1973 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2723 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Corporation Capital Tax Act (Bill No. 63).

Committee and report stages — 2723

Division on third reading — 2723

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act (Bill No.

65).

Committee, report and third reading — 2723

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948. (Bill No.

66).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2723

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2724

Report and third reading — 2724

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958 (Bill No.

67).

Committee, report and third reading — 2724

An Act to Amend the Motive-Fuel Use Tax Act (Bill No.

68).

Committee, report and third reading — 2724

An Act to Amend the Social Services Tax Act (Bill No.

69).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2724

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2724

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2724

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2725

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2725

Mr. Chabot — 2725

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2725

Mr. Chabot — 2725

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2726

Mr. Chabot — 2726

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2726

Mr. Chabot — 2727

Mr. Morrison — 2727

Report and third reading — 2727

An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act (Bill No. 70)

Committee, report and third reading — 2727

An Act to Amend the Assessment Equalization Act. (Bill

No.

71).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2727

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2728

Division and third reading — 2728

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-Owner Grant Act.

(Bill

No. 72).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2728

Report and third reading — 2728

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act (Bill No.

73).

Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2729

Mr. Curtis — 2729

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2729

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2730

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2730

Mr. Chabot — 2730

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2730

Mr. Gardom — 2731

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2731

Report and third reading — 2731

An Act to Amend the Revenue Act (Bill No. 74).

Committee stage

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2732

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2733

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2734

Mr. Morrison — 2736

Mr. Wallace — 2736

Mr. Gardom — 2738

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2739

Mr. Phillips — 2740

Mr. Smith — 2742

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2742

Mr. Smith — 2743

Mr. McClelland — 2744

Mr. Chabot — 2745

Division on

section 2 — 2746

Housing Incentive Fund Act (Bill No. 75).

Committee, report and third reading — 2746

Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act (Bill No.

76).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2746

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2747

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2747

Report and third reading — 2747

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

Committee, report and third reading — 2747

British Columbia Economic Research Fund Act (Bill No.

78).

Committee, report and third reading — 2748

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

Committee, report and third reading — 2748

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

Committee and report stage — 2748

Division on third reading — 2748

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act

(Bill No. 149).

Committee, report and third reading — 2749

An Act to Amend the Logging Tax Act (Bill No. 150).

Committee, report and third reading — 2749

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company

Construction Loan Act (Bill No. 151 ).

Committee, report and third reading — 2749

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill No. 156).

Committee stage.

Mr. Schroeder — 2749

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2749

Mr. Schroeder — 2750

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2750

Report stage — 2750

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill No. 50).

Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2750

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2750

Mr. Lauk — 2750

Mr. Chabot — 2751

Report and third reading — 2751

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act (Bill

No. 51).

Committee, report and third reading — 2751

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1973

The House met at 2:15 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the House proceed to

committee on bills.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 63, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 63; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 52 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Madam Chairman, I move the

committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 63, Corporation Capital Tax Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the

following division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 8

Richter

Bennett

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

PAIRED

Brousson

Nimsick

McGeer

Stupich

Strachan

Chabot

Dent

Schroeder

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 65, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

COLOURED GASOLINE TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 65; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 65,

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 66, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

GASOLINE TAX ACT, 1948

House in committee on Bill No. 66; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Minister.

What provisions are there for making sure that this liquefied

natural gas is actually for the purpose specified? Is there any

way that this can be sorted out? I see that most of the

vehicles which use liquefied natural gas use the normal home

container, and they simply stick it on the rear or on the top of

a vehicle. I wonder whether he might give us some comment on

that.

[ Page 2724 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: At the present it's readily identifiable,

even by the container, for example. But we are working out

methods now of encouraging people to convert to this fuel. The

identifiable processes will be expanded at that time.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 66,

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act,

1948 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 67, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

GASOLINE TAX ACT, 1958

House in committee on Bill No. 67; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON.

MR. BARRETT : Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed — Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 67,

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act,

1958 , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 68, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MOTIVE-FUEL USE TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 68; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 68,

An Act to Amend the Motive-Fuel Use Tax

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 69, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 69; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question here is railway rolling

stock and the 5 per cent social services tax which would be

applied to rolling stock entering the province, a procedure

which may be desirable from the point of view of British

Columbia, but which leads to a 50 per cent increase in the cost

of a flat car or any other bit of rolling stock if it proceeds

through the 10 provinces.

I wonder whether or not the Minister would like to comment

upon this and whether he has been able to sort out this

dilemma; whether he's managed to find some formula whereby this

tax could be collected universally across the country and

apportioned out to the various provinces or whether, indeed, we

couldn't go back to the old system of abandoning the tax with

respect to rolling stock.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I'd like to answer to the

Member that it's written off against federal income tax. We're

now allowing the truck industry and the airline industry to be

more competitive with the railroad rolling stock. The truck

industry and the airplane industry has been forced to pay this

tax. We will use the same formula on the railroad rolling

stock. It's only fair that they be treated equally. That's what

we're here for — to treat people equally.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That certainly seems logical. I presume,

then, that aircraft are being taxed whenever they land in a

particular province, which seems somewhat administratively

difficult; but I guess that's the logic of the Act.

[ Page 2725 ]

I understand the Minister to say, then, that the CPR vehicle

entering the province for the first time gets slapped with the

5 per cent tax.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the miles in British Columbia. On the

same basis as trucks or airlines. The formula is there. As I

say again, the railways should not be in a stronger competitive

position than the trucking firms or the airlines. The CPA pays

for their airlines, and they should pay for their rail. They

also own trucks; if they pay for their trucks, they should pay

for their rail.

But there is competition for the freight in and out. We say

that the formula that applies on a per-mile basis for the

trucks and for the airplanes that was brought in by the

previous administration should now be extended to railroads as

well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've already passed the principle of the

bill; but administratively, I'd like to know how this is going

to work. For example, we have had the problem with the B.C.

Rail rolling stock disappearing down to Arkansas and Tennessee

and Mississippi. How precisely is this going to work? I just

don't see how it can myself. I am sure there is some reasonable

way of making it work, but I just don't understand it at the

moment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they work out a certain number per

month and we agree with the railroads concerned — we work

out an average. We can't collect the tax for Arkansas or

Tennessee; but for the ones coming into British Columbia, we'll

work out a formula with the railroads. It's my understanding

that we're meeting with them now to work out that formula.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I find it'll be almost

impossible to administer this type of tax application. The Minister, in

reading the principle of this bill, told us he didn't really have any

ideas as to how it would be administered. Don't you think that there's

a possibility that the Canadian railroads — and I would assume that's

the only place you're going to apply this tax against the Canadian

rolling stock — will be moving in on the non-Canadian rolling stock in

British Columbia, using the cars that come in on an interchange and

utilizing them in British Columbia; consequently you'll collect very

little?

I'm just wondering where you will get the information for

the application of this. Because all railroads use a great

variety of different railroads' rolling stock. I find it's

going to be a nightmare to administer this.

Are you going to administer it on the basis of the railway

giving you certain information, sending us so much tax, and

this is good enough? If not, just what is the mechanism you're

going to establish to ascertain just what kind of revenue this

piece of legislation should really generate for British

Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, the Member asks valid

questions. The formula has already been workable with the same

companies who are already in the trucking business and the

airline business. The formula will be extended.

We've had no reason to believe that the formula has been a

matter of dispute between CN or CP. We do our own spot checking

as well on trucks and on the airlines. We'll apply the same

formula in terms of our experience up to this point with the

railways.

In terms of non-Canadian cars, we tax everybody. We're fair.

We tax everybody — Americans, Canadians, everybody.

They're all welcome to come under our tax umbrella. When United

Airlines lands here we tax them. When the Burlington Northern

comes in we're going to tax them. When the northern

California-Okanagan truck line comes in we tax them. We like to

treat everyone fairly.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting that the administration of

this is going to be similar to that of a truck line? To start

off with, rolling stock of railroads coming into British

Columbia runs into thousands of cars of different shapes and

varieties on a daily basis. You can't compare the volume of

rolling stock with the number of trucks that are coming in.

You have the mechanism, through the weigh scales, to keep

track of the number of trucks. You said you'll have your spot

checks. What will you have at the border? Will you have a

little customs office close to the railroad and have a fellow

with his binoculars to watch the rolling stock and take an

average on the daily basis? I just don't know how you can apply

it.

All I'm trying to do is tell you that it's going to be very

difficult to administer. I would hope that you could make some

clear statement as to just how the mechanism is going to be

established to ensure that what you're attempting to achieve

you shall achieve.

If you fail to do so, this is what I want to say. There's a

strong possibility that maybe next session you'll find that the

amendment which you've proposed here is inoperative and unable

to function. Consequently, you might want to withdraw it. I

just want to see what the government's real proposal is and how

they're going to do it — whether it's by binoculars or

people travelling in unmarked government cars along railroad

tracks spotting and counting cars. It would be interesting to

know just how you intend to collect this data.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I won't be doing it myself, Mr.

Member.

[ Page 2726 ]

MR. CHABOT: No, I don't expect you to be doing it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Since there is a drive to unionize

employees, we may bring in the hobos and have them assist us.

But aside from those random cars, there are computers, Mr.

Member. The computers control the traffic….

MR. CHABOT: They're not yours.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, they're not ours. Are you telling me

that big business would try to cheat a government out of

taxes?

MR. CHABOT: Super snooper again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I had the impression, when they defended

the corporations on an earlier bill, that the corporations were

good corporate citizens. Now on this bill he's trying to tell

me that they would try to chisel on 5 per cent on the rolling

stock. Would the great CPR cheat the government out of 5 per

cent? Or the CNR?

Mr. Member, I believe that the CPR wants to pay its taxes

and welcomes this bill for an opportunity to get equal

treatment under this government. Equal treatment to everyone,

including the CPR. They're going to pay their taxes too, and

we'll collect them with their help.

MR. CHABOT: Just one more brief point, Madam Chairman. If

you do use binoculars to view the number of cars — the

Burlington Northern did a few years ago when the Kaiser coal

was moving. They were watching the performance of CP Rail to

see whether they were meeting the 72-hour turnaround on coal

cars. They were patrolling along the CP Rail. Some of them had

binoculars and so forth.

All I want to know is that if you're going to use

binoculars, will you import these binoculars from Japan or West

Germany, or will they be manufactured in Canada?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the question is valid. (Laughter).

Considering the level of participation by the opposition, it

actually raises the standard a bit.

On the question of the use of binoculars: if we use

binoculars, we will count all the cars and then divide in half.

If we use a spyglass, we'll only count them once.

(Laughter).

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The other point on this bill, Madam

Chairman, is this question of adding the word "self-propelled"

before the word "vessels" in the Social Services Tax

Act. As I understand from correspondence I had from the

shipbuilding industry, the effect of this would be to increase

taxes in a certain area. They may or may not be right; I'm not

sure.

But at a time when the Premier has shown great interest in

building up the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia, I

wonder why we're into an area where apparently — at least

according to the industry letters I got — taxes will go

up in this area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Barges built here and sent out of the

province are not taxable. We think that's unfair competition.

We intend to equalize competition for people.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That may be true in terms of equalizing

competition. But it somehow runs headlong into another

desirable government objective, which I understood was to

assist the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia. Are we

going to have any compensating assistance elsewhere to take

care of this?

It's well and good to cry for subsidies from any government,

federal or provincial, which the industry quite frequently

does. Of course, subsidies are somewhat pointless if at the

same time taxes are going up which might wipe out the benefit

of subsidies. This is the dilemma that I face, Mr. Premier. It

seems to be contradictory to your policy statements in this

area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, the barges under 500,000

tons were exempt before. Now that they are building them

greater, we're equalizing on all barges. The reason for the

original limitation was to exempt freighters. We're just now

bringing it up to where we are in terms of modern technology,

that's all.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not a question of modern

technology.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that may be your opinion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a question of increasing the taxes

on a certain group of vessels in which we haven't had a bad

record. Bluntly, I fear for the industry that it's going to add

extra cost to their balance sheet in terms of doing business

and in terms of selling. It's not an industry which is all that

competitive anyway. We know it needs fairly substantial

subsidies. But under these subsidies it has developed pretty

well in British Columbia.

I just have a fear that this type of tax is not needed.

Certainly the budgeting shows surplus revenues rather than

deficits. It would affect an industry which is important in

terms of employment, in particular, in this area and also in

Vancouver.

[ Page 2727 ]

MR. CHABOT: I just want to say that I can't really visualize

how you can possibly set up a mechanism to make this function

the way you think it should function.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We already tax now. The system has been in

place for years.

MR. CHABOT: All right. Boxcars, gondola cars, coal cars, for

instance, coming from Coleman, Alberta, come into the province

for the first time. They turn around. They're in assigned

service — movement of coal from Coleman to Roberts Bank.

They'll come into British Columbia eight times. Are they to be

subject to the tax eight times? How will you sift them out from

the cars coming in the first time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We will average the cars over the month,

Mr. Member, the same way we do it with trucks and with the same

firms.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

It's rather pleasant to get a little exercise in an afternoon.

I've been popping up and down.

As I would assume that the B.C. Railway cars do not pay tax,

is this a method to try and encourage them to come home?

(Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I could sing the song "Come Home, Bill

Bailey" to help bring our boxcars back, I'd do it. But there's

no connection at all.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 69,

An Act to Amend the Social Services Tax

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 70, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GIFT TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 70; Ms. Young in the

chair, Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 70,

An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 71, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATION ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 71; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

section 8.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question in this

section 8: retroactive

taxation. Sure enough we've had retroactive legislation in other areas,

but where you start

affecting the amount that a person has to pay by way of

taxation retroactively, I feel that there is good cause for

concern by Members of this Legislature.

There is another problem. In this retroactive situation what

happens with the assessment rolls? Say they are not in

accordance with the amended Act, are they going to be changed?

If they are not in accordance with the amended Act, and you are

taxing retroactively, you could be in a situation where

assessors taking declarations find that they may have

retroactively committed perjury.

There is also the problem of appeals coming up retroactively

on the basis of things which are now closed off, and the whole

retroactive situation worries me a great deal, because we are

now dealing with people, many of whom feel that they've paid

all the taxes that they should pay.

[ Page 2728 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the point raised by the Member, there

are several large industrial appeals now before the board, and

they're retroactive only to 1973 covering those appeals. Those

industrial assessments that are already on the 1973 rolls will

not be affected. It is only the ones that are under appeal at

this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: There is no question about opening any

further appeals?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is correct.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you very much.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 8 pass?

Section 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 71,

An Act to Amend the Assessment Equalization

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

NAYS — 10

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

PAIRED

Brousson

Nimsick

McGeer

Stupich

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 72, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 72; Ms. Young in chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, in

section 3, the third

line, if the Minister would like to add the word "dollars."

It's an oversight of the printers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a printing error?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're striking out $85 and you're

putting in $200. It's a printing error.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Member. It is a printing

error. Could we have a Clerk's report to the Queen's

Printer.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 3 pass?

Section 3 approved.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 72,

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-Owner

Grant Act , reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 73, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2729 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 73; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: In

section 2 we have a slight increase in the

per capita allowance to municipalities. I don't think it's

sufficient. Then in turn we up the benefits to the welfare

recipients in the province, of which the municipalities pick up

15 per cent. The additional financial burden on municipalities

is more than the $2 per capita which you have allowed in

section 2.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: It's substantially less this year than it was

last year, on a basis comparable to the percentage of the

provincial budget. And you know it.

I t's not enough. It's strictly crumbs to municipalities. I

hope that the Minister of Finance indicates what he intends

doing for municipalities. He has allocated an additional grant

of $2 per capita in this Act, and then he takes it away by

increasing welfare allowances in the province. In other words,

you've really set the municipalities back rather than assisting

them.

I also want to plead on behalf of the smaller municipalities

that are really more seriously affected than the larger ones,

relative to the 15 per cent welfare participation. There are

many small municipalities that find it extremely difficult.

They must assess an 8 to 10 per cent mill rate just for the

purpose of paying their portion of the welfare costs. They are

the municipalities that really need some consideration. I'm

wondering whether the government intends to assist those small

municipalities that are suffering under the heavy burden — and now the

increased burden — of welfare costs.

I would like to know what kind of formula and what kind of

financial consideration the government will give those

municipalities that find it so difficult to finance under the

existing formula.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the

Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Speaking on

section 2, Madam Chairman, the increase is miserly, measly,

miserable and unjust. Whether it is a small municipality or a

large one, the fact of the matter remains that we expected more

from the great champion of local government when he sat on this

side of the House. We expected much, much more.

There is disappointment in cities and towns and

municipalities in British Columbia, through you, Madam Chairman,

to the Minister of Finance. We expected that you would do a

little better.

The statement by the previous speaker with respect to last

year's per capita grant increase was meaningless. Last year, as

we know, was an election year, and we had the goodies handed out

every four years. This year this $2 per capita grant increase

does not even assist the municipalities in keeping pace with

the inflationary spiral.

With the increased welfare costs, with increased wage costs,

municipalities are faced this year with the kind of crisis

which we had. hoped was at an end after August 30 last year. We

expected that there would be recognition among those Members of

the government who have had interest or experience in

municipalities. It is very disappointing that that has not been

the case.

I feel that it has to be said for the record that a $4 or $5

per capita increase would have been much more in line with the

realities of the situation as far as local municipal government

is concerned in 1973.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, first of all, if we're going to go

down memory lane, let's recall last year when that little group

over there was the bill group over here and when that Member

was a cabinet Minister over on this side. Guess how much they

gave them last year under that group. They got zero — nothing,

absolutely nothing. And that's why that group is over

there now, and that's why we're here.

Because of overbilling on the estimation of that group,

we've already returned $4 million of the municipalities' own

money. What we're doing along with that is keeping a current

tab on the social welfare cases to make sure that if there is

overbilling, as there was in the past, that money comes back

sooner so they can at least earn interest on their own money

that we've had.

We will be meeting with the UBCM. The first meeting is now

scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, at 2:30 in the afternoon, with

the Minister of Welfare and the Minister of Municipal Affairs

to discuss this very point. This whole policy is under

review You're absolutely right. Our position was the gradual

removal of this 15 per cent. We haven't lost sight of that

commitment. We've made our first step in terms of increasing

the per capita grant. We've returned $4 million overbilling.

It's their own money, but we've returned it. Now we're meeting

with them to discuss this whole area.

[ Page 2730 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We will be supporting this bill because

we will support the idea of any increase at all for the

municipalities. But we don't think that again referring to the

past is a good enough excuse for the present. This has happened

far too often. Perhaps the new government should stop looking

to what happened before and start looking to what the needs are

of the municipalities and not to the failings of the previous

administration.

This is the only point I'd like to make. We will support the bill as

it is. We

would have liked to see it with more

money for the municipalities.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I separate the replies to

the opposition. If you were offended by my reference to that

Member's comments, then turn your ears off.

For those of us who have to sit and listen to that reminder

of the past as we just got, we can't resist the temptation.

Perhaps some evening, socially, I'll give you a share of some

of our experiences. They didn't increase the per capita grants

in 1970, 1971 or 1972. And they have to be reminded of that. If

you find it offensive, I can understand it. You come from a

different kind of high-class area. But this is very primitive

politics in British Columbia, and we like to remind people of

the previous administrations.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure do.

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't have to be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It doesn't have to be, but every once in a

while, when we're relaxed and in good humour and we hear that

kind of speech from that Member, the Pavlovian response is

there. Twelve years of conditioning.

AN HON. MEMBER: The elbow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, and I saw your elbow

twitching too, Mr. Member for Point Grey. We'll take you aside

and treat you to a hamburger and fill you in on what happened

around here. Dutch treat.

The other point is that we are meeting with Mr. Marks and a

committee of the UBCM next Tuesday. We're going to discuss the

whole area with them. We've made the experimental move in terms

of welfare and the shared costs in the greater Victoria area.

It should have been done years ago. Your point is valid that

their costs are going up. That's why we're reviewing the thing

with them.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. CHABOT: Speaking on

section 2, the Minister of Finance

says that there was no increase in the per capita grant last

year. Yet the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) stands here and

says, "Yes, there was a large increase in the per capita grant

last year because that was an election year." It goes to show

you how mixed up that Member for Saanich is. He's always mixed

up. It's not very often that he gets off the fence. But when he

gets off the fence he falls pretty hard. He fell pretty hard

this afternoon.

But I want to say this: last year, because of the census

figures that were utilized in the per capita grant allowance,

there was a substantially greater amount of money given to

municipalities last year — unfortunately, I don't have

the figures here to prove it, but my recollection is correct — than

there is this year under your $2 per capita

increase substantially higher.

For you to say that we didn't increase the per capita

allowance is failing to tell the full story, Mr. Minister of

Finance. Don't just use bits and pieces of the story. Tell all

the facts. Tell the people of British Columbia how well the

municipalities of this province were treated under the former

government and how they get only crumbs from this government

that indicates it is clearly in favour of small governments.

You have no consideration of small municipalities or large

municipalities or any kind of municipalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's built-in inflation.

MR. CHABOT: That's right. You've set all the inflationary

steps in this legislation and in your estimates as well. There

is no consideration for the municipalities of British Columbia.

It's almost unbelievable from a government that used to sit

over here as a little rump opposition group and say that, "If

we become government we'll look after the municipalities of

British Columbia." I want to tell you you've failed the

municipalities of British Columbia. For you to stand and say we

didn't treat them fairly is almost unbelievable. It's

incredible, really.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I find myself in an

unusual position. In the first place, the attack by the Member

for Columbia River on the Conservative Party — you

shouldn't do that. Because what's that SOS group going to do?

The "Stamp Out Socialists" group can't get heartened when you

people over there are fighting among yourselves. Now you've got

to stop that, you fellas. Now if you keep this fighting up, how

in the world are the free enterprisers going to unite to bring

this per capita grant down? Because that's what they

advocated.

[ Page 2731 ]

If you really want to take his logic…

MR. CHABOT: Twist, twist, twist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …all the way back, they owed money to

the municipalities because they delayed in moving the total

amount up on the census and should have paid retroactive

amounts.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Well, what have you done about

it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all we defeated you. That's the

first thing. That meant something.

AN HON. MEMBER: Once out of eight. Once out of eight's

pretty good.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And then the next thing we did, we said on

the new census we'd put $2 on the per capita grant. And that's

where we're at.

MR. CHABOT: Peanuts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Peanuts," he said. There it is.

They're never happy. You'd think that their statements were

motivated by politics.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no! Not here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not in this way. No, sir! This is the most

intellectual debate we've had in weeks.

AN HON MEMBER: We're forgetting the lesson we learned last

night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That all went down the tube about five

minutes ago. We're right back to where we were, Act 1, Scene

AN HON. MEMBER: You're compounding it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not compounding, Mr. Member. I'm

saying how can you save British Columbia from this great,

bountiful government if you're fighting among yourselves? Now

go and have a caucus over there and straighten this out.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): There's been

more than one unreal thing happen this afternoon, I can tell

you. (Laughter). I think the most unreal of all were the

remarks a few seconds ago from the Member for Columbia River

(Mr. Chabot).

There's no question of a doubt that the municipalities were

starved under the past administration. But let's just forget

that now. Look at the present. And let's go ahead and take a

look at the future.

You have not gone, in our view, far enough with this bill.

We're going to support the bill. But we argued and stated

during earlier debates in the House that this grant should be

tied to provincial revenue because the administrative costs of

the municipalities are increasing not only just as fast but

faster than the provincial costs. The municipalities have the

cities and towns in them, and they're increasing at a greater

rate than here.

We say they should be tied to the provincial revenue. If

they were tied to the provincial revenues, this bill would not

be coming in at $30 plus $2; it would be coming in at $46.

Now the second unreal thing is the fact that how a lady who

has been 40 years with the CCF, 20 years attending this House,

is still able to sit here through all of these debates. The

government is really not able to see too much of her anymore,

because she's sitting behind them. I think it would be a very

nice thing if all of the Members welcomed Mrs. Johnson to the

gallery.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How do you follow

an act like that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think that the bill is in good order the

way it is. We've increased it by $2. We're meeting with the

municipalities next week. I ask everybody in the House to

support it.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 73,

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 74, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE REVENUE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 74; Ms. Young in the

chair.

[ Page 2732 ]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I think,

Madam Chairman, of all the bills presented in this session of

the Legislature this is the one that I would oppose most

strenuously.

I'm not going to review what I said last night, but

everything I said last night is compounded a thousand-fold in

this bill. The liquid money that you have in consolidated

revenue — the current surpluses in that revenue which we

left in such a buoyant situation — according to this

amendment will be available to invest in common shares in

private companies. I want to say this is indeed a step along

the wrong road.

Keeping the finances of a provincial government in proper

shape is more vitally important than a national government. A

national government, Mr. Chairman, has complete power over

currency and credit. They have a central bank, but a provincial

government has not. It has only its own financial resources, and

you must keep them liquid.

In Alberta they were flushed with revenue too. Then they got

into a deficit position — they are in a deficit position

now. They have to borrow money and take people's taxes to pay

interest on money.

These governments who call themselves Conservative and these

parties who call themselves Conservative are not conservative

at all. That's the reason I left them. When I was young and

uninformed I was a Tory too.

So in the situation not only in Alberta but in what used to

be the number one "have" province — the Province of

Ontario at that time — what's happened to its finances

now under a number of Conservative governments? They've gone

from bad to worse — not conservative at all — taxing the people greatly.

Today I read in the paper this: "Up 40 per cent." Wherever

you elect a Tory provincial government the people get higher

taxes. We want no coalition with the Conservatives or with the

Liberals; but we invite them individually as citizens to join

at the ballot box, because that's the way to keep out socialism.

We kept it out for seven general elections. We lost in the

eighth, but you can't bat 1,000 all the time. We'll win the

next one, my friends.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's what I say. The tired old Liberal

Party hasn't got any tires. They were in such bad shape, Madam

Chairman, that they had to go to Ottawa to get a leader to try

to take them out of the wilderness. And they made no

advance.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, would you kindly stay to the

motion?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, yes. I'll stay right to this because

this has to do with finance. This is basic in finance. The

Conservative Party…

MS. CHAIRMAN: The leadership of the Liberal Party is not

related to this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: …walked across the floor. They lost 50

per cent of it in the first election; they'll lose the other

50 per cent in the next one. They're the party of the past but

not the party of the future. And they know it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're right on.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is Phil going to lead you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I think he's too old.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I think we should have a

recess to remove the body. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BENNETT: In this new day I would think we need a

young girl or a young man about 30 years my junior so they can

look ahead to another great period.

I warn the government again: don't proceed with this because

within a year you will have a run on parity bonds — I

make that prediction now — unless you increase the

rates.

This is so dangerous, that I must speak out! All the forces

within me tell me I must speak out on this.

This is the most dangerous bill ever before this

Legislature! I want to tell you that it will ruin the credit

and finances of this province. It took us 20 years to build it

up from the number one have-not province to the number one have

province. These types of bills are going to destroy it. It is

funny how it takes a peculiar light.

It takes a long time to build a structure, but you can burn

it down or knock it down in a few minutes. When we pass this

bill today, we are knocking down the financial structure of

this province which is our basis for future reforms like the

basic income for everyone. We'll destroy these finances because

we are ready to do that. Our finances are in shape to do

that.

No government in all the history of this nation or this

continent ever inherited a business thrust so strong as the NDP

inherited in this province when they became government.

[ Page 2733 ]

No government in all the history of this nation or elsewhere

ever entered government with so liquid a position of money. Now,

don't give it all away. Don't invest it in permanent

investments, because when you want to sell them on the open

market you can't sell them.

Alberta made a bad mistake. They took their liquid cash

which they should have conserved, should have guaranteed to

municipalities — the schools and so forth — and

instead they loaned it direct to municipalities and then when

the interest rates went up, the bonds went down. They couldn't

sell them, so they got deficit financing. That is what will

happen here.

I warn the people of British Columbia, irrespective of

party, if they pass this bill today, it is a death knell to the

financial structure of British Columbia.

I oppose it with all my strength and all my being.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, what started out as a very

jesting, very light-hearted debate in terms of the former

Premier and his statements about the Liberal Party and the

Conservative Party and the little knock at his former

colleague, Mr. Gaglardi….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a little knock. After we had what was

a vintage performance, I regret to say the former Premier went

to a position today on the basis of politics that he has never

gone to before, in that he was leaving the message of fear

around the economy of British Columbia.

I'm disappointed in the former Premier taking his politics

down to the point where he would make statements like that on a

partisan basis. They were done today on a partisan basis.

First of all, I want to review some of the statements made

by the former Premier. It is true that we don't have control

through a provincial bank. It is true you tried to obtain a

provincial bank, and it is true that we will continue to try to

have a provincial bank.

The former Premier also said that the deficit position in

Alberta led to an expense that came about because they expended

their surplus funds. Their funds were based essentially on

revenue that taxed resources. Our revenue in this province is

essentially taxation on resources as well. When you build the

fabric of your total economy based on the taxation of resources

only, then you are doing all right in boom times but you are in

trouble when the economy starts to slump and all you have is a

reserve of some cash and no other security.

We came into this position of government when $250 million

was out on parity bonds. If there is a run on those parity

bonds after the irresponsible statement of the Premier today

we can pay for those parity bonds, and we stand behind those

parity bonds. The cash of the people of this Province of

British Columbia — not Mr. Bennett's cash, not Social

Credit cash, but the hard work of the people of this province

who have set it up.

Now it is all very well to talk about the strong surplus

position. I'll come back to that in a minute. But I want to

complete my comments about the economy that was attacked by the

former Premier in the Province of Alberta. It is classic free

enterprise financing, whether you call it Social Credit, Liberal

or Conservative.

You people in the 100-year history of this province have

never once set out deliberately to give the people of this

province a share of the resources. You've only taken crumbs off

the resources — only crumbs. When you try to tell me that

you managed the economy of this province and brought it into a

surplus situation and last year $600 million worth of copper

left the Province of British Columbia without any royalty at

all, then I say you are giving away the wealth of this

province, not managing it.

We are shifting through this bill to give the people of this

province access to the resources on a partnership basis, on a

mixed economy framework and structure. It's not new in the

world. It functions in Europe. It functions in other parts of

the world, but laissez-faire capitalism has found its last home

here in British Columbia.

Now that we are in power laissez-faire capitalism is going

down with that kind of destructive speech from the former

Premier of this province, and I am sorry he uttered those

words.

We say through this amendment that the people of this

province have the right and the responsibility to become

involved in the development of the riches that are here. What

are those riches? They are not mythical riches created by

myself or the former Premier or anyone. This is a god-given

great province with natural resources that should benefit all

the people of this province in an equal manner.

The trees are in the ground, the fishes are in the ocean, and

the minerals are under the soil. That is the wealth of this

province. And when we give away the trees, when we give away

the minerals….

MR. CHABOT: Blow it overnight!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: When we give the trees, when we give away

the minerals and when we give away access to the fisheries of

this province, then we have given away the true treasures of

this province.

[ Page 2734 ]

What we say in this amendment is simply this: it is a

welcome thing for Canadians and for others to invest money in

this province. But that investment must be on a partnership

basis wherever possible, so that the return does not depend

upon crumbs off the drippings but an equal share in a great

province that has a great future with its great people.

Anybody who doesn't believe that this approach is sound

doesn't have faith in the common sense and the ability of the

ordinary working people of this province who create the wealth

in this province. For too long now we have built our economy on

the basis that the outsiders knew best, that the New York

entrepreneur and the Bay Street shark knew best how to develop

the resources of this province.

How else could we possibly have had deals like the

Wenner-Gren deal? How else could we possibly have had Kaiser

first deal on the dam that had to be stopped by the federal

government? How else could we have had the kind of arrangement

that allows resources to leave this province in a manner that

coal only pays 25 cents a ton?

Now we say, openly and honestly, that that kind of giveaway

has stopped on August 30, and we'll never return to it no matter

who is in government! No matter who is in government.

There's a market for our timber. There is a market for our

ore. We will sell the timber, and we will sell the ore on a

tough, competitive basis. If we are not satisfied with the

deal, then we won't sell the resources that are non-renewable

until a generation comes along that has far more sense than to

enter into contracts like the former administration that

started the whole Elk Valley and allows us to get 10 cents a

ton out of that filthy, filthy mess.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now it's a "socialist beast," says

the laissez-faire capitalist a generation away from reality — a

generation away from a whole world that has gone

right past him while he was sitting here as Premier. One of the

reasons he lost is that he was completely out of touch with

what our people want out there. Completely out of touch.

We have allowed this province to be raped by miners, by

timber barons, by land speculators, and still have enough

wealth to have had a surplus.

But that day is over. Because the price of the surplus….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The surplus will be there, but the days of

allowing those outsiders to come in and cream this province are

over. And what was the price for those surpluses?

Didn't the aged deserve a guaranteed income while that money

was in the bank? Where was that from? It was never given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to his talking.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the crippled, the ill and the

handicapped?' Who paid for that surplus? They paid for that

surplus. They paid for that surplus in this province.

How many times did we stand in this House and fight school

construction freezes while children were doubled up in

classrooms in shifts? Frozen and cold. He didn't care where he

did it, as long as he had a pile of money to look at. That's

all he had.

And you know, Madam Chairman, I find after last night's

debate, a return to form by the former Premier is a

disappointment. A disappointment. And I tell you now, the whole

principle in allowing us to use these surplus funds on a mixed

economy basis is bringing British Columbia into the twentieth

century.

With the passage of this bill we are no longer a banana

republic that he kept going. No longer are we a division of

laissez-faire capitalism.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Menace.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, he says with all of his mustered

strength, that we are a menace. Democratic socialists are in

West Germany. Democratic socialists are in Sweden — in

most of the Commonwealth countries. Democratic socialists are

in Australia; democratic socialists are in New Zealand; and May

31, I am going to be bringing the greetings, personally, of the

democratic socialist government in British Columbia to our

Queen in Great Britain.

Almost the whole Commonwealth has turned to democratic

socialism. Almost the whole remnant of the empire has accepted

democratic socialism as the next step in advancement for a

better life for the ordinary people.

The passage of this bill allows the ordinary people to have

a dream and a hope of a better life, and if we do nothing more,

the very fact that the people of this province now have an

equal chance with the outsiders in the development of their own

glorious resources; if we do nothing more, this will stand as a

hallmark of the major change in a great, great stride forward

under a new government in this province.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, we've heard two

arm-waving and harsh speeches, and I won't attempt to compete

on that score.

Now we're getting a little fed up, I must say, having been

elected by the people of British Columbia representing a

certain point of view, to find yourselves consistently insulted

either by the former Premier or the present one.

[ Page 2735 ]

We feel that the running of this province and the running of

this Legislature should be more than simply throwing invective

at one another, and we've attempted time after time to bring

whatever facilities we have in the way of intelligence and

ability to bear on some of the public issues of the day.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital

Insurance): Those are the white tornados.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're having more comments from the

Minister of Health, who is perhaps now unaware of what bill we

are on, or what we are doing. I don't know.

But as far as our policy goes, as far as the principle goes

with respect to a

section of the Act that we are apparently on,

namely 2(d), it's fairly clear to us that the government has a

clear role and the private sector has its clear role.

First, what is the government's role? No one suggests that

the government's role is not to help the sick, the poor, the

needy. No one has ever suggested that, and I for one am proud

of the record of this party and what it has done in

this country and in the province in past years for them. Few

parties…. In fact no party in this country has a record as good.

Many have talked more; none have done as much.

The question is, then, how do you achieve that? The question

is, how do you achieve the tax base, the revenues, where you can

help the people of the province and of this country as much as

possible?

We don't believe it should be done, and we don't believe the

best way of doing it is by entering with ordinary revenue of

the province into buying shares in the market or in any

corporation or in that way.

We feel that there can be justification under certain

circumstances for investments for pension plans or other

things. As we made very clear this morning, we would like to

see it controlled so that the people who should be benefiting

do benefit. In this instance we see no real reason whatsoever

for this type of investment to achieve the social purposes in

terms of ownership that the Premier talked of.

We see no reason for it because experience has shown that by

doing that, by going ahead along that line, you do reduce the

amount of money that is available, you do reduce your tax base

for achieving your services to people, which we think are the

critical factor of government. Not necessarily through the

objective of achieving a certain level of ownership on behalf

of government in any industry or in any area of the economy,

but instead of that, creating a climate in which you can

maximize your tax revenue, maximize the private incomes of your

citizens, and thus do the most for the most people.

That's a pretty clear and definite objective. There is no

connection, and that's been proved time after time, between

public ownership of corporations and the government's ability

to hand out assistance to the poor, the elderly or any other

group. There is simply no connection, and to suggest that there

is this causal connection between the two shows very fairly, we

think, a misunderstanding of the government role.

Now we know we differ with the socialists on this. We know

we differ with them very sharply in this area. But it doesn't

mean to say that in any way, shape or form we think that our

views are not perfectly correct in this area.

Time after time we've had the experience of social

programmes not being carried out, or being inadequate because

of an inadequate tax or economic base. That has happened

throughout this society as well as others. The only way we can

see that the government can do the most for the most people is

by making sure that the private sector is healthy by

regulation, by assistance in the way of incentives sometimes

when it is necessary, but as far as possible, as a point of

philosophy, of staying out of direct business operations.

Another point is that if you are creating these funds that

you intend to use in this way, by way of revenue, you're doing

one of two things.

First, you're not granting the assistance that should be

granted to the province, to the people of the province, and

that was shown up by that miserly $2 which we passed a few

moments ago which increased the grant to the municipalities.

They needed more. Where is the money going instead? The money

is going to schemes of investment which perhaps are thoroughly

unnecessary and in our view, certainly are unnecessary.

What is happening instead to the pensioner? The little

person who's got a small house in this city, and there are

plenty of them, Mr. Premier. Whatever your views are about my

constituency, there are plenty of small retired people here who

have seen their savings eroded by inflation, who have kept

their little houses, who have kept their little gardens, who

are trying hard to live a decent life, and despite Mincome and

despite everything else are unable to do it.

We think those people deserve the municipal tax break that

you could have given them had you, a few minutes ago, increased

that $2 to something more reasonable, as was proposed by the

Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom),

namely something approaching $16 or $18. That could have been

done to help small people. You refused because you have this

objective of using this type of money to put into private

enterprise in the province and turn it into either mixed or

public corporations, we are not sure which.

Some of the statements made: we were told that in

[ Page 2736 ]

the past we have had nothing but "the crumbs off

the drippings." We

just don't know precisely what that means, but we would like this

government, before it embarks upon any massive programme of investing

of the public's money in private corporations, to think and think well.

We feel this is not the true area of government operations,

it is not the real area of government operations. It's the type

of area which we think will distract attention from the very

necessary social programme that this province, like others in

this country, need as well.

We find it curious that in the speech of the former Premier

he states that things have been very good in the last 20 years,

and indeed they have. He failed to point out, however, that

relative to other provinces we seem to be not doing as well.

We've dropped from first place to second in terms of per capita

income with that province he maligned so much. And I'm not here

to defend the Tory administration of Ontario, but anyway that

province, in that period, overtook us.

We feel there are plenty of things we could do in his

province, but it cannot be done by unnecessary investment in

private enterprise, as the Premier seems to suggest.

He hasn't indicated why it is necessary for this to make

place. He knows full well there is a market regulatory system.

He knows full well the government controls that, and we control

it in just about every aspect. He's fully aware that social

services are a government responsibility and no longer that of

any private agency. Yet we see at this time an emphasis by this

government not in terms of helping people — apart from

Mincome, which is, I appreciate, a good thing but is hardly

sufficient to deal with the social needs of our province — but instead

the economic aspects of their own policies,

which as I read the other day seem to bear close resemblance to

the Waffle manifesto's suggestion regarding ownership of

industry — particularly the resource industry. That's

clear enough; that can be their objective if they want. But

state it clearly. Don't come here and say, "Oh, this is only to

assist people in achieving social objectives." It's not that.

The government has every power for taxation. The government

has every power of regulation. As was said by an Hon. Member

the other day, "We are supreme." But to go into the economic

area, to divert energy which the government should be using to

clear up problems left by the previous administration that the

Premier himself has talked about and groaned about, we think, is

extremely wasteful and will not be in the best interests of the

people of the province.

Madam Chairman, the amendment is that we allow the

government out of general revenue — not just surpluses

but general revenue — to invest in the capital stock of

any corporation. I stated before when dealing with pension

funds that I thought it should be restricted. In this

particular instance we don't think that the government should

be in it at all. We already have other agencies; the B.C.

Development Corporation will soon join them. This type of

investment is unnecessary. It is, I believe, detrimental to the

true purpose of government and the true purpose of the revenues

raised by taxation from the people. Therefore, we think that

this particular Act should be defeated at this stage.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, I realize it's getting late on

a Friday afternoon. We've heard some rather interesting and

some surprising statements this afternoon. In case you haven't

guessed it, we're adamantly opposed to this bill and to

section

2. I have a proposed amendment that I'd like to submit on

section 2. It says, "Delete

section 2 and renumber."

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the amendment, according to the

Clerk, appears to be out of order, inasmuch as by merely voting

against

section 2 you would be achieving the same purpose

through your amendment. So therefore I would have to rule this

amendment out of order.

MR. MORRISON: Am I still on my feet, then, Madam

Chairman?

MS. CHAIRMAN: You can speak to

section 2, yes.

MR. MORRISON: Earlier in the debate today we heard the

Minister of Finance refer to a generation gap. I guess I'm one

of those people that fits somewhere in between that generation

gap. I'm really too young to remember the Depression, but I am

also old enough to remember what it was about. I didn't live

through it, but I did experience in my childhood what the

effects of that Depression were. Perhaps even I, in the same

generation gap as our present finance Minister, have some scars

to show for it.

But I believe that this

section is the fulcrum which will

pry out of this province a completely new direction. I believe

that it's a major mistake to allow the Minister of Finance the

freedom to do the things that this bill permits. Under no

circumstances can I approve it. Thank you.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I

feel that perhaps this has been the most disappointing moment

in this session. We finally discovered that it took Bill 74 to

smoke out the Leader of the Opposition, who has been in retreat

for most of the session. Then all he has to do is revert to

type.

After last night's reasoned debate, we have all the

[ Page 2737 ]

ranting and raving and antics, all of the repeat of

the Member's

appeal to the Press gallery. I certainly don't agree with the Premier

on this particular

section of this bill, but I agree with the Premier

that it was certainly disappointing. The Leader of the Opposition has

obviously never quite got over the fact that I left the Social Credit

Party.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Don't flatter

yourself.

MR. WALLACE: The former Premier spoke this afternoon with

the old venom in his eyes as he looked down at the present

Member for Oak Bay. It is very obvious that all his venom this

afternoon was not directed just at the Conservative Party. The

fact that one chooses a title politically, as one has to do in

defending or upholding certain philosophies….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: If there's anybody arteriosclerotic, it's your

leader.

Interjection by an Hon Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you said it first.

MRS. JORDAN: I said you called him down to the floor of this

House.

MR. WALLACE: I refer to your interjection, madam. I didn't

say that.

But at any rate, the debate has degenerated as it used to do

when the former Premier held office. It's apparent this

afternoon that we are back to the same bitter and acrimonious,

pointless kind of debate and I feel that this particular

outburst was, as I say, directed for reasons not related to the

section that we're discussing.

As I said earlier, Madam Chairman, we feel that when

government goes into business, government is a unique kind of

investor. The general public realize that the government, by

essence of its very character, has powers which no other

investor has. It has powers by order-in-council, and it has

powers by its legally-attained majority in this House.

Therefore, it isn't really correct just to look upon

government going into business ventures as though it was just

some other investor, not only because of the power which the

government has but because it is, in a sense, the trustee and

recipient of taxpayers' money to use as it feels is wise.

Despite all that has been said on this particular issue,

that really is where the two sides of the House differ in their

basic philosophy. We in this party feel that the responsibility

of government is to protect the taxpayers' money as much as is

reasonably possible. We say and believe that the kind of

authority which the government would be gaining under this bill

exceeds that reasonable point of safety and judicious use of

the taxpayers' money. I would agree with the Liberal leader

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) in separating the two issues this

afternoon.

Whichever mechanism the parties on this side of the House

feel is suitable for the use of taxpayers' money, none of us

have anything but the best of intentions in giving and

providing for the people of British Columbia the social

services, schools, hospitals and fair welfare payments to those

in need and this kind of thing. I think the Premier is a little

unfair if he is saying that one of the issues is contingent

upon the other.

I think that the Minister of Finance is quite capable of

handling the finances of the province in an efficient manner

and providing the social services that are needed without

necessarily using surplus funds in this form of investment. It

is indeed in the capital stock of any corporation.

This

section is so sweeping in its power that it brings us

back to one other principle why the opposition parties have

frequently opposed the government in this session. It is in

respect to the amount of power, in one way or another, which

this government seeks to take either unto itself or through the

agency of commissioners on various commissions.

As I've said many times — and we've just agreed to

disagree, I suppose — our feeling is that the function of

a government is to provide the kind of climate in which

business, both in the province already and outside of the

province, will find it attractive to invest in British

Columbia. In our opinion, it is not a function of government to

become investors in business. In fact, we feel that there is

plenty of record in various parts of the world to show that

they're not very good when they get into business. They're not

very efficient and, in fact, have had some real disasters.

We feel very strongly that in many ways government can

encourage investors to invest in the province. But this again,

Madam Chairman, in our opinion at least, does not exclude the

responsibility for government to supervise, regulate and make

sure in every way that is reasonable that the resources are

properly harvested, that the environment is respected and that

if there is any sense of injustice, inefficiency or

malpractice, the government at that point has the power to

control what is socially undesirable.

In that particular regard, we feel very strongly that this

kind of principle should not start at all. But if it does, it

should not be on such a sweeping basis. This is why we

supported a Liberal amendment earlier on today which was an

attempt to bring some compromise situation into effect. In

other words, it would give the government some freedom to

invest in corporations but would not be so completely extensive

that the government could, in fact, invest in any corporation

and possibly make some disastrous mistakes and lead to the loss

of large amounts of taxpayers' money.

[ Page 2738 ]

I would certainly re-emphasize that whatever mechanism we

feel should be used with the surplus funds of government, we

would certainly put high on our order — and this is a

point on which the Premier has agreed with me across the floor

of this House on more than one occasion — that despite

all the insults that have been thrown at the Conservative Party

this afternoon, we do have a strong desire for social reform

and to provide the social benefits of a modern society such as

are expected in a modern society.

But that need not be incompatible with our respect for the

individual and the need, based on human beings' nature, always

to give incentives and encouragements to individuals and to

groups of individuals to contribute, both in the resource field

and in the social reform field. As I've said already, I think

it is a little unfair to suggest that these two attitudes are

incompatible. The fact is that we believe very much in the same

social goals as the Premier and his party in this province, to

give the needy and the handicapped a fair and just amount of

assistance from government coffers, from financial revenue

created by all taxpayers. We strongly support that.

But I think it is not right to suggest that because we

believe in a different method of handling the surpluses, namely

that we think that government should stay out of private

business, I don't think that that in any way negates our aims

of social progress and social benefits. Therefore we still feel

that this

section 2(

d) is a very dangerous precedent. Well, it

is a precedent in one sense. But as I say, it doesn't just open

the door a little bit to give the government more freedom to

invest surplus funds. It opens the door wide open. There are no

limitations whatever. We feel that this certainly must be

strongly opposed.

I think that the earlier comment of the Leader of the

Opposition — which was made either in anger or without

regard for its possibly very serious effects on the citizens — that he

connected the passing of this Act, if it is not

amended, with a run on the parity bonds…it was hard to find

a connection, even in his statements, to say this. Although

we're opposed to this in principle….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): One minute you're

voting for it, the next you're opposed to it.

MR. WALLACE: I don't know that I said at any point this

afternoon that I was in favour of this. I'm saying that I

oppose the

section 2(d), but I reject the kind of statement made

by the Leader of the Opposition, which claims that if we pass

this bill unamended this afternoon, it will lead to a run on

parity bonds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: He did say that. Madam Chairman, the Hansard

will show, and it will also show that the Premier challenged

the Leader of the Opposition on that statement. The Leader of

the Loyal Opposition in his chair confirmed that that was what

he had said.

I think that the statement the Leader of the Opposition made

at the height of his anger was irresponsible. While we feel

that this kind of legislation has dangers, I fail to see that

as of today, passing this bill, there's any valid reason to

come to the conclusion he came to about the parity bonds. I

welcome the statement by the Minister of Finance that the cash

is available as of now to meet any parity bonds that are turned

in for cash.

Last night we tried to have a rational debate which was not

based purely on partisan politics or the emotions aroused by

past events. It was a very rational and reasoned statement by

the former Premier as to the critical financial instability in

the world — and this was on a world basis. He described

very well the obvious fear, in all the developed countries in

particular, as to the suddenness with which the whole financial

structure can teeter or totter, or whatever the word might be.

The words "possible Depression" were also raised.

It's because of this kind of fearsome comments that I think

it should be put plainly on the record that the parity bonds

are not in danger and that the cash is available to meet that

obligation.

Finally, Madam Chairman, in taking this attitude we feel

that it's been looked upon to a degree in this debate as though

it's just the little people that this opposition is trying to

protect from ill-advised government investment. But indeed it

is the whole future of the province. It is every citizen in

British Columbia who must be concerned, for the reasons I've

mentioned, that their tax money might be put into foolish or

ill-advised adventures. The whole point has been raised ad

nauseum.

I'll just close on this note: we've had many examples of

so-called financial experts in charge of large investment funds

who have made ill-advised investments, or where situations

around the world have suddenly changed what looked like a very

reasonable and sound prospect into something quite

disastrous.

It is a pity that we have to keep repeating this from each

party and from each Member of the opposition who speaks, but it

is quite clear that there is a deep division of philosophy

between the two sides of the House. I think the House should be

left in no doubt as to where the Conservative Party stands.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to add two very short comments to what

has been said. I associate myself very much with the remarks of

the last two speakers, the leader of the Liberal Party and the

House Leader of the Conservative Party.

[ Page 2739 ]

The job of government, in our view, is to set guidelines and

to provide incentives, practical incentives, directional

incentives, philosophical incentives and even economic

incentives where necessary — but keep out of the

facility. This is our argument on this point. Handle your

revenues by taxation, not by being in the business and not by

competing against the private sector, because by doing that

you'll be killing the golden egg that produces the taxes.

That's the first point.

The second one is that I'd have to say this: there has been

a remarkable change in posture since yesterday evening in the remarks

of the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition. He talked last night about the parity bonds in this

province, and we all listened very intently to him. The parity

bonds are a difficult kind of financing in my view, but he

expressed absolute confidence in them last night. Today we

found a 180° turn.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: "No way," say the Members of the Social

Credit Party. I'm sorry if I didn't hear him correctly, but the

inference came through loud and clear to me from the Leader of

the Opposition and it was a caveat to the general public and to

the economic society of B.C. and, indeed, to the economic

society, I suppose, of this continent that the parity bonds had

to be feared. I think he was being politically mischievous. I

make no bones in saying that at all.

Either he didn't speak the truth last night or he didn't

speak the truth today, because there's not a consistency in

that position. I feel that what he said today was incorrect. I

have faith in the Province of B.C., I have faith in the

reserves that were left by the former administration, and I'll

say this — I have faith in the Government of B.C. that

it's not going to see those parity bonds go down the drain. If

there's any indication of that happening, I would expect the

Premier of this province to announce that he'd call a general

election.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the statements of both the

Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) and the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I reject the

self-congratulatory separation statements made by the present

leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

The position is simply this: the parity bonds are safe. If

anybody wishes to sell them, we'll be happy to recover them. I

make that statement on behalf of the Government of British

Columbia. If anybody wants to sell a parity bond today, I'd be

happy to get them, because they're a darned good buy.

I agree with you about a 180° turn. It was politically

mischievous. There's no question about it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Being charitable is something that I must

say perhaps is a matter of degree of political division that

goes in this House. But for the former Premier (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) to make the statements he did in this House was, as I

said earlier, to play politics against the best interests of

British Columbia.

I remember a vicious attack by the former Premier on the

then leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Perrault, when there were

some bumps in the economy of British Columbia. He stood in this

House in this place and attacked the former leader of the

Liberal Party for even suggesting the question around those

parity bonds. He didn't make a mischievous statement. Mr.

Perrault was quoting facts. He was reading the current sales.

And the now Leader of the Opposition stood in his place and

attacked Mr. Perrault as not being a good British Columbian. I

remember what a bitter night that was.

And then we had this example of last night and we find this

incredible performance that has charitably been described as

"mischievous." And then leaving the House, after dropping that

kind of invective against the Province of British Columbia;

after taking that extreme position and then running out of the

House.

Six months ago he could have retired and received all the

glory that was due him as a man who did his service for the

Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or last night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or last night. Exactly. He would have gone

out in the kind of glory that most ordinary people would have

accepted. But the only purpose and the only motivation of that

speech today was politics. He knifed a former colleague; he

attacked two parties, and he used the back of British Columbia

to do it. How low can you get?

I want to say again that some people will do anything in

politics. We've seen proof of that today.

But I will say this: those parity bonds are solid, and we'll

purchase any single one of them.

Now the last challenge thrown out by the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is an absolutely valid

challenge. I accept the challenge. No question about it. I

accept the challenge on the basis of the kind of experience

that you and I have had in this House as we differ as a free

enterpriser as against a socialist. But that kind of challenge

must be accepted in our British parliamentary system.

[ Page 2740 ]

I say if the day comes that we can't back up, dollar for

dollar, as government of this province, every single dollar

that's out on a parity bond, I will call an election. I will

call an election.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for South Peace River.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Well, we've seen more of the Premier's attempts to cover up

the underlying thought behind this Bill No. 74. When the facts

were laid before the House this afternoon by the previous

Premier, the new Premier blew his cool and got up and tried, by

one of the performances that we're getting used to in this

Legislature, taking everything that is good to task in

rhetorical cliches. Never once in that attack, that tirade, did

he assure the people of this province that he was going to use

any discretion whatsoever in investing the people's money.

Every one of the previous speakers this afternoon said that

it was a disappointing afternoon. Well, it's a disappointing

afternoon for the Members of this Legislature to have to stand

here and debate a bill of this magnitude that gives the Premier

of this province more power than any Premier or Prime Minister

or any ruler in any democracy in the world. No place else in

the world in a democracy does the Premier or the leader of a

government have the power that our Premier is asking us to give

him here this afternoon.

There are jurisdictions in the world that allow their

leaders to have the power that the Premier wants, and they're

commonly known as dictatorships. That is the type of government

they have in those provinces where the ruler or the leader has

the power to make all of the decisions without going back to

the elected body. If that isn't supreme dictatorship, Madam

Chairman, I don't know what it is.

It's a disappointing afternoon not only for the legislators

in this province but it's a disappointing afternoon for all of

the people in the Province of British Columbia. The Premier

condemned what had been done by the previous administration to make the

economy

of this province one of the strongest economies of anywhere in

the free world. And it is the prosperous labour unions in this

province that have found work and grown prosperous under the

free enterprise system that gave him his campaign funds. Yet he

would lead us to believe that everything in the past was bad

and nothing had been done.

He certainly has prospered, and so have his labour unions.

There has been some talk in this Legislature this afternoon

about parity bonds. When the true facts of what could happen

once Bill 74 is passed were stated here in the Legislature this

afternoon, the Premier couldn't bear to hear it. Couldn't bear

to hear the facts of what could happen. He knows it. Madam

Chairman, the Premier lost his cool, the same as he has done

before during this session.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier lost his cool, Madam Chairman, when

the opposition pointed out the true intent behind some of the

legislation that he is bringing in. The people who bought those

parity bonds, at the time they bought them, knew that the

finances of this province were secure. If the Premier is going

to assure the people of this province that he is not going to

invest the surpluses in the capital stock of any corporation,

whether that is a good corporation or a bad one, he should

amend the bill and say that he is only going to invest in

companies developing the natural resources of this province,

and that he's going to keep those investments liquid and only

have short-term investments.

But the Premier did not assure us that Madam Chairman, and

that is why it is a disappointing afternoon. He got up and he

said there is socialism everywhere in the world, and he

happened to mention Sweden. Madam Chairman, I want to tell you

that in Sweden 95 per cent of the commerce and industry is

owned by private and individual enterprise — 95 per cent

of it. Yet the Premier would lead us to believe that in all of

these regimes that are controlled by socialist governments,

they are as radical as he is trying to be in this province

today.

All this socialism that we have in British Columbia is far

more than socialism. It is going further than socialism. The

Premier had to say, Madam Chairman, that the Leader of the

Opposition was indulging in politics. Any time, Madam Chairman,

that we lay facts before this Legislature, we seem to be

indulging in politics, or we're speaking too long, or we're

taking up the time of the House — every time we find what

the true intent behind the legislation is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier said that the previous

administration was responsible for seeing that all the natural

resources of this province were given away. Oh, how I've heard

that before! But what is it? Just a smokescreen, that's what it

is. The forest industry, which was made prosperous by the

previous administration due to its great forest policies,

providing a perpetual yield for eternity, is one of the

highest-taxed forest industries in any jurisdiction in the free

world. Today, Madam Chairman, it is that same forest industry

that is providing this same government with the prosperity that

still remains. The Premier talks about Bay Street. Madam

Chairman, in a few years our Premier will be going to Bay

Street on bended knee; to Wall Street on bended knee, to borrow

funds to shore up the economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 2741 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier knows, Madam Chairman, that he has

done something wrong by bringing in this legislation. But,

Madam Chairman, the Premier is pushed by his philosophy. He's

blinded by that philosophy. That's why he brings in this

legislation. The Premier keeps changing his mind, but what I

suggest the Premier do is get himself a Minister of Finance who

can handle the job.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Black Friday.

MR. PHILLIPS: He asks the people of this province to trust

him. And Tommy Douglas, I suppose, asked the people of

Saskatchewan to trust him too. It didn't work in Saskatchewan,

it hasn't worked in Manitoba, and they haven't gone near as far

as we are trying to do here. The Premier knows, by previous

bills, that he has the right, particularly through his

Development Corporation Act which he is setting up, to

invest money out of general revenue in any enterprise in

British Columbia that he wants to. But under that Act he

doesn't have the right to take surplus funds and invest them.

This is the true intent behind this bill here this

afternoon.

Madam Chairman, we should spend several hours pointing out

what will happen if Bill 74 becomes law. But we've been forced

in this Legislature during the past month with an unbearable

workload. We are sitting this afternoon. We'll probably sit

tonight and all day tomorrow so that the Premier can ram this

legislation through to give himself the dictatorial powers that

he seems to need.

[Mr. Lea in the chair.]

Yes, Mr. Member for Oak Bay, it has been a very, very

disappointing afternoon when we have to debate this type of

legislation. I'm not going to take the time that I should and

explore it in detail, because of the way we are being forced in

this legislation. But I'm sure the people out there are getting

the message, and the message they are getting is this, Mr.

Chairman: the Premier of this province is putting his communist

philosophy ahead of the common, ordinary people in this

province. They're getting the message, and they're getting it

loud and clear.

Not only are they just a little unhappy, Mr Chairman; the

people of this province are out-and-out angry. They are angry

and they are worried and they are concerned, and no longer can

the Premier read the people of this province. His position has

insulated him from the true feeling of the people in this

province.

The Premier should start listening again to the people of

this province, instead of this Waffle wing that is forcing him

to put this philosophy which is not wanted by the people of

this province.

Therefore I want to add my words, speaking out with all the

energy that I have, against this philosophy and against this

type of legislation. It's been called blank cheque legislation.

I'll say that this legislation makes the Premier of this

province a complete out-and-out dictator. And I'm against it,

because lie wasn't given that mandate last August 30, to take

these powers unto himself. He wasn't given that power last

August 30. He's changing the democratic way of this province

with this legislation, and he knows it.

I would like the Premier, when I sit down, to stand up and

assure me that if he loses in these investments, he would be

willing to take the money out of his own pocket to make up the

losses. Because that is exactly what the people of this

province will have to do with these losses — they'll have

to take it out of their pockets.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do I get to keep the profits?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: The past administration ran the finances of

this province in a way that made it the envy of all free

enterprise jurisdictions in the world. The thing that concerns

me about this legislation is that it's all right for that

Premier to make his assurances, but he's not going to be there

very long, and that gives the fellow who is going to follow him

the same far-reaching power. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we have

the constitution set up in the way it is. The government should

be of laws rather than men.

Now it's going to be of one man; one dictator making all the

decisions. And I'm not sure that this one man who is taking all

of this responsibility unto himself has the experience or the

knowledge. If he did, Mr. Chairman, he would be making

political decisions instead of good business decisions because

he is politically motivated by his theories. And I feel for all

of the people in British Columbia this afternoon because what

they are getting thrust upon them this afternoon is something

that they did not anticipate.

They made a mistake on August 30.

[ Page 2742 ]

This afternoon just proves how much bigger that

mistake was than the

people of this province had anticipated. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman,

that when the damage is done it may be far too late. It may be far too

late because what was once good and stable and solid is this afternoon

being reduced to insecurity and instability by one little bill with

four little sections. That's how easy it can be done.

And that's why it is such a disappointing afternoon here in

the Legislature, for us and for all of the people of British

Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: It's Friday the 13th.

MR. PHILLIPS: The day is well named. It's Friday the 13th.

It will be the saddest and sorriest day in all the history of

British Columbia. Henceforth and forever more, Friday the 13th

will not be looked at just as a bad luck day by a few

superstitious people, but it will be looked back on as Friday

the 13th of April, 1973 — the day that British Columbia

started on a downward trend. And it grieves me to have to say

that, Mr. Chairman, but I feel my responsibility as a

legislator here in British Columbia to point out the

unfortunately true facts to all the citizens of this once great

province.

I'm going to take my place again now with deep regret,

knowing full well that the government, who once used to listen

or said they listened, no longer listens, no longer takes the

warnings from the people or from the opposition. Once they come

to power, Mr. Chairman, everything changes. On today, Friday

the 13th, everything will change in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: During his comments, the Member for Peace

River stated that the Premier was a communist and held

communist philosophy. I ask the Member to withdraw that

statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member withdraw?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's my opinion, but I'll withdraw the

statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I want an unconditional withdrawal. I

want the record to show that there is an unconditional

withdrawal of that allegation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, would you withdraw without

reservation, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if it bothers the Premier, I'll withdraw

it unconditionally. I don't mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a few comments that I wish to add to this debate this

afternoon because I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the

mirror if I was to let this particular

section of the bill go

through without adding a few points that I feel are very

important.

It's fairly obvious that there's a great gulf between the

thinking of those of us who sit in the official opposition and

the government of this day. We've said it before and we'll say

it again that the partnership we should have with industry in

this province, is a partnership designed to participate by

means of taxation, not by means of direct intervention into the

private sector.

Certainly, we can point to many, many reports — and I

have three of them before me this afternoon — which

indicate that the Province of British Columbia has done very

well as a result of a partnership designed to extract taxation

from the basic resource industries of this province. I've

quoted from these reports before on the floor of this House, and

for the effect that it has had either with the government or

even with the members of the Press, it's practically written

off.

But I say this, Mr. Chairman, these reports are not drawn up

with the intention of whitewashing the position of anyone or

any particular industry in the province. The reports that are

available on a regular basis indicate in a factual manner — and if this

is what the Premier wishes to deal in,

we'll deal in facts this afternoon — indicate in a

factual manner the state of the health of the particular

industry involved. Most of the report is done independently by

highly qualified technical people in the auditing business who

take a look at the returns and the annual statements of many,

many different companies and from that, compile a factual

presentation on the state of the health of that industry as it

happens to be up until that present time.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

Certainly the Province of British Columbia has a great

potential, but that potential will be stifled and snowed under

if the Premier of this province continues to go on the basis

that they must become equity shareholders and partners with

industry wherever possible. And this was his exact statement:

"We wish to become partners with industry wherever possible."

That is a statement I have no faith in, and neither does anyone

in the official opposition, because the history of the

government intervening and participating on the basis that you

seem to think you must go is a history of failure, not a

history of profit to anyone.

Sure, the potential of the province is great.

[ Page 2743 ]

The Premier mentioned the name "Wenner-Gren" as if

it was a dirty word.

Well I have no case for or against Wenner-Gren, but I'll say this for

him, on his behalf, that perhaps at that particular time — I'll change

the phrase — that at that particular time he did one thing in British

Columbia. He opened the eyes of the average British Columbia resident

to the potential of this province, a potential that I would say the

majority of people residing in the Province of British Columbia did not

realize existed.

Fortunately, the dreams that he dreamed became reality

through the intervention of the government of the Province of

British Columbia. But at least by casting his mind to the

potential of this great province, everybody else for the first

time, to my knowledge, opened their eyes to the potential.

The Premier has said he wishes to bring British Columbia

back into the twentieth century. I would suggest that by the

adoption and the passing of

section 2 of this bill we're

returning to the Dark Ages. It's a black day for the Province

of British Columbia.

If the Premier is really interested in finding out if the

residents of this province who have a beneficial interest in

the development of any industry in the province through

taxation, if he's really interested in finding out what is

happening, why doesn't he read the reports that have been

prepared by the mining industry? Why doesn't he read the

reports that have been prepared by the forest industry? Why

doesn't he read the reports that have been prepared by the

petroleum industry indicating what has happened and how you

are, as government, very effectively participating in the

development of resources in this province?

Here's a report that I have in my hands from the Council of

Forest Industry. The report indicates that the overall rate of

logging tax has doubled since 1966; up from 4.2 per cent to 8.9

per cent. The report indicates that stumpage and royalty

charges increased by 60 per cent from 1966 to 1971 while at the

same time pre-tax earnings declined by over 55 per cent in the

same period.

The report indicates that property taxes increased by 50 per

cent in the six years,

whereas investment in taxable assets

over the same period increased by 43 per cent. The report

indicates the pre-tax earnings declined by 55 per cent in the

same period.

The report indicates that the return on capital employed

declined from 5.9 per cent in 1966 to 2 per cent in 1971. True,

it's probably back up to a 1966 level today. But is there

anything wrong with a business making 5 to 6 per cent return on

employed capital, provided the government of the Province of

British Columbia, without risking a dime of the tax revenue

available to them, gets their fair share of the revenue?

I say to the Premier, through you, Madam Chairman, that

British Columbia stands number one in Canada when it comes to

extracting revenue from the resource-oriented industries of

this province.

The report was prepared by the mining industry of British

Columbia. I'm not going to go into full detail on it, because

it's a very comprehensive document. But the mining company

participated in this study and contributed a total of $76.4

million in taxes to the Province of British Columbia, to

municipalities in British Columbia and to the Government of

Canada in the year 1971.

I can't find in the report the exact figure of a return on

investment at that particular year, but I do recall this

because I went through the report before: over 50 per cent of

the mining companies in the Province of British Columbia in

1971 reported no net income or a net loss. The net return on

employed capital was under 1 per cent on an average throughout

the whole mining industry in the Province of British Columbia.

So we know that the province benefited materially and

substantially from tax revenue generated from the people who

mined the mineral resources of this province.

The latest report on the petroleum industry, a 1972 report,

indicates that since the inception of the mining industry in

this province — it started very small and has built

gradually over the last 20 years — they have contributed

$457 million in revenue directly to the Crown. This represents

57 per cent of the total revenue received by the industry to

the end of 1972.

We also know that when you take the revenue that they have

received in return for the sale of the resources in relation to

the amount of money that they've invested, their return is only

around 50 per cent.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I think we've had a

long debate about this in terms of philosophy, but I fail to

see what the revenues from taxation from a group of companies — not any

corporation, an association — what the

revenue by way of taxation to this government has got to do

with Bill 74. I'd like you to rule on that now.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, the point that I am making in

quoting statistical information from a number of reports is

simply this: the Province of British Columbia is benefiting in

a very direct way through taxation of our resource industries

so that we do not require the Province of British Columbia to

become equity shareholders by purchasing into these companies

on an equity basis.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I must rule in favour of the Hon.

Provincial Secretary on this point. Would you kindly speak to

the section.

[ Page 2744 ]

MR. SMITH: On what basis, Madam Chairman? Would you quote

the rule that you're referring to?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The rule is that you speak to the

section

under debate, which is

section 2, and remain strictly relevant

to the clause.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: In speaking to

section 2, which deals with the

Province of British Columbia becoming involved in the capital

stock of any corporation in this province…and certainly,

Madam Chairman, with respect, I must suggest that my debate has

been more relevant and more to the point this afternoon than

many of the things that the Premier has said when he was up

rebutting the debate of the opposition.

I have only a few more points to make, and then I'll take my

place.

What the Premier is asking for in this bill is a carte

blanche approval and power to direct revenue from the Crown to

finance or buy in on an equity basis into any corporation

whatsoever in the Province of British Columbia.

We've already seen the government and what their intentions

are — at least we've seen on the surface what their

intentions are — with respect to buying into two

corporations in this province. One is at Ocean Falls, and the

other is Colcel Industry. There's also a deal being negotiated

to take an equity position in Sukunka coal, which is an

unproved programme. The potential may be there, but what will

actually happen in the way of results of mining is still

anyone's guess.

I say that it is not necessary for the province to become

involved in the capital stock of any corporation; that the

manner that we have used in the past which is traditional is a

fair and proper way to share the revenue generated by industry

and any corporation in the Province of British Columbia; that

to defer from that particular position or embark upon a new

direction will be to the detriment of the people who live in

this province.

We do not support it in the official opposition and we feel

that the passage of this

section is a sorry day in the

financial and fiscal history of the Province of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is this a filibuster? Will you let us know

ahead of time?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Madam Chairman.

This is not a filibuster. This piece of legislation is one of

the most critical pieces of legislation to come before the

House this session. We have every right in the world to talk

about it and debate it.

Madam Chairman, the Premier and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) talked a moment ago about political performances. I

would like to suggest that if there was an Oscar for political

performances in this House, those two Members would be in the

running neck and neck.

Madam Chairman, speaking to

section 2 of this Act which will

allow this government to invest in any corporation, I'd like to

say that the opposition is perfectly within its rights to try

and warn the people of British Columbia what we think the

consequences of this kind of legislation will be. The only way,

Madam Chairman, that the opposition can do its duty and get the

government to change its course, if we consider that course to

be dangerous, is to keep warning the government and the people

of the direction that that course is going. That's exactly

what's happening in this debate, Madam Chairman. It's the right

way to approach a debate, in my opinion.

Madam Chairman, in rising to debate this

section earlier,

the Premier used the example of social democracy in other

countries. That's fine, Madam Chairman, but the speaker should

be honest and recognize what is happening financially in some

of those other countries where social democracy has been in

effect for a number of years.

The one country that the socialists are so fond of using as

a shining example is Sweden. In Sweden today, Madam Chairman,

the economy is breaking down. Not only is the economy breaking

down but so is the societal pattern. Hospitals are closing down

in Sweden because of the disastrous state of the economy,

because of the rising costs of running the whole system. Staff

shortages, because of the kind of economy that has developed

under state socialism in Sweden, are breaking down the

structures and contributing to unemployment in that

country.

And you use that as one of your examples. That country is

becoming a slothful society because of the socialist measures

that have been in effect there for many years. I say to you,

Madam Chairman, through to the government, that's exactly what's

going to happen in this province if we don't change the course

of the kind of economic measures that we're developing in this

province. I say again that this measure in this

section of this

Act is the most critical piece of legislation so far before

this House this session.

Madam Chairman, the Premier questioned our faith in the

people of British Columbia. I'd like to say again that we have

all kinds of faith in the people of British Columbia, but we

don't have very much faith in the socialists.

[ Page 2745 ]

Madam Chairman, the Premier talked about giveaways being

stopped. Well, I would suggest that the kind of giveaway that

the socialists have started by the introduction of this kind of

legislation, these finance bills, and the many other companion

bills that go with them — the giveaway that's been

started by those kinds of measures, Madam Chairman, will be the

scandal of the century in this country. We have a duty to warn

the people of British Columbia about that.

I say to the government: change your directions; pull these

kinds of bills; pull the right in all of these finance measures

to invest in any kind of corporation. If you don't, the people

of British Columbia — I've said it before and I'll

say it again — will be the losers.

MS. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Hon Member for Columbia

River.

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Just a few

words, if I can be permitted to say a few words, providing

there's no closure in this debate and insinuation that there's

a possibility that we're going to filibuster this

legislation.

I want to say that this is the legislation that is turning

British Columbia hard to the left. Not a soft left, but a hard

left turn. What we're asking in

section 2, Madam Chairman, is

to give the Minister of Finance unrestricted and awesome powers

of investment. I wonder why the Minister of Finance really

needs these kinds of powers. I'm wondering when he needs these

powers.

I'm sure that in the back of his mind he has a particular

preference on stocks or bonds or corporations which he wants to

fiddle with. I say "fiddle" because he can fiddle his way into

those corporations by adjustments of licensing and leases and

various regulations of the Pollution Control Board and

Health Act and so forth.

We haven't been told. I think that we as British Columbians

have a right to know why the government needs the kind of power

that they're setting out under

section 2 of Bill No. 74. They

should be able to tell us now what their number one objective

is, if they have any objectives. Or are they just going to go

around willy-nilly picking up this corporation, knocking off

that corporation, putting this corporation and that corporation

to the wall in order to get a piece of the action?

Investment and the ability to buy stock is really a science.

Investment counselling is a full-time occupation. Even those

people who counsel on a full-time basis do make mistakes. I

don't know where that Minister of Finance expects to get his

great wisdom and his ability for investment purposes.

I was rather shocked to hear the Minister of Finance stand

in this House this afternoon and attack every industry in the

province that has contributed to the well-being of the people

of this province. He attacked the forest industry, and he

attacked the mining industry, which contribute substantially to

the well-being of the people of British Columbia. He went on to

say that the mining industry has raped the Elk Valley.

I want to remind that Minister of Finance that he is now

government, in case he doesn't know it. If he thinks that the

land has been raped and if he's going to make that kind of

accusation, he has the responsibility to bring in legislation

to correct any kind of rape or misdemeanour that might have

been created on our land. If there has been something

drastically wrong with the mining industry in British Columbia,

why don't you correct it? You're the government now.

Then he attacks the forest industry. He calls them "timber

barons," insinuating they've contributed nothing to the

well-being of British Columbians. If you think there's anything

drastically wrong with the tax structure in the forest

industry, don't just stand there and attack the forest

industry. Do something about it. Throw them out of business if

that's what you want to do . I'm not advocating it, but that's

what you advocated not too long ago when you stood in your

place.

We've enjoyed great benefits from the development of our

natural resources in British Columbia through the tax

structure, the licensing, the royalties and things of that

nature. You're attempting to tamper with the things that have

made it possible for people to enjoy one of the best ways of

life on the North American continent.

What you're talking about in this legislation is investment,

the gambling with taxpayers' dollars, Madam Chairman. That's a

very serious thing. The Minister of Finance administers

hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We're

giving him some pretty awesome powers as to what he should do

with that money — whether he should give people benefits

or gamble it in any corporation in British Columbia. It's a

dangerous road down which the Minister of Finance is leading

British Columbia. It's a hard left road. It's a Waffle road.

It's not the type of road that I think is in the best interests

of British Columbians or the economy of British Columbia. It's

the type of legislation which I can't possibly support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved on the following division:

[ Page 2746 ]

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Brown

Radford

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

Calder

Hartley

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lauk

Lea

Young

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Liden

NAYS — 14

Richter

Bennett

Chabot

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

PAIRED

Brousson

McGeer

Stupich

Williams, L.A.

Strachan

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I would ask that when you

report to the Speaker you inform him with leave of the House

that a division took place in committee and, again with leave

from the House, to allow that division to be recorded in the

Journals .

Leave granted.

Sections 3 and 4 approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports division on

section 2

and asks leave that it be recorded in the Journals .

Leave granted.

Bill No. 74,

An Act to Amend the Revenue Act ,

reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 75, Mr. Speaker.

HOUSING INCENTIVE FUND ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 75; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam 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 No. 75, Housing Incentive Fund Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 76, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL

FACILITIES FUND ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 76; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The problem that I have, Madam Chairman,

with this is that it appears to me to be a question of granting either

one-third or nothing. I wonder whether situations might not arise where

you wouldn't want to give a full third. You might want to give less

than that, for some other reason, perhaps because they are receiving a

grant from a sports foundation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One-third of the capital cost.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. One-third of the capital

cost. That is precisely the point that I want to get to. What

would happen, for example, if you wanted to give them only 25

per cent because they are receiving grants from some other area —

Sports Fitness Council of Canada, or something of that

nature.

[ Page 2747 ]

It would appear to me that this is restrictive, in terms of

the way I read the legislation. I know what your intention is,

but it is a question of what the words of a

section say, and

that is the type of analysis that we are on now. It says here,

"The Minister of Finance may pay a grant of one-third of the

cost of the first $1 million or less of any community

recreational facilities sponsored by a municipality." What

happens if you want to pay less than a third? It appears….

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't want to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that is just the point I am trying

to get to. In no circumstances would you want to pay, say 10

per cent or…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If we wanted to do that, we would put it

in the legislation. We don't want to. They can use the winter

works money, they can use grants or anything else. We'll pay

one-third of the capital cost — that's what the bill

says.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is precisely the point, Mr. Minister

of Finance, that I am trying to determine. What I want to know

is whether you have the flexibility of paying less, or whether

it is a one-third or nothing proposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if someone asks us to pay them less,

we will certainly consider that. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But you can't do it under this

legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We certainly can.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, you can't. How?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We can so. Because if they want to say

that the capital cost is deducted to this figure because of

another grant, then we will. I never heard such specious

questions in my life. Surely to goodness it's clear enough.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if the question is of intention,

I'm sorry if I annoyed the Premier. But it's simple enough to

me. I simply want to know whether under certain circumstances,

less can be paid, or whether it has to be one-third. Now you

answer me it has to be one-third.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I believe that to be an unnecessary

restriction on your discretion. Curiously enough, after many

times suggesting your discretion is too great, I now suggest

that in this Act it is too little.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, if anybody, anywhere in

the Province of British Columbia wants less than what is

available to them under this grant, we will certainly consider

that request.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You cannot under this legislation. That

was my point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We certainly can.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment — and

no reduced handouts.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 76, Community Recreational Facilities Fund

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 77, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1973

House in committee on Bill No. 77; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam 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 No. 77, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1973 ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 78, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMIC

RESEARCH FUND ACT

[ Page 2748 ]

House in committee on Bill No. 78; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam 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 No. 78, British Columbia Economic Research Fund

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 144, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 144; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam 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 No. 144,

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time

and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 145, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

INCOME TAX ACT, 1962

House in committee on Bill No. 145; Ms. Young in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Tit