1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th 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, APRIL 9, 1973

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2359 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Park Act (Bill No. 174). Hon. Mr.

Williams.

Introduction and first reading — 2359

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173). Hon. Mr.

Levi.

Introduction and first reading — 2359

Petitions

Mr. McGeer's petition dropped — 2359

Routine proceedings

Housing Incentive Fund Act (Bill No. 75). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2359

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2359

Mr. Morrison — 2360

Mr. Curtis —

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2361

Mr. Williams — 2361

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2362

Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act (Bill No. 76).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2362

Mr. Chabot — 2362

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2363

Mr. Wallace — 2363

Mr. Rolston — 2364

Mr. McClelland — 2364

Mr. Curtis — 2365

Mr. Fraser — 2365

Mr. Williams — 2365

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2366

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1973 (Bill No. 77). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2368

Mr. Morrison — 2368

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2369

Mr. McClelland — 2370

Mr. Wallace — 2370

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2370

British Columbia Economic Research Fund (Bill No. 78).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2371

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2372

Mr. Wallace — 2372

Mr. McGeer — 2373

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2374

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act (Bill No. 144).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2376

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2376

Mr. Wallace — 2376

Mr. Smith — 2376

Mr. Gardom — 2376

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2376

Mr. Gardom — 2377

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2377

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962 (Bill No. 145).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2377

Mr. Wallace — 2378

Mr. Morrison — 2378

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2378

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2379

Division on second reading — 2379

The House met at 11:00 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PARK ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams moves introduction and first reading of

Bill No. 174 intituled

An Act to Amend the Park Act .

Motion approved.

Bill No. 174 read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social

Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr.

Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits

herewith a bill intituled Alcohol and Drug Commission

Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly,

Government House, April 6, 1973.

Bill No. 173 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Presenting petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on Friday, a petition was

submitted to the Table by the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I have a notation from the

clerk presented to me which reads:

"April

9, 1973

"Hon. G.H. Dowding, Speaker, Parliament Buildings.

"Dear Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the petition presented by Mr. McGeer on Friday

last, I find that the petition is irregular in that it is not signed by the

Member presenting it. This is in contravention of standing order 73(4).

Yours

truly,

E.K. DeBeck, Clerk

of the House."

In consequence, under standing order 73 the petition cannot

be dealt with today. The petition has to be dropped under

standing order 73, since it violates standing order 73(4) and

also

section 6 which says, "On the day following" — that is

today — "the clerk shall report on same if it is irregular and

contains matters on breach of privilege…" and so on. It

is irregular and therefore it must be dropped.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move that the House proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 75, Mr.

Speaker.

HOUSING INCENTIVE FUND ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, one of the most pressing

problems facing any government today is how to provide

low-cost housing to its citizens in the face of rapidly

escalating land prices. I believe all will agree that it is in

the best interests of the public themselves, communities and

the province as a whole to have all citizens living in proper

housing accommodation. The province has entered into a large

this will be carried on to the maximum extent possible. In

addition, however, we wish to build our own landbank while the

land is available for future housing use.

This bill, therefore, sets up a $10 million Housing

Incentive Fund for the purpose of purchasing such land. As the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is most

directly concerned in this matter, the bill provides for him to

recommend appropriate purchases of land to the Minister of

Finance. I so move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the bill

generally meets with the approval of this party. However,

there are a number of questions which come up in the short-term

in particular. The first is, as the Minister of Finance

mentioned, land is now being purchased on the advice of the

Minister of Municipal Affairs for future use. The problem that

arises is if this takes land away from present use at this

time. The result has been an even greater strain upon the land

market at the present time with the result of driving the price

of land even further up than it would be otherwise.

[ Page 2360 ]

We see no objection, as I mentioned, to future housing

proposals coming forward at a later time, put forward by the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). We see no

objection to the joint federal-provincial proposals. But we are

seriously concerned that major purchases at this time, in

addition to other steps that this Legislature is taking with

respect to land that was dealt with in other bills, is creating

a very serious imbalance in the market forces in this province

and virtually a situation of runaway inflation when it comes

down to the case of buying land at the moment for housing at

the present time.

Now, I realize that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) will be closing the debate rather than the Minister of

Municipal Affairs — I presume that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs will be speaking soon on this. But the problem that we

see in terms of extensive purchases of this nature at this time

for future use is that we are assuming that somehow or other,

in the short run, when all this public money is thrown onto the

market to pick up land for housing, prices will remain the

same. That simply isn't the case at the present time. The

increase in the cost of building lots, in particular around our

major urban areas, has been really very substantial in the last

few months. I'm no expert on the market, but I have been told

that in many instances increases of up to 25 per cent or even

more than that have taken place and averages are perhaps nearer

20 per cent of increases in the cost of housing.

So we are in a situation where we are attempting to increase

the amount of housing available for our citizens, but

government action such as this, in actual fact, in the short

run is resulting in fewer and fewer and fewer British

Columbians being able to afford to buy building lots. I know

this must be in the mind of the government, and certainly it

should be in the mind of the government. I trust that when the

Minister of Municipal Affairs steps into this debate he will be

dealing with this very problem.

We think that if the government takes a larger role, somehow

or other it must be possible for others who at the present time

are able to purchase houses — perhaps I should say others who

were a few months ago able to purchase houses and purchase land

for houses — to be given some consideration. It appears to me

that we are reaching a situation where only the very wealthy

will be able to purchase their own homes and purchase land, and

the bulk of the ordinary people of this province will be

excluded because of the substantial purchases at the present

time by all levels of government — municipal and federal, of

course, as well as provincial.

I trust that this point will be dealt with at some length by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs because there is no question, as was made clear when his estimates

were discussed in this House, that government actions such as this, combined

with actions resulting under other legislation or other orders-in-council, is

creating a tremendous squeeze on the market. The person who is being caught

in this squeeze and who is most hurt by this squeeze is, of course, the British

Columbian of modest means who is unable now to proceed to buying a house as

he previously expected. This results, of course, in these people spending more

time in apartments or more time in looking for rental accommodation. We are

in the present time, thanks to uncertainty as to government policy with respect

to rent controls and other things, in a situation where the amount of rental

accommodation is considerably less than ever before. This fact has been dealt

with at some length by my colleague from North Vancouver (Mr. Brousson). So

I trust the Minister will be dealing with this.

Government actions have created a loss of land available for

private housing. At the same time, government action and lack

of government action have created a serious difficulty in the

area of rental accommodation. I can see that in the future,

perhaps, if, as the Minister of Finance says, we're buying for

the future, perhaps things may be better. But in the near

future, in the short run, things are not particularly good at

all. I would like some clarification — much more than was given

by the Minister of Finance — as to what the Minister of

Municipal Affairs has in mind in the short run.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we see in this

bill an area with a lot of problems, as the Government again is

coming into the private sector. There will be competitive

purchases no doubt, of land that could be used for other uses,

probably debatably for better uses. We also see that the

municipalities will suffer on the taxes they receive because,

in all probability, they will be paid as they are now on the

15-mill basis for taxes.

We also see a high cost of land, such as has been

demonstrated here in the City of Victoria, with land being

purchased in the neighbourhood of $2 per sq. ft., which is

relatively high-cost land for low-cost housing. Therefore there

has to be a difference in here somewhere. There has to be a form of subsidy from the

public purse because, with the land cost being high and

construction costs being relatively high, as they are at the

moment, if we intend to have low-cost rentals there has to be a variable in there

somewhere and I don't quite see where that comes from.

Further, we're getting involved in long-term commitments,

because most of the housing which will be developed will have a

relatively long life, and therefore will have an unknown future

as far as our costs

[ Page 2361 ]

are concerned against the public purse. The cities will have

problems because of the need to put in sewage and roads and

other problems which will not be related back to them in the

form of taxes which they might receive from any other

development.

So there are a lot of areas in the bill which are not

properly spelled out. We, frankly, on this side see a great

many problems ahead of us. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, Bill

75 has a great deal of merit, in our view. Indeed, there may be

some areas where greater detail should be spelled out.

I believe I am speaking to the subject, however, when I

point out to the House that there are some housing schemes in

British Columbia today which are stalled, presumably, at the

Environment and Land Use Committee level. It's a little

frustrating for those who are attempting to initiate and push

such schemes ahead to have a bill such as this before us and

know of other projects which have been stalled for what must be

called an unreasonable length of time.

But certainly the province is to be, I believe, commended

for its effort in this regard. I trust that the scheme will

work out well for the people and assure the kind of housing

which we know is very urgently needed. While it has been

introduced by the Minister of Finance, I do hope that the

Department of Municipal Affairs will have the fullest possible

role in implementation, initiation and carrying out of the

plans.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): In answer

to the questions raised, I certainly agree that the pressures

do exist on land costs and housing costs. This bill in the next

few weeks will not have too much effect in reducing this, but

what we're hopeful of is that in the not-too-distant future,

our efforts in regard to putting on the market more lots will

help to bring the cost of land down and the cost of buildings

down.

On the question of stalls with the Environment and Land Use

Committee, I would like to get particulars of the locations

that the Member for Saanich is talking about. We passed through

something over 30 applications last week, and if there are some

areas that are holding up housing I'd certainly like to know

about them, because at the moment I know of none before the

Land Use Committee. So if he can help me on that, we'll

certainly straighten these areas out.

All I can say is that this bill has probably come in 10 years too late. You just don't start on a new programme

of this magnitude in the field of housing and have houses

produced within a few weeks. It's a question of trying to catch

up on things that should have been looked after some years

ago.

I might say that negotiations are taking place for purchase

of a variety of land in the province. I would suggest that if

people who are going to go into the purchase of lots for

housing can hold off for a short time, I think that we can make

some impact on the cost of land and housing within this

year.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

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

I find some difficulty in understanding where the incentive is

in the legislation which we have before us. While it's called

Housing Incentive Fund Act , it would appear that the

moneys are to be used to acquire land and housing developments — the land, of course, already being in existence and the

housing developments already being in existence.

The problem that we have facing us in all of the communities

in British Columbia is the lack of supply of housing

accommodation. I would have thought that accompanying this bill

we would have had a clear indication from the government as to

what its programme was going to be to provide incentives to

increase the supply of housing.

Now, to purchase housing developments which are already in

existence does not increase the supply of housing, although it

may, if you're changing the use of the housing development,

provide some additional supply — what is called "general public

housing," whatever that means. We must have an adequate

supply of single and multi-family dwellings for ownership and

use in this province. We must have the same kind of

accommodation available for rent.

In order to ensure that we have the supply, the government

can assist in a number of ways. Yes, the acquisition of land

and the placing of land on the market can be one. But only, Mr.

Speaker, if the government's programme is one which is designed

to put land on the market at prices below what the market is

calling for today.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

mentioned a few moments ago, they are going out with moneys

which they currently have available and acquiring parcels of

land of different kinds in different locations. But if you are

buying it at present day market prices, then obviously, unless

the Government is going to subsidize the lots which will be

purchased by people prepared to construct general public

housing, then it's not going to be any real incentive for any

private operator to go into the construction of such

facilities.

[ Page 2362 ]

If it is raw land which has no services, then obviously the

services have to be provided. It would be interesting to know,

based upon raw land prices, what the cost might be for land

made available for those purposes.

If it is general public housing that is to be constructed by

some public agency, I would have thought that the Minister

would have told us how his programme in this respect is going

to work as well. Are we going to embark on a public housing

construction programme through an agency of Government? Is that

one of the ways in which lower cost housing and a greater

supply of housing is to be made available, by taking out what

heretofore has been the profit motive from people who construct

housing for sale or for rent and if for rent, making it

available at prices which will return a percentage of the

investment?

Some of the words in the statute, which we will deal with in

committee, also give me cause for concern. It talks about "land

intended to be used for general public housing." What kind of

conditions will the Government stipulate in making the land

available with regard to the use to which that land must be

put?

The Act simply provides a fund of $10 million which will be

available to the Minister to expend for such purposes as may be

recommended to him. But we have not had here, certainly, and we

have not had elsewhere any clear indication of the programme

which this Government has to meet the extreme shortage that we

have today of housing accommodation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance closes the

debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we already have a great deal

of legislation on the books. If we intend to carry out a

four-year programme in one year we can carry on with a session

right throughout the year. That's not feasible.

We've done a great deal this session. This is the first step

in housing. Within 18 months the whole package of our housing

policy will be available and have an impact on the people of

British Columbia.

If you want an idea of what direction we're going in in

detail, as requested by the Member, then I suggest you read the

policy pamphlet that was largely ignored during the election

campaign. We are a party that sticks to our policy statements.

We talked about land lease, other options to land. That's the

direction we're going in.

I now suggest the question be put.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 75 be read a

second time now.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No 75 referred to a committee of the whole House at the

next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 76, Mr.

Speaker.

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL

FACILITIES FUND ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Government wishes to

assist and encourage communities, municipal governments and

non-profit, cultural, ethnic or religious groups to build

recreational facilities in the communities of the province. For

this purpose this bill sets up a community recreational

facilities fund of $10 million from which the province may pay

its share of any approved project.

The province will pay one-third of the cost of the

recreational facility up to a total for the facility of $1

million; in other words, the province's maximum grant in any

one endeavour will be one-third of $1 million.

The bill outlines that a facility to qualify for provincial

grants must be available for use by any person in the

community; also the effective date in the provisions is

retroactive to August 30, 1972, so that facilities commenced

since that date may qualify retroactively.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well! Retroactive legislation again. My

goodness! Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act ,

which will assist and encourage recreational activities

throughout the province is in my opinion very progressive

legislation — legislation that will be supported and endorsed

by this party.

It's legislation that is an excellent start in assisting the

smaller communities who find it difficult to raise the

necessary funds for capital construction costs. I know that the

former government had embarked on a programme of assisting on

an application and appeal basis various recreational facilities

throughout the province. The direction was very clear there,

that it would be necessary, regardless of who was elected in

the latter part of August, that legislation would have to come

to make it consistent throughout the province to assist these

recreational facilities.

Now, I hope that the Minister of Finance will tell

[ Page 2363 ]

us, when he closes the debate, as to when the regulations

will be brought down on this retroactive legislation. I think

it's most important because, if it's retroactive to August 30

or September 1, which I prefer using, that there are people out

there — and I know of two particular projects in my

constituency — that are anxious to see the regulations so that

they can make their application for financial assistance.

This party will support the legislation. It's a progressive

step forward. It's not very often we have the opportunity of

saying that in this session.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Government

and the previous speaker. There is a need for more in the way

of community recreational facilities.

We appreciate the fact the Government has put this bill

forward for us, but a number of questions come up. There is a

real problem I think in terms of definition. I read this and I

take it to mean that as long as the society which takes

advantage of this particular bit of legislation is a non-profit

society, the facility itself can be a highly profitable one.

Perhaps the Minister might comment on that when he speaks.

It's a question of definition, because of course the

facility, as my Hon. friend on my left from Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) suggests, the facility might well make a great pile of

money and yet we would actually be subsidizing a profitable

operation — one that might be extremely profitable — provided

that the society which is sponsoring the facility loses money

on its other operations and winds up as a non-profit society,

it might still be in line for a very heavy government

grant.

I think of this in particular, because there are on the

mainland ice rinks which are commercial and they apparently are

making a great deal of money. The same is true for the

so-called tennis clinic facilities which could well be

profitable, could well be a good recreational facility; and at

the same time, as long as the society itself overall was

constituted to be non-profit, they would benefit substantially

from this type of bill.

The question of retroactivity which the Minister of Finance

was very pleased about interests me. Perhaps he'll answer the

question when I sit down as to whether or not the facility

which can take advantage of this retroactive provision had to

be commenced after August 30 or whether it's a case of the

facility's not having been completed by then. In other words,

at what stage does this retroactivity come into effect — at the

commencement of the operation or at the end of it?

What happens, for example, if a facility was 50 per cent complete on August

30? Is it entitled to put in a bid or an application for one-third of the remaining

half that has not yet been completed or had not been completed on August 30?

Perhaps he'll comment on that, because many of these facilities are simply never

finished. They're always capable of infinite expansion as they tack on more

ice or as they tack on more facilities for handball or basketball or things

of that nature.

Nevertheless, in a general way we support the bill and we

support the principle of assisting communities and other

organizations who wish to put up recreational facilities.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to correct

an interjection I made which the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) misinterpreted. My experience has been that ice

arenas which do not lose money on their operating budgets are

very few and far between. One of the big problems that we had —

we don't have it any longer because the decision has been made — in deliberation in Oak Bay in trying to build an arena, was

the natural concern of citizens and homeowners that there would

be a very substantial annual operating deficit.

Nevertheless, I accept the Second Member for Victoria's

natural inquiry as to what happens if a non-profit group built

such a facility and proceeded to operate it at a profit. I

don't think that's the intent of this bill. I'm sure the

Minister of Finance will clarify that when he winds up the

second reading.

One of the reasons that we're very delighted about this bill

is that it's another step in the direction encouraged by the

Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Levi). When we were

discussing the seminar we had on the drug problem, this

question came up repeatedly — that so many young people seem to

drift into the drug scene out of boredom and the lack of

stimulus around them to get interested in other things. The

main conclusion that came out of that meeting that we had a few

months ago was the importance of giving a positive direction

and positive interest to young people. There could be no better

positive interest than recreation, skating, swimming and so on.

I think this is very progressive and encouraging legislation

from this Government in this field.

One of the concerns in Oak Bay in developing such an arena

was that the elderly homeowners who are on fixed incomes

expressed a natural concern that the operating cost would mean

another increase in their taxes. I would hope that the Minister

of Finance would expedite phase 1 of his programme to remove

education tax from property. I realize that that's out of

order, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that it was relevant in areas

like Oak Bay, where we have very many people over 65 on fixed

incomes. At the public meeting we

[ Page 2364 ]

had, this came across as being a very natural concern. We're

very delighted to get a third of a million dollars — who

wouldn't? I'm happy to say that the council in Oak Bay has decided to go

ahead with the development of such a project. But it is only fair

to put on the record the fact that the elderly citizens were concerned

and are concerned that the operating deficit would lead to higher

taxes on their homes. I think this would be unfortunate.

I like the idea that a non-profit group can sponsor the

project but that once completed, the facility must be open to

all citizens of all groups. Speaking again for Oak Bay, I would

certainly say that we've been sponging off the City of Victoria

and Saanich long enough. (Laughter). It's really unbelievable

that in order to get skating and so on, so many youngsters have

to turn up at some other municipal arena at 5 or 6 o'clock in

the morning or very late at night.

Speaking on behalf of Oak Bay, we're very grateful for this

piece of legislation. The only point I would raise, along with

the Member for Victoria, would be to know to what degree there

will be control over some group sponsoring such a project and

making a profit over some group sponsoring such a project and

making a profit out of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of

legislation I've been promoting ever since I got the first

Press release. In my area there certainly is a real need for

community. We have various religious and cultural groups that

have immediately identified with this. I could speak of Agassiz

and the Dutch Reform community out there that have hopes for

this.

First of all, I want to make two requests. On the whole

business of the community, I would hope that there would not be

duplication. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has

said that there will now be planning for five years ahead. This

was not available previously. In the planning, I would

certainly hope that both the recreational people and the

schools see that the facility is fairly close to schools.

I just went with the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) on

Thursday to look at recreational and other facilities in

Saanich. They're hoping to put a school just behind a swimming

pool and recreation complex. I think it is very, very important

that these facilities be used all the time and that there is

very good planning so that they're near schools.

For instance, in Mission the hockey rink is used from 6 o'clock in the morning.

You can get over and play hockey or go out skating for 50 minutes and then get

back and take another class within the regular school term. I'm certainly hoping

that we avoid any duplication of school facilities and community facilities,

remembering that we're now looking for the possibility of composite schools,

and that we have the time to plan.

I would hope that a lot of the input into this would come

from regional districts and municipal recreation people who can

surely work out with the school boards the overall recreation

needs anyway. Maybe that could be one of the regulations, to

make sure that it is consistent with the total municipal…I

say "regional district" advisedly. A lot of people in the

unorganized territories freeload off the municipal districts,

so I think we have to pull them in.

The other thing I would really hope is that when we talk

about recreation, we're talking about recreation in the fullest

sense. Previously there has been a distinction between fine

arts — there's separate funding for that, I think, through the

Provincial Secretary — and recreation, which tends to be on the

physical side. I would hope that in considering a recreational

facility, this facility and the programming for such could be

for the development of the total person. I'm thinking of

theatre, dance, sculpture, batik, pottery and photography, as

well as the obvious basketball, keep-fit programmes.

I would hope the facility would be of a general nature

rather than specific, which would tend to exclude the wider

sense of recreation and community. I appreciate that in some

communities maybe a ski hill or a curling rink is what is

needed and is a priority. But if we are to promote recreation

in the widest sense, we should have some leadership as a

provincial government toward the more general notion of

recreation.

I'm certainly delighted and I support this. I echo what the

Member next to me has said. We have to develop exciting

attitudes to life. I think this is a better alternative to any

kind of addiction that people fall into. I support this

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd just like to ask a

question of the Minister of Finance with a brief statement

first.

The statement is that I think a lot of communities in

British Columbia have already spent this money in advance in

the hopes of getting it. The other thing is that in the advance

indication that the Minister has had, Mr. Speaker, is there an

indication that this fund is going to be oversubscribed?

In just travelling around the province, it seems to me that everybody in the

country wants this third of a million dollars. If there's a chance that the

fund is going to be oversubscribed, is there also a chance that there will be

a little more money put into the pot? Personally, I don't think the $10 million

is going to be enough.

[ Page

2365 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might consider

commenting on a couple of points.

First of all, I think there might be value in the Government

taking the scheme a little further beyond just dollars. Perhaps

it could make available some form of standard plan which could

be used, particularly by smaller communities — a standard

senior citizens' centre; a typical ice arena, with or without

seating; a typical outdoor swimming pool; a typical whatever it

might be.

The provision of such standard plans — as I know has been

offered by the Department of Education with respect to schools

for a good number of years — could save a good deal of money and

considerable time and, I hope, would produce a better building

in the final analysis. I hope it wouldn't be mandatory. In

other words, if the community concerned felt that it wanted to

proceed with some particular type of building, I hope there

would be no string attached to the dollars and the standard

plan. But to simply make them available might be most

helpful.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) referred

to the full range of recreation. Through you, I would ask if

the Minister of Finance would give us his Government's

interpretation of recreation. As an example, would it include a

library put up by a community? Would it include a convention

centre? Perhaps those are at opposite ends of the scale. But I

think some definition of the term "recreation" might be helpful

to the Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, as one of our

Members has said, we certainly support this good legislation. I

would like to ask the Minister a question or two.

I'm particularly concerned about the people who have already

applied for this grant. Of course they've only applied by

letter. What do they have to do? Do they have to reapply on the

proper form and when will that form be available — the proper

application form?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Minister of Finance

will be paying moneys out of this fund on recommendations from the Minister

of Recreation and Conservation. I'm sorry that he's not able to be in the House

this morning to indicate to us the basis upon which his department might make

such recommendations. I know that he has no obligation to do so, but it would

help us in fully understanding the direction that the

government is going to go in this Act.

Now, maybe if we had a statute to incorporate the election

material of the NDP last election then we wouldn't have to ask

all these questions. My concern, Mr. Speaker, and the reason

that I hope the Minister of Finance will respond when closing

the debate, is that the construction of facilities is too often

looked upon as being the end of the exercise. I don't make this

criticism of any particular group or any particular community

because I think that it is widespread throughout this province

and throughout this entire country.

We have, in the City of Vancouver, some very fine

recreational facilities. They incorporate community centres,

ice-rinks, swimming pools; and yet year after year we know from

reports that we see in the Press that some of the worst

behavioural patterns are found in and about those

facilities.

There is one in Vancouver which is renowned — not inside the

buildings — but outside in the grounds more glue-sniffing takes

place than at any place in the city. Let me assure you that in

West Vancouver we have a very fine community centre which was

constructed with the assistance of centennial grants — we've had

so many centennials that we've been able to build quite a fine

facility with grants — but with that kind of government

assistance a very fine community centre has been constructed.

Yet, for some reason the young people in the community find

that that facility is not suitable for the kind of activity

that they want to carry on.

Now I'm not criticizing the young people nor am I

criticizing those who are charged with the administration of

the community centre there. But for some reason or other the

two can't get together. The young people don't feel comfortable

in the centre. The rules and regulations are designed for very

specific kinds of activity, and the 14 and 15 and 16-year-old

boy and girl in the community today says "I don't want to play

chess. I don't want to play hop-scotch or badminton. That

doesn't happen to be my bag. I want to sit around with some of

my friends and rap a little bit and have some opportunity to

relax in pleasant circumstances."

As a consequence, in West Vancouver what happens is that

they sit outside on the grass and smoke grass.

So I think that when we are considering the making of grants

to municipalities, to any of these non-profit organizations who

will themselves undertake the responsibility of providing the

other funds necessary to bring the facility into being, that we

should also be inquiring very carefully into the purpose for

which the facility is to be constructed, and in a general way

the manner in which it will be administered, the kind of staff

that they will put into the facility to make sure that we don't

build a palace which is just not suitable for the needs of the

people

[ Page 2366 ]

who need the recreational opportunity.

If we fail in this regard then we will end up with a fine

group of glorious buildings which will, I'm sure, continue to

function year by year at increasing operating costs to the

organization including the municipalities; and still be somehow

or other failing those people who, as the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) says, most need the opportunity to break with the

lifestyle that is so readily offered to them in the street.

Let's not ever doubt that the opportunities for recreation

of the kind that young people like is available to them in the

street without any facility in the sense of community

facilities at all. They can have a ball. What we have to do is

change the direction of their thinking and we do this by making

sure that the facilities that we create are in line with what

they need.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am at a disadvantage in

debating this bill because it is a subject I know something

about. That's always a handicap, I think.

I have in my own professional experience been responsible

for administering a community centre and also have been

responsible for establishing recreation services on a

professional basis in a confined setting.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has

touched the real nerve of the problem. Of all the areas of

service in North America, this is the one area that is further

behind in terms of professional qualifications, standards and

service.

You can have community centres side-by-side staffed by, on

the one hand, highly-competent, highly-skilled professional

people and on the other hand people who have very, very limited

experience. Yet there are no standards in terms of professional

setting. In some instances the person involved may have a

master's degree in group work, which is a highly specialized

field of social work; and in other instances the person in

charge may have taken a six-week course in some recreational

programme put on during a summer. That gap reflects itself in

the gap in service.

The Member touched a very important point too when he talked

about the regulations of the community centre. Many people

think that because staff work in the recreation field they're

having recreation themselves. There is no harder work than

working with people in groups. There just isn't anything, that

I know of anyway, that is harder than organizing people in

groups in recreational activities that have some meaning to

those people.

The kids — well the kids suffer from the standard condemnation that we are

very prone to give to very young adolescents. Those

kids in the age group from 12 to 17 who are still honest, still open and haven't

learned the adult game yet of repressing feelings and attitudes that allows

you to survive in a society that is somewhat less than honest…those kids

act out at a very difficult time of life. We establish rules in our community

centres and, like the Member says, out the door they go.

You know, I've had the crazy experience of working in one

particular

section of the community in the States. We built a

community centre and brought in a number of adolescents who

were on probation and we had a special programme going. One of

the kids came down the hallway with a crayon and marked the

wall with a crayon. They had a board meeting at the centre and

threw that group out because they were marking up the

walls.

Now where do you want them to mark up the walls? Do you want

them to mark up the walls at a setting where you've got some

control over them? Or do you want them out in the street where

you have no control whatsoever, where the problem becomes "out

of sight, out of mind"?

When we go into this field it must be understood that the

service to people includes the risks of having the walls

marked, the floors dirtied, a window broken occasionally, and

other human activities that take place there. The community

should understand that the government is not encouraging the

walls to be marked, the windows to be broken; but that's part

of human behaviour and it's far better to have it in a setting

where there are competent staff and understanding adults to

deal with it.

In terms of the facilities to be used, the empire building

syndrome that most politicians get involved in, in terms of

ribbon-cutting, is a thing that must be avoided. In our

regulations we will make sure that we have staffing projections

for the institution or facility, and also some measure of the

planning of the use of the building.

The standard plans asked by that Member…the questions

that are being asked are by those people who have been directly

involved in municipal politics and know the pitfalls of this

particular field. Their questions are the general questions

that come up time and time again.

The standard facilities: well, I don't know. We'll try to

help as best we can, but it's the same problem. I worked in

prisons and they never asked the fellows who did time what kind

of prison to build. They go to an architect and they say "what

kind of prison do you want?" They go watch a 1936 movie and

come up with the most outlandish gadgets you ever believed.

We went to work at the Haney Correctional Institution six

months before it opened and it had been drawn up by architects

and public works people and everything else. They had

electronic gates in

[ Page 2367 ]

there at the central control area that were unbelievable. I

hadn't seen anything like that anywhere that I'd worked. It was

obvious that the architect involved had visited a California

institution and was intrigued with this push-button business of

controlling traffic in the institution.

What happens, just like in jails and in a lot of community

centres, is that people have to adjust to live in that setting

rather than just be people; and their problems come with the

rules and regulations rather than in trying to get a meaningful

life experience.

We were going to build a fence around it — and it's

appropriate too to community centres — we were going to build a

fence around the institution but the money ran out. The

government was a little bit broke in the late 50s and the money

ran out.

We didn't build a fence and all the custody people who had

the push buttons and everything said they were all going to run

away. We went without a fence for a full year in the

institution. Then we got the money that somebody fought for

somewhere in the bureaucracy — I don't know where — we got the

money, we built the fence; one week after the fence was up we

had our first escape.

People just can't comprehend the flexibility needed in

dealing with human behaviour. So we're going to try in these

regulations to get people to understand that we want staffing

projections and we want some flexibility in the planning. We'll

try to draft plans for them in terms of the physical

facilities.

We will not permit, where we know and where it is possible

to get the information, a duplication of facilities. It's silly

to have a high school gymnasium sitting idle while the

community builds another gymnasium as a recreational centre

right beside it. The Department of Education has already

indicated that the barriers that existed before will be removed

and that the community will use its tax dollar on a total

service basis — so if a school facility can be expanded to

include recreational purposes, that's the way it will be. In

the same way, if a recreational service can be expanded in the

schools programme, that will be the way it is.

But $10 million isn't going to be enough. That's obvious

right now. We'll have to put more money in, then we'll try to

meet every demand that there is by everybody who meets the

regulation.

We've had a committee meeting of our own caucus. We've gone over draft regulations;

and I have no hesitation to say that when those draft regulations are typed

up — and the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) is the chairman of the committee:

he's not around today — we'll circulate them. If anybody else in the Opposition

is interested, they are more than welcome to read the drafts. If you've got

any additions or suggestions you'd like to see in the regulations, we more than

welcome those on the draft.

The main part of the bill, as far as I am concerned, is an

area that protects a lifestyle that is uniquely Canadian in the

North American context. For one reason or another — some good

and some bad — we have been able to allow people to maintain

two identities in this country — for a lot of people: not all

people but a lot of people. One is a Canadian identity and the

second one, but an equally important one, is their own

religious or ethnic identity. That has been a factor in keeping

this country together in a way that the United States has not

had the opportunity to do.

Now this bill will allow people with their religious or

cultural identification to have a focal point for that

religious recreational activity or cultural recreational

activity to be zeroed in on. Not the obvious thing, too, of

allowing people to come in — let people come in and see each

other.

I worked at the Jewish community centre for two years. I was

the executive director there. The first week that I was there,

I saw five nuns going down the hallways. I was trying to figure

out, you know, "What's happening here?" (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. They were on their way to the pool.

The Young Men's Christian Association was part of the programme

planning committee in the place. It was very interesting. And

you see this kind of thing happening all the time in that

setting.

I could see it happening in Catholic settings and Protestant

settings — why not? The place where I announced this programme

was in the Chinese community. There is nothing more delightful

than that mix that exists — mixed yet separate — in British

Columbia and Canada. It's an important part of our own

lifestyle. It gives an opportunity for people to meet and

understand each other — to find out how much they have in

common as well as their own differences.

The draft regulations will be sent around and everybody

should have a go at them.

On two other matters — I am pleased to hear the public

announcement that Oak Bay will allow the Victorians to come to

their facilities. I think that's a great step towards

integration in British Columbia. I think it shows a most

enlightened approach by the people in Oak Bay. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Separate but unequal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Separate but unequal. We'll all defend the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) when he gets any feedback in

there that Victorians are allowed.

The other thing is the age groups. The planning must include

facilities for the aged as well as for the

[ Page 2368 ]

adolescent and the very, very young. I have no objection to

seeing the facilities used in the morning for daycare, during

the day for senior citizens' activities and during the evening

for any kind of recreational activity. As our society moves

more and more into a time of better use of leisure time, why

not?

The one warning that I want to give publicly is that anyone

who is applying should have a projection in front of their

application of how they intend to finance the staffing. No

centre can be staffed by volunteers. That's a big mistake. It

just can't work that way. Volunteers can't do it. You've got

to have professional people or full-time people involved.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The range of recreation? That's up to the

community or the group. I can see all kinds of things. One

thing is the convention centre that you mentioned. Now if you

sold it as a convention centre it wouldn't go; but if you build

the facilities in a way, using flexible walls, for example, and

some sensible planning and flexibility within the building, you

can have multiple use of the facilities. That becomes a

recreational centre on that basis.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, the Union Club does not qualify, Mr.

Member. (Laughter). But the library, the arts, all of these

facilities can be used.

There are simple things that have to be avoided. In the

prison setting, for example, we brought in rollaway bleachers

finally instead of having fixed bleachers. The reason we had

fixed bleachers was that we were told the inmates would pick up

pieces and wreck the bleachers and have a riot. It's the same

kind of thing with kids — "if it's loose the kid'll pick it up

and hit somebody else."

You don't build or plan a facility on the basis of what may

be the erratic behaviour of one out of a million children. So

flexibility is the word throughout the planning.

I don't know what else I can add to it except I know, again,

that there's not enough money.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tell them we hope that the regulations

finish in 30 days, and we'll have a system for applying and

everything. Everybody has been asking all over the province and

I've had to give them the same answer — that we're drafting the

regulations and then we'll go ahead.

One thing that I appreciate — and this is very significant — there has not

been one word of criticism for any area of the community

that the bill defines ethnic and religious identity as being eligible for a

grant. I think that shows a healthy sign of progress in this province.

I now ask the question be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 76 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 77, Mr.

Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned during the

budget address, this Government has not had time since taking

office in September to properly assess the desirability of

maintaining all these funds in their present forms.

We recognize the useful purpose involved in some of the

funds and therefore wish to augment them.

Hon. Members, this bill augments three of the funds. One and

two are the Accelerated Park Development Fund and the

Accelerated Reforestation Fund. These two funds are to provide

immediate jobs by providing work in our parks and our forests.

This bill, therefore, adds $5 million to each of these funds so

the work of both funds may carry on.

The third is the Provincial Home Acquisition Act

which provides low interest second mortgages and outright

grants of $500 or $1,000, depending on the circumstances. The

principle of providing financial assistance for citizens to

purchase homes in this Act goes hand in hand with this

administration's Housing Incentive Fund for land banks and for

future housing developments.

We therefore wish to assure that adequate funds are

available under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and

this bill provides $50 million more for this purpose.

For the information of the Hon. Members, approximately $9.5

million remains in the Home Acquisition Fund at present and

most of this amount is expected to be used up by the end of

March, 1973 — well, these notes were prepared before the end of

March, 1973, so it's probably gone by now.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, we support this bill. We

certainly encourage the private ownership of homes. Anything

which can encourage people to own their own homes is a bill

which we're happy to

[ Page 2369 ]

support.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals not only

with the Provincial Home Acquisition Act but other funds

as well.

Perhaps I might put the first question to the Minister of

Finance in that in his budget speech of this year he mentioned

these various funds and I'll quote him, Mr. Speaker — on page

13, towards the bottom of the page: "Mr. Speaker, this

Government has not had time since taking office in September to

assess properly the desirability of maintaining all these funds

in their present forms."

Then he goes on to talk about the increases which he thinks

should take place — and this legislation follows that statement

on p. 13-14 of the budget.

We have also questioned over the years the use by the

previous government of these various funds. We do feel there

are many objectives which funds have and there are some

excellent objectives, no doubt, in the Accelerated

Reforestation Fund Act , the Accelerated Park Development

Fund Act and the Provincial Home Acquisition Act .

The bill here deals with the appropriation for funds and we

really do question at this time the whole principle of setting

up special funding for programmes which, we think, should be

ongoing programmes which should be under normal budgetary

control and should be defended and protected by Ministers in

this House in the normal manner.

I asked questions earlier in the debates on estimates. I

asked questions about the Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Fund. It

was like the proverbial ping pong ball with about 15 people

around the table playing ping pong. It actually belonged to the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) but when her estimates

were up, I didn't really realize that — I thought in view of

the many statements made by the Minister of Rehabilitation and

Social Improvement (Hon Mr. Levi) that it really belonged to

his department as he was the fellow who seemed to be most

interested, in the cabinet, at least, in dealing with

drugs.

Then, of course, the Minister of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance's (Hon. Mr. Cocke'

s) estimate came up and I

thought, "My goodness, I may have made a mistake," for

he seemed to be taking on responsibilities in this area or, at

least, he appeared to have a great number. Really and truly,

between those three Ministers, plus, of course, the Premier's

own personal interest in much that goes on in that area, we

really didn't know who was responsible for the fund.

It is a $25 million fund, $2 million of which can be expected to be generated

every year. We still haven't heard in the discussion on estimates how this

money is divided up. I'm not blaming the Ministers, I am not suggesting

that they attempted to conceal anything — I am just saying this whole question

of funds complicates enormously the questions of Ministerial responsibility.

The present Government recognized this in the past. I have in my hands quotations

from Hansard of February 8 where the Hon. Mr. Strachan, the Minister of Highways,

discussed various funds and he was extremely critical. Other Members also discussed

the question of funds, and they, too, were critical because of this question

of responsibility.

The special funding, in my mind, is a bad way of going about

regular programming. The special funding, this party has

consistently thought, could better be done by way of regular

appropriations out of the general revenue, the consolidated

revenue fund to government departments. In this area I feel we

are in much the same position. We have a Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). However one regards

the Minister — competent or incompetent, great or otherwise —

he is the fellow who should be running this particular fund or

he should be running it as part of his departmental

activity.

Similarly with the Park Development Fund, we have a much

overworked Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Williams) and various other things. Perhaps he should be

handling that matter and it should be done as a regular

departmental responsibility instead of this special funding

which has always been a problem for us in this House of finding

out who is responsible and why.

The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) back on

February 8 talked about the Accelerated Reforestation Fund. I

quote him: "The first question I have to ask is: why do we need

a special fund? If trees need planting they should be planted.

We have said that for years." He goes on to say the fund is

inadequate. I might add that even the increases the present

Government is proposing are apparently, according to the

statement of the Minister of Highways a year ago, still

inadequate. Nevertheless, that is by the by.

The question is: why the funds? I was expecting, when this

bill was introduced, that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) would deal with that at some length. He has not and I

would like to ask him, in closing, to give us some of his

views. Perhaps back when the budget was introduced it wasn't

possible. It simply wasn't possible to determine whether funds

were the best way of financing. Our experience since then in

this House in dealing with the other funds in existence has

indicated that we are no better off than we were. There is

still the problem of Ministerial responsibility and

accountability.

There is one thing which I trust this Government will

remember, and that is its previous words about the concealment

that took place — the "shell game"

[ Page 2370 ]

— by the previous administrations. The previous

administration did its best, in many fields, to make sure that

public accountability was an extremely difficult process.

Members of this party and Members of the NDP spent years

attempting to find out what was going on. Now, I am quite sure

it will be mentioned that we now have an Opposition Member as

chairman of the public accounts committee. That's well and

good, but there are other areas where we need a lot more in the

way of information, a lot more in the way of openness, a lot

more in the way of accountability to this Legislature — not to

the cabinet, not to the backbench of the government party but

to the Legislature. That is the traditional system in a British

parliamentary democracy. It is a system we have departed from

far too frequently in the past. In this particular bill it

appears we are continuing in the same unfortunate direction in

which the previous government started us.

This principle, in my mind, is a very important one. In this

particular Act we are simply adding to various funds to achieve

certain objectives. There are no new principles as far as the

objectives of the money are concerned, but there is this

question of whether we are to have a departure from previous

practice, a departure from concealment, a departure from secret

funding or at least secret decision-making on funds and the

beginning of legislative accountability which surely, in our

type of government, is a factor of critical importance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one quick question again. Referring

back to the budget speech as the previous speaker did, the

Minister of Finance also said that he wasn't sure about the

direction in which this particular fund was going to go and

wasn't sure how the $50 million would be spent but that it

would be inter-related, I believe, with the land bank — not

only with the home acquisition purpose of the fund but also

land bank purchases in addition.

I would just like to have the Minister, if he is able, Mr.

Speaker, clarify that and tell us where that money is going to

be spent and whether it should rightfully be in with the

previous bill we passed with regard to land bank purchase.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We support this bill. I had to

be out of the House and I may have missed some of the comments and I hope I

don't repeat what has already been said. We have already stated in this House

at other times the importance of reforestation, in particular. The Minister

concerned in forestry was always actively stating that there wasn't nearly enough

money being made available to properly replace the timber being removed from

our forests. Therefore, I certainly feel he is following through on what he

was committed to as a Member of the Opposition. The same goes for parks. When

he was in the Opposition he was always criticizing the government for lack of

action and not spending enough money and showing enough foresight in the development

of parks. So I find it encouraging in this first regular session that the Government

is committed in this direction.

There is one criticism one would always have of this kind of

bill: like the $500 million we allowed the PGE to borrow one

time, there are absolutely no guidelines or details as to how

the money will be spent. There is just a very general approval

of large sums of money. This would be our only reservation — the

lack of detail and the fact that it is a rather brief bill for

$60 million with very little detail as to how it will be

spent.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the

Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), he invited the Members to

ask any detail questions they had on the funds. There are also

some questions on the order paper that will be answered. If you

want any information on the funds, put the questions on the

order paper — they will be answered in detail.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question is on the order paper and the

answer will be provided.

I can understand the Member's impatience. Everything wants

to be done overnight. We just haven't had the time, but I said

honestly in the budget speech that we were going to reorganize

those funds. Now the community is telling us to slow down and

you're telling us to speed up. We are going at the best

possible pace we can, as human beings. Now, you must admit, Mr.

Member, there have been more reforms and more changes in the

last seven months than at any other time in the history of this

province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Garde. We are not shoving any

money anywhere without access to public information. If you

want the information, stand up at the Provincial Secretary's

estimates — he was prepared to give it. If you want any more

information, put it on the order paper. It is just as simple as

that. We will get you the information.

I hope that by next spring we will have the funds reorganized in a more meaningful

way. We will not buy land under this — no purchase of land at all.

[ Page

2371 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 77 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

ECONOMIC RESEARCH FUND

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring

deficiencies noticed by this Government upon assuming office

was the lack of economic research available to the various

departments. I refer not only to research of a general nature,

but also to the economic feasibility studies of specific

projects.

In the view of this Government, the availability of

appropriate economic studies before embarking on a project is

paramount. In attempting to correct this void in provincial

administration, this bill sets up a $5 million perpetual fund

whereby the interest earned on each year can be used for

economic research studies by the provincial government.

It is thought that the research will be carried out by

private or educational institutions and will be over and above

any research now being carried on in the various departments of

government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that everybody must take shots in

politics. We've been taking a few shots in the last few weeks.

I'd like to take a few shots back under this bill.

When we came to office, we found that no one below the

office of Deputy Minister could phone out of the province

without permission from his deputy. We found the civil service

so hamstrung that it was unbelievable. The idea of getting

information directly to the department and showing some

initiative by a civil servant was verboten — forbidden by "der

orders." "Don't phone outside of British Columbia because you

might find out that there's something else out there."

In many instances, Mr. Speaker, we found evidence that

information with federal programmes was just not even available

because the initiative of the staff was stifled. The per diem

rate for civil servants travelling hadn't been changed since

1952. The idea that civil servants would show some initiative

by travelling or finding out what was going on was almost

incomprehensible to the former administration.

My first experience on a specific matter was related to minerals — when I discussed

some information with the Minister of Mines, (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and wanted a

specific report made available to me before we made a policy decision on behalf

of the people. We inquired and we found that the only person who could give

us the correct information was a certain professor at Columbia University. So

we called in one of our economists and said, "Would you go down to see this

professor next week and ask these following questions and then come back with

the information."

He said, "Well, I'm sorry, I can't go." I said, "You can't

go? Why? Is your wife ill or have you got a problem in your

family?" "Oh, no," he said. "I'd need the clearance from

my deputy before I could go." I said, "Hey, I'm the Premier and

he's the Minister of Mines and we say you're going."

It shook him up. I understand that the whole idea that the

government would actually send an ordinary civil servant out of

the province to go find out what was going on was greeted with

cries of "Dictatorship" by the former Minister of Mines.

I remember the former Minister of Mines, when he was doing

research on Loeb Brothers — a safety jacket — he was up in

front of the television wearing this jacket and being turned

around…. Oh come on, you were country jerks when it came to

getting information and that's a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. That's a

derogatory comment on country people. They were the government

jerks.

The kind of policy decisions they made were based on

seat-of-the-pants economics and finger-in-the-wind attempts to

find out what was going on. They said they were a hard-headed

business government. Any hard-headed business government that

would allow coal to go out at 25 cents a ton without doing some

economic research have got holes in their head. Small-time boys

who blew opportunity after opportunity of making a few dollars

for the people of British Columbia.

While I'm waxing eloquent, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that

we will never run this government as an Edison wind-up

gramophone remembrance programme. This will be done on a solid

business-like basis, based on research from the best brains

available anywhere in the world, including Conservatives,

Liberals and…. What's that other party? Social Credit

intellectuals will be invited too. Those with the A plus B

theorem will be given the opportunity to interpret how the A

plus B theorem will help. (Laughter). Public body on the A plus

B theorem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Coming back to the

principle of this bill….

[ Page 2372 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, a point of order has been raised

that the A plus B theorem has nothing to do with economics.

(Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear that

we're going to spend public money on having people go over the

A plus B theorem. If that is the intention of the Premier, he

makes it a great deal easier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's under mental health.

(Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Another special fund.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has the same defects as the one I

spoke on earlier. When you're dealing with economic research —

which obviously, as the Premier has made perfectly clear, is an

ongoing thing that should have been done not only previous to

the last six months but previous to the last election — we fail

to see why it should not be funded on a regular basis

throughout the year, throughout the decade, throughout the

future millennia. We just don't see why it has to be set up

under special funding of this nature.

We have consistently opposed special funds where the

interest is put aside and where the basic objective of the

funds, as far as we've been able to understand, is to pump

money in to the B.C. Hydro or B.C. Rail or some other outfit

which needs a bit of capitalization. In this instance, as well

as in the case of the previous funds, we fail to see why we

have to act in this way. No explanation has really been given,

either in the previous debate or up to now in the introduction

of this bill.

There's no question that research should be done. Shortly

you'll hear from the Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer),

who'll say more about that. There's no question that there

should be….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well perhaps both of them will speak. I'm

not sure.

There's no question that there is a great need for the type of economic research

which the Premier talked about. We certainly don't quarrel with that. But why

is it that we have to set up hidden funds of this nature? Is it because the

surpluses are greater than the Premier originally expected and he simply has

to drain some of those surplus funds into special funds? Is that the reason,

because of the 14 per cent increase in revenues which he mentioned the other

day and — I think rightly — was pleased about? Is this why we're having

even more funds set up?

If we're into an era where we're going to have open

government and let the sunshine in and all the other things, it

really isn't good enough to say, "Well, if you really want to

know something, you can put a question on the order paper." Or, "If you're still puzzled, go speak to the Provincial

Secretary." The Provincial Secretary, charming fellow though he

is, has not proved to be a star when it comes to answering

questions in this House. Of his cabinet colleagues, he is

perhaps in the lower half rather than the upper half, as far as

providing information is concerned.

In addition, as we discussed beforehand, other Ministers are

involved. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was one

particularly mentioned in the case of drugs, alcohol and

tobacco. I really don't feel that the excuse given when we were

dealing with the previous bill was adequate. I feel that the

same problem is still here in this bill. My mind is simply not

being set at rest by the arguments of the Premier.

Five million dollars may be a desirable amount to put aside

in a perpetual fund. Five million dollars at 10 per cent

provides a fair amount of money — or 7 per cent, whatever it

happens to be. What we think there should be, though, is

funding from general revenue based on need on a year-to-year

basis. We should not be in the position, as we are now, of

saying, "Well, we can amend it to increase it next year to the

tune of $10 million, or $15 million the year after because

we've found out that it needs more money."

What we should do is gear the money going to this economic

research unit to their requirements. You really can't do it by

way of funds where the money will vary depending on the rate of

interest, economic conditions and a whole number of other

factors.

Economic research is obviously critical. I agree that we've

had far too little of it in this province up to now. The

comments the Premier made about lack of knowledge by B.C. civil

servants of joint federal provincial programmes, I completely

endorse. In the last few years I spent a great deal of time

trying to make this information available from my office in

Ottawa and from my visits to this constituency. The problem was

that people simply didn't know what was going on outside. I

completely endorse the need for further information and further

research so that the British Columbia civil service can

function more effectively.

But why on earth does it have to be by way of fund. Why

cannot it be by way of a straight vote under the Department of

the Provincial Secretary?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think

[ Page 2373 ]

some of the events of this session have indicated the need

for economic research, particularly the two episodes where the

Government has entered into the area of private industry to

resuscitate failing enterprises. As I've said in this House,

our party is willing to wait and see what the events will turn

out to be in Ocean Falls and in the case of Prince Rupert and

the Colcel deal.

Certainly, as an onlooker and as an interested

representative of voters in Oak Bay, I just also feel there is

some apprehension as to whether the Government really knows

what it is getting into. The Premier himself is on record as

having said that there has been a dearth of information and

research and so on. So in this first regular session our party

is certainly willing to support provision of funds and staff,

which apparently is not in existence at the present time, to

provide us with long-range information as to what is feasible

and what is not feasible in the economic development of the

province.

We hear a great deal about the need for provinces such as

British Columbia to have an overall industrial strategy. I'm

not quite sure in my own mind just exactly what that fancy

phrase means, but I suppose it means both the best development

of our resources and the most efficient marketing and the best

dollar return being achieved from all our resources, both

natural and manufactured.

To be more specific I wonder if the Minister would make any

comment…. I raised a matter to the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in

question period a week or so ago regarding such things as the

development of a very much improved artificial kidney in this

province. I'm wondering if this fund that we are now debating

today is the kind of fund from which, let us say, the $150,000

pre-production budget for this unit could be provided. Or would

one expect that still to be provided by the Minister of

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce through his

department?

I tend to share with the former speaker the question as to

why a separate fund is necessary, because in answer to my

question the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce did say that this is the kind of area of new

developments and new techniques and new machinery in which this

province would like to assist development so that we can corner

the market.

This particular instance that I raised in the House is just

on that very situation; that if we don't shortly find the means

of developing it in British Columbia, it will be developed in

Europe or in the States — and the first people in the market

corner the market.

So I think that in this kind of situation it is very

important that people like Dr. Price, who is the doctor

concerned in this case, should have quick and ready access to

government. The government, in turn, should quickly make decisions so that the production — or at

least what is apparently pre-production work — can be finalized

and we can in fact go into full production, at which time we

will have markets from all over the world.

But if we delay, as in this case, and the model is developed

in Europe or in New York or somewhere else, then of course we

turn around and find that we are buying these products from

other countries. It's just tragic if our delay and the

opportunities in the business world that we are missing…if

they are due to the lack of research funds and research staff

such as are envisaged in this bill, then of course we certainly

want to support it very strongly.

But I wonder if the Minister could answer these two

questions. Is this the kind of project that would be covered by

this fund? If so, would it not be equally efficient just to

encompass the staff and the money within the Department of the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I only wish to speak very briefly on this bill to

reiterate principles that I've enunciated before on many bills

of this kind previously in the House under the former Social

Credit regime and under this one.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is a very "fundy" man, and he's

made quite a case for carrying on a financial practice which I

believe is to be deplored.

The objective, of course, of all of these funds is to

deceive the public as to the true state of financial affairs in

the province. Once more this year we have had a deliberate

under-estimation of the revenues of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be

seated.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask

the Hon. Member to withdraw his statement made in passion about

the intent to deceive the public.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the Hon. Member intended to

attribute that to the Hon. Minister of Finance. If he did I am

certain he would retract.

MR. McGEER: Absolutely not. I am merely talking about the

way figures are presented, Mr. Speaker, and there is certainly

no imputation at all. And, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't made in

passion. I didn't

[ Page 2374 ]

stamp my feet. I merely tried to….

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, it would be even more reprehensible

if it were not made in passion. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, one cannot be passionate about

figures. I mean numerals. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Call the doctor.

MR. McGEER: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the

House for any personal imputation.

May I try and make my point again that I believe the public

of British Columbia, each time a budget is presented, should

have a frank and accurate declaration of the expected revenues

for the coming year. There should be a frank and accurate

declaration of what the expenditures will be, including the funds that are

to be set aside for the Crown corporations.

In that I include the B.C. Railway, the B.C. Hydro, the

schools financing authority and hospitals financing authority.

These are the main Crown corporations which year after year

have taken funds from consolidated revenue surplus and where

the Legislature, at the time the budget is presented, has been

given no indication that this is the intention of the

government and the Minister of Finance.

I really thought, with the new government, that this whole

shabby practice would change; that we would have an open

declaration of the state of finances in the province, including

funds that were required for the operation of the Crown

corporations.

As my colleague the Liberal leader has stated, we should be

the last ones to decry funds being spent on economic

research.

Mr. Speaker, heaven knows the government needs that more

than anything, and we wouldn't want to stand in the way of

letting them have all the funds that they needed for economic

research.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you trying to say?

MR. McGEER: But we don't believe that financing Crown

corporations should be undertaken by this device. For things

such as economic research we have a place in our estimate book,

under the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce. There is a whole economics and statistics division.

There is no reason why there couldn't be set aside in that

particular vote whatever amount of money is necessary for the

establishment of a consultation programme, bringing in outside

people like Eric Kierans or whoever else you would like to

bring in to advise you.

Mr. Speaker, experience has shown that the proper way

to administer funds is not directly under cabinet control, but through the medium

of the civil service. I've heard members of the Treasury benches today stand

up and condemn the way that funds, set aside under the Social Credit programme

of establishing funds willy-nilly, had been mishandled in the sense of not having

the dispassionate control of the civil service in the way these funds were dispensed.

So if even the Treasury benches condemn in others this

method of administering funds, why should they continue on the

practice themselves?

Mr. Speaker, the Government has been inconsistent in many

ways. First of all, it's been inconsistent in declaring that it

is an open government and then continues the same hidden

practices with regard to the Crown corporations.

Secondly, it has been inconsistent in condemning the kind of

administration for the former government undertook with such

funds, because they were under political control — and then

sets up even more funds that are under political control.

While the objective is not only worthy, but for this government is desperately

needed, this is not the method for handling the situation. We are not in favour

of this bill

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the

Liberal leader has taken this attitude. The Liberal leader

twins have taken this attitude. In view of the statement about

the doctor becoming passionate about figures — thank goodness

we're not all doctors.

The plea by the present Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson)

about the need for knowing what's going on — and don't tell me

that that group you belonged to in Ottawa knew what was going

on and did economic research within the votes to find out what

it cost to paint the Bonaventure. That was a $35 million

crash-up if there ever was one! Who in the civil service did

the economic study to see what kind of paint should go on it

before they sold it to the Hong Kong interests?

Then they bought that submarine. They had it built in

Scotland. There was only one thing wrong with it, Mr. Speaker —

it had a leak. There's nothing much wrong with a submarine that

doesn't have a leak, but you've got real problems if one leaks.

Who did the economic research back there?

Then the Bras d'Or — the flying destroyer they were going to

have. I saw that one when I went back to Nova Scotia, sitting

up there on the dry-docks. It didn't want to get its bottom

wet. That's a real good kind of ship, Mr. Speaker, and if we're

going to follow the advice of the federal Liberals on how to

[ Page 2375 ]

research, we'll break this province in a hurry.

So when we get those kinds of almost petulant little

statements saying, "You need some research inside the

department," I say you ain't got no experience, buddy,

that shows me you knew a thing about research back there in

Ottawa. $35 million to repaint a battleship, an aircraft

carrier. Come off it! Who are you trying to kid? This kind of

performance we've had from the two Liberals today is almost

unbelievable. They want the research buried away somewhere

where they can chuck it around and say, "Well, yes, we're

looking into this, we're looking into that." There goes another

submarine to the bottom, there goes another aircraft carrier to

the junk heap — but "we're thinking about it."

MR. McGEER: Sinking now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then the present Liberal leader said that

the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was no star in

answering questions!

AN HON MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on! Mr. Speaker, I want to agree

with that statement, because how can you be a star in answering

questions when we haven't got a star to ask them? He can only

work with the material that's been given to him. If the

questions are stupid, what do you expect him to do? The best he

can do is give a respectful silence, and I want to tell him

that, if anything, he has been charitable by giving you that

silence.

Your inability to ask questions is only matched by the

confusion as to who's leader over there. I have never seen such

a pitiful performance from the leadership twins as the one

we've had in the last 15 minutes. Go back and open up your

World Book and look under "P" for politics and come in with

something that makes some sense. But when you give us that kind

of pitiful performance, you begin to wonder what's going on.

Have you read the bill, Mr. Member from Waterfront Number 3, is

it? West–Point Grey. The auditor general has to….

MR. McGEER: I think that the Premier by now should know the

names of the constituencies in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He learns slowly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have we got a chance in Waterpoint…Waterfront 3? West–Point Grey — one of my favourite areas.

MR. McGEER: I'm beginning to think we'll have a chance in

Coquitlam. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You certainly have. Why don't you come out

there and run there next time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please,

HON. MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, the Member from

West–Point Grey, Waterfront 3, knows very well that the accounts are

all checked by the Comptroller General and that if there are any

expenditures outside the legislation, then of course…. I understand

there is going to be a second-hand Auditor General available after the

Liberals get through with that one in Ottawa, Mr. Member. You guys have

been trying to drop old Maxie for years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is! There's the admission right

there. Anyway, the Comptroller General must look at all the

expenditures within the legislation.

Now, the purpose of why we put this under the fund was a

conscious decision. The decision was made because it offered us

an opportunity of giving us a fairly fixed figure within the

range of tens of thousands of dollars of an annual budget. What

this offers us is a degree of flexibility that we think is

absolutely essential in terms of the kind of research that we

want to have at our hand. We want to be in a position, if a

problem comes up to us, or if we intend to move in a particular

area, to pick up a phone and, within a matter of hours, have

the kind of people we want consulting with us, or have our

civil servants made available to those people either on a

seminar basis or on an individual basis. It's simply a method

whereby we can have the degree of flexibility we feel is

essential.

The pressures of government are very, very intense in terms

of decision-making processes and we want to have the

availability on an hour-to-hour basis, so we've taken this

approach. We find that administratively it offers the best

approach for this problem. If you don't want to vote for it,

don't vote for it. I won't tell anybody out there at the

university that you're against research.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 78 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

[ Page 2376 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, you are

aware that many exemptions are already provided under the

Succession Duty Act, and to encourage the carrying on of

the operation of the family farm, there is already provision in

the Act to allow succession duties to be paid over a 10-year

period interest-free.

This Government desires to go further in encouraging the

continuation of farm units throughout the province.

Accordingly, in this bill it is proposed to exempt completely

the family farm when passing on to a child of the deceased. At

present the farm home is exempted and any part of the farm

registered with the home. However, the amendment proposed would

exempt the family farm in its entirety, regardless of how the

parcels may be registered.

I welcome a demonstration on the lawns over this bill, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is such a short bill

that perhaps we can comment about some of the words in it.

First, we like the idea of exemptions from the Succession

Duty Act . We believe in wider exemptions, as we've

indicated before. Unfortunately, I think what we're setting up

is a black market in children here. The wording of it goes,

"passing on the death of the deceased to a child." There's no

reference there to any child, whether it's the child of the

deceased or anything at all of that nature. So as long as you

find a child to accept your family farm, apparently you can go

ahead and leave it without any succession duties. It is rather

interesting that, provided someone is young enough to be

described as a child, they can take property from a farmer, but

if someone is older than that, they can't. Perhaps the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) will comment upon this point in a

realistic way, prior to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: We think that this bill simply doesn't go far

enough. We'd like to see the whole Succession Duty Act

completely repeated.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like just briefly to say that we have

criticized the Government this session, because of Bill 42 and so on, for not

doing enough to help the family farm. If this is the first step of many which

is indeed designed to help the farmer, then of course we would support this.

We are also on record as having, at an earlier session, said

we believe in repealing the Succession Duty Act, because

of the fact that we feel, for reasons we've stated earlier,

that capital would be attracted to this province which is

presently being invested in other provinces, notably Alberta.

So while we stand by our original policy to abolish succession

duties, as previously recorded, at least this is a step by this

Government in an attempt to help the farmer and to pass the

farm on without succession duty.

I also wonder about the reference to "a child." I felt that

the intent of the bill was to the son or daughter or the

grandson or granddaughter. I don't think the bill intends "a

child" to mean anybody under 19 or an infant under 19. I hope

the Premier will clarify that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In speaking to the

principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, one of the questions that

comes to my mind is: how do you define a family farm unit under

the regulations that will apply to this bill?

For instance, many family farm units today are operated by a

father-and-son combination or a father and maybe several sons

or even his daughters are involved in some of them. You've

incorporated the farm unit under the Companies Act and

the farm is operated as a corporation under the Act — but it is

actually a family unit.

I know in the Peace River country we have a number of farm

families operating a farm. It is the intention when the farm

goes from father to son that it will be a transfer of shares to

one son or a number of sons. I am wondering if, under the

interpretation of the Act and the actual test of a family farm,

you will allow these family farm units that are held in a

corporation by a father and other members of the family to

escape the problem of estate taxes upon the passing of the farm

unit from the father to other members of the family?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I was just trying to

see whether or not we do have a definition under the

Succession Duty Act. If there's one there, conceivably

the problem is taken care of satisfactorily.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On the point, Mr.

Members. Your caucus is composed of 40 per cent of lawyers. If

you'd read the bill in conjunction with the Act, we could all

get on a lot better.

[ Page 2377 ]

MR. GARDOM: I didn't ask you for your life history. This is

a nice Monday morning, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Nobody's

attacking you. Just have a nice breath of air and a cold glass

of water and get the fever off your brow. Everything will be

all right.

I'm delighted to hear, Mr. Speaker, that we now have the

acquiescence and the support and the consent of the Members of

the Social Credit Party and also those of the Conservative

Party to the Liberal view in this House — which has been

consistent as long as I've been in the House — for the

abolition of any type of death taxes in the Province of B.C. I

think the need for that became far, far more evident by virtue

of the amendments to the federal income tax Act and the

abolition of the federal estate tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey asking for calm, but his own

leader was the one that hasn't been prepared for these debates.

He comes in the House and says, "Oh, this wording is bad." The

wording is exactly the same as the federal Act.

Now I wish you'd do your homework.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The words in terms of the exemption are

right out of the federal Act. O.K. Now the provincial

definition is right there. Turn around and get the books. You

want another book? I'll buy you another one. But don't come

into the House pretending that you've found a great avenue. Do

your homework.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Oh, come on," he says.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, drink another cup of oil. You know,

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat pathetic that that kind of

petulant lecture is given in the House without any reference or

any research. When we were in Opposition at least we read the

statutes before we got up to criticize.

Now the succession duty itself: as long as we are a

Government succession duties will be paid in this province. How

do you like that? You Bay Street and Wall Street fighters for

big business and private wealth will get the message.

The message was given by the former Premier of this province when he said he

would never let the rich go free — that was until he

discovered the Kelowna Charter. When he got up and made that statement in the

House, we applauded him for that statement.

The wealthy people in this province have become wealthy

because of the fruits of this province. They should pay a fair

tax on succession duties. That's only proper.

We're exempting the family farm and the family farm

corporation. It's evidence again that this Government wants

farming to last as a way of life. We welcome the support of all

the Members in these new exemptions.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 144 referred to a committee of the whole House at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 145, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1962

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Members are

aware, it is the policy of this Government to provide better

and fuller services to the residents of British Columbia. At

the same time we are on record that the corporations doing

business in the province have not been contributing their fair

share to the cost of providing these essential services.

To partially correct the situation this Act proposes to

raise the amount of income tax payable from corporations from

10 per cent to 12 per cent effective January 1, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, there's been an

interpretation in a

little-known Wall Street publication about the increase in this

tax. I'd like to tell that little-known Wall Street publication

that we're now catching up with Tory Ontario, and they're about

as radical as all get out in that province.

Expected revenue from this increase is approximately $18

million. British Columbia's corporations will now pay the same

rate as in Ontario and Quebec, none of whom have an Allende for

premier, Mr. Speaker.

In addition, an amendment has been requested by the

under the federal-provincial collection agreement, which will

prevent double taxation by the province of capital gains, of

mutual fund trust, mutual fund and investment corporations.

This amendment was not received by the provincial officials

until after the introduction of Bill No. 62,

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962 , submitted to the House on

budget day. So this bill replaces Bill No. 62.

It's only an attempt to equalize fair shares in this

[ Page 2378 ]

province, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many Members

bursting with enthusiasm to speak on this bill, but I at least

will be consistent.

On the budget speech this party was of the opinion that the

financial state of the province was such that there was no need

for increases in taxation, period. As part of that conviction,

we feel that this increase in corporation tax was not necessary

at this time. We also repeat that however you cut the economic

pie, if you put up the price or the tax for corporations the

cost trickles down to the consumer — and this at a time when

we're trying to deal with inflation and trying to control the

cost of living. Therefore for these basic reasons we

specifically will oppose this bill as we opposed the philosophy

of the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously opposed to this

bill on the grounds that we've said many times this tax was

unnecessary. It represents obviously the intent of this

Government to add to the problems of business everywhere in

this province. It's an unnecessary tax. It's a sizeable amount

— a 20 per cent increase. The fact that there are other

provinces that have it simply isn't a good enough answer for

us.

We're opposed to this tax completely in its principle. We

feel that as the years go ahead industry will demonstrate

clearly their opposition to it and that those who have the

opportunity to make investments in additional areas will do so.

It is simply

an Act which is unfair and unnecessary.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, although this bill has been

described as a "bill to have the major corporations pay more

and pay a fairer share," the question of progressivity

of taxation has simply got to be dealt with by the Minister of

Finance.

We have had no demonstrable need for a tax increase of this

nature. Indeed, the Premier himself expects substantial

budgetary surpluses and made this clear on a number of

occasions. Therefore, there is no need from the point of view

of raising more revenue for a tax increase of this nature. In

which case, the next argument that he put forward was: well,

let's make things equal with other provinces elsewhere.

That is an interesting observation. But if we simply had to have things the

same in this province as Ontario, perhaps we wouldn't need this provincial Legislature.

We could let Queens Park run this province. It simply is not a suitable argument

to be put forward at this time.

In arguing for a tax increase of this nature, the fact is

that there is business uncertainty in the province to a certain

degree. Perhaps at this stage we need a greater incentive than

Ontario. I cannot be sure, but I would suspect that this is the

case.

As far as the progressive nature of taxation is concerned,

as has been said very frequently and demonstrated clearly by

economists, corporate taxes are about the worst offenders in

loading taxation on the poor. The reason for this is that these

taxes are generally passed on. There is argument as to whether

the amount passed on to the consumer is 50 per cent or 25 per

cent or 75 per cent. But there is no question that substantial

portions of taxes of this nature are pushed onto the consumer's

shoulders.

Once a tax increase is put upon the consumers, it's

necessary then to see who pays it. Is it the poorer sector of

society, the person earning, say, less than $3,000 a year or

less than $5,000 a year? Or is it the richer, the person

earning $15,000 or $20,000, or the person earning $9,000 or

$10,000? Is it possible for this type of information to being

$9,000 or $10,000? It is possible for this type of information

to be made available. It is possible for taxation experts to

come out with some rough approximation, which can be used by

politicians in debates such as this, as to where the burden

lies.

In Canada, as a general rule — I don't have the figures for

these specific taxes in B.C. — it happens that the person

earning $3,000 or thereabouts, is paying three times as much of

corporate taxes of this nature as is the person earning

$10,000. That's a pretty substantial difference in terms of tax

burden upon the poor and the wealthier.

Sure, it's easy to say, "Well, it's paid by a corporation."

But we know as a fact that corporations don't pay these taxes;

they're passed on to the consumer in many instances. It may be

that 75 per cent of these taxes are going to be passed on. It

may be 50 per cent or even less. But the Minister of Finance or

at least his advisers must have some idea of what amount of the

burden will be passed on.

I could accept the fact that you want to pass on tax burden

if you had a need for the money. But if we know that there's no

need for the money — and the Premier and Minister of Finance

has stated that — and we also know that the major burden of this

will probably be passed on and paid by low income consumers,

then I think we should have some explanation in this House on

behalf of the lower income British Columbians as to why the

Government intends to force higher taxes upon them.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, and without the information that

only the Minister of Finance can provide, I guess nobody will

know how much of the

[ Page 2379 ]

effect of this is going to be harmful in terms of small

businesses in B.C. or larger businesses; how much can be passed

on the consumers outside the country and outside the province

and how much has to be paid by people within the province. But

in dealing with bills of this nature, in terms of principle,

we're getting a little fed up that this type of information is

not provided by the Minister introducing the bill at the first

instance. It may well be that this particular Minister doesn't

know. But he does have at his side advisors who should have

some idea. He does have people who should be able to give him

some indication.

We're attempting to ask sensible and serious questions in

debates of this nature. We're getting nothing but flippant and

completely useless replies on many of the points that we raise.

We just don't feel that that's a fair way of dealing with

taxation or any other question in the Province of British

Columbia, particularly when you're in an area where the effect

of what you're doing is hurting the poor people a lot more than

the rich people in this province, however much you try to

disguise it.

These are questions which I feel the Minister should answer

now. This Legislature is the place where the finances of the

province should be debated. That is why we object to special

funds and other things. But when we get amendments to tax Acts

which are explained in such flippant detail and in such a

careless manner, we really don't think that the Government or

the Minister is serving the people well.

The fact of the matter is that there is a shifting of tax

burden when you deal with corporate taxes. The fact of the

matter is that this shifting hurts the poor people of this

province more than it hurts the wealthier people. The fact of

the matter is that there's been no explanation from the

Minister about these facts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, more specious nonsense based on

presumptions given again by that group over there that

represent private interests and large corporations. This is a

federal Act and we have the power in our province to raise our

corporation tax to a maximum of 13 points. We've gone

to 12 — the same as Ontario and the same as Quebec. The

Member tries to give the impression that somehow it's going to

hurt the poor people.

The only way we can help the poor people in terms of passing that burden on

is for the federal government to raise the personal exemptions for working people

in this country. That's what should be done. And where is that action on the

part of the federal government? There is a $1,600 deduction for the man, $1,350

for a wife, $300 for a child under 16 and $550 for a child over 16. Where are

the benefits, the tax concessions for the ordinary working people of this country?

They can't deduct their white shirts and their laundry and their expenses and

everything else that corporations can get away with. They can't deduct and write

off all those tax rip-offs that've been going on for tens of years in this country.

And I hope that my federal colleagues in Ottawa vote against that Liberal government

that's giving away tax concessions to every corporation in this country.

The corporate welfare bums are well served, well served by

that kind of specious nonsense. What do you think we are here

for? You think that we came here to protect the interests of

the large corporations? Certainly the economy is good, and why

is the economy good? Because the resources are here in this

country and in this province, and there are resourceful people

in this province. And those resources should provide the funds

for better education, better hospital care, better dental care,

and the other services we promised to bring the people of

British Columbia. The idea that we should tax in a depression

and not tax when business is good is absolutely stupid. The

time to tax is when the money is there, so that we can provide

the nursing home care, and the dental care, and the

post-graduate care that our young and our aged need desperately

in this province.

I am proud of this increase in taxes. I am proud that we

have got a wealthy province — that we can plan and budget for

services for people, and I, Mr. Speaker, move second reading of

this bill.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 29

Hall

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Gorst

Lockstead

Young

Lea

Lauk

Gabelmann

Skelly

Hartley

Calder

King

Williams, R.A.

Lorimer

Levi

Rolston

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Webster

Kelly

NAYS — 13

Richter

Chabot

Smith

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Curtis

Gardom

Morrison

McClelland

Phillips

Fraser

[ Page 2380 ]

PAIRS

Brousson

Macdonald

Cocke

Jordan

Nunweiler

Schroeder

Bennett

Anderson, G.H.

Bill No. 145 read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole House

at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:30 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1973, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada