1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st 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)

THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1891 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Pre-release of government policy in Unity News. Mr. Wallace — 1891

Mr. Speaker — 1891

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Increase in Vancouver consumer price index. Mr. Macdonald — 1891

Information on GAIN given to Unity News. Mr. Levi — 1892

Funding for volunteer organizations. Mr. Barnes — 1893

Sale of government interest in B.C. resource industries.

Mr. Wallace — 1893

Administering of oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 1894

Statement

Hospitals strike. Hon. Mr. Williams — 1894

Mr. King — 1895

Mr. Wallace — 1897

Routine proceedings

Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 17) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 1897

Mr. Nicolson — 1898

Mr. Wallace — 1898

Mr. Hewitt — 1900

Mr. Chabot — 1902

Mr. Bawtree — 1904

Mr. Cocke — 1905

Mr. Gibson — 1905

Mr. Bawlf — 1905

Mr. Lauk — 1906

Mr. Shelford — 1908

Mr. Lloyd — 1908

Mr. Mussallem — 1908

Mr. Barber — 1909

Mr. Stupich — 1910

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 1910

Division on second reading — 1911

Revenue Amendment Act ' 1976 (Bill 8) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1911

Mr. Stupich — 1912

Mr. Gibson — 1913

Mr. Wallace — 1914

Mr. Lauk — 1915

Ms. Sanford — 1917

Mr. Lea — 1917

Mr. Barber — 1919

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 1920

Mr.Cocke — 1921

Mr. King — 1922

Statement

Details of northern tour. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1924

Mr. King — 1924

Mr. Gibson — 1925

Mr. Wallace — 1925

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1925

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'm

very happy to introduce to the House this afternoon a group of students

from the Vancouver Community College. They are accompanied by Marlene

Yri and I would ask the House to welcome them today.

HON. LA. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the House to acknowledge the presence and welcome two of my

relatives from Kelowna, the Reverend and Mrs. Filer.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of privilege.

It is in the rules of the House that members are not permitted to

question or inquire into or pursue what might be government policy. You

yourself, as recently as yesterday, Mr. Speaker, drew this to my

attention. I respect the matter you raised, but today it's quite

obvious, in relation to a specific piece of legislation introduced into

this House on Monday afternoon, namely the so-called GAIN legislation,

that the government through a newspaper of its own, published and

printed and made available on Monday, has in fact revealed a very

substantial amount of government policy before the bill was even

introduced to the House. I wonder if in fact there are other elements

in the same newspaper raising the same point, less vividly I guess,

because we haven't had legislation on some of the other statements

regarding policy in the Unity News

that was published on Monday. I wonder if the Speaker could take into

consideration the specific item I've raised in regard to the Bill 16

dealing with GAIN legislation.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a debate at this point, Hon. Member.

The hon. member for Oak Bay has raised a point of privilege which I

must now reply to, and I would hope that if there's something that

needs further clarification, after my reply you would have the floor on

a point of order.

MR. WALLACE: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I

want the record straight that I quoted the wrong number of the bill. It

is Bill 28, entitled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. The matter of privilege which you

have raised is one that I cannot deal with quickly in a matter of a few moments

or in a few minutes. So I would like to reserve any decision on the matter that

you have just raised. I would also like to point out to the hon. member that

there is a Speaker's decision, which I do not have at hand at the moment,

that I would like to review along with the matter that you have raised. So I

will review the matter and reserve decision on it and bring in a decision as

quickly as I can, Hon. Member.

Oral questions.

INCREASE IN VANCOUVER

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to ask the Premier, in view of the latest figures on the increase

in the cost of living in Vancouver — 1.4 per cent — which is largely

attributable to the sales tax increase, whether, with all the plans

that we have had to increase the cost of living in this province, the

Premier has any plans whatsoever to reduce the cost of living to the

people of British Columbia.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the

member for Vancouver East could be more explicit. Is he referring to

the rise in the consumer price index or the cost of living? Because the

two are different. Could he just elaborate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: One costs as much to the consumer as the other. I am referring to the consumer price index.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the

consumer price index is noted as being different than the cost of

living, because all prices, not those considered necessities for

living, are considered in the consumer price index. What we have,

though, in the cost of living is the one item that actually went down

and didn't go up. Of course, food went down. Such items that went up

couldn't be considered in the cost of living because they can be

considered luxuries; the big jump was in such items as tobacco, alcohol

and related items.

MR. MACDONALD: Sales tax.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would point

out to you, through to the member for Vancouver East, is that in

assessing the cost of living there has been no measurement of increases

in any other tax but the sales tax. Yet we know that the cost of living

is raised by the income tax and we know that deficit budgeting is a

cost that will be borne by the consumer, if not this year,

[ Page 1892 ]

next year. So it is very difficult to measure the cost to people directly.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier

any estimate of the additional increase in the cost of living that will

be brought about by the new price for gasoline starting in a few months?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that price will not be passed

along. Of course, there is an agreed freeze — or suggested freeze — of

60 days; British Columbia has a freeze in now. We will be monitoring

the situation. I would be pleased to take your question as notice and

get any projections from the departments that we have that I could

place before the House.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker,

to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that Dr. Rae, the Associate Deputy

Minister of Economic Development, said that the last increase in the

consumer price index was caused almost exclusively by the sales tax

increase and the ICBC rates increase?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I thank the member, Mr. Speaker, for bringing that to my attention. I think again he is talking about the consumer price index.

MR. LAUK: That's exactly it.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary. Regardless of the specific

interpretation on these indices, Mr. Speaker, but having in mind in

particular the unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent, has the minister had

any discussion with his deputies or his associate deputies on the

subject of introducing a supplementary budget as an emergency measure

to increase the province's capital expenditures in productive and

job-creating ways?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, no, we have had no plan to bring in a supplementary budget.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, supplemental to the

Premier. I am wondering if the Premier is aware that the consumer price

index is the highest in Canada for this particular month. Could he

inform the House as to why it should be the highest in Canada here in

this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think the consumer price

index is not a provincial...but the Vancouver consumer price index.

I'll take the rest of your question as notice.

INFORMATION ON GAIN

GIVEN TO UNITY NEWS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware that information on the GAIN legislation was given to the Unity News , the organ of the party over which he is...?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: No, no. I am dealing with you, Mr. Premier, not a

question of privilege. Were you aware that the information regarding

the GAIN legislation was given to the Unity News , the Socred organ? You're the leader of that party; were you aware of that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read the

newspaper in question. I take responsibility for my own interview, and

I didn't discuss the GAIN legislation. I understand in this Legislature

that government policy, which is discussed by ministers in a general

way from time to time, was included in the newspaper.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Do you wear a seatbelt?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: To the hon. Premier: having regard to the question

of privilege that was raised and is now being considered by Mr.

Speaker, and that you were not aware that specifically the legislation,

Bill 28, was discussed prior to its introduction to the House, if those

allegations are proved correct can we expect a change in the portfolio

as to the...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter of privilege is before the Speaker for consideration.

MR. LAUK: Rotate! (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: Can the Premier inform us whether it's going to be

the practice in future to obviate the need for the press gallery up

here and that all announcements are going to be made through the Unity News

on government policy? We're never able to get any answers on government

policy in question period, because that's what you hide behind.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: That was not a question. It was more of a statement.

[ Page 1893 ]

FUNDING FOR VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. I would like to ask the minister about a quote in the Family Times ,

which is a family services publication. In an interview he was quoted

as having said: "We are prepared to provide moneys to organizations if

they can show us that they can get the volunteers in."

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Well,

Mr. Speaker, if I may explain to the hon. member, certainly there will

be a real effort within the department to encourage volunteerism in

British Columbia, which has been sadly lacking due to previous

attitudes. We will certainly be working very closely with any and all

organizations that encourage volunteerism, and I would be pleased to

receive their submissions, because that's the type of thing we're

looking for.

MR. BARNES: Then I would like to ask the minister: why did he

reply to an assistant executive director of the information services

joint committee when he sought funding for a number of member

organizations made up of some 400 volunteers or some 80 per cent of the

total staff?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of what specific....

MR. BARNES: Just take your seat a moment. (Laughter.)

There was a little portion I forgot. I would like to quote you a

letter — your response. (Laughter.) I hate to give him too much

information, but I'll have to give him at least the question.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Minister, you were quoted in a reply last February as saying:

"While I found the information contained in your

report very interesting, unfortunately I cannot be more encouraging

about specific grants until after a review of the grant structure has

been completed."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Which is it?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Are you going to give it or aren't you?

MR. LAUK: How do you explain that?

MR. BARNES: You know, this is an organization that has 400 volunteers. Now has a review been completed?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member,

the review certainly has been completed, but I should assure the member

also that this is not something that can stop now. It is an ongoing

thing, and we certainly would be prepared to receive further

information for following budgets.

MR. BARNES: A final supplementary. I take it that the

minister is suggesting that information centres throughout the lower

mainland and the province are now encouraged to reapply, those that

have been cut off in the past, and they can now reapply for assistance.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a procedure

established for that very purpose, the procedure for making application

and so forth, and I would be very pleased to give the hon. member a

copy of that procedure so he may pass on the information to his

inquirants.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I hear a supplementary question. Will you yield the floor for one moment please?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: The original question was related to volunteers.

Can the minister tell the House whether he's prepared to continue the

grant made by the previous government of over $40,000 to the Volunteer

Bureau of Vancouver?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that was not a supplementary

question. It was a completely different question, although it may have

been on the same general matter area.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST

IN B.C. RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

MR. WALLACE: This is a question to the Premier who has made

the statement that the government cannot be in business where it is

controlling the game and also allowing the private sector to operate,

since the government favours its own interests and creates thereby a

conflict of interest. Can I ask the Premier if he or any of his cabinet

have entered into negotiations with companies in the private sector to

discuss the sale of government interests in resource industries to the

private companies?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government has initiated no discussions with any

[ Page 1894 ]

private companies.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the

Premier or any of his cabinet involved in resource management received

any approach or request from any private companies in the resource

industry to purchase existing government interests?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the one request that I know of

was a suggestion that was made by Can-Cel that they would like the

government to divest itself of its shares. No discussion has been

participated in by the government as to their suggestion. There may be

others who would like to initiate offers but the government isn't

contemplating any discussions at the present time.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary. Under these circumstances,

could I just ask the Premier if he has set any deadline or date by

which these decisions will be made, one way or the other, to enter into

negotiations or to leave the situation as it is?

HON. MR. BENNETT: All of these companies are under review.

The government as it gets through the very immediatproblems of cleaning

up from the last government and bringing in new legislation, will

address itself to these additional items.

ADMINISTERING OF OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. KING: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. On April 12, 1976, Hansar d

records the fact that the Provincial Secretary told the House that Mr.

Dave Brown was not required to take the public service oath of secrecy

as he was only a temporary employee doing a communications study for

the government. Yesterday she informed the House that Mr. Brown was

required to take the oath on May 6, 1976. Can the Provincial Secretary

explain what changes took place in Mr. Brown's temporary status between

the date of his appointment and May 6?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There is no change in Mr. Brown's status.

He's still doing a study. As you know, by order-in-council the study

was continued for just a few weeks or a few days longer — I can't

recall how many days. During the time that the questions were raised in

the House there was not any intent to preclude Mr. Brown from taking

the oath of secrecy. He did it voluntarily, and as he's working on a

study for the government, it's quite all right with us that he does.

HOSPITALS STRIKE

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The statement relates to the problems we

are recently experiencing in the province of British Columbia with

respect to hospital services.

By order-in-council, pursuant to

section 73 of the Labour Code of

British Columbia, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council today imposed a

21-day cooling-off period in the current dispute between the Hospital

Employees Union and the Health Labour Relations Association.

Compliance with the laws of this province by the union, their

members, the employers and the representatives I know we all can expect

will put a stop to the strike that has affected the services provided

by six hospitals on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

The order-in-council is effective from this date, and notification

of it has been given to the union and to the employers, as well as to

the administrators of the six hospitals who are directly involved.

This action was taken after the rejection by the Hospital Employees

Union, and a qualified acceptance tantamount to a rejection by the

Health Labour Relations Association, of a proposal which I made to them

on Tuesday evening involving the appointment of a special mediator

pursuant to

section 122 of the Labour Code of British Columbia. The

rejection of this proposal left little reason to believe that an early

end to the strike could be achieved. Hence it could only be reasonably

concluded that the six hospitals presently under essential services

designation orders and other hospitals which are in receipt of strike

notices would continue to experience the stresses which essential

services place on their facilities and staff. Without the likelihood of

an early settlement of the dispute, the government therefore was

obliged to take into more serious account the intangible and

unidentifiable implications flowing from the disruption of normal

hospital services throughout the province.

It is to be made clear, however, that the government is satisfied

that the essential services orders have effectively maintained a high

level of medical care, principally because of the way in which the

administrative personnel, medical personnel and those Hospital Employee

Union members whose jobs were deemed essential have discharged their

responsibilities. All of these people are entitled to the fullest

measure of our appreciation for the way in which they have responded in

light of these circumstances. I would include as well, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 1895 ]

the chairman and members of the Labour Relations

Board and the industrial relations officers who have been stationed in

each of the essential-service hospitals throughout the course of this

dispute, plus those other union representatives whose members were

affected by these orders and who have been called upon to ensure that

their services would remain fully available during this period.

The exercise of this action by the government will obviate the

necessity of making essential service designations at Shaughnessy

Hospital, which was scheduled to strike at 2 p.m. this afternoon;

likewise such designations will be unnecessary with respect to the

Gorge Road Hospital, which was served with a 72-hour strike notice this

morning.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the members to be aware that in the course of

negotiations between the Hospital Employees Union and the Health Labour

Relations Association in attempting to achieve a collective agreement,

the parties were offered the services of Mr. Bert Blair in the capacity

of an industrial inquiry commission. Mr. Blair made his report on April

5, 1976, and copies were made available to the parties. The provincial

executive of the union accepted the recommendations and submitted them

to their membership for ratification. The Health Labour Relations

Association rejected the recommendations as being excessive in this

period of economic restraint. This was followed by rejection by the

union membership at Vancouver General Hospital.

In my first meeting with the parties, following Mr. Blair's report,

I suggested that they meet with Mr. Blair for the purpose of any

clarification which might be needed concerning his recommendations.

This proposal was accepted by the union but rejected by the employers.

It was the opinion of the employer's representative that the increases

in compensation recommended by the Blair report were in excess of the

guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board of the federal government. The

union expressed the view that the opposite was the case.

Accordingly, in proposing the appointment of a special mediator, I

suggested to the parties that they be assisted in the resolution of

this difference of opinion, and that during such determination, the

strike be ended. As I have already indicated, this proposal was

unacceptable to the parties.

In the imposition of the order-in-council on the parties, I have

urged them to resume negotiations forthwith and have assured them that

all the facilities of the Department of Labour will be available to

assist them in achieving the earliest settlement of their dispute,

Mr. Speaker, this experience leaves the government with the most

serious concern as to the effectiveness of the laws of this province in

resolving essential-service disputes. I wish to assure the people of

British Columbia that the government will be looking most carefully at

this particular problem. I think we all recognize that in matters of

essential-service facilities in this province, it is the entitlement of

our citizens to have these services available to them, and it is not

appropriate for the individual desires of either employees or employers

to interfere with the availability of those services.

I must, in making this statement, directly acknowledge to the Leader

of the official Opposition receipt of his Telex message of today in

which he was kind enough to set out his views as a former Minister of

Labour in disputes of this nature. I find the recommendations which he

has made in his Telex — which has also been addressed to the union and

to the employers — and the initiatives I proposed to the parties last

Tuesday night are in almost identical terms. I commend him for that and

for his encouragement to the parties to accept such a method of

achieving a settlement.

I trust that in the next few days the parties will consider very

seriously again the proposal which was made to them last Tuesday and

also the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition. I trust that

with this additional incentive these parties may be able to resolve

this difficulty. In so saying, I wish to make it perfectly clear that

if this is not possible for these parties, then this government will

stand ready to take further action as is appropriate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Minister of

Labour for his statement. I would note that the Minister of Labour has

the advantage of knowing what my proposal was; and that is an advantage

in that I do not know precisely what his proposal was to the parties.

However, I do feel that I should point out that when this Telex of

mine was directed to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. McClelland), to the union and the hospital association, I was

not aware that the minister had initiated the 21-day cooling-off

period, which was an amendment to the Labour Code introduced in 1974. I

feel that's an appropriate thing for the Minister of Labour to do. I

feel it in no way detracts from the validity of the solution which I

have urged upon the parties; it simply buys time so that a solution may

be found.

The government and all of us, indeed, are left with the problem of

trying to find a permanent solution to this problematic dispute. I

think it's appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that for the record I deal with

the precise recommendation I have made in this regard, and I'm prepared

to table it in the House. The telegram reads as follows:

THE CURRENT DISPUTE BETWEEN HEALTH LABOUR RELATIONS ASSOCIATION

REPRESENTING THE HOSPITALS OF OUR PROVINCE AND THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES

[ Page 1896 ]

UNION HAS REACHED A CRISIS STAGE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. AS LEADER

OF THE OPPOSITION AND FORMER LABOUR MINISTER, IT IS MY VIEW THAT A RESOLUTION

TO THE DISPUTE MUST BE FOUND IMMEDIATELY. DESPITE THE BEST INTENTIONS OF THE

PARTIES INVOLVED AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, FURTHER PROLIFERATION WILL INCREASE

THE CHANCE OF HEALTH CARE BEING NEGLECTED AND LIVES LOST. I AM CONFIDENT THAT

BOTH THE HOSPITAL INDUSTRY AND THE UNION ARE SENSITIVE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST

IN A DISPUTE OF THIS NATURE. THEY MUST SURELY RECOGNIZE THAT THE DEPARTMENT

OF LABOUR IS LIMITED IN FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL WHICH WOULD ENABLE ADEQUATE

MONITORING OF FURTHER PROLIFERATION. ACCORDINGLY, I AM TODAY TAKING THE UNUSUAL

STEP OF APPEALING DIRECTLY TO THE PARTIES TO ACCF.PT THE PROPOSAL FOR AN IMMEDIATE

SOLUTION ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:

1. THE MINISTER OF LABOUR SHALL APPOINT MR. PAUL WEILER AS A

SPECIAL MEDIATOR WITH AUTHORITY TO BRING THE PARTIES TOGETHER AND ATTEMPT TO

RESOLVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES. FAILURE TO FIND VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WILL RESULT

IN THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR FILING A RECOMMENDATION FOR SETTLEMENT WITH THE MINISTER

OF LABOUR WITHIN 14 DAYS.

2. THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR SHALL CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE

PARTIES IN ADDITION TO THE REPORT OF INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER MR. B. BLAIR'S

REPORT IN REACHING HIS DECISION.

3. BOTH HEALTH LABOUR RELATIONS AND THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION

UNDERTAKE TO ACCF.PT THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR'S REPORT AS FINAL AND BINDING.

4. MINISTER OF HEALTH, THE HON. R. McCLELLAND, WILL UNDERTAKE

TO ALLOCATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO COVER ANY INCREASE IN B.C. HOSPITAL BUDGETS

RESULTING FROM THE SETTLEMENT.

5. AN IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF ANY STRIKE ACTION, PICKETING AND/OR

LOCKOUTS SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE PARTIES SO THAT THE FULL HEALTH CARE AND

MEDICAL ATTENTION MAY BE REINSTITUTED AT ALL BRITISH COLUMBIA HOSPITALS.

6. THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR SHALL ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH

SECTION

122(1) OF THE LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

WHILE I RECOGNIZE THAT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IS A MOST SENSITIVE

PROCESS, AND HAVE RESISTED ANY COMMENT ON THIS DISPUTE WHICH MIGHT JEOPARDIZE

OTHER INITIATIVES, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS MUST BE THE PARAMOUNT

CONCERN OF ALL PUBLICLY ELECTED OFFICIALS. IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT THE HON.

MINISTER OF LABOUR AND THE HON. MINISTER OF HEALTH RECOGNIZE THE NON-PARTISAN

SPIRIT IN WHICH THIS PROPOSAL IS PUT FORTH AND DECLARE THEIR PUBLIC SUPPORT.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS INDICATED AN INTENTION TO SUBJECT ALL PUBLIC-SECTOR

WAGE SETTLEMENTS TO REVIEW BY THE ANTI-INFLATION BOARD THROUGH INTRODUCTION

OF BILL 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS REASONABLE AND PROPER THAT THE HON. MINISTER

OF HEALTH SHOULD BE PREPARED TO STAND BEHIND SETTLEMENTS CONSUMMATED THROUGH

THIS PROCESS.

IN CONCLUSION, I APPEAL TO THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION AND TO

HEALTH LABOUR RELATIONS IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS TO ACCF.PT THE PROPOSAL

FOR SETTLEMENT. PRIVATE INTEREST MUST ALWAYS BE TEMPERED BY A BROADER CONCERN

FOR COMMUNITY NEED. KNOWING THE DEDICATION OF ALL INVOLVED TO THE HEALTH AND

COMFORT OF OUR CITIZENS, THE SICK AND THE SUFFERING, IS THE PRIME CONCERN, I

AM SURE YOUR AGREEMENT CANNOT BE WITHHELD. IF THE PUBLIC IS TO RETAIN ANY CONFIDENCE

IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SYSTEM, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE RESPONSIBILITY NOW.

Mr. Speaker, I would just offer this observation: while I reiterate I do not

know precisely what was in the Minister of Labour's initiative, I would

suggest that key and crucial to any agreement must be a commitment by the governments,

who are the chief and only source of funds to the hospital industry, that they

must be prepared to honour a settlement bargained freely by the hospital industry,

particularly, as I pointed out, when the government has a bill on the order

paper subjecting any settlement to the review of the Anti-Inflation Board in

any event.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, that if the

Minister of Health is prepared to give that kind of undertaking, which

I submit is a reasonable one, then I believe there is an excellent

opportunity that the parties will accept this process of voluntary

binding arbitration I put forward and this Legislature will not be

confronted with dealing with this problem again. I think that it will

be a demonstration that the laws of this province are indeed adequate

to deal with labour disputes in the public sector.

[ Page 1897 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to express my

complete support of the minister's action. There was indeed increasing

public concern. I welcome the minister's recognition of the fact that

no matter how diligently members of the Labour Relations Board

struggled day and night to assess and monitor the nature of essential

services, it is, if we're all frank about it, quite impossible to carry

out some of the assessments which relate to the parsons who might

otherwise be admitted to hospital in the absence of this particular

strike.

It was also very obvious that any responsible government must listen

to public opinion. It was quite clear from one's appraisal of news

reports and comments in the public arena that the public of this

province expected the government to take some such action. I asked the

minister on Monday of this week if the 21-day cooling-off period would

not be an advisable procedure by which to terminate this strike.

I would also echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

King) that we, as opposition members, individually have tried to take a

responsible position in this very sensitive management-labour dispute.

When we so often are criticized as politicians for our politicking

approach, it seems to me very unfortunate that when one takes a

responsible, non-inflammatory position as a politician, the best the

editorial writers can do in Victoria is to accuse the opposition

members of being tardy in their duty and not demanding an end to the

strike.

Be that as it may, the minister has been very frank with the House

today in pointing out the contentious part of the Blair report which

still was causing the strike to continue, namely trying to put a price

on the cost of the fringe benefits. Mr. Speaker, if I may interject as

a complete layman in such complex matters as management-union

negotiation, I had a meeting with Mr. Gerow, the manager-secretary, and

was amazed to find that both sides could not, apparently, in any

accurate and efficient way give a precise evaluation of the cost of the

fringe benefits. Because the management quite rightly are being told by

this government and all governments to keep down hospital costs, it

seemed only reasonable, in my view, that they would be very hesitant to

accept fringe benefits which apparently varied from 2 per cent to 7 per

cent — and we must remember that we're talking about hundreds of

millions of dollars when we talk about 1, 2, or 3 per cent.

In supporting the minister's decision I'm even more gratified by his

inclusion in his statement that this government is looking very

carefully — if I may quote his exact words — "at the effectiveness of

laws regarding essential services," because, as the Leader of the

official Opposition has made plain, it isn't just a question of

stumbling from one crisis to anther in a different field of employment.

And I'm thinking, for example, of the pending or possible disruption in

the very important ferry service between Vancouver Island and the

mainland. I notice that the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Davis) is listening carefully. I hope that he will give the

Minister of Labour every kind of support in looking at the need for a

more permanent kind of legislation which might have the effect of

preventing strikes such as the one we are now discussing.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a point that in my view far surpasses the

specific elements in this dispute, and that is the fact that we hear a

great deal these days of individual rights. I'm the first one to defend

the right of the individual, but society has rights, and people,

persons and individuals requiring health care in this province must not

in any way be prevented in having the care they need because of the

professed rights of smaller groups, whether they be management groups

or union groups.

One of the reasons that it's very easy to support the minister's

action today is that he's made it very plain that on taking this action

he's putting the rights of society as a whole above the rights of

smaller groups in society who would in fact cause serious disruption

and perhaps even loss of life. For these various reasons I would

certainly give the minister my complete support.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, second reading of Bill 17.

Leave granted.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER

GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, Bill 17,

the Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, will give members

of the House an opportunity to debate the system of homeowner grant

payments which has been in effect in British Columbia for a number of

years.

The original homeowner grant mechanism was introduced in British

Columbia in 1957 with the amount of the grant allowable at that time

$28. It has gradually been increased over the years until in 1973 the

amount of the grant that could be claimed was $200. In 1974 the amount

of the grant was left at $200 by the former government. However, in

addition, homeowners then were allowed to claim 20 per cent by which

their school tax exceeded this $200 with a minimum of $30 and a maximum

of $60.

Last year, 1975, the basic grant remained again at $200. However the

school tax removal and resource grant was increased to 40 per cent by

which the school taxes exceeded this $200 with a maximum of

[ Page 1898 ]

$80. At the same time, senior citizens were allowed

a further basic grant of $50 to apply against their taxes. A base of

$30 was also set to apply against general or non-school taxes on the

property tax notice. The minimum tax payable was $1.

The purpose of the bill presented in this session is to amend the

Provincial Home-owner Grant Act — first, to increase the additional

grant to a maximum of $100 for persons 65 years and older; secondly, to

merge the provisions of the School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act

with this Act, which I frankly believe, Mr. Speaker, is a step in the

name of simplicity and clarity; thirdly, to increase the homeowner

grant to a maximum of $280; fourthly, the minimum tax payable for under

65 is now $50 in any given property tax year. However, the minimum tax

payable for those over 65 is still $1.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, to the portion dealing with senior

citizens, I realize that I should address my remarks to the bill in

general only, but certainly an important part of this bill relates to

senior citizens' property tax. I think it should be noted by the House

that the Social Credit Party made it very clear prior to December 11

that we would remove property taxation on the homes of persons over the

age of 65. This, in my view, is an important first step towards that

very desirable goal. Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 17 be now read a

second time.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party

will support this bill. However, I think it should be pointed out that while

there are increases for some, especially for senior citizens — we applaud that

— for a great number of people there will be no increase in the homeowner grant.

Indeed, in some instances people will be paying taxes of up to $50.

I think what we do have to look at in order to see the effect of

this as weighed against other tax measures being taken, though, by the

coalition is that by increasing the statutory mill levy that has to be

raised by local school districts by six mills — the impact of that is

about $10 million per mill or $60 million in the province. While a good

portion of that is collected from commercial properties and industrial

properties, still a majority of it will be collected through

residential property taxation.

The amount budgeted over last year's revised estimates for the

homeowner grant is $8.5 million. So we see that a good portion of $60

million is the increase in school tax alone as opposed to the

anticipated property tax relief of $8.5 million. The minister has said

that this is the first step towards removing taxation for senior

citizens, and I would go along with this first step. But they've

already broken some campaign promises, as all parties have to do, and I

would urge him to consider taking this promise so literally. In my

riding there's the Blaylock estate just on the outskirts of Nelson

built by one of the founders of Cominco, and it's still there and it's

still occupied by a person who I believe can afford that kind of tax.

So should you wipe out a taxation which is perhaps property tax of one

senior citizen that's $3,000 a year if he can afford to pay it?

I would urge the government to stick to the homeowner grant

principle. Continue to increase homeowner grants to senior citizens,

keeping that campaign promise, and do not take it to the absolute

literal, and I think ridiculous, extent. It is some relief. It's really

important to some people who've been hit by a very onerous shift in

taxation policy by the invasion through the Department of Education of

the property taxation vehicle, which is normally the preserve of

municipalities, regional districts and school boards, by raising the

statutory mill levy on schools from 26.5 mills to 32.5 mills. We're

talking there of an increase in the order of 20 per cent. Those huge

increases have an impact of about $60 million, not all of which, I

admit, is borne by residential property owners, but a major portion

thereof is. When we compare $60 million to $8.5 million, this is just a

small measure of relief which we, of course, would not oppose.

I would like to say in passing that the move towards simplicity has

something to be said for it, but something that always caused a great

deal of trouble to me was the fact that a great number of people don't

realize that you can claim the homeowner grant without paying your

taxes. I see that's being spelled out. Almost like on a television

show, Mr. Speaker, where the detectives or the policemen read out the

right to remain silent to people, I would wish that there was some

vehicle where village clerks and such could read out the right to

people to claim the homeowner grant without having to pay their tax.

I'm sure it will be a cause of some annoyance — maybe not annoyance,

but it's a troublesome thing — that people don't know what their rights

are. So I would suggest that a special insert be put into every tax

notice in the province, or at the very least that there be a

red-circled statement on every tax notice in the province which would

indicate this to people. That was something that I was hoping would

have been implemented.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We will, of course, support this

bill since basically it carries out the goals outlined by the minister

in second reading, notably to simplify under one piece of legislation

financial assistance to the homeowner.

I would say, however, that although we support the bill we would

like to make it very clear that despite the administrative simplicity

of putting the school reduction tax under the homeowner grant, it is

really quite inaccurate for the government to claim that they are

increasing the homeowner grant to

[ Page 1899 ]

$280. To be very specific with the minister, if I

can even be personal, I know that I got $280 last year and I'll get

$280 this year and that in Oak Bay I'll still be paying more school tax.

Now I know the minister has no control over school taxation, as the

Public Schools Act in its present form gives autonomy to school boards,

so I'm not criticizing in that respect, but I do think it should be

very clearly in the record that for many persons paying taxes on their

home this bill doesn't mean anything more to them.... If I can be

specific to the riding that I know best, many people in Oak Bay will

still be paying more school tax this year than they did last year. They

will still receive the $280, but on an average, taxation to the

homeowner in Oak Bay is increased by something of the order of $115 to

$120 by the municipality, I'm informed.

While I sympathize with the idea of simplifying this whole matter of

homeowner grant and school tax reduction, it is only those persons who

received less than $80 last year in school tax reduction that will

stand to benefit by making the homeowner grant $280 for them.

There are one or two questions I hope the minister might answer in

winding up second reading. The other big change in the legislation is

that the minimum tax payable by any person under 65 will be $50. I

wonder if the minister could give us some explanation of the thinking

behind that particular decision. Perhaps I could be more specific: does

he know how many homeowners who paid $1 last year will finish up paying

somewhere between $1 and $50 this year? The reason I find that puzzling

is that while many persons over 65 undoubtedly need the help, others

are being given financial help, with the increase of another $50, who,

let's face it, no more need that kind of help than they need a hole in

the head. Again I'll be very blunt and very specific. I'll get shot for

saying this, but I've got all kinds of very wealthy people over 65

living in Oak Bay who are going to get another $50 of a homeowner

grant, while we have other groups who are under 65 who paid $1 last

year and will, in fact, finish up paying more.

Now to bring intelligent criticism into this debate, one would need

to have more specific figures as to the numbers involved in these two

groups — how many people there are over 65 who will receive the

additional aid, and out of that number, how many could be classified as

having a very healthy, substantial income, and, conversely, of those

persons under 65 who paid $1 last year, how many of them will be faced

with paying somewhere between $1 and $50 this year. This is the

apparent contradiction in this bill that puzzles me, and there may well

be an explanation. If there is I'm sure the minister can go into it

when he winds up second reading.

I can't find the exact statement, but in introducing the bill the

minister mentioned that in the election campaign last December the

Social Credit Party was committed to removing all property taxes over

the age of 65, and that this is the first step. Also he said that the

aim, over a period of time presumably, is to remove school tax from

property. I suggest that combining the school tax removal grant with

the homeowner grant sort of eliminates the use ; f the words "school

tax removal grant." In any political arena as soon as you remove plain

terminology and replace it with a sort of umbrella word like "homeowner

grant, " I would suggest that that makes it a little easier for the

government in future to fail to meet that goal of removing school tax

from property. That might sound like a very cynical and suspicious

comment, but....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) nods and says I needn't be worried and I needn't be suspicious and so on.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, if you have a school tax removal grant there

in black and white under a piece of legislation, and it's supposed to

increase over a period of years, though it's no longer necessary, at

least in the political forum in this House, we as opposition members

can very specifically deal with that specific commitment of government

to remove school tax from property. If, however, that part of the

financial arrangement by the government is included within a title

"homeowner grant," it could be, I think, very much easier for the

government to fall short on its commitment. The member for Omineca

surely wouldn't get upset if I suggested that just once in a while

governments fall short of their commitments, and that the

responsibility of opposition representatives is to be able to

demonstrate that and to give reasons and evidence to support the

arguments that the government has fallen short.

I happen to trust the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) completely, and I know that what he said today is what he

intends to carry out, but this minister is not the government and he's

not the cabinet. If in the future the government collectively takes a

different direction and decides that perhaps school tax should remain

on property, Or, I suppose, if the government becomes increasingly

powerful and decides, in its great majority, that it can do just about

anything it wants — and some governments have fallen prey to that

concept — then we could finish up with a much more difficult situation

where the opposition would simply have to hammer away at the homeowner

grant without having specific access to the issue of removing school

tax from property.

Another question that I would like to ask the minister: in page 18 of the budget

speech it states: "Transfer of school tax removal grant to the

[ Page 1900 ]

homeowner grant increases the benefits to the

advantage of the homeowner, particularly those of modest income." I

wonder again if the minister does have reasonably accurate, specific

figures of the number of people who are stamped again simply because

they didn't get the $80 under the school tax reduction Act last year

but will receive it this year when the previous $200 is added to the

$80. It seems to me that that would perhaps be the group that stands to

gain most from bringing the whole question of grants under one title of

homeowner grant.

I just repeat that, on the other hand, various persons who have

substantial taxation on their homes received $280 last year. They will

receive $280 this year. Yet they will still be paying more tax. I don't

think they, any more than I, are going to be too impressed by the claim

that this government is keeping its commitment to progressively remove

school tax from property. To be fair, I wonder if the minister has any

idea of the number of homeowners in the province who are in the

situation I have just mentioned of having received $280 last year and

will just receive the same $280 under a different terminology this year.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, it is very gratifying that the government is

well aware of the importance of trying to allow people to stay in their

own homes and to own their own homes. We will be debating, I am sure,

later on this session in great detail the problems of land acquisition

and the cost of land and many other factors which make home ownership

difficult if not impossible for many families. But we are also having a

conference later this year called the Conference on the Family, which I

think is a very excellent and long overdue kind of in-depth review of

the importance of the family. One of the factors in that discussion

which will become very obviously important will be the question of the

housing of families and the availability of home ownership at a cost

many families should be able to afford even in times of inflation.

My only concern in the bill is that some people will be paying more

than $1 this year. Some people will be receiving the same $280 although

their taxes have gone up. Thirdly, we no longer have a school reduction

tax as a specific instrument to allow clear and precise evaluation from

year to year as to whether the government really and truly is carrying

out its commitment to take education taxes off the homeowner.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Housing

in bringing forward this bill. I think it is important that this

Legislature recognizes the fact that the pioneers of this province, the

senior citizens of this province, should get some further assistance in

coping with inflation. Moving the assistance from $50 to $100 and

taking that total home ownership grant to $380 will have some effect to

offset the inflation problem that our senior citizens face and the fact

that we are keeping that minimum tax payable of $1 for the people over

age 65.

There have been some comments made that some people over age 65, of

course, live in very substantial homes, homes which could qualify for

property taxation of hundreds of dollars, possibly thousands of

dollars. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things we

must consider is that those people over age 65 have worked hard, have

contributed through income tax, through property tax, school tax for

years while they were in the work force. When they reach their golden

years and retire, those who have worked hard — those who have invested

and saved to enjoy their senior years — shouldn't be penalized, I don't

think. I think they should be classed as senior citizens and given the

benefits of the $ 1-per-year tax if their taxation isn't over $380 a

year. If it is over $380 a year, then they will, of course, pay the

difference between their total tax and the $380 assistance through the

homeowner grant.

Mr. Speaker, the comments that were made in regard to the budget and

the fact that the cost of this overall programme, the enlarged

programme, will be something like $6 million a year.... I think that in

itself shows the province that the government is concerned about the

inflation, is concerned about the increased taxes on property, and is

doing its best to assist our citizens, both under 65 and over 65, in

meeting the cost of taxation.

There were comments made regarding election promises, and there were

comments made in regard to simplicity by the member for Nelson-Creston

(Mr. Nicolson), stating that he was in favour of simplicity. I thought

maybe, Mr. Speaker, I would try and read the two clauses that were in

the school tax removal and resource grant because I think it got a

little bit confusing. I know myself, as a taxpayer, I wasn't quite sure

just what it all meant. I imagine there are many people who received

their tax billing and were trying to figure out whether they were

entitled to $80, whether they were entitled to $30 or $29.50 or

whatever the case may be.

The two sections go something like this: pay a school tax grant in

the amount not exceeding $80 necessary to reimburse that person in

respect of his liability for 40 per cent of the amount by which the

amount of the school tax exceeds, during 1975, the amount of $200;

where there is no amount payable under paragraph (

A) or the amount

payable under paragraph (

A) is less than $3, pay a resource grant in

the amount necessary to increase to $30 the amount payable under

paragraph (A), or to decrease to $1 the balance of 1975 real property

taxes payable after deduction of the grant under the Provincial

[ Page 1901 ]

Home-Owner Grant Act, and under paragraph (A), whichever is the lesser amount.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you follow me, but even I got lost

part way through that comment. That's the type of thing I think

confuses the average homeowner in this province. I don't know whether

it's the legal linguistics, or however you wish to call it, that gets

involved in a simple document which is really saying to the homeowners

of the province: here is something, we're trying to help you out, but

we're trying to confuse you at the same time. I think the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) should be

complimented on cleaning up that confusing part of the school tax

removal and resource grant, to eliminate that Act and to bring it all

under the homeowner grant. I think the minister is to be complimented

on that.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing I thought I would comment on is that

the under-age-65 person, of course, is faced with inflation — we've

increased that from $200, plus the confusing school tax removal and

resource grant, up to $280 under the homeowner grant. Again, it does

help in regard to offsetting some of the inflationary costs we are

faced with.

The minimum tax payable, of course, for those people under age 65

will be $50. Using the reverse argument that I did with people over age

65, a person under age 65 is an employable person, is a person with a

job, is a wage-earner and does have the ability, I think, to contribute

$50 as a minimum taxation. I don't think anybody today living in a

home, however large, however small, would object to paying a minimum

property tax of $50.

The NDP could, of course, cry hardship, that the property owners,

some of them with their property shouldn't be paying $50. But I think

this helps produce and make realistic a minimum tax for people who are

in their earning years. And if it wasn't that, Mr. Speaker, then I

think that what you would find that would offset taxation on those who

have to pay tax is that the apartment landlords would pay a higher tax

on their properties, rents would be increased, and that would serve no

purpose, I don't think. I think the people who in their earning years

shouldn't have any objection to paying a minimum of $50.

MR. WALLACE: They can't even get into a house. They can't afford it.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there's one other comment, and I

think the member for Oak Bay made it. Also I believe the member for

Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) made the comment about election promises

and commitments. The minister has mentioned that we were working toward

the removal of taxation for people over age 65. I support that concept;

I support that idea. I think it is something that this party will

accomplish.

But I thought I would mention the alternative or other approach to

assist people over age 65. I use "assist" because there is

an Act

called the Real Property Tax Deferment Act which was brought in in 1974

by the NDP government, and it is, in effect,

an Act which allows people

over age 65 to defer the payment of their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, this Act has bothered me ever since I first heard of

it. I've taken the opportunity to get a copy of it, and I'm somewhat

alarmed as to what I read and as to the intent, I feel, really behind

this Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Act states that persons over the age of 65....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we are on second reading of Bill

17, which is The Provincial Home-Owner Grant Amendment Act. Would you

please relate the remarks that you're presently engaged in on the line

of debate to Bill 17?

MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was relating. We

did comment, and all members who have spoken before me have commented,

on the fact that an election promise was made to remove taxation for

people over age 65. We are in our first step in doing that by

increasing from $50 to $100 that amount. I agree with that concept and

I wanted really to show the comparison of that approach, which I think

is the first step in this bill, as opposed to what the bill...regarding

Real Property Tax Deferment Act — what its intent was.

Now if I'm out of order, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to accept your

decision, being a novice in this assembly, but if I may proceed...?

MR. SPEAKER: I am not suggesting, Hon. Member, that you are

completely out of order. But it would be out of order to relate your

remarks only to a bill that is not presently before the House but is a

matter of legislation now. But if you are comparing these, I think you

can proceed.

MR. HEWITT: I am attempting to compare, Mr. Speaker, the

first step in the removal of property tax from people over age 65 by

increasing the assistance to $100. Hopefully, in the future we will be

able to eliminate it altogether.

If I can proceed — and if you feel I am off the track, you can certainly bring me to order, Mr. Speaker.

But in regard to legislation that is in place at the present time,

the Real Property Tax Deferment Act as it affects people over age

65...the effect of the present legislation to people over age 65 is

that you may defer the tax. By deferring the tax, it gives the

province.... The minister may allow the person over

[ Page 1902 ]

age 65 to defer his taxation and it will stand as a

charge against the property in future years, and that charge will

accumulate until such time as the person who owns the property passes

away or sells the property or transfers the property. If there is a

family involved, then the property can be rightly transferred to the

spouse without any effect, but once the family are both deceased, the

husband and wife, then, of course, the province requires payment.

What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, on this type of an approach to

assistance to over-age-65 people in respect to Bill 17, is that I get

concerned that that's not quite the assistance as I see it. That is an

approach to state ownership of land, Mr. Speaker, state ownership of

land. Because at some point in time, if you take a person at age 65,

they last to 90, 95. Accumulate at today's rate 20 years of taxation

and I feel that what could happen when that person passed away is that

the state, the province, would come along and say: "We find 75 per cent

of the value of that land is now owed to the Crown and, as a result, we

will be quite pleased to pay the balance and we've now acquired a piece

of property."

Mr. Speaker, that's what concerned me with that particular Act on

people over age 65, and the reason for my concern is that there is a

definition regarding owner in this particular Act and it says: "in a

building, the owner of which is a corporation." A corporation, not just

people over age 65, could apply for that tax deferment as well. Then

the corporation would have to be faced, within a period of 10 years of

the agreement, with paying back all the taxes in arrears. I wonder

sometimes, when this particular Act was brought into being — behind

that Act the intent was there — that in some point in time the province

or, as the previous administration might call it, the state would look

to the ownership of land.

Mr. Speaker, I only bring up these comments in relationship to Bill

17 because I feel very strongly that this government did make an

election commitment. It did make a promise. We have taken the first

step to fulfil that promise. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in

time, when the minister feels the time is right and when he brings down

the legislation, that the senior citizens will be relieved of this

burden in regard to having taxes deferred on their property as opposed

to having taxes removed and eliminated from their property after

they've put in their working years and have reached their years of

retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Minister of Housing and Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) should be congratulated. I think that the

Social Credit Party instituted this programme in 1957 at a small amount

of $28 a year, but I guess if we look back 19 years, $28 would probably

relate to $280 today. Maybe it's coincidental, but it's one-tenth of

what is being allowed on the homeowner grant today. But then again, I

wonder what our income was per hour in 1957. I think, Mr. Speaker, that

people over age 65 will breathe a little easier, will be pleased at the

fact that this minister has moved quickly to bring this legislation

before this House so we can deal with it. I would support this bill and

I would congratulate the minister once again for moving on what I

consider a very important piece of legislation.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few words regarding

the Provincial Home-owners Grant Amendment Act, 1976. Mr. Speaker, as I

look across and I listen to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) stand up and so readily endorse the proposition of giving

assistance to people as far as home ownership in this province is

concerned, all I can say is: oh, how they have changed! How they have

changed, because in 1957....

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you going to recycle another speech?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I didn't happen to be here in 1957, Mr. Member. I was running federally in those days.

In 1957, Mr. Speaker, the NDP were not prepared to support the legislation.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): There was no such party in 1957.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the CCF. You know, you keep changing your stripes and your colours.

MR. LAUK: And you keep on changing your ground.

MR. CHABOT: Your colour is pink, and some of you are a little redder than pink, and others are pink.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Getting back to the principle of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, I don't know.... We've heard from the "pinko" over there, and

there's the "red" over there, and there's the "lighter pink" right

there.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, prior to the change of the party

from CCF to the NDP, there was a member in the House who sat here for

some number of years. When it was originally instituted, this

assistance to the people to own their own homes, that member for

Alberni, John Squires, said that he would not accept the homeowner

grant. He wouldn't accept. He didn't need the money, he said and: "I'm

not taking it either." Opposed to the homeowner grant!

[ Page 1903 ]

That's why I am so amazed when I hear this member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) stand up here and say that he endorses....

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): This is the 10th time this speech has been made in this House.

MR. CHABOT: Well, there's yellow shirt over there, Mr.

Speaker, who suggests that I've raised this issue in the House before,

which is really untrue.

MR. LAUK: This is the first time you've noticed it! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: But, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is legislation

in which I'm sure the NDP have seen the mistake of the past and now

will support the progressive policy and the concept of the policy that

is being put forward here today.

MR. LAUK: Next.

MR. CHABOT: It's a progressive policy which has been copied

by other jurisdictions. It's a policy which spells stability in this

province. It's a policy that spells stability because it's a policy

which encourages home ownership in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we've witnessed three and a half years of an attempt to

desecrate that home ownership policy in British Columbia when we had a

socialist government in office, when they promoted the virtual absolute

control of land in the hands of the state. They promoted rental housing

rather than home-owner housing, and this is again a clear indication

that the policies of this government have been consistent over the

years in the encouragement of private home ownership in British

Columbia. It started small and it's grown in keeping with the times.

For individuals it's increased by 1,000 per cent since its inception 19

years ago, and for senior citizens it's grown by approximately 1,400

per cent. It's an encouragement; it's a clear reflection of the

attitude of this government regarding its commitment and its

responsibilities to senior citizens of this province.

How shallow those words are across the way when they continually

harp and criticize and yack that this government doesn't care about

senior citizens. Here is a clear indication, Mr. Speaker, that there is

consideration because of the tremendous increase being given to senior

citizens to allow them to stay in their own homes and so they won't be

evicted from their own home.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to be supporting the bill?

MR. CHABOT: The member for Vancouver Centre, who is always

chirping in the House, is wondering whether I am going to support the

bill. I have no hesitation in telling him that, yes, I will be

supporting the bill, and I'm speaking in support of the bill at this

time.

MR. LAUK: Are you speaking for the entire cabinet?

MR. CHABOT: I was rather flabbergasted by the confusion that

was promoted and generated by the confused government we had in his

province for three and a half years. I had constituents of mine

approach me and tell me: "The government has sent me a rebate of $29 on

my taxes. I'm embarrassed to cash it. I'm embarrassed." I said: "Well,

what can you expect from that kind of a government?" They told me: "We

want to pay our fair share. We don't want any more rebates from

government. We feel we own our own home, and we have a right to pay

taxes" — depending on the individual circumstances of his home.

MR. LAUK: Are you against the bill? I don't understand.

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that the ridiculous rebate that

was instituted by the former government, as an error, was a foolish

policy. It was not a genuine policy, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: ...and I think the increase to those under age 65

from $1 to $50 reflects a more realistic tax measure than the kind of

foolish policy we experienced two or three years ago under the

socialist regime where people were embarrassed because of a refund of

$29.

MR. NICOLSON: You're against royalties on natural gas.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm just relating to the member

who just chirped up, the Member for Nelson-Creston, that my

constituency conveyed to me that they were embarrassed by the confusion

that existed in the government by giving them rebates when they felt

they should be paying their fair share of property taxes in this

province.

MR. LAUK: Well, what do you call this?

MR. CHABOT: Now this policy that we have here is instituting

something that's progressive, something that gives these people who

have expressed concern to me...

MR. LAUK: You can't have it both ways.

[ Page 1904 ]

MR. CHABOT: ...gives them the opportunity of paying a minimum of $50 instead of $1, and then....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: This is the kind of position they've expressed to

me — that they wanted to pay something in this neighbourhood rather

than get a rebate on their properties.

MR. LAUK: I won't tell anybody in your riding.

MR. CHABOT: Now it also takes into consideration the senior

citizens of our province by keeping their taxes down to the $1 minimum.

This I support because it's always been the policy of this government

to take into consideration the plight of the senior citizens, and it's

a continuation of this policy. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in

saying, after having closely examined the content of this bill, that

it's progressive legislation. It's legislation which brings stability

to this province; it's legislation which I can readily support.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I also would like to rise this

afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and congratulate the hon. minister for bringing

in this legislation. I believe that it is legislation which will go a

long way to help relieve some of the inflationary pressures on the

people in this province, those who are owning their home, but I think

it should be looked at in light of other legislation.

I think it is quite easy to criticize the legislation and say that

it's not going to offset all the costs that may be incurred by various

people in their daily lives in the owning of their homes, but it is

only one piece of legislation which is aimed at doing one part of all

the things that have to be done in this province in order to correct

the great inequities that we have all around this province.

I think we should look at it and see what it is going to do along

with such things as Bill 17, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act. It is

quote obvious that a homeowner grant of even $380 is very insignificant

if we let the inflation in this province get completely out of hand, as

it is at the moment.

MR. LAUK: Like insurance rates and so on?

Interjection.

MR. BAWTREE: I do consider that probably the best way to combat inflation...

Interjections.

MR. BAWTREE: ...the best way to make sure that the $380, of

the $280, does continue to have some value is to make sure that

inflation does not get out of hand and that we do not spend a great

deal of money that we do not own, that we do not have in this province.

That is what has caused inflation in the last few years: spending money

far beyond our means.

I think we have to look at it in light of the other legislation to

get people working again in this province, to get the railways moving

so they can move our goods and services that we require in order to get

the taxes off the shoulders of the homeowners and back onto some of our

primary industries.

I believe that the $50 minimum tax for those people who are under 65

is also a good move. It is something that has been asked for for many

years by many of the organizations around this province, including the

Union of B.C. Municipalities, because there were far too many people in

this province who were not paying any money at all in the way of taxes

and were getting a great many services. This really did rankle with a

great many people who were paying very high taxes and were not getting

any greater services, but just because they had a building, a home that

was assessed at a very much greater amount, they had to pay the costs

of their neighbours. I think this is a good move because it will go

part way down the road to solving this particular problem.

I think it is interesting to note that the homeowner grant came into

existence, even though it was a very small one, back in 1957 — $28 when

Social Credit was in power. It continued all down through the years and

gradually got greater and greater all down through those years that

Social Credit was in power. The NDP, of course, for one year even

continued it and increased it. Then after that they got a little

confused and brought in many other sorts of legislation, which was very

difficult to understand, as the hon. member from the wine country has

already mentioned.

There is one point I would like to bring up, Mr. Speaker, through

you to the minister, and that is the fact that there is no provision as

yet.... I would urge the minister to look at this problem and to

consider future changes which would give consideration to the

family-farm corporation for the same sort of grants that we have for

individual ownership. Many family-farm corporations are created in

order to pass on the assets of that corporation to the family. It

becomes rather inequitable when they are not able to share in the same

benefits they would have if they were individual owners.

I agree that we made the promise during the election campaign to

eliminate the taxes from our senior citizens. But as has been expressed

in the House this afternoon, there are some people whose taxes, because

they are very, very wealthy and because they have great assets, are

extremely high. I

[ Page 1905 ]

can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I suspect that

those people will never have their total taxes removed from their

property if they are a great deal higher than the normal for the

province.

I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is good

legislation. I am sure that every person in this House will support

this legislation. If they would be as diligent in supporting the other

legislation which we are trying to bring in, this province would go a

lot father a lot faster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I think

probably enough was said by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) with respect to our position on this bill.

We are sorry that the back bench in the Social Credit, or the

coalition party, couldn't quite comprehend what we were doing with the

School Tax Removal Act and other legislation. But then that is to be

expected. They talk of inequities, talking in terms of inflation being

out of hand on this bill, and I am not quite sure of where we are able

to tie that in. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do understand that inflation is

out of hand in this province. Unlike the rest of Canada where it seems

to be subsiding, we are still going on our merry way increasing taxes

and rates for everything from ferries to insurance.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the bill — I was very interested in that

member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). The member for Columbia River

is the chap who has the greatest ability of anybody in the House to

rehash something that he has said at least a dozen times in this House.

But he overlooks the most important thing.

MR. CHABOT: Now tell the truth.

MR. COCKE: He overlooks the most important thing — that he

has sat in his place in this House and watched us vote year after year

after year for similar legislation. He goes back and recycles something

someone said way back in antiquity; then we are all supposed to sit up

with our ears attuned. If we brought back some of the things that that

member has said a great deal more recently than that, I suggest to you

that he could be the most embarrassed person in the place, at least for

a short time.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, they do have difficulty understanding. But I would just

like to make it clear that I am sorry school taxes have increased; I am

sorry that taxes generally have increased beyond what this bill will

help to assuage in some cases. But at least it is what we can expect

from the coalition, and on that basis we certainly must support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, this

bill doesn't do very much but I support it because of the help it does

give to those over 65. The homeowner grant is up minimally this year in

terms of total expenditure, but school taxes, to which homeowner grants

relate, are up this year by over $60 million at a local level. It's

clear that the government can make no claim that by bringing in this

bill they're providing any relief whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the

proportion of school taxes on the local resident is up again this year,

and the homeowner grant hasn't given relief.

There is still nothing done under this bill to redress the injustice

which is visited on persons renting in this province as opposed to

owning their own homes. It has been a continuing injustice. Very minor

steps have been made to put tenants on the same footing as homeowners,

but the magnitude of the difference, on an annual basis, is well in

excess of $200. It seems to me it would have been a good thing if this

bill could have remedied that, and it would have been a simple little

one- or two-line addition to it.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we must be grateful for small mercies in

this Legislature, and therefore I propose to support this bill on

second reading.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): I rise to support this bill and

certainly not to repeat the details of it at any great length. I have

noted with interest the comments from across the floor that school

taxes are going up, as far as the local property taxpayer is concerned.

I would hope that the House would bear in mind that school taxes went

up under the former government in spite of the promise from that

government that they would remove school taxes.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: It's a very interesting thing to consider some of

the other things that happened, particularly to my constituents, in the

time of the previous government with respect to property taxes. During

that time, the provincial government and the city of Victoria managed

to expand their holdings and property by roughly double. Most of these

holdings, I might say, are sitting idle with no apparent plan from the

previous government for their use. That government was simply

participating in the speculation game in land. In fact, the effect of

that is interesting to note. Last year if the then provincial

government, realizing that they were now in possession of some 115

acres of central Victoria commercial land, had chosen not to take such

blatant advantage of the 15 mill grant in lieu of taxes which existed

from days prior when the previous government did not expand its land

holdings

[ Page 1906 ]

significantly, if they had, in fact, paid their

fair share of property taxes, the effect would have been to save the

property taxpayers of the city, a high proportion of whom were senior

citizens, about 4 mills on their property tax bill last year alone.

Not only that, but the former government, of course, brought us the

marvelous innovation, the provincial Assessment Authority, which took

over the assessment function from the city of Victoria. The assessment

function the previous year had cost approximately $150,000. The first

year that the B.C. Assessment Authority operated that function, the

city was billed $290,000 for the same function, an increase of

approximately two-thirds of a mill in one year to administer that

function.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: I'm afraid, Mr. Member, I haven't seen this year's bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Higher!

MR. BAWLF: It might well be, but I would be surprised if it's double in one year.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the point of this is that for the

member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) to stand up and talk about

school mill rates in isolation from the other things that affect

property taxes on the part of the provincial government is perhaps a

little unrealistic. Certainly the former government placed a major

burden — through its property speculation activities in particular — on

the property taxpayers of my constituency. I might add to that the

arrangement that was made, the legislation, which enabled the province

to levy a total of 2 mills for transit operation on the local property

taxpayers. That was their innovation. I understand that this was to be

held over the heads of the local property taxpayers as well.

Certainly when we place these things all together, the potential

impact on the local property taxpayer was a far more significant one

still than the increased mill rate for school purposes mentioned by

that member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . I feel that the former

government had a lot to answer for in my constituency with regard to

the effect of their policies on local property taxes. Certainly my

constituents, particularly the very large number of them who are senior

citizens, will welcome this bill and the increased aid through the

homeowner grant. On their behalf I shall certainly be voting most

enthusiastically for the bill.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it's interesting;

I don't know whether the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) made a speech,

or can we call it a "mumble"? (Laughter.) What I got from the hon.

member's remarks was very interesting. He's objecting to the provincial

government owning land in Victoria, the capital city, the seat of government

of the province. He used to be an alderman in this city and a land developer

of some note, or some reputation. Here he is, a land developer. The government

owns 115 acres in Victoria...

AN HON. MEMBER: Pay full taxes.

MR. LAUK: ...and he's jealous because he doesn't own those

115 acres. He owned the rest of Victoria and he sold it out to some

person in Alberta that he expects will have the same interest in

Victoria that a British Columbian would.

Well, in any event, I have a newspaper clipping. You know, this Act,

which the opposition is going to support, the Provincial Home-owner

Grant Amendment Act, 1976, is a modest, modest increase, a very slight

hedge against the tremendous inflationary pressures placed on the

homeowner by this new coalition government — a drop in the bucket, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You are a drop in the bucket. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Did you hear the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker?

Abusive! (Laughter.) The old crocodile is sitting over there snapping

at this little opposition. It's a steamroller government. He's so

arrogant with power he says we're a "drop in the bucket." He regards 40

per cent of the votes of this province as a "drop in the bucket" and he

looks upon this little opposition with contempt. He's leaving now, he's

so embarrassed. Now if I can drive the member for Columbia (Mr. Chabot)

out of the House in the same manner, I'd be willing to do so.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm trying to make is that by the

repressive measures, the fleecing of the taxpayer and the homeowner of

this province brought upon those people by this government, this is a

modest, almost insignificant amount, but we'll vote for it because we

think that the taxpayers should have every relief they can get from the

oppression of this government. And there's no question that the

inflationary pressures on the average person in this province,

particularly the homeowner, have been caused by this coalition

government — this right-wing, coalition government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Reactionary.

MR. LAUK: I remember just recently, on

[ Page 1907 ]

Tuesday, May 18, 1976, Dr. Jim Rae, associate

deputy minister, a man promoted by this government to that post, said

this: "The consumer price index for Vancouver jumped 2.5 per cent in

March and is expected to be about 1.5 per cent or more for the

following month." Dr. Rae said: "These are one-shot affairs caused by

ICBC rate hikes and a higher sales tax."

The opposition didn't say that. A senior civil servant, an economist

with a national-international reputation said that, and it's true. It's

little wonder.... Where did the minister go, Mr. Speaker? Is he still

in his chair?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's rude of the minister to

leave while debate on his bill is going on in the House. I wonder if we

can call a recess. Is he coming back? Where is he at?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: But I thought members of cabinet were infallible. (Laughter.)

It's little wonder that this minister, probably more sensitive than

other ministers in this cabinet, brought forward as much relief as he

personally could provide to the taxpayer and the home-owner. I

congratulate him for at least doing that, because that juggernaut of a

right-wing coalition is....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to destroy the minister's reputation,

and I hope I don't by saying I like that minister. He's a nice fellow.

He hasn't exactly got the milk of human kindness in his veins but he's

got sort of like milk powder of human kindness in his veins.

(Laughter.) At least he's got the basics.

Seriously, we are going to support this bill, although we do think

it's only a token in the face of the tremendous pressures on the

homeowner.

I have one further point before I take my seat. I represent a

riding, Mr. Speaker, that has a densely populated area, almost

exclusively made up of tenants. Some of them are in condominiums and

the condominium population is growing exclusively.

Traditionally for 20 years in this province we saw the Social Credit

Party — not the coalition party, but the Social Credit Party — have a

very negative attitude towards tenants. Somehow we got the impression

that they felt that tenants were transients, that they really didn't

have any roots in the community and that they didn't contribute to the

costs of the community or the services of the municipality.

I think it's certainly accepted without opposition now that tenants

do contribute financially to their cities. Through their rents and

through other costs they contribute substantially to the services of

that city. They certainly contribute to the provincial coffers in large

measure. I would like to associate myself with the Liberal leader's

(Mr. Gibson'

s) remarks when he says that tenants are being prejudiced

against.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the previous NDP

administration didn't do enough for tenants. I was always unhappy about

that and I fought, as my former cabinet colleagues will testify...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Like a tiger.

MR. LAUK: ...like a tiger for the tenants, not only in my

riding but throughout the city and throughout the province. We didn't

do enough. We only had three years, but we should have done something

more for the tenants, and I'm sorry about that.

But there is no indication here that this new right-wing coalition

government is going to have a different attitude than the old Social

Credit regime. There is no indication that they're going to contribute

more to tenants. They still seem to have the attitude that they are

nothing but transients and that they don't contribute to the community

and to the costs of the community.

I think this minister doesn't believe that, but I think his

colleagues probably do and I wish him well in his battles in cabinet.

He's got his work cut out for him and I hope that he can convince them

that we have to rectify the injustices that the tenants have been

suffering over so many years, and there's more and more of them every

day.

There's nothing wrong with being a tenant. There's nothing wrong

with renting premises. We can't own all the land in Victoria and

Vancouver and live in a big house — we've got to rent. These people are

hard-working people, and in my riding, particularly, they stay there.

They often say the west-end residents are transients; they're not. Over

a five-year period the census indicated that 70 per cent of the people

that lived in the West End five years ago live there today. I think

that's pretty stable population. It's not as stable as Oak Bay or

Dewdney, but people don't buy many cars in Dewdney so they don't travel

around much.

It's very nice to see the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) still

well. I hear that he drank some sewer today and he's looking a little

green around the gills....

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Never looked better.

MR. LAUK: He may never have looked better, but

[ Page 1908 ]

he's still green around the gills. But I do wish

him well and I hope that his health continues. We'll be watching with

great interest. If his eyes close I expect Dr. Wallace will go over

immediately and check him, but it's nice to see him here.

But seriously I do urge upon the minister that certainly there are

going to be one or two more sessions in the 31st parliament. Start the

ball rolling. You'll certainly have every support from the opposition.

MR. BAWLF: I'd just like to correct the impression that the

previous mumbler attempted to leave on the House. I did not suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that there was anything wrong with the province owning

land in the city of Victoria in whatever quantity it saw fit to own,

but that it should pay its fair share of property taxes. I'd just

stress, with regard to his remarks on my former business interests,

that I was always capable of paying full property taxes in the city of

Victoria. I expect the province ought to be as well.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I was quite

interested in the remarks a few minutes ago from my friend from

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . I must say I was quite surprised to hear

that he would support what he calls the right-wing coalition. I notice

the opposition really hasn't changed too much, because I remember....

MR. LAUK: Jim's already made that speech, Cyril.

MR. SHELFORD: I remember back when the homeowner grant first

came in and the about-turn. Really the same thing is true today —

speaking against the bill, which I think is a real good bill — and I

hope there will be further moves in the future to help the homeowner in

this province.

Because of the inflation that took place, certainly during the last

administration but before that as well, there's no question the

homeowner does need all the help possible, especially those young

people who are just starting their own homes. I'm very pleased to see

the $50 minimum come in because there were too many cases around the

province where people making $20,000 or $25,000 were only paying $1. I

certainly think the minister would be wise to look at this very

carefully because even $50 in cases such as this is certainly

questionable.

I certainly want to support this bill, because it's been a

progressive bill over the years, giving greater benefits as time goes

by. I hope it will continue to do even more for the homeowner. I don't

think this is the only answer. There are many more things that have to

be done before young people in this province will be able to own their

own homes, but at least it's a start. The main thing that should be

looked at, of course, is the terrifically high interest rates on

building homes.

I know that's out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I do think we have to

continue to make even more improvements and I support this bill.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak

in favour of this Bill 17, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs has

brought forward. I think it's a very progressive bill, and I'll attempt

to speak about the bill and not the confusion that was left by the

previous government. Some of the confusion refers to the

revenue-sharing programme they had last year for natural gas revenue

sharing. It's a very nebulous programme. It was left up in the air

practically all year. No municipality knew what its share was going to

be and it makes it very difficult to budget on that basis. Again, it

depends on how much the gas goes across the line. If they shut the

valve off, maybe there's no revenue sharing. So I think it was about

time we got away from that kind of a phony baloney business of sharing.

I'm certainly pleased to see that this bill does remove that type of

sharing.

However, I think it's also important that we carry forth with our

election pledge of more direct revenue sharing with municipalities.

While this bill here helps the individual homeowners, the

municipalities themselves still face a real problem trying to finance

the primary services so necessary to the citizens in this day and age.

Particularly in our area, we have a lot of extended subdivisions that

require servicing with water, sewers, better roads, proper sewage

treatment plants — all of these things — on today's costs, which I

think the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) spoke very realistically on.

At today's costs the municipalities just have to have a better sharing

formula there and I'll be pleased to see developments in this area that

are brought down at a later date.

I think this provision of getting away from that $1 minimum is very

realistic. Certainly anyone owning a home can afford to pay at least

the $50, and it will ease the burden particularly on the older people.

It will allow us a lot more flexibility. Another $100, I think, will

help stretch their budget quite a bit. Again, I certainly agree with

leaving their minimum at $ 1. These are the citizens who have built our

province and I think they deserve a special place when we're making up

our budgets.

I'll also be very interested to see the programme that we'll be

bringing in to help them with the housing and more services on the

senior citizens' recreational facilities and transit systems for them.

I'm going to be very brief on this. I just feel that this is

certainly a step in the right direction and I'll certainly support it.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to rise in my place this

[ Page 1909 ]

afternoon in support of this bill.

It is quite obvious that the bill is being supported by all the members

of this House, but the unusual aspect to me is the fact that the

opposition through the years past attacked and fought and spoke down

all reference to the homeowners Act. In the days past, they said that

it was an election boondoggle. They said when they became government

they would remove the homeowner grant because the money — should have

been given to everybody but not the homeowner. The remarks were legion

and many and of all the kinds and types, and they were believed by a

lot of people, but anyone that owned a home knew that it was a help to

homeowners.

We believed, in our government, that it was necessary for citizens

to have their roots in the ground where they lived. We believed that we

should help those people no matter what station in life they were —

help them to own their own home and to have a home. This is just a

difference in thrust of our government. The thrust of the socialist

government was.... Well, for example, it was said — I believe it is

still on the books — that if you have a piece of property of a certain

age and you are unable to pay the taxes, you sign off your property to

the government and you live there free until such time as you pass

away. Then it becomes the property of the Crown. I am not sure of that

Act exactly, but this is the thrust. This is a confiscation type of

thrust. Ours is different.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): They were allowed to defer their taxes.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Ours is lifting, the principle of lifting —

help people to own their own homes, help people to live on their own

property, help people to say they have a stake in the province of

British Columbia.

The first homeowner grant came in 1957. You may well remember, those

of you who were here — I am not sure if any members of this House were

here then; I was not — how it was said by all that this is simply

giving away the public funds to get votes. I repeat again, here we have

an Act with a new thrust to help another group of people. As the years

go on we will have more and more and the sums will grow more and more.

I stated before, and I say to you seriously now, that if this

government had remained in office and had not gone through that period

of the giveaway of 1972-75 the day would surely come when British

Columbia by its resources would be the first province, the first state,

the first jurisdiction to be totally tax-free. This was on the way;

this could have happened with our resources. But we were put back three

years — came to a standstill, all our reserves dissipated. It will take

us three years to catch up, but

I think the people of British Columbia realize and realize clearly

that if we remain in office — I am sure we will — the thrust will

continue and the day will come — it is not far off — when the resources

of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia working for the

benefit of British Columbians will become some day certainly tax-free

on schools and perhaps tax-free in all our taxes. Does this sound

impossible? Not to me. Not to me.

MR. COCKE: Then how come you're not doing anything?

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Good management. Do you hear our people talk

against the homeowner grant today? Not one word, because it was an

original policy in all of North America followed by many jurisdictions.

I could go on to other Acts in which we led all of Canada and

certainly, in many cases, North America. But it is not necessary to

bring that up at this time. Suffice to say that we are a

forward-looking government and the people are with us. We will continue

to progress, to lift up. The thrust of our purpose here is to help the

people of British Columbia and not to suppress them. I, of course, am

in favour of this bill; I am sure others are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of

and in defence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

Responding to the remarks of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I

want to say that first of all I like the member for Dewdney. I would

like him for an uncle. He is a very avuncular type and a real

gentleman, but he is no authority on property taxation. On behalf of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in whose jurisdiction the question

was raised, I would like to inform the member for Dewdney that there is

no provision whatever to confiscate the property of senior citizens —

none, neither under that minister nor under ours.

Rather, what was offered under the previous government was an

opportunity for senior citizens to defer payment of taxes on their

homes until they should pass away and their estates should be settled.

There was no provision — there is not under the present minister nor

under ours — to confiscate their properties.

AN HON. MEMBER: He drinks my bathwater.

MR. BARBER: He's been drinking too much of that famous water,

it seems. I do that in respect for the member for Dewdney and in

defence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There is not now nor has

there been any attempt to confiscate the homes

[ Page 1910 ]

of senior citizens.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to end my remarks by saying I do

support the bill. I congratulate the minister for bringing it in.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the

hon. member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is out for the moment. I

was going to remind him of the advice he has often received from this

side of the House, and that is that the road to the cabinet is not by

regurgitating his own old speeches. That is the very thing that has

kept him out of the cabinet up to this point in time. He should rather

adopt the method of the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf )

and the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt). That is by

giving speeches that he had left over from previous debates in the

House and just didn't have the opportunity to use.

However, with respect to the legislation before us, just two points

that have already been made. I'll deal with them perhaps a little more

briefly than some of the other members have. With respect to the

special increased relief for those over 65 — the campaign promise — it

seems that the Minister of Housing is a little out of step with his

colleague in the cabinet, that is, the Minister of Human Resources

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who prefers to deal with people in a mean way.

Mincome, for example, is being changed, or done away with, in favour of

a programme that will give assistance to people only if they can really

establish that not only do they need it, but these will be the means

feature as well, and he'll be dealing with them in a mean way.

In the Social Credit platform and apparently in the policy that

they're following now, the intention is to give this kind of relief to

people over 65 simply by virtue of the fact that they are over 65. It

just seems that it's not really in tune with the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

Perhaps something between the two would be better. Certainly under

our administration we tried to apply a middle road. The Mincome

programme was at least based on income rather than dealing with assets,

and rather than giving it to everyone simply by virtue of the fact that

they did reach a certain age.

The other feature of the bill is that while it does simplify

calculations, and does simplify explanations — it certainly does that —

to do away with the school tax removal approach as opposed to the

straight homeowner grant approach, on the other hand it does go against

the principle that I think the Minister of Housing himself supported

before he joined the coalition party and became a member of the

coalition cabinet. That was the idea that taxes should be levied

against property to look after services to property, as opposed to

services to people that should be paid for by taxes, preferably against

income.

It seems to be going counter to that to say that all of the relief

shall be melded, that there'll be a straight homeowner grant, that

there will no longer be this previous government's policy — and I

thought it would be your administration's policy — of trying to remove

the school tax itself, because that certainly is a service to people as

opposed to a service to property.

I think that by melding the two, while you are simplifying it, you

are going against the principle of removing from property the cost of

services to people. I wonder at the wisdom of doing that. I wonder

whether this is the intention over the long haul or whether it's simply

an interim approach.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments

made today. I must admit to being thrown off my guard by some of the

kind comments made in various parts of the House, because when that

happens I wonder what I'm doing wrong. I'm sure the comments were

offered in all honesty, and I appreciate the observations.

MR. LAUK: Are you against this minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry the member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) is not in his seat, but perhaps he will have an opportunity to

pick up this information later. I think he asked how many individuals

over 65 will receive the extra $50, actually the extra $49.

We estimate, Mr. Speaker, somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000

properties will be affected. Approximately 80,000 properties will also

pay more than $1 — that is, the minimum of $50 which has been dealt

with by a number of the members in their remarks.

I can appreciate those who are concerned about increasing the

minimum from $1 to $50. It was a very conscious decision on my

part in

recommendation to cabinet. I recognized that in some instances it will

be an added burden. However, I think that it is important for

homeowners to have some idea of the value of services they receive from

local government, local government in its broadest sense — the

municipality, the city government, police, fire protection, school

services, all the services which we take for granted.

I know that in many instances we translate a particular cost into

so much a day, or not much more than a package of cigarettes, or just

$2 a week. But really, this is just over $4 a month minimum tax for

those who will be paying the $50.

In many instances those individuals, a couple with one child, two

children, three children, are receiving a great many services from the

community in which they are located, or the regional district,

whichever the case may be.

[ Page 1911 ]

I have to say also, Mr. Speaker, that the indication — not in a

partisan sense — from the department, the indication from all those who

were charged with the responsibility of administering the former

formula, the School Tax Removal Grant, is that computing a percentage

against the portion of tax that was eligible did cause very widespread

confusion. No question about it.

The attempt may have been a valid one; it may have been a good idea

at the time, but it did run into a great deal of confusion. It confused

the individuals who were attempting to compute their own taxes or to

check the computation on their own tax notice, and I think that this is

an important move to remove that confusion and to make the homeowner

grant, this particular transfer payment, as easily understood as

possible. I don't think we should confuse individuals intentionally or

unintentionally.

The point was made by the first speaker for the official opposition,

the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — and I don't think you

will rule this comment out of order; I'm dealing with the principle of

the bill, Mr. Speaker. But there is one point.

We feel, and I have felt for a good number of years, that it has

been most regrettable for an individual to somehow feel that since they

could not pay their entire tax bill they could not claim the homeowner

grant, whatever figure it might be and whatever formula it might be.

We are correcting that, and indeed notices have already gone from

both the Department of Housing and the Department of Municipal Affairs

to municipal tax collectors, to the provincial tax collector as well,

to insist — I don't think it's too strong a term — that this be clearly

identified on the tax notice, in any advertising which is done and in

any dealings conducted at municipal hall counters. It must be made very

clear that if, for whatever reason, the homeowner cannot pay his or her

property taxes in full by the due date, certainly that owner is

entitled to complete the application and to at least have the homeowner

grant amount taken off the total tax amount owing. I think that is an

important point.

A number of points made, Mr. Speaker, I feel will more properly be

dealt with in my estimates, in committee, rather than in closing second

reading on this' particular bill. I move, therefore, that the — motion

now be put.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 17, Provincial Home-Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Bill 8 is a very

important amendment to the Revenue Act, covering, basically, three

requirements. The first and most important, we feel, is that when this

party was in opposition, previous to the last election, we strongly

opposed the amendment to the Revenue Act which allowed the Minister of

Finance to invest in company shares. We still believe, Mr. Speaker,

that this is too wide a power. This government believes that any such

purchases should be open to full scrutiny, and if shares of a company

are to be purchased, the purchase should be approved by

an Act of the

Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Therefore the first thing this bill proposes

is to remove the present power of the Minister of Finance to purchase

company shares.

As we know, under the previous administration, this amendment was

introduced which basically opened up the whole entire matter for the

Minister of Finance to buy shares in anything, and this is actually

what did take place, It's simply too broad a power, and this is why we

feel this amendment is most important to the people of British Columbia.

Secondly, I would classify as the more technical amendment this

amendment which has to do with guarantees which are now allowed to be

given by the government in various statutes. It's necessary to classify

that the guarantee does cover the performance of any obligation to pay

pursuant to the security. For instance, the payment of a premium

obligation under a bond issue is a typical example. The underwriters of

our securities have requested this clarification. Our present

legislation, the Revenue Act, simply indicates the repayment under the

guarantee of principal and interest, and this amendment would allow the

guarantee to cover, for instance, premiums or other obligations which

were accrued under the underwriting issue.

Lastly, this Act also provides that despite any previous or other

legislation, all powers to borrow money, to give guarantees, to make

grants, loans or advances may in the future only be exercised after

approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on recommendation of the

Minister of Finance. This government believes that only the Minister of

Finance' s recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council should

have the power to act on behalf of the government in such matters.

So those are the basic elements of the amendments

[ Page 1912 ]

to the Revenue Act. No. 1, it proposes to remove the present power

of the Minister of Finance to purchase company shares. Secondly, it is

necessary to clarify that the guarantee does cover the performance of

any obligation to pay, pursuant to security. Thirdly, despite

indications in other legislation having to do with powers to borrow

money, give guarantees, make grants, loans or advances, these in the

future would only be able to be exercised through the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the minister, in

introducing second reading of this legislation, has dealt with it

section by section, and even in the second

section has dealt with it in

two parts. It's really the only way to deal with this legislation, so I

expect the discussion in second reading will have to follow the same

pattern as there isn't any way of dealing with three different

proposals.

With respect to

section 1, repealing the authority of the Minister

of Finance to purchase shares in corporations, I think what the

government is saying in this is that they recognize the inadequacy of

the present Minister of Finance; they don't trust him. They don't trust

his own judgment. They don't even trust him to take the advice of the

rest of the cabinet, because certainly the Minister of Finance, I

think, in any purchase of any importance at all would consult the

cabinet.

What the government is saying in this is that we don't even trust

the cabinet to use its judgment in making purchases of shares, and

because we don't trust ourselves we are going to do away with the right

of the cabinet to recommend to the Minister of Finance that he acquire

shares when an opportunity comes up to acquire shares in the interest

of the people of British Columbia.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, they can be only dealing with their lack of

trust in their own Minister of Finance, because they recognize that any

succeeding administration, if it had a Minister of Finance that it

trusted, would simply change this legislation so that the government

would be free to move when an opportunity arose to move in the interest

of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention just a couple of acquisitions of

shares that definitely were in the interests of the people of the

province. I could mention many, but I'd like to mention Can-Cel, for

example — an acquisition that was made by the Minister of Finance after

full consultation with cabinet, an acquisition that was certainly in

the interests of the people of the province, an acquisition that cost

the people of British Columbia not one 5-cent piece, yet for which we

got assets that are worth half a billion dollars.

Not only were the people of British Columbia better off to the

extent of half a billion dollars, but with a vast enterprise that

included a pulp mill in the city of Prince Rupert that included much

logging and sawmilling in the whole Pacific Northwest of the province

that was to be closed down by the prospective purchaser — Weyerhauser.

That was their announced intention, that when they acquired the assets

of Canadian Cellulose they were going to close down Prince Rupert,

which would have the effect of closing down a large amount of logging

and sawmilling in the whole Pacific northwest of the province. They

were to continue to operate only the one part of the operation that was

profitable — the Castlegar operation. So, Mr. Speaker, it cost us

nothing to get it. we simply guaranteed money that Can-Cel owed, and on

which it had been making payments. For that we got assets that are

worth half a billion dollars, and we maintained employment.

Mr. Speaker, this government of today is not really interested in

maintaining employment. They seem to have the attitude that any time

they do anything that contributes to unemployment, that adds to the

number unemployed, they will get credit, they will get marks, for being

fiscally responsible.

Mr. Speaker, we maintained job opportunities for thousands of

people, and it cost the people of British Columbia nothing. We had the

authority to do that because the Minister of Finance had the authority,

on the advice of his fellow ministers, on the advice of a cabinet

meeting, to acquire shares in that particular Crown corporation. We

saved hundreds of jobs — over 1,000 jobs — direct jobs in Ocean Falls,

which has not been so profitable, but at least it did maintain a city,

a city that was offered for sale by the previous owners, offered for

sale to anyone in the United States who wanted to buy it. We had that

opportunity with that kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of amusement about another

acquisition of shares, and I'm going to mention it: Panco Poultry

Products, an operation that was owned by eastern interests who said

they were going to close it down. They came to us and told us quietly

that if there was any leak of this publicly — any public discussion

that the government might buy it — they would simply close the

operation immediately, with, the immediate loss of 400 jobs. The loss

of that poultry-processing operation and, of course, the tremendously

bad effect on agriculture in the Lower Fraser Valley....

Mr. Speaker, because we had the authority to purchase those shares,

we were able to save that industry, to save all those jobs. But as I

say, this government doesn't want that right because it feels that any

time it does anything or let's anything happen that helps create

unemployment, they're showing evidence of being fiscally responsible.

[ Page 1913 ]

I am not surprised that this government feels that the Minister of

Finance and the cabinet are inadequate to make decisions on behalf of

the people of British Columbia, and they want taken away from them the

authority to do these kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, we're certainly going to oppose that

section of the bill.

Interjections.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Bob Hope of the accounting world.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, with respect to

section 2 of the bill, and the second part of it.... And here I am more than a little confused.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister said that what he was doing in this

was taking away from certain cabinet Ministers the right to guarantee

loans. Now reading the legislation, there are the words "approval may

be general or specific." I don't know exactly how that is going to be

applied. If it means that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may give

general approval to the Minister of Finance to guarantee any loan

applications that may come before him, and that he doesn't need any

further authorization from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, he

really hasn't done anything except to say to all the ministers that

they have to come to him first before they can approve anything. But if

it really means that each loan application, or application for a loan

guarantee, and which the government is going to guarantee, must be

considered individually by cabinet, well, then it's rather a different

matter.

I think cabinet must be, as many of the members of the back bench

appear to be — I get that impression in public accounts committee at

least, Mr. Speaker — and the government also must be, underemployed.

Because I know as Minister of Agriculture alone that there were many

applications that came before me as minister that required a guarantee

under the Agricultural Credit Act. If it means that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is going to come before a cabinet

meeting before he can have the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

sign these guarantees, then I think the cabinet is looking to be rather

hopelessly bogged down or, as I suggest, perhaps it is just

underemployed.

I think again, Mr. Speaker, it's an admission that they don't really

trust the adequacy of the people who have been named as ministers of

the Crown. While I might share that distrust, if I were a member of

that government I wouldn't want to stand up openly, publicly, and

introduce legislation that said, in effect: "We don't trust the

Minister of Finance, we don't trust the ministers of this government,

we don't even trust them collectively to arrive at the right decisions;

so we are going to remove from ourselves certain authorities regardless

of what effect that will have upon the opportunities that the

government may have from time to time to do things on behalf of the

people of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition will oppose this legislation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, this

is a good little bill, I think. There are about a hundred other

priorities before it, like repealing Bill 31 and things of that nature

important to the economy of British Columbia, but insofar as it goes

it's all right.

The second part of it, of course, makes sense. It's a tightening up

of financial administration and channeling it through the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), and I think that's only right.

The major part of the bill would restrict the authority of the

Minister of Finance to invest the funds of the province in equities.

More than restrict it, it would prohibit it.

I think it is important that the public should understand, Mr.

Speaker, that while this is an interesting amendment, the barn door is

left open for investment in equities by the funds of the province

through any number of means, Crown agencies in particular, through the

B.C. Development Corp., or British Columbia Hydro, or various

emanations of the Crown that the Minister of Finance can direct to

invest funds in any way he chooses. So in a way this is symbolic, but

insofar as symbols are concerned it is useful and I welcome it.

I was concerned that this kind of amendment might tie the hands of

the Crown in an emergent situation when a matter affecting the public

interest in calling for a quick equity investment arises. I thought

about that for a while, but I think there are ways around it. There is

not question that such cases do arise from time to time. Can-Cel was an

excellent deal for the people of British Columbia, and I was....

MR. LAUK: It was subsequently ratified in this chamber, as you will recall.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to hear any member on the opposite

side of the House stand up and say it wasn't a good deal. It was a darn

good deal! And Can-Cel opportunities are bound to arise again, and

indeed they should arise again. I am convinced in my own mind that one

of the ways we are going to bring more local British Columbia control

of our own

[ Page 1914 ]

industry is to a considerable extent using the government of this

province as a financial intermediary to mobilize the capital of the

people of British Columbia and repatriate some of the ownership of our

important resource and other firms.

MR. LAUK: I've just got a membership handy here.

MR. GIBSON: There are a lot of questions as to how things

should be dealt with from there; questions of control of publicly-held

equities of these kinds are very important. They must be such that they

are removed and put at arm's length from the day-to-day political

motivations and other activities of the government. There are all kinds

of spin-off possibilities such as putting these things under a

genuinely independent B.C. Development Corp. or taking the Alberta

Energy Corp. ro