1975 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2427 ]

CONTENTS

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 83). Hon. Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction

and first reading — 2427

Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 85). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction

and first reading — 2428

Labour Code of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 84). Hon. Mr. King.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 77). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 76). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction

and first reading — 2428

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86). Hon.Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading — 2428

Committee of Supply: Department of the Attorney-General estimates

On a point of order.

Mr. Chabot — 2429

Division on motion that the committee rise and report progress —

Perpetuities Act (Bill 1). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 2

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2430

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2431

Amendment to

section 22 Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2431

Report stage — 2431

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 3). Committee stage.

Report stage — 2431

Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 4). Committee

stage.

Report stage — 2431

Administration Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 5). Committee

stage.

Amendments to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2431

section 3 as amended

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2431

Report stage — 2432

Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 6).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2432

Report stage — 2432

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 9). Committee

stage.

section 1

Mr. Gardom — 2432

Report stage — 2433

Securities Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 20). Committee

stage.

Report stage — 2433

Police Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 46). Committee stage.

Report stage — 2433

Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 48). Committee

stage.

Report stage — 2433

Status of Men and Women Amendment Act (Bill 75). Committee

stage.

section 1

Mr. Gardom — 2434

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 10). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. Gardom — 2434

Report stage — 2435

Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975 (Bill 23). Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 2436

Division on second reading — 2441

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill

25). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2442

Division on second reading — 2445

Assessment Authority of British Columbia Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 28). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2445

Division on second reading — 2447

Appendix — 2448

FRIDAY, MAY 16, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the

House to welcome some guests today. I notice, first of all,

that the consul-general of The Netherlands is with us today,

and I would ask the House to welcome him.

Sitting next to the consul-general is a very old, dear

friend of mine who has been active in the trade union movement

and the credit union movement for all of his years in British

Columbia, John Anatooshkin.

And, Mr. Speaker, we have three other very important and

distinguished guests: Mr. George S. May, chief executive

officer and general manager of the B.C. Central Credit Union;

Mr. Peter Podovinikoff, vice-president of the B.C. Central

Credit Union; and Mr. Donald W. Bentley, director of the B.C.

Central Credit Union.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the

perceptiveness of the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, I'd ask

the House to welcome these gentlemen.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: You should raise that as a point of privilege

immediately.

At any rate, Hon. Members, there is a matter of privilege I

would ask your cooperation on.

Three things have happened yesterday and the day before that

I think are urgently in need of some correction.

One thing that happened was that there was a bit of a

scuffle in the Speaker's corridor last night at adjournment.

This is what I am informed. Now whether that's true or not I

don't know, but there was quite a press of people out there in

the corridor and quite an exchange taking place.

On another occasion a person in the gallery was required to

be removed. There was a considerable press of people in the

corridor trying to find out what was going on when the servants

of the House were trying to do their duty.

The third matter is that when the mace was accompanying the

Speaker from the chamber, an insult was thrown at the Speaker.

Usually when that happens somebody gets arrested, but I don't

believe in those rather extreme remedies. Although, I notice

that they do it in England, but I don't think we're quite that

strict.

Nonetheless, I think it's important that all of us

cooperate in trying to keep order and dignity in this

assembly. In view of the hearty assent, I'm sure we will all

try.

I think the Hon. Member for North Peace River has an urgency

matter.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I rise to

ask unanimous leave of the House o move a motion under standing order 49 in our book of

standing orders. The motion is: that this House suspend the

provisions of 45A — Committee of Supply — for the remainder of

this session and further authorize the Select Standing

Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills to undertake

immediately discussion and recommendations for rule changes

with respect to debate in Committee of Supply, and to report

their recommendations to this House.

I so move, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I think, first of all, before taking it to the

House, I should point out to the Hon. Member that there are two

distinct propositions, and they would be out of order in the

same motion. I would urge the Hon. Member to separate the

propositions if he wishes to put them to the House because they

don't permit the House to make a consensus where there are two

separate propositions contained in one motion.

MR. SMITH: I'm prepared, Mr. Speaker, to put them in two

separate motions.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you want to take time to do that or...?

MR. SMITH: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps we could go on with other business and,

with leave of the House, the matter could be raised at the time

of adjournment.

Leave granted.

Introduction of bills.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Schools Amendment

Act, 1975.

Bill 83 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.

[ Page 2428 ]

LABOUR EDUCATION CENTRE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Education Centre

of British Columbia Act.

Bill 85 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.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Labour Code of British

Columbia Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 84 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.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A very short point

of privilege dealing with a headline in....

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member could restrain

himself for one minute till we finish with the bills.

MR. GARDOM: I'm under restraint, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Attorney-General Statutes

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 77 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.

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 76, Legal

Professions Amendment Act, 1975, 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.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act.

Bill 86 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.

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

leave to discharge the committal of Bill 2, Patients' Estates

Amendment Act, 1975, and that it be dropped from the order

paper.

Leave granted.

MR. GARDOM: On a point of privilege. Just in order that

there not be any uncertainty in the minds of my children, Mr.

Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Or mine.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's your problem, Mr. Speaker.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well then, I want to disclaim having thrown you

out of the House, so far.

MR. GARDOM: But in order that there not be any uncertainty

in their minds, I think it should be recorded that my

long-suffering wife is still tolerating me, Mr. Speaker, and I

continue to have house privileges, notwithstanding the cut line

in this morning's Province .

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure it was an error they would

correct.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On a point of privilege. Mr.

Speaker, I ask leave to withdraw question 153 standing in my

name on the order paper.

Leave granted.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, second time of asking

today. I ask leave, under standing order 49, to move two motions without notice,

the contents of which are as follows: motion

(1) That this House suspend the

provisions of 45A, Committee of Supply, for the remainder of this session;

the companion motion

(2) That this House authorize the Select Standing Committee

on Standing Orders and Private Bills to undertake immediately discussion on

recommendations for rule changes with respect to debate in Committee of Supply

and report their recommendations to this House. Moved and seconded by the Hon.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot.)

[ Page

2429 ]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the usual rules of the

House are that a motion to change the rules is on two days'

notice, placed on the order paper.

MR. SMITH: I have asked leave.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I point out that the Member has had the

opportunity for the past almost four months.

MR. CHABOT: It is not four months.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Almost four months.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the rule is that under standing order

49, where there is unanimous consent, without previous notice leave may

be granted. We'll deal first with the first motion. Shall leave be

granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: On the second motion, shall leave be

granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: It will have to be on the order paper, by

notice of motion.

Orders of the day.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly asks leave of the House to proceed with

public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the chair.

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(continued)

On vote 21: correction services, $27,501,093 — continued.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I

move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit

again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! It is the right of the Chairman to

recognize the people he sees on the floor in the order.... I

recognized the House Leader, and a motion has been made.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you a point of order to make?

MR J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Well, are you going to

recognize me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you have a point of order to make, please

make it.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, first of all,

is that there is a rotation system and you are supposed to

recognize both sides of the House. There are two sides in this

House. There's one to the left and the other to the right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I have a responsibility as Chairman of

this House to be fair and to be responsible.

MR. CHABOT: You haven't started to display that this morning.

You are proceeding with the same kind of arrogance you displayed

yesterday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. CHABOT: Now my point is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you take your seat? Order!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You haven't been recognized. Will you please take

your seat?

I recognized him and I have now asked him to take his

seat.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot),

you haven't cited a rule I am in violation of that I can

see.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The responsibility of the Chair is to

recognize people as he sees them on the floor. I recognized the

House Leader, and the House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has made

a motion that I am prepared to place before the committee.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask you, if you have a point of order,

to please cite the standing rule that you raise this under.

MR. CHABOT: Common decency, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2430 ]

suggests that I have a right on behalf of the taxpayers of

this province to debate $27 million of taxpayers' money. The

people in the gallery today must be ashamed of what's taking

place with democracy and the rights of individuals to speak in

this House when I'm not allowed as an elected representative to

speak on behalf of the people of this province. It's a

disgrace.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order!

MR. CHABOT: I should have the right to speak,

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am asking you to take your seat in the way the rules

of this House function.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you take your seat?

Interjection.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR, CHAIRMAN: You know the rules of this House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make this

point. I am sure that the Hon. Member is aware that at this

present time there has been placed on the order paper a motion — which will appear, as you know, in the proper time — that

would give an opportunity for the discussion of these

estimates. Therefore I consider that as far as I am concerned

the move to go into public bills and orders is quite valid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The motion is that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

NAYS — 12

Smith

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Williams, L.A.

Wallace

Mr. Chabot requests that leave be asked to record thy

division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again. It also reports that there was a

division that should be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, public bills and orders.

Committee on Bill 1.

PERPETUITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 1; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the

amendment, which is very plain, standing in my name on the

order paper on page 19. (See appendix.)

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I don't find

the amendment clear at all, and I implore the Attorney-General

to give the committee an explanation of why he has made this

change at this late time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: As all Members are aware of the rule in

Whitby and Mitchell, which prevented the passing on by devise

or bequest the property of the decedent to an unborn widow, we

are now making it plain that it isn't only in the case of land

that we would strike down that kind of an invalid disposition,

but we would allow the rule to apply to all property. That's

the amendment; just very simple.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

[ Page

2431 ]

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 21 inclusive approved.

section 22.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment standing in my name

on page 19 of the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 22 as amended approved.

Sections 23 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move that the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 1, Perpetuities Act, reported complete with amendments

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Committee

on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 4.

INVESTMENT CONTRACTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 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 4, Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 5.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move two amendments

standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

section 3 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any particular

objection to the direction which the Attorney-General is taking

this particular statute, but I believe I must fairly say that

we're now going so far as to unnecessarily complicate the

administration of many estates. We are finding an example where

more

[ Page

2432 ]

and more people have got to be served with more and more

papers. The public trustee will have to have expanded

facilities in order to receive and file all the documents that

he is being obliged to receive under legislation of this

kind.

I would hope that the Attorney-General could perhaps make

some investigation through his department as to the true need

for all these requirements. I know the Attorney-General has had

instances come to his attention where beneficiaries of estates

have not been advised that they are beneficiaries, but it seems

to me that we're going far, far beyond what is required to

provide relief in cases of this kind, particularly in cases

where a beneficiary is an infant and that infant's mother or

father is the executor living at home. Yet copies of these

documents have got to go all over the place. I just happen to

know from experience in this kind of practice of a multiplicity

of documents. It's xerography gone wild in the estate business — that's what it is, Mr. Chairman. The

Attorney-General should recognize it instead of sending out

reams of documents to the public trustee. I think that some

examination should be made as to the real need. I hope that a

study could be conducted to make some assessment of the

cost-value relationship to this procedure.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with the

Hon. Member that the paperwork and complexity should be reduced

to a minimum. But the reason for service on the public trustee

in the case of a minor or a mentally-disordered person is for

the protection of that person against an executor who might

easily be able to ignore that minor's or other person's rights.

If the papers are sent there in that kind of a case, as they

should have to be under this section, if the public trustee

saw, for example, that the minor was represented by a lawyer or

that it was from a family that could clearly look after it,

that would be the end of the matter. But it's only that unusual

case which we would like to protect people against who are not

able to protect their own rights, the very unusual case where

the public trustee, having notice or a complaint, can look at

the thing and then move in to protect this infant or

mentally-disordered person.

So it's basically a filing, which I would think in 99 per

cent of the cases, I suppose, is meaningless. It's that 100th

case where the minor needs some special protection or someone

who hasn't got the mental capacity needs some special

protection, of which the public trustee wants to be

apprised.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Administration Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 6.

CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

standing in my name on page 19 of orders of the day. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, cooperative Associations Amendment Act, 1975,

reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 9.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. G.R. Anderson in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I'm speaking to one point, and

very quickly, Mr.

[ Page

2433 ]

Chairman. I don't think I'll be off topic, but if I am off

topic I won't be off topic very much.

I wonder if the Hon. Attorney-General has given any thought

to making a similar suggestion under the Real Estate Act that

we find under the Legal Professions Act, that the trust funds

would incur interest for the use of, say legal aid, as we find

under the Legal Professions Act. I wonder if he would care to

comment upon that point, because there are millions and

millions of dollars in trust in this province in any given

period of time in the real estate field, and it is not possible

for anyone to benefit from the interest on those trust funds. I

think that if there were a similar provision made, the only

people who would be deprived would be the banks, and it would

be in the public interest.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, that's a valuable

suggestion, and one which has crossed my mind. The field of the

notary public is in a similar situation.

We have the real estate inquiry under Dr. Gideon Rosenbluth,

and I don't think that matter has been referred particularly to

him. It's a little bit more of a legal matter, but I will see

that he gets a copy of this exchange, after we have edited the

grammar. It is Dr. Gideon Rosengluth.

I really think that this is something that is probably

practical and should be done, because there is no question that

in the case of the lawyers' trust funds, the amount of money

from the interest on those trust funds has been of great

benefit to us, not only in legal libraries but in the provision

of legal aid and legal services.

It is a good suggestion.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 to 5 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 9, Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete

without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move that the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 20, Securities Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete

without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 46, Mr. Speaker.

POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 46; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 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 46, Police Amendment Act, 1975, reported complete

without amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 48, Mr. Speaker.

MORTGAGE BROKERS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 48; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 9 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page

2434 ]

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 48, Mortgage Brokers Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Committee on Bill 75, Mr. Speaker.

STATUS OF MEN AND WOMEN AMENDMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GARDOM: I wonder if the Hon. Attorney-General would

agree to an adjournment of this bill. I notice there are around

30-odd statutes to consider and, speaking only for myself, I

have not had an opportunity to go through them. It would be

appreciated. Maybe if all the other Members are satisfied, my

colleagues....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I accept the suggestion.

There are some very odd statutes that are being amended in this

bill.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

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

FAIR SALES PRACTICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to make an observation if I can concerning this

statute — I am not opposing the request today for the Hon. Minister to have

her bill passed — but there's still an area of deficiency. I'm not too sure

whether this will fall within the purview of the Minister or the Department

of the Attorney-General, but at the present time we find that the civil service

and the public are essentially being let down in this area where specific protection

is required. If the Attorney-General could remain for a moment, it may be more

in his department than the Minister's. I'd just like to give the Minister a

specific illustration, if I can.

There's an elderly retired gentleman who owned a vacant lot

which was his principal asset. It was his nest egg, and he sold

it for $ 10,000. This gentleman is in his 80s, and it was the

first time in his life that he had anything of value, but he

didn't have it for too long. He saw one of these "get rich"

advertisements in the newspaper and he decided to invest his

bonanza, his nest egg, in gold and silver bullion.

He went to the office of these individuals, and saw a person

there who identified himself as a "registered official

salesman." Well, they hooked this old timer very quickly. He

did not seek independent advice, and I feel that someone in the

vending organization should have seen that he received just

that. This was his one-time asset. It may not be huge to some,

but it was enormous to him, and it was lost. He didn't receive

any information about the possible pitfalls, no suggestion that

he could obtain independent advice or help, and instead he was

gulled into purchasing something that was completely

intangible, and he was gulled into putting up his $10,000 all

by this alleged registered official salesman.

Those words meant something to this old-timers, and we don't have the protection in British Columbia today to assist either

your Ministry, Madam Minister, or the Attorney-General's, to

cover these kinds of situations. This individual felt that this

so-called registered official salesman at least possessed some

kind of regulated qualification which at least required some

kind of technical or governmental approval and expertise, but

that wasn't the case at all because there are no means

available today under existing statutes that these kinds of

transactions can be registered.

I would suggest, recommend and plead to the Hon. Minister

that some type of legislative safeguards come into being in

this province, because here we have this old timer putting down

his $10,000. He committed himself to owing another $35,000,

which he didn't have, to purchase bullion without any guarantee

and without even any assurance of a place of delivery for the

thing he was proposing to buy, although there are provisions

within this form of contract, which neither your Act nor the

Securities Act assists, for forfeiture of the entire deposit

under certain conditions. Talking about delivery, delivery

might be in Transylvania or Monrovia, or what-have-you.

The protections under the Securities Act do not assist, and

I gather that protections under the Fair Sales Practices Act do

not assist, because there are

[ Page 2435 ]

existing in the Province of B.C. today these very high-toned

types of newspaper sales pitches, and these very high-voltage

sales programmes, but essentially these people are moving on a

franchise. We don't have a franchises Act such as perhaps we

could find in the statutes in Saskatchewan, or in Alberta, for

that matter, and where we find powers of licensing, powers of

bonding, and penalties for people who carry on these operations

in contravention of those kinds of powers, I would seriously commend the Attorney-General and the

Minister of Consumer Services to give thought to this

suggestion, It's a very simple thing. There could be an

amendment, Madam Minister, to your Act. Personally, I think it

would be better for the Securities Act of the Attorney-General

to cover these kinds of situations so these people would have

to be bonded the same way as the security salesman is, or they

would have to have their contract have a stipulated form, as

per the contracts you have stipulated under your statute.

Today we're finding people being gulled, as this old

gentleman was. The company in question is facing receivership.

It's questionable as to whether the funds will be available. He

has maintained an action for fraud and misrepresentation, but

there's great difficulty of collection. You see, the

representation was false. Had there been a bond, had this

individual who was the salesman come within some degree of

regulation, then your government would have been able to act

more speedily and in the correct avenue to cure the

situation.

I'd very much appreciate it if these two Ministers would

give very serious thought to the suggestion that has been

raised, and I would commend each of them to the prevailing

statutes in the Province of Saskatchewan, which has a direct

sellers Act which deals with licensing and bonding and gives

purchasers a power to rescind in these situations. Alberta has

the franchises Act. I don't know if a separate statute is

required; I tend to think it is not. I think it could be

adequately handled by an effective amendment to the statutes

that are now part of the laws of the Province of British

Columbia. This would be a relatively simple thing to do before

the end of this session. If there's any way that I could

assist, I'd be more than delighted to do so.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I appreciate the problem

that the Hon. Member has raised. I am aware of the case and the particular company

that is in receivership. However, in all fairness, I must point out that this

legislation does not deal with that particular problem. This is one of the reasons

we sought to change the name of the legislation, because there was quite a bit

of confusion between this title and the title of the Trade Practices Act. That

is why we are asking for a new title.

In the Trade Practices Act, we do have the right of a person

who is a first franchisee. We have protection for them there

that if it is quite obviously a device wherein they are conned

or something, they can take action. The second time around, no.

If they're not smart enough to catch on the first time, then

they're not very smart. That is the only place we have in our

legislation to deal with a franchise operation. I think the

Hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and myself could

probably decide where this problem more appropriately belongs

and where it can be solved. I think the Securities Act may be

the better vehicle inasmuch as it deals with financial matters.

However, in discussions we can resolve this. But I would point

out that this particular legislation deals in no way.... This

deals with pyramid schemes, period.

Interjection.

HON. MS. YOUNG: I couldn't agree with you more, Hon.

Member.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, if I can be out of order

for a second, too, this is a problem that my colleague and I

are concerned with. Where there's a sale of gold between

individuals, that's something where you can sue — if you can

sue. But where there is a trading in paper, an interest in

gold, that comes very close to being a trading in a security. I

know the superintendent of brokers has been concerned about

this; he's been scanning the bullion ads in the newspapers to

see if it's carried on. It may be that at some time we'd have

to look at an amendment. Your remarks will be transmitted to

the superintendent as well as having been for the information

of my colleague and myself.

MR. GARDOM: Thank you.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MS. YOUNG: 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 10, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after

[ Page 2436 ]

today.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 23.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1975

(continued)

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

the debate.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No, it's the Member for Mackenzie

(Mr. Lockstead), but he's not here.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I see. I recognize the Hon. Second Member

for Victoria, in that event.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Bill 23, the Special Funds

Appropriation Act, is a general purpose bill which gives some

$70 million for a variety of programmes without any indication

by way of line-by-line analysis as to how it's going to be

spent. I shouldn't say "any indication;" it does break it down:

$15 million to the community recreation fund, $20 million to

the ferry capital expenditures funded $20 million to the summer

programmes and $15 million to winter programmes. That's

all.

We have had a history in this House of opposing bills which

grant large sums of money for these funds. We feel that the

government should budget correctly; we feel that the funds are

a device for avoiding proper budgeting. This was the position

of the former official opposition, the NDP, when it was

opposing the funds set up by the former Premier. We then had

the present Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) state — I

think he said — "for the time being" or "for the moment."

Anyway, he gave the impression it would be a temporary

examination of the whole system; then he proceeded, of course,

to increase certain funds. That happened back in 1973.

It appears clear now that they've abandoned their previous

position and have decided that the funds for which they are not

accountable until the public accounts look at them many, many

months — perhaps years — later is the way to go in these various

areas.

I can only reiterate the opposition we feel to such a manner of budgeting.

If you're going to have $15 million for the Community Recreational Facilities

Fund, let's make sure the money goes to the Minister responsible for recreation

— I guess the Minister of Recreation and Conservation — let's make sure it comes

out in his budget. Let's make sure that we see in the green book, in the line-by-line,

how he intends to spend it, who will be hired under that, and where the money

will go. Clearly, we don't have to have every expenditure of every dollar detailed.

Clearly, we will set up certain funds for certain purposes to be spent in accordance

with certain indications. But here we have no indication whatsoever, as you

get in the budget.

Section B, $20 million for the ferry capital expenditures

fund, worries me again. Last year we discussed this, Mr.

Speaker. You'll recall distinctly that we had a discussion of

$35 million, and we asked how much more it would cost; we asked

what the total cost would be of those new ferries that were

commissioned. We got nothing but evasiveness from the Minister

of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Sure, it's

going to be spent on ferries, but what will the total cost of

these ferries be? Is this an extra amount of money over the

amount it was expected they would cost? Is it for new vehicles,

new ships? None of this is in detail in this bill and

therefore, whether one approves the ferries or not, it becomes

extraordinarily difficult to approve of this type of bill which

simply has us granting money and throwing it, essentially, into

the hands of the government without the slightest control.

Is $20 million for summer programmes, $15 million for winter

programmes? Again, it's not detailed at all. It's just down

there as, what, $20 million for summer programmes and $15

million for winter programmes: that's all it says.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) is not here — he,

presumably, would be talking about these programmes if it were

in estimates and if his estimates were before the House. So we

are going to vote against this bill in principle because the

principle of funds which are unaccountable is wrong; the

principle of budgeting money by way of special funds is wrong.

The idea that we should be called upon to vote $70 million in a

19-line bill, as indicated by the Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), is just doubly wrong.

We will vote against it.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): No matter how you feel about

special appropriation funds, and generally we have supported

them in the past, we feel that this amount of $70 million is

really extending the principle of special funds quite a long

way beyond what the original intention was. We think there are

some needs for special appropriations, but, generally speaking,

those funds should be earmarked and should be covered in the

budget.

One item which hasn't been discussed so far, I believe, is that these are not

earning funds. I want you to notice that they are also back-dated to March 31,

1975. When these funds are voted I would like the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Barrett), if he could, to tell us what the investment policy is for those

funds until they are used. Does the money simply go, for example, into the drawer

of John Mika for the department of Hon. Mr. Strachan? Does John

[ Page

2437 ]

Mika just put that money in his drawer until they require

it, or is it invested? If so, where and what are the earnings

on it? What are the earnings used for? Does the interest on

that money accrue to that fund, or does it go back into general

revenue, or where does it go?

You can't help but accept that one of the reasons, and

perhaps the real reason, for a large amount of special funds is

to prevent some accountability to the Legislature. And I would

prefer to see, as I have said, that accountability shown and

displayed. There's no way that we can really know what these

funds are used for. True, we can look at public accounts a year

or a year and a half later, and try to analyze where they went

and what they were used for. But the capital expenditures,

particularly for the ferry expenditures, really should be in

the budget. There's really no good reason why the $30 million

for the special employment programme should not be included

under the Minister of Labour's estimate.

It's been mentioned earlier, and I reiterate, that the

recreation fund, which all of us have supported, does not allow

for operating costs. Some of the smaller areas are finding that

they have done marvellous things with this fund, and I wouldn't

want to quarrel with that issue, but they are running into

operating expenses that perhaps they're not able to carry. I

wonder if the Minister of Finance could look at that area in

the future.

We will be supporting this bill, with those reservations,

because we have accepted in principle that special funds

appropriations are necessary.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it has been traditional for

me over the past number of years to oppose this kind of

legislation. But I'm going to vote for this bill, second

reading, because I find that there has been a change which I

can accept — that the funds which are established under this

legislation are expended under specific legislation.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, it might be appropriate to amend

this bill in committee, and all Members have that right thereby

to express any concerns that they have.

You know, it's different from what it was in the old days,

Mr. Speaker, when we used to get funds set up to do things like

beautify the power lines or to establish a monument to the

dragonfly. (Laughter.)

In those days, Mr. Speaker, we did properly oppose this kind of funding because

it was a very convenient way of taking surplus moneys and locking them away

in the hands of the Minister of Finance to do with what he might wish, which

was largely to finance the Crown corporations.

But here we have three specific amounts of money which are

to be expended in three specific ways. Now we all appreciate

what the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act has done

for many municipalities and organizations in this province. I

don't know of anybody who quarrels with that. There is a very

careful examination made of all the submissions which come

before the government, not by the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) but by a staff committee

composed of members from several departments.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the difficulty which the

municipality in which I reside had in getting a grant convinces

me of the care that is taken by that staff committee in

assessing these various projects. It's a very careful

expenditure of funds.

I've always wondered why we criticize so much the

capitalizing of ferry projects in this particular way, because

it has been traditional for as long as I've been in this House

for there to be a lump sum amount in the estimates for ferry

capital, just as there has always been a lump sum announced for

highways construction. We can ask all kinds of questions about

it of the Minister. So this is not really a change in any

respect from what has been the former practice.

Lastly, on the matter of summer and winter employment

programmes to be administered under legislation passed by this

House, we are able to ask all the questions we want, and I

don't think that anybody in this House really quarrels with the

concept of making funds available for special employment needs.

There are many students who have been able to continue their

education because of this kind of legislation.

I think there is ample scope for debate. All we have to be

certain about is that the moneys are directed to funds which

are established under legislation and not directed to some

funds just under a convenient name which is merely a disguise

for another picket of the Minister of Finance.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on occasion when

reasonableness infects this House, it makes it difficult to do

the ritual tribal dance that is expected on the conclusion of a

bill such as this.

Certainly I welcome the statements made by the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who represents

the independents in British Columbia. He's given what I think

to be a frank, independent view of the situation as it stands

now.

It is a correct assessment to say that in the past the

special funds were used to be salted away for financing capital

projects. No one is opposed to doing that. That's a good,

cautious fiscal approach to

[ Page 2438 ]

management of money. What we were opposed to at that time

was the fact that somehow, unfortunately, the impression was

left that X-number of millions of dollars were going to be

spent on protecting the dragonfly, when in actual fact only the

interest off those earnings was protecting the dragonfly, so to

speak.

But politics were being served. Politics left the impression

and raised expectations throughout the communities of this

province that beautification would actually take place, that

other services announced for the special funds would actually

go on to the limit of those funds. Regrettably that led to the

growing cynicism in this province about accepting the word of

the former administration about developing these

programmes.

I think that the questions raised about the expenditures are

valid. The Member points out that there is opportunity to

discuss these expenditures.

I want to, first of all, dwell on the fact that there is a

surplus. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I know that the

official opposition is disappointed that it does exist, because

the official opposition has been making some of the wildest

statements about our financial situation that I find are

absolutely incomprehensible in terms of the accounts available

through the same staff in the Department of Finance that

existed under the former government. To go around this province

deliberately attempting to leave the impression that all is not

well with the provincial finances is patently false.

I am shocked and disappointed, in the heat of political

battle, that anyone would make those statements, which are

calculated for political gain but which may have the damaging

effect on the belief of people that somehow the finances of

this province are not in good shape. I regret that.

I want to point out that when the Hon. Member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was the fiscal critic in

the House for the official opposition when we were in that

role, he never once attacked the basis of the fiscal stability

of this province. He vigorously opposed legislation that

philosophically we didn't agree with or in principle we didn't

agree with, but at no time did our spokesman ever attack the

fiscal base of this province. At no time did the Hon. Robert

Strachan, in that role, run around this province trying

deliberately to leave the impression that this province was in

fiscal problems.

Even when we attacked the Columbia River, we always added

the caveat — if I may, because I've been talking to lawyers —

that the province was wealthy enough to handle even that

blunder. And we always said that in our statements. But we

never tried to spread doom and gloom about the great potential

and future of this province, in spite of politicians and in

spite of political parties.

Now we are witnessing, in this debate for the expenditure of some $70 million

additional, an almost plaintive acceptance by the opposition that this is good,

but a little bit disappointed, in the words from the Member for Victoria "that

it's so much."

Now what kind of quixotic, philosophical position allows a

Member to say, on the one hand, to the public that they're

fiscally irresponsible, this new government, but then to come

into this House and find out that, my goodness, the surplus

funds are even greater than we used to have? In effect, Mr.

Member, that's what you were pointing out.

MR. MORRISON: I didn't say that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know, Mr. Member, that you didn't say

that, but your party and your spokesman have been running

around this province deliberately attempting to create the

atmosphere that all is not well fiscally in British Columbia.

Yet the evidence here — that they say they're going to vote for — is that there was $70 million left over in last year's budget

in spite of the overruns in social welfare, in spite of the

overruns in ferries, in spite of the overruns in other

departments. There was still $70 million left over. And are we

taking the $70 million and shoving it into little pet capital

projects under the guise that the title of the funds that would

come out would be what the money was spent on? No.

The independent Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) has made that point, and made it adequately.

So you see, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, the

difficulty of the official opposition, known as the Social

Debit Party — I mean, Social Credit Party. On the one hand, to

take the position publicly that we're in fiscal trouble, and on

the other hand to be forced here today — as they will be, and

I assure you they will be — to stand up and place their name on

record as to how they voted on, what, for goodness sake? — on

how they voted on $70 million surplus money after we spent the

welfare programmes. After we gave Mincome, Pharmacare, day care — programmes they never allowed, after we provided new

ambulance services, after we provided extended services

throughout this province, their name will go on the record as

endorsing the further expenditure of $70 million surplus that

came about because of good management by this government.

I wish sometimes that television were available so the

people of this province could see how difficult it is for the

official opposition to say one thing outside and another thing

inside.

Along with this $70 million surplus, I'd like to contrast

the delicate financial situation that exists in this country.

The federal Minister of Finance is attempting to put together a

budget for the end of May to deal with the fiscal crisis as he

sees it in this

[ Page 2439 ]

country; and, Lord knows, there is a fiscal crisis in North

America. But let us look at our position in that particular

crisis, and let us examine what traditional financing has done

for other provinces.

First of all, let us take our neighbouring province, the

Province of Alberta. They have established a heritage fund.

They are an administration that is in a surplus position. Why

are they in a surplus position? They are in a surplus position

because, Sir, they have reaped new profits from oil and gas in

that province. I submit to you that had they adopted the

policies of our government they'd have half again as much

money. They have allowed the private oil companies to disappear

with huge profits off oil and gas that actually belong to the

Canadian people. But, nonetheless, even though those oil

companies and gas companies have made huge profits, they still

have a surplus in Alberta. A Conservative government. Why is it

they have a surplus? — oil and gas.

Let us move now to Ontario — only figuratively, because I

don't want to punish anybody who lives in this beautiful

province with the idea that we might stay there. But let us

move, figuratively, to Ontario.

Last year, under a conservative government that in many ways

resembles Social Credit philosophy — that is, put the screws on

the poor, don't help the small businessmen, fight the trade

unions, all the symptoms of Social Credit under the

Conservative label — in that province they had an operating

deficit, not a capital deficit, of how much? A deficit of $1.6

billion overrun — $1.6 billion in one year in Ontario! Have you

ever seen a front-page headline in the Vancouver Sun , the

Province , the Victoria Daily Colonist , Southam News

in British Columbia, reading "$1,600,000,000 Deficit in

Ontario" and contrasting British Columbia's $70,000,000

surplus? Has anyone seen that headline?

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap) No way.

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

being mean to you, Dave?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it's not a question of the

press being mean; the press is capitalist-oriented, I hate to

say that. And having said that, that may appear in the

headlines, but I want to point out that even though we spent

$100 million more for people in Mincome, Pharmacare, day care,

even though we spent more money for ambulance services,

supplements for education, more money on recreation and

conservation, we have $70 million overall surplus.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do the weekly papers stress that point? "Barrett and

the NDP spent all that money and, gosh darn it all, they even had 70 million

bucks left over."

Now the question is also raised about cash in the bank when

we came into office, and that is being used as part of the

argument that somehow the government is using money that was

already there. So we've had to tell our civil servants to tell

the people the way it was. What was it? When we came to office

there was $98 million in the bank and that was signed by the

former Minister of Finance (W.A.C. Bennett) — $98 million cash

in the bank and $255 million out in instant debt known as

parity bonds.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, now we're going to come to this. In

parity bonds there was $255 million. That's just like printing

money and a good investment. Anybody who buys a parity bond has

a good investment and is backed by the people of this province.

But there was $255 million out with $98 million in the bank.

What is the situation today after we've spent all that money on

these programmes, after we've got $70 million surplus? What is

the situation today? Well, it is a fact, Mr. Member and all the

Members of this House and all the people of this province, that

I want to report that the people of this province have reduced

the parity bond debt from $250 million down to $160 million!

And by absorbing that and then raising the cash — and I know

this part hurts Social Credit, so I want to say it softly,

because Social Credit will have to go around and admit this to

everybody in the province — after having the $70 million

surplus, after reducing the parity bond debt by close to $100

million, instead of $98 million cash in the bank, we've got

$157 million in the bank. We have $157 million cash, and you

know, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I hear them chattering, and I hear them

nervous, and I hear them embarrassed. On top of that — I hate

to say this publicly, too, considering my political philosophy — Moody's rating service in New York, who does not look at

political shades but in balance sheets, says that this little

old socialist government has a double A rating — one of the

highest outside of all the Americas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ontario, too. Ontario got a triple A

because they're hooked into more borrowing that we are. I want

to say....

MR. GIBSON: I hear they have a big deficit.

[ Page 2440 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure they have a big deficit. But look at

how much borrowing they are doing. I want to tell you that when

I go down to New York — this little kid born in British

Columbia and raised in the East End of Vancouver, who went to

high school looking for 20 cents to buy fish and chips — now

there's a line-up of those conservative bankers saying:

"Please, sir, can we do business with you?"

Imagine what would happen if I went to the NDP convention

and they found that I was Wall Street's darling. (Laughter.)

Oh, what fate has done! The twist of irony! There it is. And

who's done it? Not me! It's every single one of my colleagues

in the cabinet and the backbenchers, who represent the ordinary

people of this province by saying: "No more rip-offs. No more

giveaways. Sell our resources at a fair price and get a fair

return for the people of British Columbia."

I don't want to go around telling this to the people of

British Columbia; that's why I speak this way in this

House.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly — a $70 million surplus — I have

to tell you how we got it. (Laughter.) I have to tell you who

got it, because if there's ever any question of me, I don't

have the option of running home to daddy and crying.

(Laughter.)

What I'm saying is, Mr. Speaker....

MR. MORRISON: What about the extra taxes to the

municipalities?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, the extra taxes. "What about the extra

taxes," it the cry from the opposition Member. Yes, we

have put extra taxes on — guess who? The multinational

corporations. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with taxing

the multinational corporations? Every citizen I meet on the

street...they come up to me, nudge me and say: "Go to it,

Dave!" (Laughter.) They don't have much sympathy for those

huge, monstrous corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about small businesses?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member wants to be told about the small-business

tax. He raised it, not me. We are the only administration in all of Canada that

has lowered the capital corporation tax on small businesses. I would have never

thought that the opposition would expose themselves to finding out what was

in the budget. Now they have to go around telling the small businessman: "Yes,

it's true. Those socialists have lowered your taxes." Don't let my party know

about it because they'll find out that (

a) I'm the darling of Wall Street; (

b) I'm lowering taxes for small businessmen. That will ruin the philosophical image

that that group is deliberately trying to spread around this government. There

it is.

These speeches are not intended to embellish, Mr. Speaker;

they are only dealing with facts as they are.

Now we shall deal with some of the more specific criticisms

raised, because I think it's important to deal with them. The

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams),

because now he is an Independent, is able to cut the terrible

party bond he had on him which said he must vote against this

kind of bill. His independence has given him a freedom away

from his party constrictions to stand up and announce that he's

going to vote for this bill. I don't want anybody to suspect

that the change of position is paving the road to a change of

party because he said that we were far more honest than the

former administration — we're spending all the money. So it

would be difficult for him, on this bridge, to go over to

Social Credit, let alone the problems of the nomination.

(Laughter.)

So I want to say to my friend, the learned judge, and to

others in this House who have brought up these problems, let us

examine where the money is. The money is in general revenue. It

should be there in general revenue, Mr. Member for Victoria,

receiving valid interest rates on a bid basis. The bids are

open to all. The former government would not deal with certain

banks. We don't dislike certain banks, and play politics that

way, We dislike them all, so we let them all compete for the

money. We're fair about it; we don't pick on any one bank —

they're all in there. We've even allowed the credit unions to

have some money. The former government would never do that. The

former government wouldn't put a nickel in with the credit

unions. Why? They were B.C.-based, with B.C. people.

Having answered that question, we go on to the next

question: the community resource development fund. As a social

worker and as an MLA representing a growing constituency, I

went around this province and saw community after community

after community that was starved for recreational facilities —

the ability to recreate, to enjoy leisure time, to share with

fellows in your own community the opportunity of growing, to

read poetry, to become a part-time thespian, as some Liberals

would enjoy doing. (Laughter.) No political party has more

experience in acting than the Liberals — and they should hone

it, I think, to a higher degree, especially as they walk the

fence.

The other party, they don't need those skills — they're on

the plank.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that when we went around this

province and I met our candidates who fought for their local

areas, they said to me: "Dave, you know one thing we've got to

do? We've got to

[ Page 2441 ]

stabilize these communities. We've got to give people a

centre for social focus in these communities."

So we said: "Okay, our party policy would be that we pay

one-third of the capital costs of community resource

recreational development."

We spent over $40 million, all in new programmes — cash —

and we still have a surplus. On top of that...you want to

know the figures? We have helped over 200 separate communities

in this province through this fund.

We have helped Liberals; we have helped Conservatives; we

have helped Social Credit, and, God knows, they need help. We

have helped them all to develop, within their own interests,

the community which they represent here in this House. Yes, in

the city of Fort St. John, where I was humbly asked to humbly

participate in a humble opening of a humble facility without

their humble MLA....

MR. GARDOM: Humblebug!

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Humblebug," says the Member.

Mr. Judge, through you, Mr. Speaker, (laughter) enjoy it.

It's later than you think. (Laughter.)

I want to say that it was a great experience to stand up

there cutting a ribbon....

MR. GIBSON: Jimmy Gorst does that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now there goes that poor fellow with the

57-vote majority. Surely we can do something in North Vancouver

to help you. Surely you can come and make an application, and

you'll be at the ribbon-cutting too.

There is a problem, however, raised by the Members about

financing staff. No question about it. Operating costs for

recreational centres should not be looked upon lightly. Those

people who work in recreational facilities have an onerous

task, and many times their job is misinterpreted as being

involved in leisure-time activities as if they were part of the

leisure time.

I tell you, people who have some of the greatest

occupational stress are those who work in a leisure-time field.

They personally lose the highly prized hours of the evenings

and the weekends because the nature of their employment and/or

their profession takes them away from their families at those

periods of time. We recognize that as a severe problem. We also

recognize that there is a shortage of skilled staff in that

area.

As a consequence of the approaches made to me by the

backbenchers and other people, we have said, "all right, we

must find ways of getting more money into the hands of the

communities." So I announced the revenue-sharing from natural

gas resources. Every little town, village, hamlet and city

received the basic $25,000 cash grant, first time ever, plus other grants under

the natural gas money. I have yet to hear an official

opposition Member get up — after all the criticisms, all the

attacks — saying: "Mr. Premier, regardless of party, on behalf

of all British Columbians I want to thank you for getting that

good deal out of Ottawa on our natural gas." They never said

it.

Now I am too humble to ask for praise, but I do think once

in a while that it would be worthwhile, for their own good

image, to swallow and say: "We had thought that we wouldn't get

anything, but our Premier did come back from Ottawa

successfully, and got an increase in the gas price, and was

able to help the communities in this way." Because that is a

fact.

We also established the petroleum corporation, which they

voted against, which also contributed to this surplus. That is

a fact.

I don't have enough time, Mr. Speaker, to give the fulsome

praise that is due every single cabinet Minister and every

single backbencher of this government who has had the courage

and the conviction to back legislation like the petroleum

corporation, which has given us this surplus, as it should be,

out of the revenue of our natural resources, which belongs to

the people of British Columbia — not only to the multinational

corporations.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say with pride — yes, pride — that we do

have a $70 million surplus and it will be spent for community

facilities, for ferries, and, more than anything else, will be

spent with pride on a brand new programme that will spend money

for jobs for students so that they can finance their higher

education here in this province.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me say in conclusion, with a sense of

pride, humility and desire to do more, that I move second

reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

Williams, L.A.

Schroeder

Morrison

Curtis

McClelland

Smith

Chabot

NAYS — 5

Gardom

Anderson, D.A. Wallace

Gibson

McGeer

[ Page 2442 ]

Bill 23, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1975, 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. 25, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER

AUTHORITY

(1964) AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of this bill

is to increase the borrowing authorization of the British

Columbia Hydro and Power Authority from $2.25 billion to $3

billion. The increased amount is needed to carry out the

authority's commitment under the Columbia River Treaty for

construction of new dams to keep up with the ever-increasing

demand for power and for the authority's day-to-day capital

expenditures.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, on this particular bill we will

be presenting an amendment in committee, but I would like to

remind the Premier that last year when he was discussing a

similar bill he made some pledges in this House as to the

loans, and those pledges were not kept. He has had some secret

borrowings from undisclosed sources. He has not yet told the

House where those loans came from. He had made selected

disclosure on other deals; and we feel that it's important that

this House be given all the facts, and that the public know all

the facts. The real issue of this bill, again, is

accountability.

Under the NDP, B.C. Hydro for the first time in history is

sliding into a deficit position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who signed the Columbia River treaty?

MR. MORRISON: But we will be, as I said, proposing

amendments in committee stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, if we had more in the way of

information on this, we might be a little happier with this

particular bill. We're now getting to that period of the

session where hundreds of millions of dollars come up in bills,

one after another, and the bills get shorter and shorter as we

go along. The last bill took 19 lines for $70 million; this

takes only three lines to go up $750 million. I had hoped that

the Premier would be providing a great deal in the way of

background material or extra information.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In committee. You will get that in

committee.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: He has offered now, and I thank him for

it, to provide that in committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But we feel that without better publicity

on exactly how the money is to be spent, we will oppose this

bill in principle.

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

wouldn't have thought the Premier would bring a bill of this

kind before the House without first having launched the inquiry

which the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams)

promised into the affairs of the B.C. Hydro.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's coming.

MR. McGEER: The Premier and the Minister both hinted darkly

of wrongdoing in B.C. Hydro, despite allegations by former

officers of that Crown corporation that the Minister in fact

was being less than truthful, less than truthful with the

statements he made, having privileges of House immunity. It's

been my contention that until that Minister is cleared, he

should not serve as a director of the Crown corporation and

could not possibly have the confidence of the officers of that

particular institution. I don't think it appropriate, either,

for there to be increased borrowing on the part of the B.C.

Hydro until the matter of the Columbia River treaty is

thoroughly aired.

We all know that during the time the negotiations were

underway and in the immediate post-negotiation period, the

financial arrangements were kept a secret — that is, the

details of them — from the Legislature and from the public. The

affairs of that corporation are still in effect hidden from

view. They are hidden from view because the present government,

like the previous government, operates to see that they remain

hidden from view. There's not public meeting whereby the

citizens of British Columbia can go and ask questions. It is

true that at least one officer of the corporation now appears

before the public accounts committee once each year, although

they haven't appeared this particular year, but I really don't

consider that as more than minimal progress.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you like the way the Socreds did

it?

MR. McGEER: I don't like the way you're doing it either, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're not going to join them? Tell us,

Pat.

MR. McGEER: I might join you.

[ Page

2443 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, no! (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: I just want to prove that you can say shocking

things on the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker. But I couldn't

contemplate anything like that unless the Premier were to make

a clean breast of the way he's run the finances of this

province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've already committed suicide.

MR. McGEER: And we're far from that in the way this Crown

corporation is being managed. Of course, there is apparently a

lot under the carpet in the B.C. Railway and the B.C. Hydro.

The government is choosing to give people a little peek under

the carpet when it suits their fancy, but when it doesn't suit

their fancy they clam the carpet down. Don't they?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, they do.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: He's got a bad back — go easy on him....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you fellows still talking to each

other?

MR. McGEER: So, Mr. Speaker, the Legislature, particularly

the backbenchers — one of them showed a little spunk for just a

few minutes before it flickered out last night — shouldn't be

continuing to support a government in practices which hide

accountability of Crown corporations. Of course, the government

is failing to live up to its promises in having an

investigation of the operation of the B.C. Hydro. I am

personally convinced that this commission will never come to

pass and that the government is doing its very best to forget

about it and bury it and hoping that we won't continue to

remind them of the promises that they made under pressure.

We are going to continue to do that, and we are going to

continue to demand that the government take some action with

respect to renegotiation of the Columbia River treaty. It's all

very well to blame the previous government for the losses on

the Columbia River treaty compared with what the people

expected and were promised. But that's no excuse for the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon R.A.

Williams) to be on a committee advisory to the permanent

engineering board, a committee of Ministers that could instruct

the board to obtain the data necessary for a firm case to get

payments under the Columbia River treaty increased. Then we

find that the Minister, in all the time he's been in office and

all the statements the Premier has made about what a dreadful

job Social Credit did and the former

Liberal government, this key committee has never even met —

never even met, Mr. Speaker. Despite all the criticism, all the

suggestion that others were to blame, the government totally

neglects its responsibilities now. It is attempting to push it

off on somebody in the past, failing to live up to its

responsibilities now and failing to reveal, as it should, all

the financial nooks and crannies of the Crown corporation. I

understand in two weeks' time or so we are going to have some

of the scandals of the B.C. Railway laid before us. We will

want to go into that thoroughly. But whatever those turn out to

be, the basic fault will be lack of scrutiny by the opposition

and the public. I say without equivocation that that lack of

scrutiny applies under the present government to exactly the

same degree. Were it going on today in any Crown corporation,

the only way it would be found out would be by some future

government revealing the mess of a previous government. You

have to have open meetings of shareholders, you have to have

full disclosure of financial operations, and you have to let

Crown corporation officials know that they are going to be held

accountable both to the public and to the public's elected

representatives.

Above all, Mr. Speaker, you've got to get politicians off

the boards of directors. If a crown corporation is to operate

under sound technical and financial practices, it cannot do so

with the kind of interference which obviously is taking place

in corporations such as ICBC. The Hydro needs to have stronger

directors than the sleeping Minister and the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). He's awake —

I couldn't quite see him from the back; it's a difficult place

to speak from.

In any event, he's awake. I want to tell you that I'm

looking forward to new directors of B.C. Hydro, people who are

noted for other things than what the Minister of Municipal

Affairs is famous for, people with some competency in the Hydro

field and some competency in the business field. I'm looking

forward to replacement of the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources by another director who won't consider it

appropriate to release false information about committees of

the Crown corporation of which he is a director.

If these kinds of things were done and more accountability

of the corporation were available, then of course I would be

the strongest supporter of increased borrowing powers. But

under the present circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I

have to vote against this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all the comments

made by all the Members. I find a difficulty in responding to

the Member for Point

[ Page 2444 ]

Grey (Mr. McGeer) when he uses the word "we." I know he's

speaking for himself, but after the previous vote he can't

speak for the two independents so I would suggest that it's

better to address yourself as, "I will be doing this; I will be

doing that," unless it is a Freudian slip of future

leadership ambitions.

To deal with the substance of the comments, I'd like to

point out that it is true that regardless of what

administration was in office, we would have to continue the

obligations of the Columbia River treaty. The Member is

absolutely correct, as he assessed in the past and I assume

he's assessing in a softer criticism today that the Columbia

River treaty was a disaster, financially and ecologically. I am

grieved that the Member is burdened with this particular

position because I know how sensitive he is about the

examination of the Columbia River treaty, which will be

forthcoming as promised by the government, and how that

examination will affect his own future political decisions. I

know that it would be extremely difficult if that committee

were to hear evidence that substantiated some of the claims

that he's made against the Columbia River treaty himself. Why,

even Social Credit Members have accused him of being

extravagant in his negative criticisms of the Columbia River

treaty. Of course, if those are substantiated in fact, it will

impair his limited choice of political future in terms of

association (

a) with a party, or (

b) with Members who had

anything to do with that treaty. I know that the impetus for

the Member's concern and the desire for the Member to have this

information is essentially to condition his own honest

evaluation of where he wants to go politically. If his

accusations against Columbia River, as I think, are correct,

how could he ever join Social Credit? Therefore we will do

everything we can to help him in this choice.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

We will prove that the Columbia River treaty was a financial

disaster, as the Member has said time and time again. We will

prove that we have to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars to

clean up the mess left by Social Credit signing the Columbia

River treaty. We will prove to the Member's satisfaction, even

though he may have felt justified in leaving the Liberal Party,

there is no way he could join Social Credit that left future

generations with this awesome burden of hundreds of millions of

dollars debt because of a stupid decision on the Columbia River

treaty.

I know that when that Member decides to make his decision politically for his

future in representing the people from his constituency he will take into account

not only his own past statements on the Columbia River treaty but the record

of Social Credit and say: "Even though I'm no longer a Liberal I can't join

that there gang." Or will he? Or is he wily?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Willy-nilly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Time will tell. Tell me, though you, Mr.

Speaker, could the good doctor explain what causes blood to

rush to the head and turn the face red? (Laughter.) Oh, Mr.

Speaker, it is a difficult thing to perceive. Nonetheless, we

will go ahead with our pledge and we will have the inquiry.

Now we will deal with the record of the former

administration. At no time was anyone allowed into the public

accounts committee; at no time was anyone allowed from Hydro to

come into public accounts.

We have, in defence of freedom, nominated one of the

outstanding members of the Social Credit Party to be chairman

of that public accounts committee, and, despite what the Leader

of the Opposition said about the change of rules, we will not

deny the opposition the freedom to go to public accounts the

way Social Credit did before.

I am sure that on his freedom crusade he is saying what a

wonderful thing it is that we have a chairman of the public

accounts committee who is a Socred. It was never allowed

before. I'm sure he's giving that account of how Hydro comes to

the public accounts committee to defend freedom. It was never

permitted under Social Credit. I am sure he's telling the

people that, just as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has

announced it today, saying gently: "Well, there has been a

little change."

Yes, there has been a little change. Now we can send someone

to public accounts. A little change? A little change? It's a

significant, dramatic change from the fact that the former

government hid everything. They've got their nerve to talk

about freedom. The bellicose, histrionic, wild statements about

freedom...when they don't go around telling everybody: "Yes,

it's true, the NDP named one of our Members chairman of public

accounts." Have they forgotten or do they not want to tell the

truth that there's access now to public accounts for the Crown

corporations that was never allowed in Social Credit days?

Never, never, never!

Why do I have to be so political? Why is it necessary for me

to remind people of the history of these developments? Because

some Members of this House are going around this province

deliberately trying to leave the impression that things have

changed for the worse. It's true, if you put it in their terms:

if we were allowed to look through public accounts of the Crown

corporations, it would have been for the worse.

You talk about BCR. That's the subject of another bill, Mr.

Member. I have no further comment to make about that, but it's

a grievous matter, and I want to

[ Page 2445 ]

get back to order by saying that that will be discussed in

another bill.

But Social Credit has to be held accountable. Social Credit

must be made to be responsible for the fact that they signed

the Columbia River treaty, that they blew the deal and that

they have burdened our children and our children's children

with hundreds of millions of dollars of debt because they sold

out to the Americans.

And don't blame the Americans. I don't blame them one bit.

If I could find a fat sucker to skin the way they did with the

former government, I'd do the same thing. The government was a

great, big slothful, fat sucker waiting to be skinned, the

Social Credit government, sitting up here in the boondocks,

waiting for the Yankee sharpies to come up here and skin them;

and they didn't even give them anesthetic. They just peeled it

off strip by strip — $100 million a strip.

HON. MR. RADFORD: Progress at any cost.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Progress at any cost," says the

Member.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not a dime without debate, is the slogan;

$600 million without thinking is the answer.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whew! When I think of the things I could

say about the former government, it makes me blanch in fear of

having to discuss their record in front of the people so that

the people will really know what they did. I remember at the

demise of their government that they used to even have to be

protected just to walk across the street. $600 million!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then the Member's calling about order.

Listen to who's talking about order.

Anyway, I want to assure that Member that I am very deeply

concerned about all the aspects that go into your political

future, and all the considerations you have to make. You have

chosen to leave a fine party with a great tradition, and you're

casting about looking at our party, the Conservatives and

Social Credit. I can't speak for our party. It's a democratic

party, and you can't make a deal with me to join. You have to

go in front of the executive. But in terms of what you're going

to do, related to Hydro, you may want to get back into the

Liberal Party. You'll have to crawl to do that.

But in terms of the Socreds, let it be said that they got us into this mess

with the Columbia River treaty. We have to clean up the mess. We have to borrow

the money to clean up the mess. That's what this bill's all about.

I regret it, Mr. Speaker, but I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 11

Smith

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

McGeer

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Bill 25, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority

(1964) Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY OF BRITISH

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Assessment Authority Act of British

Columbia: the Act now provides financial support for the

authority by capital grant of $1.5 million each year

from the province for five years, an operating grant from the

province of one-tenth of one mill on all taxable and tax-exempt

property in the province, and tax on all taxable property in

the province sufficient to cover operating expenses after

payments from the province.

A review of these financial arrangements shows the

inconsistency of the inclusion of tax-exempt property in the

base of the continuing financing obligations only of the

province.

Since property taxes are applied solely against taxable

property, so should the cost of assessing be

[ Page 2446 ]

applied only against taxable property.

This bill, therefore, deletes the tax-exempt property from

the calculation for the province's payment of assessment.

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

think this is a cop-out on the part of the present government

with respect to what was intended when a reform in assessments

was contemplated by the government, and then referred finally

to what is supposedly an independent authority. While it is a

very brief bill, with one

section only,

section 1 reads:

"Section 16(l)(

b) of the Assessment Authority of British

Columbia Act is amended by striking out the words 'and

tax-exempt.' "

It is going to have a very significant effect on the results

that are produced for the assessment authority in carrying out

its function on behalf of municipalities and other

jurisdictions in British Columbia.

The assessment authority was supposedly an independent

authority when it was established. It has been given the task

of appraising all property in the province, whether taxable or

non-taxable.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to emphasize that

that was clearly understood at the time that the assessment

authority was set up. The deletion of this levy of one-tenth of

I mill on the total assessed value of all tax-exempt property

does not, as far as we can determine, relieve the assessment

authority and its appraisers of the cost of appraising all

government lands and buildings or any land and improvements

held in the name of various provincial Crown corporations. That

physical appraisal, the actual review of the lands and

buildings to which I have referred, is a considerable task and

will have to be done in any event.

However, taxable property, homes, farms, commercial

premises, industries in the private sector will find that the

cost of this appraisal and the compilation of any assessment

roll on untaxable land and improvements will inevitably, as a

result of this so-called minor amendment, shift the cost from

the Crown to individuals and businesses, As I said earlier, it is another cop-out by the government,

and it seriously impairs the principle of all property

regardless of ownership, private or Crown, contributing to the

cost of the appraisal of the assessment process.

Now I know that probably when he closes debate on second

reading of this bill, the Minister of Finance will tell us with

some pride that his government has contributed more to the

assessment authority for this fiscal year than is required

under statute. We understand that, and that rebuttal will come

as no surprise. But if we were to have an agency which was to

properly and accurately appraise all property in I

British Columbia, then we submit that all property, whether

owned by the Crown provincial or owned by any other public

agency, or owned by individuals, should contribute to the cost

of that appraisal.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just a brief comment in

support of the comments made by the Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis), and in opposition to this bill.

Having served on the committee which eventually established

the assessment authority of British Columbia, one of the

concerns that was expressed over and over again by Members on

both sides of the House, by independent appraisers, and by

members of the assessment staff of the Province of British

Columbia, was that the government has to stop riding on the

backs of the property owners in the municipalities, cities,

towns and villages of British Columbia. It has been riding on

their back for far too long.

We thought for a while, Mr. Speaker, in remarks by the

Agriculture Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich), that the Land

Commission would pay full taxes. In a recent press release from

the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) that ICBC was going to pay full taxes, we thought

that maybe a new trend was coming in that the government would

stop this shift of extra taxation costs onto the property owner

by living up to its responsibility and becoming a good,

corporate citizen in the municipalities in which it is

involved. But it appears that that isn't going to happen and

that the government is — once again, as the Member for Saanich

and the Islands pointed out — copping out on this whole

question.

It was elaborately set up that assessors working for the

assessment authority would make sure that all property was

assessed at full 100 per cent valuation. And that didn't matter

who owned that property. So the machinery was set up for that

purpose, for that specific purpose, so that when the government

had a change of heart and decided that it would live up to its

responsibilities, the apparatus was already in gear and moving.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is a slap in the face to the work of that

committee to see this amendment before the House today.

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

debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the

disappointment because of no rapid change in the programme that

we inherited, but we didn't have any option of any history. I

refer you to your colleague sitting next to you in his role as

Conservative Member when he attacked the former Social Credit

government for the whole mess in the assessment area. We moved

into the assessment area

[ Page 2447 ]

with what I thought was an excellent all-party committee,

and I want to say that all the Members approached that

committee service on a non-partisan basis. This is a very

difficult problem and there are tremendous pulls on politicians

when they are faced with problems around assessments.

So the all-party committee did a first-class job. They came

up with the assessment authority, and now the naming of the

people in the assessment authority is not a political

instrument. You'll find people from all political persuasions

on that assessment authority. I think everybody applauds the

fact that there are Socreds, Liberals, Conservatives. I don't

know if there is an NDP on the assessment authority. But we

made sure there was a broad range of philosophical points of

view.

These people have been sent off with a very important task.

We set out to finance them, and we don't feel that non-taxable

property should have to bear a part of that cost. That's all

this amendment means. We'll see what their work brings out and

what their recommendations bring out. The former administration

had a grant system and we are continuing the grant system. We

will wait and see what the assessment authority comes up with

in terms of direction.

It's a delicate problem. We've gone a long way with it. I

think that when we came in and rushed into the first

amendments, there was a great deal of political jockeying

around Bill 71, as I recall. And that's fair game. Everybody

has to have a go politically. But out of that we have come to

the taxation authority, and I think we are on a good track.

This is a minor amendment and I move second reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 11

Smith

Chabot

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D,A.

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 28, Assessment Authority of British Columbia Amendment

Act, 1975, read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:44 p.m.

[ Page

2448 ]

APPENDIX

I The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.

I) intituled Perpetuities Act, to amend as follows:

Section 2, subsection (2), line 3: By deleting "land" and

substituting 94 property to the unborn child or other issue of

an unborn person".

Section 6, subsection (1), clause (a), line 3: After

"duration of the period" insert ", to the extent it is

determined by a life in being, ".

Section 22, clause (b), line 1: After "savings plan" insert

"or home ownership savings plan".

5 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.5)

intituled Administration Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

Section 3: By deleting paragraphs (

d) and (

e) and

substituting the following:

"(

d) By repealing subsection (6) and

substituting:

"

(6) A notice mailed to the Public Trustee pursuant to this

section shall contain a list of the names and last known

addresses of the beneficiaries or persons entitled and shall be

accompanied by copies of all documents filed with the Court in

respect of the application for the grant or resealing."

6 The Hon. A. B. Macdonald to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No.6)

intituled cooperative Associations Amendment Act, 1975, to amend as follows:

By adding the following as

section 2:

S.2.

1. The definition of "association" in

section 2 is amended

by inserting "or 60A" after "section 60".

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada