1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 20, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

5667 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

Mt. Mussallem –– 5667

Oral Questions

Appointment of Douglas Heal, Mrs. Dailly –– 5667

Mr. Levi –– 5667

Improvements at Oakalla Prison Farm. Mr. Lorimer –– 5667

Admission of boy to Riverview. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 5667

Mr. Levi –– 5668

Unscrupulous real estate offers. Mr. Leggatt –– 5668

Income Tax Amendment Act –– 1981 (Bill 10). Committee stage, (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 3 –– 5669

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Finance Statutes Amendment Act –– 1981 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 5672

Mr. Stupich

section 4 –– 5672

Mr. Stupich

section 6 –– 5673

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

section 10 –– 5674

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to

section 16 –– 5674

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Davis

Mr. Stupich

section 22 –– 5675

Ms. Brown

Mr. Nicolson

section 23 –– 5676

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to

section 23 –– 5676

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment

section 23 –– 5677

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to

section 23 –– 5677

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. King

Mr. Hanson

Division on the amendment

section 23 –– 5681

Mr. Stupich

section 24 –– 5681

Ms. Brown

section 25 –– 5681

Ms. Brown

Mr. Skelly

section 26 –– 5682

Mr. Stupich

section 30 –– 5683

Mr. Stupich

section 31 –– 5683

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Nicolson

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills committee report.

Mr. Strachan –– 5689

Appendix –– 5689

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, on the floor of our assembly today are some very special

guests of the Legislature: social-services ministers from the provinces

and one of the territories. They are here to discuss social services

across this nation, and they will be deliberating today and tomorrow.

It's my great pleasure to ask the House to welcome them. Present in the

assembly today are: Hon. Mr. McCall representing the Yukon; Hon.

Margaret Birch of Ontario; Hon. Robert Bogle of Alberta; Hon. Dwain

Lingenfelter of Saskatchewan; Hon. George Minaker of Manitoba: Hon.

Laird Stirling of Nova Scotia: Hon. James Lee of Prince Edward Island;

and Hon. Thomas Hickey of Newfoundland.

MR. LEA: Mr.

Speaker, I have two introductions today. First, I would like members of

the Legislature to welcome a group of grade 10 students and then-

chaperone and teacher from the community of Port Simpson; they are

visiting the legislative precincts today. Also visiting us today, from

the Central Fraser Valley constituency, is the president of the New

Democratic Party in that constituency, Vera Velthisen. On behalf of

myself, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the rest

of the members of the legislative assembly, I would ask you to welcome

her.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) I would ask the

House to welcome to the Legislature the L.A. Matheson Junior Secondary

School and a group of visitors from the province of Quebec.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have in the gallery a gentleman who is

known affectionately by a large number of my constituents as Mr.

Lonsdale. He's visiting us and I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Bud

BraiiE to the assembly.

Presenting Petitions

MR. MUSSALLEM: I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

This is a petition praying for the passing of

an act intituled

An Act

to Amend the Vancouver Charter. I move that the rules be suspended and

the petition be received.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF DOUGLAS HEAL

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Can the minister

confirm that Mr. Douglas Heal, prior to his appointment by order

in-council No. 387, was employed by the government at a per diem rate?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I can confirm that he was temporarily appointed on a contractual arrangement prior to his being appointed permanently.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplementary to the minister, over what period was Mr. Heal so employed?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

I don't have the exact time period, Mr. Speaker. I could act that

information. In order to be precise, I'll take that question on notice.

MRS. DAILLY: What was the per diem or form of payment to Mr. Heal for that period?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again, I'd rather take that on notice so that

I can have the exact information for the member.

MRS. DAILLY:

When the minister is taking this on notice I wonder if when he returns

to the House he'd also include in his reply the total amount paid to

Mr. Heal as salary, fee or expenses prior to his appointment under the

order-in-council.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has that question.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell the House what Mr. Heal was doing when he was employed on a consulting basis'?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

In general terms he was doing a study for the government on government

information programs to assist us in arriving at the mandate we should

need to provide proper information to the people of British Columbia.

IMPROVEMENTS AT OAKALLA PRISON FARM

MR. LORIMER:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General

confirm that millions of dollars are being committed for the

construction of capital improvements at what is commonly known as

Oakalla Prison Farm?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I can't confirm that. No moneys have been committed to that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon with a new question.

MR. LORIMER: It's the same question. I didn't hear the answer. I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us the answer again.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I repeat the answer. No, I am not able to confirm that. Moneys for the construction of Oakalla have not been committed.

ADMISSION OF BOY TO RIVERVIEW

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Yesterday I undertook to get further information on a case that was

brought before the House by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), and I would like to give the status of the teenager that was

reported on yesterday. This boy was admitted to Riverview on an

involuntary basis on May 6, 1981. The admission was arranged by the two

physicians under the Mental Health Act. Under the Mental Health Act an

involuntary admission requires certification by two doctors. The

Ministry of Human Resources was not involved in this admission. The

family moved to British Columbia in this last year. The child had a

record of serious offences and disturbed behaviour in another province

dating back to 1977. With regard to the child's legal status, he was

apprehended by the ministry on April 9, 1981, as he was threatening to

stab family members, and was then in hospital. The apprehension was

made to allow the Ministry of Human Resources to become involved in

planning, although the ministry never took custody of the boy at that

time. He was not made a ward of the ministry by the courts until a

hearing on May 13, 1981.

[ Page 5668 ]

The ministry arranged for child-care workers to be placed in Riverview last

night, and arrangements are proceeding for a placement in an

appropriate child-care resource. A special care home is proposed, and

the foster parent and social worker will be visiting Riverview today.

In exceptional circumstances, Mr. Speaker, they will admit teenagers on

a certification by two qualified medical doctors. Riverview resisted

until the boy's behaviour became such that the local hospital and

doctors felt they could no longer handle him and asked to have him

admitted.

I have other information on some of the statements

that were made by the member yesterday, which I would be pleased to

share with the House, in terms of services and so on that we have in

the province, and some of the erroneous statements that were made on

the number of services as well as dollars pertaining to those services.

But I think that this case is a very difficult and important one and,

frankly, I don't wish to enlarge upon my answer in that vein. Perhaps

I'll be given an opportunity to do that during my estimates. With that

answer, I hope that if the member has any further questions on it, he

will give them to me today.

MR. LEVI: On a

supplementary to the minister, you said that the young man, I presume,

came into the jurisdiction of the ministry on May 13. Perhaps the

minister will tell us when he came into the care of the ministry.

MS. SANFORD: May 13 — right?

MR. LEVI:

Right. The deputy minister yesterday was quoted as saying that he

wasn't aware that the young man was there. He is the superintendent of

child welfare and he was not aware that he was in there. Now I'm going

to ask the minister whether she is aware of what planning her ministry

was doing up to the time I raised the matter in the House yesterday.

What planning was going on up to the time I made my announcement

yesterday in the House about this young man being in Riverview?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, it's unlikely that that case would have been drawn to my

attention over a weekend — since May 13, because the planning would

have been going m it is unlikely that it would have been. It is not

unusual either, and I really would like to take exception to the

comments made about the deputy minister having no knowledge. The

superintendent of child welfare in this province is able, by

legislation, to allocate some of his responsibility to those within the

ministry. That's necessary in a province with such a large geographical

area to cover. There is no doubt at all that the case would have come

to his attention, but that it was also being well looked after by our

ministry in the meantime, from the time they had the care of the child.

If there are any other questions to be asked, I suggest they should

also be asked with respect to the planning that is to be done in the

future. I'd be pleased to come back to the House with a report as to

what child-care facility the child is being placed in.

MR. LEVI:

Can the minister advise us if the police, when they apprehended the

young man, notified the department that he was in their custody? This

is a 14-year-old boy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have to take that question as notice.

MR. LEVI:

The young man has been in there for 12 days. You took over the

jurisdiction for the young man on the 13th. When the case went before

the court, was he ministry aware that he was in Riverview? He's been

there 12 clays. You took it over seven days ago.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

The member has made some reference to the police. As far as I know,

this placement was made by two medical doctors along with the family.

It was the family's recommendation, with counsel from the two

physicians, one being a psychiatrist. As far as I know — and I will

take that previous question as notice — in this case the police were

not involved, although there were police involved in his previous

experiences.

As to the other question and the timing, again

I would like to take that question as notice. The member is asking me

for details of a case. We have several hundred in front of our ministry

in terms of child care and protection. I'd be pleased to get the

details. I might also say that in a case like this, where a child's

well-being is at stake and where it is a very difficult case, it would

be helpful to any minister to have the member — no matter what side of

the House that member comes from — share the concerns in advance.

the Minister of Human Resources, I would be pleased to get those

difficult details, which — as the member well knows, as he was

responsible for the Ministry of Human Resources in this province — are

not all black and white and are very detailed. I would be pleased to

get those details for him.

UNSCRUPULOUS REAL ESTATE OFFERS

MR. LEGGATT:

My question is directed at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs. On Thursday last, in answer to a question from the member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) next to me, which concerned Exeter Estates Ltd.

and outrageously low offers on Gulf Islands properties, the minister

gave an answer to this effect: people should get an independent

appraisal if they are interested in these letters. In view of that

answer, has the minister canvassed the current consumer protection law,

and is he advising the House that there is no current consumer

protection law on the books to regulate this unscrupulous practice?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not the substance of my response. First

of all, in the course of answering that question, the immediate advice

I gave to any citizens who had received these letters and were

contemplating an acceptance was to be certain to obtain independent

valuation. But further, I subsequently made clear that the ministry was

looking at the validity of this kind of mass mailing offer. Through

public press release we have made clear to any citizens who have

accepted such an offer to please be in touch with us. Indeed, our view

is that remedies are available under existing legislation of this

government to assist those people, which is precisely why we've asked

them to come forward.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it the

minister is saying that remedies are available at common law as to

whether in fact the contract is entered into when this kind of offer —

not a bona fide offer, but an offer that appears valid in law — is

made. I have another letter here from a company called 3003 Investments

Ltd. offering some $7,000 on a one-acre Gulf

[ Page 5669 ]

Island

property which is currently worth at least $30,000 or more. My question

is: the minister, who has provided some warning to the public on this

subject, is still taking a position that there is no change needed in

the consumer protection law. Is that the minister's position — that the

common law is adequate to protect innocent pensioners and old people

who have no idea of the value of their property when this kind of

blanket offer is made?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question into a legal opinion?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

I'm very happy to answer the question. We are providing two pieces of

advice to members of the public. First, as a matter of common law. It

is our opinion that the purported offer, if accepted, does not

constitute a valid and binding agreement for purchase and sale of that

property. But apart from that, the member has failed to point out that

it is our view that under the Trade Practice Act this kind of practice

is in the area of the kind of false, deceptive or misleading trade

practice which the legislation prohibits.

MR. LEGGATT:

My question, then, to the minister is this: why have no charges been

laid as yet against 3003 Investments Ltd. or Exeter Estates in respect

to these matters?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, if my friend opposite has been good enough to follow the news

of what the ministry is doing.... We're in the process, first of

all, of trying to ascertain if there are citizens who've accepted such

an offer. We're also in the process of taking steps to deal with the

matter. For example, 3003 Investments was dealt with and investigated

very thoroughly in recent months by the ministry. If the letter of the

member — and he's not given us a date — refers to the events of last

summer, at that time no difficulties were found. But we're certainly at

work on the matter, as has been made abundantly clear.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'll be very happy to turn this letter over to the minister. The date

of the letter is November 14, 1980. Again, it seems to me that the

minister might proceed now under the law to see if charges can be laid.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman. when one looks at a tax like this.... I think we

heard the minister say it would only apply to the upper 3 percent or

3½ percent of people paying income tax in British Columbia. Taxes of

this type have a way, with inflation, of creeping down and affecting

more and more people. I see that this surtax is to apply to people with

provincial taxable incomes exceeding $3,500, which certainly means a

taxable income of several thousands of dollars more than most people

experience.

Can the minister not actually come up with some

better means of doing this? A tax like this tends to stick around. Will

it not affect maybe 5 percent of the people next year, and then 7

percent and then 10 percent? Pretty soon it will affect people who are

working for salaries. even people who are partially employed. In fact,

it will eventually work its way right down the economic ladder, where

it will no longer be seen, by any stretch of the imagination, as a

progressive tax. It will become regressive. What remedies are there to

this?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the

fears of the hon. member are groundless with respect to this Surtax. It

was clearly instituted to reach those in the very highest income

brackets. The member is correct in citing what was said on budget day

and what was said yesterday in second reading — that it is intended to

reach the top 3 percent. To put it another way, 97 percent of taxpayers

in British Columbia will not be affected by this surtax.

With

respect to years to come, I think it will be the duty of the incumbent

in the Ministry of Finance — whoever that may be — to ensure first of

all that the surtax is needed for provincial revenues, and secondly

that it does not start to move downward into income areas where it

should not be. I can only offer you the assurance with respect to the

surtax contained in this bill for this year. But we'll monitor it very

carefully.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, based on that

explanation, I find this a very dangerous and invidious new instrument

of climbing onto the backs of people. Many years ago, we had a scale of

percentages on income tax in general. Doctors paid a certain percentage

because they made a certain amount of income. While hourly employees,

say CUPE custodians, paid a certain percentage rate. What's happened

with inflation is that government has a built-in indexing and they

benefit every time there's inflation, so the CUPE employee has moved up

and he's paying the rate a doctor used to pay; a doctor pays a rate

which has now probably gone off the maximum end of the scale. So we no

longer have a graduated income tax, and everybody's basically paying

through the nose. Now they're going to get it coining and going.

they work their way up, people are automatically paying more. Because

we aren't adjusting the levels or the percentages set in the income tax

scheme, it works to give both provincial and federal governments an

automatic increase. Yet this system is going to set a second little

thing in motion where the income tax is going to work its way from the

top down. The taxpayers are being squeezed from both ends. This is a

very poorly thought out instrument in terms of trying to find extra

revenues.

In fact, instead of looking for extra revenues in

this and all these other proposals which we will be debating today, I

suppose, the minister should have been looking at the areas where taxes

could have been cut, such as the $24 million that this opposition has

already very conservatively proposed for

[ Page 5670 ]

tax

cuts. There are huge amounts more which could be dug into, and where

the minister knows full well money will not be spent. On the surface

this particular tax looks to be a progressive form of tax, taxing the

rich. But I see this as another way of getting to everybody.

The

minister talks about successive Ministers of Finance. We know that

income tax was supposed to be a wartime measure. It was a wartime

measure, and it's still around. I personally find this particular tax

offensive and unacceptable. I think that you could have done this in a

better way where it would have remained on target. So this year this

tax is going to claim so many people; next year, through inflation, it

is going to widen its target and its grasp, automatically bringing in

more money for the government. Eventually it is going to get down to a

place where I don't think anyone can defend this kind of a taxation

increase.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member's

name is listed in Votes and Proceedings for yesterday as having voted

for second reading: for the principle of Bill 10, which is before us. I

say that only because I think a couple of the comments he has made

would suggest that he's opposed to all parts of the bill. Again, this

surtax is one of several measures we've found necessary to impose for

the 1981-1982 fiscal year, and I repeat that it is going to touch only

the top 3 percent income tax payers in British Columbia. It is a surtax

on the provincial income tax.

I would think that there are a

number of people in British Columbia who believe that the government

has taken the right step. We are a government of the people as well as

concerned about the financial health of the province. We attempted to

spread the taxation burden as evenly, fairly and equitably as we could.

I think the member opposite knows that, notwithstanding his comments a

few moments ago. It's interesting to have the member opposite arguing

against a surtax on the top income earners of the province of British

Columbia. But that is for him to explain to the majority who are not

going to be affected by this measure.

MR. HOWARD: I

don't know why the Minister of Finance engages in that kind of

misrepresentation of somebody else's view. He does, and he did just

now. He cast the aspersion on the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr.

Nicolson) that because the member for Nelson-Creston....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to come to his defence.

MR. HOWARD: I know I don't have to come to his defence, especially when he's dealing with an insipid Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member I must ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: What remark is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's an unparliamentary remark.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, if it's unparliamentary, I certainly will.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Hon. members, as I mentioned in this committee

some days back, for a member to simply make a remark in this House on

the full understanding that all he or she has to do is stand up and

withdraw that remark is a practice that the Chair will not tolerate. I

must ask all hon. members on both sides of the House to bear that in

mind.

MR. HOWARD: In my ignorance I didn't understand

that the word was not parliamentary, Mr. Chairman. It wasn't an attempt

on my part to say something unparliamentary simply to get it on the

record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the member's clarification,

a word in itself may not be unparliamentary, but when it is implied to

another hon. member of this chamber, then it becomes unparliamentary. I

hope that clarifies the matter.

MR. HOWARD: It does,

indeed. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is exactly what the

Minister of Finance did in his comments about the member for

Nelson-Creston. He implied in the manner of his comments that the

member for Nelson-Creston, while voting for the bill on second reading,

really was opposed to many sections of it, if not all of it. That's an

unparliamentary allegation which, I submit to you, the Minister of

Finance knew full well was unparliamentary and knew full well that he

was attributing to an hon. member something that was not in fact the

case. If the Minister of Finance feels in his heart that he desires to

have two sets of rules in this chamber — one for him and one for the

opposition — that's his business. But I submit to you, Mr. Chairman,

that it's not very kind of the Minister of Finance to do that sort of

thing. It indicates to us why he got thrown out of the House the other

day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're dealing with

section 3 of Bill 10.

MR. NICOLSON:

Maybe my ears are playing tricks on me but I almost thought I heard the

minister say that this surcharge is for this year and that other years

will look after themselves. But I read the bill and it says:

"The

tax otherwise payable after applying sections 3 and 8 for a taxation

year by an individual residing in British Columbia on the last day of

the taxation year shall be increased for the 1981 and subsequent

taxation years by an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount by which

the tax computed under sections 3 and 8 for the taxation year exceeds

$3,500."

In other words, what it exceeds. So this does go on

forever. This is for perpetuity or even longer. Frankly, the first time

I heard that statement made in this House I thought it was rather

humorous, Then I found out that the Indians had some land taken away

from them in my riding because it had been devoted for forest use in

perpetuity. But it's no longer being used for forest use. That was in

the McKenna-McBride commission back in about 1910 or 1911. So I guess

perpetuity is maybe about 75 years, in the legal sense.

heard just the other day that the price of onions, potatoes and some

other common commodities had all increased 100 percent in one year. We

see interest rates of 20 percent as a symptom of inflation. We're not

just looking at double-digit inflation now. We've almost grown to

accept that. We could

[ Page

5671 ]

looking at horrendous amounts of inflation. This thing which is

intended for a target group with taxable income of, I think, up in the

$40,000 range — which is pretty high — could soon be the custodian

working for the school board and a little bit sooner than that it could

be many of us around this House. As a matter of fact, I don't know how

many of us in this House are going to be hit by this tax. I don't think

I'm going to be hit by this tax; I'm pretty sure of that. But maybe in

two or three years we will be, if inflation is not controlled.

This particular tax is a disincentive to the government in terms of controlling

inflation, because they can leave this thing in place and the old graduated

scale of income tax becomes meaningless. On the one hand everybody's moving

up and paying in the high percentage ranges, and on the other hand this thing

is coming down from the top and chewing into people's pocket-books.

This government's remedy for everything seems to be to take another bite

out of people's pockets.

don't care if it's the rich today; what I'm concerned about is that

this is going to be everybody in a doggone short period of time. It

could even be in five years if the present growth in the rate of

inflation increases. The rate of inflation used to be 3 percent, then 5

percent, 10 percent. 14 percent, and it's going on to 20 percent. If

this thing keeps oil increasing, this particular tax is not going to be

a progressive tax; it's going to be a regressive tax. Darned soon it's

going to be hitting probably 50 percent of taxpayers, and more after

that.

I don't know if it would be in order if I were to move

that this bill be amended to take out the words "and subsequent

taxation years" so that it would read: "on the last day of the taxation

year shall be increased for 1981." That's the way it should read if you

really want to do this. If you have the need for this type of extra

revenue next year, then bring it in again. There's the objection to

this particular piece. This is my personal opinion. This is not the

canvassed position of the New Democratic Party, but it is my position:

this particular piece of legislation is invidious. It's not drafted as

it should be. It should be limited to the fiscal year 1981 or ending

March 31, 1981.

The minister has not satisfied any fears. At

first he said: "Well, it's just sort of temporary." If it's temporary,

then it should be limited to, say, not after March 31. 1985. This is

how a lot of the things got started that this government goes whining

to Ottawa about: these little temporary measures and little temporary

granting of powers — perhaps during wartime granting powers which

became permanent. This particular thing — a new kind of tax — is one

that is slowly going to stalk the poor people of this province. It

might take this tax ten years to get them, but it's going to get them.

It's going to get the poor people of this province unless it is

redrafted in such a way that it keeps getting put up to hit that target

area of the top 3 percent, so it's automatically readjusted to only

take the top 3 percent. One of the best ways to do that is to limit it

year by year, and if you still need it next year, bring in another bill

and we'll give it speedy passage. I would give it speedy passage if it

were for one year.

But I don't like this thing. It's

stalking the poor people of this province, and it's going to get the

working poor of this province. It's going to come from the top end

down, but it will get there eventually.

MR. COCKE: I don't altogether share my colleague's concerns

about the poor in the immediate future. However. I have a different slant on

the thing. The minister brought in a number of finance bills, and all the bills

and sections that increased....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

If the House Leader wants to protract debate he's right on track. I can

carry on for ever and a day. If, on the other hand....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Not in your terms.

The

fact is that here we have a locked-in situation with an amount of

$3,500. On the other hand you have a motor fuel tax that increases and

indexes with inflation and the extra cost of gas. Had he been

consistent he would have indexed this as well. That would, at least in

part, answer the argument raised by the member for Nelson-Creston.

Mr.

Chairman, we don't agree with the indexing in any event: we think that

government should be responsible from year to year. But just to show

you the inconsistency....

Why one and not all the

others? I'll tell you why. Because this one is a tax that at least

increases it slightly in terms of the immediate future — it’s almost

irrelevant, so that it doesn't matter to the government — and it can

increase it a great deal more in terms of the far future, but it would

reduce government revenue in the far future if you indexed it. It’s

just clear and simple.

MR. NICOLSON: With your

indulgence, I'd like to use an exhibit, in case the minister doesn't

understand that a normal distribution curve of incomes, ages and many

other things tends to have a curve which — at least at the top end —

looks something like this: what you're saying today is that you're

going to take this number of people — it's a very small area under he

graph out here: next year, if inflation moves that line a little bit,

you could more than double the number of people being affected: and in

another year you might even quadruple the number of people affected

over the previous year because of the nature of what is called the

Gaussian distribution. If your people in your ministry don't understand

that sort of a thing, then it's about time it was explained to you. So

what I'm saying is that this thing is a very Machiavellian type of

scheme. It looks really innocent today, but it is going to get a darned

sight more significant tomorrow and it is going to become a problem for

this government sometime in the future.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I think yesterday the minister may have explained why the

tax increases affect revenue in 1981-82, but the tax credit does not

affect revenue until 1982-83. I think he may have explained it

yesterday, but I missed the explanation: I'd like to hear it again.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I wonder if I can do that under this section, Mr. Chairman. For those

British Columbians who would be touched by this, this takes effect July

1 of this year, because of the requirement for a three months'

notification under the federal-provincial tax collection agreement. I

can't speak about the other, Mr. Chairman, without being out of order,

because it relates to.... I look to the Chair for guidance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're on

section 3. If we pay at source, this surtax takes effect commencing July 1, 1981, but

[ Page 5672 ]

it is retroactive to the full taxation year. I don't think that we're in disagreement on this.

MR. STUPICH: We're not communicating.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think we're communicating so well that there is no disagreement.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, actually I wasn't trying to disagree. Is the minister

telling me that the discussion of the reduction comes under another

section? As I read it,

section 3 refers to the reduction as well as to

the increase. Is there another section? Shall I start again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, it's okay.

MR. STUPICH: Will you tell me then why the reduction doesn't affect revenue until 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the tax credit at the lower scale is for tax-filers. As I

explained in second reading yesterday, it's not just taxpayers, because

there are those who would not otherwise be required to file an income

tax return, and they won't do that until the beginning of next year. We

looked for a way in which we could offer that credit as it was earned,

as it were, in the course of the 1981 taxation year; but in order to

reach all who would benefit, we have to deal with tax-filers for the

credit — and I went to some pains yesterday to explain that.

MR. STUPICH:

On this surtax — and I assume this has been discussed with Revenue

Canada — I'm wondering whether the minister can give us details as to

how this will appear on one's income tax statement. Will it be

identified as a provincial surtax?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would rather expect so. Immediately following budget delivery in this House in March, we notified Ottawa — as is the case and must be the case — of

the various changes which affect any provincial/federal agreements.

Subsequent to that, some weeks later we received notification from

Ottawa that the proposals were in order. I believe that it will simply

appear as an additional line on the taxation form.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13; Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT. 1981

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman,

section 1 sets up a fund but doesn't give us any

indication at all as to what the government expects in this fiscal

period — what sort of payments will be made into that fund. We have no

idea what kind of payments are being made by people now renting land

from the Land Commission; I expect that's the source of it. I'd like to

have some idea of how much money we're talking about.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, first of all, this does give a name to the fund. It

provides for currently outstanding loans and interest to be paid into

the new fund, so it isn't a dramatic change. It allows for the fund to

commence receiving revenues April 1, 1981. Those funds are known to the

committee because there is no change in legislation involved in terms

of the assistance which is offered or the money which flows in. That is

the essence of what is occurring in

section 1 of this bill.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, we know of the fund. I'm trying to find out how much

money we're talking about, how much money will be added to that fund

this year. I assume it will be rentals on land that is owned by the

Land Commission and land that has been leased out to people who are

farming it, and possibly loans to the extent that people have financed

the purchase of land from the Land Commission. I don't know. I'm

wondering what cash flow we're talking about.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, in this fiscal year the estimates for the Ministry of

Agriculture and Food contain $2.02 million which will flow into the new

fund. With repayments into the fund from past loans estimated to be —

and I underline estimated — $2.8 million, a total of approximately $4.8

million, approximately, will be available under this particular

amendment. So we're talking about $4 million in funds which are already

established and repayments which are occurring.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like some explanation of this. Subject to what the

minister has to say, I believe that if there is any excess in this fund

it will have been contributed to by the provincial government in part,

but also by local taxpayers. Maybe I'm way out at sea on this and I

don't know, but I believe that the excess will have been paid into the

fund, perhaps even entirely, by local taxpayers. Yet the government is

saying any excess that has been contributed by local taxpayers will

belong to consolidated revenue. It's another — can I say sneaky? — way

of the government getting revenue from taxpayers without saying it is

levying a new tax. Maybe the minister has another explanation.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

This amendment to

section 5 of the Educational Institution Capital

Finance Act permits excess assets of the authority to be paid into

consolidated revenue funds where the Minister of Finance certifies that

the authority's assets exceed its requirements. This situation could

arise in the management of the sinking funds established to retire

capital borrowings where actual interest earnings of the

[ Page

5673 ]

sinking fund are higher than the original forecast level of

earnings. With that explanation I think the member opposite will

realize that the province pays 100 percent of educational institutions'

debt costs. That is what is addressed in this section.

MR. STUPICH:

The province pays 100 percent of the educational institution. We're

talking now about colleges and universities, not about the school

financing authority.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, here we're allowing the funds for the Drug, Alcohol and

Cigarette Education Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund to be paid out.

The fund was set up in the first place to be paid out interest only to

be used for — the purpose of education, etc., in that particular area.

Now in one year, as I recall — I can't quite remember the exact amount

in the estimates — we have $12 million of this fund being paid into the

Health budget. Am I on the wrong section? Anyway, this is fair enough.

As I read it, this permits the minister to pay out the funds out of

section 6. That is the capital of the fund.

On the one hand

when we see the situation in that whole area of alcohol and drugs and

the way it's been handled in the last four or five years — in chaos —

we're just wondering what the minister is doing here. Is it to bail out

all the mistakes that were made by the now Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), the then Minister of Health, who got the government into

so much trouble?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Under the three

sections associated with this, I suppose I can respond under

section 6.

If that is acceptable to the Chair, although it may be more appropriate

to do it under

section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it seems that we have sections 6 through 8 being wrapped up in the one debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking to sections 6 to 8 inclusive.

are changing the status of the Drug, Alcohol and Cigarette Education,

Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund from a perpetual to a regular fund.

This allows the Minister of Finance to utilize the moneys included in

the fund, both principal and interest, to provide funding for the

programs of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. I don't think that some of

the remarks offered by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke)

will occur under this change. It is a regularization of a fund into a

more appropriate format, I think. I have no difficulty with it. If

members opposite see something a little strange about it, I'm sorry.

Nothing unusual is proposed in this undertaking.

MR. STUPICH:

The member for New Westminster anticipated remarks that I intended to

make on

section 8, but now that we're doing them all together, that's

well and good.

The minister talks about this as a

regularization. I suppose that's one way of describing this way of

getting out of the McClelland mistake — the Brannan Lake situation. I'm

wondering just how much money the government poured down that hole to

try to do something that they were warned was going to be a waste

of public money by everybody who had any knowledge of this subject.

Public moneys were wasted on the drug program at Brannan Lake. Even the

government has admitted that now by changing the ground rules. The

estimates at that time were somewhere around $12 million. The bill

before us now regularizes, as the minister said, the reduction in this

fund the some $15.2 million. I expect that is the amount of money that

was actually wasted with the Brannan Lake experiment. I'd like some

confirmation from the minister that that's the magic of this $15.2

million figure that we're taking out of that fund set up for a very

worthwhile purpose by the former Premier of the province when he was

Minister of Finance. I don't recall the arguments, but I can certainly

imagine the Premier and Minister of Finance of that day speaking about

the importance of having money that would be available for drug and

alcohol education, and for promoting the non-abuse of drugs and

alcohol. I can imagine him saying at the time that this money would be

available in perpetuity so that the interest would always be there to

further these programs. Now the minister of the day, because he needs

$15.2 million to cover a mistake of one his colleagues, is saying

that he's simply regularizing the fund. If he has any other explanation

I'd like to hear about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the

Hon. member for Nanaimo I think I have the constituency correct at this

point — no, frankly I've had some problem over a number of years with a

fund called the Drug, Alcohol and Cigarette Education, Prevention and

Rehabilitation Fund. I find it a little unwieldy and I certainly wanted

to recognize the now functioning Alcohol and Drug Commission in

British Columbia and its need to have access not just to interest but

to principal and interest front time to time. I think it is placing it

in far too narrow a context to suggest that this relates to one

specific undertaking which was or was not successful, as history will

view it. Again, the word "regularization" is, I think, quite appropriate

in this instance.

MR. COCKE: The minister can

proclaim as long and loud as he likes. The fact of the matter is

they're bailing out. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). who made a gross mistake in his

handling of the whole heroin treatment program, ignored the real drug

problem in the province, and now here we are destroying a fund, $15.2

million of which — according to my reading of the estimates — is being

used up this year. That's out of a fund that was not that significant

in the first place. Talk is cheap, as far as I'm concerned. I can't support this.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

[ Page 5674 ]

NAYS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Mr. Cocke requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record against this tax increase, and

more particularly the fact that associated with the tax increase is the

indexing of it. As I said yesterday, it's simply pouring gasoline on

the fires of inflation. So we're opposed to the increase, and we're

opposed to the indexing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, there was considerable discussion in the Ministry of Finance

with regard to indexing or the introduction of ad valorem. I didn't

respond to that point which was made in second reading debate. It is

important to observe that ad valorem is in place now in most provinces.

It is certainly in place in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec,

New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I don't hide

behind the numbers of other provinces which support ad valorem, but I

think that we are in some taxation activities which are subject to

dramatic change. I think it is in the best interests of government

revenues and in the best interests of the taxpayer to have it

undertaken in this particular way.

I realize there could be

a significant philosophical discussion with regard to ad valorem. I

listed those provinces which have indexing. As far as the latest

information I have available, the only one which does not follow the

index route and is imposing a constant cents-per-litre tax on gasoline

is Nova Scotia. So most provinces have moved towards that which is

proposed in this legislation.

Section 10 approved.

section 11.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

section 16.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I

notice a very small change in parenthesis in the amendment. You've put

a parenthesis before the variable PT and following the variable UTA.

What's the effect of this amendment?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I just happen to have copious notes on this; I anticipated that there

could be discussion on the formula. The formula would not have

delivered that which was intended, in the absence of the parentheses.

With the addition of the parentheses by the amendment we therefore

achieve that which was sought.

Dealing with the formula

which commences tax in cents, 0.2 equals 20 percent of the indexed

price of gasoline. Then we hit the first large parenthesis: 32.58

represents the average price for gasoline in British Columbia that

existed immediately after the initial budget tax increases were added

to the retail price. Then we run up against the next parenthesis, which

is x over y, not a plus b; x over y equals the percentage increase in

retail gasoline prices that has occurred since March 10, 1981, as

measured by the Vancouver consumer price index subcomponent for

gasoline. Then we leave one of the parentheses — we have a minus. The

amendment now introduces the new parenthesis immediately in front of

the initials "PT." PT is the provincial tax rate on clear gasoline plus

UTA — the Urban Transit Authority tax — presently 0.6 cents per litre.

Then we leave the parenthesis which has been introduced by this

amendment, and we also leave the largest parenthesis. I've had this at

home, and instead of leisure reading I've looked at this a number of

times. I'm pleased I was asked to deal with it, and I hope I've

explained it satisfactorily.

MR. NICOLSON: Could I suggest something simpler? I admire the minister for keeping a straight face through that.

all seriousness, you could have accomplished the same thing by changing

brackets.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is carping, unwarranted criticism.

MR. DAVIS:

Could I ask the minister who makes this calculation and how often? It

says: "Every purchaser shall.... " Surely every purchaser doesn't

have a PhD in mathematics. Who is "every purchaser," and how often is

this calculation made? Does the government make the calculation and

then publish some tables? How is this done?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The taxation branch of the Ministry of Finance provides the information

on a regular basis as called for. But not on Sunday. The retailer would

be provided with that information from the taxation branch of the

ministry.

MR. STUPICH: I don't intend to get into the

kind of discussion we've had for the last few minutes on the brackets

and the plus and minus signs. I'd just like to point out that it's

estimated that this one

section alone will bring in an extra $80. I

million this year — great for northeast coal development.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

[ Page 5675 ]

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

MS. BROWN:

I want to make some comments about this particular

section dealing with

the extension of the homeowner grant to cover the disabled members of

our community. As the minister pointed out, this was promised in the

budget debate. However. when the bill was introduced, we found that

eligibility was not going to be as easy as one had anticipated. In fact

it's not enough to be disabled, but the disability itself, or the

eligibility based on the disability, is going be determined by

regulation.

I made a phone call to a Mr. Crossett in

Municipal Affairs. He indicated that disabled people should apply in

the normal way and collection application forms were available from tax

offices, etc. But in addition, they will need to get a doctor to fill

in a

section which determines whether then disability or handicap is

permanent or not. Also, there has to be some indication that as a

result of this disability there is a need for extensive modification to

their residence and that there'is also a need for some physical

assistance for them. He anticipates that probably only about 3,000 of

the disabled people in the province would actually be eligible or

qualify for this extension. I am disappointed that the sweeping

statement made in the budget — if I can remind the minister of the

budget — that the homeowner grant will be extended to all.... The

"all" is so important that it was written in italics; it wasn’t even

printed in the same way as the rest of the sentence. It said: "The

homeowner grant of $630 will be extended to all handicapped persons in

British Columbia."

It could be that Mr. Crossett's

information was incorrect. It could be that the regulations are really

not going to be as stringent as outlined in his telephone conversation

with the research person in the caucus who spoke with him. I'm

wondering whether the minister would indicate whether these criteria

which I outlined are, in effect, going to be included in the

regulations: namely a statement from a doctor saying that the

disability is permanent, that the disability will require extensive

modification to the residence of the individual and also that the

disabled person needs some physical assistance. Also, why physically

handicapped? Mental disability is a handicap as well. Why is it only to

the physically disabled?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As we move

into increased assistance to disabled persons under the homeowner

grant, dealing with it in this relatively narrow sense — the receiving

of the homeowner grant — I would like to assure the member that to the

extent that I am able and to the extent that the regulations, when I'm

pleased with the final draft as offered to me.... We want to see it

offered as broadly as possible rather than as narrowly as possible. The

hon. member has mentioned some 3,000 persons who would be eligible.

That's the low end of the scale. We anticipate — we don't really know —

that some 3,000 to 5,000 disabled persons will be eligible this year.

will have an eligibility committee. Such eligibility committees have

worked very well in other ministries — if I'm not straying too far from

the

section — because they not only rule or recommend on individual

cases, but they give us a feeling as to how well a particular

regulation or an expanded regulation is working. I can only say to the

committee that I certainly want this to be as broadly received as

possible. If we find some shortcomings, then we will be back to the

House with a similar omnibus bill next year.

think the

doctor's certificate is a reasonable requirement. I don't know of any

way we Could clearly define eligibility in most instances other than to

ask that this certificate be completed and attached. There are other

criteria which are required with respect to the larger homeowner's

grant. Those have been in place for quite some time. A declaration with

respect to your age is necessary if you are applying for the grant

available to the senior citizen. I think that that's a reasonable

requirement I don't know if the member agrees or not, but I'm certainly

trying for the larger rather than the narrower, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN:

I appreciate what the minister is saying, except the promise was very

clear. If I can bring page 15 of the minister's budget to his

attention, it says: "The homeowner grant of $630 will be extended to

all...." Again, "all" was written in italics. It did not say

anything about the greater number rather than the smaller. etc. I

understand that it will be necessary to have a doctor's statement

signifying that the person is disabled. What I cannot understand is why

the statement has to say that the disability is permanent, because some

disabilities are long term but in time you get over them. At that time,

of course, you would no longer be eligible, but this requires permanent

disability. It also calls for extensive modification of the residence

and a need for physical assistance. This was not included in the budget

debate.

A promise was made and the government is backing off

from that promise. I don't know whether this is the government's

decision or if it's the minister's decision. I am merely pointing out

to the minister that the regulations outlined by Mr. Fred Crossett are

not honouring the promise made in the budget speech. We were not told

in the budget speech that the eligibility of the disabled person was

going to be determined by regulations. Nor were we told that the

regulations would be based on this kind of criteria. It stated that all

handicapped people would be eligible for this additional $630, and that

is not happening. I'm expressing my concern and hoping that it was a

mistake and that in fact what the minister is going to do is to have

the criteria eliminated. Of course there has to be a medical

certificate, but there shouldn't be a requirement that it be a

permanent disability, and there should not be the other two criteria

attached to it. It really should cover all disabled people, as was

promised.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, while the

hon. member opposite has pointed out her concern, the fact remains that

we have taken a good step and I would like her to at least acknowledge

that fact.

MS. BROWN: Oh, but I did.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I think that when one enters the question of what is a disability for

purposes of receiving a larger grant or some form of assistance under

one program or another, if you're not careful you enter into pages and

pages of categories and a bureaucratic nightmare. I have given the

committee my undertaking that it we err at all I want to see us err on

the side of the larger number of people. I will also be insisting

that the eligibility committee and those who are charged — in the

Ministry of Finance with the cooperation of the Ministry Of Municipal

Affairs — report back after this

[ Page 5676 ]

year's

experience to tell us what problems have been encountered. Then we

could approach the Legislature with further amendment or clarification,

or we could clarify by regulation, if that were permitted, where we do

encounter those problems. It's a first step, Madam Member, and I think

it's a good one.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing

to accept that it's a first step. I certainly intend to vote in support

of this section. I'm merely pointing out that it is not honouring a

commitment which was made in the budget speech. I'm not quibbling with

the first step, but it was absolutely clear on page 15 of the speech

that all handicapped people.... . I'm quoting. As we've said before,

the word is disabled, not handicapped. The word "all" was exaggerated;

it was put in italics. It did not say a first step was going to be

made. It said all handicapped people were going to be eligible, and

that has not been honoured. That's all I'm pointing out.

MR. NICOLSON:

As a footnote to what my colleague has so ably expressed, it's fine to

say one thing when you're on television, reaching out to thousands and

thousands of people in this province. But then you come back here in

the almost obscurity of the Legislature at 4 o'clock in the afternoon

and say: "Well, when we said 'all'...." You even said it in

italics; I well remember. What you said then for mass consumption is

today being qualified. I think that you have raised expectations. I've

had people contact me in my office asking what these regulations are

going to be. Certainly some of the first indications that we had as to

what they might be were very qualified.

MR. LEA: It seemed like a good idea at the time.

MR. NICOLSON:

Yes, it seemed like a good idea at the time. But if you can't back up

what you're going to say on television to a mass audience, then you

should watch your hyperbole. You should be a little bit more careful

with raising the expectations of people and then dashing them — even

one person in this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, I think that the use of the word "all" was appropriate then

and is appropriate now inasmuch as previously only those disabled

persons who were receiving a handicapped person's income under

guaranteed available income for need or a veteran's allowance under the

War Veterans Allowance Act were eligible for this larger homeowner

grant. The use of the word "all" meant that we were moving well beyond

the relatively narrow limitations of GAIN or the War Veterans Allowance

Act and not taking into consideration those particular requirements. So

in terms of "all," we have moved well along, and I think that the

proof will be available to all members of the House later this year,

after we see how many people have applied for the grant and how many

for one narrow reason or another have been refused the grant. I've said

now three times in the committee, Mr. Chairman, that I want to see it

applied as liberally as possible.

MS. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, I think we're having some problems with the definition of the

word "all." But first of all, before going on to that, I want to

apologize for debating

section 23 under

section 22. But we've done it,

so is that okay? Or do I have to take all those words back and say

them over again under

section 23?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean all or some?

MS. BROWN:

All, not some. You see, the problem we're having, Mr. Chairman, is with

these promises that the government makes, and not just in this

particular instance. The SAFER program under Human Resources, for

example, is supposed to cover all senior citizens, and we find out when

the regulations are introduced that most seniors aren't eligible for

it. This is the problem we're having with these promises, with these

big ads in the newspaper, on radio and TV saying: "Look what we're

giving you — Pharmacare, covering everybody." We find that, first of

all, you have to pay the first $100. We find that the regulations say

that, no, not all seniors are eligible for SAFER; the majority of

seniors aren't.

Now we're finding that a promise which says

that all handicapped people who live in a home are now going to be

eligible for the $630 homeowner grant has an amendment which says, in

effect: "...subject to the regulations." And when we inquire about

the regulations, we find, as I pointed out before, that the criterion

is really quite stringent. When it is brought to the attention of the

minister, instead of saying, "Oops, I made a mistake," he tries to

give us a definition of "all" which means a first step, and that is not

what "all" means; "all" means everybody, every single person. Mr.

Chairman, are we dealing with

section 22 or 23? Twenty two? Okay.

Section 22 approved.

section 23.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, taking into account the comments made under

section 22, I

would like to move an amendment under

section 23. That is to delete the

words "eligible under the regulations" after "handicapped persons" on

line 3. Actually, if it were possible to change the word "handicapped"

to "disabled person," that would be even better. But in any event,

delete.... Is it possible to do two things at the same time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have the first amendment, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: Okay. That's the first amendment. I want to change "handicapped" to "disabled."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order, hon. member, and we're now discussing the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, what the member is talking about is the fact that the

term under these circumstances is misused. We're really dealing, I

believe, with the disabled. Which one are we dealing with? Are you

deleting "disabled"?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, possibly it would help if the amendment was read. I will

read the amendment as submitted to the table: to delete after

"handicapped person"

[ Page 5677 ]

the words "eligible under the regulations." That's

section 23, line 3. Is there any further debate on the amendment?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the government cannot accept the amendment for the reason

that some regulation, as unpopular as it may be, is necessary when

dealing with eligibility in receiving a grant. I think the member

opposite knows that. Therefore the amendment, if accepted, would almost

make the intent of the legislation unworkable. Regulations are

required, as distasteful as they may be on occasion.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the minister recognizes the intent of the

amendment, which is that the legislation should honour in full the

promise made in the budget speech to cover all disabled people in the

province. Is the minister willing to introduce his own amendment, since

it is possible for him to call upon the vast experience, skill,

knowledge and expertise of legislative counsel? Is the minister willing

to introduce his own amendment which will make this possible? In other

words, will he ensure that all disabled people in the province are

eligible for the homeowner grant as promised on page 15 of the budget

address.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman. I believe we

can meet the desires of the hen, member opposite with respect to this

section through regulation. I indicated earlier and say again that if

we find the

interpretation is narrow and is therefore withholding the

grant from some individuals who should receive it, I will move more

quickly than the member would realize. I will not need the member to

remind me to ensure that we overcome that difficulty. Therefore I think

that the legislation of this

section as drafted is acceptable.

Certainly we will monitor it very, very carefully.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Ms. Brown requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 23.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I need your guidance on this amendment, because it's

an amendment that affects

section 23, 24 and 25. If it passes on

section 23, would it affect all the others?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Each one would have to be moved separately, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman. I am moving that in

section 23, line 3. the word "handicapped" be deleted and replaced by the word "disabled."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman. I was aware of the discussion in this chamber just a few

days ago with respect to the words "handicapped" and "disabled." While

there may be very real validity, I would be extremely reluctant to

accept the amendment at this point, particularly in view of the fact

that it would have to be moved

section by

section and throughout our

statute law. I believe that we would want to examine it. The points was

well made the other day, as far as I'm concerned. But to ask

that we accept the amendment under these conditions is completely

impractical, I would submit. The government cannot accept the amendment

for that technical reason.

MR. COCKE: I'm not quite

sure why one should not start a positive move at a moment in time when

it's practical. That's when legislation is being brought forward and

when legislation is being asked to be passed by this House. The

minister

made the very best point of all in terms of having understood the

difference between disabled and handicapped. One can be handicapped

without being disabled. For an example, one could be handicapped if one

belonged to a political party — the Socreds can handicap one. Or for

that matter, one could be handicapped if one were carrying an extra

weight in one's pockets. But that is not being disabled. Disability is

a medical and a definable term indicating that someone is unable by

virtue of a disability to perform certain tasks or whatever. A handicap

can be superimposed; a disability is something to do with one's health

and well being. They're totally different. I suggest that if our

statutes — as now they do — reflect the incorrect terminology, then

they should all be changed in due course.

We now have an

opportunity to start cleaning up our act right at the beginning of a

new piece of legislation. This is the practical time to do it. I would

suggest that for the minister to turn down this amendment shows a very

impractical way of dealing with legislation going through this House. I

know that there are times when it's difficult to accept an amendment by

virtue of what it can do to the legislative process. Amendments can

sometimes invalidate legislation going through, and one has to be very

careful. But here is a very clear issue. The word is incorrectly used,

so why would we want to enshrine it and continue making the mistake we

have obviously made in the past? This is an opportunity for the

minister to show that he is being thoughtful, particularly in this

year, the International Year of the Disabled. It is not the

International Year of the Handicapped. It's a most practical amendment

that my colleague the member for Burnaby Edmonds has moved. I can't

suggest too strongly that the

[ Page 5678 ]

minister ignore the admonition of the Premier and accept this amendment.

MR. LAUK: I suppose the minister and the government benches may think this is a minor point to raise at this time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, on the contrary.

MR. LAUK: I'm glad to hear that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's a major point.

MR. LAUK:

Excellent. I think the Minister of Finance once again demonstrates that

in terms of awareness he's head and shoulders above the members of his

cabinet.

MS. BROWN: That's a handicap, not a disability. [Laughter.]

MR. LAUK: He, as such, is in a great deal of pain and has a handicap as a result.

you will recall, in the Education estimates some little time past the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), a very learned gentleman whose

stuffed shirt is well known throughout the length and breadth of this

land — as are others — said he couldn't see any difference between the

two. "Six of one and half a dozen of the other," he says. The idea

that the use of the word "handicapped" seems to not mean too much to

the Minister of Education but means something to the Minister of

Finance urges me to urge the Minister of Finance to have a discussion

with the Minister of Education about that and educate him with respect

to the meaning of the use of the two terms. Language is very important

in human relationships and government terminology. For example, in our

society we quite often use language to refer in a derogatory way to

certain races and ethnic groups. We use nicknames for them, and they're

made to be derogatory. We say: "What's the harm in that?" Why don't we

Polish people laugh when we're called polacks and people make fun of us

through Polish jokes and so on? Because it lends validity to the

prejudice, that's why. Although the jokes may be hilarious and very

clever, the point is they lower the status with which we are held by

our colleagues and the rest of the community. Language is very

important in the way we refer to each other. I don't think it's

particularly funny the way we refer to women in society. Femininity is

referred to in a derogatory way, and the way we refer to men is in a

superior way. We use language to deal with people and lower them in the

esteem of society.

I know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) thinks it's hilarious. We have to drag him kicking and

screaming out of the fourteenth century every time he walks into this

chamber. He thinks it's hilarious. That kind of ignorance in society

has to be brushed aside. I think the use of the word "handicapped" is

clearly a word that is derogatory. These people are not handicapped. As

they often say themselves, "The only handicap we have is society's

attitude towards us." They're only disabled, and all of us have

disabilities. The Premier and the Minister of Finance have different

disabilities, but they have disabilities. It does not mean that they

don't have access to equality, equal justice and equal opportunity in

society. All it means is that they have, in their uniqueness as

individuals, certain disabilities I and my colleagues have, which we

overcome, we compensate for; we contribute to society. That's what the

disabled people argue for. Help break down the financial, cultural and

language barriers to the equality of opportunity that we should be

offering disabled people. That's why the opposition makes a most

sincere point in asking for this amendment.

MS. BROWN:

The most telling argument in support of this amendment is that disabled

people themselves have asked us please not to refer to them as

handicapped people. That is their request, Mr. Chairman, a request

which was recognized by the United Nations when, as my colleague, the

member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) pointed out, they designated

this year as the International Year of the Disabled and not the

International Year of the Handicapped. Disabled people have told us

that they are not necessarily handicapped; they have a disability — it

can be a physical or a mental disability — which does not become a

handicap until it runs into the prejudices against them in society in

refusing to hire them or to rent them accommodation, or the

thoughtlessness of society not making buildings and other places

accessible to them, so that they can travel freely and equally the way

other people without a physical disability can.

The minister

says that he sympathizes and is in favour of the word, but cannot

support it because it means changing all of the legislation. All of the

legislation should have been changed anyway. It should never have

reached the floor of this House with the word "handicapped" in it. You

know, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) talks about purifying

the voters' list. As my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr.

Hanson) just pointed out, it's time for the government to purify the

legislation. This is not a suggestion based on the whims and fancy of

the opposition. We are merely speaking on behalf of disabled people.

They have indicated that this year — their year — one small step that

we can take on their behalf is to recognize that they're disabled and

not necessarily handicapped. As such they have asked us, please do not

refer to them as handicapped people; refer to them as disabled, as

members of a community of disabled people.

That is a very

simple suggestion and a recommendation. It may be expensive, but it's

not as expensive as some of the other things that this government is

opting to do. It is certainly not as expensive to go through and change

legislation as some of the other decisions which this government is

making. I am pleading with the Minister of Finance to reject this

amendment, if he must, but for goodness' sake please change the

legislation. It's not necessary to accept this amendment; do it on your

own, introduce your own amendment, but at least have some respect for

the wishes of the disabled people of this community who are saying that

they do not want to be referred to as handicapped people.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, we've had a lengthy and useful debate on the significant

difference between the words "handicapped" and "disabled." I wish that

the government could accept the amendment as it has been proposed, but

again I say regretfully that we should not and cannot at this

particular point. The members opposite — particularly those who served

in cabinet from 1972 to 1975 — would know that we might find that the

simple acceptance of an amendment such as this would cause grave

difficulty for the very people we are attempting to assist. The law is

riddled with words which arc no longer appropriate. I would look to

others who are learned in the law; I am not, and that is an

[ Page 5679 ]

advantage,

not a handicap, in my view. But I know how much difficulty we can

suffer through the very quick acceptance of an amendment which on the

face of it appears to have a great deal of appeal. I would be extremely

unhappy were we to accept it in this particular omnibus bill only to

find that we have caused a variety of difficulties.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Expense has nothing to do with it. Madam Member, I listened to you. It

could trigger some difficulties elsewhere. The member has made a good

point. I personally accept the point she has made, and I would urge the

government at the appropriate time, as soon as possible, to examine the

difference in the two words, but not in an omnibus bill where the

ramifications could be extremely complicated. I've heard what you've

said, Madam Member.

MRS. DAILLY: I have one simple

question. I have followed this debate, and I want to ask the minister:

you keep repeating that the biggest problem is the ramifications. I'm

ignorant of it. I know you referred to former cabinet ministers, and

I'm racking my brains trying to remember what the ramifications would

be if you did change it. Can you tell us, and maybe perhaps then we can

take it from there? Give us an example of what the problems would be,

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I think that one which comes to mind immediately is

interlocking legislation at the federal level, where indeed we have in

the narrower sense, which is being altered, reference to "handicapped

persons" under the war veterans allowance. I just would not run the

risk, in a good debate today, of accepting an amendment. I can't list

all the ramifications. I know some of them, and I'm sure there would be

others which we might not find in the course of a number of days or

weeks. But I would be fearful that we could trigger the rejection of

assistance to individuals because, in the spirit of cooperation, we

decided to accept a change in wording. I think it would have to be

examined very carefully. The federal law is the one that comes to mind

and possibly the one that has the most validity at this point.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, if I might offer a suggestion to the minister, as a

method of overcoming his concern with ramifications that may flow from

accepting this amendment.... I'm not a lawyer either, but as one

who was involved in preparing legislation, it would seem to me a very

simple task if the intention of the minister and his government is to

accept the spirit of my colleague's argument, to simply say, by

including a definition in the statute, that "disabled person" within

this statute shall include a specific reference to whatever federal

statute may be found in conflict. Introducing, at the minister's

leisure, a definition flexible enough to accommodate those areas of

conflict he is concerned about, would provide him with the time and the

option, and would give effect to the principle which he has

acknowledged and accepted. So to say that the ramifications which might

flow from this preclude us from introducing it at this late date is

not, I really feel, very valid.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I

don't know whether it's in the minister's mind or not, but there's been

a bit of a tradition in this House to refuse to accept amendments from

the opposition simply because they come from the opposition. Although

the spirit of the argument may be accepted, the government seems

reluctant to accept an opposition amendment for fear that in some

quaint or funny way the government is going to look weak, the

government is going to be seen accommodating the opposition. I want to

say to the minister that that's nonsense. I can tell the minister that

when I sat on that side on the treasury benches I accepted a number of

amendments to legislation at the time it was being debated and put

through the Legislature. I accepted amendments from the Social Credit

Party when they sat on this side, and from the Liberals. There used to

be some Liberals down here at the other end — the current

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and his colleague, the Minister of

Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Minister of

Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — and they had sonic worthwhile suggestions

to make.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

If those suggestions improve

the quality of the legislation on behalf of the people of the province,

which we are all supposed to be representing, why not be big enough to

accept them? It's not going to demean the government in any way. It's

not going to erode the government's strength. It's not going to bring

the government down. Conversely, I think it would show that the

government is fair-minded and realistic enough to accept a good

principle. As I've indicated to the minister and as I think his

colleagues in the legal fraternity on that side would say: "Sure,

look at all the other things you're doing by regulation." Well, bring

in a regulation defining the word "disabled" and tailoring it to meet

what other statutes may be in conflict with that definition — no

problem at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the amendment,

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke didn't intend

to place an incorrect

interpretation on my statement that I was unable

to accept the amendment. It is not because it has been offered by a

member of the official opposition. It matters not where this particular

amendment might have come from in this committee. The fact is that

having been in this House for a few years and having seen many

amendments rejected and some accepted, I am cognizant of the fact that

sometimes the acceptance of an apparently desirable and simple

amendment leads to great difficulty in interpreting the law a little

later on. It is for that reason that I have to say again that,

notwithstanding the valid points which have been made by some members s

opposite....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Member. I think the record in this House will show that I am not intransigent.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all members please address the Chair. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

As a matter of interest to the committee, I think I did not consult the

Premier, nor did he offer any opinion with respect to this amendment.

We don't have to turn to the Premier on every single matter that comes

before this committee. That's one of the things that makes this a good

government with a good Premier and leader. The

[ Page 5680 ]

fact remains that I am not able, as Minister of Finance, to accept....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, one moment please. I wonder if the Premier and the first

member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would not interrupt the Minister

of Finance, who is speaking.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The decision was made at this place in the committee. I cannot accept the amendment.

MR. KING: Yes, you can. You won't accept it.

MR. HANSON:

There's clearly a lack of willingness on the part of the minister to

appreciate the magnitude of the difference that is expressed between

those terms. That is what the international year recognizing the

disabled is all about. It is to break down those language barriers and

force new ground. There are many people in our society who would say

they were handicapped in terms of their income, their race, access to

employment or their access to the various things that society offers

where people, through no fault of their own, are discriminated against.

But here is a year that is internationally recognized as a time when we

will break down those old constructs and forge ahead and allow people

access to things that they've never been allowed before.

my friend for Vancouver Centre and other members on this side of the

House have pointed out, it is not just a language problem that will

technically create difficulties in other statutes. If the minister were

to rise in his place and accept the amendment, he would be saying:

"Yes, I as every other citizen am willing in this year to forge ahead

and break new ground in language." The requests coming forward from the

disabled people in our province deserve this. In what other year are

you going to do it? Why wait? If you can't do it now, you won't do it

later, so accept the amendment. My friend for Shuswap-Revelstoke has

provided the answer. You simply include language in the definition,

which will accommodate and make clear that there will not be conflict

with other statutes on this matter.

MS. BROWN: I

don't know whether the minister. In making his comments about the

federal government, saw the report they issued on the Special Committee

on the Disabled.

He expressed some concern about federal legislation. I've been

looking throughout the report and the federal report is using the word

"disabled," which would seem to indicate that certainly the federal

government is willing to adjust its terminology so that it will

coincide with the wishes of disabled people. As the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke mentioned, it's very easy for the word "disabled,"

written into the legislation, to encompass the federal use of the word

"handicapped" until the federal government gets around to amending its

legislation.

For the member's benefit, I also want to read the definition of the

word "handicapped." I'm using Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary ,

which I gather is well used around here, because it's dog-eared. It

says the word "handicapped" comes from the term "cap-in-hand." It's

really tied to the kind of charity that disabled people used to have to

depend on in terms of their living. That's the root of the terminology.

It says: "a disadvantage imposed on a person: to give a handicap, to assign a handicap, to put at a disadvantage." Disabled

people arc saying that they have a disability, but it doesn't become a

discrimination in terms of hiring, housing or the general attitude of

the community towards their disability.

The

same dictionary gives a definition of disability as: "Inability to

pursue an occupation because of a physical or mental impairment."

They're two completely different words. As was pointed out earlier,

really what we've been doing all along was using the word "handicap"

incorrectly. It's now been brought to our attention by members of the

disabled community. The United Nations has accepted that, and it has

designated this year the International Year of Disabled Persons. I am

willing to withdraw this amendment if I can get a commitment from the

minister that he will introduce his own amendment deleting the use of

the word "handicapped" and substitute the word "disabled."

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, now that the minister has had access to one of the great

legal minds in British Columbia, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Intergovernmental Relations minister, surely he

can advise the Minister of Finance, who is handicapped as I am in terms

of legal aspects and legal terminology.... It's nothing to do with

being disabled, however. That's the difference. The minister could have

conferred with the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Not having access

to him — now that he's gone out the door — could the member ask the

advice of the former Attorney-General? I'm sure he could give him

advice.

Unfortunately, the words are interchangeable in

legislation today. Why don't we start here in this province now with a

piece of legislation that's before us and start making a proper and

positive change? It's so simple and easy.

All the Minister of Forests can do is make fun of any positive suggestion from the opposition.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're a self-righteous bunch of hypocrites.

MR. COCKE: I hope you say that to the disabled people in this province, you Minister of Forests — whatever you are.

MS. BROWN:

I think I'm losing this battle. But anyway, I found the

section in the

federal report entitled "Obstacles." Recommendation 106 deals with

promoting a positive image of disabled persons in key areas of society.

I want to quote from it. It starts out by saying:

"Attitudes and language reinforce each other. Negative attitudes

towards disabled persons and patronizing terminology go hand in hand. Both

must be changed, but the language must come first, because words are easier

to change than ideas."

goes on to talk about how Canadians have changed significantly over

past centuries in their use of terminology which refers to disabled

persons. We started out by calling them crippled. Remember that? Then

we called them deformed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freaks.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Imbeciles, morons and all of these word which arc no longer acceptable were used.

It even talks about the old age act, for example:

"In reference to legislation these have been found unacceptable. The

enactment of of the Canada Assistance Plan as one attempt to move away

from the

[ Page

5681 ]

categorization of persons to the description of a system which

was based on need, regardless of the cause for that need. There are still terms

used which disabled persons find offensive. Use of such terms should cease."

The

minister talked about his reluctance to accept this amendment based on

federal legislation. I am reading from a federal report —

recommendation 106 of this report — dealing with precisely this issue.

That is no longer a concern. The federal government has made its

commitment. I'm willing to table the only copy of this report which I

have, so that the minister can read it for himself. The United Nations

and the federal government have accepted the term "disabled." Disabled

people have indicated that the other term is offensive to them. If he

cannot accept my amendment, will the minister introduce his own

amendment to do precisely the same thing?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member who has just taken her place misunderstands the difficulty

which I face. It's not a question of where the amendment comes from. I

said that some minutes ago. If I felt that the amendment could be

accepted without having impact on other legislation and without,

perhaps, hurting those disabled persons we are seeking to assist

through this and other sections of this bill, then I would do it. It's

not a question of whether it's your amendment, my amendment or the

amendment of the member for Omineca. That's not the point. The point is

that I am loath and reluctant to accept it in relative isolation.

MR. KING:

I just want to say to the minister that it's a sorry situation when he

is more hung up on adjustments that may have to be made to legislation

than he is over-the feelings and welfare of real people out there in

the community.

This government has had a major review of all

the legislation in this province — an updating and a statute review

agency that has just completed its work. I suggest to him that it would

not be a major undertaking to accept the principle of this legislation

— as he has indicated he does philosophically. But in a technocratic

way he says: "No. I won't accept it, because I'm more dedicated to

maintaining my bureaucratic and rather slavish commitment to the

statute and its language and verbiage than I am to effecting change on

behalf of the sensibilities and sensitivities of people out there in

the province of British Columbia who should be recognized this year." I

mean people who are disabled, people who need some recognition from

this government, rather than patronizing attitudes. For the minister to

try to get up and rationalize that is nonsense. We've been on that side

of the House too, and in terms of accommodating a change in the wording

and

interpretation it's no major obstacle. It's shallow and improper

for the Minister of Finance to try to hide behind that excuse.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The amendment is that

section 23 of Bill 13 be amended in line 3 by

deleting the word "handicapped" and substituting the word "disabled."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Brown

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

section 23.

MR. STUPICH:

I have just one question. I wonder if the minister can tell us what he

expects will be the effect of

section 23 on government revenue for

1981-82.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do I understand the Hon.

member to be speaking of the cost of this? Well, it's a simple formula.

We anticipate between 3,000 and 5,000 more recipients of homeowner grants — that's a best guesstimate — would receive the higher

rate. I think that answers the question.

Section 23 approved unanimously on a division.

section 24.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce an amendment to

section 24,

line 3, to delete the word "handicapped" and substitute the word

'disabled."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Could the Chair please have the amendment. Does the hon. member wish to debate the amendment?

MS. BROWN: It's already been debated, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived.

section 24.

MS. BROWN:

I have another amendment on

section 24: to delete line and insert the

following: "is a disabled person or...." The intent of this

amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to give the government an opportunity to

honour the promise which it made in the budget debate on page 15 and

extend the benefits of the homeowner grant to all disabled people in

British Columbia, not just the ones who meet the criteria of being

permanently disabled, whose homes need extensive modification and who

need physical assistance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

[ Page 5682 ]

MS. BROWN:

Once again, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to

section 25, line 3, to

delete the word "handicapped" and substitute the word "disabled." If

that's in order, I just want to say to the minister that I would

suggest that he implement the recommendation of the federal Special

Committee on the Disabled, recommendation 106, which says: "The

committee recommends that the federal government review all terminology

used by its departments and agencies in reference to disabled persons

to eliminate the use of negative terms." I would suggest that the

provincial government do that also.

MR. SKELLY: I

think the effect of this section, Mr. Chairman, is to allow the

government to define or prescribe eligibility of handicapped persons

for the purposes of these previous sections. I wonder if the minister

has regulations developed that would define the eligibility of

handicapped persons, and if so, if he would make those available to the

House today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no. The

regulations are under review, and it's not possible to offer them to

the committee today. With respect to the eligibility — I spoke about it

earlier — it has worked well in a number of other ministries, because

no matter how difficult it is and how carefully the phrases and the

criteria are established, there is always going to be some person who

touches a bit of grey area. Therefore the eligibility committee is

empowered to review a particular case and to make recommendations to

the minister concerned, I think that's extremely important, because

otherwise we are really caught in a strict

interpretation.

MR. SKELLY:

That's precisely what we're concerned about. One of the problems with

the history of the drafting of legislation in this province is that it

gives so much discretion to cabinet and to ministers. When MLAs are

called upon to deliberate and pass legislation in the House we really

have no idea what the content of the regulations is going to be. In

some other legislatures the regulations are placed before the members

along with the legislation, so that they know precisely who is going to

qualify or be eligible, and there is no question in their minds. Also,

in some legislatures they have an opportunity to refer those

regulations to committee so that members can have an influence on how

those regulations are drafted and perhaps solve some of the problems

the minister just brought up.

It's unfortunate that we

operate this Legislature with so much being held in secret or so much

yet to be drafted that we don't really know what the force and impact

of this legislation is going to be. I would suggest it would be a much

better procedure if the minister would have these regulations prepared

in draft form and would share their contents with the members so we can

understand just who we are qualifying under these new sections of

statute. I think it's particularly unfortunate that it's not happening

in this case.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are the

regulations — and I hear what the member has said in that connection —

but then beyond that there is the eligibility committee. which is not a

committee of cabinet, not a committee of politicians, but rather a

committee of senior civil servants. The member will be familiar with

the process which was used in the former Department of Housing, then in

the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and now in the Ministry

of Lands, Parks and Housing, where a very careful review is made of

those cases which inevitably are going to stray into the grey. I think

it serves an extremely useful purpose, because it takes us beyond the

regulations. I think that is helpful in a context such as this.

MR. SKELLY:

Whether there are criteria in the possession of an eligibility

committee, or whatever, I think the minister should share that

information with the Legislature even if it's not completely drafted,

so that when we're amending these sections in this Legislature we will

have an idea just who we are qualifying under the previous sections.

give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland) credit, when we were talking about uranium mining in the

province of B.C., at the time legislation was presented, the minister

also presented the regulations so we would have a clear understanding

of cabinet's intention at that time. I think the government should take

note of that, and where you're talking about an eligibility committee,

possibly table or outline the criteria to the House so that we will

know exactly what classes of people are going to be benefiting under

the sections we've just amended.

MS. BROWN: I have

just a few words in wrapping up this particular section. In the

opposition we'd certainly like the record to show that although we do

not support the bill, we recognize this particular section, despite all

its weaknesses and faults, as a step in the right direction, and it has

our support. Of course, we would have been much more enthusiastic about

it if it had carried out the full promise which was made in the budget

debate: that is, to have covered all disabled people in the province.

It's failed to do that. We recognize that, and we recognize that the

minister says it's one step in the right direction, and that he's

willing to look at it again next year. We would like the record to show

that we do support this very small step made by the government in this

particular direction.

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The question is that

section 25 of Bill 13 be amended in line 3 to

delete the word "handicapped" and substitute the word "disabled."

Amendment negatived.

Section 25 approved.

section 26.

MR. STUPICH:

I want to ask a question similar to what I asked before. In this case

we're collecting more tax revenue, and I'm wondering if the minister

can tell us what the effect will be on 1981-82 revenue.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The revenue consideration in this particular

section of the bill was

not deemed to be that great. For the record, I should at least indicate

that this does not touch the $1 minimum tax which is charged to persons

65 years of age and older, and others who qualify. This recognizes that

for the rest of us a minimum $50 property tax payment, with the

inflation factors which continue to occur, is a relatively small amount

of money. Therefore it seemed that it was appropriate for the sanctity

of property tax to

[ Page

5683 ]

increase it. I can't believe that it's going to be very painful for

any property taxpayer, but rather it recognizes that there is a cost of

delivering services to those individuals who, notwithstanding the tax

which is levied, really end up paying relatively little compared to the

rest of the people in a community, city or municipality. So it was

simply a move to keep track of what should be the minimum charge for

living in one's home and receiving the homeowner grant.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to respond to my question by

saying he doesn't know, and I can accept that at this point in time.

But I will raise it again when we get to estimates. The only point I

was trying to make is that the government is giving with one hand and

taking with the other, and I suspect it's taking a lot more away than

it's giving when it's dealing with the amendments to this particular

legislation. But I'll pursue the question another time when he's had

time to research it.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

section 30.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I asked a question earlier about the government taking

assets into consolidated revenue. The minister told me that in that

case all of the money was provided by the provincial government. I

think in this case, dealing with hospital financing authority, that

some of the money is raised locally. I would invite the minister's

comment on that before I dig myself into a hole. The point I'm trying

to make is that some of the money is contributed by local taxpayers,

but all of the surplus, to the extent that a surplus exists, is coming

to the Crown. It seems to me it's another way of raising money from

local taxpayers without admitting that the government is increasing

taxes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman. to the hon.

member for Nanaimo, among the points covered in this

section 30 of Bill

13 there is.... I think I can assist the member by pointing out

that subsection 8.1(2) allows the debt issued by a hospital district

to be terminated. The hospital board issuing such debt will be

discharged from all obligations under the debt before the maturity date

where the Minister of Finance determines and certifies under an earlier

subsection an adequacy of moneys in the sinking fund to retire the debt

at maturity. The conditions likely to be contained in the certificate

would relate to the hospital board being required to make additional

payments to the sinking fund in the event of inadequate funding at the

maturity date.

Therefore it's not simply a question of money

which was raised locally flowing back to the consolidated revenue fund

of the province, but rather offering an assurance or guarantee to the

local tax-raising authority, in this case a regional hospital district.

Section 30 approved.

section 31.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister several questions on

section

31. First of all, I'd like him to tell us the anticipated additional

revenue that will be yielded as a result of the increase in the hotel

tax. I'd also like him to tell us what percentage of these rooms is

under $50 and what percentage is over $50 in terms of the total. Can

you give me an answer from your background papers on the additional

revenue which will be yielded, and what percentage is $50 or less

rooms?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the increase

from 5 percent to 6 percent — that is. the lower of the two tax rates —

is anticipated to raise an additional S3.5 million in this fiscal year.

Then the accommodation, which is at the higher tax rate, will raise

$1.3 million. The member hasn't asked, but against that must be offset

loss of revenue of $300,000 estimated with the increase of the

exemption level from $4 to $10 per room. For the information of the

committee, I'm referring to page 45 of the budget document, appendix B.

MR. LEGGATT:

The minister didn't answer the second part of the question, which deals

with the percentage of rooms that are estimated to be $50 or less and

those considered to be $50 or more in terms of accommodation. I wanted

to know how the breakdown is around the $50 figure.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

There was a degree of arbitrary selection of the $50 figure, when we

looked at the two-tier system of hotel tax increase. I can't assist the

member at this point in committee by indicating the approximate number,

except to refer him again to the revenue increase which would certainly

suggest that the bulk of the hotel tax collected — $3.5 million versus

$1.3 million — is going to come from the lower-priced rooms.

MR. LEGGATT:

I take it then that the minister is following the philosophy of the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) of seeking only quality

tourists, given the fact that obviously you're going to be raising more

revenue out of lower-priced accommodation than you will be out of

higher priced accommodation. This would seem to be consistent with the

philosophy expressed by the Minister of Tourism this year — that they

were looking for higher-quality tourists in the province.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I won't stray into the area of tourism. Whether or not

the member has fully identified a point made by the Minister of Tourism

is not for me to say in discussing this section. I would observe,

however, that one of the considerations which was dealt with at great

length when I was working with senior officials concerning the total

tax package was the recognition that a very large number of hotel rooms

throughout British Columbia are rented to British Columbians who are

moving through the province in the course of a variety of business and

pleasure activities.

simply relates to the points which I

made in the budget speech and in second reading debate on a bill

yesterday. We are attempting to build into our taxation package an

equity which has occasionally been missing. If someone wishes to take a

$300 suite, whether they live in Vancouver and are in Victoria or

whether they have travelled halfway around the globe, there is an an

opportunity to charge — and I think almost a responsibility to charge a

higher tax rate. I would think that the member knows there are some

very significant hotel taxes charged in other jurisdictions and in

other parts of the world, quite apart from Canada.

[ Page 5684 ]

MR. LEGGATT:

The minister is correct in saying that certain jurisdictions have hotel

room tax. I think ours will be one of the higher ones in Canada. If

you're examining the question of the importance of the tourist industry

to British Columbia, it's beyond my comprehension why you should be

trying to raise money off the backs of that particular industry which

makes a very significant contribution to this economy. It always has

done. For $3.5 million on a $50-or-less room and $1.3 million on those

over that price, you are discouraging people from coming to this

province. You're also discouraging people from travelling in this

province to see other parts of it by taxing the hotel industry in terms

of rooms. In an allegedly buoyant economy — in a boom year — why you

should be trying to cut back on the tourist industry, Mr. Minister, is

beyond my comprehension. I do not understand why the existing tax had

to be raised at all. It's already substantial under the existing law.

Why you would need to gouge the people trying to promote tourism in

British Columbia is quite beyond the comprehension of the opposition.

In fact, we question whether you need these revenues at all; but that's

a whole other debate. But to attack the tourist industry and discourage

people from coming to the province is a policy that is completely

unacceptable to most of the people of this province and is certainly

unacceptable to the opposition.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm

not sure that the member has gone all the way in developing the point

that is before us. It is true that some provinces do not levy a tax on

hotel accommodation, but those which do.... I'm sorry, I don't know

off the top of my head what change may have occurred in Ontario last

night in that particular tax. It seems to me that I heard there was

reference to a hotel tax increase, but I could be mistaken. In Manitoba

it is 5 percent, in New Brunswick it is 8 percent, in Nova Scotia it is

8 percent, in Prince Edward Island it is 9 percent and in Newfoundland

it is 11 percent.

This is not an attack on the visitor industry. It's a very important industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Go back to Auckland.

Sooner

or later members on the opposite side will understand that we had a

very serious revenue-expenditure squeeze. They choose not to admit that

recognition in here at the present time, but they will see that through

quarterly reporting and through other documentation. There is another

fact....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't blow your cool.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Like the Leader of the Opposition blew the lunch. I won't blow my cool.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will not interrupt the Minister of Finance, who continues uninterrupted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, attempting to assist the member — I said

he didn't go all the way — the other point which I think he would like to

acknowledge, because he's a fair man, is that we do not levy a tax on meals

in British Columbia. I hope — underline the word "hope" — that we don't

reach the point where we have to return to that tax. Frankly, we considered

it among all the options available to us. In Ontario, while you may be paying

zero....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Alberta?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tourism is important to Ontario, Mr. Member, and you know that. We'll talk about Quebec as well, if you wish.

While

you may be paying zero tax on the room, you're paying 10 percent on

every single meal you consume while you are in Ontario. So if you're

going to examine impact on the visitor and the individual who moves

around within a province, I think you have to look not only at the tax

on the room but also at other taxes, most particularly a tax on meals

consumed in restaurants.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I

note on page 45 of the budget, under the heading "Hotel Room Tax Act,"

a line which says: "Exemption level increased to $10 per night from

$4." In other words, anyone who can obtain a $10 or $8 hotel room in

the province of British Columbia enjoys the tender mercies of Social

Credit; they're relieved of the tax burden.

My real question

to the Minister of Finance is: how is that translated into the bill

currently before the committee? Clause (

a) provides a tax of 6 percent

of the purchase price of the accommodation where the daily rate for

each unit of accommodation payable by that purchaser is less than $50.

It doesn't say between $50 and $10, as was promised in the budget. I

wonder if this is another example of the government's promising

something in the budget which they then renege on and refuse to

deliver. I would like the Minister of Finance to comment on that and

explain it to the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: No cheap shots, either.

MR. KING: No cheap shots. The minister is most expensive. He's the finest Minister of Finance that money can buy.

The other thing that intrigues me here is that clause (

b) of this particular provision indicates....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: You've hurt his feelings.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, if the minister was offended by that remark, I withdraw

it. He's not the finest minister that money can buy. I withdraw. I

certainly wouldn't want to ruffle that man's feathers, because he waxes

right out of control when he gets angry, and I wouldn't want to be

responsible for driving him to conduct another wild-man performance in

this Legislature. Far be that from me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Section 31.

Interjection.

MR. KING:

Now the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the

B and B man, is starting to.... Listen to him, Mr. Chairman. He's

out of control, a complete wild man.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all members please come to order. We are debating

section 31 of Bill 13.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not used to being harassed in this fashion, and I dropped my notebook. I'm not used to dealing with wild men.

[ Page 5685 ]

Clause

(

a) provides for 6 percent where the room is less than $50 a night.

Clause (

b) provides for 8 percent where the room is over $50 a night.

Then it has this gem, Mr. Chairman: "Where there is no daily rate, the

rate that is payable shall be extrapolated to a daily rate for the

purpose of applying this section." Now, Mr. Chairman, I want you to use

your imagination: here we have a small hotel renting by the week. A

long lineup of customers comes from the airport and they're waiting

patiently to register at the desk. There is an interminable delay up

there at the desk, and one guy at the back of the line says: "What are

you doing up there?" And the guy says: "We're extrapolating." Somebody

at the end of the line says: "Well, I thought that was illegal in public I didn't think says:

you're allowed to extrapolate in public." What kind of legislation

is this gang of coalition mavericks and malcontents trying to foist on the people

of British Columbia? They're going to extrapolate the rates of taxation

on a hotel room at the desk, while a long line of customers is waiting. I want

to tell them, Mr. Chairman, that at times there could be some urgency in the

public mind and the public objective in terms of gaining that haven. They don't

want to face those unnecessary delays; they don't want to be forced to extrapolate

in public. What a shameful thing for this government to do.

Here

is a Minister of Finance who couldn't change the word "handicapped" to

"disabled" to respect the sensibilities of a large community out there,

but who is willing to inflict extrapolation on the patrons of hotel

rooms. I think this is the ultimate, Mr. Chairman. This could only

occur with a government who legislated Seaboard overboard. I would like

to hear the Minister of Finance's comments on the fact that the $10

hotel room is absent from the provision of this statute — it was

promised in the budget — and I'd like to hear him explain to us just

how the extrapolation will take place at that hotel registry.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman. the $10 hotel room will be dealt with by regulation, as

it has been in the past. Since budget day the members opposite have

found this to be....

MR. LEA: Funny.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, funny. They've had a lot of good laughs at the expense of that

increase. I can tell you that the people who will benefit from this are

not distressed at all. They're very pleased, because the $4 limit was

completely unrealistic.

MR. KING: Is $10 realistic?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Member, you move around the province, I think. We're speaking of

hostels, YM-YWCA and a variety of accommodation which is used by people

in British Columbia — particularly youth hostels. Since the change was

announced in the budget, we've had very positive response from people

who said $4 was ludicrously low. So we've increased it to $10 and that

will be by regulation.

With respect to extrapolation, I stand condemned.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't think we should hang you.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to know the formula on extrapolation. Is the formula

on extrapolation the same as the one on the gas tax? If the minister

can't explain it, how do you expect a hotel clerk to explain it? Have

you sent out a notice to all hotel clerks with the picture of the

member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) on it? Is the Minister of

Tourism giving them the formula on how to extrapolate in public? Have

you given that formula? What is the formula for the extrapolation?

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I am certainly not in a position where I need to defend this minister.

He's quite capable of defending himself. I did want to make a few

comments on this

section of the bill, because it has been a matter of

interest to a lot of people in the province and to this industry. I

think one of the most significant things we should note first, Mr.

Chairman, is that he true critics of this portfolio of Tourism haven't

spoken on this, and I suspect it's because they realize that the tax

imposition put into place with this

section of the act is not

significant in terms of a detriment to our industry. The complaints

about it from the other side of the House probably fall more into a

philosophical difference between that side of the House and our side of

the House. I've listened to many of the opposition members talk on the

platform as they attend some meetings. We feel that this industry is a

strong, expanding one. It's an industry in which you need dynamism,

competition, imagination, a free enterprise society, a very healthy

economy plus a competitive marketing program. However. we can see that

the socialists would like to control the industry. They would like to

make it a hot-house industry. There are various ways of doing that.

Sometimes you become part of the industry to control it.

The

suggestion from the Hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) that

the 8 percent tax would discourage tourism in British Columbia is

really unfounded. This government is very mindful of the fact that our

tourist industry must be competitive. But I would suggest the way to

make it competitive is not the route the opposition suggests. The way

to make it competitive is the way we are going in terms of a very

strong marketing strategy, of very sound enterprise management within

the industry itself, quality of service, imagination, variety and

quality of experience. As well, our philosophy is that tourism, which

is a basic resource along with any other resource, should not be given

away. It should not be made a hot-house resource.

In this

area we feet there is every opportunity to be competitive. I'm sure the

minister himself has referred to other hotel taxes across Canada,

ranging anywhere from 5 percent to 11 percent. Ours is only 8 percent

on the room over $50 a night room, and less on the lower rooms, with

the $10 exemptions.

have to look at the fact that nearly

every other province has a tax on food, and whether our visitors are

our own citizens or not, those visitors eat food. There is no tax on

food, and we have no tax on amusements. We have the lowest small

business corporation tax in Canada. In terms of dollars, our industry

is very competitive.

I would like to discuss the two-tier

approach. There certainly is some thought about it within the industry,

but not a convincing position. The House should know that less than 25

percent of our hotel and accommodation rooms in British Columbia are

over the $50 mark, and generally they were occupied by people on

business trips, conventions or family holidays that do relate to

business and are income-tax-deductible. Or sometimes it's a very

special experience that people are looking for.

[ Page 5686 ]

would like to point out that even on a $100 room — and we don't have

many $100 rooms in British Columbia — it 's only the addition of four

more cups of coffee. I would suggest that when you have $50-a-night

hotel rooms.... You're suggesting that the people we want to come

to British Columbia couldn't afford four cups of coffee to contribute

to hospitals, schools, roads and parks that they themselves as well as

our citizens would use. You are suggesting that people who travel don't

have any money, particularly if it's on business, and I don't think

that's so.

The other 75 percent of rooms and accommodations

around British Columbia are below the $50-a-night level. These are the

rooms that are more frequently occupied by our own citizens, so this

gives our own citizens a fair opportunity. I hope it will encourage

other people as well as our own citizens to visit other parts of the

province where accommodation is, perhaps, a more favourable price and

where the tax is, perhaps, more favourable. This will be one of many

incentives we intend to bring in to encourage people to utilize the

whole province as a vacation area.

I don't think anyone

would