[ Page 2723 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Corporation Capital Tax Act (Bill No. 63).

Committee and report stages — 2723

Division on third reading — 2723

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act (Bill No. 65).

Committee, report and third reading — 2723

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948. (Bill No. 66).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2723

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2724

Report and third reading — 2724

An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958 (Bill No. 67).

Committee, report and third reading — 2724

An Act to Amend the Motive-Fuel Use Tax Act (Bill No. 68).

Committee, report and third reading — 2724

An Act to Amend the Social Services Tax Act (Bill No. 69).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2724

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2724

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2724

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2725

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2725

Mr. Chabot — 2725

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2725

Mr. Chabot — 2725

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2726

Mr. Chabot — 2726

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2726

Mr. Chabot — 2727

Mr. Morrison — 2727

Report and third reading — 2727

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

Committee, report and third reading — 2727

An Act to Amend the Assessment Equalization Act. (Bill No. 71).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2727

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2728

Division and third reading — 2728

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-Owner Grant Act. (Bill No. 72).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2728

Report and third reading — 2728

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act (Bill No. 73).

Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2729

Mr. Curtis — 2729

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2729

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2730

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2730

Mr. Chabot — 2730

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2730

Mr. Gardom — 2731

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2731

Report and third reading — 2731

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

Committee stage

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2732

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2733

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2734

Mr. Morrison — 2736

Mr. Wallace — 2736

Mr. Gardom — 2738

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2739

Mr. Phillips — 2740

Mr. Smith — 2742

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2742

Mr. Smith — 2743

Mr. McClelland — 2744

Mr. Chabot — 2745

Division on section 2 — 2746

Housing Incentive Fund Act (Bill No. 75).

Committee, report and third reading — 2746

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

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2746

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2747

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2747

Report and third reading — 2747

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

Committee, report and third reading — 2747

British Columbia Economic Research Fund Act (Bill No. 78).

Committee, report and third reading — 2748

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

Committee, report and third reading — 2748

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

Committee and report stage — 2748

Division on third reading — 2748

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill No. 149).

Committee, report and third reading — 2749

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

Committee, report and third reading — 2749

An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Act (Bill No. 151 ).

Committee, report and third reading — 2749

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

Committee stage.

Mr. Schroeder — 2749

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2749

Mr. Schroeder — 2750

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2750

Report stage — 2750

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

Committee stage.

Mr. Chabot — 2750

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2750

Mr. Lauk — 2750

Mr. Chabot — 2751

Report and third reading — 2751

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act (Bill No. 51).

Committee, report and third reading — 2751

FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1973

The House met at 2:15 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

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

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX ACT

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

Sections 1 to 52 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 63, Corporation Capital Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 8

PAIRED

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
COLOURED GASOLINE TAX ACT

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

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 65, An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
GASOLINE TAX ACT, 1948

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

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): A question to the Minister. What provisions are there for making sure that this liquefied natural gas is actually for the purpose specified? Is there any way that this can be sorted out? I see that most of the vehicles which use liquefied natural gas use the normal home container, and they simply stick it on the rear or on the top of a vehicle. I wonder whether he might give us some comment on that.

[ Page 2724 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: At the present it's readily identifiable, even by the container, for example. But we are working out methods now of encouraging people to convert to this fuel. The identifiable processes will be expanded at that time.

Sections 5 and 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 66, An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1948, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
GASOLINE TAX ACT, 1958

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

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON.

MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed — Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 67, An Act to Amend the Gasoline Tax Act, 1958, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
MOTIVE-FUEL USE TAX ACT

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 68, An Act to Amend the Motive-Fuel Use Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SOCIAL SERVICES TAX ACT

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question here is railway rolling stock and the 5 per cent social services tax which would be applied to rolling stock entering the province, a procedure which may be desirable from the point of view of British Columbia, but which leads to a 50 per cent increase in the cost of a flat car or any other bit of rolling stock if it proceeds through the 10 provinces.

I wonder whether or not the Minister would like to comment upon this and whether he has been able to sort out this dilemma; whether he's managed to find some formula whereby this tax could be collected universally across the country and apportioned out to the various provinces or whether, indeed, we couldn't go back to the old system of abandoning the tax with respect to rolling stock.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I'd like to answer to the Member that it's written off against federal income tax. We're now allowing the truck industry and the airline industry to be more competitive with the railroad rolling stock. The truck industry and the airplane industry has been forced to pay this tax. We will use the same formula on the railroad rolling stock. It's only fair that they be treated equally. That's what we're here for — to treat people equally.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That certainly seems logical. I presume, then, that aircraft are being taxed whenever they land in a particular province, which seems somewhat administratively difficult; but I guess that's the logic of the Act.

[ Page 2725 ]

I understand the Minister to say, then, that the CPR vehicle entering the province for the first time gets slapped with the 5 per cent tax.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the miles in British Columbia. On the same basis as trucks or airlines. The formula is there. As I say again, the railways should not be in a stronger competitive position than the trucking firms or the airlines. The CPA pays for their airlines, and they should pay for their rail. They also own trucks; if they pay for their trucks, they should pay for their rail.

But there is competition for the freight in and out. We say that the formula that applies on a per-mile basis for the trucks and for the airplanes that was brought in by the previous administration should now be extended to railroads as well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We've already passed the principle of the bill; but administratively, I'd like to know how this is going to work. For example, we have had the problem with the B.C. Rail rolling stock disappearing down to Arkansas and Tennessee and Mississippi. How precisely is this going to work? I just don't see how it can myself. I am sure there is some reasonable way of making it work, but I just don't understand it at the moment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they work out a certain number per month and we agree with the railroads concerned — we work out an average. We can't collect the tax for Arkansas or Tennessee; but for the ones coming into British Columbia, we'll work out a formula with the railroads. It's my understanding that we're meeting with them now to work out that formula.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): I find it'll be almost impossible to administer this type of tax application. The Minister, in reading the principle of this bill, told us he didn't really have any ideas as to how it would be administered. Don't you think that there's a possibility that the Canadian railroads — and I would assume that's the only place you're going to apply this tax against the Canadian rolling stock — will be moving in on the non-Canadian rolling stock in British Columbia, using the cars that come in on an interchange and utilizing them in British Columbia; consequently you'll collect very little?

I'm just wondering where you will get the information for the application of this. Because all railroads use a great variety of different railroads' rolling stock. I find it's going to be a nightmare to administer this.

Are you going to administer it on the basis of the railway giving you certain information, sending us so much tax, and this is good enough? If not, just what is the mechanism you're going to establish to ascertain just what kind of revenue this piece of legislation should really generate for British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, the Member asks valid questions. The formula has already been workable with the same companies who are already in the trucking business and the airline business. The formula will be extended.

We've had no reason to believe that the formula has been a matter of dispute between CN or CP. We do our own spot checking as well on trucks and on the airlines. We'll apply the same formula in terms of our experience up to this point with the railways.

In terms of non-Canadian cars, we tax everybody. We're fair. We tax everybody — Americans, Canadians, everybody. They're all welcome to come under our tax umbrella. When United Airlines lands here we tax them. When the Burlington Northern comes in we're going to tax them. When the northern California-Okanagan truck line comes in we tax them. We like to treat everyone fairly.

MR. CHABOT: Are you suggesting that the administration of this is going to be similar to that of a truck line? To start off with, rolling stock of railroads coming into British Columbia runs into thousands of cars of different shapes and varieties on a daily basis. You can't compare the volume of rolling stock with the number of trucks that are coming in.

You have the mechanism, through the weigh scales, to keep track of the number of trucks. You said you'll have your spot checks. What will you have at the border? Will you have a little customs office close to the railroad and have a fellow with his binoculars to watch the rolling stock and take an average on the daily basis? I just don't know how you can apply it.

All I'm trying to do is tell you that it's going to be very difficult to administer. I would hope that you could make some clear statement as to just how the mechanism is going to be established to ensure that what you're attempting to achieve you shall achieve.

If you fail to do so, this is what I want to say. There's a strong possibility that maybe next session you'll find that the amendment which you've proposed here is inoperative and unable to function. Consequently, you might want to withdraw it. I just want to see what the government's real proposal is and how they're going to do it — whether it's by binoculars or people travelling in unmarked government cars along railroad tracks spotting and counting cars. It would be interesting to know just how you intend to collect this data.

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

[ Page 2726 ]

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Since there is a drive to unionize employees, we may bring in the hobos and have them assist us. But aside from those random cars, there are computers, Mr. Member. The computers control the traffic….

MR. CHABOT: They're not yours.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, they're not ours. Are you telling me that big business would try to cheat a government out of taxes?

MR. CHABOT: Super snooper again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I had the impression, when they defended the corporations on an earlier bill, that the corporations were good corporate citizens. Now on this bill he's trying to tell me that they would try to chisel on 5 per cent on the rolling stock. Would the great CPR cheat the government out of 5 per cent? Or the CNR?

Mr. Member, I believe that the CPR wants to pay its taxes and welcomes this bill for an opportunity to get equal treatment under this government. Equal treatment to everyone, including the CPR. They're going to pay their taxes too, and we'll collect them with their help.

MR. CHABOT: Just one more brief point, Madam Chairman. If you do use binoculars to view the number of cars — the Burlington Northern did a few years ago when the Kaiser coal was moving. They were watching the performance of CP Rail to see whether they were meeting the 72-hour turnaround on coal cars. They were patrolling along the CP Rail. Some of them had binoculars and so forth.

All I want to know is that if you're going to use binoculars, will you import these binoculars from Japan or West Germany, or will they be manufactured in Canada?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the question is valid. (Laughter). Considering the level of participation by the opposition, it actually raises the standard a bit.

On the question of the use of binoculars: if we use binoculars, we will count all the cars and then divide in half. If we use a spyglass, we'll only count them once. (Laughter).

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The other point on this bill, Madam Chairman, is this question of adding the word "self-propelled" before the word "vessels" in the Social Services Tax Act. As I understand from correspondence I had from the shipbuilding industry, the effect of this would be to increase taxes in a certain area. They may or may not be right; I'm not sure.

But at a time when the Premier has shown great interest in building up the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia, I wonder why we're into an area where apparently — at least according to the industry letters I got — taxes will go up in this area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Barges built here and sent out of the province are not taxable. We think that's unfair competition. We intend to equalize competition for people.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That may be true in terms of equalizing competition. But it somehow runs headlong into another desirable government objective, which I understood was to assist the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia. Are we going to have any compensating assistance elsewhere to take care of this?

It's well and good to cry for subsidies from any government, federal or provincial, which the industry quite frequently does. Of course, subsidies are somewhat pointless if at the same time taxes are going up which might wipe out the benefit of subsidies. This is the dilemma that I face, Mr. Premier. It seems to be contradictory to your policy statements in this area.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, the barges under 500,000 tons were exempt before. Now that they are building them greater, we're equalizing on all barges. The reason for the original limitation was to exempt freighters. We're just now bringing it up to where we are in terms of modern technology, that's all.

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

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a question of increasing the taxes on a certain group of vessels in which we haven't had a bad record. Bluntly, I fear for the industry that it's going to add extra cost to their balance sheet in terms of doing business and in terms of selling. It's not an industry which is all that competitive anyway. We know it needs fairly substantial subsidies. But under these subsidies it has developed pretty well in British Columbia.

I just have a fear that this type of tax is not needed. Certainly the budgeting shows surplus revenues rather than deficits. It would affect an industry which is important in terms of employment, in particular, in this area and also in Vancouver.

[ Page 2727 ]

MR. CHABOT: I just want to say that I can't really visualize how you can possibly set up a mechanism to make this function the way you think it should function.

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

MR. CHABOT: All right. Boxcars, gondola cars, coal cars, for instance, coming from Coleman, Alberta, come into the province for the first time. They turn around. They're in assigned service — movement of coal from Coleman to Roberts Bank. They'll come into British Columbia eight times. Are they to be subject to the tax eight times? How will you sift them out from the cars coming in the first time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We will average the cars over the month, Mr. Member, the same way we do it with trucks and with the same firms.

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

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Thank you, Madam Chairman. It's rather pleasant to get a little exercise in an afternoon. I've been popping up and down.

As I would assume that the B.C. Railway cars do not pay tax, is this a method to try and encourage them to come home? (Laughter).

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I could sing the song "Come Home, Bill Bailey" to help bring our boxcars back, I'd do it. But there's no connection at all.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 69, An Act to Amend the Social Services Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE GIFT TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 70; Ms. Young in the chair, Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 70, An Act to Amend the Gift Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE ASSESSMENT EQUALIZATION ACT

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

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question in this section 8: retroactive taxation. Sure enough we've had retroactive legislation in other areas, but where you start affecting the amount that a person has to pay by way of taxation retroactively, I feel that there is good cause for concern by Members of this Legislature.

There is another problem. In this retroactive situation what happens with the assessment rolls? Say they are not in accordance with the amended Act, are they going to be changed? If they are not in accordance with the amended Act, and you are taxing retroactively, you could be in a situation where assessors taking declarations find that they may have retroactively committed perjury.

There is also the problem of appeals coming up retroactively on the basis of things which are now closed off, and the whole retroactive situation worries me a great deal, because we are now dealing with people, many of whom feel that they've paid all the taxes that they should pay.

[ Page 2728 ]

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the point raised by the Member, there are several large industrial appeals now before the board, and they're retroactive only to 1973 covering those appeals. Those industrial assessments that are already on the 1973 rolls will not be affected. It is only the ones that are under appeal at this time.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is correct.

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

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 8 pass?

Section 8 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 71, An Act to Amend the Assessment Equalization Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 34

NAYS — 10

PAIRED

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

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT ACT

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, in section 3, the third line, if the Minister would like to add the word "dollars." It's an oversight of the printers.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You're striking out $85 and you're putting in $200. It's a printing error.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Member. It is a printing error. Could we have a Clerk's report to the Queen's Printer.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 3 pass?

Section 3 approved.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 72, An Act to Amend the Provincial Home-Owner Grant Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

[ Page 2729 ]

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE MUNICIPALITIES AID ACT

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

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

MR. CHABOT: In section 2 we have a slight increase in the per capita allowance to municipalities. I don't think it's sufficient. Then in turn we up the benefits to the welfare recipients in the province, of which the municipalities pick up 15 per cent. The additional financial burden on municipalities is more than the $2 per capita which you have allowed in section 2.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHABOT: It's substantially less this year than it was last year, on a basis comparable to the percentage of the provincial budget. And you know it.

I t's not enough. It's strictly crumbs to municipalities. I hope that the Minister of Finance indicates what he intends doing for municipalities. He has allocated an additional grant of $2 per capita in this Act, and then he takes it away by increasing welfare allowances in the province. In other words, you've really set the municipalities back rather than assisting them.

I also want to plead on behalf of the smaller municipalities that are really more seriously affected than the larger ones, relative to the 15 per cent welfare participation. There are many small municipalities that find it extremely difficult. They must assess an 8 to 10 per cent mill rate just for the purpose of paying their portion of the welfare costs. They are the municipalities that really need some consideration. I'm wondering whether the government intends to assist those small municipalities that are suffering under the heavy burden — and now the increased burden — of welfare costs. I would like to know what kind of formula and what kind of financial consideration the government will give those municipalities that find it so difficult to finance under the existing formula.

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

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Speaking on section 2, Madam Chairman, the increase is miserly, measly, miserable and unjust. Whether it is a small municipality or a large one, the fact of the matter remains that we expected more from the great champion of local government when he sat on this side of the House. We expected much, much more.

There is disappointment in cities and towns and municipalities in British Columbia, through you, Madam Chairman, to the Minister of Finance. We expected that you would do a little better.

The statement by the previous speaker with respect to last year's per capita grant increase was meaningless. Last year, as we know, was an election year, and we had the goodies handed out every four years. This year this $2 per capita grant increase does not even assist the municipalities in keeping pace with the inflationary spiral.

With the increased welfare costs, with increased wage costs, municipalities are faced this year with the kind of crisis which we had. hoped was at an end after August 30 last year. We expected that there would be recognition among those Members of the government who have had interest or experience in municipalities. It is very disappointing that that has not been the case.

I feel that it has to be said for the record that a $4 or $5 per capita increase would have been much more in line with the realities of the situation as far as local municipal government is concerned in 1973.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, first of all, if we're going to go down memory lane, let's recall last year when that little group over there was the bill group over here and when that Member was a cabinet Minister over on this side. Guess how much they gave them last year under that group. They got zero — nothing, absolutely nothing. And that's why that group is over there now, and that's why we're here.

Because of overbilling on the estimation of that group, we've already returned $4 million of the municipalities' own money. What we're doing along with that is keeping a current tab on the social welfare cases to make sure that if there is overbilling, as there was in the past, that money comes back sooner so they can at least earn interest on their own money that we've had.

We will be meeting with the UBCM. The first meeting is now scheduled for Tuesday, April 17, at 2:30 in the afternoon, with the Minister of Welfare and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to discuss this very point. This whole policy is under review You're absolutely right. Our position was the gradual removal of this 15 per cent. We haven't lost sight of that commitment. We've made our first step in terms of increasing the per capita grant. We've returned $4 million overbilling. It's their own money, but we've returned it. Now we're meeting with them to discuss this whole area.

[ Page 2730 ]

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We will be supporting this bill because we will support the idea of any increase at all for the municipalities. But we don't think that again referring to the past is a good enough excuse for the present. This has happened far too often. Perhaps the new government should stop looking to what happened before and start looking to what the needs are of the municipalities and not to the failings of the previous administration.

This is the only point I'd like to make. We will support the bill as it is. We would have liked to see it with more money for the municipalities.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I separate the replies to the opposition. If you were offended by my reference to that Member's comments, then turn your ears off.

For those of us who have to sit and listen to that reminder of the past as we just got, we can't resist the temptation. Perhaps some evening, socially, I'll give you a share of some of our experiences. They didn't increase the per capita grants in 1970, 1971 or 1972. And they have to be reminded of that. If you find it offensive, I can understand it. You come from a different kind of high-class area. But this is very primitive politics in British Columbia, and we like to remind people of the previous administrations.

AN HON. MEMBER: You sure do.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: It doesn't have to be, but every once in a while, when we're relaxed and in good humour and we hear that kind of speech from that Member, the Pavlovian response is there. Twelve years of conditioning.

AN HON. MEMBER: The elbow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, and I saw your elbow twitching too, Mr. Member for Point Grey. We'll take you aside and treat you to a hamburger and fill you in on what happened around here. Dutch treat.

The other point is that we are meeting with Mr. Marks and a committee of the UBCM next Tuesday. We're going to discuss the whole area with them. We've made the experimental move in terms of welfare and the shared costs in the greater Victoria area. It should have been done years ago. Your point is valid that their costs are going up. That's why we're reviewing the thing with them.

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

MR. CHABOT: Speaking on section 2, the Minister of Finance says that there was no increase in the per capita grant last year. Yet the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) stands here and says, "Yes, there was a large increase in the per capita grant last year because that was an election year." It goes to show you how mixed up that Member for Saanich is. He's always mixed up. It's not very often that he gets off the fence. But when he gets off the fence he falls pretty hard. He fell pretty hard this afternoon.

But I want to say this: last year, because of the census figures that were utilized in the per capita grant allowance, there was a substantially greater amount of money given to municipalities last year — unfortunately, I don't have the figures here to prove it, but my recollection is correct — than there is this year under your $2 per capita increase substantially higher.

For you to say that we didn't increase the per capita allowance is failing to tell the full story, Mr. Minister of Finance. Don't just use bits and pieces of the story. Tell all the facts. Tell the people of British Columbia how well the municipalities of this province were treated under the former government and how they get only crumbs from this government that indicates it is clearly in favour of small governments. You have no consideration of small municipalities or large municipalities or any kind of municipalities.

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

MR. CHABOT: That's right. You've set all the inflationary steps in this legislation and in your estimates as well. There is no consideration for the municipalities of British Columbia. It's almost unbelievable from a government that used to sit over here as a little rump opposition group and say that, "If we become government we'll look after the municipalities of British Columbia." I want to tell you you've failed the municipalities of British Columbia. For you to stand and say we didn't treat them fairly is almost unbelievable. It's incredible, really.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I find myself in an unusual position. In the first place, the attack by the Member for Columbia River on the Conservative Party — you shouldn't do that. Because what's that SOS group going to do? The "Stamp Out Socialists" group can't get heartened when you people over there are fighting among yourselves. Now you've got to stop that, you fellas. Now if you keep this fighting up, how in the world are the free enterprisers going to unite to bring this per capita grant down? Because that's what they advocated.

[ Page 2731 ]

If you really want to take his logic…

MR. CHABOT: Twist, twist, twist.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …all the way back, they owed money to the municipalities because they delayed in moving the total amount up on the census and should have paid retroactive amounts.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all we defeated you. That's the first thing. That meant something.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: And then the next thing we did, we said on the new census we'd put $2 on the per capita grant. And that's where we're at.

MR. CHABOT: Peanuts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Peanuts," he said. There it is. They're never happy. You'd think that their statements were motivated by politics.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not in this way. No, sir! This is the most intellectual debate we've had in weeks.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: That all went down the tube about five minutes ago. We're right back to where we were, Act 1, Scene 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're compounding it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not compounding, Mr. Member. I'm saying how can you save British Columbia from this great, bountiful government if you're fighting among yourselves? Now go and have a caucus over there and straighten this out.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): There's been more than one unreal thing happen this afternoon, I can tell you. (Laughter). I think the most unreal of all were the remarks a few seconds ago from the Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot).

There's no question of a doubt that the municipalities were starved under the past administration. But let's just forget that now. Look at the present. And let's go ahead and take a look at the future.

You have not gone, in our view, far enough with this bill. We're going to support the bill. But we argued and stated during earlier debates in the House that this grant should be tied to provincial revenue because the administrative costs of the municipalities are increasing not only just as fast but faster than the provincial costs. The municipalities have the cities and towns in them, and they're increasing at a greater rate than here.

We say they should be tied to the provincial revenue. If they were tied to the provincial revenues, this bill would not be coming in at $30 plus $2; it would be coming in at $46.

Now the second unreal thing is the fact that how a lady who has been 40 years with the CCF, 20 years attending this House, is still able to sit here through all of these debates. The government is really not able to see too much of her anymore, because she's sitting behind them. I think it would be a very nice thing if all of the Members welcomed Mrs. Johnson to the gallery.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How do you follow an act like that?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think that the bill is in good order the way it is. We've increased it by $2. We're meeting with the municipalities next week. I ask everybody in the House to support it.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 73, An Act to Amend the Municipalities Aid Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

AN ACT TO AMEND THE REVENUE ACT

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

[ Page 2732 ]

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

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

HON. W.A.C. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I think, Madam Chairman, of all the bills presented in this session of the Legislature this is the one that I would oppose most strenuously.

I'm not going to review what I said last night, but everything I said last night is compounded a thousand-fold in this bill. The liquid money that you have in consolidated revenue — the current surpluses in that revenue which we left in such a buoyant situation — according to this amendment will be available to invest in common shares in private companies. I want to say this is indeed a step along the wrong road.

Keeping the finances of a provincial government in proper shape is more vitally important than a national government. A national government, Mr. Chairman, has complete power over currency and credit. They have a central bank, but a provincial government has not. It has only its own financial resources, and you must keep them liquid.

In Alberta they were flushed with revenue too. Then they got into a deficit position — they are in a deficit position now. They have to borrow money and take people's taxes to pay interest on money.

These governments who call themselves Conservative and these parties who call themselves Conservative are not conservative at all. That's the reason I left them. When I was young and uninformed I was a Tory too.

So in the situation not only in Alberta but in what used to be the number one "have" province — the Province of Ontario at that time — what's happened to its finances now under a number of Conservative governments? They've gone from bad to worse — not conservative at all — taxing the people greatly.

Today I read in the paper this: "Up 40 per cent." Wherever you elect a Tory provincial government the people get higher taxes. We want no coalition with the Conservatives or with the Liberals; but we invite them individually as citizens to join at the ballot box, because that's the way to keep out socialism. We kept it out for seven general elections. We lost in the eighth, but you can't bat 1,000 all the time. We'll win the next one, my friends.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's what I say. The tired old Liberal Party hasn't got any tires. They were in such bad shape, Madam Chairman, that they had to go to Ottawa to get a leader to try to take them out of the wilderness. And they made no advance.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, yes. I'll stay right to this because this has to do with finance. This is basic in finance. The Conservative Party…

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: …walked across the floor. They lost 50 per cent of it in the first election; they'll lose the other 50 per cent in the next one. They're the party of the past but not the party of the future. And they know it.

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

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I think we should have a recess to remove the body. (Laughter).

HON. MR. BENNETT: In this new day I would think we need a young girl or a young man about 30 years my junior so they can look ahead to another great period.

I warn the government again: don't proceed with this because within a year you will have a run on parity bonds — I make that prediction now — unless you increase the rates.

This is so dangerous, that I must speak out! All the forces within me tell me I must speak out on this.

This is the most dangerous bill ever before this Legislature! I want to tell you that it will ruin the credit and finances of this province. It took us 20 years to build it up from the number one have-not province to the number one have province. These types of bills are going to destroy it. It is funny how it takes a peculiar light.

It takes a long time to build a structure, but you can burn it down or knock it down in a few minutes. When we pass this bill today, we are knocking down the financial structure of this province which is our basis for future reforms like the basic income for everyone. We'll destroy these finances because we are ready to do that. Our finances are in shape to do that.

No government in all the history of this nation or this continent ever inherited a business thrust so strong as the NDP inherited in this province when they became government.

[ Page 2733 ]

No government in all the history of this nation or elsewhere ever entered government with so liquid a position of money. Now, don't give it all away. Don't invest it in permanent investments, because when you want to sell them on the open market you can't sell them.

Alberta made a bad mistake. They took their liquid cash which they should have conserved, should have guaranteed to municipalities — the schools and so forth — and instead they loaned it direct to municipalities and then when the interest rates went up, the bonds went down. They couldn't sell them, so they got deficit financing. That is what will happen here.

I warn the people of British Columbia, irrespective of party, if they pass this bill today, it is a death knell to the financial structure of British Columbia.

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

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, what started out as a very jesting, very light-hearted debate in terms of the former Premier and his statements about the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party and the little knock at his former colleague, Mr. Gaglardi….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a little knock. After we had what was a vintage performance, I regret to say the former Premier went to a position today on the basis of politics that he has never gone to before, in that he was leaving the message of fear around the economy of British Columbia.

I'm disappointed in the former Premier taking his politics down to the point where he would make statements like that on a partisan basis. They were done today on a partisan basis.

First of all, I want to review some of the statements made by the former Premier. It is true that we don't have control through a provincial bank. It is true you tried to obtain a provincial bank, and it is true that we will continue to try to have a provincial bank.

The former Premier also said that the deficit position in Alberta led to an expense that came about because they expended their surplus funds. Their funds were based essentially on revenue that taxed resources. Our revenue in this province is essentially taxation on resources as well. When you build the fabric of your total economy based on the taxation of resources only, then you are doing all right in boom times but you are in trouble when the economy starts to slump and all you have is a reserve of some cash and no other security.

We came into this position of government when $250 million was out on parity bonds. If there is a run on those parity bonds after the irresponsible statement of the Premier today we can pay for those parity bonds, and we stand behind those parity bonds. The cash of the people of this Province of British Columbia — not Mr. Bennett's cash, not Social Credit cash, but the hard work of the people of this province who have set it up.

Now it is all very well to talk about the strong surplus position. I'll come back to that in a minute. But I want to complete my comments about the economy that was attacked by the former Premier in the Province of Alberta. It is classic free enterprise financing, whether you call it Social Credit, Liberal or Conservative.

You people in the 100-year history of this province have never once set out deliberately to give the people of this province a share of the resources. You've only taken crumbs off the resources — only crumbs. When you try to tell me that you managed the economy of this province and brought it into a surplus situation and last year $600 million worth of copper left the Province of British Columbia without any royalty at all, then I say you are giving away the wealth of this province, not managing it.

We are shifting through this bill to give the people of this province access to the resources on a partnership basis, on a mixed economy framework and structure. It's not new in the world. It functions in Europe. It functions in other parts of the world, but laissez-faire capitalism has found its last home here in British Columbia.

Now that we are in power laissez-faire capitalism is going down with that kind of destructive speech from the former Premier of this province, and I am sorry he uttered those words.

We say through this amendment that the people of this province have the right and the responsibility to become involved in the development of the riches that are here. What are those riches? They are not mythical riches created by myself or the former Premier or anyone. This is a god-given great province with natural resources that should benefit all the people of this province in an equal manner.

The trees are in the ground, the fishes are in the ocean, and the minerals are under the soil. That is the wealth of this province. And when we give away the trees, when we give away the minerals….

MR. CHABOT: Blow it overnight!

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: When we give the trees, when we give away the minerals and when we give away access to the fisheries of this province, then we have given away the true treasures of this province.

[ Page 2734 ]

What we say in this amendment is simply this: it is a welcome thing for Canadians and for others to invest money in this province. But that investment must be on a partnership basis wherever possible, so that the return does not depend upon crumbs off the drippings but an equal share in a great province that has a great future with its great people.

Anybody who doesn't believe that this approach is sound doesn't have faith in the common sense and the ability of the ordinary working people of this province who create the wealth in this province. For too long now we have built our economy on the basis that the outsiders knew best, that the New York entrepreneur and the Bay Street shark knew best how to develop the resources of this province.

How else could we possibly have had deals like the Wenner-Gren deal? How else could we possibly have had Kaiser first deal on the dam that had to be stopped by the federal government? How else could we have had the kind of arrangement that allows resources to leave this province in a manner that coal only pays 25 cents a ton?

Now we say, openly and honestly, that that kind of giveaway has stopped on August 30, and we'll never return to it no matter who is in government! No matter who is in government.

There's a market for our timber. There is a market for our ore. We will sell the timber, and we will sell the ore on a tough, competitive basis. If we are not satisfied with the deal, then we won't sell the resources that are non-renewable until a generation comes along that has far more sense than to enter into contracts like the former administration that started the whole Elk Valley and allows us to get 10 cents a ton out of that filthy, filthy mess.

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now it's a "socialist beast," says the laissez-faire capitalist a generation away from reality — a generation away from a whole world that has gone right past him while he was sitting here as Premier. One of the reasons he lost is that he was completely out of touch with what our people want out there. Completely out of touch.

We have allowed this province to be raped by miners, by timber barons, by land speculators, and still have enough wealth to have had a surplus.

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

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The surplus will be there, but the days of allowing those outsiders to come in and cream this province are over. And what was the price for those surpluses?

Didn't the aged deserve a guaranteed income while that money was in the bank? Where was that from? It was never given.

AN HON. MEMBER: Listen to his talking.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the crippled, the ill and the handicapped?' Who paid for that surplus? They paid for that surplus. They paid for that surplus in this province.

How many times did we stand in this House and fight school construction freezes while children were doubled up in classrooms in shifts? Frozen and cold. He didn't care where he did it, as long as he had a pile of money to look at. That's all he had.

And you know, Madam Chairman, I find after last night's debate, a return to form by the former Premier is a disappointment. A disappointment. And I tell you now, the whole principle in allowing us to use these surplus funds on a mixed economy basis is bringing British Columbia into the twentieth century.

With the passage of this bill we are no longer a banana republic that he kept going. No longer are we a division of laissez-faire capitalism.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Menace.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, he says with all of his mustered strength, that we are a menace. Democratic socialists are in West Germany. Democratic socialists are in Sweden — in most of the Commonwealth countries. Democratic socialists are in Australia; democratic socialists are in New Zealand; and May 31, I am going to be bringing the greetings, personally, of the democratic socialist government in British Columbia to our Queen in Great Britain.

Almost the whole Commonwealth has turned to democratic socialism. Almost the whole remnant of the empire has accepted democratic socialism as the next step in advancement for a better life for the ordinary people.

The passage of this bill allows the ordinary people to have a dream and a hope of a better life, and if we do nothing more, the very fact that the people of this province now have an equal chance with the outsiders in the development of their own glorious resources; if we do nothing more, this will stand as a hallmark of the major change in a great, great stride forward under a new government in this province.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Madam Chairman, we've heard two arm-waving and harsh speeches, and I won't attempt to compete on that score.

Now we're getting a little fed up, I must say, having been elected by the people of British Columbia representing a certain point of view, to find yourselves consistently insulted either by the former Premier or the present one.

[ Page 2735 ]

We feel that the running of this province and the running of this Legislature should be more than simply throwing invective at one another, and we've attempted time after time to bring whatever facilities we have in the way of intelligence and ability to bear on some of the public issues of the day.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance): Those are the white tornados.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We're having more comments from the Minister of Health, who is perhaps now unaware of what bill we are on, or what we are doing. I don't know.

But as far as our policy goes, as far as the principle goes with respect to a section of the Act that we are apparently on, namely 2(d), it's fairly clear to us that the government has a clear role and the private sector has its clear role.

First, what is the government's role? No one suggests that the government's role is not to help the sick, the poor, the needy. No one has ever suggested that, and I for one am proud of the record of this party and what it has done in this country and in the province in past years for them. Few parties…. In fact no party in this country has a record as good. Many have talked more; none have done as much.

The question is, then, how do you achieve that? The question is, how do you achieve the tax base, the revenues, where you can help the people of the province and of this country as much as possible?

We don't believe it should be done, and we don't believe the best way of doing it is by entering with ordinary revenue of the province into buying shares in the market or in any corporation or in that way.

We feel that there can be justification under certain circumstances for investments for pension plans or other things. As we made very clear this morning, we would like to see it controlled so that the people who should be benefiting do benefit. In this instance we see no real reason whatsoever for this type of investment to achieve the social purposes in terms of ownership that the Premier talked of.

We see no reason for it because experience has shown that by doing that, by going ahead along that line, you do reduce the amount of money that is available, you do reduce your tax base for achieving your services to people, which we think are the critical factor of government. Not necessarily through the objective of achieving a certain level of ownership on behalf of government in any industry or in any area of the economy, but instead of that, creating a climate in which you can maximize your tax revenue, maximize the private incomes of your citizens, and thus do the most for the most people.

That's a pretty clear and definite objective. There is no connection, and that's been proved time after time, between public ownership of corporations and the government's ability to hand out assistance to the poor, the elderly or any other group. There is simply no connection, and to suggest that there is this causal connection between the two shows very fairly, we think, a misunderstanding of the government role.

Now we know we differ with the socialists on this. We know we differ with them very sharply in this area. But it doesn't mean to say that in any way, shape or form we think that our views are not perfectly correct in this area.

Time after time we've had the experience of social programmes not being carried out, or being inadequate because of an inadequate tax or economic base. That has happened throughout this society as well as others. The only way we can see that the government can do the most for the most people is by making sure that the private sector is healthy by regulation, by assistance in the way of incentives sometimes when it is necessary, but as far as possible, as a point of philosophy, of staying out of direct business operations.

Another point is that if you are creating these funds that you intend to use in this way, by way of revenue, you're doing one of two things.

First, you're not granting the assistance that should be granted to the province, to the people of the province, and that was shown up by that miserly $2 which we passed a few moments ago which increased the grant to the municipalities. They needed more. Where is the money going instead? The money is going to schemes of investment which perhaps are thoroughly unnecessary and in our view, certainly are unnecessary.

What is happening instead to the pensioner? The little person who's got a small house in this city, and there are plenty of them, Mr. Premier. Whatever your views are about my constituency, there are plenty of small retired people here who have seen their savings eroded by inflation, who have kept their little houses, who have kept their little gardens, who are trying hard to live a decent life, and despite Mincome and despite everything else are unable to do it.

We think those people deserve the municipal tax break that you could have given them had you, a few minutes ago, increased that $2 to something more reasonable, as was proposed by the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom), namely something approaching $16 or $18. That could have been done to help small people. You refused because you have this objective of using this type of money to put into private enterprise in the province and turn it into either mixed or public corporations, we are not sure which.

Some of the statements made: we were told that in

[ Page 2736 ]

the past we have had nothing but "the crumbs off the drippings." We just don't know precisely what that means, but we would like this government, before it embarks upon any massive programme of investing of the public's money in private corporations, to think and think well.

We feel this is not the true area of government operations, it is not the real area of government operations. It's the type of area which we think will distract attention from the very necessary social programme that this province, like others in this country, need as well.

We find it curious that in the speech of the former Premier he states that things have been very good in the last 20 years, and indeed they have. He failed to point out, however, that relative to other provinces we seem to be not doing as well. We've dropped from first place to second in terms of per capita income with that province he maligned so much. And I'm not here to defend the Tory administration of Ontario, but anyway that province, in that period, overtook us.

We feel there are plenty of things we could do in his province, but it cannot be done by unnecessary investment in private enterprise, as the Premier seems to suggest.

He hasn't indicated why it is necessary for this to make place. He knows full well there is a market regulatory system. He knows full well the government controls that, and we control it in just about every aspect. He's fully aware that social services are a government responsibility and no longer that of any private agency. Yet we see at this time an emphasis by this government not in terms of helping people — apart from Mincome, which is, I appreciate, a good thing but is hardly sufficient to deal with the social needs of our province — but instead the economic aspects of their own policies, which as I read the other day seem to bear close resemblance to the Waffle manifesto's suggestion regarding ownership of industry — particularly the resource industry. That's clear enough; that can be their objective if they want. But state it clearly. Don't come here and say, "Oh, this is only to assist people in achieving social objectives." It's not that. The government has every power for taxation. The government has every power of regulation. As was said by an Hon. Member the other day, "We are supreme." But to go into the economic area, to divert energy which the government should be using to clear up problems left by the previous administration that the Premier himself has talked about and groaned about, we think, is extremely wasteful and will not be in the best interests of the people of the province.

Madam Chairman, the amendment is that we allow the government out of general revenue — not just surpluses but general revenue — to invest in the capital stock of any corporation. I stated before when dealing with pension funds that I thought it should be restricted. In this particular instance we don't think that the government should be in it at all. We already have other agencies; the B.C. Development Corporation will soon join them. This type of investment is unnecessary. It is, I believe, detrimental to the true purpose of government and the true purpose of the revenues raised by taxation from the people. Therefore, we think that this particular Act should be defeated at this stage.

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

MR. MORRISON: Madam Chairman, I realize it's getting late on a Friday afternoon. We've heard some rather interesting and some surprising statements this afternoon. In case you haven't guessed it, we're adamantly opposed to this bill and to section 2. I have a proposed amendment that I'd like to submit on section 2. It says, "Delete section 2 and renumber."

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, the amendment, according to the Clerk, appears to be out of order, inasmuch as by merely voting against section 2 you would be achieving the same purpose through your amendment. So therefore I would have to rule this amendment out of order.

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

MS. CHAIRMAN: You can speak to section 2, yes.

MR. MORRISON: Earlier in the debate today we heard the Minister of Finance refer to a generation gap. I guess I'm one of those people that fits somewhere in between that generation gap. I'm really too young to remember the Depression, but I am also old enough to remember what it was about. I didn't live through it, but I did experience in my childhood what the effects of that Depression were. Perhaps even I, in the same generation gap as our present finance Minister, have some scars to show for it.

But I believe that this section is the fulcrum which will pry out of this province a completely new direction. I believe that it's a major mistake to allow the Minister of Finance the freedom to do the things that this bill permits. Under no circumstances can I approve it. Thank you.

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

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Madam Chairman. I feel that perhaps this has been the most disappointing moment in this session. We finally discovered that it took Bill 74 to smoke out the Leader of the Opposition, who has been in retreat for most of the session. Then all he has to do is revert to type.

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

[ Page 2737 ]

ranting and raving and antics, all of the repeat of the Member's appeal to the Press gallery. I certainly don't agree with the Premier on this particular section of this bill, but I agree with the Premier that it was certainly disappointing. The Leader of the Opposition has obviously never quite got over the fact that I left the Social Credit Party.

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

MR. WALLACE: The former Premier spoke this afternoon with the old venom in his eyes as he looked down at the present Member for Oak Bay. It is very obvious that all his venom this afternoon was not directed just at the Conservative Party. The fact that one chooses a title politically, as one has to do in defending or upholding certain philosophies….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

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

Interjection by an Hon Member.

MR. WALLACE: Well, you said it first.

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

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

But at any rate, the debate has degenerated as it used to do when the former Premier held office. It's apparent this afternoon that we are back to the same bitter and acrimonious, pointless kind of debate and I feel that this particular outburst was, as I say, directed for reasons not related to the section that we're discussing.

As I said earlier, Madam Chairman, we feel that when government goes into business, government is a unique kind of investor. The general public realize that the government, by essence of its very character, has powers which no other investor has. It has powers by order-in-council, and it has powers by its legally-attained majority in this House.

Therefore, it isn't really correct just to look upon government going into business ventures as though it was just some other investor, not only because of the power which the government has but because it is, in a sense, the trustee and recipient of taxpayers' money to use as it feels is wise.

Despite all that has been said on this particular issue, that really is where the two sides of the House differ in their basic philosophy. We in this party feel that the responsibility of government is to protect the taxpayers' money as much as is reasonably possible. We say and believe that the kind of authority which the government would be gaining under this bill exceeds that reasonable point of safety and judicious use of the taxpayers' money. I would agree with the Liberal leader (Mr. D.A. Anderson) in separating the two issues this afternoon.

Whichever mechanism the parties on this side of the House feel is suitable for the use of taxpayers' money, none of us have anything but the best of intentions in giving and providing for the people of British Columbia the social services, schools, hospitals and fair welfare payments to those in need and this kind of thing. I think the Premier is a little unfair if he is saying that one of the issues is contingent upon the other.

I think that the Minister of Finance is quite capable of handling the finances of the province in an efficient manner and providing the social services that are needed without necessarily using surplus funds in this form of investment. It is indeed in the capital stock of any corporation.

This section is so sweeping in its power that it brings us back to one other principle why the opposition parties have frequently opposed the government in this session. It is in respect to the amount of power, in one way or another, which this government seeks to take either unto itself or through the agency of commissioners on various commissions.

As I've said many times — and we've just agreed to disagree, I suppose — our feeling is that the function of a government is to provide the kind of climate in which business, both in the province already and outside of the province, will find it attractive to invest in British Columbia. In our opinion, it is not a function of government to become investors in business. In fact, we feel that there is plenty of record in various parts of the world to show that they're not very good when they get into business. They're not very efficient and, in fact, have had some real disasters.

We feel very strongly that in many ways government can encourage investors to invest in the province. But this again, Madam Chairman, in our opinion at least, does not exclude the responsibility for government to supervise, regulate and make sure in every way that is reasonable that the resources are properly harvested, that the environment is respected and that if there is any sense of injustice, inefficiency or malpractice, the government at that point has the power to control what is socially undesirable.

In that particular regard, we feel very strongly that this kind of principle should not start at all. But if it does, it should not be on such a sweeping basis. This is why we supported a Liberal amendment earlier on today which was an attempt to bring some compromise situation into effect. In other words, it would give the government some freedom to invest in corporations but would not be so completely extensive that the government could, in fact, invest in any corporation and possibly make some disastrous mistakes and lead to the loss of large amounts of taxpayers' money.

[ Page 2738 ]

I would certainly re-emphasize that whatever mechanism we feel should be used with the surplus funds of government, we would certainly put high on our order — and this is a point on which the Premier has agreed with me across the floor of this House on more than one occasion — that despite all the insults that have been thrown at the Conservative Party this afternoon, we do have a strong desire for social reform and to provide the social benefits of a modern society such as are expected in a modern society.

But that need not be incompatible with our respect for the individual and the need, based on human beings' nature, always to give incentives and encouragements to individuals and to groups of individuals to contribute, both in the resource field and in the social reform field. As I've said already, I think it is a little unfair to suggest that these two attitudes are incompatible. The fact is that we believe very much in the same social goals as the Premier and his party in this province, to give the needy and the handicapped a fair and just amount of assistance from government coffers, from financial revenue created by all taxpayers. We strongly support that.

But I think it is not right to suggest that because we believe in a different method of handling the surpluses, namely that we think that government should stay out of private business, I don't think that that in any way negates our aims of social progress and social benefits. Therefore we still feel that this section 2(d) is a very dangerous precedent. Well, it is a precedent in one sense. But as I say, it doesn't just open the door a little bit to give the government more freedom to invest surplus funds. It opens the door wide open. There are no limitations whatever. We feel that this certainly must be strongly opposed.

I think that the earlier comment of the Leader of the Opposition — which was made either in anger or without regard for its possibly very serious effects on the citizens — that he connected the passing of this Act, if it is not amended, with a run on the parity bonds…it was hard to find a connection, even in his statements, to say this. Although we're opposed to this in principle….

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): One minute you're voting for it, the next you're opposed to it.

MR. WALLACE: I don't know that I said at any point this afternoon that I was in favour of this. I'm saying that I oppose the section 2(d), but I reject the kind of statement made by the Leader of the Opposition, which claims that if we pass this bill unamended this afternoon, it will lead to a run on parity bonds.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. WALLACE: He did say that. Madam Chairman, the Hansard will show, and it will also show that the Premier challenged the Leader of the Opposition on that statement. The Leader of the Loyal Opposition in his chair confirmed that that was what he had said.

I think that the statement the Leader of the Opposition made at the height of his anger was irresponsible. While we feel that this kind of legislation has dangers, I fail to see that as of today, passing this bill, there's any valid reason to come to the conclusion he came to about the parity bonds. I welcome the statement by the Minister of Finance that the cash is available as of now to meet any parity bonds that are turned in for cash.

Last night we tried to have a rational debate which was not based purely on partisan politics or the emotions aroused by past events. It was a very rational and reasoned statement by the former Premier as to the critical financial instability in the world — and this was on a world basis. He described very well the obvious fear, in all the developed countries in particular, as to the suddenness with which the whole financial structure can teeter or totter, or whatever the word might be. The words "possible Depression" were also raised.

It's because of this kind of fearsome comments that I think it should be put plainly on the record that the parity bonds are not in danger and that the cash is available to meet that obligation.

Finally, Madam Chairman, in taking this attitude we feel that it's been looked upon to a degree in this debate as though it's just the little people that this opposition is trying to protect from ill-advised government investment. But indeed it is the whole future of the province. It is every citizen in British Columbia who must be concerned, for the reasons I've mentioned, that their tax money might be put into foolish or ill-advised adventures. The whole point has been raised ad nauseum.

I'll just close on this note: we've had many examples of so-called financial experts in charge of large investment funds who have made ill-advised investments, or where situations around the world have suddenly changed what looked like a very reasonable and sound prospect into something quite disastrous.

It is a pity that we have to keep repeating this from each party and from each Member of the opposition who speaks, but it is quite clear that there is a deep division of philosophy between the two sides of the House. I think the House should be left in no doubt as to where the Conservative Party stands.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. GARDOM: I'd like to add two very short comments to what has been said. I associate myself very much with the remarks of the last two speakers, the leader of the Liberal Party and the House Leader of the Conservative Party.

[ Page 2739 ]

The job of government, in our view, is to set guidelines and to provide incentives, practical incentives, directional incentives, philosophical incentives and even economic incentives where necessary — but keep out of the facility. This is our argument on this point. Handle your revenues by taxation, not by being in the business and not by competing against the private sector, because by doing that you'll be killing the golden egg that produces the taxes. That's the first point.

The second one is that I'd have to say this: there has been a remarkable change in posture since yesterday evening in the remarks of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. He talked last night about the parity bonds in this province, and we all listened very intently to him. The parity bonds are a difficult kind of financing in my view, but he expressed absolute confidence in them last night. Today we found a 180° turn.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. GARDOM: "No way," say the Members of the Social Credit Party. I'm sorry if I didn't hear him correctly, but the inference came through loud and clear to me from the Leader of the Opposition and it was a caveat to the general public and to the economic society of B.C. and, indeed, to the economic society, I suppose, of this continent that the parity bonds had to be feared. I think he was being politically mischievous. I make no bones in saying that at all.

Either he didn't speak the truth last night or he didn't speak the truth today, because there's not a consistency in that position. I feel that what he said today was incorrect. I have faith in the Province of B.C., I have faith in the reserves that were left by the former administration, and I'll say this — I have faith in the Government of B.C. that it's not going to see those parity bonds go down the drain. If there's any indication of that happening, I would expect the Premier of this province to announce that he'd call a general election.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I welcome the statements of both the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) and the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom). I reject the self-congratulatory separation statements made by the present leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

The position is simply this: the parity bonds are safe. If anybody wishes to sell them, we'll be happy to recover them. I make that statement on behalf of the Government of British Columbia. If anybody wants to sell a parity bond today, I'd be happy to get them, because they're a darned good buy.

I agree with you about a 180° turn. It was politically mischievous. There's no question about it.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Being charitable is something that I must say perhaps is a matter of degree of political division that goes in this House. But for the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to make the statements he did in this House was, as I said earlier, to play politics against the best interests of British Columbia.

I remember a vicious attack by the former Premier on the then leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Perrault, when there were some bumps in the economy of British Columbia. He stood in this House in this place and attacked the former leader of the Liberal Party for even suggesting the question around those parity bonds. He didn't make a mischievous statement. Mr. Perrault was quoting facts. He was reading the current sales. And the now Leader of the Opposition stood in his place and attacked Mr. Perrault as not being a good British Columbian. I remember what a bitter night that was.

And then we had this example of last night and we find this incredible performance that has charitably been described as "mischievous." And then leaving the House, after dropping that kind of invective against the Province of British Columbia; after taking that extreme position and then running out of the House.

Six months ago he could have retired and received all the glory that was due him as a man who did his service for the Province of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or last night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Or last night. Exactly. He would have gone out in the kind of glory that most ordinary people would have accepted. But the only purpose and the only motivation of that speech today was politics. He knifed a former colleague; he attacked two parties, and he used the back of British Columbia to do it. How low can you get?

I want to say again that some people will do anything in politics. We've seen proof of that today.

But I will say this: those parity bonds are solid, and we'll purchase any single one of them.

Now the last challenge thrown out by the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) is an absolutely valid challenge. I accept the challenge. No question about it. I accept the challenge on the basis of the kind of experience that you and I have had in this House as we differ as a free enterpriser as against a socialist. But that kind of challenge must be accepted in our British parliamentary system.

[ Page 2740 ]

I say if the day comes that we can't back up, dollar for dollar, as government of this province, every single dollar that's out on a parity bond, I will call an election. I will call an election.

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

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Well, we've seen more of the Premier's attempts to cover up the underlying thought behind this Bill No. 74. When the facts were laid before the House this afternoon by the previous Premier, the new Premier blew his cool and got up and tried, by one of the performances that we're getting used to in this Legislature, taking everything that is good to task in rhetorical cliches. Never once in that attack, that tirade, did he assure the people of this province that he was going to use any discretion whatsoever in investing the people's money.

Every one of the previous speakers this afternoon said that it was a disappointing afternoon. Well, it's a disappointing afternoon for the Members of this Legislature to have to stand here and debate a bill of this magnitude that gives the Premier of this province more power than any Premier or Prime Minister or any ruler in any democracy in the world. No place else in the world in a democracy does the Premier or the leader of a government have the power that our Premier is asking us to give him here this afternoon.

There are jurisdictions in the world that allow their leaders to have the power that the Premier wants, and they're commonly known as dictatorships. That is the type of government they have in those provinces where the ruler or the leader has the power to make all of the decisions without going back to the elected body. If that isn't supreme dictatorship, Madam Chairman, I don't know what it is.

It's a disappointing afternoon not only for the legislators in this province but it's a disappointing afternoon for all of the people in the Province of British Columbia. The Premier condemned what had been done by the previous administration to make the economy of this province one of the strongest economies of anywhere in the free world. And it is the prosperous labour unions in this province that have found work and grown prosperous under the free enterprise system that gave him his campaign funds. Yet he would lead us to believe that everything in the past was bad and nothing had been done.

He certainly has prospered, and so have his labour unions. There has been some talk in this Legislature this afternoon about parity bonds. When the true facts of what could happen once Bill 74 is passed were stated here in the Legislature this afternoon, the Premier couldn't bear to hear it. Couldn't bear to hear the facts of what could happen. He knows it. Madam Chairman, the Premier lost his cool, the same as he has done before during this session.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier lost his cool, Madam Chairman, when the opposition pointed out the true intent behind some of the legislation that he is bringing in. The people who bought those parity bonds, at the time they bought them, knew that the finances of this province were secure. If the Premier is going to assure the people of this province that he is not going to invest the surpluses in the capital stock of any corporation, whether that is a good corporation or a bad one, he should amend the bill and say that he is only going to invest in companies developing the natural resources of this province, and that he's going to keep those investments liquid and only have short-term investments.

But the Premier did not assure us that Madam Chairman, and that is why it is a disappointing afternoon. He got up and he said there is socialism everywhere in the world, and he happened to mention Sweden. Madam Chairman, I want to tell you that in Sweden 95 per cent of the commerce and industry is owned by private and individual enterprise — 95 per cent of it. Yet the Premier would lead us to believe that in all of these regimes that are controlled by socialist governments, they are as radical as he is trying to be in this province today.

All this socialism that we have in British Columbia is far more than socialism. It is going further than socialism. The Premier had to say, Madam Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition was indulging in politics. Any time, Madam Chairman, that we lay facts before this Legislature, we seem to be indulging in politics, or we're speaking too long, or we're taking up the time of the House — every time we find what the true intent behind the legislation is.

Interjections by some Hon. Members.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier said that the previous administration was responsible for seeing that all the natural resources of this province were given away. Oh, how I've heard that before! But what is it? Just a smokescreen, that's what it is. The forest industry, which was made prosperous by the previous administration due to its great forest policies, providing a perpetual yield for eternity, is one of the highest-taxed forest industries in any jurisdiction in the free world. Today, Madam Chairman, it is that same forest industry that is providing this same government with the prosperity that still remains. The Premier talks about Bay Street. Madam Chairman, in a few years our Premier will be going to Bay Street on bended knee; to Wall Street on bended knee, to borrow funds to shore up the economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 2741 ]

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier knows, Madam Chairman, that he has done something wrong by bringing in this legislation. But, Madam Chairman, the Premier is pushed by his philosophy. He's blinded by that philosophy. That's why he brings in this legislation. The Premier keeps changing his mind, but what I suggest the Premier do is get himself a Minister of Finance who can handle the job.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Black Friday.

MR. PHILLIPS: He asks the people of this province to trust him. And Tommy Douglas, I suppose, asked the people of Saskatchewan to trust him too. It didn't work in Saskatchewan, it hasn't worked in Manitoba, and they haven't gone near as far as we are trying to do here. The Premier knows, by previous bills, that he has the right, particularly through his Development Corporation Act which he is setting up, to invest money out of general revenue in any enterprise in British Columbia that he wants to. But under that Act he doesn't have the right to take surplus funds and invest them. This is the true intent behind this bill here this afternoon.

Madam Chairman, we should spend several hours pointing out what will happen if Bill 74 becomes law. But we've been forced in this Legislature during the past month with an unbearable workload. We are sitting this afternoon. We'll probably sit tonight and all day tomorrow so that the Premier can ram this legislation through to give himself the dictatorial powers that he seems to need.

[Mr. Lea in the chair.]

Yes, Mr. Member for Oak Bay, it has been a very, very disappointing afternoon when we have to debate this type of legislation. I'm not going to take the time that I should and explore it in detail, because of the way we are being forced in this legislation. But I'm sure the people out there are getting the message, and the message they are getting is this, Mr. Chairman: the Premier of this province is putting his communist philosophy ahead of the common, ordinary people in this province. They're getting the message, and they're getting it loud and clear.

Not only are they just a little unhappy, Mr Chairman; the people of this province are out-and-out angry. They are angry and they are worried and they are concerned, and no longer can the Premier read the people of this province. His position has insulated him from the true feeling of the people in this province.

The Premier should start listening again to the people of this province, instead of this Waffle wing that is forcing him to put this philosophy which is not wanted by the people of this province.

Therefore I want to add my words, speaking out with all the energy that I have, against this philosophy and against this type of legislation. It's been called blank cheque legislation. I'll say that this legislation makes the Premier of this province a complete out-and-out dictator. And I'm against it, because lie wasn't given that mandate last August 30, to take these powers unto himself. He wasn't given that power last August 30. He's changing the democratic way of this province with this legislation, and he knows it.

I would like the Premier, when I sit down, to stand up and assure me that if he loses in these investments, he would be willing to take the money out of his own pocket to make up the losses. Because that is exactly what the people of this province will have to do with these losses — they'll have to take it out of their pockets.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do I get to keep the profits?

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: The past administration ran the finances of this province in a way that made it the envy of all free enterprise jurisdictions in the world. The thing that concerns me about this legislation is that it's all right for that Premier to make his assurances, but he's not going to be there very long, and that gives the fellow who is going to follow him the same far-reaching power. That is why, Mr. Chairman, we have the constitution set up in the way it is. The government should be of laws rather than men.

Now it's going to be of one man; one dictator making all the decisions. And I'm not sure that this one man who is taking all of this responsibility unto himself has the experience or the knowledge. If he did, Mr. Chairman, he would be making political decisions instead of good business decisions because he is politically motivated by his theories. And I feel for all of the people in British Columbia this afternoon because what they are getting thrust upon them this afternoon is something that they did not anticipate.

They made a mistake on August 30.

[ Page 2742 ]

This afternoon just proves how much bigger that mistake was than the people of this province had anticipated. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that when the damage is done it may be far too late. It may be far too late because what was once good and stable and solid is this afternoon being reduced to insecurity and instability by one little bill with four little sections. That's how easy it can be done.

And that's why it is such a disappointing afternoon here in the Legislature, for us and for all of the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: It's Friday the 13th.

MR. PHILLIPS: The day is well named. It's Friday the 13th. It will be the saddest and sorriest day in all the history of British Columbia. Henceforth and forever more, Friday the 13th will not be looked at just as a bad luck day by a few superstitious people, but it will be looked back on as Friday the 13th of April, 1973 — the day that British Columbia started on a downward trend. And it grieves me to have to say that, Mr. Chairman, but I feel my responsibility as a legislator here in British Columbia to point out the unfortunately true facts to all the citizens of this once great province.

I'm going to take my place again now with deep regret, knowing full well that the government, who once used to listen or said they listened, no longer listens, no longer takes the warnings from the people or from the opposition. Once they come to power, Mr. Chairman, everything changes. On today, Friday the 13th, everything will change in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: During his comments, the Member for Peace River stated that the Premier was a communist and held communist philosophy. I ask the Member to withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member withdraw?

MR. PHILLIPS: That's my opinion, but I'll withdraw the statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I want an unconditional withdrawal. I want the record to show that there is an unconditional withdrawal of that allegation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, would you withdraw without reservation, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if it bothers the Premier, I'll withdraw it unconditionally. I don't mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Peace.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few comments that I wish to add to this debate this afternoon because I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I was to let this particular section of the bill go through without adding a few points that I feel are very important.

It's fairly obvious that there's a great gulf between the thinking of those of us who sit in the official opposition and the government of this day. We've said it before and we'll say it again that the partnership we should have with industry in this province, is a partnership designed to participate by means of taxation, not by means of direct intervention into the private sector.

Certainly, we can point to many, many reports — and I have three of them before me this afternoon — which indicate that the Province of British Columbia has done very well as a result of a partnership designed to extract taxation from the basic resource industries of this province. I've quoted from these reports before on the floor of this House, and for the effect that it has had either with the government or even with the members of the Press, it's practically written off.

But I say this, Mr. Chairman, these reports are not drawn up with the intention of whitewashing the position of anyone or any particular industry in the province. The reports that are available on a regular basis indicate in a factual manner — and if this is what the Premier wishes to deal in, we'll deal in facts this afternoon — indicate in a factual manner the state of the health of the particular industry involved. Most of the report is done independently by highly qualified technical people in the auditing business who take a look at the returns and the annual statements of many, many different companies and from that, compile a factual presentation on the state of the health of that industry as it happens to be up until that present time.

[Ms. Young in the chair.]

Certainly the Province of British Columbia has a great potential, but that potential will be stifled and snowed under if the Premier of this province continues to go on the basis that they must become equity shareholders and partners with industry wherever possible. And this was his exact statement: "We wish to become partners with industry wherever possible." That is a statement I have no faith in, and neither does anyone in the official opposition, because the history of the government intervening and participating on the basis that you seem to think you must go is a history of failure, not a history of profit to anyone.

Sure, the potential of the province is great.

[ Page 2743 ]

The Premier mentioned the name "Wenner-Gren" as if it was a dirty word. Well I have no case for or against Wenner-Gren, but I'll say this for him, on his behalf, that perhaps at that particular time — I'll change the phrase — that at that particular time he did one thing in British Columbia. He opened the eyes of the average British Columbia resident to the potential of this province, a potential that I would say the majority of people residing in the Province of British Columbia did not realize existed.

Fortunately, the dreams that he dreamed became reality through the intervention of the government of the Province of British Columbia. But at least by casting his mind to the potential of this great province, everybody else for the first time, to my knowledge, opened their eyes to the potential.

The Premier has said he wishes to bring British Columbia back into the twentieth century. I would suggest that by the adoption and the passing of section 2 of this bill we're returning to the Dark Ages. It's a black day for the Province of British Columbia.

If the Premier is really interested in finding out if the residents of this province who have a beneficial interest in the development of any industry in the province through taxation, if he's really interested in finding out what is happening, why doesn't he read the reports that have been prepared by the mining industry? Why doesn't he read the reports that have been prepared by the forest industry? Why doesn't he read the reports that have been prepared by the petroleum industry indicating what has happened and how you are, as government, very effectively participating in the development of resources in this province?

Here's a report that I have in my hands from the Council of Forest Industry. The report indicates that the overall rate of logging tax has doubled since 1966; up from 4.2 per cent to 8.9 per cent. The report indicates that stumpage and royalty charges increased by 60 per cent from 1966 to 1971 while at the same time pre-tax earnings declined by over 55 per cent in the same period.

The report indicates that property taxes increased by 50 per cent in the six years, whereas investment in taxable assets over the same period increased by 43 per cent. The report indicates the pre-tax earnings declined by 55 per cent in the same period.

The report indicates that the return on capital employed declined from 5.9 per cent in 1966 to 2 per cent in 1971. True, it's probably back up to a 1966 level today. But is there anything wrong with a business making 5 to 6 per cent return on employed capital, provided the government of the Province of British Columbia, without risking a dime of the tax revenue available to them, gets their fair share of the revenue?

I say to the Premier, through you, Madam Chairman, that British Columbia stands number one in Canada when it comes to extracting revenue from the resource-oriented industries of this province.

The report was prepared by the mining industry of British Columbia. I'm not going to go into full detail on it, because it's a very comprehensive document. But the mining company participated in this study and contributed a total of $76.4 million in taxes to the Province of British Columbia, to municipalities in British Columbia and to the Government of Canada in the year 1971.

I can't find in the report the exact figure of a return on investment at that particular year, but I do recall this because I went through the report before: over 50 per cent of the mining companies in the Province of British Columbia in 1971 reported no net income or a net loss. The net return on employed capital was under 1 per cent on an average throughout the whole mining industry in the Province of British Columbia. So we know that the province benefited materially and substantially from tax revenue generated from the people who mined the mineral resources of this province.

The latest report on the petroleum industry, a 1972 report, indicates that since the inception of the mining industry in this province — it started very small and has built gradually over the last 20 years — they have contributed $457 million in revenue directly to the Crown. This represents 57 per cent of the total revenue received by the industry to the end of 1972.

We also know that when you take the revenue that they have received in return for the sale of the resources in relation to the amount of money that they've invested, their return is only around 50 per cent.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I think we've had a long debate about this in terms of philosophy, but I fail to see what the revenues from taxation from a group of companies — not any corporation, an association — what the revenue by way of taxation to this government has got to do with Bill 74. I'd like you to rule on that now.

MR. SMITH: Madam Chairman, the point that I am making in quoting statistical information from a number of reports is simply this: the Province of British Columbia is benefiting in a very direct way through taxation of our resource industries so that we do not require the Province of British Columbia to become equity shareholders by purchasing into these companies on an equity basis.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I must rule in favour of the Hon. Provincial Secretary on this point. Would you kindly speak to the section.

[ Page 2744 ]

MR. SMITH: On what basis, Madam Chairman? Would you quote the rule that you're referring to?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The rule is that you speak to the section under debate, which is section 2, and remain strictly relevant to the clause.

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. SMITH: In speaking to section 2, which deals with the Province of British Columbia becoming involved in the capital stock of any corporation in this province…and certainly, Madam Chairman, with respect, I must suggest that my debate has been more relevant and more to the point this afternoon than many of the things that the Premier has said when he was up rebutting the debate of the opposition.

I have only a few more points to make, and then I'll take my place.

What the Premier is asking for in this bill is a carte blanche approval and power to direct revenue from the Crown to finance or buy in on an equity basis into any corporation whatsoever in the Province of British Columbia.

We've already seen the government and what their intentions are — at least we've seen on the surface what their intentions are — with respect to buying into two corporations in this province. One is at Ocean Falls, and the other is Colcel Industry. There's also a deal being negotiated to take an equity position in Sukunka coal, which is an unproved programme. The potential may be there, but what will actually happen in the way of results of mining is still anyone's guess.

I say that it is not necessary for the province to become involved in the capital stock of any corporation; that the manner that we have used in the past which is traditional is a fair and proper way to share the revenue generated by industry and any corporation in the Province of British Columbia; that to defer from that particular position or embark upon a new direction will be to the detriment of the people who live in this province.

We do not support it in the official opposition and we feel that the passage of this section is a sorry day in the financial and fiscal history of the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is this a filibuster? Will you let us know ahead of time?

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Langley.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Thank you, Madam Chairman. This is not a filibuster. This piece of legislation is one of the most critical pieces of legislation to come before the House this session. We have every right in the world to talk about it and debate it.

Madam Chairman, the Premier and the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked a moment ago about political performances. I would like to suggest that if there was an Oscar for political performances in this House, those two Members would be in the running neck and neck.

Madam Chairman, speaking to section 2 of this Act which will allow this government to invest in any corporation, I'd like to say that the opposition is perfectly within its rights to try and warn the people of British Columbia what we think the consequences of this kind of legislation will be. The only way, Madam Chairman, that the opposition can do its duty and get the government to change its course, if we consider that course to be dangerous, is to keep warning the government and the people of the direction that that course is going. That's exactly what's happening in this debate, Madam Chairman. It's the right way to approach a debate, in my opinion.

Madam Chairman, in rising to debate this section earlier, the Premier used the example of social democracy in other countries. That's fine, Madam Chairman, but the speaker should be honest and recognize what is happening financially in some of those other countries where social democracy has been in effect for a number of years.

The one country that the socialists are so fond of using as a shining example is Sweden. In Sweden today, Madam Chairman, the economy is breaking down. Not only is the economy breaking down but so is the societal pattern. Hospitals are closing down in Sweden because of the disastrous state of the economy, because of the rising costs of running the whole system. Staff shortages, because of the kind of economy that has developed under state socialism in Sweden, are breaking down the structures and contributing to unemployment in that country.

And you use that as one of your examples. That country is becoming a slothful society because of the socialist measures that have been in effect there for many years. I say to you, Madam Chairman, through to the government, that's exactly what's going to happen in this province if we don't change the course of the kind of economic measures that we're developing in this province. I say again that this measure in this section of this Act is the most critical piece of legislation so far before this House this session.

Madam Chairman, the Premier questioned our faith in the people of British Columbia. I'd like to say again that we have all kinds of faith in the people of British Columbia, but we don't have very much faith in the socialists.

[ Page 2745 ]

Madam Chairman, the Premier talked about giveaways being stopped. Well, I would suggest that the kind of giveaway that the socialists have started by the introduction of this kind of legislation, these finance bills, and the many other companion bills that go with them — the giveaway that's been started by those kinds of measures, Madam Chairman, will be the scandal of the century in this country. We have a duty to warn the people of British Columbia about that.

I say to the government: change your directions; pull these kinds of bills; pull the right in all of these finance measures to invest in any kind of corporation. If you don't, the people of British Columbia — I've said it before and I'll say it again — will be the losers.

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

MR. CHABOT: Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Just a few words, if I can be permitted to say a few words, providing there's no closure in this debate and insinuation that there's a possibility that we're going to filibuster this legislation.

I want to say that this is the legislation that is turning British Columbia hard to the left. Not a soft left, but a hard left turn. What we're asking in section 2, Madam Chairman, is to give the Minister of Finance unrestricted and awesome powers of investment. I wonder why the Minister of Finance really needs these kinds of powers. I'm wondering when he needs these powers.

I'm sure that in the back of his mind he has a particular preference on stocks or bonds or corporations which he wants to fiddle with. I say "fiddle" because he can fiddle his way into those corporations by adjustments of licensing and leases and various regulations of the Pollution Control Board and Health Act and so forth.

We haven't been told. I think that we as British Columbians have a right to know why the government needs the kind of power that they're setting out under section 2 of Bill No. 74. They should be able to tell us now what their number one objective is, if they have any objectives. Or are they just going to go around willy-nilly picking up this corporation, knocking off that corporation, putting this corporation and that corporation to the wall in order to get a piece of the action?

Investment and the ability to buy stock is really a science. Investment counselling is a full-time occupation. Even those people who counsel on a full-time basis do make mistakes. I don't know where that Minister of Finance expects to get his great wisdom and his ability for investment purposes.

I was rather shocked to hear the Minister of Finance stand in this House this afternoon and attack every industry in the province that has contributed to the well-being of the people of this province. He attacked the forest industry, and he attacked the mining industry, which contribute substantially to the well-being of the people of British Columbia. He went on to say that the mining industry has raped the Elk Valley.

I want to remind that Minister of Finance that he is now government, in case he doesn't know it. If he thinks that the land has been raped and if he's going to make that kind of accusation, he has the responsibility to bring in legislation to correct any kind of rape or misdemeanour that might have been created on our land. If there has been something drastically wrong with the mining industry in British Columbia, why don't you correct it? You're the government now.

Then he attacks the forest industry. He calls them "timber barons," insinuating they've contributed nothing to the well-being of British Columbians. If you think there's anything drastically wrong with the tax structure in the forest industry, don't just stand there and attack the forest industry. Do something about it. Throw them out of business if that's what you want to do . I'm not advocating it, but that's what you advocated not too long ago when you stood in your place.

We've enjoyed great benefits from the development of our natural resources in British Columbia through the tax structure, the licensing, the royalties and things of that nature. You're attempting to tamper with the things that have made it possible for people to enjoy one of the best ways of life on the North American continent.

What you're talking about in this legislation is investment, the gambling with taxpayers' dollars, Madam Chairman. That's a very serious thing. The Minister of Finance administers hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We're giving him some pretty awesome powers as to what he should do with that money — whether he should give people benefits or gamble it in any corporation in British Columbia. It's a dangerous road down which the Minister of Finance is leading British Columbia. It's a hard left road. It's a Waffle road. It's not the type of road that I think is in the best interests of British Columbians or the economy of British Columbia. It's the type of legislation which I can't possibly support.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 2 pass?

Section 2 approved on the following division:

[ Page 2746 ]

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 14

PAIRED

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I would ask that when you report to the Speaker you inform him with leave of the House that a division took place in committee and, again with leave from the House, to allow that division to be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Sections 3 and 4 approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports division on section 2 and asks leave that it be recorded in the Journals.

Leave granted.

Bill No. 74, An Act to Amend the Revenue Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 75, Mr. Speaker.

HOUSING INCENTIVE FUND ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 75; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 75, Housing Incentive Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 76, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES FUND ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 76; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The problem that I have, Madam Chairman, with this is that it appears to me to be a question of granting either one-third or nothing. I wonder whether situations might not arise where you wouldn't want to give a full third. You might want to give less than that, for some other reason, perhaps because they are receiving a grant from a sports foundation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: One-third of the capital cost.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's right. One-third of the capital cost. That is precisely the point that I want to get to. What would happen, for example, if you wanted to give them only 25 per cent because they are receiving grants from some other area — Sports Fitness Council of Canada, or something of that nature.

[ Page 2747 ]

It would appear to me that this is restrictive, in terms of the way I read the legislation. I know what your intention is, but it is a question of what the words of a section say, and that is the type of analysis that we are on now. It says here, "The Minister of Finance may pay a grant of one-third of the cost of the first $1 million or less of any community recreational facilities sponsored by a municipality." What happens if you want to pay less than a third? It appears….

HON. MR. BARRETT: We don't want to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, that is just the point I am trying to get to. In no circumstances would you want to pay, say 10 per cent or…?

HON. MR. BARRETT: If we wanted to do that, we would put it in the legislation. We don't want to. They can use the winter works money, they can use grants or anything else. We'll pay one-third of the capital cost — that's what the bill says.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That is precisely the point, Mr. Minister of Finance, that I am trying to determine. What I want to know is whether you have the flexibility of paying less, or whether it is a one-third or nothing proposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, if someone asks us to pay them less, we will certainly consider that. (Laughter).

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But you can't do it under this legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We certainly can.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, you can't. How?

HON. MR. BARRETT: We can so. Because if they want to say that the capital cost is deducted to this figure because of another grant, then we will. I never heard such specious questions in my life. Surely to goodness it's clear enough.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, if the question is of intention, I'm sorry if I annoyed the Premier. But it's simple enough to me. I simply want to know whether under certain circumstances, less can be paid, or whether it has to be one-third. Now you answer me it has to be one-third.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I believe that to be an unnecessary restriction on your discretion. Curiously enough, after many times suggesting your discretion is too great, I now suggest that in this Act it is too little.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, if anybody, anywhere in the Province of British Columbia wants less than what is available to them under this grant, we will certainly consider that request.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You cannot under this legislation. That was my point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We certainly can.

Sections 2 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment — and no reduced handouts.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 76, Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 77, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT, 1973

House in committee on Bill No. 77; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 77, Special Funds Appropriation Act, 1973, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 78, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA ECONOMIC
RESEARCH FUND ACT

[ Page 2748 ]

House in committee on Bill No. 78; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 78, British Columbia Economic Research Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 144, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 144; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 144, An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 145, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
INCOME TAX ACT, 1962

House in committee on Bill No. 145; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 145, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 1962, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 14

PAIRED

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 149, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

The House in committee on Bill No. 149; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 149, An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[ Page 2749 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 150, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
LOGGING TAX ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 150; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 150, An Act to Amend the Logging Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 151, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY
CONSTRUCTION LOAN ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 151; Ms. Young in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 151, An Act to Amend the British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 156, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 156; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved with amendments.

Amendment to section 3 approved.

On section 3 with amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): On section 3. This is the section that will provide for the creation of kindergartens across the province. I would like to ask the Minister of Education, through the Chair, if she has any indication at this time of how many kindergartens will be established in this first year and in the next year. Undoubtedly we can't provide kindergartens across the province instantaneously. I would like to know what indication of participation we have from the various boards in this particular clause.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): To the Hon. Member: we are quite aware that it would be impossible even after this is enacted for every board to immediately supply them, and therefore we are going to have the regulations out very soon and inform the school boards of them. In these regulations it will be stated that they will be given two years to complete kindergarten programmes. Also in the regulations we are recommending that, particularly in remote areas of the province where it may be difficult to transport little children over great distances, that they provide an alternative form of kindergarten service. In other words, perhaps a teacher could be sent to provide the service.

We are trying to keep it as flexible as possible but to encourage every child in the province to have the opportunity for a kindergarten year.

MR. SCHROEDER: That's beautiful. Can we assume then, Madam Minister, to you through the Chair, that in two years time we will have fully functioning kindergartens all through the province?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Every child whose parents wish them to partake in the kindergarten year will have some facility to give them that opportunity.

Section 3 approved with amendment.

Sections 4 and 5 approved with amendments.

Amendment to section 6 approved.

On section 6 with amendment.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Chilliwack.

[ Page 2750 ]

MR. SCHROEDER: On section 6(4) where we are providing for joint use of buildings, also joint construction of buildings, also construction of buildings on land held jointly either by a school board, by a municipality or a regional district: is there any anticipated difficulty in whom title shall be vested? Eventually the building must belong to someone; someone must have final jurisdiction. Have we laid out in your department any scheme, any plan whereby this will be clearly spelled out?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: To the Hon. Member: prior to arriving at this clause in the legislation, I called a meeting and met at their request — it was a mutual agreement — with the school trustees and some UBCM (Union of B.C. Municipalities) people. I believe the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) was at one of our meetings in which we sat down and went through those very problems you posed.

We are recommending, and I think you will see it in the legislation, that it can be a mutually-negotiated agreement. It is up to whatever body the school board negotiates with — regional district or municipality. They sit down and mutually come to an agreement with whom the title is going to be vested. So it will be arranged mutually.

MR. SCHROEDER: Further, in subsection 5 where it talks about the expenses incurred by the operation of joint buildings like this. It says that they may or may not become part of the capital grant, at the discretion of the Minister. Is it going to be clearly spelled out in advance so that they will know before the expenditure is incurred whether or not it will be part of a grant, or will they be allowed to make the expenditure with the hopes that it will be included in the grant and then perhaps be disappointed?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No. The only reason that is placed in there is because once the school board has negotiated the agreement then it must come before the Department of Education, because naturally we are paying part of the cost of this. It is the responsibility of the department to finally approve it. That is simply what that means. There could be a case where the department might find that the agreement was not too satisfactory. We do reserve that right.

MS. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 6 as amended pass?

Sections 6 to 9 inclusive approved with amendment.

Title approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 156, An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill No. 50, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
VANCOUVER CHARTER

House in committee on Bill No. 50; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

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

MR. CHABOT: I see in section 26 there is a change to the structure of the Board of Police Commissioners in Vancouver. I'm not familiar with what the structure was in the past — how the appointments were made and so forth. I was wondering if the Member carrying the bill would like to explain to us just what change is being made, and what the results will be by this change.

HON. MR. HALL: I think it is usual to ask the chairman of the private bills of the public and the standing orders committee those questions, Ms. Chairman.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Madam Chairman, so far as I'm aware, the board number has been increased from three or four — I just haven't got the number with me — to a maximum of seven. The mayor as chairman and six others. So far as any other points….

Interjection by an Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: From four to seven, yes, that's the figure. So really what section 26 does is expand the numbers of the police commission.

[ Page 2751 ]

MR. CHABOT: Under the same guidelines, Madam Chairman? The same guidelines with consultation with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

MR. LAUK: That's right.

Section 26 approved.

Title and preamble approved.

MS. CHAIRMAN: The Second Member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Madam Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 50, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 51, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE VANCOUVER
STOCK EXCHANGE ACT

House in committee on Bill No. 51; Ms. Young in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Preamble and title approved.

MR. LAUK: Ms. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill No. 51, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Stock Exchange Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to consider second readings of Bills 180, 181 and 183 along with the committee's readings as discussed.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.