[ Page 2359 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Park Act (Bill No. 174). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading — 2359

Alcohol and Drug Commission Act (Bill No. 173). Hon. Mr. Levi.

Introduction and first reading — 2359

Petitions

Mr. McGeer's petition dropped — 2359

Routine proceedings

Housing Incentive Fund Act (Bill No. 75). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2359

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2359

Mr. Morrison — 2360

Mr. Curtis —

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 2361

Mr. Williams — 2361

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2362

Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act (Bill No. 76). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2362

Mr. Chabot — 2362

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2363

Mr. Wallace — 2363

Mr. Rolston — 2364

Mr. McClelland — 2364

Mr. Curtis — 2365

Mr. Fraser — 2365

Mr. Williams — 2365

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2366

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2368

Mr. Morrison — 2368

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2369

Mr. McClelland — 2370

Mr. Wallace — 2370

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2370

British Columbia Economic Research Fund (Bill No. 78). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2371

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2372

Mr. Wallace — 2372

Mr. McGeer — 2373

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2374

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2376

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2376

Mr. Wallace — 2376

Mr. Smith — 2376

Mr. Gardom — 2376

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2376

Mr. Gardom — 2377

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2377

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2377

Mr. Wallace — 2378

Mr. Morrison — 2378

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2378

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2379

Division on second reading — 2379

The House met at 11:00 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PARK ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams moves introduction and first reading of Bill No. 174 intituled An Act to Amend the Park Act.

Motion approved.

Bill No. 174 read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG COMMISSION ACT

MR. SPEAKER: His Honour the Lieutenant Governor transmits herewith a bill intituled Alcohol and Drug Commission Act and recommends the same to the Legislative Assembly, Government House, April 6, 1973.

Bill No. 173 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on Friday, a petition was submitted to the Table by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I have a notation from the clerk presented to me which reads:

"April 9, 1973

"Hon. G.H. Dowding, Speaker, Parliament Buildings.

"Dear Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the petition presented by Mr. McGeer on Friday last, I find that the petition is irregular in that it is not signed by the Member presenting it. This is in contravention of standing order 73(4).

Yours truly,

E.K. DeBeck, Clerk of the House."

In consequence, under standing order 73 the petition cannot be dealt with today. The petition has to be dropped under standing order 73, since it violates standing order 73(4) and also section 6 which says, "On the day following" — that is today — "the clerk shall report on same if it is irregular and contains matters on breach of privilege…" and so on. It is irregular and therefore it must be dropped.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move that the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 75, Mr. Speaker.

HOUSING INCENTIVE FUND ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, one of the most pressing problems facing any government today is how to provide low-cost housing to its citizens in the face of rapidly escalating land prices. I believe all will agree that it is in the best interests of the public themselves, communities and the province as a whole to have all citizens living in proper housing accommodation. The province has entered into a large land purchase arrangement with the Government of Canada and this will be carried on to the maximum extent possible. In addition, however, we wish to build our own landbank while the land is available for future housing use.

This bill, therefore, sets up a $10 million Housing Incentive Fund for the purpose of purchasing such land. As the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) is most directly concerned in this matter, the bill provides for him to recommend appropriate purchases of land to the Minister of Finance. I so move second reading.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, the bill generally meets with the approval of this party. However, there are a number of questions which come up in the short-term in particular. The first is, as the Minister of Finance mentioned, land is now being purchased on the advice of the Minister of Municipal Affairs for future use. The problem that arises is if this takes land away from present use at this time. The result has been an even greater strain upon the land market at the present time with the result of driving the price of land even further up than it would be otherwise.

[ Page 2360 ]

We see no objection, as I mentioned, to future housing proposals coming forward at a later time, put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). We see no objection to the joint federal-provincial proposals. But we are seriously concerned that major purchases at this time, in addition to other steps that this Legislature is taking with respect to land that was dealt with in other bills, is creating a very serious imbalance in the market forces in this province and virtually a situation of runaway inflation when it comes down to the case of buying land at the moment for housing at the present time.

Now, I realize that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) will be closing the debate rather than the Minister of Municipal Affairs — I presume that the Minister of Municipal Affairs will be speaking soon on this. But the problem that we see in terms of extensive purchases of this nature at this time for future use is that we are assuming that somehow or other, in the short run, when all this public money is thrown onto the market to pick up land for housing, prices will remain the same. That simply isn't the case at the present time. The increase in the cost of building lots, in particular around our major urban areas, has been really very substantial in the last few months. I'm no expert on the market, but I have been told that in many instances increases of up to 25 per cent or even more than that have taken place and averages are perhaps nearer 20 per cent of increases in the cost of housing.

So we are in a situation where we are attempting to increase the amount of housing available for our citizens, but government action such as this, in actual fact, in the short run is resulting in fewer and fewer and fewer British Columbians being able to afford to buy building lots. I know this must be in the mind of the government, and certainly it should be in the mind of the government. I trust that when the Minister of Municipal Affairs steps into this debate he will be dealing with this very problem.

We think that if the government takes a larger role, somehow or other it must be possible for others who at the present time are able to purchase houses — perhaps I should say others who were a few months ago able to purchase houses and purchase land for houses — to be given some consideration. It appears to me that we are reaching a situation where only the very wealthy will be able to purchase their own homes and purchase land, and the bulk of the ordinary people of this province will be excluded because of the substantial purchases at the present time by all levels of government — municipal and federal, of course, as well as provincial.

I trust that this point will be dealt with at some length by the Minister of Municipal Affairs because there is no question, as was made clear when his estimates were discussed in this House, that government actions such as this, combined with actions resulting under other legislation or other orders-in-council, is creating a tremendous squeeze on the market. The person who is being caught in this squeeze and who is most hurt by this squeeze is, of course, the British Columbian of modest means who is unable now to proceed to buying a house as he previously expected. This results, of course, in these people spending more time in apartments or more time in looking for rental accommodation. We are in the present time, thanks to uncertainty as to government policy with respect to rent controls and other things, in a situation where the amount of rental accommodation is considerably less than ever before. This fact has been dealt with at some length by my colleague from North Vancouver (Mr. Brousson). So I trust the Minister will be dealing with this.

Government actions have created a loss of land available for private housing. At the same time, government action and lack of government action have created a serious difficulty in the area of rental accommodation. I can see that in the future, perhaps, if, as the Minister of Finance says, we're buying for the future, perhaps things may be better. But in the near future, in the short run, things are not particularly good at all. I would like some clarification — much more than was given by the Minister of Finance — as to what the Minister of Municipal Affairs has in mind in the short run.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we see in this bill an area with a lot of problems, as the Government again is coming into the private sector. There will be competitive purchases no doubt, of land that could be used for other uses, probably debatably for better uses. We also see that the municipalities will suffer on the taxes they receive because, in all probability, they will be paid as they are now on the 15-mill basis for taxes.

We also see a high cost of land, such as has been demonstrated here in the City of Victoria, with land being purchased in the neighbourhood of $2 per sq. ft., which is relatively high-cost land for low-cost housing. Therefore there has to be a difference in here somewhere. There has to be a form of subsidy from the public purse because, with the land cost being high and construction costs being relatively high, as they are at the moment, if we intend to have low-cost rentals there has to be a variable in there somewhere and I don't quite see where that comes from.

Further, we're getting involved in long-term commitments, because most of the housing which will be developed will have a relatively long life, and therefore will have an unknown future as far as our costs

[ Page 2361 ]

are concerned against the public purse. The cities will have problems because of the need to put in sewage and roads and other problems which will not be related back to them in the form of taxes which they might receive from any other development.

So there are a lot of areas in the bill which are not properly spelled out. We, frankly, on this side see a great many problems ahead of us. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, Bill 75 has a great deal of merit, in our view. Indeed, there may be some areas where greater detail should be spelled out.

I believe I am speaking to the subject, however, when I point out to the House that there are some housing schemes in British Columbia today which are stalled, presumably, at the Environment and Land Use Committee level. It's a little frustrating for those who are attempting to initiate and push such schemes ahead to have a bill such as this before us and know of other projects which have been stalled for what must be called an unreasonable length of time.

But certainly the province is to be, I believe, commended for its effort in this regard. I trust that the scheme will work out well for the people and assure the kind of housing which we know is very urgently needed. While it has been introduced by the Minister of Finance, I do hope that the Department of Municipal Affairs will have the fullest possible role in implementation, initiation and carrying out of the plans.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): In answer to the questions raised, I certainly agree that the pressures do exist on land costs and housing costs. This bill in the next few weeks will not have too much effect in reducing this, but what we're hopeful of is that in the not-too-distant future, our efforts in regard to putting on the market more lots will help to bring the cost of land down and the cost of buildings down.

On the question of stalls with the Environment and Land Use Committee, I would like to get particulars of the locations that the Member for Saanich is talking about. We passed through something over 30 applications last week, and if there are some areas that are holding up housing I'd certainly like to know about them, because at the moment I know of none before the Land Use Committee. So if he can help me on that, we'll certainly straighten these areas out.

All I can say is that this bill has probably come in 10 years too late. You just don't start on a new programme of this magnitude in the field of housing and have houses produced within a few weeks. It's a question of trying to catch up on things that should have been looked after some years ago.

I might say that negotiations are taking place for purchase of a variety of land in the province. I would suggest that if people who are going to go into the purchase of lots for housing can hold off for a short time, I think that we can make some impact on the cost of land and housing within this year.

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I find some difficulty in understanding where the incentive is in the legislation which we have before us. While it's called Housing Incentive Fund Act, it would appear that the moneys are to be used to acquire land and housing developments — the land, of course, already being in existence and the housing developments already being in existence.

The problem that we have facing us in all of the communities in British Columbia is the lack of supply of housing accommodation. I would have thought that accompanying this bill we would have had a clear indication from the government as to what its programme was going to be to provide incentives to increase the supply of housing.

Now, to purchase housing developments which are already in existence does not increase the supply of housing, although it may, if you're changing the use of the housing development, provide some additional supply — what is called "general public housing," whatever that means. We must have an adequate supply of single and multi-family dwellings for ownership and use in this province. We must have the same kind of accommodation available for rent.

In order to ensure that we have the supply, the government can assist in a number of ways. Yes, the acquisition of land and the placing of land on the market can be one. But only, Mr. Speaker, if the government's programme is one which is designed to put land on the market at prices below what the market is calling for today.

As the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) mentioned a few moments ago, they are going out with moneys which they currently have available and acquiring parcels of land of different kinds in different locations. But if you are buying it at present day market prices, then obviously, unless the Government is going to subsidize the lots which will be purchased by people prepared to construct general public housing, then it's not going to be any real incentive for any private operator to go into the construction of such facilities.

[ Page 2362 ]

If it is raw land which has no services, then obviously the services have to be provided. It would be interesting to know, based upon raw land prices, what the cost might be for land made available for those purposes.

If it is general public housing that is to be constructed by some public agency, I would have thought that the Minister would have told us how his programme in this respect is going to work as well. Are we going to embark on a public housing construction programme through an agency of Government? Is that one of the ways in which lower cost housing and a greater supply of housing is to be made available, by taking out what heretofore has been the profit motive from people who construct housing for sale or for rent and if for rent, making it available at prices which will return a percentage of the investment?

Some of the words in the statute, which we will deal with in committee, also give me cause for concern. It talks about "land intended to be used for general public housing." What kind of conditions will the Government stipulate in making the land available with regard to the use to which that land must be put?

The Act simply provides a fund of $10 million which will be available to the Minister to expend for such purposes as may be recommended to him. But we have not had here, certainly, and we have not had elsewhere any clear indication of the programme which this Government has to meet the extreme shortage that we have today of housing accommodation.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we already have a great deal of legislation on the books. If we intend to carry out a four-year programme in one year we can carry on with a session right throughout the year. That's not feasible.

We've done a great deal this session. This is the first step in housing. Within 18 months the whole package of our housing policy will be available and have an impact on the people of British Columbia.

If you want an idea of what direction we're going in in detail, as requested by the Member, then I suggest you read the policy pamphlet that was largely ignored during the election campaign. We are a party that sticks to our policy statements. We talked about land lease, other options to land. That's the direction we're going in.

I now suggest the question be put.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that Bill No. 75 be read a second time now.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No 75 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 76, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES FUND ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Government wishes to assist and encourage communities, municipal governments and non-profit, cultural, ethnic or religious groups to build recreational facilities in the communities of the province. For this purpose this bill sets up a community recreational facilities fund of $10 million from which the province may pay its share of any approved project.

The province will pay one-third of the cost of the recreational facility up to a total for the facility of $1 million; in other words, the province's maximum grant in any one endeavour will be one-third of $1 million.

The bill outlines that a facility to qualify for provincial grants must be available for use by any person in the community; also the effective date in the provisions is retroactive to August 30, 1972, so that facilities commenced since that date may qualify retroactively.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well! Retroactive legislation again. My goodness! Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Columbia River.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act, which will assist and encourage recreational activities throughout the province is in my opinion very progressive legislation — legislation that will be supported and endorsed by this party.

It's legislation that is an excellent start in assisting the smaller communities who find it difficult to raise the necessary funds for capital construction costs. I know that the former government had embarked on a programme of assisting on an application and appeal basis various recreational facilities throughout the province. The direction was very clear there, that it would be necessary, regardless of who was elected in the latter part of August, that legislation would have to come to make it consistent throughout the province to assist these recreational facilities.

Now, I hope that the Minister of Finance will tell

[ Page 2363 ]

us, when he closes the debate, as to when the regulations will be brought down on this retroactive legislation. I think it's most important because, if it's retroactive to August 30 or September 1, which I prefer using, that there are people out there — and I know of two particular projects in my constituency — that are anxious to see the regulations so that they can make their application for financial assistance.

This party will support the legislation. It's a progressive step forward. It's not very often we have the opportunity of saying that in this session.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the Government and the previous speaker. There is a need for more in the way of community recreational facilities.

We appreciate the fact the Government has put this bill forward for us, but a number of questions come up. There is a real problem I think in terms of definition. I read this and I take it to mean that as long as the society which takes advantage of this particular bit of legislation is a non-profit society, the facility itself can be a highly profitable one. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that when he speaks.

It's a question of definition, because of course the facility, as my Hon. friend on my left from Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) suggests, the facility might well make a great pile of money and yet we would actually be subsidizing a profitable operation — one that might be extremely profitable — provided that the society which is sponsoring the facility loses money on its other operations and winds up as a non-profit society, it might still be in line for a very heavy government grant.

I think of this in particular, because there are on the mainland ice rinks which are commercial and they apparently are making a great deal of money. The same is true for the so-called tennis clinic facilities which could well be profitable, could well be a good recreational facility; and at the same time, as long as the society itself overall was constituted to be non-profit, they would benefit substantially from this type of bill.

The question of retroactivity which the Minister of Finance was very pleased about interests me. Perhaps he'll answer the question when I sit down as to whether or not the facility which can take advantage of this retroactive provision had to be commenced after August 30 or whether it's a case of the facility's not having been completed by then. In other words, at what stage does this retroactivity come into effect — at the commencement of the operation or at the end of it?

What happens, for example, if a facility was 50 per cent complete on August 30? Is it entitled to put in a bid or an application for one-third of the remaining half that has not yet been completed or had not been completed on August 30? Perhaps he'll comment on that, because many of these facilities are simply never finished. They're always capable of infinite expansion as they tack on more ice or as they tack on more facilities for handball or basketball or things of that nature.

Nevertheless, in a general way we support the bill and we support the principle of assisting communities and other organizations who wish to put up recreational facilities.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to correct an interjection I made which the Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) misinterpreted. My experience has been that ice arenas which do not lose money on their operating budgets are very few and far between. One of the big problems that we had — we don't have it any longer because the decision has been made — in deliberation in Oak Bay in trying to build an arena, was the natural concern of citizens and homeowners that there would be a very substantial annual operating deficit.

Nevertheless, I accept the Second Member for Victoria's natural inquiry as to what happens if a non-profit group built such a facility and proceeded to operate it at a profit. I don't think that's the intent of this bill. I'm sure the Minister of Finance will clarify that when he winds up the second reading.

One of the reasons that we're very delighted about this bill is that it's another step in the direction encouraged by the Minister of Rehabilitation (Hon. Mr. Levi). When we were discussing the seminar we had on the drug problem, this question came up repeatedly — that so many young people seem to drift into the drug scene out of boredom and the lack of stimulus around them to get interested in other things. The main conclusion that came out of that meeting that we had a few months ago was the importance of giving a positive direction and positive interest to young people. There could be no better positive interest than recreation, skating, swimming and so on. I think this is very progressive and encouraging legislation from this Government in this field.

One of the concerns in Oak Bay in developing such an arena was that the elderly homeowners who are on fixed incomes expressed a natural concern that the operating cost would mean another increase in their taxes. I would hope that the Minister of Finance would expedite phase 1 of his programme to remove education tax from property. I realize that that's out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that it was relevant in areas like Oak Bay, where we have very many people over 65 on fixed incomes. At the public meeting we

[ Page 2364 ]

had, this came across as being a very natural concern. We're very delighted to get a third of a million dollars — who wouldn't? I'm happy to say that the council in Oak Bay has decided to go ahead with the development of such a project. But it is only fair to put on the record the fact that the elderly citizens were concerned and are concerned that the operating deficit would lead to higher taxes on their homes. I think this would be unfortunate.

I like the idea that a non-profit group can sponsor the project but that once completed, the facility must be open to all citizens of all groups. Speaking again for Oak Bay, I would certainly say that we've been sponging off the City of Victoria and Saanich long enough. (Laughter). It's really unbelievable that in order to get skating and so on, so many youngsters have to turn up at some other municipal arena at 5 or 6 o'clock in the morning or very late at night.

Speaking on behalf of Oak Bay, we're very grateful for this piece of legislation. The only point I would raise, along with the Member for Victoria, would be to know to what degree there will be control over some group sponsoring such a project and making a profit over some group sponsoring such a project and making a profit out of it.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Dewdney.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation I've been promoting ever since I got the first Press release. In my area there certainly is a real need for community. We have various religious and cultural groups that have immediately identified with this. I could speak of Agassiz and the Dutch Reform community out there that have hopes for this.

First of all, I want to make two requests. On the whole business of the community, I would hope that there would not be duplication. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has said that there will now be planning for five years ahead. This was not available previously. In the planning, I would certainly hope that both the recreational people and the schools see that the facility is fairly close to schools.

I just went with the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) on Thursday to look at recreational and other facilities in Saanich. They're hoping to put a school just behind a swimming pool and recreation complex. I think it is very, very important that these facilities be used all the time and that there is very good planning so that they're near schools.

For instance, in Mission the hockey rink is used from 6 o'clock in the morning. You can get over and play hockey or go out skating for 50 minutes and then get back and take another class within the regular school term. I'm certainly hoping that we avoid any duplication of school facilities and community facilities, remembering that we're now looking for the possibility of composite schools, and that we have the time to plan.

I would hope that a lot of the input into this would come from regional districts and municipal recreation people who can surely work out with the school boards the overall recreation needs anyway. Maybe that could be one of the regulations, to make sure that it is consistent with the total municipal…I say "regional district" advisedly. A lot of people in the unorganized territories freeload off the municipal districts, so I think we have to pull them in.

The other thing I would really hope is that when we talk about recreation, we're talking about recreation in the fullest sense. Previously there has been a distinction between fine arts — there's separate funding for that, I think, through the Provincial Secretary — and recreation, which tends to be on the physical side. I would hope that in considering a recreational facility, this facility and the programming for such could be for the development of the total person. I'm thinking of theatre, dance, sculpture, batik, pottery and photography, as well as the obvious basketball, keep-fit programmes.

I would hope the facility would be of a general nature rather than specific, which would tend to exclude the wider sense of recreation and community. I appreciate that in some communities maybe a ski hill or a curling rink is what is needed and is a priority. But if we are to promote recreation in the widest sense, we should have some leadership as a provincial government toward the more general notion of recreation.

I'm certainly delighted and I support this. I echo what the Member next to me has said. We have to develop exciting attitudes to life. I think this is a better alternative to any kind of addiction that people fall into. I support this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I'd just like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance with a brief statement first.

The statement is that I think a lot of communities in British Columbia have already spent this money in advance in the hopes of getting it. The other thing is that in the advance indication that the Minister has had, Mr. Speaker, is there an indication that this fund is going to be oversubscribed?

In just travelling around the province, it seems to me that everybody in the country wants this third of a million dollars. If there's a chance that the fund is going to be oversubscribed, is there also a chance that there will be a little more money put into the pot? Personally, I don't think the $10 million is going to be enough.

[ Page 2365 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might consider commenting on a couple of points.

First of all, I think there might be value in the Government taking the scheme a little further beyond just dollars. Perhaps it could make available some form of standard plan which could be used, particularly by smaller communities — a standard senior citizens' centre; a typical ice arena, with or without seating; a typical outdoor swimming pool; a typical whatever it might be.

The provision of such standard plans — as I know has been offered by the Department of Education with respect to schools for a good number of years — could save a good deal of money and considerable time and, I hope, would produce a better building in the final analysis. I hope it wouldn't be mandatory. In other words, if the community concerned felt that it wanted to proceed with some particular type of building, I hope there would be no string attached to the dollars and the standard plan. But to simply make them available might be most helpful.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) referred to the full range of recreation. Through you, I would ask if the Minister of Finance would give us his Government's interpretation of recreation. As an example, would it include a library put up by a community? Would it include a convention centre? Perhaps those are at opposite ends of the scale. But I think some definition of the term "recreation" might be helpful to the Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Cariboo.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, as one of our Members has said, we certainly support this good legislation. I would like to ask the Minister a question or two.

I'm particularly concerned about the people who have already applied for this grant. Of course they've only applied by letter. What do they have to do? Do they have to reapply on the proper form and when will that form be available — the proper application form?

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

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I note that the Minister of Finance will be paying moneys out of this fund on recommendations from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. I'm sorry that he's not able to be in the House this morning to indicate to us the basis upon which his department might make such recommendations. I know that he has no obligation to do so, but it would help us in fully understanding the direction that the government is going to go in this Act.

Now, maybe if we had a statute to incorporate the election material of the NDP last election then we wouldn't have to ask all these questions. My concern, Mr. Speaker, and the reason that I hope the Minister of Finance will respond when closing the debate, is that the construction of facilities is too often looked upon as being the end of the exercise. I don't make this criticism of any particular group or any particular community because I think that it is widespread throughout this province and throughout this entire country.

We have, in the City of Vancouver, some very fine recreational facilities. They incorporate community centres, ice-rinks, swimming pools; and yet year after year we know from reports that we see in the Press that some of the worst behavioural patterns are found in and about those facilities.

There is one in Vancouver which is renowned — not inside the buildings — but outside in the grounds more glue-sniffing takes place than at any place in the city. Let me assure you that in West Vancouver we have a very fine community centre which was constructed with the assistance of centennial grants — we've had so many centennials that we've been able to build quite a fine facility with grants — but with that kind of government assistance a very fine community centre has been constructed. Yet, for some reason the young people in the community find that that facility is not suitable for the kind of activity that they want to carry on.

Now I'm not criticizing the young people nor am I criticizing those who are charged with the administration of the community centre there. But for some reason or other the two can't get together. The young people don't feel comfortable in the centre. The rules and regulations are designed for very specific kinds of activity, and the 14 and 15 and 16-year-old boy and girl in the community today says "I don't want to play chess. I don't want to play hop-scotch or badminton. That doesn't happen to be my bag. I want to sit around with some of my friends and rap a little bit and have some opportunity to relax in pleasant circumstances."

As a consequence, in West Vancouver what happens is that they sit outside on the grass and smoke grass.

So I think that when we are considering the making of grants to municipalities, to any of these non-profit organizations who will themselves undertake the responsibility of providing the other funds necessary to bring the facility into being, that we should also be inquiring very carefully into the purpose for which the facility is to be constructed, and in a general way the manner in which it will be administered, the kind of staff that they will put into the facility to make sure that we don't build a palace which is just not suitable for the needs of the people

[ Page 2366 ]

who need the recreational opportunity.

If we fail in this regard then we will end up with a fine group of glorious buildings which will, I'm sure, continue to function year by year at increasing operating costs to the organization including the municipalities; and still be somehow or other failing those people who, as the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) says, most need the opportunity to break with the lifestyle that is so readily offered to them in the street.

Let's not ever doubt that the opportunities for recreation of the kind that young people like is available to them in the street without any facility in the sense of community facilities at all. They can have a ball. What we have to do is change the direction of their thinking and we do this by making sure that the facilities that we create are in line with what they need.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am at a disadvantage in debating this bill because it is a subject I know something about. That's always a handicap, I think.

I have in my own professional experience been responsible for administering a community centre and also have been responsible for establishing recreation services on a professional basis in a confined setting.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) has touched the real nerve of the problem. Of all the areas of service in North America, this is the one area that is further behind in terms of professional qualifications, standards and service.

You can have community centres side-by-side staffed by, on the one hand, highly-competent, highly-skilled professional people and on the other hand people who have very, very limited experience. Yet there are no standards in terms of professional setting. In some instances the person involved may have a master's degree in group work, which is a highly specialized field of social work; and in other instances the person in charge may have taken a six-week course in some recreational programme put on during a summer. That gap reflects itself in the gap in service.

The Member touched a very important point too when he talked about the regulations of the community centre. Many people think that because staff work in the recreation field they're having recreation themselves. There is no harder work than working with people in groups. There just isn't anything, that I know of anyway, that is harder than organizing people in groups in recreational activities that have some meaning to those people.

The kids — well the kids suffer from the standard condemnation that we are very prone to give to very young adolescents. Those kids in the age group from 12 to 17 who are still honest, still open and haven't learned the adult game yet of repressing feelings and attitudes that allows you to survive in a society that is somewhat less than honest…those kids act out at a very difficult time of life. We establish rules in our community centres and, like the Member says, out the door they go.

You know, I've had the crazy experience of working in one particular section of the community in the States. We built a community centre and brought in a number of adolescents who were on probation and we had a special programme going. One of the kids came down the hallway with a crayon and marked the wall with a crayon. They had a board meeting at the centre and threw that group out because they were marking up the walls.

Now where do you want them to mark up the walls? Do you want them to mark up the walls at a setting where you've got some control over them? Or do you want them out in the street where you have no control whatsoever, where the problem becomes "out of sight, out of mind"?

When we go into this field it must be understood that the service to people includes the risks of having the walls marked, the floors dirtied, a window broken occasionally, and other human activities that take place there. The community should understand that the government is not encouraging the walls to be marked, the windows to be broken; but that's part of human behaviour and it's far better to have it in a setting where there are competent staff and understanding adults to deal with it.

In terms of the facilities to be used, the empire building syndrome that most politicians get involved in, in terms of ribbon-cutting, is a thing that must be avoided. In our regulations we will make sure that we have staffing projections for the institution or facility, and also some measure of the planning of the use of the building.

The standard plans asked by that Member…the questions that are being asked are by those people who have been directly involved in municipal politics and know the pitfalls of this particular field. Their questions are the general questions that come up time and time again.

The standard facilities: well, I don't know. We'll try to help as best we can, but it's the same problem. I worked in prisons and they never asked the fellows who did time what kind of prison to build. They go to an architect and they say "what kind of prison do you want?" They go watch a 1936 movie and come up with the most outlandish gadgets you ever believed.

We went to work at the Haney Correctional Institution six months before it opened and it had been drawn up by architects and public works people and everything else. They had electronic gates in

[ Page 2367 ]

there at the central control area that were unbelievable. I hadn't seen anything like that anywhere that I'd worked. It was obvious that the architect involved had visited a California institution and was intrigued with this push-button business of controlling traffic in the institution.

What happens, just like in jails and in a lot of community centres, is that people have to adjust to live in that setting rather than just be people; and their problems come with the rules and regulations rather than in trying to get a meaningful life experience.

We were going to build a fence around it — and it's appropriate too to community centres — we were going to build a fence around the institution but the money ran out. The government was a little bit broke in the late 50s and the money ran out.

We didn't build a fence and all the custody people who had the push buttons and everything said they were all going to run away. We went without a fence for a full year in the institution. Then we got the money that somebody fought for somewhere in the bureaucracy — I don't know where — we got the money, we built the fence; one week after the fence was up we had our first escape.

People just can't comprehend the flexibility needed in dealing with human behaviour. So we're going to try in these regulations to get people to understand that we want staffing projections and we want some flexibility in the planning. We'll try to draft plans for them in terms of the physical facilities.

We will not permit, where we know and where it is possible to get the information, a duplication of facilities. It's silly to have a high school gymnasium sitting idle while the community builds another gymnasium as a recreational centre right beside it. The Department of Education has already indicated that the barriers that existed before will be removed and that the community will use its tax dollar on a total service basis — so if a school facility can be expanded to include recreational purposes, that's the way it will be. In the same way, if a recreational service can be expanded in the schools programme, that will be the way it is.

But $10 million isn't going to be enough. That's obvious right now. We'll have to put more money in, then we'll try to meet every demand that there is by everybody who meets the regulation.

We've had a committee meeting of our own caucus. We've gone over draft regulations; and I have no hesitation to say that when those draft regulations are typed up — and the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) is the chairman of the committee: he's not around today — we'll circulate them. If anybody else in the Opposition is interested, they are more than welcome to read the drafts. If you've got any additions or suggestions you'd like to see in the regulations, we more than welcome those on the draft.

The main part of the bill, as far as I am concerned, is an area that protects a lifestyle that is uniquely Canadian in the North American context. For one reason or another — some good and some bad — we have been able to allow people to maintain two identities in this country — for a lot of people: not all people but a lot of people. One is a Canadian identity and the second one, but an equally important one, is their own religious or ethnic identity. That has been a factor in keeping this country together in a way that the United States has not had the opportunity to do.

Now this bill will allow people with their religious or cultural identification to have a focal point for that religious recreational activity or cultural recreational activity to be zeroed in on. Not the obvious thing, too, of allowing people to come in — let people come in and see each other.

I worked at the Jewish community centre for two years. I was the executive director there. The first week that I was there, I saw five nuns going down the hallways. I was trying to figure out, you know, "What's happening here?" (Laughter).

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. They were on their way to the pool. The Young Men's Christian Association was part of the programme planning committee in the place. It was very interesting. And you see this kind of thing happening all the time in that setting.

I could see it happening in Catholic settings and Protestant settings — why not? The place where I announced this programme was in the Chinese community. There is nothing more delightful than that mix that exists — mixed yet separate — in British Columbia and Canada. It's an important part of our own lifestyle. It gives an opportunity for people to meet and understand each other — to find out how much they have in common as well as their own differences.

The draft regulations will be sent around and everybody should have a go at them.

On two other matters — I am pleased to hear the public announcement that Oak Bay will allow the Victorians to come to their facilities. I think that's a great step towards integration in British Columbia. I think it shows a most enlightened approach by the people in Oak Bay. (Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: Separate but unequal.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Separate but unequal. We'll all defend the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) when he gets any feedback in there that Victorians are allowed.

The other thing is the age groups. The planning must include facilities for the aged as well as for the

[ Page 2368 ]

adolescent and the very, very young. I have no objection to seeing the facilities used in the morning for daycare, during the day for senior citizens' activities and during the evening for any kind of recreational activity. As our society moves more and more into a time of better use of leisure time, why not?

The one warning that I want to give publicly is that anyone who is applying should have a projection in front of their application of how they intend to finance the staffing. No centre can be staffed by volunteers. That's a big mistake. It just can't work that way. Volunteers can't do it. You've got to have professional people or full-time people involved.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The range of recreation? That's up to the community or the group. I can see all kinds of things. One thing is the convention centre that you mentioned. Now if you sold it as a convention centre it wouldn't go; but if you build the facilities in a way, using flexible walls, for example, and some sensible planning and flexibility within the building, you can have multiple use of the facilities. That becomes a recreational centre on that basis.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, the Union Club does not qualify, Mr. Member. (Laughter). But the library, the arts, all of these facilities can be used.

There are simple things that have to be avoided. In the prison setting, for example, we brought in rollaway bleachers finally instead of having fixed bleachers. The reason we had fixed bleachers was that we were told the inmates would pick up pieces and wreck the bleachers and have a riot. It's the same kind of thing with kids — "if it's loose the kid'll pick it up and hit somebody else."

You don't build or plan a facility on the basis of what may be the erratic behaviour of one out of a million children. So flexibility is the word throughout the planning.

I don't know what else I can add to it except I know, again, that there's not enough money.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tell them we hope that the regulations finish in 30 days, and we'll have a system for applying and everything. Everybody has been asking all over the province and I've had to give them the same answer — that we're drafting the regulations and then we'll go ahead.

One thing that I appreciate — and this is very significant — there has not been one word of criticism for any area of the community that the bill defines ethnic and religious identity as being eligible for a grant. I think that shows a healthy sign of progress in this province.

I now ask the question be put.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 76 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 77, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as mentioned during the budget address, this Government has not had time since taking office in September to properly assess the desirability of maintaining all these funds in their present forms.

We recognize the useful purpose involved in some of the funds and therefore wish to augment them.

Hon. Members, this bill augments three of the funds. One and two are the Accelerated Park Development Fund and the Accelerated Reforestation Fund. These two funds are to provide immediate jobs by providing work in our parks and our forests. This bill, therefore, adds $5 million to each of these funds so the work of both funds may carry on.

The third is the Provincial Home Acquisition Act which provides low interest second mortgages and outright grants of $500 or $1,000, depending on the circumstances. The principle of providing financial assistance for citizens to purchase homes in this Act goes hand in hand with this administration's Housing Incentive Fund for land banks and for future housing developments.

We therefore wish to assure that adequate funds are available under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act and this bill provides $50 million more for this purpose.

For the information of the Hon. Members, approximately $9.5 million remains in the Home Acquisition Fund at present and most of this amount is expected to be used up by the end of March, 1973 — well, these notes were prepared before the end of March, 1973, so it's probably gone by now.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, we support this bill. We certainly encourage the private ownership of homes. Anything which can encourage people to own their own homes is a bill which we're happy to

[ Page 2369 ]

support.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals not only with the Provincial Home Acquisition Act but other funds as well.

Perhaps I might put the first question to the Minister of Finance in that in his budget speech of this year he mentioned these various funds and I'll quote him, Mr. Speaker — on page 13, towards the bottom of the page: "Mr. Speaker, this Government has not had time since taking office in September to assess properly the desirability of maintaining all these funds in their present forms."

Then he goes on to talk about the increases which he thinks should take place — and this legislation follows that statement on p. 13-14 of the budget.

We have also questioned over the years the use by the previous government of these various funds. We do feel there are many objectives which funds have and there are some excellent objectives, no doubt, in the Accelerated Reforestation Fund Act, the Accelerated Park Development Fund Act and the Provincial Home Acquisition Act. The bill here deals with the appropriation for funds and we really do question at this time the whole principle of setting up special funding for programmes which, we think, should be ongoing programmes which should be under normal budgetary control and should be defended and protected by Ministers in this House in the normal manner.

I asked questions earlier in the debates on estimates. I asked questions about the Drug, Alcohol and Tobacco Fund. It was like the proverbial ping pong ball with about 15 people around the table playing ping pong. It actually belonged to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) but when her estimates were up, I didn't really realize that — I thought in view of the many statements made by the Minister of Rehabilitation and Social Improvement (Hon Mr. Levi) that it really belonged to his department as he was the fellow who seemed to be most interested, in the cabinet, at least, in dealing with drugs.

Then, of course, the Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance's (Hon. Mr. Cocke's) estimate came up and I thought, "My goodness, I may have made a mistake," for he seemed to be taking on responsibilities in this area or, at least, he appeared to have a great number. Really and truly, between those three Ministers, plus, of course, the Premier's own personal interest in much that goes on in that area, we really didn't know who was responsible for the fund.

It is a $25 million fund, $2 million of which can be expected to be generated every year. We still haven't heard in the discussion on estimates how this money is divided up. I'm not blaming the Ministers, I am not suggesting that they attempted to conceal anything — I am just saying this whole question of funds complicates enormously the questions of Ministerial responsibility. The present Government recognized this in the past. I have in my hands quotations from Hansard of February 8 where the Hon. Mr. Strachan, the Minister of Highways, discussed various funds and he was extremely critical. Other Members also discussed the question of funds, and they, too, were critical because of this question of responsibility.

The special funding, in my mind, is a bad way of going about regular programming. The special funding, this party has consistently thought, could better be done by way of regular appropriations out of the general revenue, the consolidated revenue fund to government departments. In this area I feel we are in much the same position. We have a Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). However one regards the Minister — competent or incompetent, great or otherwise — he is the fellow who should be running this particular fund or he should be running it as part of his departmental activity.

Similarly with the Park Development Fund, we have a much overworked Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Williams) and various other things. Perhaps he should be handling that matter and it should be done as a regular departmental responsibility instead of this special funding which has always been a problem for us in this House of finding out who is responsible and why.

The Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Strachan) back on February 8 talked about the Accelerated Reforestation Fund. I quote him: "The first question I have to ask is: why do we need a special fund? If trees need planting they should be planted. We have said that for years." He goes on to say the fund is inadequate. I might add that even the increases the present Government is proposing are apparently, according to the statement of the Minister of Highways a year ago, still inadequate. Nevertheless, that is by the by.

The question is: why the funds? I was expecting, when this bill was introduced, that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) would deal with that at some length. He has not and I would like to ask him, in closing, to give us some of his views. Perhaps back when the budget was introduced it wasn't possible. It simply wasn't possible to determine whether funds were the best way of financing. Our experience since then in this House in dealing with the other funds in existence has indicated that we are no better off than we were. There is still the problem of Ministerial responsibility and accountability.

There is one thing which I trust this Government will remember, and that is its previous words about the concealment that took place — the "shell game"

[ Page 2370 ]

— by the previous administrations. The previous administration did its best, in many fields, to make sure that public accountability was an extremely difficult process. Members of this party and Members of the NDP spent years attempting to find out what was going on. Now, I am quite sure it will be mentioned that we now have an Opposition Member as chairman of the public accounts committee. That's well and good, but there are other areas where we need a lot more in the way of information, a lot more in the way of openness, a lot more in the way of accountability to this Legislature — not to the cabinet, not to the backbench of the government party but to the Legislature. That is the traditional system in a British parliamentary democracy. It is a system we have departed from far too frequently in the past. In this particular bill it appears we are continuing in the same unfortunate direction in which the previous government started us.

This principle, in my mind, is a very important one. In this particular Act we are simply adding to various funds to achieve certain objectives. There are no new principles as far as the objectives of the money are concerned, but there is this question of whether we are to have a departure from previous practice, a departure from concealment, a departure from secret funding or at least secret decision-making on funds and the beginning of legislative accountability which surely, in our type of government, is a factor of critical importance.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. McCLELLAND: Just one quick question again. Referring back to the budget speech as the previous speaker did, the Minister of Finance also said that he wasn't sure about the direction in which this particular fund was going to go and wasn't sure how the $50 million would be spent but that it would be inter-related, I believe, with the land bank — not only with the home acquisition purpose of the fund but also land bank purchases in addition.

I would just like to have the Minister, if he is able, Mr. Speaker, clarify that and tell us where that money is going to be spent and whether it should rightfully be in with the previous bill we passed with regard to land bank purchase.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We support this bill. I had to be out of the House and I may have missed some of the comments and I hope I don't repeat what has already been said. We have already stated in this House at other times the importance of reforestation, in particular. The Minister concerned in forestry was always actively stating that there wasn't nearly enough money being made available to properly replace the timber being removed from our forests. Therefore, I certainly feel he is following through on what he was committed to as a Member of the Opposition. The same goes for parks. When he was in the Opposition he was always criticizing the government for lack of action and not spending enough money and showing enough foresight in the development of parks. So I find it encouraging in this first regular session that the Government is committed in this direction.

There is one criticism one would always have of this kind of bill: like the $500 million we allowed the PGE to borrow one time, there are absolutely no guidelines or details as to how the money will be spent. There is just a very general approval of large sums of money. This would be our only reservation — the lack of detail and the fact that it is a rather brief bill for $60 million with very little detail as to how it will be spent.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), he invited the Members to ask any detail questions they had on the funds. There are also some questions on the order paper that will be answered. If you want any information on the funds, put the questions on the order paper — they will be answered in detail.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The question is on the order paper and the answer will be provided.

I can understand the Member's impatience. Everything wants to be done overnight. We just haven't had the time, but I said honestly in the budget speech that we were going to reorganize those funds. Now the community is telling us to slow down and you're telling us to speed up. We are going at the best possible pace we can, as human beings. Now, you must admit, Mr. Member, there have been more reforms and more changes in the last seven months than at any other time in the history of this province.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Garde. We are not shoving any money anywhere without access to public information. If you want the information, stand up at the Provincial Secretary's estimates — he was prepared to give it. If you want any more information, put it on the order paper. It is just as simple as that. We will get you the information.

I hope that by next spring we will have the funds reorganized in a more meaningful way. We will not buy land under this — no purchase of land at all.

[ Page 2371 ]

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 77 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No. 78.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
ECONOMIC RESEARCH FUND

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, one of the glaring deficiencies noticed by this Government upon assuming office was the lack of economic research available to the various departments. I refer not only to research of a general nature, but also to the economic feasibility studies of specific projects.

In the view of this Government, the availability of appropriate economic studies before embarking on a project is paramount. In attempting to correct this void in provincial administration, this bill sets up a $5 million perpetual fund whereby the interest earned on each year can be used for economic research studies by the provincial government.

It is thought that the research will be carried out by private or educational institutions and will be over and above any research now being carried on in the various departments of government.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that everybody must take shots in politics. We've been taking a few shots in the last few weeks. I'd like to take a few shots back under this bill.

When we came to office, we found that no one below the office of Deputy Minister could phone out of the province without permission from his deputy. We found the civil service so hamstrung that it was unbelievable. The idea of getting information directly to the department and showing some initiative by a civil servant was verboten — forbidden by "der orders." "Don't phone outside of British Columbia because you might find out that there's something else out there."

In many instances, Mr. Speaker, we found evidence that information with federal programmes was just not even available because the initiative of the staff was stifled. The per diem rate for civil servants travelling hadn't been changed since 1952. The idea that civil servants would show some initiative by travelling or finding out what was going on was almost incomprehensible to the former administration.

My first experience on a specific matter was related to minerals — when I discussed some information with the Minister of Mines, (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) and wanted a specific report made available to me before we made a policy decision on behalf of the people. We inquired and we found that the only person who could give us the correct information was a certain professor at Columbia University. So we called in one of our economists and said, "Would you go down to see this professor next week and ask these following questions and then come back with the information."

He said, "Well, I'm sorry, I can't go." I said, "You can't go? Why? Is your wife ill or have you got a problem in your family?" "Oh, no," he said. "I'd need the clearance from my deputy before I could go." I said, "Hey, I'm the Premier and he's the Minister of Mines and we say you're going."

It shook him up. I understand that the whole idea that the government would actually send an ordinary civil servant out of the province to go find out what was going on was greeted with cries of "Dictatorship" by the former Minister of Mines.

I remember the former Minister of Mines, when he was doing research on Loeb Brothers — a safety jacket — he was up in front of the television wearing this jacket and being turned around…. Oh come on, you were country jerks when it came to getting information and that's a fact.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. That's a derogatory comment on country people. They were the government jerks.

The kind of policy decisions they made were based on seat-of-the-pants economics and finger-in-the-wind attempts to find out what was going on. They said they were a hard-headed business government. Any hard-headed business government that would allow coal to go out at 25 cents a ton without doing some economic research have got holes in their head. Small-time boys who blew opportunity after opportunity of making a few dollars for the people of British Columbia.

While I'm waxing eloquent, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that we will never run this government as an Edison wind-up gramophone remembrance programme. This will be done on a solid business-like basis, based on research from the best brains available anywhere in the world, including Conservatives, Liberals and…. What's that other party? Social Credit intellectuals will be invited too. Those with the A plus B theorem will be given the opportunity to interpret how the A plus B theorem will help. (Laughter). Public body on the A plus B theorem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Coming back to the principle of this bill….

[ Page 2372 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, a point of order has been raised that the A plus B theorem has nothing to do with economics. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked to hear that we're going to spend public money on having people go over the A plus B theorem. If that is the intention of the Premier, he makes it a great deal easier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's under mental health. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Another special fund.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has the same defects as the one I spoke on earlier. When you're dealing with economic research — which obviously, as the Premier has made perfectly clear, is an ongoing thing that should have been done not only previous to the last six months but previous to the last election — we fail to see why it should not be funded on a regular basis throughout the year, throughout the decade, throughout the future millennia. We just don't see why it has to be set up under special funding of this nature.

We have consistently opposed special funds where the interest is put aside and where the basic objective of the funds, as far as we've been able to understand, is to pump money in to the B.C. Hydro or B.C. Rail or some other outfit which needs a bit of capitalization. In this instance, as well as in the case of the previous funds, we fail to see why we have to act in this way. No explanation has really been given, either in the previous debate or up to now in the introduction of this bill.

There's no question that research should be done. Shortly you'll hear from the Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), who'll say more about that. There's no question that there should be….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well perhaps both of them will speak. I'm not sure.

There's no question that there is a great need for the type of economic research which the Premier talked about. We certainly don't quarrel with that. But why is it that we have to set up hidden funds of this nature? Is it because the surpluses are greater than the Premier originally expected and he simply has to drain some of those surplus funds into special funds? Is that the reason, because of the 14 per cent increase in revenues which he mentioned the other day and — I think rightly — was pleased about? Is this why we're having even more funds set up?

If we're into an era where we're going to have open government and let the sunshine in and all the other things, it really isn't good enough to say, "Well, if you really want to know something, you can put a question on the order paper." Or, "If you're still puzzled, go speak to the Provincial Secretary." The Provincial Secretary, charming fellow though he is, has not proved to be a star when it comes to answering questions in this House. Of his cabinet colleagues, he is perhaps in the lower half rather than the upper half, as far as providing information is concerned.

In addition, as we discussed beforehand, other Ministers are involved. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) was one particularly mentioned in the case of drugs, alcohol and tobacco. I really don't feel that the excuse given when we were dealing with the previous bill was adequate. I feel that the same problem is still here in this bill. My mind is simply not being set at rest by the arguments of the Premier.

Five million dollars may be a desirable amount to put aside in a perpetual fund. Five million dollars at 10 per cent provides a fair amount of money — or 7 per cent, whatever it happens to be. What we think there should be, though, is funding from general revenue based on need on a year-to-year basis. We should not be in the position, as we are now, of saying, "Well, we can amend it to increase it next year to the tune of $10 million, or $15 million the year after because we've found out that it needs more money."

What we should do is gear the money going to this economic research unit to their requirements. You really can't do it by way of funds where the money will vary depending on the rate of interest, economic conditions and a whole number of other factors.

Economic research is obviously critical. I agree that we've had far too little of it in this province up to now. The comments the Premier made about lack of knowledge by B.C. civil servants of joint federal provincial programmes, I completely endorse. In the last few years I spent a great deal of time trying to make this information available from my office in Ottawa and from my visits to this constituency. The problem was that people simply didn't know what was going on outside. I completely endorse the need for further information and further research so that the British Columbia civil service can function more effectively.

But why on earth does it have to be by way of fund. Why cannot it be by way of a straight vote under the Department of the Provincial Secretary?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think

[ Page 2373 ]

some of the events of this session have indicated the need for economic research, particularly the two episodes where the Government has entered into the area of private industry to resuscitate failing enterprises. As I've said in this House, our party is willing to wait and see what the events will turn out to be in Ocean Falls and in the case of Prince Rupert and the Colcel deal.

Certainly, as an onlooker and as an interested representative of voters in Oak Bay, I just also feel there is some apprehension as to whether the Government really knows what it is getting into. The Premier himself is on record as having said that there has been a dearth of information and research and so on. So in this first regular session our party is certainly willing to support provision of funds and staff, which apparently is not in existence at the present time, to provide us with long-range information as to what is feasible and what is not feasible in the economic development of the province.

We hear a great deal about the need for provinces such as British Columbia to have an overall industrial strategy. I'm not quite sure in my own mind just exactly what that fancy phrase means, but I suppose it means both the best development of our resources and the most efficient marketing and the best dollar return being achieved from all our resources, both natural and manufactured.

To be more specific I wonder if the Minister would make any comment…. I raised a matter to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in question period a week or so ago regarding such things as the development of a very much improved artificial kidney in this province. I'm wondering if this fund that we are now debating today is the kind of fund from which, let us say, the $150,000 pre-production budget for this unit could be provided. Or would one expect that still to be provided by the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce through his department?

I tend to share with the former speaker the question as to why a separate fund is necessary, because in answer to my question the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce did say that this is the kind of area of new developments and new techniques and new machinery in which this province would like to assist development so that we can corner the market.

This particular instance that I raised in the House is just on that very situation; that if we don't shortly find the means of developing it in British Columbia, it will be developed in Europe or in the States — and the first people in the market corner the market.

So I think that in this kind of situation it is very important that people like Dr. Price, who is the doctor concerned in this case, should have quick and ready access to government. The government, in turn, should quickly make decisions so that the production — or at least what is apparently pre-production work — can be finalized and we can in fact go into full production, at which time we will have markets from all over the world.

But if we delay, as in this case, and the model is developed in Europe or in New York or somewhere else, then of course we turn around and find that we are buying these products from other countries. It's just tragic if our delay and the opportunities in the business world that we are missing…if they are due to the lack of research funds and research staff such as are envisaged in this bill, then of course we certainly want to support it very strongly.

But I wonder if the Minister could answer these two questions. Is this the kind of project that would be covered by this fund? If so, would it not be equally efficient just to encompass the staff and the money within the Department of the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only wish to speak very briefly on this bill to reiterate principles that I've enunciated before on many bills of this kind previously in the House under the former Social Credit regime and under this one.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is a very "fundy" man, and he's made quite a case for carrying on a financial practice which I believe is to be deplored.

The objective, of course, of all of these funds is to deceive the public as to the true state of financial affairs in the province. Once more this year we have had a deliberate under-estimation of the revenues of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Hon. Member to withdraw his statement made in passion about the intent to deceive the public.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think the Hon. Member intended to attribute that to the Hon. Minister of Finance. If he did I am certain he would retract.

MR. McGEER: Absolutely not. I am merely talking about the way figures are presented, Mr. Speaker, and there is certainly no imputation at all. And, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't made in passion. I didn't

[ Page 2374 ]

stamp my feet. I merely tried to….

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, it would be even more reprehensible if it were not made in passion. (Laughter).

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, one cannot be passionate about figures. I mean numerals. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Call the doctor.

MR. McGEER: In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do apologize to the House for any personal imputation.

May I try and make my point again that I believe the public of British Columbia, each time a budget is presented, should have a frank and accurate declaration of the expected revenues for the coming year. There should be a frank and accurate declaration of what the expenditures will be, including the funds that are to be set aside for the Crown corporations.

In that I include the B.C. Railway, the B.C. Hydro, the schools financing authority and hospitals financing authority. These are the main Crown corporations which year after year have taken funds from consolidated revenue surplus and where the Legislature, at the time the budget is presented, has been given no indication that this is the intention of the government and the Minister of Finance.

I really thought, with the new government, that this whole shabby practice would change; that we would have an open declaration of the state of finances in the province, including funds that were required for the operation of the Crown corporations.

As my colleague the Liberal leader has stated, we should be the last ones to decry funds being spent on economic research.

Mr. Speaker, heaven knows the government needs that more than anything, and we wouldn't want to stand in the way of letting them have all the funds that they needed for economic research.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you trying to say?

MR. McGEER: But we don't believe that financing Crown corporations should be undertaken by this device. For things such as economic research we have a place in our estimate book, under the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce. There is a whole economics and statistics division. There is no reason why there couldn't be set aside in that particular vote whatever amount of money is necessary for the establishment of a consultation programme, bringing in outside people like Eric Kierans or whoever else you would like to bring in to advise you.

Mr. Speaker, experience has shown that the proper way to administer funds is not directly under cabinet control, but through the medium of the civil service. I've heard members of the Treasury benches today stand up and condemn the way that funds, set aside under the Social Credit programme of establishing funds willy-nilly, had been mishandled in the sense of not having the dispassionate control of the civil service in the way these funds were dispensed.

So if even the Treasury benches condemn in others this method of administering funds, why should they continue on the practice themselves?

Mr. Speaker, the Government has been inconsistent in many ways. First of all, it's been inconsistent in declaring that it is an open government and then continues the same hidden practices with regard to the Crown corporations.

Secondly, it has been inconsistent in condemning the kind of administration for the former government undertook with such funds, because they were under political control — and then sets up even more funds that are under political control.

While the objective is not only worthy, but for this government is desperately needed, this is not the method for handling the situation. We are not in favour of this bill

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, that the Liberal leader has taken this attitude. The Liberal leader twins have taken this attitude. In view of the statement about the doctor becoming passionate about figures — thank goodness we're not all doctors.

The plea by the present Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) about the need for knowing what's going on — and don't tell me that that group you belonged to in Ottawa knew what was going on and did economic research within the votes to find out what it cost to paint the Bonaventure. That was a $35 million crash-up if there ever was one! Who in the civil service did the economic study to see what kind of paint should go on it before they sold it to the Hong Kong interests?

Then they bought that submarine. They had it built in Scotland. There was only one thing wrong with it, Mr. Speaker — it had a leak. There's nothing much wrong with a submarine that doesn't have a leak, but you've got real problems if one leaks. Who did the economic research back there?

Then the Bras d'Or — the flying destroyer they were going to have. I saw that one when I went back to Nova Scotia, sitting up there on the dry-docks. It didn't want to get its bottom wet. That's a real good kind of ship, Mr. Speaker, and if we're going to follow the advice of the federal Liberals on how to do

[ Page 2375 ]

research, we'll break this province in a hurry.

So when we get those kinds of almost petulant little statements saying, "You need some research inside the department," I say you ain't got no experience, buddy, that shows me you knew a thing about research back there in Ottawa. $35 million to repaint a battleship, an aircraft carrier. Come off it! Who are you trying to kid? This kind of performance we've had from the two Liberals today is almost unbelievable. They want the research buried away somewhere where they can chuck it around and say, "Well, yes, we're looking into this, we're looking into that." There goes another submarine to the bottom, there goes another aircraft carrier to the junk heap — but "we're thinking about it."

MR. McGEER: Sinking now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then the present Liberal leader said that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) was no star in answering questions!

AN HON MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on! Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with that statement, because how can you be a star in answering questions when we haven't got a star to ask them? He can only work with the material that's been given to him. If the questions are stupid, what do you expect him to do? The best he can do is give a respectful silence, and I want to tell him that, if anything, he has been charitable by giving you that silence.

Your inability to ask questions is only matched by the confusion as to who's leader over there. I have never seen such a pitiful performance from the leadership twins as the one we've had in the last 15 minutes. Go back and open up your World Book and look under "P" for politics and come in with something that makes some sense. But when you give us that kind of pitiful performance, you begin to wonder what's going on. Have you read the bill, Mr. Member from Waterfront Number 3, is it? West–Point Grey. The auditor general has to….

MR. McGEER: I think that the Premier by now should know the names of the constituencies in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: He learns slowly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have we got a chance in Waterpoint…Waterfront 3? West–Point Grey — one of my favourite areas.

MR. McGEER: I'm beginning to think we'll have a chance in Coquitlam. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: You certainly have. Why don't you come out there and run there next time?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please,

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Member from West–Point Grey, Waterfront 3, knows very well that the accounts are all checked by the Comptroller General and that if there are any expenditures outside the legislation, then of course…. I understand there is going to be a second-hand Auditor General available after the Liberals get through with that one in Ottawa, Mr. Member. You guys have been trying to drop old Maxie for years.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is! There's the admission right there. Anyway, the Comptroller General must look at all the expenditures within the legislation.

Now, the purpose of why we put this under the fund was a conscious decision. The decision was made because it offered us an opportunity of giving us a fairly fixed figure within the range of tens of thousands of dollars of an annual budget. What this offers us is a degree of flexibility that we think is absolutely essential in terms of the kind of research that we want to have at our hand. We want to be in a position, if a problem comes up to us, or if we intend to move in a particular area, to pick up a phone and, within a matter of hours, have the kind of people we want consulting with us, or have our civil servants made available to those people either on a seminar basis or on an individual basis. It's simply a method whereby we can have the degree of flexibility we feel is essential.

The pressures of government are very, very intense in terms of decision-making processes and we want to have the availability on an hour-to-hour basis, so we've taken this approach. We find that administratively it offers the best approach for this problem. If you don't want to vote for it, don't vote for it. I won't tell anybody out there at the university that you're against research.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 78 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill No. 144.

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

[ Page 2376 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker and Hon. Members, you are aware that many exemptions are already provided under the Succession Duty Act, and to encourage the carrying on of the operation of the family farm, there is already provision in the Act to allow succession duties to be paid over a 10-year period interest-free.

This Government desires to go further in encouraging the continuation of farm units throughout the province. Accordingly, in this bill it is proposed to exempt completely the family farm when passing on to a child of the deceased. At present the farm home is exempted and any part of the farm registered with the home. However, the amendment proposed would exempt the family farm in its entirety, regardless of how the parcels may be registered.

I welcome a demonstration on the lawns over this bill, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this is such a short bill that perhaps we can comment about some of the words in it.

First, we like the idea of exemptions from the Succession Duty Act. We believe in wider exemptions, as we've indicated before. Unfortunately, I think what we're setting up is a black market in children here. The wording of it goes, "passing on the death of the deceased to a child." There's no reference there to any child, whether it's the child of the deceased or anything at all of that nature. So as long as you find a child to accept your family farm, apparently you can go ahead and leave it without any succession duties. It is rather interesting that, provided someone is young enough to be described as a child, they can take property from a farmer, but if someone is older than that, they can't. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) will comment upon this point in a realistic way, prior to second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: We think that this bill simply doesn't go far enough. We'd like to see the whole Succession Duty Act completely repeated.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like just briefly to say that we have criticized the Government this session, because of Bill 42 and so on, for not doing enough to help the family farm. If this is the first step of many which is indeed designed to help the farmer, then of course we would support this.

We are also on record as having, at an earlier session, said we believe in repealing the Succession Duty Act, because of the fact that we feel, for reasons we've stated earlier, that capital would be attracted to this province which is presently being invested in other provinces, notably Alberta. So while we stand by our original policy to abolish succession duties, as previously recorded, at least this is a step by this Government in an attempt to help the farmer and to pass the farm on without succession duty.

I also wonder about the reference to "a child." I felt that the intent of the bill was to the son or daughter or the grandson or granddaughter. I don't think the bill intends "a child" to mean anybody under 19 or an infant under 19. I hope the Premier will clarify that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for North Peace River.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In speaking to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, one of the questions that comes to my mind is: how do you define a family farm unit under the regulations that will apply to this bill?

For instance, many family farm units today are operated by a father-and-son combination or a father and maybe several sons or even his daughters are involved in some of them. You've incorporated the farm unit under the Companies Act and the farm is operated as a corporation under the Act — but it is actually a family unit.

I know in the Peace River country we have a number of farm families operating a farm. It is the intention when the farm goes from father to son that it will be a transfer of shares to one son or a number of sons. I am wondering if, under the interpretation of the Act and the actual test of a family farm, you will allow these family farm units that are held in a corporation by a father and other members of the family to escape the problem of estate taxes upon the passing of the farm unit from the father to other members of the family?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I was just trying to see whether or not we do have a definition under the Succession Duty Act. If there's one there, conceivably the problem is taken care of satisfactorily.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On the point, Mr. Members. Your caucus is composed of 40 per cent of lawyers. If you'd read the bill in conjunction with the Act, we could all get on a lot better.

[ Page 2377 ]

MR. GARDOM: I didn't ask you for your life history. This is a nice Monday morning, Mr. Provincial Secretary. Nobody's attacking you. Just have a nice breath of air and a cold glass of water and get the fever off your brow. Everything will be all right.

I'm delighted to hear, Mr. Speaker, that we now have the acquiescence and the support and the consent of the Members of the Social Credit Party and also those of the Conservative Party to the Liberal view in this House — which has been consistent as long as I've been in the House — for the abolition of any type of death taxes in the Province of B.C. I think the need for that became far, far more evident by virtue of the amendments to the federal income tax Act and the abolition of the federal estate tax Act.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey asking for calm, but his own leader was the one that hasn't been prepared for these debates. He comes in the House and says, "Oh, this wording is bad." The wording is exactly the same as the federal Act.

Now I wish you'd do your homework.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The words in terms of the exemption are right out of the federal Act. O.K. Now the provincial definition is right there. Turn around and get the books. You want another book? I'll buy you another one. But don't come into the House pretending that you've found a great avenue. Do your homework.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Oh, come on," he says.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, drink another cup of oil. You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat pathetic that that kind of petulant lecture is given in the House without any reference or any research. When we were in Opposition at least we read the statutes before we got up to criticize.

Now the succession duty itself: as long as we are a Government succession duties will be paid in this province. How do you like that? You Bay Street and Wall Street fighters for big business and private wealth will get the message.

The message was given by the former Premier of this province when he said he would never let the rich go free — that was until he discovered the Kelowna Charter. When he got up and made that statement in the House, we applauded him for that statement.

The wealthy people in this province have become wealthy because of the fruits of this province. They should pay a fair tax on succession duties. That's only proper.

We're exempting the family farm and the family farm corporation. It's evidence again that this Government wants farming to last as a way of life. We welcome the support of all the Members in these new exemptions.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved; second reading of the bill.

Bill No. 144 referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill No. 145, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1962

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Members are aware, it is the policy of this Government to provide better and fuller services to the residents of British Columbia. At the same time we are on record that the corporations doing business in the province have not been contributing their fair share to the cost of providing these essential services.

To partially correct the situation this Act proposes to raise the amount of income tax payable from corporations from 10 per cent to 12 per cent effective January 1, 1973.

Mr. Speaker, there's been an interpretation in a little-known Wall Street publication about the increase in this tax. I'd like to tell that little-known Wall Street publication that we're now catching up with Tory Ontario, and they're about as radical as all get out in that province.

Expected revenue from this increase is approximately $18 million. British Columbia's corporations will now pay the same rate as in Ontario and Quebec, none of whom have an Allende for premier, Mr. Speaker.

In addition, an amendment has been requested by the Government of Canada, who collect the tax for the province under the federal-provincial collection agreement, which will prevent double taxation by the province of capital gains, of mutual fund trust, mutual fund and investment corporations.

This amendment was not received by the provincial officials until after the introduction of Bill No. 62, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962, submitted to the House on budget day. So this bill replaces Bill No. 62.

It's only an attempt to equalize fair shares in this

[ Page 2378 ]

province, Mr. Speaker. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, there aren't too many Members bursting with enthusiasm to speak on this bill, but I at least will be consistent.

On the budget speech this party was of the opinion that the financial state of the province was such that there was no need for increases in taxation, period. As part of that conviction, we feel that this increase in corporation tax was not necessary at this time. We also repeat that however you cut the economic pie, if you put up the price or the tax for corporations the cost trickles down to the consumer — and this at a time when we're trying to deal with inflation and trying to control the cost of living. Therefore for these basic reasons we specifically will oppose this bill as we opposed the philosophy of the budget.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. First Member for Victoria.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, we are obviously opposed to this bill on the grounds that we've said many times this tax was unnecessary. It represents obviously the intent of this Government to add to the problems of business everywhere in this province. It's an unnecessary tax. It's a sizeable amount — a 20 per cent increase. The fact that there are other provinces that have it simply isn't a good enough answer for us.

We're opposed to this tax completely in its principle. We feel that as the years go ahead industry will demonstrate clearly their opposition to it and that those who have the opportunity to make investments in additional areas will do so. It is simply an Act which is unfair and unnecessary.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, although this bill has been described as a "bill to have the major corporations pay more and pay a fairer share," the question of progressivity of taxation has simply got to be dealt with by the Minister of Finance.

We have had no demonstrable need for a tax increase of this nature. Indeed, the Premier himself expects substantial budgetary surpluses and made this clear on a number of occasions. Therefore, there is no need from the point of view of raising more revenue for a tax increase of this nature. In which case, the next argument that he put forward was: well, let's make things equal with other provinces elsewhere.

That is an interesting observation. But if we simply had to have things the same in this province as Ontario, perhaps we wouldn't need this provincial Legislature. We could let Queens Park run this province. It simply is not a suitable argument to be put forward at this time.

In arguing for a tax increase of this nature, the fact is that there is business uncertainty in the province to a certain degree. Perhaps at this stage we need a greater incentive than Ontario. I cannot be sure, but I would suspect that this is the case.

As far as the progressive nature of taxation is concerned, as has been said very frequently and demonstrated clearly by economists, corporate taxes are about the worst offenders in loading taxation on the poor. The reason for this is that these taxes are generally passed on. There is argument as to whether the amount passed on to the consumer is 50 per cent or 25 per cent or 75 per cent. But there is no question that substantial portions of taxes of this nature are pushed onto the consumer's shoulders.

Once a tax increase is put upon the consumers, it's necessary then to see who pays it. Is it the poorer sector of society, the person earning, say, less than $3,000 a year or less than $5,000 a year? Or is it the richer, the person earning $15,000 or $20,000, or the person earning $9,000 or $10,000? Is it possible for this type of information to being $9,000 or $10,000? It is possible for this type of information to be made available. It is possible for taxation experts to come out with some rough approximation, which can be used by politicians in debates such as this, as to where the burden lies.

In Canada, as a general rule — I don't have the figures for these specific taxes in B.C. — it happens that the person earning $3,000 or thereabouts, is paying three times as much of corporate taxes of this nature as is the person earning $10,000. That's a pretty substantial difference in terms of tax burden upon the poor and the wealthier.

Sure, it's easy to say, "Well, it's paid by a corporation." But we know as a fact that corporations don't pay these taxes; they're passed on to the consumer in many instances. It may be that 75 per cent of these taxes are going to be passed on. It may be 50 per cent or even less. But the Minister of Finance or at least his advisers must have some idea of what amount of the burden will be passed on.

I could accept the fact that you want to pass on tax burden if you had a need for the money. But if we know that there's no need for the money — and the Premier and Minister of Finance has stated that — and we also know that the major burden of this will probably be passed on and paid by low income consumers, then I think we should have some explanation in this House on behalf of the lower income British Columbians as to why the Government intends to force higher taxes upon them.

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, and without the information that only the Minister of Finance can provide, I guess nobody will know how much of the

[ Page 2379 ]

effect of this is going to be harmful in terms of small businesses in B.C. or larger businesses; how much can be passed on the consumers outside the country and outside the province and how much has to be paid by people within the province. But in dealing with bills of this nature, in terms of principle, we're getting a little fed up that this type of information is not provided by the Minister introducing the bill at the first instance. It may well be that this particular Minister doesn't know. But he does have at his side advisors who should have some idea. He does have people who should be able to give him some indication.

We're attempting to ask sensible and serious questions in debates of this nature. We're getting nothing but flippant and completely useless replies on many of the points that we raise. We just don't feel that that's a fair way of dealing with taxation or any other question in the Province of British Columbia, particularly when you're in an area where the effect of what you're doing is hurting the poor people a lot more than the rich people in this province, however much you try to disguise it.

These are questions which I feel the Minister should answer now. This Legislature is the place where the finances of the province should be debated. That is why we object to special funds and other things. But when we get amendments to tax Acts which are explained in such flippant detail and in such a careless manner, we really don't think that the Government or the Minister is serving the people well.

The fact of the matter is that there is a shifting of tax burden when you deal with corporate taxes. The fact of the matter is that this shifting hurts the poor people of this province more than it hurts the wealthier people. The fact of the matter is that there's been no explanation from the Minister about these facts.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, more specious nonsense based on presumptions given again by that group over there that represent private interests and large corporations. This is a federal Act and we have the power in our province to raise our corporation tax to a maximum of 13 points. We've gone to 12 — the same as Ontario and the same as Quebec. The Member tries to give the impression that somehow it's going to hurt the poor people.

The only way we can help the poor people in terms of passing that burden on is for the federal government to raise the personal exemptions for working people in this country. That's what should be done. And where is that action on the part of the federal government? There is a $1,600 deduction for the man, $1,350 for a wife, $300 for a child under 16 and $550 for a child over 16. Where are the benefits, the tax concessions for the ordinary working people of this country? They can't deduct their white shirts and their laundry and their expenses and everything else that corporations can get away with. They can't deduct and write off all those tax rip-offs that've been going on for tens of years in this country. And I hope that my federal colleagues in Ottawa vote against that Liberal government that's giving away tax concessions to every corporation in this country.

The corporate welfare bums are well served, well served by that kind of specious nonsense. What do you think we are here for? You think that we came here to protect the interests of the large corporations? Certainly the economy is good, and why is the economy good? Because the resources are here in this country and in this province, and there are resourceful people in this province. And those resources should provide the funds for better education, better hospital care, better dental care, and the other services we promised to bring the people of British Columbia. The idea that we should tax in a depression and not tax when business is good is absolutely stupid. The time to tax is when the money is there, so that we can provide the nursing home care, and the dental care, and the post-graduate care that our young and our aged need desperately in this province.

I am proud of this increase in taxes. I am proud that we have got a wealthy province — that we can plan and budget for services for people, and I, Mr. Speaker, move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 13

[ Page 2380 ]

PAIRS

Bill No. 145 read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole House at the next sitting after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:30 p.m.