1972 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 29th Parliament
HANSARD


The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1972

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 647 ]


The House met at 2:00 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver-Burrard.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, the first Member for Vancouver-Burrard and myself have great pleasure today in introducing to the House 32 students from the Kitsilano Secondary School together with their teacher, Mr. John Ippeu, and I hope the House will give them a very nice welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver South.

MRS. A. KRIPPS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today 55 students from the David Thompson School in Vancouver South constituency. They are here with their vice-principal, Mr. Wally Moult, and their teachers, Mr. Robert Ellis and Miss Judy Robertson. I would ask the House to join me in giving them a hearty welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Nanaimo.

MR. FJ. NEY (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I have two groups I'd like to introduce today. We have the executive directors of the I.O.D.E. from Nanaimo, Mrs. Thompson, Mrs. Killeen, and Mrs. Zico, and then representing the Chase River ratepayers Mr. and Mrs. Al Gruber. I ask you to extend to them a cordial welcome.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

THIRD READINGS

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): Committee on Bill No. 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 1, An Act to Amend the Evidence Act.

Bill No. 1 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 4, An Act to Amend the Conditional Sales Act, 1961.

Bill No. 4 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 6, An Act to Amend the Assignment of Book Accounts Act, 1961.

Bill No. 6 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 7, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 7, An Act to Amend the Supreme Court Act.

Bill No. 7 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 8, An Act to Amend the Court of Appeal Act.

Bill No. 8 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill No. 9, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 9, British Columbia Railway Act.

Bill No. 9 committed, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The second reading of Bill No. 29, The Honourable the Attorney General.

HON. L.R. PETERSON (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 29 is an Act to Amend the Chartered Accountants Act. This is a public Act, a public bill that governs the activities of the chartered accountants in the province.

We have been requested to make some amendments by the institute to their present Act. This bill contains those amendments.

While they're not too substantial there are some changes proposed in the makeup of their council and other amendments relating to the disciplinary powers of the institute. Hence, following second reading I am going to recommend that it be referred to the committee on standing orders and private bills for consideration in a detailed way. I move the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted that the Minister, the Honourable Attorney General, has decided to send this bill to committee, so that it can have some free discussion and some outside witnesses can come in and give us some reasons, particularly reasons why we should set another group aside or at least apart from the regular group of chartered accountants.

I noticed that now we're deciding, according to this bill, that there will be a designation "C.A. Honourable, " so that an honorary C.A. is something very much like the designation for Queen's Counsel, in my view, in that those people that are chosen by a board of their so-called peers will be honoured in this way and therefore they will have more status in the community and be able to attract business that much more readily.

Frankly, as far as we're concerned we're very suspicious of this kind of thing. We're therefore delighted that it's going to the committee. But we certainly don't like the idea at all at this point of this matter of a designation — just like a Q.C., separating those that are much more acceptable in the eyes of

[ Page 648 ]

the particular group that are being set up to choose who are going to be the C.A. (HON).

So we will see you in the committee, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this bill seems a step in the right direction and our party will certainly not only support the principle of the bill but will support the procedure which the Attorney General has recommended be followed in this particular case, namely to refer the bill to a committee so that we can hear testimony on whether or not the detailed provisions of this Act will work in the best interests of the people of British Columbia.

I would have preferred, Mr. Speaker, if this bill and indeed all other bills which we introduce into the House could be referred to committee for the kind of vetting that is evidently intended by the government in this particular case, before the principle of the bill is agreed upon by the House.

I would hope that the Attorney General will take this as a precedent for many other bills that might be introduced into the House, namely to refer them to committee and after we get the information then vote on them.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General says that this is a bill of no particular importance.

HON. MR. PETERSON: No, I didn't say that at all.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, with no new principle?

HON. MR. PETERSON: No, I didn't say that either.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, anyway…(Laughter).

HON. MR. PETERSON: Please quote me correctly.

MR. MACDONALD: It's all on Hansard, it's all on the record here. We'll see what the Attorney General said — if necessary we'll wait for the film. But there is a very momentous new principle in this bill. Without referring to the section I suppose in any detail, the Attorney General is proposing that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council may appoint one member to the Institute of Chartered Accountants council who need not be a chartered accountant.

So I don't know of any other profession in which this step has taken place and I think it is a very important new principle and one which I may say that my colleagues and I have espoused because we believe that in a professional body of this kind there should be an ombudsman or ombudswoman to represent the public or the clients or the patients, if it's the ease of the medical association. Clients, if it's the legal profession, the businessman if it's chartered accountants and the public generally.

We see in this some kind of a lead and a bit of a victory for an argument that's been raised on this side of the House. Yet at the same time it's going to be very important if we embark upon this matter of appointing ombudsmen for the public interest to the bodies of professional associations, that they be not political appointees, that they be broadly representative of the community and not merely selected by the cabinet. In other words that some kind of sifting process take place.

It happens today in the case of the award of the accolade of Q.C. — it's not followed through but I think the opinion of the representative groups within the public sector of the public should be sought, and some kind of public nominations of suitable people to perform these important functions should take place.

I think that should be done publicly so that the nominations of consumers' groups and labour groups and business groups and so forth should be publicly known before the selection is made. Perhaps a better way of selection entirely can be worked out than straight cabinet appointment.

But I congratulate the Attorney General in moving in a small way in a direction which I think this Legislature should take and that is, as I say, to establish the new principle that a profession should be governed not only by the members of that profession but should have present in their deliberation a watchdog representing public interests as well.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E.M. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): If I'm permitted to speak to this bill, the Member who just took his place was referring to a principle in the bill wherein the council of the chartered accountants would have permission to expand and introduce members who are not in fact members of the institute.

Actually what this requirement and principle involves is the introduction of non-practising accountants. It seems to me this is a step in the right direction. This profession has a very respectable percentage of non-practising accountants who are in their membership, and the council I think would benefit from the introduction of a broader base of nonpractising people, who are well-qualified.

Secondly, it refers to honorary memberships and I know this raises a great degree of concern because of the debate recently with regard to lawyers. And it seems to me that within the accounting profession, what we know as a fellow of the chartered accounting profession are very few in number. They are extremely few in number and this merely suggests that they would not have to be unanimously accepted by the institute.

I'm in favour of the bill and I'm happy to see it brought before a committee of this Legislature to give the institute itself an opportunity to explain some of the ramifications of it.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 29 ordered referred to the select standing committee on standing orders and private bills.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 30, Mr. Speaker.

FAMILY RELATIONS ACT

MR. SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 30. The Honourable the Attorney General.

[ Page 649 ]

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 30 is the Family Relations Act. It's a bill that proposes some new concepts in the law governing matrimonial and family relationships, and it will also serve to codify much of the law on this subject in one statute as well as making our family court procedures more understandable to the public and more serviceable for the purposes for which they are required by the public today.

Basically the bill is divided into six parts. The first three parts deal with the matrimonial and family relationships generally, judicial separation, alimony maintenance and custody of the children. In other words these are the sections whose jurisdiction traditionally lies in the Supreme Court of the province.

What we have done in this part is to reduce some 54 sections from other Acts into the 14 sections that you find in this particular Act. Most of them were found heretofore in the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act, but there are some provisions as well from the Supreme Court Act and the Equal Guardianship of Infants Act that find themselves in this first part.

Many of the existing provisions of the Divorce Act are obsolete. If you take the trouble to read the statute you will find references dating back to the English laws of 1857 which have no application here whatsoever. We considered at the time the new federal Divorce Act came into effect in 1968 the possibility of revising the legislation but it was felt that we should wait to determine first of all the constitutional validity of the changes that were made in the federal statutes.

I shouldn't say there are no major changes, but the changes primarily are those to bring our statute into conformity with the federal statute.

Some of the actions that are available at the present time do not apply, with the theme being matrimonial breakdown in the new Divorce Act and hence such things as the common law action for restitution of conjugal rights and loss of consortium, these will be done away with in the new bill.

The fourth part of the Act deals with the principles which are now set forth in the Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act and this you will recall was the subject of a bill at the last session which was introduced in the House, given second reading, referred to the select standing committee on social welfare and education, and the committee did not recommend whether the bill should proceed or not. They did recommend that there wasn't sufficient time and that a committee have the opportunity to review the provisions at another session, and that will be my intention in respect of this bill — to allow it to be considered by the committee on social welfare and education.

There are two fundamental changes proposed in this fourth part which I say deals with wives' and children's maintenance. The procedure in the family court will be more readily available to an aggrieved spouse or child, and with a widened area of discretion family court judges will be able to provide the remedy for the problems that come before them more effectively and with greater dispatch.

The second significant change, Mr. Speaker, is an expansion of the definitions of "spouse", "child" and "parent", thus liability for support and maintenance will be widened and it will be dependent upon the factual relationship between the parties involved to a greater extent than at the present time.

As an example, those who although not married have lived together as man and wife for two years within the last three, will be considered spouses. One who assumes a parental relationship over a child will be regarded as a parent of the child. The provisions in this respect are quite detailed in the statute.

Part five of the bill sets forth what is presently known as the Parents' Maintenance Act, and this other Act will be repealed and it will be included in this one comprehensive statute.

There are some changes in the applications procedure to make it more effective rather than having to proceed before a magistrate as in the past and the maximum amounts payable have been altered under this particular section.

The last part, Mr. Speaker, deals with the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders and there aren't any major or substantial changes in this respect. It is primarily a consolidation bringing it under this one comprehensive code, relating to family relations. With the intent that the bill will be referred to the social welfare and education committee for detailed analysis and consideration, I now move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby North.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased to hear that the bill is going to committee because it's a very far-reaching bill with a lot of new amendments in it which, of course, we did not have in the last session. That is one of the reasons, of course, the committee wanted it to have a further year, and we're very pleased to see the bill in this form.

I would like to just comment briefly on the fact that in this day when women are asking for equality we have to be consistent and we certainly agree with the recommendation there that the matter of maintenance and family support should apply to the woman also, if that is the way the judge sees fit to give the order.

On a whole, the bill certainly seems to be a great improvement on past legislation. As the Attorney General said, many sections were pretty archaic going back to the 1850's. We look forward to discussing this in committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): To comment on the bill, I'm pleased too, to see that it is going before the committee and will get the appraisal that it deserves.

I would suggest to you that perhaps with such a fast-changing society that we have, that this particular bill will perhaps be before us many times again, for changes. In fact in reading the bill over the weekend I see a reference in one of the sessions to the Wives' Protection Act, and I would suggest to the Attorney General at this time that perhaps when we are taking this broader point of view in terms of separating the wife from the husband — the man from the woman sort of thing — rather than doing that to bring it into the spouse, that perhaps indeed we might even have to change the Wives' Protection Act to the Spouse Protection Act.

The principle of the bill, and of course the most important principle of the bill, is that it addresses itself to the family court matters which really at this present time bear a hardship on the children who go through the family court

I think that is the most important principle and I would

[ Page 650 ]

hope that it would return to this House and have approval in this year so that in the following year we will not have the cases of hardships that we have seen in this past few years and particularly in the past year when we could have had a trial of this particular action and then brought it back for amendment.

I would hope that it would have the kind of perusal in committee that it certainly deserves. I think as one of the Members said last year, and I believe this is an improvement on that bill; "It is one of the most important bills to be brought before the session." And I certainly agree that it is in this particular session the most important bill to be brought before us.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I can't agree with the previous speaker that any cases of hardship because of the lack of legislation existed during a past year. But since we are addressing ourselves essentially to the principle I will confine my remarks to the principle, except one specific further on.

Mr. Speaker, no legislation — no matter how well-intentioned and I will grant that this legislation is well-intentioned — no legislation no matter how well-intentioned can cover all the problems in terms of human relationship and no political party has a monopoly on that.

But what I'm deeply concerned about is that the legislation itself does not make provision for a number of specific things that have in my opinion to be done, to ensure the intent of the legislation is carried out.

I have not seen any evidence, for example, in the estimates to increase the number of staff working in family courts in this province. To put into effect the kind of protection that we are moving towards in this bill in terms of family relation we must embark upon a programme of hiring and training staff, so that these programmes can be fully used to the benefit of the people in the community.

The second point I want to make beyond the question of hiring staff is the use of premarital counselling. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a great deal of social problems caused in marriage breakdowns could be avoided if the provincial government would assume the responsibility to get involved in the area of premarital counselling. This Act deals with the companion legislation of the federal Divorce Act and the separation and maintenance orders that will be enforced in provincial jurisdictions through this Act. The provincial government in following the federal government's lead in divorce reform, is updating its regulations. But in my opinion the principle should include provincial government involvement in premarital counselling.

Again, Mr. Speaker, without going into too much detail I think that the principle does accompany the possibility of a six-week waiting period before marriage with the young couple having option of premarital counselling from a counsellor, or minister of their choice, and I'll go into more detail of that in committee.

One of the other things, Mr. Speaker, that I think is absolutely essential — and I'd like to see a commitment from the Attorney General when he closes this particular debate — it is my opinion that the bill will mean nothing unless accompanying literature, explanatory literature, is made available to lawyers, social workers, and ministers. They are the three largest professional categories who get involved in the intricacies of family relation. And in many instances, although they are the professionals who are involved in the field, they do not have specific knowledge of the new legislative changes, and the impact of those legislative changes.

I strongly urge the Attorney General to ask his department, or the Department of Rehabilitation, to draft simple explanatory pamphlets for the use of professionals in the field, for the use of hot-line radio commentators, for the use of anybody that is involved in communication in terms of these kind of problems cropping up — and they do crop up on the radio, even.

Some of us drive along and we listen to people phoning into hot-line commentators asking them for advice on: "What will I do with my children?" Sometimes they give good advice and perhaps some of them have had the opportunity because they have been asked the question to go and find out what's going on.

But I find many lawyers don't know what's happening. And many social workers don't know what's happening in terms of legislation. And a great number of ministers as well. Simple pamphlets should be available.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, I think that the people who are most confused when this is happening are the parents involved. There is such an emotional upheaval taken place in a marriage, at a time of breakdown that the whole legal machinery seems to be a fuzzy experience.

They are rushing through the legal part of what they're going through without really knowing the kind of commitment they are making to each other or to their children. And they come back after signing agreements, or making arrangements, they come back to go over what they have done and they find that they're surprised they weren't fully informed.

That doesn't mean somebody didn't talk to them. Somebody did talk to them. But in the state of mind they were in, they weren't listening. And I suggest to help them over this time that written material is also absolutely essential.

I'll make more comments in committee, but I do want to refer to the Attorney General's special attention to a principle that he's introducing on page 9, section 25. Now it's the principle, I'm not talking about the details.

The principle is that the requirements of maintenance for a child may include "such special requirements that may exist on his physical or mental condition, educational potential, or other circumstances, that in the opinion of a judge may entitle the child to additional sums for support and maintenance." It's good. What we are saying is that the judge in his wisdom may evaluate a child in need of special mental health services, and we are saying as the provincial government that we will make the financial responsibility go toward that spouse who the award has been against or for.

In other words we are saying now as a government that a parent is responsible for the payment of special mental health services to his child. Excellent.

Take the concept one step further, in this day and age — through you, Mr. Speaker — let's say that the provincial government now recognises more than just physical shelter. More than just educational responsibility but comprehensive mental health services to a child. And children generally in care have a relatively higher percentage of their numbers, who need intensive counselling, intensive psychiatric services and that is one of the great gaps in the picture of the provincial government services.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion on speaking

[ Page 651 ]

of the principle, if we are accepting the principle that an individual parent out of a broken family has a responsibility for additional financial burdens to ensure good mental health services, the provincial government has even a greater responsibility to those children whom they take in care out of broken marriages. We must guarantee for the sake of that child that we have these services available while that child is in the care of the provincial government. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier.

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Premier): To the Leader of the Opposition, I'm only going to deal with one point — the question that additional staff is not in the vote. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition and all other Members know full well we have already passed in this Legislature vote No. 81, under Department of Finance which shows the amount available for employing new staff this year in all departments of $2.25 million.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good measure. It's good social legislation and I'm delighted to see the government is taking this step forward.

It increases without any question of a doubt dramatically the areas to which support of children, wives, husbands or home-makers can be sought. But my greatest concern is along the lines that have been discussed by the Leader of the Opposition and that is to whether or not the provincial courts and the provincial court facilities are today equipped both judicially and administratively to handle the job.

I would seriously question the fact that they are. I think there will have to be an enormous infusion of money and personnel, and I certainly subscribe to the suggestions that have been raised by other speakers dealing with that particular point.

I'm rather sorry, Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the general principle of the bill that the government did not really go all the way insofar as women's Lib is concerned. Because they have not altered whatsoever the age-old and I think very, very archaic situation of the law, whereby a husband does not have any remedy against a wife in tort at all and a wife's remedy against the husband in tort is only for the protection of her separate property.

Just by way of a short illustration, Mr. Speaker, supposing a husband and wife are separated and he comes to visit her, and there's a dreadful row and he breaks her jaw. Well, he may be subject to criminal action and no doubt would be convicted and maybe fined, sent to jail or put on probation, whatever might happen. Howsoever she would have no remedy against him whatsoever for damages.

But if the same situation occasioned and he visited her and broke or tore apart a bedroom suite or broke one of her favourite vases then she would be in the position to sue. So it seems to me that a woman should be worth a little more than a vase. I do hope that the government would give some thought, perhaps, to putting in the necessary amendment whereby this situation could be covered.

I regret very much that the government did not go the whole way. But I don't think it's yet equipped to go the whole way. But I think before the time of everybody in this room, in this Legislature has dissipated we will eventually see in British Columbia and I would say pretty well all over the western world a totally new concept in the field of family law. I think that we will find it — all of the facets of family law — under one roof. The first and foremost rule will be the preservation of family life.

Up until now, Mr. Speaker, the law has really acted more in a surgical manner than it has in taking the preventive medicine attitude. I think once we can go ahead and have everything under one roof — call it a family forum — who would deal with every facet of domestic relations, the support of children, the custody of children, a divorce, judicial separation, the division of matrimonial property and so forth and so on all along the line.

But in order for that to happen, Mr. Speaker, it would be totally necessary to obviate and delineate the old adversarial system that we have. The family forum would have to equipped with psychologists and psychiatrists, social workers and everyone whose direction would be to keep the family unit together. In the long haul, Mr. Speaker, without any question of a doubt there would be a terrific saving of dollars to the community.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver East.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, first on a matter mentioned by the Premier, and that is he says he has extra money and that this may result in the employment of additional staff in the family court.

But that money should have been put under the vote for the family courts. I wish, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier had made his little speech about 4 a.m. on Friday morning when this kind of matter was under discussion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Finance wasn't discussed then.

MR. MACDONALD: Family court, no. The Attorney General's office, no. But the Attorney General's office was discussed in the middle of the night. If there's additional staff that's where the money should have showed up and that's where the staff should have been voted, and that's where the Premier should have made his little speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope.

MR. MACDONALD: In the middle of that night.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on another point this bill, coming back to dry land, I don't want to be out of order, Mr. Speaker …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't want the Premier to divert me into being out of order, either. But coming back to another point. This bill enshrines a kind of a new principle in that we're recognising again common-law spouses — husbands and wives and children who may be illegitimate or said to be, but there are really no illegitimate children, there are only illegitimate parents as the Member for Saanich (Mr. Tisdalle) of course knows. (Laughter).

We're increasing the financial security of common-law spouses by improving this definition — living together for two

[ Page 652 ]

years and that sort of thing. We're increasing their financial security, and that's good. And yet on the death of either one of those parents, common law, then the Premier comes in as Minister of Finance and under his succession duty he taxes the estate of that poor common-law spouse as if she were a stranger.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, that under other laws of the Province of British Columbia as they are now presently constituted we're destroying some of the financial security which in this Act we're trying to give to this kind of a relationship.

There are many cases where the estate taxed by the Premier at stranger's rates — everything over $10,000 taxed — destroys the life security of this wife who happens to be a common-law wife, or a husband who happens to be a common-law husband, or a child who happens to come from a common-law marriage. I bring this up at this time because there's ample time, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier to take cognizance of this and forget for a moment his exchequer in the sense of bringing in every last cent and do justice to this kind of a marriage in the succession duty law as the justice is attempted to be done under this law.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I would unhesitatingly suggest that this is probably the most important piece of legislation which the government has placed before this assembly this year. As a matter of fact, maybe for a number of years.

Only those who have become directly involved with the problems which are dealt with by this Act can know of the almost excruciating torture that husbands and wives and children go through when faced with the problems which this Act is, designed, if not to remedy, to at least ease. Members have spoken of the need for counselling services at various stages in the family development, either before there is a marriage or before there are any children or after as the case may be.

I would second those suggestions. Because, Mr. Speaker, quite often the parties to a family dispute are really not conditioned to the kind of advice which is currently available either from the legal profession or for the kind of treatment which they will receive at the hands of a court — no matter how just, no matter how carefully the matter has been examined, no matter how right in law the final decision may be.

Because of an inability to be conditioned to receive either the advice or the results of the advice, other difficulties arise which very often have long-lasting effects on the parties individually.

The second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has suggested that counselling should be given in the hopes that the family unit can be kept together. Certainly I support that view. But there are also circumstances, Mr. Speaker, where counselling properly given can result, perhaps, in the severing of the family relationship in those cases where a family relationship should never have been created in the first place.

By bringing that kind of assistance to the participants in a family dispute it can result in decisions freely made on their behalf which allows each of the parties to go ahead and make his or her own future and make a better life for themselves than would be the case if they were advised to stay together.

I know of many instances when if there could have been this kind of advice available to them very serious tragedies would have been avoided.

I hope that when the Hon. the Attorney General closes this debate he will advise the House — in view of the comments from the Hon. Minister of Finance — that he will advise the House as to the information which he is given by the judicial council or by the senior judges of the family courts as to the adequacy of our present family court establishment to carry the kind of loads that this Act will place upon them.

Surely the Attorney General, when introducing this bill, Mr. Speaker, must know whether he has the judges, the court workers, the social workers who are needed to carry out this responsibility. He must know in advance of preparing a bill of this magnitude what is required, what physical facilities are required and what personnel. Since they aren't apparently in the estimates which we considered last week then they must come from the block vote. I would hope that we would know what they are, because we must be assured that when we put these words on paper as I have said before that we've got the organisation to make them work. Otherwise it's only a sham.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. P.J. JORDAN (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention one more point that I believe is embodied in the principle of this Act — an Act which I personally welcome. And that is that by tradition notwithstanding the fact that there is a great need to forestall family break-up if it is possible, or acknowledge that if it is inevitable and should never have been that the very best care for the children should be considered, I feel that in this Act we will see a change in the traditions of always or nearly always placing the child with the mother.

By bringing in the principle of equal responsibility on the part of the male and the female or the male or female parent we will see the judge have a great deal more latitude in placing the child in the custody of the parent who is directly better capable and perhaps through his relationship with the child or her relationship with the child to provide a better home and a better future for that child.

I'm sure the Hon. Members of the House will be aware or will be interested to know that for the first time, particularly in the United States, there is now a tendency towards giving the father very much equal opportunity to have custody of his child if he is adjudged to be the one most capable of meeting the child's emotional needs as well as financial needs.

With the principles embodied here I think that where there is a mother who is more capable of earning a greater income and yet the father is adjudged the better parent, then he will be able to contribute to the care of this child but the child will be placed in a better surrounding. I will strongly support this principle.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Surrey.

MR. E. HALL (Surrey): I want to add another group to the list of people that the Leader of the Opposition mentioned hopefully will receive some instruction, some direction and possibly some training following the passage of

[ Page 653 ]

this bill through the House, in whatever form it eventually is discharged. That is the question of the police forces of our province. It's been my experience, Mr. Speaker — and I've had something to do with this kind of problem in my municipality — that so frequently the police reaction to problems of marital dispute, marital fighting, is that they can do nothing about it.

The position worsens until eventually in the middle of one night sometime, some place, somewhere the lights are flashing and the black and white cruisers are outside the door. It's too late when that happens.

Certainly I think that our police forces should be, no matter as I say what comes out of this committee, advised that there's got to be some personnel to whom they can refer these initial complaints that come from people in distress. So frequently less than a normal quota of our police forces are available in terms of total members, like at night time.

I'd like to know when the Minister winds up this debate on second reading what interdepartmental liaison is going on at this moment? What conversations are taking place between the various branches of this government? What are his plans for recruitment in view of the Premier's announcement?

Because I don't want to see this piece of legislation on the books being looked at in jurisdictions all around the world and held up as a model to other people when we here know that it's not going to be that kind of situation as indeed we've seen in other statutes where you don't buttress, you don't support, the legislation by the attendant expenditure of money, training and recruitment and putting people on the job.

My last point, Mr. Speaker, is may I make a request of the Minister to make sure that a joint civil service committee is immediately set up to attend the committee hearings to which we're referring this bill? That a joint civil service committee comprising the Attorney General's Department, the Department of Welfare, the Department of Education and the Department of Health attend every committee hearing once we refer this bill through to committee.

MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Hon. the Attorney General will close the debate.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the widespread support for the important principles contained in this bill. I exercised considerable self-restraint in moving second reading because the bill was going to committee for detailed analysis.

However, I do want to say this. That the bill that's before the House at this moment is the result of two years of extensive work in this field of family relations law. It is, I think, one of the most important, comprehensive and far-reaching proposals for social legislation that we've seen for some while.

I think too, as some of the Hon. Members have expressed themselves, it is very progressive legislation. With reference to some of the points that have been raised I think it was the Hon. second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) that expressed the wish that we could have all aspects relating to family life confined to one court. Certainly this would be desirable but there is no way we can do it at the present time. Constitutionally, of course, we could not legislate on matters relating to divorce and those items to which the Supreme Court has been given jurisdiction,

If you read the present bill carefully, you will find that it's related primarily to the present work of the family court judges and the matters that are additionally assigned are really incidental to the main tasks which they now have.

In other words, a family court deciding on maintenance, the question of whether the father or mother has access to the child comes up in discussion, into question. This allows such matters to be dealt with at that time by the family court. We can not, presently at least, have everything in one court unless we chose to put it in a higher court than the family division.

On the question of staff which has also been raised, I'm sorry that the Honourable first Member for Vancouver-East, (Mr. Macdonald), has such a hazy recollection of what happened the other evening.

I think perhaps I was the only Member of this Legislature that sat through it all and therefore I can tell him that this question came up during my estimates, when the Honourable Member was obviously absent from the House.

I indicated then, on questions of staff, that there was this block vote to which application was being made. So while the Honourable Member was sound asleep in a cozy room somewhere, we were discussing these matters, Mr. Speaker, in the House.

Certainly as far as the provincial staff are concerned, the number of family court judges are concerned, this comes not under this Act, of course, but under the Provincial Courts Act. We do now have as a result of that legislation, a family court judge having province-wide jurisdiction. This is just another division of the provincial court under supervision of the senior judge, under supervision of the judicial council, and this sort of thing.

Certainly as the need is apparent, additions will be made to the family court judges and we are doing it now, not always directly to additional family court judges but where they are in some areas doing both types of work we will add a judge to do other work, giving the senior judge the responsibility of doing more in this family field.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. PETERSON: The Honourable Member refers to refresher courses. You know, perhaps the best course of all in this area is the experience of dealing with these matters.

This is fine talk coming from a legal member. What courses? We added three new judges to the Supreme Court, the federal government did. What course did they have to make them competent as judges? They have to acquire that through their experience in life, there is no course. There is no course for a family court judge either, Mr. Speaker.

I would be very reluctant as a principle to have the government dictate to judges what they should or shouldn't know in terms of performance of their duties because we recognise fully the independence of the judiciary in this respect.

We will certainly make all the information available to them and the point made by the Leader of the Opposition was a very good point of the preparation of a pamphlet and this will be done to not only communicate to those directly involved but to other interested citizens as well. But we haven't started, of course, on the pamphlet until we find out precisely what will be contained in this legislation after it receives detailed study by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

[ Page 654 ]

HON. MR. PETERSON: I move that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on social welfare and education.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, all those in favour say yea.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yea.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On the motion, Mr. Speaker, while we will support the motion, in so doing I think that it shouldn't pass without some statement of regret that after a similar bill having been before the committee last year and the committee being unable to make a firm recommendation because of the lack of time, I think it is unfortunate that the Hon. Attorney General has done two things this year, or maybe failed to do.

First of all he has brought the bill in on February 28 and when it is considered that the committee that deals with this bill will have to first of all advertise, try to encourage people to come to the committee — and this will take a week or 10 days if previous committee experience is any judge — then attempt to deal with this new Act which goes much further than the Act last year. I think it's regrettable that the Hon. Attorney General has waited so long.

Secondly, it's also doubly regrettable because the social welfare and education committee is already engaged on an important matter which has been placed before it by the Hon. Minister of Education and yet we thrust this additional responsibility on them this year in the hopes — and I join with the lady Minister without Portfolio — that we will get this into law this year.

But if we are to have proper study, I wonder whether or not the time will be available unless some very specific direction is made to the committee to give it some priority.

While I don't oppose this motion, because I think it should go to a committee, I would wonder if the Hon. Attorney General would not reconsider making a special committee so that it can sit full time on this matter. Let's get it done.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make one remark …

MR. SPEAKER: Just one moment please. I am undecided whether or not this debate is in order.

I am not quite clear myself whether leave is required. I think we will allow the Member to proceed unless objection is taken. So proceed.

MR. GARDOM: The statement I would like to make is this. When it is in front of the committee; it would be exceptionally useful and helpful to the committee if the government would furnish the research and the reasons that it has received or that which it has done on its own initiative behind the particular section. Because there are a couple of sections in this bill that are, I think, rather controversial, to say the least.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly I would advise the Honourable Member that our staff will be available to the committee but it will be a matter for the committee to determine what assistance they require or wish in respect of any specific provision in this bill.

I think the debate on this motion whether in order or not but — nevertheless with leave we've allowed it to go ahead — indicates just how hard it is for the government to win. Here we want to put a bill before committee and the Honourable Members opposite object that it should go before this particular committee.

Furthermore, the Honourable Member said it wasn't introduced until February 28 — I think he said. If he will check Votes and Proceedings he'll find that it was introduced on February 15, 1972. Then, Mr. Speaker, the major, the controversial aspects of this bill, were introduced a year ago. All groups in the province have had one year to consider this. They've made representations, they can make more representations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Seven, eight and nine weren't in there last year and you know it.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Members of the bar have studied this bill and I'm not going to accept that kind of criticism from the Liberal group in respect of this bill, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: It's still early in the session and the committee will have ample opportunity to consider the bill section by section and if the Members that are presently on that committee feel incapable of doing so perhaps we can arrange for substitutions through orders of the House if the Liberal Members or anyone else feel so inclined. But certainly there's no reason, I suggest, why this bill cannot be adequately considered by the select standing committee on social welfare and education.

AN HON. MEMBER: Close the debate.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: I close the debate. I made the motion and I closed it. We've got to have some rules.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Obviously when I speak for a second time I close the debate if the debate is in order. You must know the elementary rules.

Interjections by Hon Members.

MR. BARRETT: Now you want to bring sanity back to your chaos. I'm entitled to speak under your chaos, Mr. Minister. I want to say through you, Mr. Speaker …

Interjection by Hon. Members,

MR. BARRETT: You mean to say he announces what the rules are going to be, gives leave to himself and then ends the leave right there — that's absurd, absolutely absurd.

AN HON. MEMBER: If the Leader of the Opposition is out of order, then the Hon. Attorney General was out of order.

[ Page 655 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What you should be doing is calling the Attorney General out of order, and because you failed to do that …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

MR. BARRETT: No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yea.

MR. BARRETT: I quote from standing order No. 42, paragraph 3. "In all cases, Mr. Speaker shall inform the House that the reply of the mover of the original motion closes the debate." That indication was not given — it was not given.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave was requested, leave was not granted.

MR. BARRETT: I didn't ask for leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair asked for leave.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What is your point of order?

MR. BARRETT: I ask you to rule on subsection 3 of standing order No. 42.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair has gone beyond that. The Chair has asked for leave of the House to ask Members to speak. The House has denied that leave and there is no alternative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Question, question.

MR. BARRETT: No. Question on what? I'm on my feet on a point of order. O.K.? I ask you to please interpret page 12, section 42, subsection 3.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: First of all, it is not up to the Chair to interpret rules. The rules are there. The House was asked leave to consider the matter. The House has refused leave and I must rule that the debate is finished on that particular item and the question must now be put.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, excuse me. I would like to draw something to your attention. You came into the debate in exchange of place with the Speaker, and it was at that point in the midst of the debate the Speaker left the chair and perhaps there was a lack of communication when the exchange took place that subsection 3, rule 42 should have been put in order and the confusion in asking for leave I think is a precipitated error and I would ask you to call the Speaker back, please.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must still point out to the Honourable Member that if something transpired before I took the chair that the Honourable Member felt was out of order, he should have immediately raised that point as he does on other occasions.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, nothing took place by the time you got to the chair that was out of order, because leave of the House had been granted for that motion to be debated.

The Attorney General gratuitously made that announcement in his speech. He said that "leave has been granted, I will now participate in this." At that moment you exchanged places with the Speaker. At that moment the Attorney General put it in order, the Speaker left and I'm asking that the rules of the House be enforced. No notice was given after the Attorney General announced leave, that you were closing the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member must realise that the rules of the House are being enforced and the Chair has made a ruling and is …

MR. BARRETT: I challenge your ruling.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.

Deputy Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division.

YEAS-31

Ney Tisdalle McDiarmid
Merilees McCarthy, Mrs. Chabot
Marshall Jordan, Mrs. Skillings
Wenman Dawson, Mrs. Chant
Kripps, Mrs. Bennett Loffmark
Mussallem Peterson Gaglardi
Price Black Campbell, D.R.J.
Capozzi Fraser Brothers
Vogel Wolfe Shelford
Little Smith Richter
Jefcoat

NAYS-17

Brousson Hall Macdonald
Gardom Williams, R.A. Strachan
Wallace Calder Barrett
Cocke Clark Dailly, Mrs.
Hartley McGeer LeCours
Lorimer Williams, L, A.

Motion approved. Bill No. 30 referred to the select standing committee on welfare and education.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 13, Mr. Speaker.

QUEEN ELIZABETH II BRITISH COLUMBIA

CENTENNIAL SCHOLARSHIP ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 13 the Queen Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act, The Honourable the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in commemoration of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's visit to British Columbia during Centennial Year 1971, the province wishes to perpetuate an event that is both of interest to Her Majesty and will benefit our students. It is therefore the desire of this bill paid each year to a student of unusual worth and promise.

[ Page 656 ]

The scholarship will be of $5,000 annually, and will be awarded to a graduate of a British Columbia public university or postgraduate studies in the United Kingdom. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): Just a few remarks at a time when it seems to be popular politics in Canada to try and dethrone the monarchy. I'm glad to see that British Columbia isn't ashamed in doing something in her honour.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I too support the bill. I think it's a tremendous addition to the scholarship list. My comment of course though is that we are very short of scholarships and research scholarships in the Province of British Columbia. I would hope that eventually in an addition to this bill we would see bills that would broaden and outline the amount of scholarship funds for graduate students. I certainly believe that it's an area in which we have to increase the amount of grants.

Our total overall programme in education and the amount of grants that are available through the assistance provided is an excellent one. And the Premier is well aware of this. If we have any shortcomings it's in that particular area of grants to people in the graduate studies. I'm very much in favour of this particular Act, I would only hope that each year for the next several years we would see additional bills brought in providing additional scholarships to people particularly within the Province of British Columbia for graduate studies in British Columbia universities.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 13 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 14, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PROVINCIAL HOME

ACQUISITION ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 14 An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. The Honourable Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In 1957 this government introduced the provincial home-owner grant, to assist homeowners in paying their local property taxes and to encourage families to acquire their own homes.

This annual grant was originally set at a maximum of $28, and has been progressively raised until in the coming year it is recommended to be a maximum of $185, with an additional $50 available for persons aged 65 years and over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh …

HON. MR. BENNETT: This is Bill 14, a little patience my friends, I'm leading to it. I'm on the right notes. The Opposition as a rule is always completely wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: He had to check, though, and find out.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, no…my friend I'll start again. (Laughter). I will start again and repeat exactly what I said before because this is my second reading.

In 1957 this government introduced the provincial homeowner grant to assist home-owners…The Liberals always heckle this because they've always opposed it, they've always opposed it, and they are against it again today. And so did the N.D.P. when it first came in.

No wonder they all get so nervous when the Premier takes his place on this very progressive legislation for the better of the people.

In 1957 this government introduced the provincial homeowners grant, to assist home-owners in paying their local property taxes, and to encourage families to acquire their own home.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not going to get another chance. (Laughter).

This annual grant was originally set at a maximum of $28 and it's been progressively raised until in the coming year it is recommended to be a maximum of $185 with an additional $50 available for a person age 65 years and over. To further assist individuals to own their own homes …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: May we have order in the House?

HON. MR. BENNETT:…effective April 1, 1966 the Provincial Home Acquisition Grant Act provided a grant up to $500 towards the purchase of a home. In 1968 the Act was amended to encourage the purchase or building of new homes and an applicant could obtain the grant of lip to $ 1,000 for that purpose — a non-repayable grant. The first in the world my friends.

In 1969 to additionally assist in this field a loan by the way of low interest second mortgage less than first mortgage rates for the federal government up to $5,000 was introduced.

In 1970 with tight money conditions caused by the federal government, and high mortgage interest rates the provincial government extended assistance, the Social Credit provincial government extended the assistance to persons that had rented a home for at least two years in the province. A grant of $500 or a second mortgage loan of $2,500 towards a purchase of an existing home was made available.

This opportunity which initially was only for one year period was extended last year for one more year. And now in this bill, because of the demonstrated use of this incentive and to continue to encourage persons presently renting to own their own homes the time for such applications is extended indefinitely as long as Social Credit is in power.

AN HON. MEMBER: How long is that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You won't be around my friend when it happens.

To ensure there are funds available to carry on this programme $25 million is to be paid additionally into the fund on March 31, 1972 And the Minister of Finance is

[ Page 657 ]

empowered to pay from a consolidated revenue fund or the revenue surplus account or partly from each, such additional amounts that may be needed to carry out the provisions of the Act.

The government believes one of the greatest assets to build permanent communities is to have people own their own homes.

Since the conception of this Act well over 90,000 families have been helped to home ownership. Over 90 per cent of them were renters, previously, and the others new owners. The home ownership is by either a grant or a low interest second mortgage, and at the present time 2,000 applications are being received per month and they are nearly all coming from renters in the province.

It is the government's hope to propose provisions to carry on the grants which with second mortgages indefinitely for older homes, will allow many others who are presently tenants to own a new home.

This is one of the finest policies of this Social Credit government. And each and every year for years we'll have to add millions and millions of dollars to this fund because this way we build up not only home ownership — which is a great thing in itself — but we as well create thousands of thousands of new jobs for our workers. I have the great privilege, Mr. Speaker, to move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. J. LORIMER (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, I'm inclined to agree to a degree with the Premier when he says that this is good legislation. And I think he's right in the fact that the second mortgages certainly have helped a large class in our society to become home owners.

However, as I see it this bill has two basic principles. One, is the adding of $25 million to the fund which is good. But the second principle as I see it is the idea that in the event that the breadwinner passes away that the mortgage will be forgiven.

Now, this principle which is in the present Act, is being changed so it doesn't apply to those over 60 years old. And I really think this is a retrograde step and as a result I think we are discriminating against a certain number of people in our society, because of their age. Not because of any other reason. And I would certainly think that this second principle should be looked at further by the government.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): The Premier in his statements here, indicated to the House that the prime motivation in this bill was to ensure that people would own their own homes. And he made great bay of that fact, and it's a good measure.

However, it's very much straw to the wind, insofar as one section of B.C. society is concerned and the Premier knows whereof I speak, because I've spoken about this before.

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever, Mr. Speaker, why the government cannot extend these Home Acquisition Act rights to the Indian people in the Province of British Columbia who live on Indian reserves. They are the only people in the province who are denied the opportunity to apply for this grant. And probably without any question of a doubt they have the worst housing per capita in BC.

The government has stated its philosophy, I quote the Premier, he says: "This is one of our finest policies." Why don't you extend this fine policy to Indian people on Indian reserves? There's not one single solitary reason or one single solitary obstacle to prevent that happening, and make no mistake of it.

lnterjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'll sit down in one second. Don't please start raising the "old red herring" that people on Indian reserves do not have to pay land taxes. Everybody's aware of that fact, an Indian on an Indian reserve does not have to pay land taxes. But think of the hundreds, indeed the thousands of homes in this province who don't have to pay land taxes by virtue of the home-owner grant. So that won't wash, that won't wash at all. The Indian people in the Province of B.C. pay each and every tax, that everyone outside of the Indian reserves pay, save and except the land tax, and save and except income tax for any income that might be earned upon an Indian reserve. That figure would probably be ziltch in the Province of B.C. The income that the Indian people earn is not on the reserves it's off the reserves, and they are subject to federal income tax laws in which the province receives its share, the same as anyone else.

So there's absolutely no reason why this social measure cannot be extended to these people and don't for goodness sakes, Mr. Premier, when you stand up raise this old constitutional wiffle-waffle, that you've done before. Because there's not a constitutional law in Canada, North America, or Kingdom Come, to that matter that would prevent you from extending this to these people, and they need it,

They are the only people, the only section of B.C. society, who are not able to claim the privileges that you are setting forth and making available to the rest of the general public under Bill 14. It's just pretty darn small in my view.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the principle of the bill. But before I do I would just like to make some comments on those that have been made in regard to giving the same privileges to those on Indian land. I would think that if the Liberal Party, who did not seem to be enamoured by this principle when it was first introduced by this government, would show the same enthusiasm towards their counterparts in Ottawa, so that perhaps Ottawa would see why there should be some reason, indeed, for giving some special consideration to those who live on Indian lands under federal jurisdiction.

I know that the Premier will answer the federal Indian problem in full and what I did want to bring the attention of the House to is that this whole programme, which is recognised throughout the world as the most progressive housing legislation in the world, Mr. Speaker, is enacted by the government and administered by the government with a minimal amount of administrative help. I think that great credit should be given to the Minister of Finance, but particularly to the people who look after the home acquisition grants and administration, Mr. Chatterton and his staff, who've done a tremendous job in this regard.

I would think too that we should consider the suggestion that was made by the Premier that very many people benefit

[ Page 658 ]

in terms of employment through this programme because when older homes are bought, older homes are fixed up. It not only benefits the community from an increase in value point of view because the input of that family into a home of their own is always greater than that which the rental family gives to that home — the attention they give to it. Not only does it benefit in that way but it certainly benefits in terms of added employment on the older homes' acquisition.

One other thing that I think that we should consider too is that it gives an opportunity to a vast number of people who heretofore were paying more in rent than they pay today in mortgage payments. This is a fact of life that's happened all over this province. It's a fact of life that can't happen anywhere else in this country.

There isn't anywhere else in this country of Canada that opportunity can be given to that section, that low income, moderate income group and that's a very important principle embodied in this bill — where we give an opportunity not to those people who are making very high wages, not to those people who have had money left to them, not to that small group of people who never did have any concerns over home ownership, but to that group of people who would have been denied a home of their own in Canada today, under the present interest rates, under the present land rates, and under the present cost of living.

Also I would like to just mention in closing, my remarks on this progressive home ownership legislation. I'm very glad to see the Liberals get so excited over it because, like the N.D.P., they weren't terribly excited when this legislation was introduced into this House and it's about time they got excited.

I remember reading in Votes and Proceedings how you all voted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. H.P. CAPOZZI (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I too would add my support to the bill and I'm not getting up merely to add support because the Premier knows that we're very enthusiastic about the bill itself. I am however commenting in particular in this regard and that there's been some suggestion over the past because of discussions on the tenants and the tenants' requirements, et cetera, that I might have been opposed to the home acquisition and the homeowner's grant. I certainly didn't want that impression to be left in any way.

I would suggest, however, to the Minister that there is a rather interesting concern because in the discussions which I had with him from time to time in regard to what the tenant should receive and the rights of the tenant, the statement was made by the Minister that the tenant did have and what we were trying to do was to encourage tenants to home ownership and home acquisition.

It does seem that this statement does in most cases fall true, but once a person reaches age 60 this new Act does change the concept. If the Minister will recall some of our discussions, he will recall the statement that the grant was available to everyone but it seems we are putting in a separate condition that a person after the age of 60 will not be entitled to the insurance clause. While I can understand the Minister's concern in this field I wish to ask if he would consider the possibility of a small amendment in this where though the repayment wouldn't be cancelled that if it were a husband, for example, dying and leaving his wife with the house and she had to repay that loan would he consider the possibility of cancelling the interest charges and cancelling the debt payment at that time, that only the obligation of what was left to be paid would remain as a lien against the house?

Would he consider giving the other partner, the spouse, that possibility that the debt is still owed, but instead of continuing the interest payments and continuing payment of the principal, would he consider just leaving the balance, the outstanding balance, against the property until the property would be offered at eventual sale and claim that? Now I feel that this consideration would be a much more fair possibility and would be more than happy to bring in such an amendment to the bill if there would be some consideration.

I do believe that the Minister understands the point I'm making, that we're trying to encourage people at all ages to buy their own home, to go into property, and particularly there are couples who retire and who consider retirement at age 65. Their families have gone and they want to acquire an older home.

They've never applied for the grant in the past. They apply, they continue along hopefully in good health, and suddenly at age 63, 64, or if they've applied at even 65, the husband unfortunately may suffer a heart attack and will no longer be there to pay the bills.

I would ask Mr. Minister, if you would give some consideration. Keep the debt. I can understand the concern on the question of their mortality rates you know what the insurance rating is on such an investment — but certainly the other alternative would be one, I would think, which would show a great deal of compassion and a great deal of justice in this particular case. I would ask you to consider that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for New Westminster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, the idea is a good one and we've always supported it, just for the records.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: Don't give us that. Oh yes, of course, there's the Premier playing politics again. But let me suggest this. That government's own policy with respect to the municipalities in this province, is driving people out of homes and into apartments, so you know you're not being very consistent. So, let's not give too many accolades to that government for all their largesse, the fact of the matter is…. .

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't be nasty, Bennett.

MR.COCKE:…you just go to my municipality and just have a look at what's happening. People are being driven off the land in this province so let's not …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will you deal with the principle of Bill No. 14?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, after the last speaker I decided I could get up on that point, because he was all over the block …

[ Page 659 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's beyond himself. You're all mixed up, Dennis.

MR. B.A. CLARK (North Vancouver–Seymour): Just in reference to remarks made earlier by the lady Minister for Little Mountain (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) who suggested that she was not here when this bill was passed. I've heard of people being mixed up, but this was passed in '67, Madame Minister, and you were in the House. And I would assume from that, that you did not have to read about it in Votes and Proceedings. But, Mr. Speaker …

MR. BARRETT: You can make a mistake, you're human.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong Act …

MR. CLARK: If the Member says I'm on the wrong Act, well, if I'm on the wrong Act, so is the Premier because we're discussing the Home Acquisition Grant Act, not the Homeowners Grant Act. So that, maybe, now we're all on the right Act, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Honourable the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) …

AN HON. MEMBER: Tough Act to follow, isn't it?

MR. CLARK: The Honourable Minister of Finance who's busy talking to the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Campbell), there has been some advantage to this legislation and let's admit it. But there are, with all deference to my friend from Point Grey, two other groups who are by statute omitted from benefiting from this Act.

Now that we are opening it again, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Honourable the Minister of Finance, who I'm sure is listening. .

AN HON. MEMBER: Always listens, though.

MR. CLARK: He always listens. Mr. Minister of Finance, there are two groups that are exempted from this Act.

First of all those British Columbia citizens who happen to be transferred by their company out of the province for a short period of time in the two years prior to buying a home.

This can be a British Columbia citizen who's lived here for 30 years — I'm thinking of one in particular transferred by a British Columbia firm to the Yukon for research purposes for a short period of time. He returned married, wanted to build a home and was exempted by regulation from this Act. I think you could get around this.

The second group, Mr. Minister of Finance, is all members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are transferred out of the province. Particularly, I'm thinking of British Columbia citizens, members of the Armed Forces on peace-keeping duties. If they are transferred out of the province two years prior to this, they lose their rights to the Act. So while it's open, I would think this is an opportunity to correct those two areas where I think people are unjustly treated by the regulations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. E. WOLFE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly in support of this Act which provides a $500 grant for the purchasers of older homes and $ 1,000 grant for the purchasers of new homes. But I would like to put in my annual suggestion that at some future date we might consider paying a grant of a greater amount to people on low income, and alternatively to people on higher income who would purchase a home without the benefit of a grant, that we should discontinue the grant. There should be an exemption level.

For instance, to a person over an income of $12,000 per year, I suggest that we're providing hundreds and perhaps thousands of home purchasers with this grant to people who would purchase this home regardless. So it seems to me that we could well be encouraging an increased development of new homes and older home purchases by an increased grant to people on low income. Say for instance, if the grant were, instead of being $500 and $1,000, to a person on a lower level of income it were $ 1,000 and $ 2,000.

I just believe that this would bring the purchaser of a home within the reach of a greater number of low income people who just would not be able to buy a home otherwise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. D.R.J. CAMPBELL (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few comments with respect to the provincial home acquisition grant in relation to the Indian people. I have probably had more to do with negotiating what the Province of British Columbia would like to do with the questions involved with Indian lands and taxation and the home-owner grants and the home acquisition grants than anyone else not only directly with the Minister of Indian Affairs for Canada but also quite specifically with the Indian people themselves.

Now coming first of all to the home acquisition grant, I think we must understand one thing and I'm sure my friend from Atlin (Mr. Calder) would understand this very clearly. When we're talking about the home acquisition grant, we're talking about the ability of the provincial government to transfer directly to the individual $1,000 or $500, as the case may be. Now that would go directly to those Indian home-owners who in British Columbia we have encouraged to reside within municipal boundaries.

Now, very specifically, in the letters patent — which were designed not by this government but in consultation with the other federal government levels involved, and the Indian people — British Columbia, to make absolutely clear that the question of forming an Indian municipality would place no liens whatsoever on the Indian land, the idea was that the second mortgage part of the home acquisition grant principle would simply not be applied because the second mortgage implies a lien against the individual's property.

I think you can appreciate historically that that would not be an acceptable proposition, insofar as the Indian people themselves are concerned. They certainly went to great lengths to underscore that and I agreed with them because this is the way it is.

We certainly want to make certain that no group of Indian people who are moving in the direction of municipal status have anything to fear that the provincial government through a taxation system will place a lien against their property nor is there any intent to place a second mortgage lien against their property.

[ Page 660 ]

Point No. 2. When we come to the principle of the home-owner grant, the home-owner grant is applied against taxation. Now if we take the area outside of Indian municipalities, that's unorganised territory. I want to make it clear that the taxation which is referred to in an Indian municipality is not the result of provincial government action but is the right of the municipality itself, once formed, to levy its own tax. Having done so, the provincial government undertakes that the home-owner grant, the full effect of the home-owner grant, will apply.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I know it's the next bill, but I'm tying it in. I'm tying it in to this whole question of municipal status because I'm sure the Member for North Vancouver Seymour doesn't understand. I know that from what he said.

In the unorganised area, Mr. Speaker, the provincial government…Oh, I came in especially to listen to him …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: The taxation which would be levied within the Indian municipality, once again, would be theirs, through their council and that would in turn be offset by the provincial home-owner grant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Honourable Member should try and come closer to Bill No. 14.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: In wrapping this up, Mr. Speaker, in wrapping this up, the agreements that have been reached have been self-determined by the Indian people themselves. They agree 100 per cent with the principle that we established in the letters patent which were arranged by the Indian people, the federal Ministers, the Department of Justice for Canada which took some time in trying to find a way around the constitutional problems.

I have said this before, and I say it again, we have been very pleased with the cooperation received from that federal department in working this out.

I have no hesitation in saying that if you depart from that principle, you will not receive the response from the Indian people which is envisioned by having the bill read exactly as it is and certainly I have no hesitation in supporting the principle of this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier closes debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to have the opportunity of listening to these different discussions taking place on this bill today because it is so important. I sometimes wonder if — and I don't offer it as criticism, I just put it in a different way, perhaps — I would hope all the M.L.A.'s in their own ridings would explain this bill because I find in talking to people, even in spite of ads and so forth, that people don't understand it.

I think that a great job should be done in the Vancouver constituencies, especially Vancouver Centre, as there's so many renters who could become owners because today any person that wants, a renter that wants to become an owner — some don't — those that want to become owners can go to their landlord, or some other landlord and with the outright grant we give them for the second mortgage, whichever they prefer, as a down-payment and then pay payments and give the present landlord the first mortgage and pay payments no greater than their present rent, own their home. They immediately then get the home-owner grant and so forth.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's right. Wherever I've explained that to people they've gone out by tens and tens and tens and have done it. I would ask the M.L.A.'s to go out on the highways and byways in their riding and explain this to them. This is so vitally important, vitally important.

I'm glad for once the second Member for Vancouver East agrees with the Premier on this. Because this is so important that this be explained.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now there's other suggestions for other changes made by Members and the government will study them for future years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Future years because this is a government that listens. This is a government that …

AN HON. MEMBER: Cares?

HON. MR. BENNETT:… that cares. (Laughter). This is a government that acts.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There'll be many new programmes offered to the people and when a certain situation develops … .

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT:…the people will have an opportunity to express their opinion on many other great reforms because if Social Credit, if this government with all its accomplishments, if we were completely satisfied we'd quit now but we've got a great programme yet ahead for the people of British Columbia. I move second reading.

Motion approved: second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 14 ordered to be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 15, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PROVINCIAL

HOME-OWNER GRANT ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Second reading of Bill No. 15, An Act To Amend The Provincial Home-owner Grant Act. The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I notice, Mr. Speaker, that not only the Premier but all the Members who spoke wanted to talk about this Act, in the previous bill as well. That shows a

[ Page 661 ]

great interest in this particular bill. They wanted to get at it twice.

In moving second reading, Mr. Speaker, of Bill No. 15, I would say this government pioneered the home-owner grant in 1957 to assist home-owners to pay their local property taxes and to encourage every family to acquire their own home.

The annual grant, the first of its kind in our nation, was originally set at a maximum of $28. It was progressively raised until it reached $ 170 in 1971.

The present grant substantially off-set local property tax increases in recent years and many, many poor people with small homes have only had to pay $1 not only for school taxes but all other local taxes as well.

While local property taxes are lower on the average in British Columbia than other provinces, to continue the programme started in 1957 this government now proposes to increase the home-owner grant by $15. To further assist our citizens who are age 65 or more this year and who are principal supporters of their household an additional maximum grant of $50 is proposed. This means the total home-owner grant of $235 is available to these persons.

In the case of self-owned apartments the bill insures the individual apartment owner receives the benefits of the full home-owner grant to which he or she are entitled.

It is estimated that the additional costs to the province of the increases will be about $14,470,000. The total homeowner grant next fiscal year will be $80,670,000.

As I mentioned during my budget address it is now permanent Social Credit government policy in this province to help our citizens to pay their taxes on their home.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the government policy as we always have with respect to the home-owners grant.

We're particularly pleased with the increased amounts for those people over 65. Mr. Speaker, however, as I indicated under the last bill, now that you've taxed so many people out of their property by virtue of your municipal aid and so on, now that you've taxed them out of their property you have less people to pay. I'm suggesting that the tenants are coming off second-best in this situation. I also suggest that the mobile home-owners, except those over 65, those two groups are second-class citizens in the Province of British Columbia.

I would draw your attention particularly to those people who are living in mobile homes.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. COCKE: I already know that — over 65. We heard the message.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE: But I'm talking in terms of the average person living in mobile homes. They're identically the same as anybody Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Speaker, living in a home. Yet by virtue of the fact that they don't own the land they can't get a home-owner's grant.

The inverse however is at least they're called renters. But they couldn't be considered because they rent the ground. But then on the other hand, they're not considered for their ownership of the mobile home itself. But they have to put up the expenses and so on.

Mr. Speaker, a lot of the mobile home-owners stay in one place for some time. I believe that they should be eligible for the home-owners grant and many of them are young. Many of them are construction workers and so on. They are establishing a permanent residence in the area where they are and I feel that they should have it.

Now, the second thing is the tenants. Of course, those over 65 are getting a little help in another bill, but the tenants themselves are in a bad position with respect to these grants. I'm not suggesting there should be a tenant's grant because I think the landlords would gobble it up anyway. I'm talking in terms of the $185. But why doesn't the Premier think in terms of setting up an opportunity programme for buying a home out of a tenant's grant so that a capital amount could be set up for a person over a five-year period, so that they would have an actual down payment on a home? On the basis of $185 a year being set aside for renters …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. COCKE:…. . and it would amount to a fair amount of money at the end of five years. Then that would encourage them to get into a home of their own. They would then be on a par with their brothers who are in homes.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's a suggestion, and I once again suggest very strongly that we're much in favour of the increase in the home-owner grant.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the home-owner grant is given in lieu of removing school taxes from the land, which is Liberal policy and remains Liberal policy. It's also given in lieu of adequate grants to cities and municipalities.

But the problem with the home-owner grant, and I raise it once more to put it on the record, is that the home-owner grant discriminates and discriminates strongly against all low-income people in British Columbia who must rent.

When we sock-it to the low income people as we do every year by failing to recognise their needs, then we're going against social needs.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I would say that Liberal policy was laid on the line long before that Member became associated with the Social Credit movement.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: We'll see, Mr. Speaker, where this Member stands in the future, on the policies that we put forward with regard to helping low-income people in British Columbia out.

I do say this, that the Premier has recognised and admitted the injustice he has been bringing to people in British Columbia, specifically the elderly, by the amendment that he has brought in this year. He is admitting the injustice because that bill very clearly, by adding this amount of $50 grant to the renters — and I don't want to get into that other bill — says that in previous years there has been discrimina-

[ Page 662 ]

tion against them.

But they are not the only people who rent. The people who rent are the people who can't afford to buy. Why else would you not buy a home? Oh, perhaps if you feel you might be living in a certain area for just a short period of time, and I know the Premier has told the House on many occasions that he rented in Oak Bay rather than buying and perhaps it was this feeling that he'd be moving soon that caused him not to make a permanent investment …

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've now bought.

MR. McGEER: Fine! (Laughter). Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to know that the Premier has decided on where his retirement home will be. Oak Bay is a very nice place to retire. Many people retire there, Mr. Premier.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: But you're not a person in need. Not financial need, anyway. In speaking to this bill, and we will support it …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER: I missed that …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please address the chair and address himself to Bill No. 15?

MR. McGEER: I'm sorry I missed that, I really am.

HON. MR. BLACK: Do you think there's really something retiring about the Premier?

MR. McGEER: No, I don't think there is. But I think the public will see something very retiring about the Premier before very long. I would say this that there are some cabinet Ministers who see a lot of retirement there too. I notice they're not here this afternoon, but we know what their activities have been.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, it's time we began to think in British Columbia in a very serious way about low-income people because these are the ones that are hurt most by the inflationary forces that are in command of our economy today.

AN HON. MEMBER: The federal government.

MR. McGEER: Every time that you fail to take into account their needs as we have failed to take them into account in the budget and by bills such as this we are hurting the people who have nowhere else to turn but to us for help.

I think we should begin to develop more of a social conscience in this Legislature. A little bit of compassion for the people in need, and begin to devise some policies to suit them, instead of every year bringing in the kinds of bills that discriminate more and more against them.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. CAPOZZI: Mr. Speaker, on the bill again — to make sure that there isn't anyone that believes that I am in any way opposed to a provincial home-owners grant. I think that it is one of the very strong measures as the Premier has put forward and one that has contributed a great deal. Once again I certainly, having watched the leader of the Liberal party, I was not too sure he wasn't going to break a leg jumping on the bandwagon. He's jumping on and off our bandwagon so often it's a wonder he hasn't had a serious accident.

I must say during the discussion of the bill, I was shocked to hear the Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) say that he is opposed to a grant for people in apartment blocks because I thought that this was one of the things that they'd spoken out for and I'm going to go and tell the people that the Member for New Westminster in this House said that he was opposed against a grant for tenants. I'm just absolutely amazed at that statement which he made.

MR. BARRETT: Did he say that?

MR. CAPOZZI: He said that.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. COCKE: I said they should be encouraged to buy.

MR. CAPOZZI: You said you were opposed! You said you were opposed to grants for tenants. Well, it's in the tape. It'll be all there. It'll be all there. It's all in there.

But the one thing I do want to comment about today is to particularly commend the Premier for resisting the pressure that would normally be there to restrict a grant like that, the additional $50, to a means test.

I'm getting more and more concerned with the number of programmes that are done by government which are restricted on a means basis. Because I think if there's anything that we want to do, both as government policy and you might say a social policy, that is we should concern ourselves by encouraging people to thrift and encouraging people to look after their own futures.

As long as we have programmes which continue to say that the moment you have nothing you will receive certain grants from the government then I think that we are on the way to destroying a part of what you might call the initiative society and initiative for people.

There are far too many programmes, Mr. Speaker, in which we say that if one group of the society saves, tries to look after their future and another just completely spends it then we are going to sock-it to the savers. In other words we are going to end up in some sense of frugaling the frugal. I don't think that that is what we should have in mind as government policy.

The fact that this $50 is there for everyone over the age of 65, I think you're to be admired Mr. Premier, for resisting the temptation that was being placed by some Members in this House to reduce it just on a means test. I think that's a very commendable thing.

I would point out and I would ask the Premier some time to have his very, very wise and sound financial people look into what the final ramifications of this programme are. It's been on for a considerable length of time. It's a programme which is extremely well meaning. It is pouring a great number of dollars into the community. But perhaps a study should be done and that is the question of how this is affecting the finances of particular communities.

I have a certain feeling about it. The Premier's opinion is in some ways quite different. I feel that in those areas in which there is a high balance of apartment blocks that the

[ Page 663 ]

fact that you get a larger percentage in other communities paid of the municipal costs can affect the balance of financing in a community. I may be wrong. I suggest, though you may not ever consider this possibility, Mr. Premier, that perhaps you might be wrong in the effect of it.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CAPOZZI: Not in the programme, but in the effect. I would hope that you would consider the possibility of taking one of your very brilliant people from your department and having them do a study on some sample communities to see the total effect of this particular programme and see if it is producing an overkill in certain communities and is affecting them because of the balance of payments which are being made to those areas that have a larger number of home-owners as compared with apartment owners.

I too intended to discuss the other phase of the bill. I'm not going into any other aspects of it at this time. I do certainly want to say, Mr. Premier, that I intend to support the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. G. McCARTHY (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make some statement on that which has been made by the Liberal Party in this House — that ageing boys' club over there. You know, it's surprising, I'd like to also draw the attention of the House to the fact that three years ago when housing was a very great concern in this province, because housing was such a great concern in this province, because there was not an inventory of homes there was a non-confidence motion placed before this House on the basis of housing. Do you recall that motion? It was led by the Socialists in the House.

I noticed that as the bills and the home acquisition programme are being discussed today that the leader of that party is not even here to hear it, neither are very many of his associates.

Again referring to the Liberal leader who made the comments about the little people who are being discriminated. If you will recall and this comes before my time in the House but again I refer to it because it is in the Journals of the House, this Liberal Party in the House voted against this particular measure and it was on the basis that it should be done, if we were going to do it at all, on a percentage basis on taxes.

That was fine for the Liberal Party because, you will recall that the Liberal Party represents all of the, shall we say, the fat cat areas of the province, Oak Bay — they did have at that time — Point Grey, West Vancouver–Howe Sound. Pretty difficult to make a case out for those people who would like to have a percentage of a $50,000 home when we're really talking about the little people.

We're talking about the people in the smaller homes in the constituencies of moderate income. It does not discriminate against these people. It does not in any way. I have people in my constituency in Vancouver, very close to Vancouver East and I'm very familiar with the riding of Vancouver East. In Vancouver Centre there are small holdings and these people all benefit.

They are lower, moderate income people and they all benefit. They benefit for this reason, and this is the thing the Liberals don't like to discuss and the thing that the N.D.P. don't want to recognise — it is that this money gets right into the hands of each individual taxpayer in this province.

They would prefer that we would give it perhaps to municipalities to distribute at will. But I think that's the very principle of this unique legislation which we should definitely support. Because this is unique legislation giving it right to the people who can use it, who need to use it and the greater preponderance who benefit from it are indeed those people who are on lower and moderate incomes. So that just does not hold water when you give that argument, Mr. Leader.

I would also just like to say that in terms of the legislation I don't think there was any legislation that was ever brought into the province that is so unique and so well-administered. Again I would compliment the Premier and his office for the job that they are doing in administering this particular legislation, because it is administered at such low costs to the people who pay the bills in this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that we now have it clearly on the record as to the position of the lady Minister. She wants to put the benefits of this government directly into the hands of the little people but not in the hands of the more than 50 per cent of the little people who happen to be renters in our communities and particularly in the area which she represents.

From the Honourable the first Member for Vancouver Centre, (Mr. Capozzi), who has again adjourned himself to someplace else we now have his position. I can't tell whether it's pure olive oil or Mazola, but he now takes the position of the government party that they don't give anything to anybody unless the rich get it too. The poor get nothing unless the rich get it too. That's their position.

I do want to raise with the Honourable Premier, one matter which I brought up during the debate on his estimates and that is whether or not he and his department are prepared to take the necessary actions to extend the benefits of the home-owner grant to those people who pay taxes in this province on their homes which are erected upon lands which they hold under lease from the Crown corporations.

I again state quite clearly that if an individual leases land from the Crown directly and that land is taxed on a tax roll, then that individual is entitled to apply for and to receive the benefits of this legislation.

But if you're unfortunate enough to rent from a Crown corporation, build your residence and live on it, then because of a technical distinction which is made in the legislation you are not entitled to the benefits of the home-owner grant.

It's a very simple change that's required in order to stop this inequity — one which the Minister of Finance can easily do even by regulation if need be, I ask the Honourable Premier sincerely, as I do at all times, to take the action necessary to extend the benefits of this Act to those people who have their principal residences on land which is leased from a Crown corporation. This would then raise them into the same category as other home-owning citizens in the Province of British Columbia and afford them the full benefit of the great legislation which he provides in this particular area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

[ Page 664 ]

HON. I.P. DAWSON (Minister without Portfolio): The Member from Point-Grey, (Mr. McGeer), brought up the point that this bill discriminates against the low income and the elderly citizens. I remember way back when this legislation was brought in, I think many of us were interested in it.

It started off with $28, it was brought in with the intent to help our elderly citizens and the lower income groups and today it is still doing that and throughout the province there are thousands of elderly citizens and those on low income tax who are at this time only paying $1 a year.

There has been consideration given to those elderly citizens now who have requested that further consideration be given to them in regard to their taxes and included in this Act is a further $50 for the elderly citizens.

I think this government should be commended highly for bringing in such legislation that will help not only our elderly citizens but the low-income groups in British Columbia.

Nowhere else is this done to this extent to help our elderly citizens. It's a request to them that we give consideration for further grants And I think this is a very wise move.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health Services.

HON. R.R. LOFFMARK (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): At various times, Mr. Speaker, comments have been made both on this side of the House and on the other upon the consequences that flow from tax policies. Certainly we need only observe very briefly that a great deal of direction to economic and social activity can be given by adjustment of taxes and the revenues associated therewith.

I make this point at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, because the issue being debated here relates to the principle of the provincial home-owner grant and the question of whether or not the benefits conferred by the home-owner grant ought on the same principle to be applied to persons who rent.

My personal feeling is that when we introduced very recently from the government side a provision which would extend certain benefits to tenants over 65, the basis upon which that can and should be done is that those persons over 65 need help, need assistance, not because they are living in rented property, but because of their age.

I'm going to make this proposition that over the years our income tax system has worked in favour of the owners of tenements, the owners of apartments. The same law has operated over the years to the disadvantage of persons living in their own home. One need not look very far to find the mathematical basis upon which the prejudice to the homeowner can be calculated in a very certain way. Because, Mr. Speaker, probably the largest single factor in our taxing system which does direct social and economic activity in one direction or another is to be found as I say in our income tax and when an individual taxpayer — whether he is a property owner or otherwise — comes to file his return let us look at the position of a home-owner as against a person who owns an apartment or is getting the benefit of living in an apartment.

Now in the case of a home-owner, I ask you can that home-owner deduct from his income taxes the cost of insurance on his home? No he may not. May he deduct taxes on that property? No he may not. May he deduct heat, light and power? No. Maintenance? No. Interest on mortgage? No. Cutting the grass or any other maintenance? The answer to that is no.

Now, all of those costs associated with the maintaining of an apartment block are deductible by the owner of that apartment and that advantage is reflected in the level of rents that are being paid by tenants.

You only need to calculate the tax deduction value of all of the operating costs associated with an apartment to figure out just how that saving is reflected in the rents that are being paid.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I say that it is now correct to suggest that in conferring upon home-owners the homeowner grant that the home-owner is getting any advantage over anyone else.

The contrary is the case. He is being brought up to a position that is equal to and is fairly opposite that of the tenant occupier. This is the rationale upon which the home-owners grant can and must be substantiated.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: The tenant doesn't deduct it but the owner does …

Now here, here is where the Honourable Member wants to obscure the essential principle because when the —

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Everyone but that Honourable Member knows that when the rents are struck, they're struck on the basis of a return on the investment in that property. That return will be higher or lower depending on whether or not all of these items are deductible for income tax purposes.

Now then, if the Honourable Member has any difficulty with that matter, I think that he ought to refer himself back to his profession, because they would be interested in knowing the limitations on his understanding of the income tax system.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to calculate this and I say that the answer to the Honourable Member can be very plainly stated: that if it were not possible for the landlord to deduct these items on the calculation of his income tax as it applies to income from that property, would rents go up? Of course they would go up. Of course they would.

Now the question is, how much would they go up? I think that at the present rate of return and at the present rate at which these items are deductible for income tax purposes, it is not improbable that the rents on the average apartment would go up $35 to $50 a month if these items were not deductible. They would go up, of course they would.

On this basis there can be no doubt about it, that the home-owner, by being the beneficiary of a home-owner grant is being put in exactly the same position or as near as possible to that of the persons who are getting the benefit of these deductions. Alternatively, I suppose there would be less reason for us …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a little order please?

lnterjection by an Hon Member

[ Page 665 ]

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Oh is that so? Now then, I can put the same question in a different way. There would be far less theoretical foundation for a home-owners grant if the home-owner could deduct from his income taxes his mortgage payments, his taxes and his interest and the cutting of the grass, and his insurance and so on. But at this point the provincial governments of this country are not in a position to confer these kind of benefits through an income tax system upon individual home-owners for the reason that each province, if it is to enjoy the benefits of a single collection system, must adopt the principles of income tax collection that are applied by the federal government. If there are any crocodile tears to be shed over there on the other side of the House on this question perhaps they might go to Ottawa and suggest that some of these items which are now being deductible by the landlord of an apartment might also be benefits that could be conferred upon a homeowner,

In that situation, in a case like that then we might have to go back and we examine the home-owner grant. But until that time, all this does is to give the home-owner the benefits that are already being conferred upon the tenant. I might say there's one other aspect of this which is still on the same principle and that is today, there is really only one way in this country to make a lot of money — honestly and legally — and here's how it's being done. You don't have to look very far to see it.

AN HON. MEMBER: All the doctors are doing it.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Aside from that, my friend, property ownership is still the best way to make money and here's what's happening.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Here's what's happening. Not only is the landlord in an apartment getting the benefits of all these income tax deductions, he starts off buying a piece of property, sometimes getting it rezoned, then putting up a …

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, no, no!

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: Now then the next step is to load that property with the biggest possible mortgage. That is step number two. Of course the interest thereon is deductible. He lets inflation run its course for a while and thereafter raises the rents, pays off the mortgage with cheap money and ends up with — up until this time — a very fat capital gain.

AN HON. MEMBER: If you're so smart, why didn't you get in there?

HON. MR. LOFFMARK: I made the mistake, Mr. Member, of coming to this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would point out to the Honourable first Member for Vancouver Centre that he has already taken his place in this debate. The Honourable Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR, J.D. TISDALLE (Saanich and the Islands): The failing five have difficulty with the simplest of profit and loss statements that appears. I'd hate to buy an apartment block from any of them. I want to direct the attention of the Chair and the House to I think one of the most important aspects in our free enterprise system of this bill today.

Many countries today have held in lightness the ability to own title and to own property. I think nowhere in Canada has the emphasis been more firmly placed on the rights of the individual to hold title. And that to me is the strength and fortress of a free enterprise and a democratic institution where people can own their property and deal with it in that aspect.

Ownership and right of ownership stand secure and strong in this province. You will find it not only in the titles of landowners, but also in the titles of home-owners. Because of the policies of this government.

More houses have been built probably in this province during the dry periods of building houses than anywhere in Canada because of this kind of legislation. Let it not be said that there's probably a duplicate of help to home-owners anywhere like it in the world today. And especially in British Columbia we out-strip all the rest of Canada. This kind of legislation stands strongly in favour of home ownership and title ownership contrary to Socialist policies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on John, come on John!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Premier will close the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it just shows the vital interest this bill is to the people of the province when the people's representatives all speak with a lot of intelligence, and a lot of heat as well.

It's peculiar what comes out in a debate like this. I noticed with great interest, and I'm glad it's on Hansard, the statement of the Liberal leader the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) when he said the poor people of this province have only one place to go to for help and that is the Social Credit government of British Columbia. Because he has said that here in this assembly I ask all the people in this province none of them to vote Liberal in the next federal election. We've had a lot of …

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we deal with Bill No. 15?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll have something to say about your party in a moment, just hold on my friend. I want to say Mr. Speaker, this party just smears everybody …

AN HON. MEMBER: You're so pure when it's election year.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I certainly am. And my bead's right on you. I'll get you now. The N.D.P. on this question of home-owners grants — and I'm glad the former leader is in his seat — because in 1957, Mr. Strachan …

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: When this Act was first introduced, the then Leader of the Opposition said that when they got in power they would cancel this grant. Not only that, but they showed that they really meant that policy.

[ Page 666 ]

Because on the Proceedings of the year 1957 on page 109, March 21 …

AN HON. MEMBER: This is it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to praise you in a minute, just wait a second.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, but you can't stand it because I'm going to give you the "one-two" later.

Mr. Speaker, I am reading now from the Journal.

The House resumed adjourned debate on the Motion for the second reading of Bill No. 14 intituled An Act Respecting Provincial Grants to Residential Home-owners. The debate continued. The motion was agreed to on the following division …

the division is given there, and at that time there were two outstanding Liberals in the House. Their names were Gregory and Gibb and they both voted for it, with the government. You won't applaud that, hey?

But who voted against it? Squire, Eddie, Gargrave, Dowding, Uphill, Nimsick, Mrs. Haggen, Harding, Strachan, and Turner. There you are right on the record, N.D.P. There you have it, Mr. Speaker. There they have it. They stand on the records, they are going to be defeated on their records.

The first year this was established was 1957. When it was first established. When the only group in the whole world that believed that in 1957 was the Social Credit movement. That was the time to stand up, that was the time to stand up, and they turned the people down.

Then in 1963 there was a change in Liberal membership in this House, Mr. Speaker. And then in 1963 page 79, March 5:

On a Motion of second reading of Bill No. 3 intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act. A debate arose. The House divided. Motion agreed to on the following division …

The N.D.P. voted with the government on that occasion, but who voted against the home-owner grant at that time?

AN HON. MEMBER: Who? Who?

HON. MR. BENNETT: McGeer!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order, order!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: McGeer, Gibson, McKay, Perrault and McFarlane, and where are most of them now? Where are most of them now? To show that that wasn't any mistake in the Liberal Party in 1964 — to show that that wasn't just an error, the next following year in 1964, the same thing happened.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: See the Opposition. They ridicule this time, they laugh, they snicker and they sneer. The second Member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) — great policy for the good of the people. They snicker and sneer and sneer and sneer. And look at the sickly grin on the Liberal leader's face. My friend I'm going to tell you it'll be taken off this election my friend. It'll be taken off.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we have a little order please?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you Mr. Speaker. The principle of the bill is showing who's for it, and who's against it. (Laughter).

Because there's been a lot of phony talk in the House where these parties stood. On February 28, 1964 …

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you up or down?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're upside down my friend. Three leaders in the N.D.P. In the last four years, three up, one to go. Macdonald's going to be the next one that's going to be defeated.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Will we get back to the Bill No. 15 and refer to the Honourable Members by their constituency?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, yes they won't have them after the next election Mr. Speaker, so I was just getting them used to their names again. (Laughter).

February 28, 1964:

On the motion of second reading of Bill 18 intituled An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant a debate arose. The House divided …

The N.D.P. voted yes along with the government, the Liberals voted against it. McGeer, Gibson, McKay, Perrault, and McFarlane, there they are. Are you against it now? Are you against it now?

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, they better make some issue in Point Grey because in the last election when the great Liberal leader came back from the interior when it was 100 in the shade he said: "We're snowballing." Sure — snowball alright! Like it does in the Okanagan in July, and they got no seats. He was going to win Kamloops, he was going to win everywhere. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved: Second reading of the bill,

Bill No. 15 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the first sitting after today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Second reading of Bill No. 16, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CENTENNIAL CULTURAL FUND ACT

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 16, An Act to Amend the Centennial Cultural Fund Act. The Honourable Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to commemorate the 1967 centennial year this government established a $5 million perpetual fund known as the centennial cultural fund, in that year. That was the first perpetual fund.

In 1969, an additional $S million was added to the fund. Interest earned on the investment of the fund is to be used in

[ Page 667 ]

perpetuity to promote and encourage the development of cultural pursuits throughout the province.

This was further evidence of the government's policy to create in the province the atmosphere for a fuller and better life for our citizens. As a result $2,614,800 has already been paid out of the earnings of this fund for community cultural activities throughout the province.

The government considers this a vital programme and wishes to increase the contributions available from the fund. Therefore it is recommending in this bill an addition of a further $5 million, to make the total of this fund $15 million, which will produce a 50 per cent increase in the funds available for cultural purposes each year. Because the fund is a permanent nature, not related now to the 1967 centennial, it is considered appropriate to change its name to the British Columbia cultural fund.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry the Speaker is not in the chair because he's the chairman of the fund, of the committee that disburses this fund and I want to thank the Speaker and his committee for the encouragement that they have given in helping these types of organisations throughout the province.

We hope now with this additional $5 million the amount available each will be about $1 million a year. And I am sure that this fund with a 50 per cent increase and so forth will enable the committee to give increased benefits everywhere and to help more people.

The great important thing about these perpetual funds, Mr. Speaker, is once you start a principle along the right track then you increase it from time to time by different amounts so these benefits can go on forever.

Of all the many things we are proud of, at the present time quite uppermost in our mind is the perpetual fund. Because these earnings will go on forever and ever. And the moneys, the capital is invested in school construction so the capital serves a very worthwhile purpose, and then the interest each year, as I say goes on like the brook for ever and ever. I have great pleasure in moving second reading, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker I would like to just draw the attention of the House to some of the work that has been done through this cultural fund. There has been credit already given to the Speaker of the House who chairs this committee and he has done a remarkable job and so has the committee if I may deem to say so as a member of the committee. And one of the reasons again — and I refer to the way in which all of these perpetual funds have been set up — is that the administrative costs are nil, and I think that this is a very important concept, and one which we really should emphasise at all times to the taxpayers of this province.

When one compares this kind of administration with say, federal administration, and perhaps we could just take an example such as the Consumers Affairs Department, which is just under three years old. The Consumers Affairs Department now has 1,990 employees across this country and not that it could have been done with just a committee and no extra expense for administration, such as the cultural fund, Mr. Speaker. But, I do believe that sometimes the bureaucracy that surrounds the kinds of government administration we see in various departments in the federal government or in any other government as far as that goes, should be compared with the kind of administration that we see embodied in these perpetual funds. Because they are very, very reasonable and with absolutely no cost to the taxpayer.

The cultural fund in this past year made some outstanding contributions to the cultural life of the Province of British Columbia. We could mention the Shawnigan Festival of the Arts, which was so well accepted by so many people across this country and it was an outstanding contribution. The individual scholarships that are awarded to those people who have individual talents, such as ballet, singers of great talent, and those young people who we want to encourage in the arts in the province. The logical and more perhaps expected kinds of grants which were given to the Victoria Symphony, and the Vancouver Symphony of course, are to be commended as well.

But I would think that one of the outstanding festivals that took place through the sponsorship of this particular group, this cultural fund this year was the Festival of Bands that took place throughout the province. All of the winners of the bands across this province gathered together to be met by royalty on the Queen's visit here, and when Her Majesty walked into that arena and saw all of the bands gathered there I'm sure all of those parents who were watching, and all of the youngsters that took part in the exhibition must have been very thrilled indeed that this was made possible by the kind of grant that we are discussing.

The fact that it is being increased this year, I think is significant. So often we have heard in this House that the quality of life is being missed in the Province of British Columbia, and we've building roads and bridges. Well, for some time now, Mr. Speaker, we have been paying very great attention to the quality of life in British Columbia and this bill pays tribute to that cause.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Atlin.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the previous speaker because she more or less gave us a few of the highlights of the past year in regards to the expenditure of this fund. I am mindful of the annual reports of this fund. I am very interested to hear just how it's spent and the benefits derived from it. If there is no such annual report I would suggest the government consider issuing annual reports on this.

It is quite clear to me, Mr. Speaker, that the interest earned from this previous amount was just not sufficient, in terms of the many requests for the fund. In looking at the past public accounts I note that last year in particular, the expenditure was over the revenue and credits. I imagine if it wasn't for the kitty left the fund would have run short. I am in favour of the increase. Speaking on behalf of my group we are supporting the change of title and of the increase because I think this is one fund that requires the increase.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. the first Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this bill is to take money from the revenue surplus appropriation account and transfer it to the centennial cultural fund. In other words, Mr. Speaker, this fund is to be enlarged by surplus moneys that have not been spent from previous budgets.

While we agree with the very worthy things that have been accomplished with this fund we cannot support the enlargement of it for two reasons.

First of all, the activities that are covered by this fund can

[ Page 668 ]

certainly be supported through annual grants put in the estimate books like the hundreds of other grants that are in our estimate books — all of them equally entitled to have their own perpetual fund.

Obviously, it's impractical to do that and the appropriate way to have grants to various organisations disbursed is through the civil servants. But what we do when we accumulate a revenue surplus and then transfer it to a fund like this is to say the capital objective of the fund, the capital objectives, are more important than other social objectives that we ignore, and that could just as easily have called on those surplus funds.

Mr. Speaker, it refers to such things as income for the elderly, free drugs for the handicapped and the aged, contributions to bus passes for pensioners, a supplement to income for those in need, increased welfare payments for single-parent families, chronic hospitals, acute hospitals.

The list could go on and on and on because our catalogue of social needs in British Columbia in 1972, the most prosperous year in our history, is almost endless and yet in this time of prosperity we're willing to tolerate poverty and illness and lack of facilities for those in need while we praise perpetual funds.

We're praising moral decay, Mr. Speaker, because if we can't take care of those in need first, those who really are in need …

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. McGEER:…then we don't have the conscience that as legislators we should have. Mr. Speaker, I'm ashamed of the position that the New Democratic Party has taken in this matter. Because they know as well as we do that surplus accounts are being built up in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: You bet, and you want to make use of them.

MR. McGEER: They are aware or they should be as aware as the Liberal Party of the social needs of this province. Because they're the ones who say they champion the little people and yet here's an opportunity for us to say quite clearly with our votes that we think these social priorities that have been ignored in British Columbia are those things which should come first. Enlarging these perpetual funds — which I suppose are to perpetuate the name of Social Credit more than anything else — should not receive our attention as a priority matter but should be overlooked and let us get on with the social needs of this province — the real social needs. Stop ignoring them as the Social Credit government has done for a generation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems the Liberal leader has as a free enterpriser is he puts everything on the basis of either/or. That's been the hang-up with the Liberal Party in this country. They're not a political party. They're an alliance for power. That's their whole history,

Their philosophy federally has been one of why ruin a good promise by doing something about it?

We don't agree that this government has assumed its responsibility in service to people but on the other hand we are going to support this bill. If anything this province needs it's cultural development. Especially that government.

Especially that government.

Perhaps a grant should be given to give them some basic lessons on the cultural aspects of understanding the parliamentary system. Perhaps we could have evening programmes dealing with elected M.L.A.'s so they could understand what it means to have a question period in a House.

If we did a cultural development thing perhaps we could show the role of the backbenchers. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could even go so far as to have educational television showing the debate in this House. That would be an education in culture. We've seen this government develop a cultural approach.

AN HON. MEMBER: That will be the late, late, late show.

MR. BARRETT: The late, late, late show as said by my friend the Member for Vancouver East. It would certainly develop, an awareness of political culture when we see the kind of genteel cultural shaping that takes place in this particular House.

I can't think of anything more that should be exposed to the people of this province. Then if the government wishes to use a little of the interest of the money so that the public can be enlightened about the cultural goings-on in politics in British Columbia, I think it would be a wonderful thing.

Speaking of politics — something politicians rarely do. Never talk about politics. Two things never discussed are politics and religion. Both can get you into trouble. (Laughter).

I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, just take it by faith, don't think about it. Mr. Speaker, the committee that is handling the decision on this fund should be expanded to include the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder).

At the present time it is an all-government committee. I don't think that's right. I think that the talents that are available here in this House should be used on a non-political basis on a fund like this and I think that if the Premier is to avoid the charge that may be presented by other politicians that he's using this fund on a political basis the way to avoid that is to put the Member for Atlin on the committee.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't trust the Speaker?

MR. BARRETT: Beg your pardon?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't trust the Speaker?

MR. BARRETT: Don't you? Don't you trust the Speaker? What's your problem?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Who is chairman? He's all mixed up …

HON. MR. BENNETT: I told you the other day you're stupid and you get more stupid as the days go by.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I told you he was selective in his insults. You're a sweet fellow. I don't want to say anything insulting to you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That'll be something new.

MR. BARRETT: I respect you for the age you represent

[ Page 669 ]

which is nothing to do with today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Speaker, I won't allow myself to get involved in little name-calling games with the Premier. He's got a pique left over from last week.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we proceed with Bill No. 16?

MR. BARRETT: Certainly we can, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to upset the Premier. But perhaps he'd like to interject with some more clever remarks. Yes, go ahead, go ahead. You'll get your turn, sit down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sit down. Sit down.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, usually the House is serious …

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's always afraid…

MR. BARRETT: You know what he wants? He wants that cup of coffee I promised him.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, oh, oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: You didn't keep your promises. You didn't keep your promise.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was last week. He just breaks his promises in everything. You can't trust him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I don't think a cup of coffee is involved in the cultural fund so can we proceed?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is through with another one of his aberrations I will continue with my remarks.

I suggest that the Member for Atlin be put on this committee.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. BARRETT: He should be on because there are all government members on the committee. The Member for Atlin has unique personal experience in terms of culture in this province that goes back further than any one of us or anyone that our antecedents represent. If there is to be a true commitment to the development of culture in this province no one has a more unique role to play in that culture than the native Indian population.

If the Premier is willing to show the kind of tolerance he claims he has then I expect him to get up today and announce that the Member for Atlin has been placed on that committee.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. lady Minister without Portfolio.

HON MRS JORDAN: Mr Speaker, I think that the information or the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition has just made to this debate points out once again how he insists on making a mockery out of every serious debate in this House that doesn't have his particular interest. I get a little tired of it. He is now trying to make a political issue, and I think that the example of his debate of waving his arms and talking to the Premier about his age and these nonsensical little interjections would point out that he might well benefit from a little cultural rub-off himself, I think that if he would put in an application to the fund I am sure it would be considered — on its merit, Mr. Premier.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: But one of the great strengths of this fund has been the fact that it has not been involved in any political implications. You only have to talk to people around this province at whatever interest of cultural level they have. Never has it been accused of any political decisions nor any political interference. It has been lauded because it acted as an administrative body and that it has called upon the authorities in the arts in this province from outside this province for adjudicating advice without ever letting the moneys from this fund become pocketed in any particular pressure group.

I couldn't help but think also of the Hon. Liberal Member's position when he talks about how these funds could be used for something else and he objected to the capital involvement and suggested that this was over-riding the cultural development aspects and objectives of the fund. I just simply do not understand this coming from a Member whose own party has put over $300 million to date in a bilingual programme and given 82 cents to the senior citizens whose case he pleads.

I also would ask that Hon. Member when he so strongly objects to the principle that we in British Columbia should own ourselves and be our own masters and control our own debt why he seems to think there is so much more honour in being the slave or being owned by Bay Street in the east than there is being owned by Wall Street in the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's their policy.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: It's incredible that he shows such a lack of financial understanding and independence not only in the financial sphere but in the political sphere. But, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to go back to the funds and ask why if the Opposition is going to oppose this they would oppose the Vancouver Symphony and the Victoria Symphony, the Opera Society of Vancouver, the Theatre Association of Victoria? Why he would oppose the Nanaimo Symphony Orchestra? Why he would oppose the Okanagan Symphony Orchestra? Where people travel from Kamloops, from the Cariboo and from the border to various centres on weekends without any cost whatsoever for the sole purpose of developing an orchestra in the interior of this province. This fund assists them.

What, through you, Mr. Speaker, do the Hon. Liberal Members have against this type of development in our province? If they would take the time to look at some of the great benefits that have derived from this fund you would see going around in the Province of British Columbia every year a very, nice, attractive bus — the Playhouse Theatre bus — bought by this fund. It's not the bus we're proud of, it's not the bus that we're interested in and that you're against. It is

[ Page 670 ]

the fact that children in every school in British Columbia are having the opportunity to have fine, live and entertaining theatre through the efforts of this group and volunteers and this fund.

Why, Mr. Member, leader of the Liberal Party and all your ageing members, do you oppose this? The little theatre groups, Mr. Speaker, in the north from your own constituency, Prince Rupert, your own community undertook in centennial year to put on a series of travelling, Canadian authored plays.

They didn't confine it to their own group. They opened it up to everyone from the Yukon and in the north of British Columbia to audition for parts, to take part in the scenery developments, the lighting, the make-up and the whole programme.

They achieved this. They've had three of their productions now which have travelled all the way from the Yukon throughout the north bringing again, Mr. Speaker, theatres, Canadian theatre, British Columbia theatre to people in the parts of the province who five years ago couldn't enjoy this. It's not only bringing this to them they're part of and they're putting it on. Why, why would the Liberals oppose this type of development in our province?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're just mixed up. That's all.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Rigid, narrow and unthinking. The Suzuki method of string training — violins — British Columbia has two centres undertaking this development involving children from three to five in playing the violin. One of the national musical shortages are string instrument players and we have one in Vancouver and we have one in the interior of the province, once again allowing the opportunity for culture and excellent training around the province.

There was the first festival of Canadian music in British Columbia this year and the lists could go on and on. My colleague from Vancouver–Little Mountain paid tribute to the Shawnigan Lake Summer School of Music and I felt that it wasn't done justice and I'll quote for your benefit, not for myself, but from Audrey Johnson who is a very knowledgeable critic in this field who said:

The stage setting is magnificent — all sky and towering trees and dense foliage. It is a first approach and is an excellent approach. This is the Shawnigan Lake Summer School that was started this year in cooperation with Mr. Johannsen, of Jeunesses Musicales, and those who supported him and the British Columbia Centennial cultural fund. It's the first of its kind in Canada. It has the opportunity to be of the finest music programmes and cultural development programmes in North America.

But it has to have the assistance of these funds, Mr. Speaker.

It says that anyone that spends a day with the school cannot help but realise the future potential.

Initiated in Vancouver with J.J. Johannsen as its executive director, the project is financially sponsored by the B.C. centennial cultural fund.

This multi-million dollar fund initiated by Premier W.A.C. Bennett in 1967, has fallen like blessed rain after a long drought on many worthy fine arts organisations and projects throughout the province. There can be no argument that the single most important venture the fund has sponsored since its conception is the Shawnigan Summer School and International Festival.

That is just one aspect of it.

Mr. Speaker, the intent of these funds which are owned by British Columbians and which will carry on in perpetuity are to allow British Columbia to develop its rightful place and take its rightful place in the cultural development of Canada and North America.

But also its objective is to give everybody in the province an opportunity to take part in or to enjoy quality cultural development or just personal interest cultural development.

It is my hope and I know the hope of all the members of the committee that in expanding these funds, there will continue to be not only great emphasis on the opportunity for excellence and the opportunity for our major cultural areas to take their rightful place in Canada but for people in Horsefly or Ocean Falls or Hudson Hope to have their opportunity to have instructors come to help them with their pottery or their painting or whatever else interests them or their theatres and that they will be very much a part of it.

I also feel, Mr. Speaker, the House is now interested in knowing that this fund is setting an example for industry and it might come as a surprise for many to know that in the advertising budgets of industry, there is usually from 13 to 15 per cent of their funds set aside for sport activities. But in Canada only 2 per cent is set aside for cultural development.

The fund is influencing a change in this area. There have been a number of industries in British Columbia respond to private and fund efforts and have made money and opportunities available for further development.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the breweries?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, culture doesn't mind where its money comes from…. .

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Member, as long as they don't advertise. The mention of the Member from Atlin being part of the committee I'm sure is a point of great interest but it should be pointed out that all applications that come into this cultural fund are treated on an equal basis.

There have been a number of Indian organisations and there have been a number of Indian individuals receive grants from the fund to help them in their particular area. But also there is an opportunity for them under the first citizens fund.

I think, Mr. Speaker, the comment that there should be more publicity about this fund is well received. There will be an annual report this year. It has been the feeling of many members of the committee, and we accept the suggestion from the Opposition that we should do more publicising of this fund and put out a brochure so that everyone will have the opportunity to understand what it is doing and how they can best take advantage of it. I'm sure we appreciate their suggestions and will comply.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. G.H. DOWDING (Burnaby-Edmonds): I personally was very much in support of this fund when it was proposed. I was glad that the Legislature as a whole supported the idea unanimously. It is after all the money of the people of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Do you want to know how you voted'?

[ Page 671 ]

MR. DOWDING: Do you mean the Liberals at that time didn't vote for it? How could they have gone astray?

You know, when I listened to the Honourable lady who just spoke I began to question in my mind whether or not it was becoming a political boondoggle, so far as she was concerned. I recall a picture of her handing a cheque out to somebody like Lady Bountiful. I began to get a little confused as to whether she was.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Name it, name it! I've never had my picture taken handing a cheque out.

AN HON. MEMBER: She remembers.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Prove it.

MR. DOWDING: You remember that, do you?

AN HON. MEMBER: It must have been the other ladies.

MR. DOWDING: Well, it must have been one of the others. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, it would be a lot cheaper just to send it out in the mail for 7 cents.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: That's exactly what's done.

MR. DOWDING: And special delivery 25 cents.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order.

MR. DOWDING: Will the Honourable lady say she never handed a cheque out?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I would advise the Honourable Member that the cheques all are mailed out, from the committee itself and are never …

MR. DOWDING: I'm very glad to hear that.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:…presented by members.

MR. DOWDING: I gracefully withdraw, yes.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Thank you.

MR. DOWDING: She was cutting a ribbon, I guess, and not handing a cheque out.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: What have you got against ribbons? That was a hospital.

MR. DOWDING: May I say that the whole of the procedure is good provided that the committee is diversified in its interests and that their idea of culture is wide enough that it includes some of the things I've noticed that have been accepted.

For instance, the Indian dancing we have on the west coast, the idea of a folk opera, some of the proposals that have been made are excellent because they go back into the very traditions of the past that are not even known to our present history.

Culture is wider than merely the arts or the performing arts. I think one thing that must be given great thought is preservation of some of the middens we have in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: The what?

MR. DOWDING: The middens where are found — I'm not talking about maidens. Middens.

The midden, for instance on the Fraser near Marpole, is a very vital source of artifacts. There's the other one up near the fishing grounds near Yale, just north of Yale. They're discovering new ones all the time on Vancouver Island. They've discovered that some of the totem poles were known thousands of years ago, long before there was any recorded history of them here. They found relics that indicate that totem poles are thousands of years old in their concept in British Columbia,

These areas, I think, are deserving of consideration and the unfortunate thing is that sometimes this government does not spend enough money, under the direct vote for the museum. The museum is really not getting anywhere the amount of monetary support this House should give it. The same applies to the library.

But with the cultural fund at least there is a continuing base there for growth. I hope that with this addition, the additional amount available will be utilised to widen the cultural areas than it is even today.

I suppose I should be directing my remarks to the Speaker because he's the one who really has to consider all the claims that are made upon the fund. But I do think the fund goes far beyond the performing arts. I think it has to go right back into the mists of antiquity in the field of exploring the past of British Columbia and the people who lived here and what they did. I hope that consideration will be given to scientific and cultural bodies that will go into that area, the historical area, as well as in the performing arts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I think one of the great breakthroughs as far as these funds are concerned is the way in which the government of this province has made a basic commitment to particular areas of activity which are going to go on for ever.

Now if you look at the alternatives which the leader of the Liberal Party indicated was the position of his party — his idea is that there would be, I presume, a certain budgetary commitment to these funds or to projects or whatever on a straight administrative hookup using the civil service with presumably little or no input from the advisory committees that are so much part and parcel of these funds.

It has been my privilege this afternoon to meet with the advisory committee that happens to be involved with another fund, but the principle is the same.

The five people represent various Indian organisations in British Columbia and they make up the advisory apparatus which determines the direction in which the fund is to go. It determines and advises on the projects which are to be supported.

But, Mr. Speaker, the problem with the position of the Liberal Party, and it's so typical of some of the things they get along with, is they'd rather form committees or administration than do anything else. That's been the history of the Liberal Party for a long time, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to prove it here this afternoon.

[ Page 672 ]

Perhaps the cruelest thing to any group such as the Indian people or anyone else involved in cultural activities is to raise expectations that are not deliverable or are not delivered.

The history of budgetary commitments has been up and down, in again, off again Finnegan, which is a Liberal Party policy. But quite apart from that, when you have to connect these commitments on something as insubstantial as changing policy, changing economic conditions, changing possibilities with the budgetary structure, when you haven't got a firm commitment, it's been the experience right across the country that in fact you have no commitment at all. The people who are interested in having support from these programmes of one kind and another, the ball game simply does not come off.

That's the history of all the activities that are involved with our Indian people. It's the reason why they feel that there has been no solid commitment on these funds which the federal government right today is supporting culture on the basis that the Liberal Party suggests in this House this afternoon.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in instance after instance, those expectations have been raised only to be knocked down again because there was no fundamental commitment that you could say was going to be on a perpetual basis.

Now quite apart from the fact that these go into useful social capital — these funds go into useful social capital in any event — let's take a look at the way the Liberals operate funds.

The Canada Council. Now, Mr. Speaker, the Canada Council has kind of an interesting bookkeeping record. I'm talking about the principle that's involved in these funds, as opposed to what is operated under the aegis of a Liberal government and I can understand why you have a self destruct fuse insofar as these funds in British Columbia are concerned.

The Canada Council is an apparatus established by the federal government using taxpayers' money turned over to a council which is funded by an endowment. Now let's see what has happened with that endowment. Very interesting.

In the year 1971, the interest and dividends acruable to the Canada Council through the Canada Council was $5,175, 417, just a little over $5 million. This is through their investments which are handled by the Canada Council, I would suggest, in a somewhat different way than they are obviously handled by the funds administered either by yourself, Mr. Speaker, through the cultural fund or the first citizens fund or any of the other funds.

What does Liberal management show, Mr. Speaker? How do they operate? The Canada Council last year had earnings of approximately $5 million, as I say. The delivery system which was established cost the Canada Council $2,203, 558.

AN HON. MEMBER: Over half of it.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: That's overhead, Mt. Premier. I knew you'd be interested in that because that's just about 50 per cent of the total earning capacity of the Canada Council's earnings from the investments of Canada Council. Now that's an incredible record when …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Oh, I know that you wouldn't like this. Okay Mr Speaker through you to enlighten the Liberal Member. Where are some of these things that are involved in the administration of that fund?

AN HON. MEMBER: We can check records …

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: We're talking about the cultural grant here in British Columbia and the point is …

AN HON. MEMBER: It sounds like we're debating the Canada Council.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL:…Mr. Speaker, that here is a perpetual fund on which the administration costs are, in fact, nil here in British Columbia.

Here is a similar fund endowed by the Canadian taxpayer and what do you think the salary and wage bill of the Canada Council is in the year 1971? — $1,162, 302.

Interjection by Hon. Member.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, what do you think such things as professional services are? You know, in this province, we are administering these funds with the advice and consent of those who wish to work within the terms of reference of these funds. The advice is free because the people who are involved in wishing to use these funds are the advisors to the fund. What do you think the professional services for the Canada Council are? Well, last year they were $126,747.

What do you think, Mr. Speaker, the honorariums are for those who administer the fund? Well, last year the honorariums were $95,331.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, I'm glad you asked that question. Now what about travelling expenses? Now the travelling expenses for Canada Council last year, just for the staff, were $41,798. Certainly, Mr. Minister of Finance, I knew you'd be interested in that too because this is not the intent of this government when they establish these professional funds in British Columbia, including the cultural fund.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there's some very interesting things that are involved in the Canada Council grant. Data processing. How much do you think they spend on data processing — which is very important to culture? $21,571.

I know how big your office is, Mr. Speaker, and I know how many desks you have in your office. I know how many filing cabinets you have in your office, Mr. Speaker. I know how much office space you have assigned for the purposes of the meetings of these people who have the responsibility for adminstering your funds. I know as well, Mr. Speaker, how much furniture you bought last year in order that you could better disburse these funds from the cultural fund. I think, to use, an old expression that I quite often use, I suggest that it was ziltch.

I How much do you think the Canada Council needed in furniture to dispense the funds? In one year — furniture — well, it happens to be $15,944. Now you need an awful lot of furniture, you can appreciate that you need an awful lot of furniture to intelligently disburse funds such as are to be found for the Canada Council and the purposes for which it was set up.

Interjections by Hon Members

[ Page 673 ]

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: I think that there is one item in this annual report of the Canada Council which I would suggest be increased. There is an amount here that should be increased and it's safe keeping charges. Safe keeping charges — well, that's where you have to make sure that the money's in the bank; and lock the door and keep the key.

If there's anything that the Liberal Party in the administration of the Canada Council really needs to understand is to increase the safe keeping charges so that more of this money would be kept in the fund and not be dribbled away in administration, in honorariums and staff meetings and council meetings; the safe keeping charges — even they're high — I would suggest they be increased, They're $40,730.

Now, Mr. Minister of Finance, it's very interesting, I don't know where you keep the perpetual funds other than bonds. I don't really have to know, Mr. Speaker, because I know that the bonds are in safe keeping.

I know, being the chairman of one of these funds, that the fund is not charged with any of the safe keeping costs. I know that the total earnings of these funds are totally committed to the purposes for which they were set up. I suggest that it is completely incredible that once again we see the Liberal party naked of policy, naked in performance and just the same old gang.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

MR. CLARK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it's a sad day when we have to have the Minister of Municipal Affairs attack the Canada Council and the hard-working people of British Columbia who happen to make up a good part of the Canada Council for no pay and we see a further attack by half truths by the Minister in an attempt to down-grade that council in order to justify Bill No. 16.

I'll be specific, Mr. Speaker. Liberal management: the Minister knows full well that when the Canada Council was established the condition which came from a private estate was that the council…. .

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: It's added to every year. It's coming out of general revenue now.

MR. CLARK: You just keep quiet and listen. It's right in the book that you only read the last page off.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Council was established by a private endowment on the condition that the council be independent from politics and it has always been so. Mr. Speaker, that Minister knows it full well. The Canada Council is totally independent of politics, it's made up of some of the finest Canadians in the country.

In order to justify his remarks about investment he refers to investment income without mentioning to the House that the Canada Council has other income other than invested income.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. CLARK: But he tried to relate all his remarks to only the invested income and if that isn't misleading I don't know what is.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's the part we were talking about.

MR. CLARK:  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs got up and stated that the policy of the Social Credit government was against the honorariums of the Canada council. The honorariums that provide some of the best professors at U.B.C., that government is opposed to because how do you think the universities of this province get some of their good professors other than by getting honorariums from the Canada Council, Mr. Minister? If you don't know that ask the Minister next to you, because he should.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: That's administrative honorariums, you don't know what you're talking about.

MR. CLARK: These are the honorariums that go to professors at universities and fine art schools and if you read that document you'd know that.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: No, no!

MR. CLARK: And these are honorariums where salaries could in some way affect the status of the professor involved and so they're paid by honorarium. The explanation is in the look, the Minister of Finance should read it.

lnterjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Read the book. Honorariums, that for example will bring well-known composors, well-known conductors to conduct these orchestras, these we support.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: No, I just read the administrative part of the book.

MR. CLARK: Oh, no you didn't, Mr. Minister. Don't make it worse than what you've already done.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, I did.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Clark), is indicating that I was reading from the document which was involved with honoraria, that were not in the administrative column. That is completely false.

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is still twisting words, he knows what the honorariums are.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is also opposed to travelling expenses. The travelling expenses of such people for example as those who adjudicate the drama festivals, the music festivals, that are staff employees of the Canada Council for that purpose.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, sit down …

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: On a point of order. The staff travelling costs that I was referring to were simply administrative staff costs. The statement made by the Member is completely false.

MR. CLARK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'll let the Members decide for themselves because that happens to be a public document that's been filed in our library. Let the Members

[ Page 674 ]

go and read for themselves and judge the Minister's remarks accordingly.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Good idea!

MR. CLARK: I repeat, I think it's a sorry day when we have to listen to a Minister attack hard-working British Columbians who make up a good portion of that council from their free time.

HON. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I at no time mentioned any individual on Canada Council by name or otherwise, I referred all of my remarks to the administrative structure in total.

The Member is making false statements again and I have the right to stand up and correct the Member.

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Member proceed?

MR. CLARK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get involved in any more arguments with that Minister because …

Interjections by Hon. Members.

MR. CLARK: Because, Mr. Speaker, as you well know, as you analyse those organisations to which you offer assistance under this fund, almost without exception the major organisations' very survival is dependent upon the Canada Council and I didn't hear the Minister mention that.

I wish to comment briefly on the lady Minister who suggested that the end justifies the means and tried to camouflage the whole principle of the bill by all the motherhood recipients of the fund. Of course I can't think of any of those mentioned that any reasonable person would be opposed to. We are not talking about that, We have never talked about that, we are talking about how you tax and how you subsidise.

Mr. Speaker, getting right back to the principle of the bill, which I suggest with respect has been somewhat lost, there are really two principles in this bill.

One is to change the name and the other, section five, would put an additional $5 million into the fund.

Those are the two principles that we are debating. And in that regard, Mr. Speaker, I am quite prepared to stand on record as being opposed to $5 million going into a fund in this way without analysis by this assembly.

The Minister referred to Canada Council. That is one method of putting grants into the hands of an independent body. I'm not suggesting it or any other method is perfect but I certainly do not support the principle of taking another $5 million and putting it in the hands of any group of legislators.

Social Credit will not always, be here, believe it or not, and this fund, in my opinion, does not represent responsible democracy.

In reference to the remarks by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) I would suggest that he can do better because I heard the Members down there request question periods where they can question Ministers. Where are they going to get the opportunity to question the expenditure in this fund? I have heard the Members down there spend hours in estimates on items far less than this

Where are you going to get the opportunity to question once you vote "yea" to this bill? These are funds over which this Legislature has no control once this bill is law.

Mr. Speaker, it seems ludicrous to me that we assemble here and take a specific vote for such a thing as the Grasshopper Control Act for $37,000 when here we've got $5 million that will disappear from sight into the investments of the Minister of Finance once this debate is over. Furthermore we've got the administration of the interests of this fund in the hands of an all-government committee.

The Leader of the Opposition objected to that and yet he's prepared to vote in favour of the bill. One of the Members from Burnaby said the museum needs more money. Libraries need more money. They are votes of this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, and yet you're prepared to vote "yes" to $5 million that disappears from your sight. I see nothing consistent in that nor do I see anything in it that's responsible in terms of how we should analyse or be in a position at least to analyse the expenditures of this amount of money.

On that basis and on that basis alone, the principle of how we tax and how we subsidise, I will not support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Cowichan Malahat.

MR. R.M. STRACHAN (Cowichan-Malahat): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have listened to the debate with considerable interest. I too think the Canada Council is doing an outstanding job in the major areas of cultural development across Canada. I don't think it should be subjected to the misleading attack that was just made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs but as I said the Canada Council fulfils a role in the major endeavors of the cultural development in Canada. But there are many areas in a province like British Columbia, the smaller communities, where the endeavor is of such a size that it's almost impossible for an organisation like the Canada Council to really be effective in that field, although the odd individual in a constituency or a small area many have the opportunity to benefit from the Canada Council.

I had the occasion recently to make out a reference for a particular artist who lives in Cowichan-Malahat in an attempt to get a very modest grant from the Canada council.

But this particular fund, as I have seen it operate, reaches into the smaller communities of British Columbia and I have in mind the Cowichan Arts Council which this year received, I think it was $3,400 or $3,500, and on a basis of that $3,500 for that comparatively small community, in a few weeks they will be putting on an arts week in that community that would have been impossible without that grant. This covers the whole field of drama, music, sculpture, painting and so on.

As I say, every year we get a list of the grants and I know this grant was made. I received a copy of the information from the chairman of the committee that administers that grant. Every other Member I presume receives the same information. All over this province the smaller communities — those of us who don't happen to live in the major cities, having their access to the major museums, and the major cultural efforts that you're able to have.

Now, if the Premier would give us a midnight boat back to Vancouver Island, we might then be able to participate in some of the operas and so on that go on in Vancouver but that's for another vote, I know.

[ Page 675 ]

Nevertheless, I support this particular fund because of what it has accomplished and if we can accomplish what we are accomplishing in the smaller communities because really, no matter what the Gross National Product of any society is, that's not what history remembers. They don't remember how much silver was taken out of the mines of Laurium or how much wheat was produced in Egypt or anything else. They remember the culture of those societies and the greater the cultural development the closer you are to a civilization.

We have not yet achieved a civilization in Canada. Any measure that goes to develop a nation-wide or a provincewide cultural expansion contributes toward the development of a civilization. On that basis I support this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier will close the debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to express an appreciation to all Members who supported this legislation. I especially want to express my appreciation to the Member who has just taken his place because I think in a new country like ours, it's well that we spend money on a perpetual basis like this so that these organisations, knowing that they're going to get help each and every year, they can plan accordingly.

I made no reference to a statement made by the Prime Minister of Canada the other day, and I don't intend to today. But what he said regarding culture, the remark he made regarding the Premier of this province, is nothing compared to the words in the Liberal newspaper tonight in Victoria — the oldest Liberal newspaper I think in the province or one of the oldest — where he swears at Stanfield and uses words that I'm not even going to quote here. I want to say that as the Premier of this province and as a Canadian, I abhor these kind of tactics by the federal Prime Minister, the Liberal Minister, and I officially call for his resignation.

I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: You've heard the motion, all those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

AN HON. MEMBER: What are we voting on, Mr. Speaker? The resignation?

MR. SPEAKER: I probably should have clarified that by reading the question. (Laughter). The question is the second reading of Bill No. 16, An Act to Amend the Centennial Cultural Fund Act.

Motion agreed to on the following division:

YEAS-42

Merilees Strachan Bennett
Marshall Dowding Peterson
Wallace Barrett Black
Cocke Dailly, Mrs. Fraser
Hartley Capozzi Wolfe
Lorimer Vogel Smith
Hall LeCours Skillings
Williams, R.A. Little Chant
Calder Jefcoat Loffmark
Kripps, Mrs. Bruch Campbell, D.R, J.
Mussallem McCarthy, Mrs. Brothers
Price Jordan, Mrs. Shelford
Macdonald Dawson, Mrs. Richter

NAYS-4

Brousson Clark McGeer
. Williams, L.A.

PAIR:

Chabot Gardom

Bill No. 16 read a second time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. P.A. GAGLARDI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from the Lieutenant-Governor.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ACT

MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act and recommends the same to the legislative assembly. Dated at Government House February 28, 197 2.

House in committee on Bill No. 49, An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act. On the recommendation of the committee, Bill No, 49 introduced, read a first time, and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker. I move Motion No. 23 standing in my name on the order paper. (That the Hon. R.R. Loffmark be discharged from further attendance on the select standing committee on social welfare and education and that the said Hon. R.R. Loffmark be added to the select standing committee on public accounts and printing).

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett presents the annual return of the calendar year 1971 submitted in accordance with section 53 of the Administration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1960.

MR. B. PRICE (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by Mrs. Kripps the motion standing in my name on orders of the day: (That this House recommends that where simple, noncontentious amendments are needed with respect to a private bill, the department of the Attorney General implement procedures to avoid the expense involved in petitioning for a private bill in such case.)

HON. MR. PETERSON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might move adjournment of this motion?

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Bennett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.