centre, as there's so many renters

who could become owners because today any person that wants, a renter

that wants to become an owner — some don't — those that want to become

owners can go to their landlord, or some other landlord and with the

outright grant we give them for the second mortgage, whichever they

prefer, as a down-payment and then pay payments and give the present

landlord the first mortgage and pay payments no greater than their

present rent, own their home. They immediately then get the home-owner

grant and so forth.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right. Wherever I've explained that

to people they've gone out by tens and tens and tens and have done it.

I would ask the M.L.A.'s to go out on the highways and byways in their

riding and explain this to them. This is so vitally important, vitally

important.

I'm glad for once the second Member for Vancouver East agrees with

the Premier on this. Because this is so important that this be

explained.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now there's other suggestions for other changes made by Members and the government will study them for future years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Future years because this is a government that listens. This is a government that …

AN HON. MEMBER: Cares?

HON. MR. BENNETT: … that cares. (Laughter). This is a government that acts.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There'll be many new programmes offered to the people and when a certain situation develops … .

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: …the people will have an opportunity to

express their opinion on many other great reforms because if Social

Credit, if this government with all its accomplishments, if we were

completely satisfied we'd quit now but we've got a great programme yet

ahead for the people of British Columbia. I move second reading.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 14 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 15, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PROVINCIAL

HOME-OWNER GRANT ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 15,

An Act To Amend The Provincial Home-owner Grant Act . The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that not only the

Premier but all the Members who spoke wanted to talk about this Act, in

the previous bill as well. That shows a

[ Page 661 ]

great interest in this particular bill. They wanted to get at it twice.

In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill No. 15, I would say

this government pioneered the home-owner grant in 1957 to assist

home-owners to pay their local property taxes and to encourage every

family to acquire their own home.

The annual grant, the first of its kind in our nation, was

originally set at a maximum of $28. It was progressively raised until

it reached $ 170 in 1971.

The present grant substantially off-set local property tax increases

in recent years and many, many poor people with small homes have only

had to pay $1 not only for school taxes but all other local taxes as

well.

While local property taxes are lower on the average in British

Columbia than other provinces, to continue the programme started in

1957 this government now proposes to increase the home-owner grant by

$15. To further assist our citizens who are age 65 or more this year

and who are principal supporters of their household an additional

maximum grant of $50 is proposed. This means the total home-owner grant

of $235 is available to these persons.

In the case of self-owned apartments the bill insures the individual

apartment owner receives the benefits of the full home-owner grant to

which he or she are entitled.

It is estimated that the additional costs to the province of the

increases will be about $14,470,000. The total homeowner grant next

fiscal year will be $80,670,000.

As I mentioned during my budget address it is now permanent Social

Credit government policy in this province to help our citizens to pay

their taxes on their home.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the government policy as we always have with respect to the home-owners grant.

We're particularly pleased with the increased amounts for those

people over 65. Mr. Speaker, however, as I indicated under the last

bill, now that you've taxed so many people out of their property by

virtue of your municipal aid and so on, now that you've taxed them out

of their property you have less people to pay. I'm suggesting that the

tenants are coming off second-best in this situation. I also suggest

that the mobile home-owners, except those over 65, those two groups are

second-class citizens in the Province of British Columbia.

I would draw your attention particularly to those people who are living in mobile homes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: I already know that — over 65. We heard the message.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: But I'm talking in terms of the average person

living in mobile homes. They're identically the same as anybody Mr.

Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, living in a home. Yet by virtue of

the fact that they don't own the land they can't get a home-owner's

grant.

The inverse however is at least they're called renters. But they

couldn't be considered because they rent the ground. But then on the

other hand, they're not considered for their ownership of the mobile

home itself. But they have to put up the expenses and so on.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the mobile home-owners stay in one place for

some time. I believe that they should be eligible for the home-owners

grant and many of them are young. Many of them are construction workers

and so on. They are establishing a permanent residence in the area

where they are and I feel that they should have it.

Now, the second thing is the tenants. Of course, those over 65 are

getting a little help in another bill, but the tenants themselves are

in a bad position with respect to these grants. I'm not suggesting

there should be a tenant's grant because I think the landlords would

gobble it up anyway. I'm talking in terms of the $185. But why doesn't

the Premier think in terms of setting up an opportunity programme for

buying a home out of a tenant's grant so that a capital amount could be

set up for a person over a five-year period, so that they would have an

actual down payment on a home? On the basis of $185 a year being set

aside for renters …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: …. . and it would amount to a fair amount of

money at the end of five years. Then that would encourage them to get

into a home of their own. They would then be on a par with their

brothers who are in homes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a suggestion, and I once again suggest very

strongly that we're much in favour of the increase in the home-owner

grant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the home-owner grant is given in

lieu of removing school taxes from the land, which is Liberal policy

and remains Liberal policy. It's also given in lieu of adequate grants

to cities and municipalities.

But the problem with the home-owner grant, and I raise it once more

to put it on the record, is that the home-owner grant discriminates and

discriminates strongly against all low-income people in British

Columbia who must rent.

When we sock-it to the low income people as we do every year by

failing to recognise their needs, then we're going against social needs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I would say that Liberal policy was laid on the line long before that Member became associated with the Social Credit movement.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: We'll see, Mr. Speaker, where this Member stands

in the future, on the policies that we put forward with regard to

helping low-income people in British Columbia out.

I do say this, that the Premier has recognised and admitted the

injustice he has been bringing to people in British Columbia,

specifically the elderly, by the amendment that he has brought in this

year. He is admitting the injustice because that bill very clearly, by

adding this amount of $50 grant to the renters — and I don't want to

get into that other bill — says that in previous years there has been

discrimina-

[ Page 662 ]

tion against them.

But they are not the only people who rent. The people who rent are

the people who can't afford to buy. Why else would you not buy a home?

Oh, perhaps if you feel you might be living in a certain area for just

a short period of time, and I know the Premier has told the House on

many occasions that he rented in Oak Bay rather than buying and perhaps

it was this feeling that he'd be moving soon that caused him not to

make a permanent investment …

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've now bought.

MR. McGEER: Fine! (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

know that the Premier has decided on where his retirement home will be.

Oak Bay is a very nice place to retire. Many people retire there, Mr.

Premier.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: But you're not a person in need. Not financial need, anyway. In speaking to this bill, and we will support it …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I missed that …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please address the chair and address himself to Bill No. 15?

MR. McGEER: I'm sorry I missed that, I really am.

HON. MR. BLACK: Do you think there's really something retiring about the Premier?

MR. McGEER: No, I don't think there is. But I think the

public will see something very retiring about the Premier before very

long. I would say this that there are some cabinet Ministers who see a

lot of retirement there too. I notice they're not here this afternoon,

but we know what their activities have been.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it's time we began to think in British

Columbia in a very serious way about low-income people because these

are the ones that are hurt most by the inflationary forces that are in

command of our economy today.

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

MR. McGEER: Every time that you fail to take into account

their needs as we have failed to take them into account in the budget

and by bills such as this we are hurting the people who have nowhere

else to turn but to us for help.

I think we should begin to develop more of a social conscience in

this Legislature. A little bit of compassion for the people in need,

and begin to devise some policies to suit them, instead of every year

bringing in the kinds of bills that discriminate more and more against

them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, on the bill again — to make sure

that there isn't anyone that believes that I am in any way opposed to a

provincial home-owners grant. I think that it is one of the very strong

measures as the Premier has put forward and one that has contributed a

great deal. Once again I certainly, having watched the leader of the

Liberal party, I was not too sure he wasn't going to break a leg

jumping on the bandwagon. He's jumping on and off our bandwagon so

often it's a wonder he hasn't had a serious accident.

I must say during the discussion of the bill, I was shocked to hear

the Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) say that he is opposed to a

grant for people in apartment blocks because I thought that this was

one of the things that they'd spoken out for and I'm going to go and

tell the people that the Member for New Westminster in this House said

that he was opposed against a grant for tenants. I'm just absolutely

amazed at that statement which he made.

MR. BARRETT: Did he say that?

MR. CAPOZZI: He said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. COCKE: I said they should be encouraged to buy.

MR. CAPOZZI: You said you were opposed! You said you were

opposed to grants for tenants. Well, it's in the tape. It'll be all

there. It'll be all there. It's all in there.

But the one thing I do want to comment about today is to

particularly commend the Premier for resisting the pressure that would

normally be there to restrict a grant like that, the additional $50, to

a means test.

I'm getting more and more concerned with the number of programmes

that are done by government which are restricted on a means basis.

Because I think if there's anything that we want to do, both as

government policy and you might say a social policy, that is we should

concern ourselves by encouraging people to thrift and encouraging

people to look after their own futures.

As long as we have programmes which continue to say that the moment

you have nothing you will receive certain grants from the government

then I think that we are on the way to destroying a part of what you

might call the initiative society and initiative for people.

There are far too many programmes, Mr. Speaker, in which we say that

if one group of the society saves, tries to look after their future and

another just completely spends it then we are going to sock-it to the

savers. In other words we are going to end up in some sense of

frugaling the frugal. I don't think that that is what we should have in

mind as government policy.

The fact that this $50 is there for everyone over the age of 65, I

think you're to be admired Mr. Premier, for resisting the temptation

that was being placed by some Members in this House to reduce it just

on a means test. I think that's a very commendable thing.

I would point out and I would ask the Premier some time to have his

very, very wise and sound financial people look into what the final

ramifications of this programme are. It's been on for a considerable

length of time. It's a programme which is extremely well meaning. It is

pouring a great number of dollars into the community. But perhaps a

study should be done and that is the question of how this is affecting

the finances of particular communities.

I have a certain feeling about it. The Premier's opinion is in some

ways quite different. I feel that in those areas in which there is a

high balance of apartment blocks that the

[ Page 663 ]

fact that you get a larger percentage in other

communities paid of the municipal costs can affect the balance of

financing in a community. I may be wrong. I suggest, though you may not

ever consider this possibility, Mr. Premier, that perhaps you might be

wrong in the effect of it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: Not in the programme, but in the effect. I would

hope that you would consider the possibility of taking one of your very

brilliant people from your department and having them do a study on

some sample communities to see the total effect of this particular

programme and see if it is producing an overkill in certain communities

and is affecting them because of the balance of payments which are

being made to those areas that have a larger number of home-owners as

compared with apartment owners.

I too intended to discuss the other phase of the bill. I'm not going

into any other aspects of it at this time. I do certainly want to say,

Mr. Premier, that I intend to support the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I

wanted to make some statement on that which has been made by the

Liberal Party in this House — that ageing boys' club over there. You

know, it's surprising, I'd like to also draw the attention of the House

to the fact that three years ago when housing was a very great concern

in this province, because housing was such a great concern in this

province, because there was not an inventory of homes there was a

non-confidence motion placed before this House on the basis of housing.

Do you recall that motion? It was led by the Socialists in the House.

I noticed that as the bills and the home acquisition programme are

being discussed today that the leader of that party is not even here to

hear it, neither are very many of his associates.

Again referring to the Liberal leader who made the comments about

the little people who are being discriminated. If you will recall and

this comes before my time in the House but again I refer to it because

it is in the Journals of the House, this Liberal Party in the

House voted against this particular measure and it was on the basis

that it should be done, if we were going to do it at all, on a

percentage basis on taxes.

That was fine for the Liberal Party because, you will recall that

the Liberal Party represents all of the, shall we say, the fat cat

areas of the province, Oak Bay — they did have at that time — Point

Grey, West Vancouver–Howe Sound. Pretty difficult to make a case out

for those people who would like to have a percentage of a $50,000 home

when we're really talking about the little people.

We're talking about the people in the smaller homes in the

constituencies of moderate income. It does not discriminate against

these people. It does not in any way. I have people in my constituency

in Vancouver, very close to Vancouver East and I'm very familiar with

the riding of Vancouver East. In Vancouver Centre there are small

holdings and these people all benefit.

They are lower, moderate income people and they all benefit. They

benefit for this reason, and this is the thing the Liberals don't like

to discuss and the thing that the N.D.P. don't want to recognise — it

is that this money gets right into the hands of each individual

taxpayer in this province.

They would prefer that we would give it perhaps to municipalities to

distribute at will. But I think that's the very principle of this

unique legislation which we should definitely support. Because this is

unique legislation giving it right to the people who can use it, who

need to use it and the greater preponderance who benefit from it are

indeed those people who are on lower and moderate incomes. So that just

does not hold water when you give that argument, Mr. Leader.

I would also just like to say that in terms of the legislation I

don't think there was any legislation that was ever brought into the

province that is so unique and so well-administered. Again I would

compliment the Premier and his office for the job that they are doing

in administering this particular legislation, because it is

administered at such low costs to the people who pay the bills in this

province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that

we now have it clearly on the record as to the position of the lady

Minister. She wants to put the benefits of this government directly

into the hands of the little people but not in the hands of the more

than 50 per cent of the little people who happen to be renters in our

communities and particularly in the area which she represents.

From the Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr.

Capozzi), who has again adjourned himself to someplace else we now have

his position. I can't tell whether it's pure olive oil or Mazola, but

he now takes the position of the government party that they don't give

anything to anybody unless the rich get it too. The poor get nothing

unless the rich get it too. That's their position.

I do want to raise with the Honourable Premier, one matter which I

brought up during the debate on his estimates and that is whether or

not he and his department are prepared to take the necessary actions to

extend the benefits of the home-owner grant to those people who pay

taxes in this province on their homes which are erected upon lands

which they hold under lease from the Crown corporations.

I again state quite clearly that if an individual leases land from

the Crown directly and that land is taxed on a tax roll, then that

individual is entitled to apply for and to receive the benefits of this

legislation.

But if you're unfortunate enough to rent from a Crown corporation,

build your residence and live on it, then because of a technical

distinction which is made in the legislation you are not entitled to

the benefits of the home-owner grant.

It's a very simple change that's required in order to stop this

inequity — one which the Minister of Finance can easily do even by

regulation if need be, I ask the Honourable Premier sincerely, as I do

at all times, to take the action necessary to extend the benefits of

this Act to those people who have their principal residences on land

which is leased from a Crown corporation. This would then raise them

into the same category as other home-owning citizens in the Province of

British Columbia and afford them the full benefit of the great

legislation which he provides in this particular area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

[ Page 664 ]

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): The Member

from Point-Grey, (Mr. McGeer), brought up the point that this bill

discriminates against the low income and the elderly citizens. I

remember way back when this legislation was brought in, I think many of

us were interested in it.

It started off with $28, it was brought in with the intent to help

our elderly citizens and the lower income groups and today it is still

doing that and throughout the province there are thousands of elderly

citizens and those on low income tax who are at this time only paying

$1 a year.

There has been consideration given to those elderly citizens now who

have requested that further consideration be given to them in regard to

their taxes and included in this Act is a further $50 for the elderly

citizens.

I think this government should be commended highly for bringing in

such legislation that will help not only our elderly citizens but the

low-income groups in British Columbia.

Nowhere else is this done to this extent to help our elderly

citizens. It's a request to them that we give consideration for further

grants And I think this is a very wise move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

At various times, Mr. Speaker, comments have been made both on this

side of the House and on the other upon the consequences that flow from

tax policies. Certainly we need only observe very briefly that a great

deal of direction to economic and social activity can be given by

adjustment of taxes and the revenues associated therewith.

I make this point at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, because the issue

being debated here relates to the principle of the provincial

home-owner grant and the question of whether or not the benefits

conferred by the home-owner grant ought on the same principle to be

applied to persons who rent.

My personal feeling is that when we introduced very recently from

the government side a provision which would extend certain benefits to

tenants over 65, the basis upon which that can and should be done is

that those persons over 65 need help, need assistance, not because they

are living in rented property, but because of their age.

I'm going to make this proposition that over the years our income

tax system has worked in favour of the owners of tenements, the owners

of apartments. The same law has operated over the years to the

disadvantage of persons living in their own home. One need not look

very far to find the mathematical basis upon which the prejudice to the

homeowner can be calculated in a very certain way. Because, Mr.

Speaker, probably the largest single factor in our taxing system which

does direct social and economic activity in one direction or another is

to be found as I say in our income tax and when an individual taxpayer

— whether he is a property owner or otherwise — comes to file his

return let us look at the position of a home-owner as against a person

who owns an apartment or is getting the benefit of living in an

apartment.

Now in the case of a home-owner, I ask you can that home-owner

deduct from his income taxes the cost of insurance on his home? No he

may not. May he deduct taxes on that property? No he may not. May he

deduct heat, light and power? No. Maintenance? No. Interest on

mortgage? No. Cutting the grass or any other maintenance? The answer to

that is no.

Now, all of those costs associated with the maintaining of an

apartment block are deductible by the owner of that apartment and that

advantage is reflected in the level of rents that are being paid by

tenants.

You only need to calculate the tax deduction value of all of the

operating costs associated with an apartment to figure out just how

that saving is reflected in the rents that are being paid.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is now correct to suggest that

in conferring upon home-owners the homeowner grant that the home-owner

is getting any advantage over anyone else.

The contrary is the case. He is being brought up to a position that

is equal to and is fairly opposite that of the tenant occupier. This is

the rationale upon which the home-owners grant can and must be

substantiated.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: The tenant doesn't deduct it but the owner does …

Now here, here is where the Honourable Member wants to obscure the essential principle because when the —

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Everyone but that Honourable Member knows

that when the rents are struck, they're struck on the basis of a return

on the investment in that property. That return will be higher or lower

depending on whether or not all of these items are deductible for

income tax purposes.

Now then, if the Honourable Member has any difficulty with that

matter, I think that he ought to refer himself back to his profession,

because they would be interested in knowing the limitations on his

understanding of the income tax system.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion

to calculate this and I say that the answer to the Honourable Member

can be very plainly stated: that if it were not possible for the

landlord to deduct these items on the calculation of his income tax as

it applies to income from that property, would rents go up? Of course

they would go up. Of course they would.

Now the question is, how much would they go up? I think that at the

present rate of return and at the present rate at which these items are

deductible for income tax purposes, it is not improbable that the rents

on the average apartment would go up $35 to $50 a month if these items

were not deductible. They would go up, of course they would.

On this basis there can be no doubt about it, that the home-owner,

by being the beneficiary of a home-owner grant is being put in exactly

the same position or as near as possible to that of the persons who are

getting the benefit of these deductions. Alternatively, I suppose there

would be less reason for us …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a little order please?

lnterjection by an Hon Member

[ Page 665 ]

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Oh is that so? Now then, I can put the

same question in a different way. There would be far less theoretical

foundation for a home-owners grant if the home-owner could deduct from

his income taxes his mortgage payments, his taxes and his interest and

the cutting of the grass, and his insurance and so on. But at this

point the provincial governments of this country are not in a position

to confer these kind of benefits through an income tax system upon

individual home-owners for the reason that each province, if it is to

enjoy the benefits of a single collection system, must adopt the

principles of income tax collection that are applied by the federal

government. If there are any crocodile tears to be shed over there on

the other side of the House on this question perhaps they might go to

Ottawa and suggest that some of these items which are now being

deductible by the landlord of an apartment might also be benefits that

could be conferred upon a homeowner,

In that situation, in a case like that then we might have to go back

and we examine the home-owner grant. But until that time, all this does

is to give the home-owner the benefits that are already being conferred

upon the tenant. I might say there's one other aspect of this which is

still on the same principle and that is today, there is really only one

way in this country to make a lot of money — honestly and legally — and

here's how it's being done. You don't have to look very far to see it.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the doctors are doing it.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Aside from that, my friend, property ownership is still the best way to make money and here's what's happening.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Here's what's happening. Not only is the

landlord in an apartment getting the benefits of all these income tax

deductions, he starts off buying a piece of property, sometimes getting

it rezoned, then putting up a …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no!

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Now then the next step is to load that

property with the biggest possible mortgage. That is step number two.

Of course the interest thereon is deductible. He lets inflation run its

course for a while and thereafter raises the rents, pays off the

mortgage with cheap money and ends up with — up until this time — a

very fat capital gain.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you're so smart, why didn't you get in there?

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I made the mistake, Mr. Member, of coming to this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would point out to the Honourable first

Member for Vancouver Centre that he has already taken his place in this

debate. The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR, J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): The failing five

have difficulty with the simplest of profit and loss statements that

appears. I'd hate to buy an apartment block from any of them. I want to

direct the attention of the Chair and the House to I think one of the

most important aspects in our free enterprise system of this bill today.

Many countries today have held in lightness the ability to own title

and to own property. I think nowhere in Canada has the emphasis been

more firmly placed on the rights of the individual to hold title. And

that to me is the strength and fortress of a free enterprise and a

democratic institution where people can own their property and deal

with it in that aspect.

Ownership and right of ownership stand secure and strong in this

province. You will find it not only in the titles of landowners, but

also in the titles of home-owners. Because of the policies of this

government.

More houses have been built probably in this province during the dry

periods of building houses than anywhere in Canada because of this kind

of legislation. Let it not be said that there's probably a duplicate of

help to home-owners anywhere like it in the world today. And especially

in British Columbia we out-strip all the rest of Canada. This kind of

legislation stands strongly in favour of home ownership and title

ownership contrary to Socialist policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on John, come on John!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier will close the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it just shows the vital

interest this bill is to the people of the province when the people's

representatives all speak with a lot of intelligence, and a lot of heat

as well.

It's peculiar what comes out in a debate like this. I noticed with great interest, and I'm glad it's on Hansard ,

the statement of the Liberal leader the first Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) when he said the poor people of this

province have only one place to go to for help and that is the Social

Credit government of British Columbia. Because he has said that here in

this assembly I ask all the people in this province none of them to

vote Liberal in the next federal election. We've had a lot of …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we deal with Bill No. 15?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll have something to say about your party

in a moment, just hold on my friend. I want to say Mr. Speaker, this

party just smears everybody …

AN HON. MEMBER: You're so pure when it's election year.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I certainly am. And my bead's right on you.

I'll get you now. The N.D.P. on this question of home-owners grants — and I'm glad the former leader is in his seat — because in 1957, Mr.

Strachan …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: When this Act was first introduced, the

then Leader of the Opposition said that when they got in power they

would cancel this grant. Not only that, but they showed that they

really meant that policy.

[ Page 666 ]

Because on the Proceedings of the year 1957 on page 109, March 21 …

AN HON. MEMBER: This is it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to praise you in a minute, just wait a second.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, but you can't stand it because I'm going to give you the "one-two" later.

Mr. Speaker, I am reading now from the Journal .

The House resumed adjourned debate on the Motion for the second reading of Bill No. 14 intituled

An Act Respecting Provincial Grants to Residential Home-owners. The debate continued. The motion was agreed to on the following division …

the division is given there, and at that time there were two

outstanding Liberals in the House. Their names were Gregory and Gibb

and they both voted for it, with the government. You won't applaud

that, hey?

But who voted against it? Squire, Eddie, Gargrave, Dowding, Uphill,

Nimsick, Mrs. Haggen, Harding, Strachan, and Turner. There you are

right on the record, N.D.P. There you have it, Mr. Speaker. There they

have it. They stand on the records, they are going to be defeated on

their records.

The first year this was established was 1957. When it was first

established. When the only group in the whole world that believed that

in 1957 was the Social Credit movement. That was the time to stand up,

that was the time to stand up, and they turned the people down.

Then in 1963 there was a change in Liberal membership in this House, Mr. Speaker. And then in 1963 page 79, March 5:

On a Motion of second reading of Bill No. 3 intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act . A debate arose. The House divided. Motion agreed to on the following division …

The N.D.P. voted with the government on that occasion, but who voted against the home-owner grant at that time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Who?

HON. MR. BENNETT: McGeer!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: McGeer, Gibson, McKay, Perrault and

McFarlane, and where are most of them now? Where are most of them now?

To show that that wasn't any mistake in the Liberal Party in 1964 — to

show that that wasn't just an error, the next following year in 1964,

the same thing happened.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: See the Opposition. They ridicule this

time, they laugh, they snicker and they sneer. The second Member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) — great policy for the good of the

people. They snicker and sneer and sneer and sneer. And look at the

sickly grin on the Liberal leader's face. My friend I'm going to tell

you it'll be taken off this election my friend. It'll be taken off.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a little order please?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you Mr. Speaker. The principle of the bill is showing who's for it, and who's against it. (Laughter).

Because there's been a lot of phony talk in the House where these parties stood. On February 28, 1964 …

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you up or down?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're upside down my friend. Three leaders

in the N.D.P. In the last four years, three up, one to go. Macdonald's

going to be the next one that's going to be defeated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will we get back to the Bill No. 15 and refer to the Honourable Members by their constituency?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, yes they won't have them after the

next election Mr. Speaker, so I was just getting them used to their

names again. (Laughter).

February 28, 1964:

On the motion of second reading of Bill 18 intituled

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant a debate arose. The House divided …

The N.D.P. voted yes along with the government, the Liberals voted

against it. McGeer, Gibson, McKay, Perrault, and McFarlane, there they

are. Are you against it now? Are you against it now?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, they better

make some issue in Point Grey because in the last election when the

great Liberal leader came back from the interior when it was 100 in the

shade he said: "We're snowballing." Sure — snowball alright! Like it

does in the Okanagan in July, and they got no seats. He was going to

win Kamloops, he was going to win everywhere. Mr. Speaker, I move

second reading.

Motion approved: Second reading of the bill,

Bill No. 15 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the first sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 16, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CENTENNIAL CULTURAL FUND ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 16,

An Act to Amend the Centennial Cultural Fund Act. The Honourable Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to commemorate the 1967

centennial year this government established a $5 million perpetual fund

known as the centennial cultural fund, in that year. That was the first

perpetual fund.

In 1969, an additional $S million was added to the fund. Interest earned on the investment of t