1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MAY 27, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3417 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 142). Hon, Mr.

Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 3417

Provincial Home Acquisition Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

140). Hon. Mr. Nicolson

Introduction and first reading — 3417

Strata Titles Act (Bill 141). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 3417

Oral Questions

Irregularities in shipment of Plateau Sawmills logs. Mr. Fraser

— 3417

Meeting with Victoria on Laurel Point development. Mr. Wallace — 3417

Possibility of government funds for ROSS committee on Skagit. Mr. Gibson — 3417

Crerar statement on job creation in B.C. northwest. Mr. Bennett — 3418

Police reports to LCB on hotel operations. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3418

Flooding on Interior rivers. Mr. Curtis — 3419

Termination of leases in Victoria Press building. Mr. Chabot — 3419

Housing department arrangements with James Realty. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3419

Balancing of books for past fiscal year. Mr. Fraser — 3419

Study of health services for chronically ill. Mr. Wallace — 3419

Negotiations on Vancouver property frozen for ferry

terminal. Mr. Chabot — 3420

Access through Crown land to timber sale licence areas. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3420

Pollution of Shawnigan Lake. Mr. Curtis — 3420

Conflict of interest facing Highways engineer. Mr. Wallace — 3421

Statement Current state of Interior flood situation. Hon. Mr. Hall — 3421

Routine proceedings

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 33)

Report and third reading — 3421

Transit Services Act (Bill 70).

Division on third reading — 3421

Lotteries Act (Bill 83).

Report and third reading — 3422

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 88).

Report and third reading — 3422

Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

8).

Committee, report and third reading — 3422

Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 79).

Committee, report and third reading — 3422

Emergency Health Services Act (Bill 93). Committee

stage.

section 5.

Mr. Wallace — 3422

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3422

Mr. McClelland — 3423

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3423

section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 3423

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3423

Mr. McClelland — 3423

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3423

Report and third reading — 3423

Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

4).

Committee, report and third reading — 3424

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act (Bill 20).

Committee, report and third reading — 3424

Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 73)

Committee, report

and third reading — 3424

County Courts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 74).

Committee, report and third reading — 3424

Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act (Bill 10 1).

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 3424

Hon. Mr. King — 3425

Mr. Gibson — 3425

Hon. Mr. King — 3425

Report and third reading — 3425

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 65). Second

reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3425

Blind Persons' Rights Act (Bill 72). Second

reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3426

Mr. McClelland — 3427

Mr. Gibson — 3427

Mr. Wallace — 3427

Hon. Ms. Young — 3427

Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 13). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3428

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 14). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3428

Real Property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3428

Mr. Bennett — 3434

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3436

Ms. Brown — 3438

Mr. Wallace — 3439

Mrs. Webster — 3440

Mr. McGeer — 3441

Mr. Gardom — 3442

Mr. Phillips — 3443

Mr. Cummings — 3445

Mr. Smith — 3446

Mr. McClelland — 3447

Mr. Morrison — 3447

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3448

Division on second reading — 3450

MONDAY, MAY 27, 1974.

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

today two students who are here from Winnipeg. They've chosen

as a school project a visit to the west coast of Canada,

including a visit to the Legislature. This project is financed

by themselves. They're staying in Delta and they're here today

in the Legislature. Their names are Jim Aberdeen and Kirk Lee.

I hope the Legislature will make them welcome.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce to the House today one of the nine mayors who reside

in the constituency of Comox. Would the House join me in

welcoming today Mayor Dick Merrick from Comox?

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act,

1974 .

Bill 142 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Provincial Home Acquisition

Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 140 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

STRATA TITLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator: a bill intituled Strata Titles Act .

Bill 141 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

IRREGULARITIES IN SHIPMENT

OF PLATEAU SAWMILLS LOGS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a question to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Despite being turned

down by the B.C. Forest Service, under what authority are the

logs located at the burned-down mill of Plateau Mills at

Vanderhoof being shipped to the north-side Plateau Mill at

Vanderhoof? It is an illegal operation because it has no barker

or chipper.

Under what authority are these logs being shipped after

they've been turned down by the Forest Service?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MEETINGS WITH VICTORIA ON

LAUREL POINT DEVELOPMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with respect to

the action of the City of Victoria in approving a land-use

contract for a large hotel-apartment complex at Laurel Point in

the Inner Harbour, whether the Minister has any meetings

planned with Mayor Pollen or city council?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're always ready and willing to have

meetings with the mayor and council, Mr. Speaker, and we'd be

pleased to do so regarding the Inner Harbour or any part of the

city.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in that regard.

Has the Minister, or what we might call "the troika" of

land-use Ministers, held any meetings to consider provincial

government action to freeze that site known as the Laurel Point

site in the Inner Harbour, similar to the action taken just

round the corner a few weeks ago?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker — a last

supplementary. Could I just ask, in light of previous

experience, whether any negotiations are underway at the

present time between this government and the owners of the

Laurel Point site for the government to purchase that site?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS

FOR ROSS COMMITTEE ON SKAGIT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano):

[ Page 3418 ]

Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources took as notice a question I asked him with

respect to a report that the ROSS committee — the

"Run-Out-Skagit-Spoilers" committee — had approached the

government for funds to make representations with respect to

the Skagit hearings in the U.S. The Minister took that as

notice. Has he any answer at this point?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, is it

correct that the Minister turned down the request for a grant? — and on what grounds?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: What is correct is that I took it as

notice. I will endeavour to see that the answer is

provided.

CRERAR STATEMENT ON JOB

CREATION IN B.C. NORTHWEST

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: could the

Minister clarify to the House statements by one Alistair

Crerar, director of the government's Environment and Land Use

secretariat, which suggest that the government's plan for

northwest British Columbia job creation, and I quote: "…won't do anything more than keep pace with the natural increase

of the present population"?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that

the statements of the director of the Environment and Land Use

secretariat would conform with the statements that I made

during our tour of the northwest.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental. What special provision has

the Minister underway which would come to grips with the

problem of the northwestern part of British Columbia — it being

an area where no Indian treaties have been signed?

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a general policy statement on the

northwest, or is it just a specific question on the treaty?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, specifically to do with the north.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's not clear to me what the question

is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly define it better?

MR. BENNETT: Well, it has to do with the development of the northwest

in that no Indian treaties have been signed in that area, and also dealing with

the question of the agreement. What has the Minister…what special provisions

or studies or discussions does he have underway?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: All these matters are always under

active consideration. However, I'd like to make it clear that

the great railway being built from Fort St. James north, which

serves no resources whatsoever, designed by the former

administration…. They didn't concern themselves with any

question involving social or economic input or any other kind

of input in terms of the people of the region, which we…. We

don't carry out our programmes in the same seat-of-the-pants

way, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to both the participants in the

latest exchange that a general policy statement is not really

the purpose of question period, nor asking general

questions?

POLICE REPORTS TO LCB

ON HOTEL OPERATIONS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I have a question for the

Attorney-General. It is not a seat-of-the-pants question, but

may I say that he's looking more and more like a Member of the

former government with that jacket he's got on. It looks like

Wes Black's old jacket; nevertheless I congratulate him on

having found it. (Laughter.)

Has the Minister received representations objecting to the

practice of police authorities in Vancouver making reports

direct to the Liquor Control Board authorities about the

operations of hotels, even in cases where no charges have been

laid against the hotel?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, such

objections, if they have been made, have not come to my

attention.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask a supplementary, then? May I

ask the Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that if

and where reports of this sort are being made, a copy can be

made to the hotel in question? The problem arises that they are

unwilling to call in the police to handle disturbances if it

could affect their liquor licence.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The matter having been raised, I'll have

a look at it.

[ Page

3419 ]

FLOODING ON INTERIOR RIVERS

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

the Hon. Provincial Secretary. Some days have passed since

we've heard in this House any new developments with respect to

flooding or flooding potential in the major river systems. I

wonder if the Minister would comment now or, if more

acceptable, after question period on the current status.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'd rather not take up

the time in question period. I will do it immediately following

question period, Mr. Speaker, if that's possible.

TERMINATION OF LEASES

IN VICTORIA PRESS BUILDING

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Public

Works with respect to any existing leases in the Victoria Press

building, specifically Blanshard Taxation Services: have all

existing leases been given notice or cancelled?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): One lease will

be allowed to continue.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Is there a plan of

compensation for any of the small businesses that have been

disrupted by the cancellation of these leases — those that will

be kicked out?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The building was sold to us with a clear

title.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of an answer is that?

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. Ten steps down the

street, has the government got designs on purchasing the Scott

Block on the corner of Hillside and Douglas where 50

residential tenants are being evicted and a few commercial

tenants are also having their leases cancelled by Belmont

Properties Management Company? Does the government have

intentions of purchasing that building which people are being

kicked out of at the moment?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The answer is no. We have nothing to do

with that.

MR. CHABOT: No intentions?

HON. MR, HARTLEY: No intention of purchasing Scott Block.

That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: You are asking a question of future policy, which is, of

course, not the purpose of question period.

HOUSING DEPARTMENT ARRANGEMENTS

WITH JAMES REALTY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Housing, may I ask the

Minister whether Mr. Jack James of James Realty of Vancouver is

acting on behalf of his department or the provincial government

in purchasing options in the Maple Ridge area?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that

question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

BALANCING OF BOOKS

FOR PAST FISCAL YEAR

MR. FRASER: A week ago I asked the Minister of Finance if he

had balanced the books for the fiscal year ending March 31,

1974, so we'd know what the actual revenues and expenditures

were. I wonder if he's had time now to get them balanced.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): In fact,

Mr. Speaker, I've worked all week-end and I'm very close to

balancing the books. It appears that I'll hit the annual target

date of July.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Same old style of government.

STUDY OF HEALTH SERVICES

FOR CHRONICALLY ILL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health: with

regard to his announcement that Dr. Foulkes will head a team to

study health services for the chronically ill, can the Minister

tell the House the terms of reference of this team and its

specific goal?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I made a

general announcement on Friday to that effect, and indicated at

the same time I made that announcement that the terms of

reference are being worked out by the Department of Human

Resources and the Department of Health at the present time. We

won't be announcing the terms of reference for probably two

weeks to a month. He won't be available to do the work for at

least the next four or five weeks. Therefore the terms of

reference are being very carefully worked on by the two

departments at the present time.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

fact that a standing committee of the Legislature toured the

province last summer and

[ Page 3420 ]

obtained a great deal of information, could the Minister at

least tell us whether it's still a matter of criteria for

chronic care, or whether it is purely the implementation of

chronic care services that is Dr. Foulkes' concern?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's implementation. We

know the direction. As a matter of fact the Premier indicated

the priorities recently. This is purely a matter of

implementation of a chronic care service for this province

which is properly coordinated. Our problem now, as you know, is

that the whole thing is in a number of areas — Housing,

Department of Health, Department of Human Resources — with

financing in two different areas, so it just has to be put

together and organized in such a way that it becomes finally

rational.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

has mentioned priorities which were quoted by the Premier. Can

I take it that his question about implementation is not

contingent on legislation still to be passed, then? A decision

has been taken, in other words, to implement chronic care

facilities regardless of pending legislation in this House.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, naturally from time to time

legislation will have to be amended to….

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Bill 31 isn't passed yet, Mr. Speaker, but

I'm sure that it will be very helpful and I'm sure that that

Member will vote for it because of the fact that it will do the

job that he's been calling for for lo these many months, Mr.

Speaker.

NEGOTIATIONS ON VANCOUVER

PROPERTY FROZEN FOR FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Public Works:

regarding the property on the North Shore frozen for ferry

terminal purposes, when is the government going to negotiate or

expropriate this property?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We're in the midst of negotiating on all

properties that we need at this time.

MR. CHABOT: Negotiations are taking place. There are certain property

owners there who are experiencing financial difficulties because of the lack

of negotiations on the frozen property. They're concerned — and expressing this

concern. I was wondering when negotiations are really going to start or when

expropriation procedures are going to commence.

HON. MR, HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the Member

for Columbia River that if there's any lacking in negotiations,

it's entirely on the head of the property owners. In the

expropriation paper there was a definite statement of the

intention of the government, asking all property owners to come

forward and treat or negotiate.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, have the

property owners been made an offer they couldn't refuse?

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's probably not intended for an

answer.

ACCESS THROUGH CROWN LAND

TO TIMBER SALE LICENCE AREAS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources. Last week I asked him a question about

granting permits for access over Crown land to timber sale

licence areas. I wonder whether he could answer that question

at the present time, in particular with respect to people who

have purchased timber sales overseas as a result of government

advertising and who now find that they must be Canadian

citizens or landed immigrants to get access to the timber sales

that they purchased?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it would be useful, Mr. Speaker,

if the Hon. Member would provide me with specific information

privately, if he prefers, and we could follow it up.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: I did it last week.

POLLUTION OF SHAWNIGAN LAKE

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, with respect to pollution control. There

has been concern expressed for some time, but most particularly

in the last few weeks, with regard to an increasing water

pollution problem at Shawnigan Lake. The Minister will

understand that Shawnigan Lake is not only a recreational area

but provides drinking water for the community at Mill Bay. Has

this been brought to the Minister's attention, and is it being

investigated by the pollution control people?

HON. MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm aware of earlier studies, Mr.

Speaker, with the Health department but I'm not aware of

anything of quite recent date.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. Would the Minister undertake to

update himself on this point? It is of

[ Page 3421 ]

concern to a number of people in the Shawnigan Lake

district.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'll do that.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) took as notice a question I asked

regarding a possible conflict of interest on the part of a

senior Highways department engineer in the Alta Lake–Whistler

area. He sent a memo to the Minister of Highways, I understand,

who was out of town at the time I asked the question. I was

told that the Attorney-General and the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea) between them would give an answer to this

question in the House. I wonder if the Attorney-General and the

Minister of Highways have been able to clarify the

situation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I did send the note to the

Minister of Highways. I don't think I have received a reply. It

may have come into my office and I'll check, now that the

Member has raised the matter again.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House I will

make a statement on the flood potential in the province.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for

Saanich and the Islands for giving me notice of the question,

but it requires not a lengthy reply but a reply longer than I

think was necessary to be taken away from question period

time.

The continued cool weather last week, Mr. Speaker, kept the

rivers low. If the trend had continued everything might be

well. However, the water wasn't flowing swiftly enough and, of

course, if there's a period of warm weather the potential

flooding remains serious. We've now seen that increase in

temperature which has dramatically raised the levels of the

rivers at the four points at which we take readings.

The flood potential reported previously by myself and in the

bulletins that the Members can find continues for most of the

central-south Interior rivers.

The seasonal, cool weather which I made reference to, in the first half of

May, particularly the second week, and now into the third week, has resulted

in a delayed melt and, as I say, a downward trend to the river stages. The weather

in the next few weeks will be the crucial factor. As I say, the bad news is

that the weather has warmed up considerably and the levels are rising.

The reading of the snow pack indicates a well above average

amount of snow pack; the snow courses at the lower elevations

have shown generally close to normal melt over the two weeks,

but at the very high elevations, of course, they have not been

melting at the rate we anticipated. The snow pack desert is

very high, indicating a well-primed snow pack which bodes no

good.

Mr. Speaker, to the details: the airport dike in Kamloops — that was 7,000

feet — was completed on the weekend. The Brocklehurst dike should have been

finished this weekend, and my information on that one was the weekend, and I

understand it was completed. If not, it will certainly be completed today.

Diking at Westside is commencing this week; diking on River

Street in Kamloops is commenced and the 10 homes, which Members

may have read about, will be by-passed, having released

governments from liability.

At Chilliwack there were two pumps working in the Vedder

area last week, the other four will be operational this week.

The staff committee visited most of the areas last week and

noted that the Highways department are dropping sand in various

places in the Osoyoos and Keremeos area. A lot of the local

people are already involved in emergency work, including high

school children. Most people are expressing a great deal of

pleasure, if not apprehension, but pleasure over the fact that

we are being prepared, My latest report, Mr. Speaker, is that this morning there is

local flooding in the Woods Lake area in the vicinity of

Winfield and Oyama. Approximately 24 homes have been affected.

My department has set up a reception centre in Winfield. If it

becomes necessary to evacuate, we will do so.

The Red Cross, my department and the Department of Human

Resources are represented; they're on the spot and everything

is under control. That's my report today, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker; report

on Bill 33.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 33 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

Bill 70 read a third time and passed on the

[ Page

3422 ]

following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 12

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

LOTTERIES ACT

Bill 83 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

SEWERAGE FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

Bill 88 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in Committee on Bill 8; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974 , reported complete

without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill

79, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in Committee on Bill 79; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 79, Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill

93, Mr. Chairman.

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 93; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I was absent from the House when

this bill was given second reading so I might be repeating

ground that was covered.

section 5 (f): "The commission has the power and

authority…(

f) to recruit, examine, train, register, and

license emergency medical assistants." I wonder if the Minister

could just tell the House to what degree this will relate to

the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Is the commission

giving a separate power for this specific licensing

function?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Naturally, this won't in

any way impinge on the degree-granting universities nor will it

impinge on the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's dealing

with medical assistants; it's dealing with paramedical people.

Naturally, the commission has to set standards for their level

of training, so that's really what this is all

[ Page

3423 ]

about. I'm sure they'll be doing a great deal of their work

in consultation and close communication with the Medical Centre

however.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wanted to get the

Minister's opinion about the methods by which the ambulance

services will be phased into these training programmes for the

people involved in ambulance services. There are various levels

of ambulance service now; some good, some bad, some not so

good. Will you be attempting to establish some kind of criteria

by which you decide at what level an ambulance service is now?

Will those which are considered substandard be sent through

training first? How are you going to manage that?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. We're proposing setting up a level for

different areas. For instance, in the very highly sophisticated

urban areas where you have a tremendous demand, the level will

be at first higher than it will be, say, for the more rural

areas. Ultimately, we want to phase everybody up as high as we

can and as high as the area will support. There will be a

handbook as to the level required for a certain area. Even the

volunteers will be required to meet a certain level of training

prior to being allowed to work.

We have to be very careful not to make it tough at the

beginning so as to exclude a number of people who are now

working in the business. We want to give them ample time to

acquire the training necessary. That's one of the reasons we

feel it's incumbent upon us within the commission to set up the

training facility.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. WALLACE: A point in relation to

section 6. I was just a

little puzzled by line 4, "deterioration of health." The

purpose of the

section quite clearly is to give the medical

assistant the power to act at the very time when he's most

needed, namely when the patient's health is endangered. It

states in line 3: "where the unavailability of a duly qualified

medical practitioner is likely to result in a person's death or

deterioration of health…."

This seems rather a diffuse and general statement that could

easily be interpreted on a much broader basis that what I think

is the precise intent of

section 6. I wonder if the Minister

has any comment to make on what I think is rather a poorly

chosen phrase. I think I know what they're trying to say but it

doesn't say it at all well.

HON. MR. COCKE: I would be only too happy…. It was discussed at great

length as to where the cutoff point begins and it was felt that you had to have

some latitude there. There would be:

(1) Some argument as to what might lead

to death; (2) if you didn't provide them with something…. It's a mite vague,

I agree with you, but we just couldn't find any other phrase that would meet

that situation.

But "deterioration of health" here really means a situation

where the person would likely be chronically ill or suffer for

the rest of his life as a result of the neglect that would be

brought about by virtue of the fact that there wasn't a doctor

there to treat him. The paramedic or the ambulance attendant

under those circumstances is being protected here so that he's

not going to find himself at the bad end of a good Samaritan

suit.

MR. McCLELLAND: As I pointed out in second reading, this

section still bothers me slightly. I'm afraid if we're not on

absolutely solid, legal ground with this section, we will

instil a sense of false security among the paramedical people

who are charged with this responsibility. I'd just like the

Minister's assurance that we will be on really solid, legal

ground before we go ahead with this

section of the bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: All I can say is that when the Statute

Law Amendment Act comes up, I think you'll probably be able

to help us get onto that solid, legal ground we require in this

particular. There has to be a companion piece. I'm sure the

Member for Oak Bay realizes that and I'm sure you do too. There

has to be a companion piece that will provide that kind of

assurance, Mr. Member, and we are proposing that.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 93, Emergency Health Services Act reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 104.

REGIONAL HOSPITAL DISTRICTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Dent in the

[ Page 3424 ]

chair.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair, Bill 104, Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act ,

1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 120, Mr. Speaker.

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC

SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 120; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 120, Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 73, Mr. Speaker.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 73, Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act,

1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 74; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 74, County Courts Amendment Act, 1974 , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 101, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL PROVINCIAL

EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 101; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): The provision of

section 2, if I understand it correctly, is that persons may be

appointed to advise the Minister on these various programmes.

The Minister during second reading indicated to us that perhaps

40 per cent might be spent by the designated agencies mentioned

section 1 and perhaps up to 60 per cent spent directly by

the province.

I'm particularly concerned that the funds spent directly by the province, where

they are of direct concern and interest to a local or municipal

[ Page

3425 ]

authority, should be designed and implemented in consultation with the local

authority.

I'm not quite certain what's the best procedure to follow,

Mr. Chairman: whether an amendment should be moved for this

purpose, or whether the Minister would indicate that it would

be his intention that consultation would be carried on with

local authorities at all times. He might wish to comment on

that.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): There is no set formula

for the distribution of these moneys as between government

Crown corporations and local regional districts, municipal

councils and so on.

It is the intention of the department to develop the

broadest possible consultation on the types of programmes which

we might fund. Now this means that in the future I intend to

have a continuing committee on which will be municipal

authority representation and trade union representation, not

only to come to grips with the problems in terms of the

distribution of the moneys to ensure that a fair volume of

employment is enjoyed throughout the province, but also to come

to grips with some of those problems we have encountered in

terms of the wage rates that will be paid.

As you can appreciate, the wage rates are set out under this

programme, and there has been some conflict with certain trade

unions as to our levels of wages being lower than the going

trade union rate. I want to ensure that there is cooperation

between the unions and the municipalities in terms of

identifying the kinds of jobs that will be done, so that it is

not impinging on the normal work performed by trade union

members — and hence minimizing their work force — but at the

same time ensure that we obtain maximum benefits from the

number of dollars that are available.

In other words, we want to be sure that we are not paying

such a high wage scale that the number of students employed is

thereby reduced. It's rather a delicate balance.

The specific programmes that are put forward by the regional

districts and municipalities will be subject to review by this

committee when they come in each year. While the distribution

of funds this year is about 60-40, as I understand it, that may

well vary in the future. On the programmes that are simply

within the jurisdiction of the Department of Highways, or the

Parks Branch, for instance, if there is any relation with any

municipality, that would be up to that department to develop

their liaison. We have liaison mainly with the programmes that

are sponsored by the local authority.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate the Minister's explanation there. One area

of concern I still have remaining is that he indicates that this department

has a pattern of consulting with local municipalities on any matters within

their boundaries affecting them, but other departments do not necessarily have

this.

I wonder if he could assure the House, in his general

superintendency of the funds under this Bill 101, that he would

ask each of the departments responsible for disbursements to

bear in mind the very great importance of consulting with local

authorities where it is within the ambit of a local

authority.

He will know as well as I the many — I would call them — horrible examples of expenditure programmes entered into often

by Ottawa, for example, in various areas without local

consultation — without benefit of local committees — that

sometimes redound to the disadvantage of the government

concerned.

I am sure that the Minister would not want that to happen

with Victoria. Therefore, I would ask him if he would give this

guideline under the authority of Bill 101 to his colleagues

disbursing these funds.

HON. MR. KING: I would be most agreeable to the suggestion

that the Member puts forward. I will suggest to my colleagues

that they do in fact give an indication to local municipalities

about the number of jobs that they intend to create in their

various departments throughout the Province of British

Columbia.

I would also like to assure the Member that we will

certainly do everything in our power to ensure that there's no

duplication of the federal government's mistakes in this

programme.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 101, Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MRS, DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 65.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): The Fair

Sales Practices Act is

an Act, as the Hon. Members may recall,

dealing with pyramid

[ Page 3426 ]

sales schemes principally. The Attorney-General's department

and my department have been slowly transferring

consumer-oriented legislation over to my department, and this

is one of the Acts that we are now absorbing as we now have the

personnel and the facilities to do so. There are no substantive

changes in the bill; it is merely legislation to transfer the

jurisdiction of the Act from the Attorney-General's office to

the Minister designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 65, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 ,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 72.

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that gives me a

great deal of pleasure to introduce. It is a bill which will

not affect many British Columbians, but it will affect those

few substantially. There are between 25 and 40 blind people in

the province who use guide dogs, and they have experienced a

great deal of difficulty.

I can best explain this Act by reading to you the letter

that was responsible for the drafting and the introduction of

this bill.

"Dear Premier Barrett: In view of the forward-thinking and

progressive changes you have made since coming into office, I

am writing to you with the hope that you can make one more. I

do not know whether you are aware that in British Columbia we

do not have a provincial law to allow guide dogs with their

blind masters the access to places where a dog is not permitted

under ordinary circumstances."

This is not strictly true, Mr.

Speaker. In the Health Act there are provisions that

guide dogs are permitted into all premises, but it is sort of

lost in a lot of verbiage, and a lot of people are not aware of

it. Going back to the letter.

"There are municipal and city by-laws in some localities

which do not allow the guide dog this necessary freedom.

Unfortunately, when travelling, it is next to impossible to

check out all the areas where one might stop and it can be

difficult and even embarrassing just to try and get a cup of

coffee. Even in this metropolitan area, many restaurant people

do not know of these by-laws, and in their concern for the

Health department rules, they are reluctant to allow a dog on

their premises.

"It is awkward to carry along a number of copies of all the

different by-laws. If we had a provincial law, it would be so

easy to carry a copy of the law, and both the restaurant owner

and the guide-dog owner would both know where they stood so

there would be no need for concern or embarrassment for either

side.

"In the United States, each state has its own law for

freedom of access to guide dogs. I'm enclosing a copy of the

Ohio state law which to me seems short, to the point, and

leaves little room for doubt as to the standing of a guide dog.

I received my copy when I obtained my guide dog at Columbus,

Ohio.

"As the owner of a guide dog, I work very hard to maintain

strict discipline and obedience while my dog is out in public,

as do other guide-dog owners I know. We know that it is a

privilege to have our dogs with us and it is our responsibility

to have the dog clean, healthy, well groomed and well behaved

at all times. In general, the owner of a guide-dog is an

out-going type of person, and with the freedom that a guide dog

gives, it means that very often a person will find themselves

in a position where they will have to have use of the guide-dog

law.

"It is also rather confusing for the American tourist

travelling with a guide dog. While in the United States he is

protected by both state and federal laws, then when he comes

to British Columbia there are only a few city and municipal

by-laws, which are difficult to keep track of.

"The popularity of the guide dog is growing, and with the

increasing number of people becoming blind during their

productive years and wishing the freedom that a guide dog

gives, the need for a firm provincial guide-dog law is of

growing importance.

"If I have been correctly informed, even the law, which

gives the blind person travelling with a white cane the

right-of-way over traffic, has not been amended to include the

blind person travelling with a guide dog. I do hope you will be

able to bring into being a provincial guide-dog law. It would

be of tremendous help to all of us who require the mobility of

a guide dog.

"Very truly yours,

"Mrs. René Keenan."

who lives in Surrey.

As a result of Mrs. Keenan's

letter, the legal staff in my department investigated and discovered there was

no reason why we could not bring in the exact type of legislation she suggested.

There was a suggestion, too, that a small plastic card be issued to all owners

of guide dogs which they

[ Page 3427 ]

could carry with them, giving on the card the pertinent

legislation, and signed by the Minister giving that power. So

in any situation, they could pull out the card and inform the

restaurateur, the store-owner, or whatever, of the right of the

owner of a guide dog to enter the premises.

One small thing I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, there will

be an amendment to

definitions in third reading to the Act. I

know I'm speaking…that wherever the term "seeing-eye dog"

is used, it will be changed to "guide dog." Seeing-eye dog is a

trademark name and it was incorrectly used. We will be changing

it to guide dog.

As I say, this won't affect many people, but I've received

quite a few letters from guide-dog owners, and they are very,

very happy that this legislation has been introduced. I hope

the Hon. Members will give it their every consideration.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to

speak against this bill; it's a fine one and we'll certainly

support it. But I was glad the Minister read that letter

because some of us were wondering where the pressure came from

to enact this legislation.

I'd just like the Minister to assure the people of British

Columbia that there haven't been very many problems with guide

dogs in this province. I know several people with them and they

have access to every kind of store, every kind of shop, every

kind of public facility. And guide dogs are well respected in

British Columbia, as are their masters. So I wouldn't expect

that there were very many real complaints about the lack of

this legislation; nevertheless, I think it's fine legislation

and we will certainly support it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on the day that this bill was

introduced, I sent the Minister a little note of

congratulations, and I want to do so again publicly now. I

think this is a very fine piece of legislation.

In my own riding in the last week there was a circumstance

of a blind person with a guide dog who, for one reason or

another, was forced to vacate their existing accommodation, and

was having great difficulty in finding other accommodation, in

part because they required the dog to be on the premises with

them.

Of course, they were most reluctant to move to another part

of town, not so much for their own concern as because the dog

knew that area of North Vancouver, and it was important that it

be accommodated in that particular area.

I'm glad to say that it has been possible to come to a happy solution on that

particular problem, but it is just an example of the many problems that arise

for people with guide dogs. I would ask the Minister if she could, in closing

the debate on second reading, describe the protection that will be available

to people in this very particular circumstance: namely, that they go to a landlord

and wish rental accommodation, in this particular case, and are denied that

rental accommodation simply because they have the need of a dog being with them

at all times.

Could the Minister assure us, first of all, on my

interpretation of the bill which is that the bill would

preclude that kind of discrimination and, secondly, will

complaints on such a matter simply be a question of the person

affected communicating with the Minister in one way or another,

and will she have someone available to straighten such

misunderstandings out?

MR. WALLACE: We will, of course, support this bill with

enthusiasm. I think it's indicative of the government's

attention to the disadvantaged in our society. This is one of

the most serious handicaps that a person can suffer and,

therefore, certainly we should help them in every way possible.

We certainly support the legislation.

The criticisms I have are minor. I just don't quite

understand, when the bill makes such an effort to establish

whether or not a person is blind and restricts anybody else

from using a white cane, why the definition of the bill puts in

the words "who is apparently blind." Maybe we should discuss

this in committee, I'm just a little uneasy about some of the smaller details,

but the total thrust of the bill is excellent and we give it

our strong support.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the definition of "blind," I believe, is defined in the Health Act . The

reason the white can provisions are in the Act is because the

white can Act is being repealed and this is to take its

place.

In answer to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), I

grant you that many guide dog owners don't have problems,

particularly if they remain in their own community. But I have

received letters from blind persons who have said they have had

difficulty.

There was a TV clip one night that illustrated this point

very well. They themselves don't have any difficulty going into

familiar stores and supermarkets and corner shops because they

go to places where they are known.

However, as the gentleman in the clip eloquently expressed:

"There is always that fear, that terror, that we will be

rejected, that we won't be allowed in with our dogs — that

ever-present fear."

This will effectively eliminate that fear, especially if

they have the plastic card. In fact we've gone so far as to

decide we're going to groove it a little bit on the side so

they can feel it in the pocket. They can identify that card right off the bat with their fingers,

[ Page 3428 ]

pull it out and show it.

The problem that the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) expressed: I am aware of it; it

is very difficult. Unfortunately, our Act deals with public

places, access to which is to all the public.

Now persons who have accommodation for rental purposes under

existing legislation have the right to prevent pets, animals,

children, grandparents — just about everything — and that's the

one thing you can't get around. Rightly or wrongly they have

that freedom of deciding whether to take animals in

accommodation or not.

I happen to think it is wrong. It's morally wrong. but I

would be reluctant at this time to change the legislation that

would perhaps set precedents in the future that would not be so

good. So that is the one are we haven't covered. We've only

covered areas dealing with admittance by the general

public.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Blind Persons' Rights Act , read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

PROBATE FEES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is companion amendment

to the Succession Duty Act that benefits small estates

by allowing custody of the property to be obtained without the

necessity of probate where the fair market value of the

property is under $5,000 instead of $2,000, the limit now in

force.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate? The Hon. Minister

moves second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974 , read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr.

Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the social service tax now exempts the

purchase of bibles and school textbooks. It is proposed that this bill extend

the exemption from tax to all books. To further assist all groups at this time

the bill also exempts used clothing and footwear from the tax.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974 ,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr.

Speaker.

REAL PROPERTY TAX DEFERMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now I will spontaneously start my speech

again.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to begin

second reading debate of the Real Property Tax Deferment

Act , a bill that I trust will receive the full approval of

this House.

The Real Property Tax Deferment Act represents

considerable thought and study on my government's part as well

as the valuable ideas and suggestions of the staff of the

Department of Finance.

Additionally we have had the benefit of advice from British

Columbia economists who, like our government, have been

concerned about the impact of rising property taxes, especially

as these increases affect the elderly citizens, the widows, the

handicapped and disabled persons in our province. Certainly

nobody is against that particular group of citizens.

The bill proposes to do two things: first, to allow elderly

citizens and certain other property owners to defer all of

their property taxes and, secondly, to allow other groups of

property owners, including businesses, to defer part of this

year's increase in their property taxes throughout a fixed

period of time.

Additionally, amendments to Bill 16 will be brought forward

to establish a housing construction incentive through a

property tax credit plan.

Because of the magnitude of this bill, Mr. Speaker, we will

also be planning to mail out to the citizens of this province

an information bulletin explaining to them exactly how this

particular legislation is available to them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm reading it to you now, and then

I'll send you autographed copies of my speech for those who

write in with a personal request — no charge. But for the rest

of the citizens of this province we will be making this

programme available — the information available to them — through a

[ Page 3429 ]

pamphlet and through an advertisement.

We are proposing that homeowners, aged 65 and over, widows,

widowers, and handicapped persons, may voluntarily — there's no

compulsion in the legislation — enter into an agreement with

the Crown to defer all the property taxes on his or her home.

Put bluntly, Mr. Speaker, this means that no one living on a

fixed income in this province will ever have to worry again

about being forced to sell his or her home because of taxes,

and that will never again be the case in this province, If this bill does nothing else, it will forever put the lie

to those who like to spread the fear among the public that the

socialists in Victoria are trying to force people out of their

homes.

At the same time this legislation is designed to ensure that

no municipal government suffers a loss of needed revenue

because of tax deferrals, either full or partial. Under this

bill, the provincial government will pay directly to all

municipalities the full amount of deferred taxes every single

year, Mr. Speaker.

The second proposition contained in this bill is that people

or businesses with property worth less than $500,000 who have

property tax increases this year that are 20 per cent greater

than the 1973 property taxes may, and again I say this is

optional, enter into an agreement with the Crown to defer

portions of their 1974 increase over a fixed period of

time.

The legislation sets out in detail the partial deferment

plan. I would expect we can discuss this more fully in a

committee stage, but I would like to make clear today that we

are talking about a deferral scheme that would be in operation

on a downward sliding scale in each year up to 1980.

The partial deferral plan works to annually and

progressively reduce percentages in such a way as to phase in

the 1974 property tax increases until 1980 when, ideally, the

property owner would again be paying the full property tax

amount.

The feature of this bill is being brought in to cushion the

impact of the 1974 property tax increases about which I shall

have more to say later on.

Our government expects that the cost of this measure will be

well within the province's capacity to pay, although it is

quite difficult to predict the extent of the demand for

deferrals in an optional plan. The money, Mr. Speaker, is a

fair price to pay to secure the homes of those people in our

society who are least able to cope with arising cost of

living.

Speaking on the question of full deferrals, Mr. Speaker, I want to outline

several advantages that exist in this bill. Obviously, any person who is able

to defer all his property taxes will have a corresponding increase in his monthly

disposable income. For example, if a pensioner's net taxes are $480 this year

and he decides to defer that amount, his monthly income will be increased by

$40. This will in no way affect Mincome or any other government programmes that

are available to those people. That would go some way toward meeting monthly

operating expenses in other areas. It would mean a $40 per month addition to

spending power of those citizens in this province, and that's a good thing,

Mr. Speaker.

Also in our society we find many elderly people who may be

said to be "land rich and income poor."

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Hydro increases?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hydro rate increase? Perhaps the former

Prime Minister, in campaigning, will announce that he will

raise all pensions right across Canada to the same level they

are in British Columbia. I challenge the Prime Minister to

raise Mincome to $200 for every Canadian citizen over the age

of 60, right across this country, Mr. Speaker. But I don't want

to bring politics into this speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Our former Prime Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Still the Prime Minister, but he may be

former. Well, David Lewis has already made the commitment.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get back to the debate, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, also in our society you find many elderly people who may be said to be "land rich and income poor."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just wanted to remind you — some of you

might have lost the thread. (Laughter.) To these people rising

property taxes can force the sale of properties that they

worked hard to secure over the years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …the present system protects these

people from what might be called "tax inflation" while

increasing their disposable incomes at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, it's noted that we live in an inflationary

society. Nowhere has this been more evident recently than the

increase in housing prices. So if one looks at a home as an

investment, it is obvious that retaining a house during an

inflationary period is a much better use of capital than is

available to an elderly person who might otherwise be forced to

sell his home, and probably invest a portion of the

[ Page 3430 ]

proceeds in an annuity which pays in fixed dollars. If he

invests in common stock, the yield would be lower as a

rule.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill allows people to

continue to increase equity in their own home in a rising

market because it does not force them to scramble for the extra

dollars they otherwise would have to produce to meet the

increased property taxes.

To my knowledge, we will be the first province in all of

Canada to allow the senior citizens, the handicapped and the

disabled, the benefits from this programme.

I want to point out, however, that the full deferral aspects

of this bill apply only to homes or what can be called

"principle places of residence." I expect we can deal with this

point in more detail in committee — we don't want people

benefiting with major investments, but in terms of their own

home, that's what we're trying to protect — when it would be

appropriate in committee to outline some of the technical

considerations dealing with the meaning of "owner" in

section 1

of the bill.

I also want to point out that nothing in this legislation

changes one's eligibility for the homeowner grant or the school

tax removable grant that our government is initiating this

year. These people will also be eligible for receipt of the

resources dividend initiated by this new progressive government

willing to share the resources with the people of this

province.

On both the full and partial deferral plans, the interest on

deferred amounts is compounded annually at 8 per cent, which is

fair. The government is, in effect, making a loan to the

property owner which is registered as an encumbrance on the

certificate of title. It is fair to compare this 8 per cent

rate with first mortgage rates of between 10 or 11 per cent, as

well as second mortgage rates that can go to 16 per cent

because the federal government has not allowed the people's

government of British Columbia to start its own bank. But I

don't want to be political, Mr. Speaker, that bank issue is

another fight.

But because we don't have a people's bank in this province,

those private banks are allowed to make huge profits off the

ordinary people of this province, and I say it's a shame. It's

usury! Even old Socreds would agree with me — not as a reform

group looking for power, (Laughter) but the old Socreds knew

how this kind of usury affected the people who are on fixed

incomes.

Now, I note with some amusement the confusion of the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett). He's already on record as saying that this is a bad bill, but

he's done that a number of times, only to get back into caucus and have his

ears boxed. Before I give him a public drubbing, Mr. Speaker, could I ask him

to nod his head and tell me that he's sorry he criticized this bill? Nod your

head. (Laughter). He's not sorry that he's against the widowed, the old age

pensioner, the crippled and the handicapped. Let the record show that he didn't

nod his head when he had his chance. There it is. There it is.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: According to the Province

newspaper, on March 20 of this year, the Leader of the

Opposition singled out the full deferral aspect of this bill

for particular criticism. That's what it said in the

Province .

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): That's

true.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As I'm about to demonstrate, he didn't

have the slightest idea what he was talking about. I think this

comes as no surprise to his backbenchers, but to the rest of

the Members of this House it's a disappointment.

I'm realistic when considering opinions that are brought

forward by the official opposition. I lowered my expectations a

long time ago, so it wasn't a disappointment! to see that the

Leader of the Opposition was wrong again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote your speech?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I was worked very hard on this stuff. But,

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't difficult to write; he set himself

up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He said: "At the current rate, the

deferred taxes would equal the value of the home in about 12

years." That's what he said. That's his theory which we are

discussing. He said that at current rates, the deferred taxes

would equal the value of the home in about 12 years, thereby

wiping out equity.

Now do you want to add the caveat that our friend from

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) always throws in? Do you want

to throw in the homeowner grant too? Throw in the homeowner

grant too. Okay. Well, let's put in the homeowner grant, and

make you feel better because you might want to nod your head.

Okay.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You sure will make your speech because

we're waiting for it. We know how you goofed on this one. I

don't want to rub it in. I asked the press to leave the gallery

because I don't want to rub this in. I don't want the public to

know how wrong he was; it'll ruin the Majority Movement's

[ Page 3431 ]

efforts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonetheless, I have to tell you this story

because it's my public responsibility to go ahead with

this.

MR. WALLACE: We know you really don't want to do it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't want to do it — you're right.

You don't have to suffer through it. Run down to your office

and listen on the squawk box; it's always safe down there.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's what your daddy used to do.

He'd take off and listen. That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that wasn't called for. I'll take it

back. Okay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I'm sorry to pick on the….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I lost my place again. That's what it

says. His daddy didn't do that.

He said, at the current rates, the deferred taxes would

equal the value of the home in about 12 years, thereby wiping

out the equity. By his miscalculations, a person aged 65 who

deferred all his taxes would see his equity vanish by age 77.

That's his theory.

Here are the actual facts, Mr. Speaker. Research was done in

typical British Columbia cities in which the average property

tax incidence and the average property tax values were taken

into account. The typical city we chose to look at was

Kelowna.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Purely by accident. A random sampling.

According to the Finance department records, the average

residential property in Kelowna had gross property taxes in

1973 of $412.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Gross?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Gross. Of course, that didn't include that

little bit of farmland that was right in the town there. Just

outside the city, that little bit of farmland.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who used to own that, Mr. Member? His name

escapes me; I think he was a Member of this House at one time.

We used to see the tax map. It was known as some kind of crazy

jigsaw. The tax map came down like this, Mr. Speaker, like

this. Then it hit a certain property and went whoop, and then

down again. And guess who was in that whoop for lower taxes? I

don't want to tell the House that it was the former Premier.

No, I don't want to let anybody know that he was in that whoop

protecting himself with the taxes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mark Rose's property in the….

HON. MR. BARRETT: According to the property records, the

taxes on a typical house in Kelowna were $412. Taking into

account the effect of the $200 homeowner grant — now it is $250 — the average net taxes of the ordinary home were $212, minus

the $50 of the increase. If the homeowner was over 65, the

homeowner grant was $250, so his net taxes would have been an

average of $162 and, with the resources grant, even lower.

Using the figure of $162, the greater figure, fully deferred

over 12 years and including accumulated interest at 8 per cent,

the total deferred amount would be $3,075. That is including

accumulated interest. The total deferred amount would be

$3,075.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Is that

compounded?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's compound. If the Leader of the

Opposition seriously assumes that this amount would equal the

value of a home in Kelowna 12 years from now, then he must be

suffering from delusions of adequacy. How in the world can that

man stand in this House and say that within 12 years a home in

Kelowna will only be worth $3,075? I say to the people of that

constituency, he doesn't even have faith in his own home

town.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh! I don't like doing this because

it's difficult to bring facts into this Legislature when there

has been such an absence of them all these years. But,

nonetheless, these are the facts. I know it's not the norm in

the history of this chamber to use facts but on occasion it's

beneficial,

[ Page 3432 ]

and on this occasion it is more than beneficial.

There's also another way to analyse this. In 1973, the

average net property tax on a home in Kelowna was less than 1

per cent of the market value according to the sales data used

for the assessment purposes of that tax year. The exact figures

are 0.932 per cent for the ordinary homeowner and 0.712 per

cent for the elderly homeowner taking advantage of the

homeowner grant. The difference, of course, reflects the

benefit of the $50 in the homeowner grant.

On this basis, it would take more than 32 years for the

accrued deferred taxes, plus interest to equal the value of a

home for an elderly person in Kelowna, assuming that the taxes

didn't increase, but, more significantly, assuming that the

house didn't increase at all during that period.

The Liberals figured this out and welcomed the bill, but

that so-called financial group over there came out….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A Liberal proposal by Barrie Clark. Guess

who I hired? Barrie Clark. Keep on going.

Nonetheless, the facts are that rational evaluation of this

proposal indicates that the Leader of the Opposition didn't

know what he was talking about; he just talked off the top of

his head. Now he is trapped into voting against this bill. I

gave him a chance to nod today and he didn't take advantage of

that.

It would take 32 years on that basis for that deferred tax

figure to reach the point of what the house was worth today. No

one is going to tell me that property in British Columbia is

going to decrease in value.

It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that there's very little real

danger that the full deferral plan will destroy equity to any

significant degree. Contrary to forecasts based on the

inaccurate calculations we got from across the floor, the full

deferral plan should have the net effect of increasing the

value of many estates because those people will be able to hang

onto their homes in their senior years. And why shouldn't they?

Their estate will be enhanced. And why shouldn't it be?

Because this bill will allow many elderly homeowners to stay

where they want to live rather than being forced out because of

property taxes, we will have a more stable community

sociologically. It is all very well to talk about senior

citizens' rest homes and nursing care homes, but the longer we

can keep people in their own home the healthier it is for the

total community. Even taking into account the accumulated

deferred taxes, the estate should be more valuable for

retention of the home than it would have been had the owner

been forced to sell out.

Another feature of this bill is its flexibility. Those

eligible for full deferrals may apply to defer instead only

part of their taxes if they so desire. It's a Liberal

suggestion and we've accepted that. Later on, they can apply to

defer all their taxes if they wish to change their mind. They

can start by deferring all their taxes, and then, if the

person's financial circumstances change, he or she can reapply

to defer only part of, indeed, none of the taxes and pay

up.

So, Mr. Member, there is full, voluntary flexibility. The

reason I'm taking so long in explaining this

part is that the

official opposition has attempted to strike fear around this

bill which is socially and financially sound and should not

become the centre of argument between political parties. It's

basically sound for all the citizens who wish to take advantage

of it.

The same is true for the partial deferral plan. We'll take

that into consideration. Anyone who has opted to defer taxes

has the right to pay back all or part of the deferred amount at

any time without interest penalty payments, This is true

financial flexibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Members read sections

7 and 11 carefully to understand the rights the Crown seeks in

deferral agreements. I mention this because I want it clearly

understood that the Crown is not seeking a first claim on

property through the deferral plan. This is not a back-door

expropriation or anything of the kind. It is a loan plan

designed mainly to protect people against rising property taxes

that exceed their ability to pay.

I want to stress this point, Mr. Speaker, because again some

individuals in this House, within the normal range of political

practice in this province, have attempted to spread fear around

this bill with the senior citizens of this province who are

having a hard enough time surviving without having the official

opposition playing politics with this bill.

I want to say again clearly, Mr. Speaker, that any attempt

to interpret this bill as a means of the government

expropriating a home is just vicious, cheap politics of the

worst kind. I want to say that this bill is designed as a loan

plan and a loan plan only.

These two sections of the Real Property Tax Deferment

Act clearly show that the Crown's claim on the property is

not retroactive. Any mortgages or other encumbrances registered

with the title before the deferral agreement is registered have

first priority. The Crown seeks priority only in relation to

the encumbrances registered after the deferral agreement. I

hope this essential point is clearly understood by all the

Members of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the partial deferment plan, I

would like to make the following comments as a matter of

government policy. We believe all property should bear a fair

share of taxes.

For this reason we designed a partial deferral option to

take effect only when a person's taxes went

[ Page 3433 ]

up by more than 20 per cent over the 1973 level — again

protecting the businesses with under $500,000 worth of

property.

In short, the partial deferral plan is designed to protect

those people who feel they need protection from large increases

in property taxes this year.

Perhaps it will be argued that these taxes increased because

of increased assessments for the 1974 taxation year. In the

case of vacant lands in industrial and commercial properties,

assessments have been allowed to reach approximately 50 per

cent of the market value. And there will be corresponding tax

increases.

Many large businesses were escaping their fair share of

taxes because, Mr. Speaker, the assessments were held low with

the idea that the homeowner was being protected under this

blanket programme. But we found under the former administration

that it was large businesses that were being protected, not the

small homeowner.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you'll read the tax

notices out in Victoria, the homeowners in Victoria are not

only benefiting from an increased resource dividend, but

they're finding that their taxes have actually gone down in the

City of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, because the mill rate has gone

down after allowing large corporations to be assessed and taxed

properly. Even the mayor…. There are other jurisdictions

where it's showing up.

MR. McCLELLAND: Name them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll give you a list, Mr. Member. But even

the mayor of Victoria, who's certainly not an NDPer….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the last time I checked. He said

that the mill rate would go down, and that is indeed a

fact.

Now the Social Credit Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), I

expect, will get up and extol the virtues of this plan, because

it's his citizens that have already benefited most — that is,

if he travels with the ordinary folks. Do millionaires do that?

Do they see the ordinary folk on occasion? Check with the

ordinary folk in your constituency, Mr. Member, and I know

you'll support this bill.

We believe these increases are fair in most cases,

particularly in relation to what the average homeowner has been

asked to assume over the years.

The government has a responsibility to adjust the tax base to some degree to

provide a more equal share of taxes for local school and hospital services.

Under the system we inherited from Social Credit — and there is no way of getting

around this — the ordinary home was being charged a relatively higher proportion

of the property tax load than were corporate holdings and vacant land.

Shifting this tax load to some degree was an essential first

step in preparation of a sound property tax system in British

Columbia. It must be remembered that the increased assessments

on vacant land reflect two things: firstly, the extent to which

assessments have become unrealistically low and, secondly, the

fact that land values and therefore equity in land have been

increasing dramatically in recent years.

Simply put, for every vacant and commercial property that

was under assessed in a given district the homeowner was

effectively being asked to share an unfair property tax burden.

And that's true, absolutely true.

In moving to solve this problem, we have received requests

from the individuals who would like to build homes in the

future on small parcels of vacant land they own. We have had

requests, Mr. Speaker, from those people who have set aside

money for a small piece of property on which to build a

retirement home or a second home for their future use.

Also we recognize that some small businesses may need

assistance as well. Our proposal is that the partial deferral

plan will be available to owners of vacant land not exceeding

five acres who have certified that they intend to construct a

residential dwelling on that property.

The government would expect construction to occur within 10

years — that's a lot of time — or else the deferred taxes would

become payable. This is so we don't get into the position of

subsidizing land speculation. Now we're saying to that small

land holder that they can be eligible for this tax deferral if

they tell us they're going to build a home on that property

within 10 years. That is very fair, Mr. Speaker.

In committee I will bring forward amendments that will

expand this principle. We will propose that people who build

homes on vacant land on which they have deferred the taxes will

get tax credits against the deferred amounts. The amendments

will propose that all the deferred taxes will be cancelled if

the residence is constructed and occupied, not necessarily by

the owner, before the end of 1975.

We give the vacant land holder 18 months to construct a home

on that land and we will forgive the increase in taxes if they

take advantage of that specific opportunity. Again I say that

the home does not necessarily have to be occupied by the owner

of the land; it can be rented out.

This measure will be a job-creating and housing-construction

incentive during the next year and a half. If it proves

successful and there's a case to extend the time, we will

consider that. But as it stands now, the next 18 months will

offer that person the opportunity to build a house on that

property,

[ Page 3434 ]

and we will forgive the increased taxes on that

property.

Those who build homes after 1975 will have progressively

reduced tax credits available to them, with the idea that

building up the credits instead would effectively work as a

disincentive to construction. Deferrals on corporations would

become payable beginning in 1981 over a 10-year period.

Now for the small businessman we are saying that because of

this catch-up, because of politics being played with the

taxation policies in the past, we will give all this time for a

catch-up so that the impact isn't that severe.

Again, the company would retain the option to pay back all

or part of the deferred amount at any time without penalty, Mr.

Member — without penalty. Bill 16 will not add to government

bureaucracy. It will be relatively easy to administer. The

application forms for deferrals will be made available at local

tax offices throughout the province.

Members who study this bill also will find sections in it

that adequately protect the Crown in its deferral agreement. I

have in mind, for example,

section 5 (4). The Real Property

Tax Deferment Act is sound, progressive, sensible

legislation.

It is a measure that economists have been discussing for

years, but one that only our government has had the foresight

to bring before the Legislature. It is something that every

person on a fixed income in this province can be pleased about.

This bill protects the homeowner, the small businessman and

those who own home site lands, while retaining fairness in

taxation policy.

I want to thank all the Members who've been working on the

tax committee, and I hope that other legislation will be

forthcoming this session out of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, regardless of party, is long overdue

and I now move second reading.

MR. BENNETT: I was flattered that the Premier singled me out

today for a special comment on my press releases.

However, I would like to point out to him that when we

oppose the tax deferral, we oppose it as an alternative to the

basic exemption. As you know, there are two proposals that have

been studied well. In fact, in California taxation studies went

on in 1964 and 1966 against the relative benefit of the two

measures in dealing with the problems of the homeowner.

One has the basic exemption, a policy that British Columbia

has had for years with the homeowner grant. The other is, in

fact, to sweep the problem under the rug and lend the

taxpayers' money and let the blow fall on them sometime in the

future or upon their heirs when they die.

Now in dealing with this bill, Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly

concerned with three particular groups: widows, handicapped and

senior citizens. I'm not using any example of figures which

were used when this bill was first introduced, because that

example was talked about as gross taxes without the homeowner's

grant. If a house had a particular assessment and these were

the taxes, indeed on those figures it would have accrued; in 12

years there would have been a payout.

Now we've done some average figures that I hope to present

to this Legislature as what I would call a more meaningful

alternative, not hiding the problem. The Premier talks, as

Minister of Finance, that he's going to put all that purchasing

power in the hands of the people. He's not giving them

anything. He's lending them money at 8 per cent. He's lending

them their own money at 8 per cent. That's not giving them one

thing. That's not an exemption, and that's not facing their

problem. Their problem is one of property taxes.

Now in some of these major studies, particularly one done by

Margaret Greenfield on the property tax exemptions and

deferrals for senior citizens, at the Institute of Governmental

Studies in Berkeley in 1966, they talk about deferrals as

compared to exemptions.

Connecticut deferred tax prior to 1964 with an interest rate

of 4 per cent. Connecticut deferred tax was in the form of a

lien. The interest rate they charged was only 4 per cent and

the lien could not be foreclosed until after the death of all

owners over the age of 65.

This state also, in effect, defers only the increased

portion of taxes over a base year so the accumulated deferment

cannot become onerous at all. Oregon put in a deferment in

1966, with an interest rate of 6 per cent. There again, this

lien on this property is charitable; there is no onerous lien

or foreclosure or any sort of charge against the property until

they decide to dispose of it. But in all studies the major

problem is not deferment, but that of a basic exemption.

If we're concerned about these three areas, as I'm sure we

all are — and it is non-political, as everybody's concerned for

these areas — then let's talk about getting to the problem and

not just stalling for time, not just sweeping the problem under

the rug. It is a very real problem.

We've found that people who stay in their homes, as they've found in these

studies, were not very wealthy people but people of very modest circumstances

who felt secure in their neighbourhood and wished to continue to live in their

homes. In fact, one of the quotes from the report is that many people have a

deep, emotional attachment to the home and neighbourhood in which they have

spent a good part of their lives — the home in which they

[ Page

3435 ]

reared their children. As a result they are not only

reluctant but are deathly afraid of facing change in the time

of their life when they do not have the security of youth, the

security of good health. Their home becomes more than

physically important; it becomes emotionally important to

them.

Yet just deferring their taxes and putting aside their

problems for a few years isn't going to solve the problem.

They'd be more secure emotionally and more secure physically if

they knew that the people were really concerned about them in

the way of a larger basic exemption — an exemption that was

meaningful and recognized their contributions to society and to

the province through the many years that they lived here.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

What we in this party feel is that if we are concerned at

all, let's face the problem of these three groups squarely, and

whether our society and whether prosperous British Columbia

can, in fact, afford to give an increased exemption that is

meaningful to these three groups — meaningful in the way that

they will not fear for any property tax and that when you're

giving them purchasing power, you are really giving them

purchasing power, not taking it away upon their death.

Let's take a look and try to calculate the number of people

over the age of 65 in B.C. I can only go from the 1971 census.

At that time there were 122,000 household heads over age 65.

The percentage of these total household heads that were renting

were 45,000, leaving homeowners over age 65 of 77,000.

The number of widowed homemakers under the age of 65 has to

be added to this. The 1971 census totalled female household

heads at 119,000, totalled widowed household heads at 59,000.

Proportion of widowed household heads, 50 per cent.

Total of female household heads under age 65 was 75,000. The

proportion of younger widows is lowered to 40 per cent. Widowed

household heads under age 65 were 30,000. That less proportion

renting at 36.7, which is 11,000, leaves widowed homeowners

under 65 at 19,000. This group must be added to those 77,000

over age 65.

Then we have the number of handicapped homeowners not

otherwise qualified. Again, taking those receiving Mincome of

6,300, less persons over 65, 1,150 (because we have already

calculated them), less widowed female household heads receiving

Mincome, 150, household heads on Mincome not already qualified,

less percentage renting at 40 per cent, we have handicapped

homeowners on Mincome not already qualified of 3,000.

Here we have, Mr. Chairman, 77,000 homeowners over 65. And we have 22,000 widowed

and handicapped that would require this special basic exemption, in opposition

to a deferment, a sweeping under the rug of their problems.

Let's take a look at what this would cost this province.

Let's take in that they already have a basic exemption in this

province, a basic exemption that was among the first in all of

North America.

Let's say if you are over 65 your basic exemption already

gives you some special status, your contribution to society of

$290. For the sake of argument, let's estimate the average

gross property tax payable in British Columbia. Now, based on

rough figures available from two different sources, the average

gross 1974 property tax in B.C. — not '73 but '74 — would

probably be $600 or less. If this average gross tax was $600,

and you are over 65, you get a homeowners' grant of $290. That

leaves you with a net tax of $310. Times 77,000 people, the

net cost would be $23,900,000. Widows and handicapped $600,

they would get a homeowners' grant of $240. Net tax of $360,

22,000 people, $7,900,000 for a total net cost of

$31,800,000.

But if we take off those that have housing — and a lot of

these people over 65 live in modest housing that won't reach

the $600 figure — for a cost of about $25 million a year, the

province could give a basic exemption to these people. Not a

deferment, not a sweeping under the rug of the problem, but

they could give a basic exemption of $600 a year on their taxes

and it would cost this province about $25 million — I per cent

of a budget that might run $2.5 billion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your policy?

MR. BENNETT: Our policy has always been an increase in the

basic exemption, an exemption that this province has led in, as

against a tax deferment.

If the Premier and Minister of Finance, instead of

developing his policy…and when he talks about it…I got

quite a kick when he was making those spontaneous rehearsed

remarks because he suggested that a lot of thought went into

this policy. Well, I remember that when he announced it, in

panic citizens around the province were protesting because of

the hike in the assessments, and there he was running from

hotline to hotline saying, "We'll protect you, we'll protect

you, really we don't mean it," and one day somebody

phoned in and said: "What about a deferment?" He said: "Yeah,

we'll buy that."

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Kelowna Garter.

MR. BENNETT: I'm saying that a province as wealthy as

British Columbia that has a history in pioneering basic

exemptions doesn't need to just talk about saving interest on…. Eight per cent interest on $25 million — $1,900,000 — that's how much interest this province is going to charge those

people

[ Page 3436 ]

to defer their taxes. They could at least do it for nothing

in a province as wealthy as this, with budgets over $2 billion

… $25 million to help the 99,000 people covered in these

three categories, Mr. Speaker.

For this reason, this government…. We don't believe

problems should be swept under the rug. We don't think they

should be developed in hotline shows. We don't think they

should be developed in panic because the assessment policy Act

brought in created great inequities and inequalities with

people. We talk about facing the problem. Now here we are,

quoting from the report studies that were done. The Premier and

Minister of Finance, with all this research he talked of, could

have gone through weighing a deferment against increasing the

basic exemption.

They point out that these people are concerned about

deferring their taxes. States that have had a tax deferral,

even when they only charged 4 per cent, even where they only

charged 6 per cent…those people still feel concerned that

they are in effect mortgaging away an additional mortgage on

their property. The fact that they've got subsidized borrowing

and no longer are consciously at their age concerned about

taxes…. It's a game you can only win by dying but it's not a

game that gives security by people who stay in their homes

because of the need for the strong, continuing attachment.

That's why citizens over 65 stay in those homes. Surely

apartments must be more convenient, but these people that have

lived in small neighbourhoods need the security of that home

and that environment. If, as these studies show, they require

that, and they show that they don't want a deferment, they

don't want to borrow money from the government…if society

recognizes their problems, recognizes them as requiring special

help, recognizes that people over 65 have made a great

contribution to the province, and their country, and that with

the handicapped and the widows who have a special problem all

their own — if for the price of this programme we can give them

an exemption that would cover those in need and costing only

$25 million, surely that is much better than them mortgaging

additionally to whatever financing they might need for the

future, their homes. The only way they can get out of it is by

dying.

I think that we must meet the problem squarely and we must meet if fairly.

I think it is not a question of opposing this bill, because it gives some aid

but it doesn't give aid in the direction that we believe in and that we are

committed to in this party, and that is a basic exemption that means something,

a basic exemption that would be reflective of the economy of this province,

a basic exemption of 99,000 people in circumstances who need help. For this

reason, with this alternative, Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill and humbly suggest

that the government withdraw it and replace it with a bill that means something

for the citizens of British Columbia.

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

so that there's no doubt in anyone's mind, we intend to support

this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: During the remarks of the Hon. Premier in

introducing second reading there were comments back and forth

across the floor of this House as to who originated this idea.

I don't think that's pertinent to this discussion at all.

Really what we need to be concerned about when we consider

this particular legislation is: who will be the

beneficiaries? They are the people with whom we must be

concerned. To find that those people who are over 65 years of

age, those who are widows, those who are widowers, and those

who are handicapped are the primary beneficiaries of this

legislation is one of the reasons that we support it.

We have argued on this side of the House in this party,

during all of my time in this House, for just this kind of

legislation. Example after example after example has been

placed on the floor of this House by Members of this party and

other parties to show the hardship which was being worked upon

people 65 years of age and over — widows and handicapped

persons — merely because they wanted to live in their own

homes, in their own communities.

Mr. Speaker, it ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) to speak about what his party's policy is in this

regard. Over all those years, when all the Social Credit Party

when it was in government turned a deaf ear.

What we appear to have now is another renunciation by the

Social Credit group in the House today of those policies for

which Social Credit stood on the floor of this House for over

20 years. They seem to fail to reflect, Mr. Speaker, just

exactly what the Social Credit policies as enunciated in this

House by the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) were. Everybody

should have the right to own their own homes. That should be

encouraged. But if you became old or disabled, and somehow or

another were unable to meet your tax responsibilities, the

government wasn't going to help you in that regard.

The government was prepared, however, to meddle with tax

assessments, knowing full well that the implications of that

meddling was to thrust upon the private residential owner an

ever-increasing burden of tax, and with no relief to those

people who found the payment of tax difficult.

That was the policy of Social Credit. I hope that what we

have heard from the leader of the official opposition today is

a renunciation — in fact, a denunciation — of that policy.

It seems to me that the Social Credit Party that

[ Page 3437 ]

sits in the House today is scrambling in exactly the same

way as that dying party scrambled in 1972 when, recognizing the

problems that it had created in this province, it brought in

the Kelowna Charter — suddenly recognizing that maybe the

government had to give some assistance for our senior citizens

in this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, when the government comes forward

with a bill which is able to put into our laws the kind of

assistance that people over 65, handicapped and trying to live

in their own homes need to have, we find it criticized because

it's some kind of a deferment.

MR. BENNETT: You haven't even read the study book.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): There's the party of

research.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The party of research. After 20 years of

doing no research, after 20 years of having no research

assistance assisting anybody in the government, Social Credit

has now become the party of research.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They can't even get federal

candidates.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is because we recognize

that people, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has

said, have a deep emotional attachment to their homes that we

support this legislation.

There are many improvements to be made, but I am pleased to

see the government taking that first step which will see a

removal of the serious impact of residential property taxation

from the people of the Province of British Columbia, and taking

that first step to assist those people who suffer most from our

rising inflationary trends in municipalities and local

governments, I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition will say to

99,000 people that he quoted as statistics, saying, "Oh, don't

give them a deferment," when those people, as indicated

by the Premier, have a clear choice facing them once this

legislation is passed. They don't need to have this assistance

if they don't require it, but if they do need the help, now or

in the future, if their circumstances today change either for

better or for worse, then this legislation allows them to

participate with the government in the solution of their

problems.

If that isn't the kind of assistance that those people who have worked in this

province, built their homes, and want to continue to live in their homes should

have, then I don't know what more the government could offer. If their ability

to pay diminishes, then they can take the opportunity of using this legislation.

If their ability to pay increases by reason of their good fortune or changing

circumstances in the province, then if they have taken the opportunity to defer,

they can terminate that arrangement with the government. It is completely flexible.

It affords to each person in his category a choice.

I happen to believe that when the government helps in this

way or encourages those who don't need the help to shun it,

they truly speak to the property owner on a man-to-man basis,

saying that this government is prepared to assist where

assistance is required.

I would think that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would

not criticize the government for deferring at 8 per cent. When

I think what the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett)

used to do with the revenues of this province, the way he

loaned the moneys of the province to Crown corporations, the

way he gave them preferential rates, that to offer deferment of

tax at 8 per cent is to the average citizen in the Province of

British Columbia a gift from the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Starve the school districts; starve the

municipalities.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the tax implications for the

residential property owner in this province are what they are

today because of the educational tax policies of the former

administration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Example after example after example,

school district after school district, has shown that the

greatest burden of tax increase for the homeowner in this

province has been on account of the educational financing

policies of the Social Credit administration.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it got so bad that finally

the Social Credit government had to amend the homeowners grant

legislation to make sure that everybody recognized that it was

the reduction of the educational tax on land. That's the only

way that they could show their faces in the communities of this

province because of the implications of their educational tax

policy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on, brother. Poke it to 'em.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As I say, I see this merely as being the

first step. We will continue in this

[ Page 3438 ]

party to press the government to make further advantages

available to homeowners, we will continue to press the

government to give this same tax deferment benefit to tenants

who in their rents are paying the taxes of their landlords,

because we too want to see their disposable income increased in

the same way in which the disposable income of senior

homeowners is being increased. We do not wish to see the

government embarking upon policies which are to continue the

disadvantage under which those people who cannot own their own

homes have laboured for too long in this province.

We don't think that the tenants are second-class citizens.

We don't think that those young people who are struggling to

save the moneys to buy their own homes are second-class

citizens. We want to see the government extending this kind of

legislation so that they will have increased disposal

income.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Member for

South Vancouver…

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …doesn't listen. Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings), I mean.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I apologize to the Member for South

Vancouver. Little Mountain. He doesn't listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't want to be mistaken for him.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I can't go over my speech again. If I

lose my place as the Premier did, I'd have to ad lib. I don't

want to do it again.

Mr. Speaker, just let me say in conclusion…

AN HON, MEMBER: The ad lib is coming.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …that we're going to press the

government, no matter who it may be…

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …to continue in this direction. But

we're prepared to support this first hesitant step, which will

provide relief for residential property owners in British

Columbia.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I realize that legislative protocol

calls for a speech from the Conservatives at this time, but as they're not here

I'd like to speak until they get here. I'm sure they'd like to participate in

this debate, and I know they'll be here to vote in support of it.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Speak for them.

MS. BROWN: I would like…. No, I won't speak for them; I'm

just speaking until they get here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a good conservative Rosie.

(Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: You can trust other people to speak. You don't

need to filibuster.

This is an extremely positive bill, Mr. Speaker, an

excellent bill; and I too would like to rise in support of

it.

The interesting thing about the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the

people whom it covers. By covering the senior citizens and the

handicapped and widows and widowers, what the bill takes into

account is that segment of the society that has difficulty in

maintaining its income — oh, they're here: however, I will be

very brief — in maintaining their income at a time in their

life when it might be possible to lose their homes.

In taking this group into account, Mr. Speaker, we also have

to take into account that there are other people that this

happens to also. Like the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) I would like to exhort the government to

make this just a first step and not to make this the end.

I think that we have to take into account the working poor,

and have to take into account people who for one reason or

another find at some time, that they are unable to meet their

taxes. They then should be able to apply, under a special

category, for deferment — even for a short period of time.

Certainly I would like to support that this should be extended

to cover tenants.

I think when we look at this Act we shouldn't look at it in

isolation. We should couple it with some of the other things

that have been done and some of the other steps taken by this

government to support and to maintain the householders in their

homes rather than forcing them to leave either because of lack

of taxes or increased expenses involved.

One of the things the health committee found in its travels

through the province last summer was the real fear of so many

of the senior citizens that they might lose their homes because

of illness and so be unable to meet the taxes, or that they

might lose their homes for some other reason.

This is one of the reasons why I feel so very strongly that

this is an excellent piece of legislation. What it's saying is

that rather than transferring the

[ Page 3439 ]

senior citizens into boarding homes or into intermediate

care homes or into other homes simply because they cannot

continue financially to maintain their homes, we are going to

help to support them in these homes.

This, coupled with the announcement of the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) about coordinated care for chronically

ill people: this coupled with the steps being taken in

developing expanded homemaker services: all of these steps

taken together, Mr. Speaker, mean that it will be possible for

the senior citizens of this province to end their days in the

home that they built and that they enjoy living in.

Most of all, it means that never again will senior citizens

in this province be forced to give up their residences because

of taxes — never again. I think that that's a very vital point

and one of the reasons why we're so very, very proud of this

bill.

MR. WALLACE: I'm so grateful to the lady Member for making

it possible for me to get back into the House to make a few

comments on this bill.

We will support this bill. The bill is before the House

because of one simple fact of life — a harsh but simple fact — in one word, inflation. If the individuals in our society who

are particularly covered by this bill were being protected in

other ways, if in fact being on a fixed income did not mean

that you lose 10 per cent of your income per year, then, of

course, this kind of legislation would not be necessary.

There's no question at all in anyone's mind, regardless of

the political suggestions made by the Minister of Finance as to

what the federal government might or might not do….

Regardless of this, the groups we are talking about, the senior

citizens over 65 and the handicapped and the widows and the

widowers who are on a fixed income, are never bound to be more

fearful about any other factor than the fact of shelter.

We've talked in this House many times about the basics of

food and shelter and medical care. These three surely have to

be primary priorities for any government to protect,

particularly among groups of citizens who are on fixed

incomes.

I don't think however, that we should hide the fact, as was

pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), that

this is an 8 per cent loan. The Minister of Finance in

introducing the bill made it very plain that this bill is in

fact a system of providing a loan at 8 per cent cumulative

interest, year by year, on a voluntary basis to those who wish

to avail themselves of it.

While the effect of the bill is to make it possible for elderly people to remain

in their own home, I'm quite sure that many of these citizens must be asking

themselves after they've worked an honest long life and over many years bought

their home why, when they no sooner own the home for a few years, they have

to start borrowing from the government to retain the home. That, in effect,

is what is happening in our society today, Mr. Speaker. Also, as the Leader

of the Opposition stated: "A home is an emotional factor of tremendous degree

in the life of each individual." I don't think that's a world-shaking discovery

but it's a fact of life worth repeating. As the lady Member mentioned a moment

ago, there is one factor in preserving the health of elderly people: that is,

keeping them in their own home in their later years for as long as is reasonably

possible — depending, of course, on their physical status and the amount of

health care and health services that they require.

The issue of trying to keep the elderly citizen in their own

home is again, I think, or should be, a very high priority of

government.

While we support this bill, we would hope to look forward to

the day when a different philosophy attaching to real estate

property tax will be forthcoming. The Premier has talked with

great feeling about how industry and commerce were not paying

their fair fraction of the total amount of revenue to be

derived from property taxation. I think that argument's a

little similar to the argument that the resources are not

paying enough money back to the people in the form of

royalties. What is a reasonable amount, I suppose, is the

question one might well ask.

I hope that this bill is not to be looked upon as some final

solution to the problem of elderly people trying to remain in

their own home. The final solution is sometimes introduced as a

temporary measure just like income tax in 1916 when, during the

First World War, a certain government introduced income tax as

a temporary measure….

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Who was it? Who was

it?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I don't think…. It's immaterial, Mr.

Minister. The point I'm trying to make is that some measures

which appear to be very worthwhile and much needed when they're

introduced gain acceptance on the basis that it's rather a

temporary measure. We've had examples of that with the 8 per

cent rent stabilization Act.

I feel that while this bill represents one mechanism which

can give immediate relief to the elderly citizens wishing to

retain their homes, it is not, to my way of thinking, the kind

of long-term solution that we should be seeking.

If it is a general consensus among levels of government that

the senior citizens are the hardest hit by inflation, then

surely we should try and look at ways in which all three levels

should cooperate to bring this about. It should not be done by

the

[ Page 3440 ]

unilateral action of one level of government in this

particular way.

I'm thinking as far as the municipal governments are

concerned that maybe there should be a specific, fixed mill

rate to be applied to the residential properties of citizens

over 65 years of age.

The special committee of the House on assessments has looked

at the situation and has pointed out how very unsatisfactory

and ill-advised the amendments of recent years to the

Assessment Equalization Act really were in terms of

trying to solve the problem of fair and equitable taxation to

different groups in society, whether these groups were elderly

citizens or businessmen or young couples or large corporations.

I hope at least that message has got through to the government,

Mr. Speaker, that if there is to be equitable taxation the

legislation has to be applied to the taxation and not to the

assessment. I know it sounds like water under the bridge to

point out the errors of the past, and I'm the first one to

admit that I voted in favour of one of these errors in this

House, when we amended the Assessment Equalization

Act .

Now the evidence is quite clear and the work of the special

committee has made it quite clear that perhaps this whole

business of assessment and property taxation has to be taken

outside the strictly political realms so that we can have some

kind of committee or commission which will in fact give

guidance and carry out the supervision of an appropriate

assessment procedure.

One of the other aspects of the bill that we are discussing

that I just mentioned, is that the Minister of Finance has

chosen to define a small business as land and improvements

worth up to $500,000. I think in the business sector these days

that does not necessarily include all so-called small

businesses, because I think small businesses must surely be

related to the number of people they employ. I just asked the

question as to why he decided on that particular figure.

While we've talked about the importance of homes for the

elderly, I would also like to mention, as I mentioned in debate

the other day, the importance of recreation for the senior

citizen. This is another very therapeutic way in which senior

citizens can remain self-sufficient and look after themselves

within their own home.

I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance could not come forth with some

specific tax measure in relation to golf courses. I won't bore the House by

repeating the details I first discussed in an earlier debate, but in relation

to golf courses, referring to the greater Victoria area in particular, there

are many senior citizens or citizens over 65 who have a very useful and health-preserving

practice of playing golf but who, in the face of very substantial increases

in taxation on golf courses this year, which are likely to be repeated in future

years unless the Minister does take some action just find it impossible to pay

the increased fees in order to remain members of golf courses.

I accept and respect that the Minister of Finance did make

statements along the way, in November, 1973, to the effect that

if certain conditions were fulfilled by the golf courses he

would in fact attempt to keep the tax level static. There have

been some misunderstandings and I realize, Mr. Speaker, that

you have been very charitable; we can't get into a debate on

the taxation of golf courses on this bill but it is part of the

general picture of assessment and property taxation which has

brought about the need for this bill in the first place.

A moment ago the Minister of Finance interjected that

something would be done. Perhaps when he winds up the debate he

would give use a little more detail on the question I've asked

about the golf courses.

Certainly, it would not be right to conclude this debate

without having some idea from the Minister of Finance to what

degree he regards this as a temporary measure — not temporary

in the five-year sense, that by five years from now he has

promised to take off all the education tax off property — but

in terms of property taxation on homes generally for those in

the senior age groups. Is this a programme which he foresees

continuing for many years or is this programme in the long run

to be reviewed in 1980? And is 1980 the target date by which

the Minister of Finance aims at having all education tax

removed from property? These are some of the inter-related

questions which I think it is fair to ask.

Within these circumstances where I have some reservation — particularly the fact that senior citizens should not have to

start borrowing money at 8 per cent from the government when

they have spent most of their life acquiring their house in the

first place — this party will certainly support the bill and

would welcome answers to some of the questions that I have

asked.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I would like, too, to

rise in support of this bill. I would like to speak about the

psychological implications of the bill because I think we often

look too much at the material end of things. While the material

side is most important, I think it has a great number of

psychological implications that the elderly, particularly,

become aware of. The older they become the more aware they

become of the fact that they would like to be in their own

homes and that they would like to be together. This is of

particular importance when one or the other of a couple has to

go into a nursing home or a hospital and the other finds it

difficult to remain alone and be able to pay for the taxes and

for the upkeep of the home and all

[ Page 3441 ]

the other charges and responsibilities that are placed on

the single person left alone.

I still remember when my parents were at the age when they

could no longer maintain their own home and had to sell out.

They were living in Manitoba and came out here to British

Columbia where three of the family were. First they went to

live with my brother. Finally they lived with myself and my

sister because we were single. But at no time did they really

feel that this was their home. Their home was still in Manitoba

in spite of the fact that it was sold. Emotionally and mentally

they still lived in Manitoba.

They went to visit a sister of mine in Montreal and came

back. The circumstances there were entirely different because

there they were living in a French community which was foreign

to them. I'm not trying to imply that there is anything wrong

with people of another nationality or anything like that, but

for older people it is understandable that it is more difficult

to make that type of adjustment. At no time did my parents feel

comfortable living with any of their children. The most

comfortable they felt was with my younger sister and myself

because we were single so there was more of a part of the

nuclear family unit. This isn't always possible.

For two people together it is a little bit easier. But when

one person is alone and the other is, for instance, in hospital

or in a nursing home it's fine if they can get nursing care

service or a homemaker service within their home, if that were

subsidized in such a way that they can have the other person

there so that wife and husband can live together, but when they

have to be separated and then find that the financial burden is

such that they have to sell their home I think that the

psychological and emotional implications are much more severe

and it does shorten their lives. Their desire to live in new

circumstances and new surroundings makes it much more difficult

than it has been before. For that reason, if for none other, I

think it is exceedingly important to keep old people in their

homes as long as we can with tax deferrals.

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

want to speak very briefly on this bill to commend the

government on bringing in something which is an initial step. I

think even the Premier would acknowledge that this is by no

means the final commitment we need to make to our senior

citizens.

I think it was the former Member for Oak Bay (Mr. McFarlane) who was the first

one to translate this concept into legislation and introduce it onto the floor

of the House. As I recall, his provisions were a good deal more generous than

those of the Premier. I hope the Premier will go back and study some of the

former ideas that had been brought forward in this House as, perhaps, a guide

to an improved bill in the future.

Like the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams), I found it a little difficult to listen to the

speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), not just

because of the rather sorry record of the party he leads in the

Legislature in this matter. I was one of those who sat in

opposition and hammered against the stone wall of the former

Premier, Mr. Bennett, and his government in this matter of

giving the senior citizens of the province a break.

I was also disappointed in the position the Leader of the

Opposition took because this isn't compulsory legislation. If a

person doesn't like the provisions they don't have to buy it.

If it is going to help them, they can go ahead and take

advantage of it. Nobody is being forced to do anything. When I

think of the number of bills I had to vote against as a Member

of the opposition that were forcing people to do things against

their will, brought in by the former government, it seemed to

me that no one in the opposition should be voting against

something which is permissive in its design. It doesn't require

anybody to foot the bill but only involves a postponement at a

time of life when that postponement is vital to the person's

security and future.

I hope that along the way with this legislation, the Premier

is going to take a l