1971 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 29th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 8,1971

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 617 ]

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

The Honourable W.D. Black presented to Mr. Speaker a Message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

On the motion of Mr. Black, Bill (No. 49) intituled

An Act to Amend the Department of Highways Act

was introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the

Orders of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

On the motion of Mr. L.T. Nimsick, the following Bills were

introduced, read a first time, and Ordered to be placed on the Orders

of the Day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

Bill (No. 63) intituled Prevention of Restraint of Professional Practices Act .

Bill (No. 64) intituled

An Act to Amend the Attachment of Debts Act .

Bill (No. 65) intituled

An Act to Amend the Annual Holidays Act .

On the motion of the Honourable W.A.C. Bennett, the House proceeded to the Order "Public Bills and Orders."

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (South Okanagan): Second Reading of Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13,

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act. The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: This Government pioneered the homeowner grant,

in 1957, to reduce the burden of local taxes on home-owners, especially

small home-owners, and encourage every family throughout the Province

to acquire their own home. The annual grant was originally set at $28

and has been progressively raised and reached $160 in 1970. At the same

time, per capita local government grant for municipalities has been

continually revised upwards, as have the grants to local school boards

for primary and secondary education.

To continue the programme started in 1957, this Government now

proposes to increase the home-owner grant by a further $10 to a maximum

of $170 in the 1971 taxation year. It is estimated that the additional

cost to the Province for the increase will be about $5½ million and,

now, the total home-owner grant, annually, in 1971-72 will cost a total

of $66,200,000.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, in my opinion, there is no better

way to spend the public money of this Province than to help people

first, to own their own homes and, second, to help them pay the taxes

on their homes.

In the early days, when this was first brought out as a Government

policy, it was after a long search to see how we could stop these

increases in local taxes on retired people and so forth with very small

homes, so that, even if their taxes went up $2 or $3 a year, it would

have been a burden on these old age pensioners. We started out, when

everybody said it was impossible, it wasn't done elsewhere, with $28.

This bill will make it $170 per year, which means tens of thousands of

people with small homes throughout the Province will only pay $1 a

year. Everybody, irrespective of how much taxes they pay, will receive

up to $170. The greatest benefit naturally comes to those people with

the small homes. It is part of the Government's policy to encourage

everybody in this Province to own their own home and be able to pay

their taxes, because, after all, the great struggle around the world is

between the "haves" and the "have nots". We want every person in

British Columbia who wants to, by their choice, own their own home. Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to move the second reading of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J.G. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I've been

around long enough to know that we will support this bill. I would like

to point out that this is a grant to individuals in the Province. It

bothers me sometimes when I see it listed as a grant to municipalities.

It is a grant to individuals rather than to municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I

was pleased to hear the remarks of our Premier and Minister of Finance

and equally delighted to hear that the New Democratic Party is going to

support this bill so strongly. This hasn't been the case and, if the

Member who has just taken his place will remember, that Party was not

so delighted with this when it was $28 a year, Mr. Speaker. Neither was

the Member who has just taken his seat. However, we can both read

history, as the people of British Columbia have done over the many

years. That's why we sit on this side of the House and they sit on that

side.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that our Premier and Minister of

Finance did not mention in the second reading of this bill, and I think

it should be brought out, is the fact that the annual home-owner grant

will give an opportunity to very many people in this Province to have

home ownership who would not have been given the opportunity if it were

not for this grant, coupled with the home acquisition grant, which is

available, of $1,000.

To give you an idea of what a difference this makes to a home-owner

in this Province, I would like to state that a man who wishes to assume

the cost of a $20,000 home, if he has $1,000 to put down and the

mortgage is 9½ per cent over 25 years and his gross taxes are $360 per

year, his monthly payments, without the $170 home-owner grant, would be

$193.60 a month. With this grant, made possible through Bill 13, his

monthly payments will be $170.89, which means, in effect, you can say

that British Columbia contributes $22.71 per month on the payment for

such a house. Then, we can take it the other way around, Mr. Speaker.

When we consider the qualifying income, as you know, all of our

applicants for homes in Canada, in assuming a mortgage, are based on

their qualifying income…A man who earns $8,000 per year should not

have his principal, interest and taxes, that is, his monthly payments,

exceeding $180 a month, that is according to the qualifying income,

based on 27 per cent of his monthly income. Assuming that gross taxes

are $360 per year, again, and that the applicant has $1,000 of his own,

or the home acquisition grant, for a down payment, and, again, assuming

a 9½ per cent mortgage for 25 years, the maximum costs of a qualifying

house bought by that same person, earning $8,000, without the $170

grant, which we are

[ Page 618 ]

discussing in this bill, would be $18,500. He would

be able to purchase a home with that amount of money. However, with the

$170 home-owner grant this man can now enter into agreement for a

$21,100 home. So, what we are really saying is that a person living on

an $8,000 income could afford to buy a house costing $21,100, with the

help of the $170 home-owner grant and the $1,000 home acquisition

grant. Without those benefits, available only in the Province of

British Columbia, this man would have to confine his purchase to an

$18,500 home, which is a difference of $2,600.

What we are saying, in effect, is that with this legislation, the

British Columbia Government is contributing the sum of $2,600 to the

qualifying income of that home-owner, I felt that this kind of

information, the kind of information that isn't told and isn't brought

out, should be re-emphasized in the reading of this bill, because there

is no doubt in my mind and, surely, in the many hundreds of people that

have taken advantage of this legislation, that this is the most

enlightened home-owner legislation in all of North America.

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

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

agree with the lady Minister without Portfolio that there are certain

facts regarding the support of low-income people that aren't completely

brought out in this bill. One of them is that there are many, many

people in British Columbia who cannot afford to buy a home — home-owner

grant or not. Those people have no choice, Mr. Speaker, but to rent.

This home-owner grant continues to help more and more those who can own

a home but the consequence is to punish more and more those who cannot

afford to own a home.

I would hope that the Minister of Finance, one year, could find in his heart to introduce in this annual Homeowner Grant Amendment Act ,

a way of assisting those who cannot afford to buy a home. We've got to

find a way of easing the additional tax burden that is placed on all

tenants in the Province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, as well, we

must find a better way of assisting those who are on fixed incomes and

are continuing to live in a home in some area that has very high

home-owner taxes because of expensive municipal services. They will

find their home-owner taxes increasing even more than the home-owner

grant does.

There are many, many such retired people in the city of Vancouver

and in the area which I represent. These people need something in

addition to these few dollars extra each year. It would be a wonderful

thing, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance, one year, in his

amendment to the Home-owner Grant Act

could say that all retired people on fixed incomes would have their

taxes looked after through a fund set up under the home-owner grant

and, then, have the excess taxes owing taken away at the time

succession duties were collected, under a separate act. It would be a

way of combining the two and allowing the people, who are on fixed

incomes, to maintain their residence with some dignity.

We will support this amendment because it is better for the people

who own homes than if it did not exist. Still, in all, we wish to draw

attention to the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Speaker, that

improvements are required and the coverage that is given has to be

broadened to other groups.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am afraid what I'm going to say is going to take considerable time. I

want to examine the relative abilities of those who can afford to

purchase a home at $18,500 and those who can purchase a home at

$80,000. I want to examine the proposal that came from the lady

Minister without Portfolio that this is not really a grant of $170 but

is an added income of $2,600. I want to examine the number of

"howevers" that the lady Minister without Portfolio included in her

speech on this proposed upping of the home-owner grant. I want to

relate it to the assessments within the Province of British Columbia,

and with every other aspect of home ownership the lady Minister without

Portfolio managed to bring into this bill to increase the amount of the

home-owner grant to $170.

I think you will agree that that is a pretty extensive field of

examination, all related to this fairly simple bill. However, the

contents of this bill are limited to the matter of the $170 home-owner

grant and I won't reach out into an examination of the NHA regulations,

the $8,000 limitation or requirement in order to meet it. I'll simply

say that 1, too, am going to support this particular piece of

legislation. Similar to the Member from Burnaby, who spoke and who

stuck to the bill, he expressed a little amazement that, although it's

a home-owner grant, it's listed and talked about as an aid to

municipalities.

As usual, this afternoon, as I walked in, I took a look at the Votes and Proceedings

and I found that a question I ask every year had been answered by the

Minister of Education. But it is answered a little differently this

year — they answered questions that I hadn't even asked, which, I will

agree, is a substantial difference from the usual procedure. That makes

up for the questions that they don't answer when you do ask them — but

it is surprising. The whole question I asked was: what percentage of

school operating costs was paid by the Provincial Government in each

school district in the Province in the calendar year 1970. In past

years, I have been given a straightforward answer to the question: what

amount of money was taken out of the Department of Education grants

towards education directly to the school districts. I notice that,

instead of simply answering the question straightforwardly this time,

it says: the percentages of net budgeting expenses paid by the

Provincial Government to each school district, inclusive of direct

grants and the estimated portion of home-owner grants applicable to the

local school taxes for the calendar year of 1970 were…which, of

course, is a different set of figures and not a set of figures that you

can relate to the previous figures answered under the same question I

put on the Order Paper each and every year.

So, it is not only a home-owner grant, really. It's a grant to

municipalities and it's a grant to the school boards. Under this

particular bill…as I say, I am supporting it. I'm also going to have

another question on the Order Paper in order to get the right answer,

the usual answer, the comparable answer, to the question which was

answered by the Minister of Education last week.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. H.J. BRUCH (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to see that the Opposition Members, after being

[ Page 619 ]

dragged,

screaming and kicking into approval of the homeowner grant, now, are

quite pleased to see the change and the increase; however, they are

still giving us the same arguments that they have in the original

incident, which show that they don't understand the principles of the

home-owner grant and they don't want to understand it.

First of all, when we get this little bit about it should go to the

municipalities," they should full well know that, if we gave this money

to the municipalities, at least half of it would be going to business

and industry in this Province in reduction of taxation. The other

argument that we constantly get, and, unfortunately, there are one or

two Members on this side who come up with this argument, is that we

should be giving the renter equal treatment. Well, Mr. Speaker, the

very basis of this home-owner grant is to put the home-owner on equal

footing with persons who happen to reside in properties where they can

write-off taxes, where they can write-off repair, where they can

write-off depreciation, as the cost of doing business. The home-owner

has always been penalized because he didn't have that opportunity of

writing-off his cost of doing business, even though he owned his home.

This home-owner grant has, at last, put the home-owner on an equal,

fair footing with the other people in the community, whether they own a

home that they commercially rent, or even if it is reflected in the

renters in an apartment, in that the depreciation cost is and should be

reflected in the cost of rent. Most certainly, we not only approve this

amendment but look forward to an increase in future years.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. B. CAMPBELL (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, it is a

pleasure to see that we are not only unanimous in this House,

apparently, although the vote has not been held on this piece of

legislation, but also that the financial policies of this Government

and particularly its policy with respect to home-ownership in assisting

the taxpayer, are recognized in other parts of the world as well. I

have with me a copy of the February 15 issue of the Newcastle Morning

Herald and Miners' Advocate in Australia, this particular edition of

the paper being published within only a couple of weeks of the Budget

being brought down in this Chamber. Before commenting on its remarks

with respect to this Government's policies regarding home-ownership, it

also has taken other ideas from the Province, because there is also an

advertisement in it for lingerie for instant slimming for girls who

love the good life. This particular article, and it contains a picture

of the Finance Minister of the Province, says that, "Financial Magic as

a Government Works Debt-free." It goes on to tell about the modern

marvel of the public finance, whom they identify as the Premier of this

Province. They go on, and I will relate it strictly to this bill.

"Climbing debt can seriously impair State budgeting, stunt public

services and slash the tax dollars' impact in direct relation to rising

debt pay-offs to moneylenders. A solution to debt pay-off has been

formulated by British Columbia, the most westerly Canadian Province,

and the big idea involves noninflationary budgets, a debt-free economy

and eventually the issuing of payments to the people of the profits

from State prosperity…" — such as we see here in the increase of

the home-owners grant. It says that, "The Premier's philosophy also

holds that governments must help people, not councils or governments.

That is why he pays the B.C. prosperity bonus direct to the ratepayers,

because they are the persons it is meant to help. As a result, Mr.

Bennett slashes costs, the roots of inflation, and the public is given

a degree of relief." That is what we see, as the Member from Esquimalt

has just pointed out. One final little comment from the

article says,

"It is, of course, the secret to perpetual office-holding. While the

Premier has made no such claim, he only says 50 years, but he renews

that claim each year."

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. L.T. NIMSICK (Kootenay): Listening to the different

remarks here, you would think this was something for all people,

because the Honourable the Premier stated the main effort was to help

out the low-income people, the people with small homes. Then, along

comes the Johnny come-lately, the Cabinet Minister without Portfolio,

and she plays up that it is for the purpose of helping out those who

can buy a $20,000 home (interruption) . Nevertheless, she wasn't here at

the time when this bill was first brought in. The New Democratic Party

at no time, at no time, I want this to be made clear, because I was the

one that spoke on this bill at the time it was introduced…at no time,

and I want you to get it clear because I want the people throughout

this Province to get it clear, that at no time has the New Democratic

Party been opposed to it. Had we been doing it, we would have done a

lot better job on this question of the home-owner grant (interruption) .

You weren't even here, then, you weren't even here, at all, at that

time. I was here. This is one of the values of having some background

history — you know that you can speak from experience and not just

hearsay — like some of the people here, today.

I can well see why you are boosting it, because if you didn't boost

it, it would lose all its effect. The property taxes throughout the

Province are continually going up and up and up, and they are

outstripping even the home-owner grant — you have got to agree with me

on that point. It's outstripping the home-owner grant in a great many

areas, so, therefore, it is not what…When we speak of Australia and

that very fine talk the Honourable the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan

gave, you know, it is marvellous that, at a long distance away,

everything looks green. When they talk about a debt-free

Province…now, I don't know who wrote the articles for the Australian

papers but

it must have been the Premier, himself, probably, who sent them the

information. They continually talk about a debt-free Province and it is

not so. The only unfortunate part about it…it's a good thing that you

can pick up a paper from Australia, because you couldn't pick up one

from British Columbia and say that it is definitely a debt-free

Province — because they know better. I want to say that I have always

supported the bill from the very start. You'd like it to get around

that the NDP was opposed to helping out the people. We wouldn't only

solve this problem but we would help out all the rest of the people as

well. We do endorse this bill. We've always endorsed the home-owner

grant, right from the very start.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Shuswap.

MR. W.F. JEFCOAT (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, it is very

interesting to watch the Opposition switch from one foot to the other

when it comes to this home-owner grant. I remember it used to be the

Leader of the NDP Party standing up here and all of the NDP Party

opposing the increase a few years ago, all during the week. The next

Monday, the Leader

[ Page 620 ]

of the Opposition stood up there, in his place, and he said, "Mr.

Speaker, anything that we have said against the home-owner grant, we

want to retract now." He said, "We were home over the weekend and our

people spoke to us, and, so, this week we are supporting the home-owner

grant." It amuses me to see them switch from one foot to the other. 1,

too, am supporting this home-owner grant and always have. I think it is

good and I hope it increases.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, this is a very

interesting debate and not too unlike most debates in this House. I

would suggest, however, Mr. Speaker, that we examine this just a little

bit. Of course, we will go along with this bill. It is an excellent

bill in this regard, that it helps home-owners but they are not the

poor of this Province, Mr. Speaker. They are not the poor of this

Province. The poor of this Province are the people in New Westminster

who, during the last election, read in the headline on election eve,

"Tenants to receive the home-owner grant." Beautiful stuff! Nice. It

almost won you an election in New Westminster, Mr. Speaker, but I've

seen no evidence of any legislation in that regard in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I now understand that the tenant, now, has the right to

write-off repairs, according to the Member from Esquimalt. That's news

in this House and I'm sure it will be news in Ottawa tomorrow. The fact

of the matter is that the tenant has never had the right to write-off

the repairs, it is the landlord who has those rights. Those rights are

not reflected in his rents in this Province, Mr. Speaker. The fact of

the matter is that this is not a poor people's Budget, anymore. It is a

Budget for those people whom the Honourable Minister without Portfolio

described, those people able to buy a $20,000 home. There has been no

switch on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. Even I was able to read

newspapers in those days. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Dewdney.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): I have to comment on the remarks

of the Honourable Member from Kootenay, when he was commenting on the

remarks from the Honourable Member for Revelstoke-Slocan. He said it is

all very well when you live a long way off, the grass is very green. I

say to him that he didn't add this one point. When you live right here

and see it is green, that's really remarkable.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the Debate.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to

see all the Members of the House rallying to the support of this bill,

at long last. I recall, as if it were yesterday, the day I stood in the

House… (interruption) . I wouldn't attack your group because you've got

nothing there to attack. But I remember just yesterday first bringing

this bill to this House. At that time, the Opposition, the CCF said

that if they were elected they would repeal the bill. I want to say

that the present Attorney-General asked the then Leader, Mr. Strachan,

if he would repeal the bill and the answer was yes. I want to say that,

later, as the debate on the bill kept going a few days, the Honourable

then Leader in the House, a very brilliant leader and a good Member for

Cowichan-Newcastle and a good personal friend of mine, even though he

was Leader then, and even though a Member of his Party, close to him,

the CCF Member for Port Alberni, said he would never, never, accept it,

but, later in this House, sessions later, he admitted that he was

accepting it. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, the then Leader of the

Opposition, the Member now from Cowichan-Malahat came up in the House

and said, "The Opposition has changed its mind because I have made a

review of how it affects my riding — Ladysmith and Duncan — therefore,

we must vote for it." Mr. Speaker, everybody in the Province knows that

the Social Credit policies are dynamic policies and that we represent,

not special interest, not the labour bosses, not the manufacturing

bosses, not the industrial bosses, not the financial bosses, not the

B.C. Electric bosses, but that we represent the public everywhere, that

we are the genuine grass-roots movement in this country. We are the

only genuine grass-roots movement that represents all the people in

British Columbia. I now move second reading.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. The

Premier indicated that I had made a statement "…after having checked

with Ladysmith and Duncan." I checked with all of the municipalities in

the Province of British Columbia. I wrote to them all.

Bill No. 13 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the

Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A n Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Grant . The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this is a similar act to the last bill, to help people to own their own homes.

This Government introduced the Provincial home-owner grant, first in

1957, to reduce the burden of local property taxes on home-owners and

to encourage every family to acquire their own home. The annual grant,

originally set at a maximum of $28, has been progressively raised

until, in the coming year, it is recommended, as I said before, to be

$170. To further assist individuals to own their own homes, effective

April 1, 1966, the Provincial Home Acquisition Grant Act provided a

grant of up to $500 towards the purchase of a home. In 1968, the act

was amended to encourage the purchase of buildings or building of new

homes and the applicant could obtain a grant of up to $1,000 for this

purpose. In 1969, to additionally assist in this field, a loan, by way

of a second mortgage up to $5,000, was introduced. Last year, in the

period of tight money conditions and high mortgage interest rates, the

Government decided to assist persons who had rented a home for at least

two years in the Province to buy a new home, not only the one they

rented but, if not some other to buy a new home, not only the one they

rented, but, if possible, some other grant or a $2,500 mortgage loan

towards the purchase of an existing home.

This opportunity was to be initially effective for a one-year term

as a test to see how broad the acceptance was. The Government has now

reviewed the question of this one-year limitation. Mortgage rates are

still high and because of economic conditions over the past few months,

many prospective purchasers of older homes have not been able to

[ Page 621 ]

complete the financing. It is Government policy to encourage people

to own their own homes, particularly those people who have been renting

in the Province over a period of time and thus be able to get the

annual home-owner grant. This bill, therefore, extends the $500

outright grant, or $2,500 low-interest second mortgage, on the purchase

of an older home, and, while this bill covers one year only, it is the

Government's intention — I will announce that policy now — that we will

review it each and every year.

To ensure there is sufficient funds available to carry out this

policy, the Minister of Finance is authorized, in this bill, to utilize

funds from the Province's revenue surplus account, if required. Mr.

Speaker, we can estimate fairly clearly how much money is required

regarding new home construction. It is more difficult, almost

impossible, to estimate how much money is required on the older homes,

because there are tens of thousands of them and you never know how many

people will apply. Therefore, it is fortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this

Province has a substantial amount of money in the revenue surplus

account, because unless we had this money in the revenue surplus

account, we couldn't have these dynamic policies to help the renters of

this Province. It is estimated by the people in the Finance Department,

who handle this fund, that they expect and have so suggested that they

will dip into the revenue surplus fund by many millions of dollars in

the coming year for this purpose. That can only be an estimate, because

nobody knows but the people, themselves, who will apply for these

grants or loans. It should be easy, now that the people have had one

year's experience, for a renter to approach, first of all, his own

landlord, and say, "Mr. Landlord, I have been a good tenant. I have

paid my rent. You don't get the home-owner grant on this house because

you can charge your expenses up as a cost of doing business. But if you

will sell this house to me that I rent from you, if you will sell this

to me on a time payment plan, I will get the home-owner grant." On

these older homes, the home-owner grant would pay a large portion, if

not all, of the taxes on these homes. Therefore, the renter can say to

the homeowner, his landlord, "You will no longer have to pay the taxes

on this home. You will no longer have to pay for the upkeep of this

home. You will no longer have to pay for the insurance on this home and

you will receive the same monthly payments you are receiving now, but

with no charges and costs against you. It will be like a monthly

pension that you will be receiving until the mortgage is paid off."

want to tell you that the best investment any person can ask for is a

home for himself. I am not going to review the history that I have

reviewed many times before of my own personal situation, but I would

say this, that when a person…I recommend to the tenants of this

Province, even though it costs tens of millions of extra money out of

revenue surplus, I recommend the tenants of this Province to consider

the purchase of a home this coming year because they will save money

two ways. Their money will now be paying to buy something, instead of

just going down the drain. Two, they will save money another way

because we live in a world of inflation. Sometimes, it goes up a little

and, sometimes, it goes down a little, but the trend, since 1900, has

been up, even allowing for the zig-zag. It will continue to go up and

the Provincial Government has no power to control that. That is handled

not Nationally, but internationally and there are many economic forces

working. Therefore, the homes will be more valuable. Therefore, you

will save, firstly, by getting a home paid off and there is equity.

Then, as the home goes up in value you will earn more wealth for

yourself. Many people throughout this Province, their chief asset is

their own home, and it is their best bet. I would be a happy Premier

indeed if every person in this Province who rents could buy their own

home. People have the right of choice and, therefore, it is up to them

to choose. A renter isn't stuck just with his own landlord. If he can't

make a fair arrangement with him, he can go out and deal with other

landlords who rent homes. The field is wide open. This is a bold

policy, it is going to take millions and millions of dollars out of

revenue surplus over the years to come, but I'll say this. The reason

why we only put it in one year at a time is because of the great amount

of money it uses, and you must make sure you have enough money in

revenue surplus to take care of it. But, in time to come, ten or twelve

years from now, goodness knows, I don't think any other… But, ten or

twelve years from now, if this policy is to continue, we will have

revolving funds there to take care of it.

I am glad to see the Honourable Members of the Opposition nodding

their heads, because this is good policy and I am sure it will have the

unanimous support of the House as well. As long as the Social Credit

Government has these dynamic policies, we will always remain the

Government of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of

this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, through you to

the Honourable Premier, we certainly are nodding our heads over here

because, if I recall, this proposition that you should extend this

grant to older homes originated from this side of the House. It was

proposed, and I was in the House at the time, by the Honourable Member

from Kootenay and it simply proves that once again the Opposition has

come up with the ideas and the Government has acted upon them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Premier was

speaking about reversing decision a few minutes ago and I notice, since

the beginning of this Session, he certainly has reversed his decision

in regards to the older homes. He was going to delete that part of the

act covering older homes and he has had a change of heart since that

time. I think it was a good idea and I congratulate him for accepting

our ideas that we put over from this side of the House. He did that.

This is one thing, especially towards older homes, if you want to help

out the people in the lower income, this has done more than any other

part of the act. It has given the people in the lower income a chance

to get a foothold on owning their own home. I think, though, that your

regulations need a little bit of a brushing up at times because, Mr.

Speaker, I just had a letter today from a fellow who made application

for a $500 grant towards an older home. He is a man of 15 years in this

Province. He hasn't owned his own home. He was renting. They sold the

house over his head, some years ago, and he was forced to go into a

trailer and pay rent for land. Since that time, he has always wanted to

get his own home and, now, they say he can't have the $500 because they

don't class renting this land for the trailer as a renter.

I've sent it down to your committee, today — the eligibility committee — to cover. I am sure that it is going to

[ Page 622 ]

be handled very well because it is these little things, sometimes,

that. create a little feeling of injustice, especially if a person is

an oldtimer in the Province. I think one of the things we want to do

away with is these trailer renters, if we can possibly do it, and have

them have homes rather than trailers. I don't think trailers…I know

people have to have them, people who are moving around, but,

nevertheless, I think that it is a nice thing to see a person get a

spot of land and his own home. I feel, whether he was living in a

trailer or not, that he should be eligible for this. This bill I am

sure is going to got unanimous approval of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Esquimalt.

MR. BRUCH: It just goes to show that if you ride both sides of the fence long enough, you can claim you were right all the time.

Most certainly, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement that the

Premier made today regarding the annual review because certainly we did

not know how it would work out last year. It has worked out to be a

real boon to the young family starting up. In particular, the extension

this year will be even more beneficial than last year, because home

prices were at an all-time high last year. Many of the older homes in

Greater Victoria have dropped a thousand to two thousand dollars. It

will make it possible for the young people to take advantage of this

situation. I hope that the annual review will repeat this opportunity,

until Ottawa introduces a proper fiscal structure with reasonable

interest rates.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

MRS. McCARTHY: With five ladies in the House, Mr. Speaker, none of the five have ever questioned that you recognize us.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier, how pleased I am

that he has taken the advice of some of the Government Members in

regards to the change. I was very pleased, too, to hear the Member from

Kootenay state that this bill, or the policy expressed in this bill,

has done more for the little people in the Province than very many

other forms of legislation. Really it was that philosophy that I spoke

of in the last bill — that this whole home programme, the whole home

acquisition programme, is the most enlightened legislation in all of

North America. I might say, too, speaking about the slowness with which

some of the applications for this grant and this second mortgage were

processed, it really is the extensive popularity of the bill that has

caused the slowness. But I understand from the department, and I do

quite a lot of work with Mr. Chatterton's department, that there is

added staff and the applications win be processed very much more

quickly this year than they were in the last.

I would like to also just refer to one particular application that I

had in this past year, where a young postman, father of four children,

wrote to me and said that his limited dividends housing, which he was

in in North Vancouver, which to him was a reasonable rental, would be

going up $25. He was writing to me in desperation. He could not find

like accommodation anywhere in the lower mainland. I wrote back to the

postman and said that if his monthly payments were going to go up to

$175 a month, on his limited income, why did he not take advantage of

our second mortgage programme as expressed through this legislation.

Well, to make a long story short, Mr. Speaker, that father, wife and

four children were able to borrow $750 with no interest from their

mother-in-law and were able to take advantage of the $2,500 second

mortgage and now have home ownership in a very nice, attractive home in

the 29th and Renfrew area in Vancouver East — the Member from Vancouver

East would be pleased to know. A very nice, attractive area and one in

which they can bring up their children and have a better way of life

and security and an equity which they will be building which would not

heretofore have been available to them without this legislation. I am

very pleased indeed that the Premier has seen fit to put it in for

another year, with a commitment to review it for the ensuing year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Alberni.

MR. H.R. McDIARMID (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I would just like

to say one word. Having spoken on this subject during the Minister of

Finance's estimates, for those in the Opposition, who think the Prime

Minister is not listening, this is an object lesson that he is always

listening — and to whoever is right, my friend, whoever is right — which happens far more often on this side of the House than on that

side of the House. I think that we have canvassed fully the great boon

that this is going to be to people at the lower end of the scale to get

into their own homes. I can tell you from a practical point of view

that this does work and that I am most happy that the Government has

been farsighted enough to extend this programme for a second year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. STRACHAN: I agree that a home acquisition grant is, in

essence, basically, a first-class idea. I won't argue as to whose idea

it was. It is the best way to have a regularly built home but the fact

still remains and 1, unlike my friend from Kootenay, realize that there

are many thousands of people in British Columbia who, because of

multiplicity of circumstances, find it advantageous to live in the

so-called mobile home. So far, the Government has not seen fit to give

this type of home the same recognition as other types of homes within

the tax structure or in any other way. If it's on a firm foundation,

nailed down and so on then it is applicable. But, Mr. Speaker, in this

Province, because of the kind of development that takes place and

because of the kind of Province it is, the last figure I saw, a number

of years ago, was that 25 per cent of our people change their address

every year. A part of this is due to the fact that many of them are in

the construction industry and go on a job and stay on a job two and

three years, then, move on to another job and take their homes with

them.

Somewhere along the line, I think, we are going to have to get some

form of recognition and legislation with regard to mobile homes. Within

the municipalities, because of the absence of legislation and the

absence of many of the benefits that accrue to those with homes, there

are problems within the municipalities.

I would like to see the home acquisition grant extended to those who

are going to purchase a so-called mobile home, because they fully

intend to make it their home for a long time but, because there are job

changes, from place to place, they take it with them. If we recognize

it, then, of course, they would be entitled, not only to this grant,

but to the

[ Page 623 ]

home-owner grant. I agree that the used home is a lower priced home

but, when you take a mobile home, they are there with furniture,

everything complete, and this is even more within the range of people

in a lower-income group than even the so-called used home is. If they

were giving consideration to the mobile home, it would reach even

further into that lower-income group and make homeownership possible to

them, because it does, as I say, include the furniture in most cases.

Now, the only drawback, of course, is the fact that the Premier has

pointed out he expects inflation to continue in the years ahead and I

wouldn't disagree with him on that…the ownership of a mobile home

tends to depreciate each year and this is the only drawback.

Nevertheless, initially, it brings home-ownership within reach of

people in a much lower-income group than the legislation that now

exists does.

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

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, the

most exciting thing about this bill is the effect of escalation that it

will have on jobs. This type of home-ownership has a stimulating effect

on new housing, as well. Many of our newly married couples go for a

small residence that, sometimes, has been the home of a senior citizen

who has moved into an apartment. This picks up the slack in the

ownership of these small homes, which have been hard to sell to anybody

other than retired people. Because the new home-owner hasn't got his

down payment, quite often, this acts as the down payment. So, what we

have done is move through the line into the new housing.

The most exciting thing, as I said, is the effect that it is going

to have on jobs in the community. I recall, too, that the Opposition

looked at the first legislation that we brought in, the $500 grant,

with a great deal of dim acceptance. In fact, they repudiated it,

saying that it would have an inflationary effect on the older homes, it

would be swallowed up in the price. It was the Member from Kootenay who

said that very thing in this House. I recall it very well because, the

following year, when it was $1,000, they said, "All that has happened

is that the price of the house has gone up $1,000." This did not happen

last year, or the year before. Housing, actually, has levelled off and

this has afforded a wonderful opportunity for the new home-owner, the

first-timer, to get into his own quarters and avoid paying rent and

only having rent receipts. He will build up an equity in those older

homes, because we have found that the municipalities are reluctant to

allow anything in the neighbourhood of 650 sq. ft. to be build in their

municipality. Those older homes, that were built many years before

zoning and regulations prevented them from being there, now have become

a very desirable commodity for the first-time home-owner. This has

become the down payment.

The only problem that I see is that the financial institutions have

decided to get into the act and act a little bit like Scrooges. They

have decided they don't like a person using the Government guaranteed

grant as the down payment. I asked the Minister of Finance and all the

powers that he has at his disposal to have a firm talking to the

investors in the mortgage field because they are misusing the honour

and the guarantee of this Government to make out that this is not

recognized as a down payment. I think it is a reflection on their faith

in the country and I repudiate the financial mortgage companies that

try to act this way. I ask them, today, to honour, once more, the

Government guarantee as the down payment for the first-time home-owners

in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I think the

point made by the Honourable Member from Cowichan Malahat is an

important one. I urge upon the Premier to consider this question of

mobile homes. Mobile homes now represent 20 per cent of the housing

starts in Canada. That is one fifth of the people, in fact, buying

mobile homes. The figure is even higher in the United States, so it is

clear that this is the route toward cheap, low-cost housing on an

individual basis. I am sure the Premier would agree that it is better

than public housing, because it does involve an equity and it does

involve ownership. So, why should these people be discriminated

against? The Premier has suggested that one of the problems is that

they depreciate

whereas other things go up (interruption) .

Oh, I see. Well, the Premier seemed to agree on that point. There

was joint agreement. The point is, if a site were acquired, or if your

strata titles or condominium were used, or legislation were used for

mobile homes so that there was a tie into land…the Premier knows the

reason that houses don't depreciate really is land plus the basic

economy. Those are the two reasons. I would urge upon the Premier to

think about this lower-income group that is buying, now, 20 per cent of

the population, which is buying mobile homes. Every consideration

should be given to those people because that is generally the

lower-income spectrum or the lower-middle income spectrum for retired,

older people. They are the kind of people that legislation should be

developed to help and, by cutting off that 20 per cent, we are cutting

off the very people we should be propping up, so I urge the Premier to

support the suggestion by the Member from Cowichan-Malahat. I point

out, further, that the chartered banks are starting to see mobile homes

in a different light, as well. The chartered banks, now, will lend on a

ten-year basis for paying off the mobile home, where, before, they

would only lend on a five-year basis. So, the banks are starting to see

these as a kind of semipermanent or near-permanent housing form that

they, in fact, are. I urge the Premier to give every consideration at

this point.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

MIL BENNETT: I listened very attentively to what the Member

from East Vancouver and the Member from Cowichan-Malahat said, but I

listened more attentively to the Member from Kootenay, who has a lot of

experience in this regard. I think what happened in the United States — the 20 per cent — I don't think happens here. Here is the problem. In

the sale of cars, there is a great selling agency built right up to

sell these cars and there is a great selling agency built up to sell

mobile homes. There is not the same pressure in the selling agency to

sell used homes, and, therefore, that is the reason why I made the

appeal, today, to the renter to buy. If he buys a used home, in a

period of years, like the Member from Cowichan-Malahat agreed with me,

it would go up in value and the others go down in value. We must think

in long-term planning for these families and not be carried away just

with the pressure sales on mobile homes — that is where

[ Page 624 ]

the pressure is. But the real values are in the used homes

(interruption) . Well, everybody is in some kind of business, somewhere.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Members of the House to support the

second reading.

Bill 48 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there are two bills on the Order

Paper that we would like the permission of the House to refer to

committee. I will call them in order, 39 and 37. Bill 39 first, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 39, Synthetic Food Products Act . The Honourable the Minister of Agriculture.

HON. C.M. SHELFORD (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, in moving second

reading of Bill 39, as the Premier indicated, it is my intention to

refer the bill to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. The

purpose of the bill is to prevent a manufacturer's plant or

distributor, wholesaler or retailer, from offering for sale a synthetic

food product, where the package or label on the same, would lead the

purchaser to assume that the product being purchased was a natural,

agricultural product. Now, the best example of that is this right here

— it has two, nice, rosy red apples on it and it has never seen an

apple. Now there are other products similar to this, which, we are

concerned about and, no doubt, the producers are concerned. The bill

will also prevent the sale of synthetic food products in British

Columbia, without flust obtaining a permit from the Minister to do so.

There is no question that we are interested in stopping the sale of

synthetic food products. What we are trying to do is to make it very

clear to the consumer that, if he sees an apple, for instance, on a

package like this, he knows he is buying a natural product and that is

really all we are trying to do, make sure the consumer knows very

clearly what he is buying. If he wishes to buy an inferior, synthetic

product, well, then, I would say he should have the right to do so. I

think he should also have the right and the producers of natural

products should have the right that the consumer does know. If a

consumer doesn't like a synthetic product, quite often, the natural

product producer gets blamed for this inferior type of product. We

don't intend, for one minute, to try to eliminate things, such as

orange crush and lemon jello and those sort of things that have been on

the market for many years. As I said before, if people want these

products, they will still be able to purchase them, but we want them

clearly marked and that is all. I move second reading of the bill.

MR. STRACHAN: I appreciate the efforts of the Minister and I

agree it should be referred to the committee. I think it is a

first-class idea to try to get some truth in advertising into every

area possible.

You recollect the other day, I mentioned to the Attorney-General a

bill that was passed, relating to advertising, in the United Kingdom

two years. It's not going to be easy to outdo the advertisers, Mr.

Minister, as you well know. I am thinking, for instance, a picture of

margarine, a picture there of something that looks like a pat of butter

— and a pat of margarine does look like a pat of butter — with a

background of a silo and a barn and cows wandering in the field — a

vegetable product. It could have been a product right off the farm but,

still, it's not a dairy product. This is the sort of thing you will be

up against in trying to correct it, but I agree we have to take every

step possible to assure that the customer can be as sure as possible

that what he is getting is the kind of product that is demonstrated on

the package.

Bill 39 was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 37, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 37, Air Space Titles Act . The Honourable the Attorney-General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker,

under the present Land Registry Act , we, of course, have the facilities

for the registration of title to the surface rights of land. We have,

probably, one of the best systems, I think, of land registration, in

that respect, that exists anywhere in the world. Now, with the trend,

especially in the redevelopment of the downtown core areas of major

cities and the utilization of space, we want to develop a simple and

effective system of registration for these parcels of space. It stems,

of course, from the old legal maxim which is interpreted from Latin. I

have enough trouble pronouncing French — I am not going to begin to try

Latin in this Session. Translated it is, "To whomsoever the soil

belongs, he owns also the sky and to the depths."

I must say there is an old case that some of the learned Members of

the profession may be aware of… (interruption) ….to the depths, you

see, not necessarily, could be excluded from the title, of course. But,

unless they are excluded, you would own both. The principle was in an

old case. It involved an action of trespass arising out of a

neighbour's quarrel, culminating in an altercation about the boundary

line fence. This is the judgement of the courts: "It is one of the

oldest rules of property known to the law that the title of the owner

of the soil extends not only downward to the centre of the earth,"

which answers the Honourable Member for Kootenay's question, "but also

upward, although it is, perhaps, doubtful whether owners, as

quarrelsome as the parties in this case, will ever enjoy their property

in the latter direction, that is, upward." In any event, we think, in

this bill, we have developed a system which will enable the

registration of parcels of space, whereby the owner of the lot can

subdivide the parcel of space above his land, and then, he can sell a

parcel of air space, lot 3, and get a certificate of title for it in

the same way that you can, presently, with surface rights. The

distinction from the existing legislation, namely the Strata Titles

Act , which involves, of course, the development of corporation and etc.

and utilization of surface rights, is that, under this bill, you can

have different ownership of the surface rights from the air space

rights. This has particular significance, of course, where a

municipality may want to have someone else build a structure over a

street, or over railways, and still retain the use and the ownership

of the surface rights, that is, of the road or of the railway. It will

be possible, under this, to do so but, as far as the access to your

parcel of air space, that would have to be arranged by a separate

instrument, because mere ownership of the air space title does not give

you access or ownership of the surface rights. In many instances, you

would get to it from another property, of course, built over. So, that

is, basically, the principle. In view of the difficulty in terms of

understanding and dealing with not rock or soil but space,

[ Page 625 ]

gas, etc. and the problems involved in terms of registration, to

make sure that we haven't missed anything in the drafting of the

legislation, I would like to refer it to a committee, which I will do

following second reading. I move that the bill now be read for a second

time.

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

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver-East): Mr. Speaker, the

problem, after the Attorney-General's explanation, is not so much

that we don't understand the bill, it is that, perhaps, we do. I would

like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of this

House. Oh, it's not going to the Committee of the Whole…well, I

think, in that case, we should support the bill and support its

reference to the committee where Project 200, no doubt, will be able to

make their representations. Are they not up in the air? Is it a Project

200 bill? I support the motion, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

we, too, will support the motion. The Attorney-General, however, has

touched upon a matter of principle. I would ask him, when he is closing

this debate, if he would indicate whether or not the committee, in

considering this bill, might also do a more comprehensive job and

consider the matter of subterranean titles, as well, because, if we are

concerned with what happens above the ground, in your opening remarks,

Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker, you mentioned also the

depths below the ground to which one may go. We are seeing increasing

examples of this certainly in the urban areas. I wonder if, perhaps,

this might be considered by the committee, even though it isn't in the

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Attorney-General will close the debate.

MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Honourable Member

from West Vancouver–Howe Sound, I doubt that it could be usefully

explored by the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs, because

this is specific legislation dealing only with one aspect, that is, air

space. I think that it is, perhaps, a difficult enough problem. The

legislation is very definite and the committee has precise terms of

reference to deal with the legislation, to examine it, to see that it

will be effective. I move that the bill be read a second time.

Bill 37 was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14,

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948 . The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Because of British Columbia's rocky and

mountainous terrain, it has the highest highway construction costs in

Canada, reaching well over $1 million per mile for construction in

certain areas. In addition, maintenance costs are also high. The

revenue from the present motor fuel taxes is not providing the

appropriate share of costs; therefore, to ensure the continued

improvement of our highway system and a proper maintenance programme,

the gasoline tax is to be increased 2 cents a gallon, from 13 cents to

15 cents. The cost of this tax increase to the average motorist will

probably be in the neighbourhood of from $5 to $10 a year, while a

major portion of the new revenue will come from industry, large users

and tourists. Even though it may seem to cost the average motorist from

$5 to $10, if we have better highways, perhaps, he will save it on tire

wear, and the upkeep of his car and so forth.

The gasoline taxes in Canada, Provincial taxes, range from a low of

15 cents a gallon, that's what is suggested here, which will still be

the lowest in Canada, to a high of 25 cents per gallon. The effective

date of the new tax is, as announced in the Budget, February 5, 1971,

the date of the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons for this tax. One is for the

reason that I have already outlined and the other is to get more money

— that is number two. Number three is to make sure that the revenue

from car users will be in proportion to the expenses in building and

maintaining of highways, including our grants to municipalities for the

roads within the municipalities, so that it will not be a drain on the

funds that are needed for those social programmes that we have in this

Province — our health programmes, our social welfare programmes and all

the medicare and hospital insurance and so forth, and to keep them

properly balanced. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a somewhat

different tone that we have had from the Honourable the Minister of

Finance with respect to this bill compared to the previous one. He was

his bubbly, charming, enchanting self, a few minutes ago, and, now, we

see the other side where he is going to get the money. It's not quite

good enough for the Minister of Finance to say that his money is going

to come from the tourists, to a great extent, it's going to come from

industry, to a great extent, and so on. That's a smoke screen. This is

a sales tax, pure and simple, and it's the kind of tax that gets

transferred. It's a tax that is transferrable and it's transferred to

the people at the bottom of the ladder, like all these kinds of taxes.

It means that people will have to pay more for transportation. It means

people will have to pay more for all goods in the Province of British

Columbia. It is simply an added-on tax and it gets transferred, and it

gets transferred to the consumer at the end of the line. So, it is a

consumer tax. In the crunch, the Minister of Finance of this Province

always turns to this kind of tax, a sales tax that ends up getting

transferred to the people on the bottom of the ladder. Now, he could

have picked worse taxes and he could have picked better taxes, but he

didn't. He could have picked a tax that would weigh more heavily

against resources. He could have grounded the roadrunners of British

Columbia, a decade ago. He could have done a wide range of things but,

instead, he chose the kind of tax that will, in fact, be transferred to

the consumer at the end of the line.

One of the gas companies used to talk about the go-futher gasoline.

The people of British Columbia are going to have to find out what that

gasoline is, now that they are faced with this added bill and have

faced this added bill for the past month. It will mean that the

lower-income groups

[ Page 626 ]

will, in fact, be affected. You can all very well say, "You can buy

a smaller car," or something of that nature, but, in fact, the

lower-income groups end up having to spend all of their income. The

lower-middle-income groups end up spending all of their income and, so,

a sales tax, a consumers' tax, ends up more heavily on their shoulders

than on the people who can save or those people who can invest. This

isn't a tax against those who can save or invest. It is a heavier tax

on those people who are spending all of their income, all of the time,

just trying to get by. It reflects on the people, say, for example, who

are trying to acquire homes, which the Premier was talking about just a

little bit earlier. Those in the lower-middle-income brackets end up

having to go out on the edge of town, because they can't afford to buy

in the centre of town — they see that as an escape from the high cost

of housing, but they often forget to tote up the journey to work and

the journey to other facilities and the gas tax ends up as being an

additional tax on their shoulders — these people that have moved out to

the edge of town because they can't afford housing centrally. It ends

up as being a kind of housing tax on those people. It is that kind of

transferred tax that ends up with the guy at the bottom of the line.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, this tax is unacceptable to the

Opposition. There are other reasons why it is unacceptable to the

Official Opposition, too. We don't need to increase taxes in British

Columbia. It is as simple as that. The Premier has been hoarding away

surpluses, annually, in British Columbia, putting them into one fund

after another. He is almost running out of names for special funds for

the Province of British Columbia. What that means is that he is

currently overtaxing the people of this Province. By the kinds of taxes

he is applying, he is overtaxing the people who can afford it least,

the kind of people on the edge of town, who I mentioned. He is taxing

them more right now in order to build up his huge surpluses to put into

Hydro and so on. These are taxes that do not, in fact, have to be

applied at all. That's why it is inexcusable. What this means is that

the Minister of Finance is prepared to cut the standard of living of

the lower-income groups and the lower-middle-income groups of this

Province so that he can appear to be a financial Machiavelli. Well, he

is a financial Machiavelli, because he is putting a load on their backs

and, somehow, giving them the idea that all is well, that he really is

a financial genius. In fact, it's no genius, at all, to take more money

than you need from the people. It is no genius, at all, to take it from

the lower-middle-income groups. For that reason — the reason that you

are prepared to cut the standard of living of the lower-middle-income

groups of this Province — we are opposing this bill.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we intend to oppose this tax

increase on the simple grounds that it is unnecessary. The Premier of

the Province, as Finance Minister, is a great tax master. He's been

overtaxing the people for years and this is one more instance of

overtaxation. Those extra revenues that are brought in by our tax

master are not revenues that are used for services to the people,

whether it is for highways or anything else. Mr. Speaker, during the

1966-67 year, the Minister of Finance predicted the revenues would be

$657 million. They were $731 million. The following year, the Minister

of Finance predicted the revenues would be $739 million. They were $814

million. The year after that, he predicted the revenues would be $866

million. They were $979 million. The following year, he predicted they

would be $1,024 million. They were $1,179 million.

Each year, an enormous tax surplus. Each year, people's tax money

being taken out of their pockets and put into the B.C. Hydro and the

PGE. That is where these tax increases have gone. Some, Mr. Speaker,

have gone back to the people in the form of loans to them, when they

pay their home-owner taxes and interest on their own tax money. That's

where some of the surpluses in the perpetual funds have gone, right

back to the people, in the form of loans for their schools and

hospitals, which they pay interest on and which are levied against

their home-owner taxes.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, with respect, the honourable Member is straying quite far now from the subject of the Gasoline Tax Act .

MR. McGEER: Well, let me come right back to this gasoline

tax, Mr. Speaker, because it is going to bring in about $14 million a

year. I predict, right now, Mr. Speaker, that, when we convene again, a

year from now, the revenues that have been brought in, during this

current fiscal year, will be far, far in excess of that $14 million

that is provided for with this tax increase, and that the expenditures

that the Minister of Finance has put before us and which we are

debating in our estimates will be more than covered by the taxes that

he has collected from the people.

This gasoline tax is totally unnecessary. The revenues derived from

it will not go to improving highways. They will go for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, we are not against tax increases when they are absolutely

necessary, but, when the taxes are collected from the people, we want

those taxes to be used for services to the people. If there is going to

be a tax increase on gasoline, or for any other purpose, we want the

people to derive the benefits of that tax increase. In this case, the

people of British Columbia are not going to derive that benefit. The

tax increase is unnecessary. It's another move of British Columbia's

great tax master and we're opposed to it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Skeena.

MR. D.G. LITTLE (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say

that I agree with the principle of this particular bill and, although

we have the opposition that has been voiced here, you can understand

that very easily from the city of Vancouver or the surrounding areas.

However, I know that the people, with even limited incomes, in the

northern part of the Province won't mind paying an additional tax for

the roads that are being built and improved up in that area.

What I would like to speak about, today, Mr. Speaker, and to the

Minister of Finance, is that there is an oversight I think we'll find.

This is bound to happen in different areas, but we have areas in which

they pay taxes and the Government has never spent any money whatsoever,

on roads or on schools or in any of the services. I am speaking, now,

today, of the little community of Kemano. The school buildings are

owned by Alcan. The teachers are on Alcan's payroll, and the road was

built from…

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think that the honourable

Member cannot discuss this under this particular bill. You may wish to

bring it up later.

MR. LITTLE: I am speaking about the taxes that we have

[ Page 627 ]

to pay on gas, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that the Government hasn't

spent any money on highways. I think it's not just. I would just like

to ask the Premier if he could find a way to relieve the people of the

taxes they are paying for which they are receiving no benefit.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. STRACHAN: I just heard the Member from Skeena say the

Government hasn't spent any money on highways. Well, they do spend some

money on highways, but there is no indication that the money being

raised by this additional tax is going to be spent on highways.

I'm standing in my place to try to hold the Premier to the pledge he

gave the people of this Province a year and a half ago, during the last

election…the Premier is going to check his estimates to see whether

or not there's an increase in the Department of Highways spending

between last year and this year…you won't find it in that book, Mr.

Premier. What I'm speaking of is the pledge you gave to the people of

this Province, in the last election, that there will be no increase in

taxes. "The Premier pledges no increase in taxes" were the exact words

in that full-page ad, which your group placed in all of the newspapers.

"No increase in taxes," and I am just trying to hold you to that

election promise. I don't think anything should be promised in

elections, unless you're going to hold yourself to it.

The Premier spoke earlier of surpluses and what he was going to do

with them in other circumstances. It's obvious that he is overtaxing

the people in order to build up these surpluses. If a tax increase were

necessary, I would support it, but there is no indication that any tax

increase is necessary. The Member from Vancouver East referred to the

load on the lower-middle-income group. I wish, Mr. Premier, Mr.

Finance, once in a while, you would talk to your Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade, and Industry. You must get introduced to each

other, sometime. The Premier and some others in the House might think

that the matter of additional taxes is some sort of game to be played.

But it isn't. It is a very serious impost on the people.

The reason I wanted you to discuss this matter with Your Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade, and Industry is the fact that, in his

Business Outlook for 1971, which you, no doubt, read, you'll find two

things. One, he is forecasting increased sales of petroleum products

and, secondly, he is forecasting increased prices for gas and oil. So

this means a double impost on the car users of this Province in this

one year, first, through his increase in taxation and, secondly,

through the increase in prices, which you'll find on page 12 of the

Business Outlook for 1971, put out by your Minister. What that increase

in price will be, we don't know. We have no way of knowing until it

happens. It may happen in one jump and it may happen in two. But your

Minister is forecasting an increase in prices, so that the people will

not only be faced with this unnecessary tax but will be faced with an

unnecessary price increase. Nowhere will you be able to do anything

about that, either. So I am suggesting that, in order to keep this

inflationary increase…You take the additional 2 cents per gallon on

gas, plus whatever increase the oil company monopoly is going to

inflict on the people, and think what an inflationary impact that will

have on the whole economy of British Columbia. I ask you to reconsider

this unnecessary impost, to at least keep the inflationary factor of

increased gasoline prices to a minimum within the Province of British

Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The First Member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, supporting my colleague here, I

might have trouble with this bill, Mr. Premier, if you were raising, I

make it, an additional $16 million a year, by the extra 2 cents, and

you were devoting it to some necessary social service in the field of

transportation. But you compare that additional revenue that you are

taking in and you still leave the public transportation subsidy at $2

million and that's just ridiculous. If this money were being used to

fight pollution occasioned on our highways, if it were being used…and

with $16 million, you could give almost free, basic, public

transportation in the major urban centres of this Province with that

sum. The whole bill, now, is only about $20 million per year…free

public transportation from this kind of an increase in taxes. Both the

Premier and the Member from Skeena have said that we're going to build

roads with this money. Well, it's not in the bill and it's not in the

estimates. Last fiscal year, $80 million spent on roads; projected for

the next fiscal year, vote 108, $80 million. No increase. What is

happening to this money? You're just socking it away…. (interruption) . No, no, I want the Floor. I want the Floor, here. I

think you're just socking this money away and, as my colleague from

Vancouver East has said, quite unnecessarily you have a surplus. The

gasoline tax revenues are increasing, anyway. In the year ending March

31, 1971, they were $70 million. They are going up, anyway, and I don't

think this takes into account the 2 cents, to $93 million in the coming

fiscal year. I presume that figure doesn't include the 2 cents, because

I don't think the Premier would dare to forecast that this legislation

would go through, when he was drawing up this book. I don't think it

does include that. It shouldn't, should it? So there is a huge

increase, anyway, in your gasoline tax revenue of $23,500,000. You're

raising large, additional sums and you're not devoting them to ease the

congestion on our highways. You're not devoting them to new roads or

bridges. You're not devoting it to…you could pay for a completely

no-fault automobile insurance compensation fund with this kind of

revenue, just from the 2 cents, the basic protection for everybody

without charging premiums. Now, if any of these things were being done,

if the money were being returned to the people, in some kind of a

social dividend, that's one thing but this is simply a broken promise.

It is increasing taxes merely to sock that money away. I am prepared to

join my colleagues and oppose this bill, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the Debate.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly interested in this

debate. First of all, I want to deal with the question of the First

Member from Vancouver East, who said "…in the revenue submitted

in the Budget, this money wouldn't be in it." Of course, he knows very

well the estimate is there, that it's included (interruption) .

Certainly, I am optimistic it will pass (interruption) . I want to say

that there he was wrong. I want to say to the Leader of the Liberal

Party who spoke and then left the House before the reply, this, that

the Federal Government…and, oh, how I hate to make reference to the

Federal Government, because they do so little (interruption) .

[ Page 628 ]

Oh, I have friendly letters from the Prime Minister even though he's

on his honeymoon. Sends me a letter saying how pleased he is that

British Columbia is going to do something about unemployment and so

forth. I'm not going to refer to that letter because it's more or less

a confidential letter and he is on his honeymoon.

I would say this, the Federal Government, as of December 31, has

removed itself completely from the Trans-Canada Highway. The Liberal

Leader, having three Members on the North Shore to oppose this bill,

when millions of it will be spent which should have been the Federal

Government's share of the Upper-Levels Highway in North Vancouver, is

something that I am going to tell the people on the North Shore in the

next election — come when it may. I want to tell you this — these

people talk with two voices at the same time. These people talk about

increased high taxes in British Columbia. British Columbia has the

lowest tax rates in all of Canada. Why don't the Liberals use some of

the Liberal Provincial taxes across this Nation? Why doesn't the NDP

look at the tax rates in Manitoba, or in Saskatchewan, when they were

the Government in Saskatchewan? Why don't the Conservatives look in

Ontario? The reason why our tax rates are the lowest in Canada, Mr.

Speaker, is because we, in the first seven years of this Social Credit

Government, this people's Government, this grass-roots Government, got

rid of the tax-paying part of the debt, Mr. Speaker, the direct debt.

So, in British Columbia's Budget, this year, there are not these tens

and tens of millions of the people's taxes used to pay interest. When

we became Government, it took 15 per cent of the Budget to pay the debt

services. What would it be if the 15 per cent of $1,300 million…You

know what it would be — $195 million. That's what the Social Credit

Government is saving the people of this Province. That's the reason why

we have the lowest tax rates in this country.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to Bill 14?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, but I want to say this. This Government, as

we head into this decade of the 1970's, the second century of

Confederation, as far as British Columbia is concerned, in Canada, that

we have dynamic policies, This money is needed to create jobs in this

Province and I want to tell you that that will be the issue. If the

Opposition votes against it, I will tell it everywhere in this

Province. I move second reading.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Wolfe

Ney

Tisdalle

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

NAYS — 14

Messieurs

Brousson

Hall

Macdonald

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Cocke

Calder

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Dailly, Mrs.

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

PAIR:

Messieurs

Merilees

Clark

Bill 14 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 15.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 15,

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958 . The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, since 1928 the Province has had two

gasoline tax Statutes, one which is operative, being

chapter 152 of the

Statutes of British Columbia and the other

chapter 59 of the Statutes

of 1958, which is inoperative. The latter act has existed for a

considerable time because of possible legal complications. While the

1958 alternate Statute will not be proclaimed, unless adverse

circumstances are required and we don't expect that to happen, it is

deemed advisable, however, to keep the Statute up to date. Accordingly,

amendments are hereby submitted, which correspond exactly to the

amendments presented just a moment ago to the operative gasoline tax.

The effective date of the new tax is, of course, the same, February 5,

1971. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to say that

this is the way you create jobs, just really won't wash at all. This

isn't the way one creates jobs. The Premier is the one… (interruption)

regarding gasoline taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Same thing. Same argument.

MR. WILLIAMS: Anyway, you know the Premier and the Minister

of Finance, both of them are fond of talking about the free market and

some of the benefits of the free market. We would concede some of them

but, you know, when it comes to the crunch, the Premier is not willing

to see people spend their own money. In fact, he overtaxes, in order to

prevent them from spending their own money their way. The Minister of

Finance wants to spend their money, his way. That's what we are seeing

with these tax increases. The Premier is clearly showing that he

doesn't really believe in the free market. He wants the kind of market

that he can manipulate like a toy. That's why he overtaxes the people

of British Columbia. If he had to test some of his schemes before the

market, they probably would never get approved.

[ Page 629 ]

That's the test he is not willing to have applied to his pet

projects in British Columbia. The very test he says he supports is the

test that he is not willing to undergo. He is not willing to have the

free market test his ideas. In fact, he wants to overtax the people of

British Columbia so that he doesn't have to face that kind of test.

That is what he is really talking about in economic terms.

This is the same Minister of Finance who was buying full-page ads in

the newspapers of British Columbia in 1969 and promising in two-inch

headlines, "No Tax Increase." All the people who voted for him for

those reasons know, now, that they made a mistake and that they can't

rely on those kind of guarantees from the Minister of Finance. "No Tax

Increase." This is what we are facing, now, with all this group of

bills. These are tax increases that are unnecessary tax increases. But,

the interesting thing, as I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, is that

the Premier is unwilling to undergo the kind of test he says is so

important — in the marketplace. He won't face the marketplace. He wants

to avoid the marketplace. He wants to avoid the kinds of tests that he

says are good tests. I think that's an interesting matter to reflect

on, with respect to this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, maybe this

bill offers an opportunity for the Government to take one of its famous

second looks, if not the Members of the Treasury benches, at least, the

backbenchers. There was a promise that this would make possible more

highway construction, and that the automobiles would pay their fair

share and so on (interruption) . The Member says it is.

Mr. Speaker, right in our estimate books, we have exactly the same

amount of money being spent this coming year on highways as in the past

year — $80 million. If you look at the revenue that's expected to come

in from gasoline, alone, it's $93 million, yet the people of British

Columbia are now expected to pay more in gasoline tax than they are to

get in the way of road construction. It's right there in the estimate

books you placed before us. This is why we say the tax is completely

unnecessary. If we couldn't make our point on the last bill, maybe we

can make it on this bill.

Let me carry on for a minute or two, while the Minister of Finance

looks in his estimates books and probably discovers, for the first

time, that, if he looks under revenue, he sees that there is more

income projected from the gasoline tax than he's prepared to spend. If

you want to look at the vote number, it's vote 108 — $80 million, the

same as last year. This is what we say is so disgraceful — the way our

whole Budget is presented in this Province — the fact that we are asked

to vote for taxes, when we know perfectly well it's for the purpose of

accumulating surpluses that find their way, directly or indirectly,

into those hydro-electric projects and the construction of track on the

PGE. This is completely unnecessary. Mr. Speaker, it's the kind of

thing that we can do without in British Columbia. We stand for honest

and direct Budgets, for taxes on people in order to provide services to

people. This principle is being violated every single year and it's

being escalated. There is no more disgraceful example of it, Mr.

Speaker, than this particular bill. When you compare it with the votes

in our estimate books, it's a sham.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Yale-Lillooet.

MR. W.L. HARTLEY (Yale-Lillooet): Mr. Speaker, through you,

to the Premier and the Government, you know that this bill is actually

in complete negation of many dollars that we spent in having the Morrow

commission go about the Province, holding hearings, asking opinions

and, finally, bringing down a report. Of the recommendations the report

made to this Government, they have failed to act on one, single

worthwhile recommendation. Those recommendations would have lowered the

cost of gasoline to the consumers in this Province. The Morrow report

failed to tell us what it costs to produce a gallon of gasoline and,

yet, our neighbour Province, when they held a similar enquiry into

gasoline, it cost less than a cent a gallon to produce gasoline. Your

report was a report that this Government had asked for, a report that

would favour the gasoline combines, the great corporations. More and

more we see this Government is a government of corporations and not of

people.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member come back to Bill 15.

MR. HARTLEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am suggesting that here we

have Bill 15 that will raise the cost of gasoline to the people. Had we

a proper plan of distributing gasoline, properly organized, instead of

excessive service stations in a most wasteful and inefficient fashion,

if we had a cooperative oil refinery, or a publicly-owned refinery,

with the Province owning the transmission lines, I dare say that

gasoline could be reduced to half the present price that the people are

paying today. Before they do that, they will have to elect a government

that will stand up for people and not for corporations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I didn't speak on the last bill but

this is a similar bill. I was rather amazed at the response throughout

the House to this bill compared to the ones on the home-owner grant and

the others. They couldn't get up fast enough on that side of the House

to support that bill but we haven't heard much support of this bill.

This is a tax on the workers of the Province. You take every one — a

car is an absolute necessity, today, whether you are looking for a job,

or you've got a job. Many people, the average, I would say, drive their

car about…who are using it for work…6,000 miles a year. This

means, at 15 miles per gallon, $8 a year increase in their taxes per

year. When you try, on the one hand, you said you were helping out the

little people and, now, you're taking it away from them. You take it

from them so that you can give it to them some other way. Well, I don't

think that is really good enough. I don't think that there is a

necessity for this tax at this time. The economy of the country is such

that we should have reduced taxes rather than increase them if we

really want to build up our economy. To increase taxes at this time, on

the little people throughout the Province, is taking the bread and

butter off their tables, not only of those who are working but of

people who are not working, people who are unemployed, who have got to

use their cars to go out looking for jobs. You're taxing those people

under this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the Debate.

[ Page 630 ]

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, once again, there is more heat than

light from the Opposition. I notice, again, that the Leader of the

Liberal Party makes his speech and then runs out of the House and never

waits for the reply. He brought up the same speech that I answered

before and, then, he repeated it again, wasting the time of this House,

Mr. Speaker, not representing the people of Vancouver–Point Grey at

all. He just goes out and makes his speech and tries to get on the

radio and on the television.

Mr. Speaker, it shows the Members opposite do not do their homework.

On page 19 of the Budget Speech it shows clearly that the total

expenditure of the Department of Highways will come to $158 million and

the revenue, $137 million. Therefore, to try to say that we give more

money than we need for highways is ridiculous in the extreme.

One day we hear in this House that the poor people are the people

without cars. They are the people who use the buses, but, today, they

try to change their argument and say it is the people who use the

automobile who are the poor people. Well, if they are the poor people,

then, they would have the smallest cars. The person who was rich,

owning the largest car, would pay more gasoline tax than the poor, even

then. It just shows, Mr. Speaker, the limits to which the Opposition

will go to try to create chaos in this country, try to create

unemployment, try to stop the Government and its dynamic policies of

putting more people to work to try and create jobs. I move second

reading.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Wolfe

Ney

Tisdalle

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

NAYS — 14

Messieurs

Brousson

Hall

Macdonald

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Cocke

Calder

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Dailly, Mrs.

Lorimer

Williams, L.A.

PAIRS:

Messieurs

Jordan, Mrs.

Dowding

Merilees

Clark

Bill 15 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 16,

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act . The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as a result of a survey of the

Provincial tax structure carried out last year, it was determined that

the rate of 1 cent a gallon for off-the highway use of gasoline was out

of date. The bulk of this gasoline is used by industry and commercial

aircraft. Accordingly, this bill proposes an increase of 2 cents a

gallon. The provision remains in the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act for the

effective rate of coloured gasoline purchased by farmers for use on

their farms and bona fide commercial fishermen for use on their fishing

boats to remain at 1 cent a gallon. The effective date of this tax is,

of course, the date of the Budget, February 5, 1971. I move second

reading of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, once more, this is an unnecessary,

an unfair tax. It's taking revenue that isn't going to be used for the

services which the revenue purports it will be used for. Once more, we

oppose it. Once more, we call for straightforward financing and an

honest declaration of the taxes required and the purposes for which

they are going to be used.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Wolfe

Ney

Tisdalle

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

NAYS — 14

Messieurs

Brousson

Hall

Macdonald

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Cocke

Calder

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Dailly, Mrs.

[ Page 631 ]

PAIRS:

Messieurs

Jordan, Mrs.

Dowding

Merilees

Clark

Bill 16 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 17,

An Act to Amend the Motive-fuel Use Tax Act . The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: In line with the 2 cents per gallon increase in

the gasoline and coloured gasoline taxes to provide a better balance in

highway revenues and costs, this bill increases the levy on diesel

fuels used by commercial vehicles on the public highways from the

present 15 cents to 17 cents per gallon, effective February 5, 1971,

the date of the Budget.

The British Columbia diesel fuel tax for highway use at 17 cents a

gallon, the new rate, will still be the lowest Provincial rate in

Canada and still will be well below the other rates in other Provinces,

which go up to as high as 27 cents a gallon. In addition, this bill

changes the tax collection system from the user reporting his own

purchases, to the vender collecting and remitting the tax. This

eliminates the complex monthly returns now required from the users. Mr.

Speaker, I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Second Member for Vancouver East.

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's clear, again, that this tax on diesel

fuel will be transferred from the mover of the goods, say, for example,

groceries to the various grocery stores around the Province, to the

grocery shelves. It will be transferred, in fact, right down to the

kitchen table, and that's where the payment will end up. That's where

the buck ends. That's where the money will have to be paid for this

tax. That's why we will be voting against this bill as we voted against

the others.

It is clear, now, that the Premier's statements, in the heat of an

election, his commitments, are completely meaningless, and the people

of the Province should note this day because the Premier is making it

abundantly clear that what he says in an election doesn't mean a thing,

that a promise made by the Premier in an election is totally

meaningless, that a year or so later, he will renounce what he said in

the heat of the campaign and do whatever he pleases. That is exactly

what we are facing, today, another tax on the people, an unnecessary

tax and a complete abandonment of the position taken in the last

Provincial election.

The House divided.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS — 33

Messieurs

Wallace

Jefcoat

Wolfe

Ney

Tisdalle

Smith

Marshall

McCarthy, Mrs.

McDiarmid

Wenman

Dawson, Mrs.

Skillings

Kripps, Mrs.

Kiernan

Chant

Mussallem

Williston

Loffmark

Price

Bennett

Gaglardi

Vogel

Peterson

Campbell, D.R.J.

LeCours

Black

Brothers

Chabot

Fraser

Shelford

Little

Campbell, B.

Richter

NAYS — 14

Messieurs

Brousson

Hall

Macdonald

Gardom

Williams, R.A.

Strachan

Cocke

Calder

Nimsick

Hartley

McGeer

Dailly, Mrs.

PAIRS:

Messieurs

Jordan, Mrs.

Dowding

Merilees

Clark

Bill 17 was read a second time and Ordered to be placed on the Orders of the Day for committal at the next sitting after today.

MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill 18, Cigarette and Tax Act . The Honourable the Minister of Finance.

MR. BENNETT: Honourable Members are aware that expenditures

for education, health and social services, and hospital insurance have

risen dramatically over the past years. In this next fiscal year,

alone, these services require a $112 million increase in the budgeted

expenditure — an increase of $112 million in one year. At the same

time, the Provincial revenues are not rising at a rate anywhere near

the rate of the past few years to take care of the expanded services as

we go through the decade. This being the case, a review of the

Provincial tax structure was undertaken to determine the best method of

providing additional revenue. It was noted that all other Provinces in

Canada imposed a cigarette and tobacco tax and it was decided that

British Columbia should now seek additional revenues from this source.

This bill, therefore, proposes a cigarette and tobacco tax at the

lowest rate used by the other Provinces, and, at the same time, it

eliminates the payment of the social services tax on the purchases of

tobacco products. The tax imposed is eight twenty-fifths of a cent per

cigarette, or 8 cents a package of 25. Since the social services, or

sales tax, is 3 cents on such a package, this is a net increase of 5

cents a package. On a package of 20 cigarettes, the net increase is 4

cents. The increase proposed for cigars and tobacco is proportionate to

that of cigarettes. The administrative procedures outlined in this bill

follow those contained in the Social Services Act and that is the

reason why they are so long. The Act will be administered by the

Director of the Consumer Taxation Branch, with his present staff. The

effective date of die new cigarette and tobacco tax is February 5,

1971, the day of the

[ Page 632 ]

Budget. I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan-Malahat.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, if I thought this tax would

achieve a worthwhile social purpose I would be in favour of it but,

once again, I am standing up to remind the Premier of his pledge of no

increased taxation. I am reminding him of the fact that, in earlier

debates this afternoon, he has talked about the surpluses and the uses

to which he was going to put them. If this Government had demonstrated

a policy of leadership in social change, I might have been able to

support the raising of this additional $18 million. I want to remind

the Minister that we already have a special fund set up with regard to

education, with regard to addiction to alcohol, tobacco and drugs

(interruption) . No, but we've got legislation here, somewhere. Oh, it

was adjourned. I knew I had spoken on it. Oh, yes, I have been doing my

homework. As a matter of fact, I have already spoken on that particular

piece of legislation which is more than you have. I would remind you

also that we already have this special fund….that it is going to

be set up. The Premier said earlier that he was optimistic about

certain legislation passing in order to bring in certain income.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are now dealing with Bill 18.

MR. STRACHAN: That's right, and I have no doubt that he is

optimistic about that particular piece of legislation. If I thought

that an increase in taxes might reduce the consumption, I, again, might

reconsider my position on this but there is absolutely no indication

that it will bring any change whatsoever. The taxes, again, are

unnecessary. The Premier isn't quite stating the facts when he talks

about a 4 cents increase in the price of cigarettes. As a matter of

fact, they went from 50 to 55 cents. That is what happened. If you work

it out, you will find that it is actually more than the bill would

indicate the amount of the increase to be. That's not the important

point. I am just opposed… (interruption) . Oh yes, yes. Part of it is

due to the tax (interruption) . No, sir! You will get more than 4 cents

per packet out of this tax. You bet you will.

I'm simply here to, again, express my concern at the fact that the

Premier has, once again, for the fifth or sixth time this afternoon,

and I want the people of British Columbia to note this, for the fifth

or sixth time this afternoon, the Premier has broken the pledge he made

to the people of this Province during the last election. "I pledge

you," he said, "no increase in taxes."

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, as we've said many times this

afternoon, the revenues in this coming fiscal year, without this tax

increase, will be more than adequate to cover the expenditures set

forth in the Budget and detailed in that red estimate book given to us.

We do not need the income from this tax to cover the estimated

expenditures on services to people.

I can understand the reason why someone, who declares this tax is

completely unnecessary, might think of supporting the bill,

nonetheless. This is because smoking is a curse on humanity. The one

thing that disappoints me about this particular bill is that the

Minister of Finance is forecasting revenue to come from it. If the bill

were really going to serve the people well, the income from it would be

zero, because it would discourage people from taking on a habit that

would, at the best, impair their health mildly and, at the worst,

shorten their lives by anywhere from 20 to 60 years.

We witnessed one Member of the Cabinet retire because of lung

disease and one of the great contributions he made each year was this

plea to the people of this Province to cease smoking. He got support

from all over this House. It isn't just cancer and emphysema, it is

heart disease, chronic bronchitis and a whole host of ills. If there

were one, single, public health measure we could undertake in the

world, today, that would advance the health of humanity, it would be

the total elimination of tobacco. I think we've missed the speeches of

the former Minister of Health. I think the people in this Legislature

should stand up, as one, each year and condemn this habit of smoking. I

am in dismay at our Federal Government for not having taken stronger

action. I, particularly, condemn the Federal Government for permitting

advertising on television and radio in this country for cigarettes.

When the United States has, finally, screwed up enough courage to do

something about it, we, in Canada, are so interested in protecting the

revenue of our public broadcasting corporation that we haven't the guts

to eliminate cigarette advertising. It's a disgrace and I condemn the

Minister of Health and the Federal Government for not having shown more

courage in that regard.

I must recall, Mr. Speaker, that the B.C. Hydro used to carry

cigarette advertising on the buses, until some Members of the

Opposition raised a fuss and blew a few smoke rings from this side of

the House. I must say that the B.C. Hydro…that was one thing, one bit

of advice they accepted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we get back to the C igarette and Tobacco Tax Act ?

MR. McGEER: Well, Mr. Speaker, the only excuse at all for

anybody supporting this bill is that it would discourage smoking. There

are many people who are doubtful about this result being achieved. I

think even the Government is that way because they forecast $18,500,000

revenue from it. It's dirty money. We should tell everybody who smokes

that they are being taxed unfairly and that the one thing they should

do is to quit smoking in order to cheat the Minister of Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G. S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

commend the Government for bringing in this tax, Mr. Speaker. If there

is any mistake, it isn't large enough. I just regret that the tax is as

small as it is on cigarettes and tobacco. I feel that it would have

been quite reasonable to leave the sales tax on, as well as the new tax.

I think, while I would echo many of the sentiments of the previous

speaker, I think it would be very wrong of this House to gloss over the

particular conditions which the honourable Member mentioned because, in

terms of morbidity and…mortality, the main killers in out society

are, in fact, heart disease, vascular disease, which is a disease of

the blood vessels, chronic obstructive lung disease, such as we have

already heard described, and cancer. As I mentioned in an earlier

speech, I'll just briefly repeat that the statistics

[ Page 633 ]

are undeniable that cigarette smoking plays a very definite

part in

causing these diseases. Admittedly, there may be other factors,

including the air that you breathe. If it's polluted from other

sources, one would agree that this also would cause ill health. At

least, cigarette smoking is an entirely preventable aspect and it seems

to me that, with Government requiring to put another $30 million into

hospitals and $10 million into medicate, $40 million dollars is a lot

of hay.

I look at this in a very practical light, Mr. Speaker, that it is

predictable that persons, in our society, who are doing a great deal of

smoking will be doing a great deal of using our hospitals. I look at

this in rather a practical way that, if they are inflicting a certain

amount of illness on themselves and will, subsequently, be using

hospital and health facilities, medical care, oxygen therapy, with

prolonged periods of disease, when they can't work and so on, then, it

doesn't seem to me at all unreasonable that they should contribute

something towards the cost.

I mentioned earlier on that I look upon booze and cigarettes a

little bit as I took upon original sin. I don't think the tax on

cigarettes will be, in any way effective as a deterrent. The important

thing in this bill, I believe, Mr. Speaker, is that it is emphasizing,

at least, that the person who is going to be the future patient, while

he is causing his own disease, to some degree, is at least contributing

towards the cost of looking after him, once he is sick.

In this regard, while I would much prefer effective programmes to

deter people from smoking, I think it's been around a long time and,

while I would continue to beg that we institute programmes in the

schools since it is in the early years that people begin smoking, when

the motives for smoking, in my opinion, at least, are to try to

emphasize your maturity when you are 13 or 14, is rather a false god

which we should try and get across to the children of that

age…Undoubtedly, this is when most people begin to smoke and,

therefore, any money that we can put over for the education of children

or the preventative aspect, emphasizing the preventative aspect, is

money well spent. Nevertheless, people are smoking, they will smoke

and, since there is no way that I am aware of, medically, whereby we

can prevent cigarettes from doing the damage they are doing…all this

we read about filter tips and long filters and short filters and any

other kind of filters is just a mirage. It, in no way, other than by a

small percentage, reduces the impact of smoking oil the lungs. I can't

imagine how anyone in this House, today, would oppose this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the Honourable

the Premier that, in presenting this bill, he did not lecture us or

moralize on the pros and cons of smoking. I don't think that is the

basic reason for the presentation of this bill. I believe that he gave

it to us fairly straight. It's another example of…it's just a

straight tax increase. I think this is what we should all consider in

this House, when we are voting on it. Certainly, the last Member feels

very strongly about smoking, as many people should but, I think, he

should disassociate his strong feelings on the pros and cons of smoking

from what this bill, basically, is. It is another sales tax on the

lower-income bracket people in this Province. They are the ones who are

going to be affected far more by this sales tax than those in the

higher-income brackets (interruption) . Yes, rich and poor they may smoke, alike, but, when

they have to pay the tax, the people in the lower-income bracket, as

applies to all sales taxes, are going to be affected more, as far as

their income is concerned. 1, therefore, say that this is the fifth

bill we have been presented with, with the same basic principle.

Now, the Honourable the Premier says he represents the grass roots

of the Province and here he is imposing five taxes which will certainly

lower the general standard of living of the grass roots people of this

Province. That's why, once again, on principle, we oppose this bill.

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

MR. TISDALLE: The statistics by those who make a study of

this say that where there are two parents smoking, it is inevitable

that the children do. The image of influence is very strong and I

think, before we blame our 13 and 14-year-olds, that probably the

emphasis as displayed by our former Minister of Health, is worthwhile

reciting. We, the older ones, have got to cease and desist from

smoking, so that our influence is felt down the line.

Now, we do have something in respect to saving lives in the

Motor-Vehicle Branch where they say, "Slow down and live." I wonder if

we couldn't say, "Stop smoking — the life you save may be your own,"

and have this put on every package. "Stop smoking — the life you save

may be your own." I'd like to consider that we ask the people to

sloganize things like this so that people, when they are buying, it may

be brought to their attention that they would be saving their own lives.

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

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): It seems to me, and I

completely concur with the remarks of the other speakers, that we don't

have any need for tax increases. This falls exactly into the same

category as the other tax bills that were before the House. There is no

question but that it will hit the poor the hardest. Not for one minute,

Mr. Speaker, can I buy the argument that this is going to reduce

smoking one whit. The way to reduce smoking, and the way to reduce the

effects of smoking, of bronchitis, is to stop smoking. That is

absolutely correct. The way to go ahead and have people stop smoking

and stop suffering the consequences of smoking, like the two good

doctors discussed a little bit earlier, is to cut down, Mr. Speaker,

this type of thing which we see in the paper all the time. That's the

way to get to the root of the thing. Quite frankly, I think it would

have been a very nice thing, Mr. Speaker, if the Government…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can you get back to the principle of Bill 18?

MR. GARDOM: That's exactly where I am, at the principle of

the bill. It would be a very nice thing, Mr. Speaker, and I know that

all the Members would like me to talk about this, today, but I can't by

virtue of the rules of Parliament…But, if Bill 9 had been called,

before this one, you would have seen total support through the whole

House. I certainly hope that Bill 9 is going to come up on the final

day, Mr. Premier, and we'll have your support that day (interruption).

Good. Thank you very much. I think, Mr.

[ Page 634 ]

Speaker, we need in the Province some assurances that we've got a

policy, that we have some degree of preventative medicine, we have some

education, we have some films in the schools, so we can go and educate

the young about the grief that can occasion from the consequences of

smoking.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member come back to Bill 18?

MR. GARDOM: Insofar as this tax is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I

note that it's not labelled for the purposes of the thing that

everybody in this House is concerned about and that is the prevention

of smoking. It's not labelled — this tax for that, at all. It's just

going to end up in B.C. Hydro or end up in the PGE or end up in another

fund. You know, Mr. Speaker, a similar tax situation arose, way back in

1954, when the Premier made a pledge to the people of B.C. that two

fifths of the sales tax would be utilized for hospitals. We find,

today, that about $100 million of that money has never been expended on

hospitals and the Government would… (interruption) . Well, who's got

the Chair — him or me?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! When an honourable Member makes a statement, the Members in the House will accept that statement.

MR. GARDOM: What's all the fuss about?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member deal with Bill 18?

MR. GARDOM: It's an absolute fairy tale, Mr. Speaker, to

think that this is going to reduce smoking one iota in the Province.

It's the same type of…

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Member refer to Bill 18 and not Bill 9?

MR. GARDOM: This is a needless tax. It's a silly tax. It's a ridiculous tax and I intend to vote against it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we heard two rather good speeches on

the evils of cigarettes and, on that basis, I suspected that other

people who smoke would be permitted to discuss the sin. As a matter of

fact, while the Member from Oak Bay is sitting there, I'd suggest that

if he wants to discuss original sin, he had better look at Bill 19. We

can get on with that after this bill is over.

Mr. Speaker, I think that there should be a tax on advertising if we

want to aim at education. I believe it should be aimed at education,

Mr. Speaker. Punitive action has been proven completely irrelevant over

the years. Cigarette taxes and prices have gone up and there has been

no reduction in the consumption of cigarettes. The Government has

proven that they don't expect there will be any great reduction in the

consumption, by virtue of the amount they have in their estimates as

being the result of this tax. Mr. Speaker, this grass roots Government

is proving to be grass roots pickpockets. That's about the size of it,

because you promised, you went around the country in the last election

and promised you wouldn't raise taxes. Who cares whether or not you

break your pledges? Well, we care and we'll vote against this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. I think the Member should withdraw his reference to pickpockets. That is an improper reflection.

MR. COCKE: Now, Mr. Speaker, how else could you refer to getting money out of people's purses?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The honourable Member knows full well he cannot cast an unfair reflection against…

MR. COCKE: Against whom, Mr. Speaker?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: …unfair parliamentary statement

MR. COCKE: I have been listening to statements about our Party all afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question has been raised and I think the honourable Member…

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, now that it has been raised, I'll withdraw the word, pickpocket.

Mr. Speaker, this kind of tax is the kind of tax that affects those

people closest to the poverty line. It is all very well and good to say

that they should pay for their medical care in the future and that they

shouldn't have started. Once they did, they were hooked and they have a

great deal of difficulty getting away from this habit. My suggestion is

that those people who are well off can well afford this tax, but those

people who are close to the poverty line are in real trouble…the

problem is poverty. It is all very well and good for a nonsmoker to sit

in the background and suggest stop smoking, snap his finger and say

very easy. But he hasn't got the worries of those people. As a matter

of fact, it's the worries of the people who are so impoverished that

keeps them smoking, Mr. Speaker. Some other Member over there suggested

they should roll their own. That's right. There is one honourable

Member over there, I notice who smokes a great deal and I know he has a

lot of worries over the leadership. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kootenay.

MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, you hear this eulogizing about the

dangers of smoking when all the time I am sure the Minister of Finance

is hoping to goodness they don't quit smoking, because that's how he

figured out his Budget. That's how he figured out how much collection

he was going to get from this. There is no tax against the advertising,

nor is there any move to stop advertising. It's pretty hard to tell

people about the bad effects of smoking in a place like Trail.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The matter has been raised indirectly that there is Bill 9, which deals with advertising.

MR. NIMSICK: Well I'm not talking about advertising now. I

said it is pretty hard to tell a person who is working in the Trail

smelter where he is breathing in gases all the time, it's pretty hard

to tell people when you see all the effluent coming out the stacks, to

tell those people that smoking is bad for them. It's pretty hard to

tell them they could stop breathing…

[ Page 635 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just one moment. Let's get back to Bill 18.

MR. NIMSICK: Well, the Honourable the Member for Saanich, he

spoke about every thing but the tax and you didn't say a word. Let's be

reasonable about this and let's give a fellow a chance to say something.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It was the Honourable Second Member from

Point Grey who raised the point when he spoke about his own bill and

drew to the attention of the Chair that the bill…

MR. NIMSICK: I'm not talking about advertising now, I'm

talking about effluent from pollution. This is what the bill is all

about — they are trying to stop people from smoking. The only people

whom you are going to stop from smoking are the people on the bottom

end of the buck. Have you ever been in an old folks' home, with men and

women of 65, 70 and 80 years old? If they are smoking, it's pretty hard

to tell them that smoking is detrimental to their health. It's the only

pleasure they get out of life, so these are the people that you arc

taxing. These are the people that you are really hitting. Because, any

time that you use the dollar bill to try to correct an evil, you are

not going to correct it, because the only ones you are

correcting…you're saying to the people at the poverty level that it's

for them. They are the only people to whom we want to say it is wrong

to smoke. The people with lots of money are going to smoke, they are

going to continue to smoke. This tax is not going to affect this issue.

Then, the Honourable Member from Saanich said, "Oh, you must go after

the parents." I smoke and my children, neither one of them smoke. I

didn't have any influence on them to make them smoke so don't think

that that's going to stop it. I think that we've got to get down, if we

want to, and cut out all this foolish advertising and let's put a tax

on the pollution that is coming out of these great smokestacks

throughout our country. Let's tax the industrialists for polluting the

country far more than a lot of smoking does.

I think you over-rate this idea about the excuse for putting a tax

on. Your excuse is that smoking isn't good, so you put a tax on it. The

only people you are going to stop by that method are the people who

can't afford it, not the people who can afford it. So your tax on

cigarettes and tobacco is only another tax and it's breaking the pledge

that the Premier made to the people of British Columbia that there

would be no increase in taxes. He didn't say there wouldn't be any ifs,

buts or ands about it. He said, "No increase in taxes." He should have

held up to his promises, because there is no visible reason why any

increase in taxes should take place at this time.

DEPUTY S