[ Page 3417 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 142). Hon, Mr. Lorimer.

Introduction and first reading — 3417

Provincial Home Acquisition Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 140). Hon. Mr. Nicolson

Introduction and first reading — 3417

Strata Titles Act (Bill 141). Hon. Mr. Nicolson.

Introduction and first reading — 3417

Oral Questions

Irregularities in shipment of Plateau Sawmills logs. Mr. Fraser — 3417

Meeting with Victoria on Laurel Point development. Mr. Wallace — 3417

Possibility of government funds for ROSS committee on Skagit. Mr. Gibson — 3417

Crerar statement on job creation in B.C. northwest. Mr. Bennett — 3418

Police reports to LCB on hotel operations. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3418

Flooding on Interior rivers. Mr. Curtis — 3419

Termination of leases in Victoria Press building. Mr. Chabot — 3419

Housing department arrangements with James Realty. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3419

Balancing of books for past fiscal year. Mr. Fraser — 3419

Study of health services for chronically ill. Mr. Wallace — 3419

Negotiations on Vancouver property frozen for ferry terminal. Mr. Chabot — 3420

Access through Crown land to timber sale licence areas. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3420

Pollution of Shawnigan Lake. Mr. Curtis — 3420

Conflict of interest facing Highways engineer. Mr. Wallace — 3421

Statement Current state of Interior flood situation. Hon. Mr. Hall — 3421

Routine proceedings

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 33)

Report and third reading — 3421

Transit Services Act (Bill 70).

Division on third reading — 3421

Lotteries Act (Bill 83).

Report and third reading — 3422

Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act (Bill 88).

Report and third reading — 3422

Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 8).

Committee, report and third reading — 3422

Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 79).

Committee, report and third reading — 3422

Emergency Health Services Act (Bill 93). Committee stage.

On section 5.

Mr. Wallace — 3422

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3422

Mr. McClelland — 3423

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3423

On section 6.

Mr. Wallace — 3423

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3423

Mr. McClelland — 3423

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3423

Report and third reading — 3423

Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 4).

Committee, report and third reading — 3424

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act (Bill 20).

Committee, report and third reading — 3424

Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 73)

Committee, report and third reading — 3424

County Courts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 74).

Committee, report and third reading — 3424

Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act (Bill 10 1). Committee stage.

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 3424

Hon. Mr. King — 3425

Mr. Gibson — 3425

Hon. Mr. King — 3425

Report and third reading — 3425

Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 65). Second reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3425

Blind Persons' Rights Act (Bill 72). Second reading.

Hon. Ms. Young — 3426

Mr. McClelland — 3427

Mr. Gibson — 3427

Mr. Wallace — 3427

Hon. Ms. Young — 3427

Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 13). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3428

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 14). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3428

Real Property Tax Deferment Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3428

Mr. Bennett — 3434

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3436

Ms. Brown — 3438

Mr. Wallace — 3439

Mrs. Webster — 3440

Mr. McGeer — 3441

Mr. Gardom — 3442

Mr. Phillips — 3443

Mr. Cummings — 3445

Mr. Smith — 3446

Mr. McClelland — 3447

Mr. Morrison — 3447

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3448

Division on second reading — 3450

MONDAY, MAY 27, 1974.

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery today two students who are here from Winnipeg. They've chosen as a school project a visit to the west coast of Canada, including a visit to the Legislature. This project is financed by themselves. They're staying in Delta and they're here today in the Legislature. Their names are Jim Aberdeen and Kirk Lee. I hope the Legislature will make them welcome.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today one of the nine mayors who reside in the constituency of Comox. Would the House join me in welcoming today Mayor Dick Merrick from Comox?

Introduction of bills.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Municipal Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 142 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Provincial Home Acquisition Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 140 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

STRATA TITLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Nicolson presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Strata Titles Act.

Bill 141 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

IRREGULARITIES IN SHIPMENT
OF PLATEAU SAWMILLS LOGS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I have a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Despite being turned down by the B.C. Forest Service, under what authority are the logs located at the burned-down mill of Plateau Mills at Vanderhoof being shipped to the north-side Plateau Mill at Vanderhoof? It is an illegal operation because it has no barker or chipper.

Under what authority are these logs being shipped after they've been turned down by the Forest Service?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MEETINGS WITH VICTORIA ON
LAUREL POINT DEVELOPMENT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with respect to the action of the City of Victoria in approving a land-use contract for a large hotel-apartment complex at Laurel Point in the Inner Harbour, whether the Minister has any meetings planned with Mayor Pollen or city council?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're always ready and willing to have meetings with the mayor and council, Mr. Speaker, and we'd be pleased to do so regarding the Inner Harbour or any part of the city.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker, in that regard. Has the Minister, or what we might call "the troika" of land-use Ministers, held any meetings to consider provincial government action to freeze that site known as the Laurel Point site in the Inner Harbour, similar to the action taken just round the corner a few weeks ago?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker — a last supplementary. Could I just ask, in light of previous experience, whether any negotiations are underway at the present time between this government and the owners of the Laurel Point site for the government to purchase that site?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

POSSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS
FOR ROSS COMMITTEE ON SKAGIT

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

[ Page 3418 ]

Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources took as notice a question I asked him with respect to a report that the ROSS committee — the "Run-Out-Skagit-Spoilers" committee — had approached the government for funds to make representations with respect to the Skagit hearings in the U.S. The Minister took that as notice. Has he any answer at this point?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, is it correct that the Minister turned down the request for a grant? — and on what grounds?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: What is correct is that I took it as notice. I will endeavour to see that the answer is provided.

CRERAR STATEMENT ON JOB
CREATION IN B.C. NORTHWEST

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: could the Minister clarify to the House statements by one Alistair Crerar, director of the government's Environment and Land Use secretariat, which suggest that the government's plan for northwest British Columbia job creation, and I quote: "…won't do anything more than keep pace with the natural increase of the present population"?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'd just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the statements of the director of the Environment and Land Use secretariat would conform with the statements that I made during our tour of the northwest.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental. What special provision has the Minister underway which would come to grips with the problem of the northwestern part of British Columbia — it being an area where no Indian treaties have been signed?

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a general policy statement on the northwest, or is it just a specific question on the treaty?

MR. BENNETT: Yes, specifically to do with the north.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's not clear to me what the question is, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Would you kindly define it better?

MR. BENNETT: Well, it has to do with the development of the northwest in that no Indian treaties have been signed in that area, and also dealing with the question of the agreement. What has the Minister…what special provisions or studies or discussions does he have underway?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: All these matters are always under active consideration. However, I'd like to make it clear that the great railway being built from Fort St. James north, which serves no resources whatsoever, designed by the former administration…. They didn't concern themselves with any question involving social or economic input or any other kind of input in terms of the people of the region, which we…. We don't carry out our programmes in the same seat-of-the-pants way, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to both the participants in the latest exchange that a general policy statement is not really the purpose of question period, nor asking general questions?

POLICE REPORTS TO LCB 
ON HOTEL OPERATIONS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I have a question for the Attorney-General. It is not a seat-of-the-pants question, but may I say that he's looking more and more like a Member of the former government with that jacket he's got on. It looks like Wes Black's old jacket; nevertheless I congratulate him on having found it. (Laughter.)

Has the Minister received representations objecting to the practice of police authorities in Vancouver making reports direct to the Liquor Control Board authorities about the operations of hotels, even in cases where no charges have been laid against the hotel?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, such objections, if they have been made, have not come to my attention.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask a supplementary, then? May I ask the Minister whether he will take steps to ensure that if and where reports of this sort are being made, a copy can be made to the hotel in question? The problem arises that they are unwilling to call in the police to handle disturbances if it could affect their liquor licence.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The matter having been raised, I'll have a look at it.

[ Page 3419 ]

FLOODING ON INTERIOR RIVERS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Provincial Secretary. Some days have passed since we've heard in this House any new developments with respect to flooding or flooding potential in the major river systems. I wonder if the Minister would comment now or, if more acceptable, after question period on the current status.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'd rather not take up the time in question period. I will do it immediately following question period, Mr. Speaker, if that's possible.

TERMINATION OF LEASES
IN VICTORIA PRESS BUILDING

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): To the Minister of Public Works with respect to any existing leases in the Victoria Press building, specifically Blanshard Taxation Services: have all existing leases been given notice or cancelled?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): One lease will be allowed to continue.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Is there a plan of compensation for any of the small businesses that have been disrupted by the cancellation of these leases — those that will be kicked out?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The building was sold to us with a clear title.

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of an answer is that?

MR. CHABOT: Supplementary question. Ten steps down the street, has the government got designs on purchasing the Scott Block on the corner of Hillside and Douglas where 50 residential tenants are being evicted and a few commercial tenants are also having their leases cancelled by Belmont Properties Management Company? Does the government have intentions of purchasing that building which people are being kicked out of at the moment?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The answer is no. We have nothing to do with that.

MR. CHABOT: No intentions?

HON. MR, HARTLEY: No intention of purchasing Scott Block. That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: You are asking a question of future policy, which is, of course, not the purpose of question period.

HOUSING DEPARTMENT ARRANGEMENTS
WITH JAMES REALTY

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Housing, may I ask the Minister whether Mr. Jack James of James Realty of Vancouver is acting on behalf of his department or the provincial government in purchasing options in the Maple Ridge area?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

BALANCING OF BOOKS
FOR PAST FISCAL YEAR

MR. FRASER: A week ago I asked the Minister of Finance if he had balanced the books for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974, so we'd know what the actual revenues and expenditures were. I wonder if he's had time now to get them balanced.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): In fact, Mr. Speaker, I've worked all week-end and I'm very close to balancing the books. It appears that I'll hit the annual target date of July.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Same old style of government.

STUDY OF HEALTH SERVICES
FOR CHRONICALLY ILL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health: with regard to his announcement that Dr. Foulkes will head a team to study health services for the chronically ill, can the Minister tell the House the terms of reference of this team and its specific goal?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I made a general announcement on Friday to that effect, and indicated at the same time I made that announcement that the terms of reference are being worked out by the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Health at the present time. We won't be announcing the terms of reference for probably two weeks to a month. He won't be available to do the work for at least the next four or five weeks. Therefore the terms of reference are being very carefully worked on by the two departments at the present time.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that a standing committee of the Legislature toured the province last summer and

[ Page 3420 ]

obtained a great deal of information, could the Minister at least tell us whether it's still a matter of criteria for chronic care, or whether it is purely the implementation of chronic care services that is Dr. Foulkes' concern?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's implementation. We know the direction. As a matter of fact the Premier indicated the priorities recently. This is purely a matter of implementation of a chronic care service for this province which is properly coordinated. Our problem now, as you know, is that the whole thing is in a number of areas — Housing, Department of Health, Department of Human Resources — with financing in two different areas, so it just has to be put together and organized in such a way that it becomes finally rational.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister has mentioned priorities which were quoted by the Premier. Can I take it that his question about implementation is not contingent on legislation still to be passed, then? A decision has been taken, in other words, to implement chronic care facilities regardless of pending legislation in this House.

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, naturally from time to time legislation will have to be amended to….

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Bill 31 isn't passed yet, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure that it will be very helpful and I'm sure that that Member will vote for it because of the fact that it will do the job that he's been calling for for lo these many months, Mr. Speaker.

NEGOTIATIONS ON VANCOUVER
PROPERTY FROZEN FOR FERRY TERMINAL

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Public Works: regarding the property on the North Shore frozen for ferry terminal purposes, when is the government going to negotiate or expropriate this property?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We're in the midst of negotiating on all properties that we need at this time.

MR. CHABOT: Negotiations are taking place. There are certain property owners there who are experiencing financial difficulties because of the lack of negotiations on the frozen property. They're concerned — and expressing this concern. I was wondering when negotiations are really going to start or when expropriation procedures are going to commence.

HON. MR, HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to inform the Member for Columbia River that if there's any lacking in negotiations, it's entirely on the head of the property owners. In the expropriation paper there was a definite statement of the intention of the government, asking all property owners to come forward and treat or negotiate.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, have the property owners been made an offer they couldn't refuse? (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I think that's probably not intended for an answer.

ACCESS THROUGH CROWN LAND
TO TIMBER SALE LICENCE AREAS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Last week I asked him a question about granting permits for access over Crown land to timber sale licence areas. I wonder whether he could answer that question at the present time, in particular with respect to people who have purchased timber sales overseas as a result of government advertising and who now find that they must be Canadian citizens or landed immigrants to get access to the timber sales that they purchased?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it would be useful, Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would provide me with specific information privately, if he prefers, and we could follow it up.

MR, D.A. ANDERSON: I did it last week.

POLLUTION OF SHAWNIGAN LAKE

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with respect to pollution control. There has been concern expressed for some time, but most particularly in the last few weeks, with regard to an increasing water pollution problem at Shawnigan Lake. The Minister will understand that Shawnigan Lake is not only a recreational area but provides drinking water for the community at Mill Bay. Has this been brought to the Minister's attention, and is it being investigated by the pollution control people?

HON. MR. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm aware of earlier studies, Mr. Speaker, with the Health department but I'm not aware of anything of quite recent date.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. Would the Minister undertake to update himself on this point? It is of

[ Page 3421 ]

concern to a number of people in the Shawnigan Lake district.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'll do that.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) took as notice a question I asked regarding a possible conflict of interest on the part of a senior Highways department engineer in the Alta Lake–Whistler area. He sent a memo to the Minister of Highways, I understand, who was out of town at the time I asked the question. I was told that the Attorney-General and the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) between them would give an answer to this question in the House. I wonder if the Attorney-General and the Minister of Highways have been able to clarify the situation.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I did send the note to the Minister of Highways. I don't think I have received a reply. It may have come into my office and I'll check, now that the Member has raised the matter again.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the House I will make a statement on the flood potential in the province.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for Saanich and the Islands for giving me notice of the question, but it requires not a lengthy reply but a reply longer than I think was necessary to be taken away from question period time.

The continued cool weather last week, Mr. Speaker, kept the rivers low. If the trend had continued everything might be well. However, the water wasn't flowing swiftly enough and, of course, if there's a period of warm weather the potential flooding remains serious. We've now seen that increase in temperature which has dramatically raised the levels of the rivers at the four points at which we take readings.

The flood potential reported previously by myself and in the bulletins that the Members can find continues for most of the central-south Interior rivers.

The seasonal, cool weather which I made reference to, in the first half of May, particularly the second week, and now into the third week, has resulted in a delayed melt and, as I say, a downward trend to the river stages. The weather in the next few weeks will be the crucial factor. As I say, the bad news is that the weather has warmed up considerably and the levels are rising.

The reading of the snow pack indicates a well above average amount of snow pack; the snow courses at the lower elevations have shown generally close to normal melt over the two weeks, but at the very high elevations, of course, they have not been melting at the rate we anticipated. The snow pack desert is very high, indicating a well-primed snow pack which bodes no good.

Mr. Speaker, to the details: the airport dike in Kamloops — that was 7,000 feet — was completed on the weekend. The Brocklehurst dike should have been finished this weekend, and my information on that one was the weekend, and I understand it was completed. If not, it will certainly be completed today.

Diking at Westside is commencing this week; diking on River Street in Kamloops is commenced and the 10 homes, which Members may have read about, will be by-passed, having released governments from liability.

At Chilliwack there were two pumps working in the Vedder area last week, the other four will be operational this week. The staff committee visited most of the areas last week and noted that the Highways department are dropping sand in various places in the Osoyoos and Keremeos area. A lot of the local people are already involved in emergency work, including high school children. Most people are expressing a great deal of pleasure, if not apprehension, but pleasure over the fact that we are being prepared, My latest report, Mr. Speaker, is that this morning there is local flooding in the Woods Lake area in the vicinity of Winfield and Oyama. Approximately 24 homes have been affected. My department has set up a reception centre in Winfield. If it becomes necessary to evacuate, we will do so.

The Red Cross, my department and the Department of Human Resources are represented; they're on the spot and everything is under control. That's my report today, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker; report on Bill 33.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Bill 33 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 70, Mr. Speaker.

TRANSIT SERVICES ACT

Bill 70 read a third time and passed on the

[ Page 3422 ]

following division:

YEAS — 30

NAYS — 12

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 83, Mr. Speaker.

LOTTERIES ACT

Bill 83 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 88, Mr. Speaker.

SEWERAGE FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

Bill 88 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

ELDERLY CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in Committee on Bill 8; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Committee on Bill 79, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in Committee on Bill 79; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 79, Hospital Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill 93, Mr. Chairman.

EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 93; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I was absent from the House when this bill was given second reading so I might be repeating ground that was covered.

On section 5 (f): "The commission has the power and authority…(f) to recruit, examine, train, register, and license emergency medical assistants." I wonder if the Minister could just tell the House to what degree this will relate to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. Is the commission giving a separate power for this specific licensing function?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Naturally, this won't in any way impinge on the degree-granting universities nor will it impinge on the College of Physicians and Surgeons. It's dealing with medical assistants; it's dealing with paramedical people. Naturally, the commission has to set standards for their level of training, so that's really what this is all

[ Page 3423 ]

about. I'm sure they'll be doing a great deal of their work in consultation and close communication with the Medical Centre however.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wanted to get the Minister's opinion about the methods by which the ambulance services will be phased into these training programmes for the people involved in ambulance services. There are various levels of ambulance service now; some good, some bad, some not so good. Will you be attempting to establish some kind of criteria by which you decide at what level an ambulance service is now? Will those which are considered substandard be sent through training first? How are you going to manage that?

HON. MR. COCKE: Yes. We're proposing setting up a level for different areas. For instance, in the very highly sophisticated urban areas where you have a tremendous demand, the level will be at first higher than it will be, say, for the more rural areas. Ultimately, we want to phase everybody up as high as we can and as high as the area will support. There will be a handbook as to the level required for a certain area. Even the volunteers will be required to meet a certain level of training prior to being allowed to work.

We have to be very careful not to make it tough at the beginning so as to exclude a number of people who are now working in the business. We want to give them ample time to acquire the training necessary. That's one of the reasons we feel it's incumbent upon us within the commission to set up the training facility.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. WALLACE: A point in relation to section 6. I was just a little puzzled by line 4, "deterioration of health." The purpose of the section quite clearly is to give the medical assistant the power to act at the very time when he's most needed, namely when the patient's health is endangered. It states in line 3: "where the unavailability of a duly qualified medical practitioner is likely to result in a person's death or deterioration of health…."

This seems rather a diffuse and general statement that could easily be interpreted on a much broader basis that what I think is the precise intent of section 6. I wonder if the Minister has any comment to make on what I think is rather a poorly chosen phrase. I think I know what they're trying to say but it doesn't say it at all well.

HON. MR. COCKE: I would be only too happy…. It was discussed at great length as to where the cutoff point begins and it was felt that you had to have some latitude there. There would be: (1) Some argument as to what might lead to death; (2) if you didn't provide them with something…. It's a mite vague, I agree with you, but we just couldn't find any other phrase that would meet that situation.

But "deterioration of health" here really means a situation where the person would likely be chronically ill or suffer for the rest of his life as a result of the neglect that would be brought about by virtue of the fact that there wasn't a doctor there to treat him. The paramedic or the ambulance attendant under those circumstances is being protected here so that he's not going to find himself at the bad end of a good Samaritan suit.

MR. McCLELLAND: As I pointed out in second reading, this section still bothers me slightly. I'm afraid if we're not on absolutely solid, legal ground with this section, we will instil a sense of false security among the paramedical people who are charged with this responsibility. I'd just like the Minister's assurance that we will be on really solid, legal ground before we go ahead with this section of the bill.

HON. MR. COCKE: All I can say is that when the Statute Law Amendment Act comes up, I think you'll probably be able to help us get onto that solid, legal ground we require in this particular. There has to be a companion piece. I'm sure the Member for Oak Bay realizes that and I'm sure you do too. There has to be a companion piece that will provide that kind of assurance, Mr. Member, and we are proposing that.

Sections 6 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 93, Emergency Health Services Act reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 104.

REGIONAL HOSPITAL DISTRICTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Dent in the

[ Page 3424 ]

chair.

Sections 1 to 17 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair, Bill 104, Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 120, Mr. Speaker.

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRIC
SERVICES COMMISSION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 120; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 13 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 120, Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 73, Mr. Speaker.

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 73; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 73, Criminal Injuries Compensation Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 74, Mr. Speaker.

COUNTY COURTS AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 74; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 74, County Courts Amendment Act, 1974, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 101, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL PROVINCIAL
EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMMES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 101; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): The provision of section 2, if I understand it correctly, is that persons may be appointed to advise the Minister on these various programmes. The Minister during second reading indicated to us that perhaps 40 per cent might be spent by the designated agencies mentioned in section 1 and perhaps up to 60 per cent spent directly by the province.

I'm particularly concerned that the funds spent directly by the province, where they are of direct concern and interest to a local or municipal

[ Page 3425 ]

authority, should be designed and implemented in consultation with the local authority.

I'm not quite certain what's the best procedure to follow, Mr. Chairman: whether an amendment should be moved for this purpose, or whether the Minister would indicate that it would be his intention that consultation would be carried on with local authorities at all times. He might wish to comment on that.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): There is no set formula for the distribution of these moneys as between government Crown corporations and local regional districts, municipal councils and so on.

It is the intention of the department to develop the broadest possible consultation on the types of programmes which we might fund. Now this means that in the future I intend to have a continuing committee on which will be municipal authority representation and trade union representation, not only to come to grips with the problems in terms of the distribution of the moneys to ensure that a fair volume of employment is enjoyed throughout the province, but also to come to grips with some of those problems we have encountered in terms of the wage rates that will be paid.

As you can appreciate, the wage rates are set out under this programme, and there has been some conflict with certain trade unions as to our levels of wages being lower than the going trade union rate. I want to ensure that there is cooperation between the unions and the municipalities in terms of identifying the kinds of jobs that will be done, so that it is not impinging on the normal work performed by trade union members — and hence minimizing their work force — but at the same time ensure that we obtain maximum benefits from the number of dollars that are available.

In other words, we want to be sure that we are not paying such a high wage scale that the number of students employed is thereby reduced. It's rather a delicate balance.

The specific programmes that are put forward by the regional districts and municipalities will be subject to review by this committee when they come in each year. While the distribution of funds this year is about 60-40, as I understand it, that may well vary in the future. On the programmes that are simply within the jurisdiction of the Department of Highways, or the Parks Branch, for instance, if there is any relation with any municipality, that would be up to that department to develop their liaison. We have liaison mainly with the programmes that are sponsored by the local authority.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate the Minister's explanation there. One area of concern I still have remaining is that he indicates that this department has a pattern of consulting with local municipalities on any matters within their boundaries affecting them, but other departments do not necessarily have this.

I wonder if he could assure the House, in his general superintendency of the funds under this Bill 101, that he would ask each of the departments responsible for disbursements to bear in mind the very great importance of consulting with local authorities where it is within the ambit of a local authority.

He will know as well as I the many — I would call them — horrible examples of expenditure programmes entered into often by Ottawa, for example, in various areas without local consultation — without benefit of local committees — that sometimes redound to the disadvantage of the government concerned.

I am sure that the Minister would not want that to happen with Victoria. Therefore, I would ask him if he would give this guideline under the authority of Bill 101 to his colleagues disbursing these funds.

HON. MR. KING: I would be most agreeable to the suggestion that the Member puts forward. I will suggest to my colleagues that they do in fact give an indication to local municipalities about the number of jobs that they intend to create in their various departments throughout the Province of British Columbia.

I would also like to assure the Member that we will certainly do everything in our power to ensure that there's no duplication of the federal government's mistakes in this programme.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 101, Special Provincial Employment Programmes Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS, DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 65.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): The Fair Sales Practices Act is an Act, as the Hon. Members may recall, dealing with pyramid

[ Page 3426 ]

sales schemes principally. The Attorney-General's department and my department have been slowly transferring consumer-oriented legislation over to my department, and this is one of the Acts that we are now absorbing as we now have the personnel and the facilities to do so. There are no substantive changes in the bill; it is merely legislation to transfer the jurisdiction of the Act from the Attorney-General's office to the Minister designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 65, Fair Sales Practices Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 72.

BLIND PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce. It is a bill which will not affect many British Columbians, but it will affect those few substantially. There are between 25 and 40 blind people in the province who use guide dogs, and they have experienced a great deal of difficulty.

I can best explain this Act by reading to you the letter that was responsible for the drafting and the introduction of this bill.

"Dear Premier Barrett: In view of the forward-thinking and progressive changes you have made since coming into office, I am writing to you with the hope that you can make one more. I do not know whether you are aware that in British Columbia we do not have a provincial law to allow guide dogs with their blind masters the access to places where a dog is not permitted under ordinary circumstances."

This is not strictly true, Mr. Speaker. In the Health Act there are provisions that guide dogs are permitted into all premises, but it is sort of lost in a lot of verbiage, and a lot of people are not aware of it. Going back to the letter.

"There are municipal and city by-laws in some localities which do not allow the guide dog this necessary freedom. Unfortunately, when travelling, it is next to impossible to check out all the areas where one might stop and it can be difficult and even embarrassing just to try and get a cup of coffee. Even in this metropolitan area, many restaurant people do not know of these by-laws, and in their concern for the Health department rules, they are reluctant to allow a dog on their premises.

"It is awkward to carry along a number of copies of all the different by-laws. If we had a provincial law, it would be so easy to carry a copy of the law, and both the restaurant owner and the guide-dog owner would both know where they stood so there would be no need for concern or embarrassment for either side.

"In the United States, each state has its own law for freedom of access to guide dogs. I'm enclosing a copy of the Ohio state law which to me seems short, to the point, and leaves little room for doubt as to the standing of a guide dog. I received my copy when I obtained my guide dog at Columbus, Ohio.

"As the owner of a guide dog, I work very hard to maintain strict discipline and obedience while my dog is out in public, as do other guide-dog owners I know. We know that it is a privilege to have our dogs with us and it is our responsibility to have the dog clean, healthy, well groomed and well behaved at all times. In general, the owner of a guide-dog is an out-going type of person, and with the freedom that a guide dog gives, it means that very often a person will find themselves in a position where they will have to have use of the guide-dog law.

"It is also rather confusing for the American tourist travelling with a guide dog. While in the United States he is protected by both state and federal laws, then when he comes to British Columbia there are only a few city and municipal by-laws, which are difficult to keep track of.

"The popularity of the guide dog is growing, and with the increasing number of people becoming blind during their productive years and wishing the freedom that a guide dog gives, the need for a firm provincial guide-dog law is of growing importance.

"If I have been correctly informed, even the law, which gives the blind person travelling with a white cane the right-of-way over traffic, has not been amended to include the blind person travelling with a guide dog. I do hope you will be able to bring into being a provincial guide-dog law. It would be of tremendous help to all of us who require the mobility of a guide dog.

"Very truly yours,

"Mrs. René Keenan."

who lives in Surrey.

As a result of Mrs. Keenan's letter, the legal staff in my department investigated and discovered there was no reason why we could not bring in the exact type of legislation she suggested. There was a suggestion, too, that a small plastic card be issued to all owners of guide dogs which they

[ Page 3427 ]

could carry with them, giving on the card the pertinent legislation, and signed by the Minister giving that power. So in any situation, they could pull out the card and inform the restaurateur, the store-owner, or whatever, of the right of the owner of a guide dog to enter the premises.

One small thing I would like to add, Mr. Speaker, there will be an amendment to definitions in third reading to the Act. I know I'm speaking…that wherever the term "seeing-eye dog" is used, it will be changed to "guide dog." Seeing-eye dog is a trademark name and it was incorrectly used. We will be changing it to guide dog.

As I say, this won't affect many people, but I've received quite a few letters from guide-dog owners, and they are very, very happy that this legislation has been introduced. I hope the Hon. Members will give it their every consideration.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to speak against this bill; it's a fine one and we'll certainly support it. But I was glad the Minister read that letter because some of us were wondering where the pressure came from to enact this legislation.

I'd just like the Minister to assure the people of British Columbia that there haven't been very many problems with guide dogs in this province. I know several people with them and they have access to every kind of store, every kind of shop, every kind of public facility. And guide dogs are well respected in British Columbia, as are their masters. So I wouldn't expect that there were very many real complaints about the lack of this legislation; nevertheless, I think it's fine legislation and we will certainly support it.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, on the day that this bill was introduced, I sent the Minister a little note of congratulations, and I want to do so again publicly now. I think this is a very fine piece of legislation.

In my own riding in the last week there was a circumstance of a blind person with a guide dog who, for one reason or another, was forced to vacate their existing accommodation, and was having great difficulty in finding other accommodation, in part because they required the dog to be on the premises with them.

Of course, they were most reluctant to move to another part of town, not so much for their own concern as because the dog knew that area of North Vancouver, and it was important that it be accommodated in that particular area.

I'm glad to say that it has been possible to come to a happy solution on that particular problem, but it is just an example of the many problems that arise for people with guide dogs. I would ask the Minister if she could, in closing the debate on second reading, describe the protection that will be available to people in this very particular circumstance: namely, that they go to a landlord and wish rental accommodation, in this particular case, and are denied that rental accommodation simply because they have the need of a dog being with them at all times.

Could the Minister assure us, first of all, on my interpretation of the bill which is that the bill would preclude that kind of discrimination and, secondly, will complaints on such a matter simply be a question of the person affected communicating with the Minister in one way or another, and will she have someone available to straighten such misunderstandings out?

MR. WALLACE: We will, of course, support this bill with enthusiasm. I think it's indicative of the government's attention to the disadvantaged in our society. This is one of the most serious handicaps that a person can suffer and, therefore, certainly we should help them in every way possible. We certainly support the legislation.

The criticisms I have are minor. I just don't quite understand, when the bill makes such an effort to establish whether or not a person is blind and restricts anybody else from using a white cane, why the definition of the bill puts in the words "who is apparently blind." Maybe we should discuss this in committee, I'm just a little uneasy about some of the smaller details, but the total thrust of the bill is excellent and we give it our strong support.

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, the definition of "blind," I believe, is defined in the Health Act. The reason the white can provisions are in the Act is because the white can Act is being repealed and this is to take its place.

In answer to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), I grant you that many guide dog owners don't have problems, particularly if they remain in their own community. But I have received letters from blind persons who have said they have had difficulty.

There was a TV clip one night that illustrated this point very well. They themselves don't have any difficulty going into familiar stores and supermarkets and corner shops because they go to places where they are known.

However, as the gentleman in the clip eloquently expressed: "There is always that fear, that terror, that we will be rejected, that we won't be allowed in with our dogs — that ever-present fear."

This will effectively eliminate that fear, especially if they have the plastic card. In fact we've gone so far as to decide we're going to groove it a little bit on the side so they can feel it in the pocket. They can identify that card right off the bat with their fingers,

[ Page 3428 ]

pull it out and show it.

The problem that the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) expressed: I am aware of it; it is very difficult. Unfortunately, our Act deals with public places, access to which is to all the public.

Now persons who have accommodation for rental purposes under existing legislation have the right to prevent pets, animals, children, grandparents — just about everything — and that's the one thing you can't get around. Rightly or wrongly they have that freedom of deciding whether to take animals in accommodation or not.

I happen to think it is wrong. It's morally wrong. but I would be reluctant at this time to change the legislation that would perhaps set precedents in the future that would not be so good. So that is the one are we haven't covered. We've only covered areas dealing with admittance by the general public.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 72, Blind Persons' Rights Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

PROBATE FEES AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, this is companion amendment to the Succession Duty Act that benefits small estates by allowing custody of the property to be obtained without the necessity of probate where the fair market value of the property is under $5,000 instead of $2,000, the limit now in force.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any further debate? The Hon. Minister moves second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Probate Fees Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 14, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the social service tax now exempts the purchase of bibles and school textbooks. It is proposed that this bill extend the exemption from tax to all books. To further assist all groups at this time the bill also exempts used clothing and footwear from the tax.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 14, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

REAL PROPERTY TAX DEFERMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now I will spontaneously start my speech again.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to begin second reading debate of the Real Property Tax Deferment Act, a bill that I trust will receive the full approval of this House.

The Real Property Tax Deferment Act represents considerable thought and study on my government's part as well as the valuable ideas and suggestions of the staff of the Department of Finance.

Additionally we have had the benefit of advice from British Columbia economists who, like our government, have been concerned about the impact of rising property taxes, especially as these increases affect the elderly citizens, the widows, the handicapped and disabled persons in our province. Certainly nobody is against that particular group of citizens.

The bill proposes to do two things: first, to allow elderly citizens and certain other property owners to defer all of their property taxes and, secondly, to allow other groups of property owners, including businesses, to defer part of this year's increase in their property taxes throughout a fixed period of time.

Additionally, amendments to Bill 16 will be brought forward to establish a housing construction incentive through a property tax credit plan.

Because of the magnitude of this bill, Mr. Speaker, we will also be planning to mail out to the citizens of this province an information bulletin explaining to them exactly how this particular legislation is available to them.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm reading it to you now, and then I'll send you autographed copies of my speech for those who write in with a personal request — no charge. But for the rest of the citizens of this province we will be making this programme available — the information available to them — through a

[ Page 3429 ]

pamphlet and through an advertisement.

We are proposing that homeowners, aged 65 and over, widows, widowers, and handicapped persons, may voluntarily — there's no compulsion in the legislation — enter into an agreement with the Crown to defer all the property taxes on his or her home. Put bluntly, Mr. Speaker, this means that no one living on a fixed income in this province will ever have to worry again about being forced to sell his or her home because of taxes, and that will never again be the case in this province, If this bill does nothing else, it will forever put the lie to those who like to spread the fear among the public that the socialists in Victoria are trying to force people out of their homes.

At the same time this legislation is designed to ensure that no municipal government suffers a loss of needed revenue because of tax deferrals, either full or partial. Under this bill, the provincial government will pay directly to all municipalities the full amount of deferred taxes every single year, Mr. Speaker.

The second proposition contained in this bill is that people or businesses with property worth less than $500,000 who have property tax increases this year that are 20 per cent greater than the 1973 property taxes may, and again I say this is optional, enter into an agreement with the Crown to defer portions of their 1974 increase over a fixed period of time.

The legislation sets out in detail the partial deferment plan. I would expect we can discuss this more fully in a committee stage, but I would like to make clear today that we are talking about a deferral scheme that would be in operation on a downward sliding scale in each year up to 1980.

The partial deferral plan works to annually and progressively reduce percentages in such a way as to phase in the 1974 property tax increases until 1980 when, ideally, the property owner would again be paying the full property tax amount.

The feature of this bill is being brought in to cushion the impact of the 1974 property tax increases about which I shall have more to say later on.

Our government expects that the cost of this measure will be well within the province's capacity to pay, although it is quite difficult to predict the extent of the demand for deferrals in an optional plan. The money, Mr. Speaker, is a fair price to pay to secure the homes of those people in our society who are least able to cope with arising cost of living.

Speaking on the question of full deferrals, Mr. Speaker, I want to outline several advantages that exist in this bill. Obviously, any person who is able to defer all his property taxes will have a corresponding increase in his monthly disposable income. For example, if a pensioner's net taxes are $480 this year and he decides to defer that amount, his monthly income will be increased by $40. This will in no way affect Mincome or any other government programmes that are available to those people. That would go some way toward meeting monthly operating expenses in other areas. It would mean a $40 per month addition to spending power of those citizens in this province, and that's a good thing, Mr. Speaker.

Also in our society we find many elderly people who may be said to be "land rich and income poor."

AN HON. MEMBER: How about Hydro increases?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hydro rate increase? Perhaps the former Prime Minister, in campaigning, will announce that he will raise all pensions right across Canada to the same level they are in British Columbia. I challenge the Prime Minister to raise Mincome to $200 for every Canadian citizen over the age of 60, right across this country, Mr. Speaker. But I don't want to bring politics into this speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: Our former Prime Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Still the Prime Minister, but he may be former. Well, David Lewis has already made the commitment. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get back to the debate, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, also in our society you find many elderly people who may be said to be "land rich and income poor."

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just wanted to remind you — some of you might have lost the thread. (Laughter.) To these people rising property taxes can force the sale of properties that they worked hard to secure over the years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …the present system protects these people from what might be called "tax inflation" while increasing their disposable incomes at the same time.

Mr. Speaker, it's noted that we live in an inflationary society. Nowhere has this been more evident recently than the increase in housing prices. So if one looks at a home as an investment, it is obvious that retaining a house during an inflationary period is a much better use of capital than is available to an elderly person who might otherwise be forced to sell his home, and probably invest a portion of the

[ Page 3430 ]

proceeds in an annuity which pays in fixed dollars. If he invests in common stock, the yield would be lower as a rule.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, this bill allows people to continue to increase equity in their own home in a rising market because it does not force them to scramble for the extra dollars they otherwise would have to produce to meet the increased property taxes.

To my knowledge, we will be the first province in all of Canada to allow the senior citizens, the handicapped and the disabled, the benefits from this programme.

I want to point out, however, that the full deferral aspects of this bill apply only to homes or what can be called "principle places of residence." I expect we can deal with this point in more detail in committee — we don't want people benefiting with major investments, but in terms of their own home, that's what we're trying to protect — when it would be appropriate in committee to outline some of the technical considerations dealing with the meaning of "owner" in section 1 of the bill.

I also want to point out that nothing in this legislation changes one's eligibility for the homeowner grant or the school tax removable grant that our government is initiating this year. These people will also be eligible for receipt of the resources dividend initiated by this new progressive government willing to share the resources with the people of this province.

On both the full and partial deferral plans, the interest on deferred amounts is compounded annually at 8 per cent, which is fair. The government is, in effect, making a loan to the property owner which is registered as an encumbrance on the certificate of title. It is fair to compare this 8 per cent rate with first mortgage rates of between 10 or 11 per cent, as well as second mortgage rates that can go to 16 per cent because the federal government has not allowed the people's government of British Columbia to start its own bank. But I don't want to be political, Mr. Speaker, that bank issue is another fight.

But because we don't have a people's bank in this province, those private banks are allowed to make huge profits off the ordinary people of this province, and I say it's a shame. It's usury! Even old Socreds would agree with me — not as a reform group looking for power, (Laughter) but the old Socreds knew how this kind of usury affected the people who are on fixed incomes.

Now, I note with some amusement the confusion of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). He's already on record as saying that this is a bad bill, but he's done that a number of times, only to get back into caucus and have his ears boxed. Before I give him a public drubbing, Mr. Speaker, could I ask him to nod his head and tell me that he's sorry he criticized this bill? Nod your head. (Laughter). He's not sorry that he's against the widowed, the old age pensioner, the crippled and the handicapped. Let the record show that he didn't nod his head when he had his chance. There it is. There it is.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: According to the Province newspaper, on March 20 of this year, the Leader of the Opposition singled out the full deferral aspect of this bill for particular criticism. That's what it said in the Province.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): That's true.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As I'm about to demonstrate, he didn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about. I think this comes as no surprise to his backbenchers, but to the rest of the Members of this House it's a disappointment.

I'm realistic when considering opinions that are brought forward by the official opposition. I lowered my expectations a long time ago, so it wasn't a disappointment! to see that the Leader of the Opposition was wrong again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote your speech?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I was worked very hard on this stuff. But, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't difficult to write; he set himself up.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He said: "At the current rate, the deferred taxes would equal the value of the home in about 12 years." That's what he said. That's his theory which we are discussing. He said that at current rates, the deferred taxes would equal the value of the home in about 12 years, thereby wiping out equity.

Now do you want to add the caveat that our friend from Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) always throws in? Do you want to throw in the homeowner grant too? Throw in the homeowner grant too. Okay. Well, let's put in the homeowner grant, and make you feel better because you might want to nod your head. Okay.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You sure will make your speech because we're waiting for it. We know how you goofed on this one. I don't want to rub it in. I asked the press to leave the gallery because I don't want to rub this in. I don't want the public to know how wrong he was; it'll ruin the Majority Movement's

[ Page 3431 ]

efforts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonetheless, I have to tell you this story because it's my public responsibility to go ahead with this.

MR. WALLACE: We know you really don't want to do it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't want to do it — you're right.

You don't have to suffer through it. Run down to your office and listen on the squawk box; it's always safe down there. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's what your daddy used to do. He'd take off and listen. That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that wasn't called for. I'll take it back. Okay.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, I'm sorry to pick on the….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I lost my place again. That's what it says. His daddy didn't do that.

He said, at the current rates, the deferred taxes would equal the value of the home in about 12 years, thereby wiping out the equity. By his miscalculations, a person aged 65 who deferred all his taxes would see his equity vanish by age 77. That's his theory.

Here are the actual facts, Mr. Speaker. Research was done in typical British Columbia cities in which the average property tax incidence and the average property tax values were taken into account. The typical city we chose to look at was Kelowna.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Purely by accident. A random sampling.

According to the Finance department records, the average residential property in Kelowna had gross property taxes in 1973 of $412.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Gross?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Gross. Of course, that didn't include that little bit of farmland that was right in the town there. Just outside the city, that little bit of farmland.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who used to own that, Mr. Member? His name escapes me; I think he was a Member of this House at one time. We used to see the tax map. It was known as some kind of crazy jigsaw. The tax map came down like this, Mr. Speaker, like this. Then it hit a certain property and went whoop, and then down again. And guess who was in that whoop for lower taxes? I don't want to tell the House that it was the former Premier. No, I don't want to let anybody know that he was in that whoop protecting himself with the taxes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mark Rose's property in the….

HON. MR. BARRETT: According to the property records, the taxes on a typical house in Kelowna were $412. Taking into account the effect of the $200 homeowner grant — now it is $250 — the average net taxes of the ordinary home were $212, minus the $50 of the increase. If the homeowner was over 65, the homeowner grant was $250, so his net taxes would have been an average of $162 and, with the resources grant, even lower.

Using the figure of $162, the greater figure, fully deferred over 12 years and including accumulated interest at 8 per cent, the total deferred amount would be $3,075. That is including accumulated interest. The total deferred amount would be $3,075.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Is that compounded?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's compound. If the Leader of the Opposition seriously assumes that this amount would equal the value of a home in Kelowna 12 years from now, then he must be suffering from delusions of adequacy. How in the world can that man stand in this House and say that within 12 years a home in Kelowna will only be worth $3,075? I say to the people of that constituency, he doesn't even have faith in his own home town.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh! I don't like doing this because it's difficult to bring facts into this Legislature when there has been such an absence of them all these years. But, nonetheless, these are the facts. I know it's not the norm in the history of this chamber to use facts but on occasion it's beneficial,

[ Page 3432 ]

and on this occasion it is more than beneficial.

There's also another way to analyse this. In 1973, the average net property tax on a home in Kelowna was less than 1 per cent of the market value according to the sales data used for the assessment purposes of that tax year. The exact figures are 0.932 per cent for the ordinary homeowner and 0.712 per cent for the elderly homeowner taking advantage of the homeowner grant. The difference, of course, reflects the benefit of the $50 in the homeowner grant.

On this basis, it would take more than 32 years for the accrued deferred taxes, plus interest to equal the value of a home for an elderly person in Kelowna, assuming that the taxes didn't increase, but, more significantly, assuming that the house didn't increase at all during that period.

The Liberals figured this out and welcomed the bill, but that so-called financial group over there came out….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A Liberal proposal by Barrie Clark. Guess who I hired? Barrie Clark. Keep on going.

Nonetheless, the facts are that rational evaluation of this proposal indicates that the Leader of the Opposition didn't know what he was talking about; he just talked off the top of his head. Now he is trapped into voting against this bill. I gave him a chance to nod today and he didn't take advantage of that.

It would take 32 years on that basis for that deferred tax figure to reach the point of what the house was worth today. No one is going to tell me that property in British Columbia is going to decrease in value.

It's clear, Mr. Speaker, that there's very little real danger that the full deferral plan will destroy equity to any significant degree. Contrary to forecasts based on the inaccurate calculations we got from across the floor, the full deferral plan should have the net effect of increasing the value of many estates because those people will be able to hang onto their homes in their senior years. And why shouldn't they? Their estate will be enhanced. And why shouldn't it be?

Because this bill will allow many elderly homeowners to stay where they want to live rather than being forced out because of property taxes, we will have a more stable community sociologically. It is all very well to talk about senior citizens' rest homes and nursing care homes, but the longer we can keep people in their own home the healthier it is for the total community. Even taking into account the accumulated deferred taxes, the estate should be more valuable for retention of the home than it would have been had the owner been forced to sell out.

Another feature of this bill is its flexibility. Those eligible for full deferrals may apply to defer instead only part of their taxes if they so desire. It's a Liberal suggestion and we've accepted that. Later on, they can apply to defer all their taxes if they wish to change their mind. They can start by deferring all their taxes, and then, if the person's financial circumstances change, he or she can reapply to defer only part of, indeed, none of the taxes and pay up.

So, Mr. Member, there is full, voluntary flexibility. The reason I'm taking so long in explaining this part is that the official opposition has attempted to strike fear around this bill which is socially and financially sound and should not become the centre of argument between political parties. It's basically sound for all the citizens who wish to take advantage of it.

The same is true for the partial deferral plan. We'll take that into consideration. Anyone who has opted to defer taxes has the right to pay back all or part of the deferred amount at any time without interest penalty payments, This is true financial flexibility.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all Members read sections 7 and 11 carefully to understand the rights the Crown seeks in deferral agreements. I mention this because I want it clearly understood that the Crown is not seeking a first claim on property through the deferral plan. This is not a back-door expropriation or anything of the kind. It is a loan plan designed mainly to protect people against rising property taxes that exceed their ability to pay.

I want to stress this point, Mr. Speaker, because again some individuals in this House, within the normal range of political practice in this province, have attempted to spread fear around this bill with the senior citizens of this province who are having a hard enough time surviving without having the official opposition playing politics with this bill.

I want to say again clearly, Mr. Speaker, that any attempt to interpret this bill as a means of the government expropriating a home is just vicious, cheap politics of the worst kind. I want to say that this bill is designed as a loan plan and a loan plan only.

These two sections of the Real Property Tax Deferment Act clearly show that the Crown's claim on the property is not retroactive. Any mortgages or other encumbrances registered with the title before the deferral agreement is registered have first priority. The Crown seeks priority only in relation to the encumbrances registered after the deferral agreement. I hope this essential point is clearly understood by all the Members of this House.

Now, Mr. Speaker, speaking to the partial deferment plan, I would like to make the following comments as a matter of government policy. We believe all property should bear a fair share of taxes.

For this reason we designed a partial deferral option to take effect only when a person's taxes went

[ Page 3433 ]

up by more than 20 per cent over the 1973 level — again protecting the businesses with under $500,000 worth of property.

In short, the partial deferral plan is designed to protect those people who feel they need protection from large increases in property taxes this year.

Perhaps it will be argued that these taxes increased because of increased assessments for the 1974 taxation year. In the case of vacant lands in industrial and commercial properties, assessments have been allowed to reach approximately 50 per cent of the market value. And there will be corresponding tax increases.

Many large businesses were escaping their fair share of taxes because, Mr. Speaker, the assessments were held low with the idea that the homeowner was being protected under this blanket programme. But we found under the former administration that it was large businesses that were being protected, not the small homeowner.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, if you'll read the tax notices out in Victoria, the homeowners in Victoria are not only benefiting from an increased resource dividend, but they're finding that their taxes have actually gone down in the City of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, because the mill rate has gone down after allowing large corporations to be assessed and taxed properly. Even the mayor…. There are other jurisdictions where it's showing up.

MR. McCLELLAND: Name them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll give you a list, Mr. Member. But even the mayor of Victoria, who's certainly not an NDPer….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the last time I checked. He said that the mill rate would go down, and that is indeed a fact.

Now the Social Credit Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), I expect, will get up and extol the virtues of this plan, because it's his citizens that have already benefited most — that is, if he travels with the ordinary folks. Do millionaires do that? Do they see the ordinary folk on occasion? Check with the ordinary folk in your constituency, Mr. Member, and I know you'll support this bill.

We believe these increases are fair in most cases, particularly in relation to what the average homeowner has been asked to assume over the years.

The government has a responsibility to adjust the tax base to some degree to provide a more equal share of taxes for local school and hospital services. Under the system we inherited from Social Credit — and there is no way of getting around this — the ordinary home was being charged a relatively higher proportion of the property tax load than were corporate holdings and vacant land.

Shifting this tax load to some degree was an essential first step in preparation of a sound property tax system in British Columbia. It must be remembered that the increased assessments on vacant land reflect two things: firstly, the extent to which assessments have become unrealistically low and, secondly, the fact that land values and therefore equity in land have been increasing dramatically in recent years.

Simply put, for every vacant and commercial property that was under assessed in a given district the homeowner was effectively being asked to share an unfair property tax burden. And that's true, absolutely true.

In moving to solve this problem, we have received requests from the individuals who would like to build homes in the future on small parcels of vacant land they own. We have had requests, Mr. Speaker, from those people who have set aside money for a small piece of property on which to build a retirement home or a second home for their future use.

Also we recognize that some small businesses may need assistance as well. Our proposal is that the partial deferral plan will be available to owners of vacant land not exceeding five acres who have certified that they intend to construct a residential dwelling on that property.

The government would expect construction to occur within 10 years — that's a lot of time — or else the deferred taxes would become payable. This is so we don't get into the position of subsidizing land speculation. Now we're saying to that small land holder that they can be eligible for this tax deferral if they tell us they're going to build a home on that property within 10 years. That is very fair, Mr. Speaker.

In committee I will bring forward amendments that will expand this principle. We will propose that people who build homes on vacant land on which they have deferred the taxes will get tax credits against the deferred amounts. The amendments will propose that all the deferred taxes will be cancelled if the residence is constructed and occupied, not necessarily by the owner, before the end of 1975.

We give the vacant land holder 18 months to construct a home on that land and we will forgive the increase in taxes if they take advantage of that specific opportunity. Again I say that the home does not necessarily have to be occupied by the owner of the land; it can be rented out.

This measure will be a job-creating and housing-construction incentive during the next year and a half. If it proves successful and there's a case to extend the time, we will consider that. But as it stands now, the next 18 months will offer that person the opportunity to build a house on that property,

[ Page 3434 ]

and we will forgive the increased taxes on that property.

Those who build homes after 1975 will have progressively reduced tax credits available to them, with the idea that building up the credits instead would effectively work as a disincentive to construction. Deferrals on corporations would become payable beginning in 1981 over a 10-year period.

Now for the small businessman we are saying that because of this catch-up, because of politics being played with the taxation policies in the past, we will give all this time for a catch-up so that the impact isn't that severe.

Again, the company would retain the option to pay back all or part of the deferred amount at any time without penalty, Mr. Member — without penalty. Bill 16 will not add to government bureaucracy. It will be relatively easy to administer. The application forms for deferrals will be made available at local tax offices throughout the province.

Members who study this bill also will find sections in it that adequately protect the Crown in its deferral agreement. I have in mind, for example, section 5 (4). The Real Property Tax Deferment Act is sound, progressive, sensible legislation.

It is a measure that economists have been discussing for years, but one that only our government has had the foresight to bring before the Legislature. It is something that every person on a fixed income in this province can be pleased about. This bill protects the homeowner, the small businessman and those who own home site lands, while retaining fairness in taxation policy.

I want to thank all the Members who've been working on the tax committee, and I hope that other legislation will be forthcoming this session out of that committee.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, regardless of party, is long overdue and I now move second reading.

MR. BENNETT: I was flattered that the Premier singled me out today for a special comment on my press releases.

However, I would like to point out to him that when we oppose the tax deferral, we oppose it as an alternative to the basic exemption. As you know, there are two proposals that have been studied well. In fact, in California taxation studies went on in 1964 and 1966 against the relative benefit of the two measures in dealing with the problems of the homeowner.

One has the basic exemption, a policy that British Columbia has had for years with the homeowner grant. The other is, in fact, to sweep the problem under the rug and lend the taxpayers' money and let the blow fall on them sometime in the future or upon their heirs when they die.

Now in dealing with this bill, Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly concerned with three particular groups: widows, handicapped and senior citizens. I'm not using any example of figures which were used when this bill was first introduced, because that example was talked about as gross taxes without the homeowner's grant. If a house had a particular assessment and these were the taxes, indeed on those figures it would have accrued; in 12 years there would have been a payout.

Now we've done some average figures that I hope to present to this Legislature as what I would call a more meaningful alternative, not hiding the problem. The Premier talks, as Minister of Finance, that he's going to put all that purchasing power in the hands of the people. He's not giving them anything. He's lending them money at 8 per cent. He's lending them their own money at 8 per cent. That's not giving them one thing. That's not an exemption, and that's not facing their problem. Their problem is one of property taxes.

Now in some of these major studies, particularly one done by Margaret Greenfield on the property tax exemptions and deferrals for senior citizens, at the Institute of Governmental Studies in Berkeley in 1966, they talk about deferrals as compared to exemptions.

Connecticut deferred tax prior to 1964 with an interest rate of 4 per cent. Connecticut deferred tax was in the form of a lien. The interest rate they charged was only 4 per cent and the lien could not be foreclosed until after the death of all owners over the age of 65.

This state also, in effect, defers only the increased portion of taxes over a base year so the accumulated deferment cannot become onerous at all. Oregon put in a deferment in 1966, with an interest rate of 6 per cent. There again, this lien on this property is charitable; there is no onerous lien or foreclosure or any sort of charge against the property until they decide to dispose of it. But in all studies the major problem is not deferment, but that of a basic exemption.

If we're concerned about these three areas, as I'm sure we all are — and it is non-political, as everybody's concerned for these areas — then let's talk about getting to the problem and not just stalling for time, not just sweeping the problem under the rug. It is a very real problem.

We've found that people who stay in their homes, as they've found in these studies, were not very wealthy people but people of very modest circumstances who felt secure in their neighbourhood and wished to continue to live in their homes. In fact, one of the quotes from the report is that many people have a deep, emotional attachment to the home and neighbourhood in which they have spent a good part of their lives — the home in which they

[ Page 3435 ]

reared their children. As a result they are not only reluctant but are deathly afraid of facing change in the time of their life when they do not have the security of youth, the security of good health. Their home becomes more than physically important; it becomes emotionally important to them.

Yet just deferring their taxes and putting aside their problems for a few years isn't going to solve the problem. They'd be more secure emotionally and more secure physically if they knew that the people were really concerned about them in the way of a larger basic exemption — an exemption that was meaningful and recognized their contributions to society and to the province through the many years that they lived here.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

What we in this party feel is that if we are concerned at all, let's face the problem of these three groups squarely, and whether our society and whether prosperous British Columbia can, in fact, afford to give an increased exemption that is meaningful to these three groups — meaningful in the way that they will not fear for any property tax and that when you're giving them purchasing power, you are really giving them purchasing power, not taking it away upon their death.

Let's take a look and try to calculate the number of people over the age of 65 in B.C. I can only go from the 1971 census. At that time there were 122,000 household heads over age 65. The percentage of these total household heads that were renting were 45,000, leaving homeowners over age 65 of 77,000.

The number of widowed homemakers under the age of 65 has to be added to this. The 1971 census totalled female household heads at 119,000, totalled widowed household heads at 59,000. Proportion of widowed household heads, 50 per cent.

Total of female household heads under age 65 was 75,000. The proportion of younger widows is lowered to 40 per cent. Widowed household heads under age 65 were 30,000. That less proportion renting at 36.7, which is 11,000, leaves widowed homeowners under 65 at 19,000. This group must be added to those 77,000 over age 65.

Then we have the number of handicapped homeowners not otherwise qualified. Again, taking those receiving Mincome of 6,300, less persons over 65, 1,150 (because we have already calculated them), less widowed female household heads receiving Mincome, 150, household heads on Mincome not already qualified, less percentage renting at 40 per cent, we have handicapped homeowners on Mincome not already qualified of 3,000.

Here we have, Mr. Chairman, 77,000 homeowners over 65. And we have 22,000 widowed and handicapped that would require this special basic exemption, in opposition to a deferment, a sweeping under the rug of their problems.

Let's take a look at what this would cost this province. Let's take in that they already have a basic exemption in this province, a basic exemption that was among the first in all of North America.

Let's say if you are over 65 your basic exemption already gives you some special status, your contribution to society of $290. For the sake of argument, let's estimate the average gross property tax payable in British Columbia. Now, based on rough figures available from two different sources, the average gross 1974 property tax in B.C. — not '73 but '74 — would probably be $600 or less. If this average gross tax was $600, and you are over 65, you get a homeowners' grant of $290. That leaves you with a net tax of $310. Times 77,000 people, the net cost would be $23,900,000. Widows and handicapped $600, they would get a homeowners' grant of $240. Net tax of $360, 22,000 people, $7,900,000 for a total net cost of $31,800,000.

But if we take off those that have housing — and a lot of these people over 65 live in modest housing that won't reach the $600 figure — for a cost of about $25 million a year, the province could give a basic exemption to these people. Not a deferment, not a sweeping under the rug of the problem, but they could give a basic exemption of $600 a year on their taxes and it would cost this province about $25 million — I per cent of a budget that might run $2.5 billion.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's your policy?

MR. BENNETT: Our policy has always been an increase in the basic exemption, an exemption that this province has led in, as against a tax deferment.

If the Premier and Minister of Finance, instead of developing his policy…and when he talks about it…I got quite a kick when he was making those spontaneous rehearsed remarks because he suggested that a lot of thought went into this policy. Well, I remember that when he announced it, in panic citizens around the province were protesting because of the hike in the assessments, and there he was running from hotline to hotline saying, "We'll protect you, we'll protect you, really we don't mean it," and one day somebody phoned in and said: "What about a deferment?" He said: "Yeah, we'll buy that."

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Kelowna Garter.

MR. BENNETT: I'm saying that a province as wealthy as British Columbia that has a history in pioneering basic exemptions doesn't need to just talk about saving interest on…. Eight per cent interest on $25 million — $1,900,000 — that's how much interest this province is going to charge those people

[ Page 3436 ]

to defer their taxes. They could at least do it for nothing in a province as wealthy as this, with budgets over $2 billion … $25 million to help the 99,000 people covered in these three categories, Mr. Speaker.

For this reason, this government…. We don't believe problems should be swept under the rug. We don't think they should be developed in hotline shows. We don't think they should be developed in panic because the assessment policy Act brought in created great inequities and inequalities with people. We talk about facing the problem. Now here we are, quoting from the report studies that were done. The Premier and Minister of Finance, with all this research he talked of, could have gone through weighing a deferment against increasing the basic exemption.

They point out that these people are concerned about deferring their taxes. States that have had a tax deferral, even when they only charged 4 per cent, even where they only charged 6 per cent…those people still feel concerned that they are in effect mortgaging away an additional mortgage on their property. The fact that they've got subsidized borrowing and no longer are consciously at their age concerned about taxes…. It's a game you can only win by dying but it's not a game that gives security by people who stay in their homes because of the need for the strong, continuing attachment.

That's why citizens over 65 stay in those homes. Surely apartments must be more convenient, but these people that have lived in small neighbourhoods need the security of that home and that environment. If, as these studies show, they require that, and they show that they don't want a deferment, they don't want to borrow money from the government…if society recognizes their problems, recognizes them as requiring special help, recognizes that people over 65 have made a great contribution to the province, and their country, and that with the handicapped and the widows who have a special problem all their own — if for the price of this programme we can give them an exemption that would cover those in need and costing only $25 million, surely that is much better than them mortgaging additionally to whatever financing they might need for the future, their homes. The only way they can get out of it is by dying.

I think that we must meet the problem squarely and we must meet if fairly. I think it is not a question of opposing this bill, because it gives some aid but it doesn't give aid in the direction that we believe in and that we are committed to in this party, and that is a basic exemption that means something, a basic exemption that would be reflective of the economy of this province, a basic exemption of 99,000 people in circumstances who need help. For this reason, with this alternative, Mr. Speaker, we oppose this bill and humbly suggest that the government withdraw it and replace it with a bill that means something for the citizens of British Columbia.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, so that there's no doubt in anyone's mind, we intend to support this legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: During the remarks of the Hon. Premier in introducing second reading there were comments back and forth across the floor of this House as to who originated this idea. I don't think that's pertinent to this discussion at all.

Really what we need to be concerned about when we consider this particular legislation is: who will be the beneficiaries? They are the people with whom we must be concerned. To find that those people who are over 65 years of age, those who are widows, those who are widowers, and those who are handicapped are the primary beneficiaries of this legislation is one of the reasons that we support it.

We have argued on this side of the House in this party, during all of my time in this House, for just this kind of legislation. Example after example after example has been placed on the floor of this House by Members of this party and other parties to show the hardship which was being worked upon people 65 years of age and over — widows and handicapped persons — merely because they wanted to live in their own homes, in their own communities.

Mr. Speaker, it ill behoves the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) to speak about what his party's policy is in this regard. Over all those years, when all the Social Credit Party when it was in government turned a deaf ear.

What we appear to have now is another renunciation by the Social Credit group in the House today of those policies for which Social Credit stood on the floor of this House for over 20 years. They seem to fail to reflect, Mr. Speaker, just exactly what the Social Credit policies as enunciated in this House by the former Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) were. Everybody should have the right to own their own homes. That should be encouraged. But if you became old or disabled, and somehow or another were unable to meet your tax responsibilities, the government wasn't going to help you in that regard.

The government was prepared, however, to meddle with tax assessments, knowing full well that the implications of that meddling was to thrust upon the private residential owner an ever-increasing burden of tax, and with no relief to those people who found the payment of tax difficult.

That was the policy of Social Credit. I hope that what we have heard from the leader of the official opposition today is a renunciation — in fact, a denunciation — of that policy.

It seems to me that the Social Credit Party that

[ Page 3437 ]

sits in the House today is scrambling in exactly the same way as that dying party scrambled in 1972 when, recognizing the problems that it had created in this province, it brought in the Kelowna Charter — suddenly recognizing that maybe the government had to give some assistance for our senior citizens in this province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, when the government comes forward with a bill which is able to put into our laws the kind of assistance that people over 65, handicapped and trying to live in their own homes need to have, we find it criticized because it's some kind of a deferment.

MR. BENNETT: You haven't even read the study book.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): There's the party of research.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The party of research. After 20 years of doing no research, after 20 years of having no research assistance assisting anybody in the government, Social Credit has now become the party of research.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They can't even get federal candidates.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is because we recognize that people, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said, have a deep emotional attachment to their homes that we support this legislation.

There are many improvements to be made, but I am pleased to see the government taking that first step which will see a removal of the serious impact of residential property taxation from the people of the Province of British Columbia, and taking that first step to assist those people who suffer most from our rising inflationary trends in municipalities and local governments, I wonder what the Leader of the Opposition will say to 99,000 people that he quoted as statistics, saying, "Oh, don't give them a deferment," when those people, as indicated by the Premier, have a clear choice facing them once this legislation is passed. They don't need to have this assistance if they don't require it, but if they do need the help, now or in the future, if their circumstances today change either for better or for worse, then this legislation allows them to participate with the government in the solution of their problems.

If that isn't the kind of assistance that those people who have worked in this province, built their homes, and want to continue to live in their homes should have, then I don't know what more the government could offer. If their ability to pay diminishes, then they can take the opportunity of using this legislation. If their ability to pay increases by reason of their good fortune or changing circumstances in the province, then if they have taken the opportunity to defer, they can terminate that arrangement with the government. It is completely flexible. It affords to each person in his category a choice.

I happen to believe that when the government helps in this way or encourages those who don't need the help to shun it, they truly speak to the property owner on a man-to-man basis, saying that this government is prepared to assist where assistance is required.

I would think that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would not criticize the government for deferring at 8 per cent. When I think what the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) used to do with the revenues of this province, the way he loaned the moneys of the province to Crown corporations, the way he gave them preferential rates, that to offer deferment of tax at 8 per cent is to the average citizen in the Province of British Columbia a gift from the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Starve the school districts; starve the municipalities.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the tax implications for the residential property owner in this province are what they are today because of the educational tax policies of the former administration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Example after example after example, school district after school district, has shown that the greatest burden of tax increase for the homeowner in this province has been on account of the educational financing policies of the Social Credit administration.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it got so bad that finally the Social Credit government had to amend the homeowners grant legislation to make sure that everybody recognized that it was the reduction of the educational tax on land. That's the only way that they could show their faces in the communities of this province because of the implications of their educational tax policy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right on, brother. Poke it to 'em.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As I say, I see this merely as being the first step. We will continue in this

[ Page 3438 ]

party to press the government to make further advantages available to homeowners, we will continue to press the government to give this same tax deferment benefit to tenants who in their rents are paying the taxes of their landlords, because we too want to see their disposable income increased in the same way in which the disposable income of senior homeowners is being increased. We do not wish to see the government embarking upon policies which are to continue the disadvantage under which those people who cannot own their own homes have laboured for too long in this province.

We don't think that the tenants are second-class citizens. We don't think that those young people who are struggling to save the moneys to buy their own homes are second-class citizens. We want to see the government extending this kind of legislation so that they will have increased disposal income.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Member for South Vancouver…

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …doesn't listen. Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings), I mean.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I apologize to the Member for South Vancouver. Little Mountain. He doesn't listen.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't want to be mistaken for him.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I can't go over my speech again. If I lose my place as the Premier did, I'd have to ad lib. I don't want to do it again.

Mr. Speaker, just let me say in conclusion…

AN HON, MEMBER: The ad lib is coming.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …that we're going to press the government, no matter who it may be…

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: …to continue in this direction. But we're prepared to support this first hesitant step, which will provide relief for residential property owners in British Columbia.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I realize that legislative protocol calls for a speech from the Conservatives at this time, but as they're not here I'd like to speak until they get here. I'm sure they'd like to participate in this debate, and I know they'll be here to vote in support of it.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Speak for them.

MS. BROWN: I would like…. No, I won't speak for them; I'm just speaking until they get here.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a good conservative Rosie. (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: You can trust other people to speak. You don't need to filibuster.

This is an extremely positive bill, Mr. Speaker, an excellent bill; and I too would like to rise in support of it.

The interesting thing about the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the people whom it covers. By covering the senior citizens and the handicapped and widows and widowers, what the bill takes into account is that segment of the society that has difficulty in maintaining its income — oh, they're here: however, I will be very brief — in maintaining their income at a time in their life when it might be possible to lose their homes.

In taking this group into account, Mr. Speaker, we also have to take into account that there are other people that this happens to also. Like the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) I would like to exhort the government to make this just a first step and not to make this the end.

I think that we have to take into account the working poor, and have to take into account people who for one reason or another find at some time, that they are unable to meet their taxes. They then should be able to apply, under a special category, for deferment — even for a short period of time. Certainly I would like to support that this should be extended to cover tenants.

I think when we look at this Act we shouldn't look at it in isolation. We should couple it with some of the other things that have been done and some of the other steps taken by this government to support and to maintain the householders in their homes rather than forcing them to leave either because of lack of taxes or increased expenses involved.

One of the things the health committee found in its travels through the province last summer was the real fear of so many of the senior citizens that they might lose their homes because of illness and so be unable to meet the taxes, or that they might lose their homes for some other reason.

This is one of the reasons why I feel so very strongly that this is an excellent piece of legislation. What it's saying is that rather than transferring the

[ Page 3439 ]

senior citizens into boarding homes or into intermediate care homes or into other homes simply because they cannot continue financially to maintain their homes, we are going to help to support them in these homes.

This, coupled with the announcement of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) about coordinated care for chronically ill people: this coupled with the steps being taken in developing expanded homemaker services: all of these steps taken together, Mr. Speaker, mean that it will be possible for the senior citizens of this province to end their days in the home that they built and that they enjoy living in.

Most of all, it means that never again will senior citizens in this province be forced to give up their residences because of taxes — never again. I think that that's a very vital point and one of the reasons why we're so very, very proud of this bill.

MR. WALLACE: I'm so grateful to the lady Member for making it possible for me to get back into the House to make a few comments on this bill.

We will support this bill. The bill is before the House because of one simple fact of life — a harsh but simple fact — in one word, inflation. If the individuals in our society who are particularly covered by this bill were being protected in other ways, if in fact being on a fixed income did not mean that you lose 10 per cent of your income per year, then, of course, this kind of legislation would not be necessary.

There's no question at all in anyone's mind, regardless of the political suggestions made by the Minister of Finance as to what the federal government might or might not do…. Regardless of this, the groups we are talking about, the senior citizens over 65 and the handicapped and the widows and the widowers who are on a fixed income, are never bound to be more fearful about any other factor than the fact of shelter.

We've talked in this House many times about the basics of food and shelter and medical care. These three surely have to be primary priorities for any government to protect, particularly among groups of citizens who are on fixed incomes.

I don't think however, that we should hide the fact, as was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), that this is an 8 per cent loan. The Minister of Finance in introducing the bill made it very plain that this bill is in fact a system of providing a loan at 8 per cent cumulative interest, year by year, on a voluntary basis to those who wish to avail themselves of it.

While the effect of the bill is to make it possible for elderly people to remain in their own home, I'm quite sure that many of these citizens must be asking themselves after they've worked an honest long life and over many years bought their home why, when they no sooner own the home for a few years, they have to start borrowing from the government to retain the home. That, in effect, is what is happening in our society today, Mr. Speaker. Also, as the Leader of the Opposition stated: "A home is an emotional factor of tremendous degree in the life of each individual." I don't think that's a world-shaking discovery but it's a fact of life worth repeating. As the lady Member mentioned a moment ago, there is one factor in preserving the health of elderly people: that is, keeping them in their own home in their later years for as long as is reasonably possible — depending, of course, on their physical status and the amount of health care and health services that they require.

The issue of trying to keep the elderly citizen in their own home is again, I think, or should be, a very high priority of government.

While we support this bill, we would hope to look forward to the day when a different philosophy attaching to real estate property tax will be forthcoming. The Premier has talked with great feeling about how industry and commerce were not paying their fair fraction of the total amount of revenue to be derived from property taxation. I think that argument's a little similar to the argument that the resources are not paying enough money back to the people in the form of royalties. What is a reasonable amount, I suppose, is the question one might well ask.

I hope that this bill is not to be looked upon as some final solution to the problem of elderly people trying to remain in their own home. The final solution is sometimes introduced as a temporary measure just like income tax in 1916 when, during the First World War, a certain government introduced income tax as a temporary measure….

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Who was it? Who was it?

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I don't think…. It's immaterial, Mr. Minister. The point I'm trying to make is that some measures which appear to be very worthwhile and much needed when they're introduced gain acceptance on the basis that it's rather a temporary measure. We've had examples of that with the 8 per cent rent stabilization Act.

I feel that while this bill represents one mechanism which can give immediate relief to the elderly citizens wishing to retain their homes, it is not, to my way of thinking, the kind of long-term solution that we should be seeking.

If it is a general consensus among levels of government that the senior citizens are the hardest hit by inflation, then surely we should try and look at ways in which all three levels should cooperate to bring this about. It should not be done by the

[ Page 3440 ]

unilateral action of one level of government in this particular way.

I'm thinking as far as the municipal governments are concerned that maybe there should be a specific, fixed mill rate to be applied to the residential properties of citizens over 65 years of age.

The special committee of the House on assessments has looked at the situation and has pointed out how very unsatisfactory and ill-advised the amendments of recent years to the Assessment Equalization Act really were in terms of trying to solve the problem of fair and equitable taxation to different groups in society, whether these groups were elderly citizens or businessmen or young couples or large corporations. I hope at least that message has got through to the government, Mr. Speaker, that if there is to be equitable taxation the legislation has to be applied to the taxation and not to the assessment. I know it sounds like water under the bridge to point out the errors of the past, and I'm the first one to admit that I voted in favour of one of these errors in this House, when we amended the Assessment Equalization Act.

Now the evidence is quite clear and the work of the special committee has made it quite clear that perhaps this whole business of assessment and property taxation has to be taken outside the strictly political realms so that we can have some kind of committee or commission which will in fact give guidance and carry out the supervision of an appropriate assessment procedure.

One of the other aspects of the bill that we are discussing that I just mentioned, is that the Minister of Finance has chosen to define a small business as land and improvements worth up to $500,000. I think in the business sector these days that does not necessarily include all so-called small businesses, because I think small businesses must surely be related to the number of people they employ. I just asked the question as to why he decided on that particular figure.

While we've talked about the importance of homes for the elderly, I would also like to mention, as I mentioned in debate the other day, the importance of recreation for the senior citizen. This is another very therapeutic way in which senior citizens can remain self-sufficient and look after themselves within their own home.

I am disappointed that the Minister of Finance could not come forth with some specific tax measure in relation to golf courses. I won't bore the House by repeating the details I first discussed in an earlier debate, but in relation to golf courses, referring to the greater Victoria area in particular, there are many senior citizens or citizens over 65 who have a very useful and health-preserving practice of playing golf but who, in the face of very substantial increases in taxation on golf courses this year, which are likely to be repeated in future years unless the Minister does take some action just find it impossible to pay the increased fees in order to remain members of golf courses.

I accept and respect that the Minister of Finance did make statements along the way, in November, 1973, to the effect that if certain conditions were fulfilled by the golf courses he would in fact attempt to keep the tax level static. There have been some misunderstandings and I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you have been very charitable; we can't get into a debate on the taxation of golf courses on this bill but it is part of the general picture of assessment and property taxation which has brought about the need for this bill in the first place.

A moment ago the Minister of Finance interjected that something would be done. Perhaps when he winds up the debate he would give use a little more detail on the question I've asked about the golf courses.

Certainly, it would not be right to conclude this debate without having some idea from the Minister of Finance to what degree he regards this as a temporary measure — not temporary in the five-year sense, that by five years from now he has promised to take off all the education tax off property — but in terms of property taxation on homes generally for those in the senior age groups. Is this a programme which he foresees continuing for many years or is this programme in the long run to be reviewed in 1980? And is 1980 the target date by which the Minister of Finance aims at having all education tax removed from property? These are some of the inter-related questions which I think it is fair to ask.

Within these circumstances where I have some reservation — particularly the fact that senior citizens should not have to start borrowing money at 8 per cent from the government when they have spent most of their life acquiring their house in the first place — this party will certainly support the bill and would welcome answers to some of the questions that I have asked.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I would like, too, to rise in support of this bill. I would like to speak about the psychological implications of the bill because I think we often look too much at the material end of things. While the material side is most important, I think it has a great number of psychological implications that the elderly, particularly, become aware of. The older they become the more aware they become of the fact that they would like to be in their own homes and that they would like to be together. This is of particular importance when one or the other of a couple has to go into a nursing home or a hospital and the other finds it difficult to remain alone and be able to pay for the taxes and for the upkeep of the home and all

[ Page 3441 ]

the other charges and responsibilities that are placed on the single person left alone.

I still remember when my parents were at the age when they could no longer maintain their own home and had to sell out. They were living in Manitoba and came out here to British Columbia where three of the family were. First they went to live with my brother. Finally they lived with myself and my sister because we were single. But at no time did they really feel that this was their home. Their home was still in Manitoba in spite of the fact that it was sold. Emotionally and mentally they still lived in Manitoba.

They went to visit a sister of mine in Montreal and came back. The circumstances there were entirely different because there they were living in a French community which was foreign to them. I'm not trying to imply that there is anything wrong with people of another nationality or anything like that, but for older people it is understandable that it is more difficult to make that type of adjustment. At no time did my parents feel comfortable living with any of their children. The most comfortable they felt was with my younger sister and myself because we were single so there was more of a part of the nuclear family unit. This isn't always possible.

For two people together it is a little bit easier. But when one person is alone and the other is, for instance, in hospital or in a nursing home it's fine if they can get nursing care service or a homemaker service within their home, if that were subsidized in such a way that they can have the other person there so that wife and husband can live together, but when they have to be separated and then find that the financial burden is such that they have to sell their home I think that the psychological and emotional implications are much more severe and it does shorten their lives. Their desire to live in new circumstances and new surroundings makes it much more difficult than it has been before. For that reason, if for none other, I think it is exceedingly important to keep old people in their homes as long as we can with tax deferrals.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I only want to speak very briefly on this bill to commend the government on bringing in something which is an initial step. I think even the Premier would acknowledge that this is by no means the final commitment we need to make to our senior citizens.

I think it was the former Member for Oak Bay (Mr. McFarlane) who was the first one to translate this concept into legislation and introduce it onto the floor of the House. As I recall, his provisions were a good deal more generous than those of the Premier. I hope the Premier will go back and study some of the former ideas that had been brought forward in this House as, perhaps, a guide to an improved bill in the future.

Like the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), I found it a little difficult to listen to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), not just because of the rather sorry record of the party he leads in the Legislature in this matter. I was one of those who sat in opposition and hammered against the stone wall of the former Premier, Mr. Bennett, and his government in this matter of giving the senior citizens of the province a break.

I was also disappointed in the position the Leader of the Opposition took because this isn't compulsory legislation. If a person doesn't like the provisions they don't have to buy it. If it is going to help them, they can go ahead and take advantage of it. Nobody is being forced to do anything. When I think of the number of bills I had to vote against as a Member of the opposition that were forcing people to do things against their will, brought in by the former government, it seemed to me that no one in the opposition should be voting against something which is permissive in its design. It doesn't require anybody to foot the bill but only involves a postponement at a time of life when that postponement is vital to the person's security and future.

I hope that along the way with this legislation, the Premier is going to take a look at some of the extremely complicated provisions of 20 per cent deferments and 15 per cent deferments and 10 per cent deferments which he couldn't explain, and that the $22,000 executive assistant he hired from the press (Mr. McNelly) couldn't explain to the press. I suppose he is going to earn his salary by devising advertising which will be sent around at the public's expense to tell them how great the legislation was. We've had that kind of thing before and I hope we aren't going to squander good taxpayers' money in political advertising.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: I think political advertising has become a way of life in British Columbia and I'm saying a word or two against it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about the federal bonds?

MR, McGEER: I asked you a question about the bonds because it is precipitating a run on the B.C. parities.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: What do you mean? It's standard policy in investment counselling to shuck the B.C.

[ Page 3442 ]

parity bonds. They should be competitive. The B.C. parity bonds should be paying every bit as good as….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member please confine himself to the particular bill?

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Put him to order, Mr. Speaker!

MR. SPEAKER: I'll bring you both to order if you want to put in an official request.

MR. McGEER: You're always picking on the opposition. He was the one who started bragging about his bonds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Shame on him, trying to take advantage of the federal government here in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Onwards and in order, please.

MR. McGEER: We don't do that kind of thing in the B.C. Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The federal government has enough trouble without me attacking them.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey proceed?

MR. McGEER: I could tell you as well, Mr. Speaker, that his federal NDP colleagues have got enough trouble without him helping them too in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: I'm not for Lewis. Certainly I'm for Trudeau. Don't be ridiculous! I just think that your NDP people back there should have been supporting the west when you held the balance of power.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. McGEER: I think one of the reasons why there are these complicated sections in his Act that the Premier can't explain and the Premier's financial genius can't explain is because we're getting into another knotted web in this matter of property assessments. It isn't just deferring the property tax for people over 65; it's devising some reasonable formula that will prevent their taxes from going out of sight in the event that they choose to pay them.

After all, it's bound to cause some anxiety in a person 65 or 66 who hopes to live another 30 years and sees the taxes building up and interest compounding at 8 per cent a year. They're bound to ask themselves: "What happens after another 20 years when the taxes I owe are worth more than the value of the house?" That has to be a consideration.

Therefore people are going to have to think through the long-term implications of this particular bill pretty carefully. One of the things I don't like is the prospect of people who are over 65, living in a house they have occupied for perhaps 30 or 40 years, being faced with increases in their taxes due to increased property assessment that really places the kind of load on their back that would make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to hang on to their house, thinking that one day they may lose it all and be turned out on the street penniless. It seems to me that is a built-in fault with the bill and I hope the Premier, in closing the debate, will deal with that question for now and will consider amendments in the future that will not only make the provisions of this Act more generous to senior citizens — zero interest rate, perhaps forgiving all taxes after a certain ceiling figure of taxes owed was reached — or making new provisions regarding the way the properties of people over 65 were assessed.

These are all approaches to the problem. I intend, like the rest of my Liberal colleagues, to support this bill, to say it has some good features, to say that we don't think it is as good as the bill introduced six years ago by the former Member for Oak Bay and that we're hoping for improvements in the future.

MR. GARDOM: This Bill 16 is a clearcut illustration, in my view, of one thing: help. I do wish its measures could be extended to renters. I certainly request the Hon. Minister of Finance to give serious thought to that.

As illustrated by other speakers for this party today, this is a very favourable measure which has been raised in this House by other Members of this party for the past seven years. I think compliments and an acknowledgement of gratitude to them would be rather appropriate. It was never suggested at any time by us — and I certainly hope the government gets this message across to the general public as well — that this is a complete panacea. It certainly is not that, but it's a step along the line. It's not an elimination of an expense but just merely a postponement of an expense and, again, completely voluntarily.

HON. MR, BARRETT: Genuine help.

[ Page 3443 ]

MR. GARDOM: It's a modicum of assistance, I can't see that it is definitely going to keep people in homes but it certainly will contribute to that fact. It will put more disposable income in their pockets, as illustrated by other speakers this afternoon.

When the Premier was speaking, I drew to his attention this compounding of interest, and I suggested in an aside across the floor that it would be far more appropriate if the interest was simple as opposed to compound, I just did a little bit of arithmetic while sitting here at my desk. Using the figure of $200, in 10 years, if it were at simple interest at 8 per cent, there would be $160 worth of interest, whereas in 10 years the interest raise is 25 per cent, from $16 in the first year to $20 in the fourth, and in the 10-year period the interest doubles to a gross interest payment of $211.

Since the object of the statute is one of assistance, the interest rate is truly not 8 per cent; it comes in a great deal higher than 8 per cent by virtue of the compounding feature. I think it would be a very noble act on the part of the government and in line with the philosophy that the government is espousing in this bill to bring in an amendment and take the word "compound" out in section 8 and substitute the word "simple." The object of the bill is to provide a service, to provide some assistance, so let's do it at a simple interest rate.

Another fact that has to be taken into account, assuming the conditions we're experiencing today are going to continue in the future, that we're going to find again higher and higher taxes which will result in higher and higher interest.

I think probably the one criticism that I have of the bill is its present form this afternoon is the fact that the interest is compounded. I suggest to the Hon. Minister of Finance that he bring in an amendment to make it simple interest.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I couldn't help but think, as the debate on this bill was going along, what the real problem is behind the whole tax situation in Canada and, indeed, in this province. While both the representatives of the Liberal Party and our Premier and Minister of Finance are talking about tax deferment, both of these governments in the past and, indeed, during this budget of the provincial government have been fueling the fires of inflation which is the biggest problem facing all property owners in North America today.

I don't think that anyone in Canada or in British Columbia would disagree that more and more and more money is being taken from individuals to both the federal government and the provincial government. They're spending the taxpayers' dollars, wasting the taxpayers' dollars, creating and leading the way to inflation. This is the real problem and this is why in the future, if it keeps on going the way it's going, no one will be able to build a home, let alone maintain one and pay the taxes on it after it is built. It is this inflation which is eroding away those savings of the very people we're talking about.

It is our Premier who recently, after becoming Premier, suggested to these elderly people that they spend their nest egg, that they take a trip to Hawaii, that they get rid of it, that the government is going to look after them. Is this the way the government is going to look after those people?

Where are the election promises of 1972 when the government said they would remove educational taxes on residential property? Where are the campaign promises of 1972 when this government said they would relieve all taxes on farm property? What happened to those promises?

Instead of the government living up to their campaign promises of 1972 which had a lot to say about taxation on residential property, they now come along with a stopgap measure which is not going to solve the problem; it's only going to make it worse. This government, as long as it's in power, will continue to lead the way and fuel the fires of inflation. This is like putting their arm in a hole of a dike that's as big as a barrel, and inflation rushes on. And that very Minister of Finance is leading the way.

When you talk about taxation, why should we take money from residences, for instance, to increase taxes and spending this year by $70 million alone for government employees and the civil service? It isn't business and industry which are leading the way to inflation; it's the governments.

What does the federal government do? They let the interest rate rise beyond all reason so that nobody but nobody can build a home. How can anybody today even think about building a home with the interest rates at what they are? What are they doing, Mr. Speaker? It's been said in this House before, and I'll say it again right now, that letting the interest rate rise does not cool the economy but adds to the fuel of the fires of inflation.

If we're going to have housing and going to have business and industry to provide the money the government wants to run their business, we should be lowering the interest rate so that people can afford to get into houses of their own and so that apartment buildings can be built.

This provincial government goes right along with it. I didn't hear the Premier, when he introduced this bill, saying the biggest problem today in the housing situation and the biggest detriment to people owning their own homes is the high interest rate. Not at all; I didn't hear him saying that. I didn't hear his friend, Mr. Lewis, who brought down the government, condemning the high interest rate in Ottawa. No, not at all.

Then we have representatives of the great Liberal

[ Page 3444 ]

Party — and I know they've disassociated themselves from the federal Liberals — standing up here and talking about what they'd do. This is a stopgap measure. It's necessary to the chaos that Minister of Finance has created in this province with regard to assessments and taxes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's switching their position.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, you weren't in here, Mr. Premier. Where are your election promises? Where are your election promises to remove educational tax from property? Where are they? Instead of that, you advised elderly people to get rid of any nest egg they might have saved up because it's going to be eroded away by inflation anyway — inflation that you and your government are helping to create. You and your government are feeding the fires of inflation as much as Ottawa is by wasteful spending — $70 million in one year on an increased civil service. And then you try and put the blame.

It is the federal government and the provincial government which are taking the bulk of the taxes from the people and spending it and creating inflation. As a matter of fact, I feel the federal government wants to keep inflation going and create more inflation so they can cover up for their own taxes.

It was very interesting for me to listen to the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) when he said he was against the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition in wanting elderly people, widowers, widows and handicapped to have complete tax forgiveness on their housing. The Member for Point Grey said he was against that.

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, this is our position. If these people can't pay their taxes, the taxes should be forgiven and not deferred and created as a debt against those elderly people — people who have worked and strived and saved and built up this province and built up this nation, who have worked so that they could have clear title to their residences. Now this Premier and Minister of Finance wants to put them back in debt again. That certainly isn't going to be the position of this government.

I'll tell you something else, Mr. Speaker. We'll go to the people in an election tomorrow in this issue of whether we have complete tax deferment or whether it becomes a debt.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Call an election.

MR. PHILLIPS: Call an election on it tomorrow and we'll see whose position will be defended by the people in this province.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, there's the Premier trying to get up and cloud the issue again. I tell you, we'll go to the people tomorrow on this issue because this is our policy: to completely forgive….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will if you will. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, he won't until the 11th hour because he knows he won't be back as Premier He said he only wanted to be Premier for two terms, Mr. Speaker, when he first….

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, yes. He said a Premier shouldn't be Premier for more than two terms. He won't be Premier for more than one term, Mr. Speaker, or more than one term as Minister of Finance because he's running this province into debt. No wonder the assessments are going up everywhere in the province; no wonder.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Premier always wants to get the cutoff button or something else when someone really gets to the heart of the problem. There is the man who created the problem, Mr. Speaker: that Minister of Finance. Instead of doing his research as to the chaos that would be created by changing the assessment act before he did it, he didn't do his research. Now he's trying to bring in stopgap measures to sort of smooth over and put salve on the wound that he himself created. And what's he doing? He's going to dishearten the elderly people in this province.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we'll go to an election today.

After the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) took a position against our stand on this issue, before he sat down he made a complete flip-flop, a complete turnaround. He says, "Yes, we support it. We realize it's only a stopgap measure." But what's going to happen down the road? Where is the money going to come? How are these elderly people going to get the money to pay this debt against their property?

And the Premier says, "Oh, we're not going to foreclose. No one will ever lose their home because of back taxes." Why doesn't he give it to them now, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, we've seen so much of this stopgap legislation, not thought out — a quick measure to try and put some salve on a problem that he's created…. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the proper way to do this would be to forgive the taxes on those

[ Page 3445 ]

to whom you're going to loan this money.

The Premier wants the people to spend their money so that they can go to Hawaii, and he'll charge them 8 per cent for their trip. That's about what it will amount to.

But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what we need, both in federal politics and in provincial politics, is a return to some good sound financial fiscal policies — good sound financial fiscal policies, Mr. Speaker, that this province was used to for the past 20 years. Good sound fiscal policies that left millions and millions of dollars in the kitty for that Minister of Finance to squander and waste!

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you for the bill or against it?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm against it, Mr. Speaker, because it will not solve the problem. It will create hardships on the very people that you're trying to help. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance, through you, to take a second look, to take a further look at what this bill will create, what it will do.

It's not too late for him to withdraw. It's not too late for him to change his mind. We have to be against it in its present form for that reason.

As I say, if he wants to go to the people on this particular issue alone, we're prepared to go. We'll see whether our policy will be supported or his policy of incurring debts on the elderly people who have worked and strived to get a clear title to their homes. Now he wants to erase all that and put a lien against them, and that's exactly what this bill will do.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): I didn't plan on being involved in this debate, but after hearing the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) and the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) I realized that W.A.C. Bennett made a mistake: he picked the wrong son. He got the one that had to take off his shoes to add. He took the son that was in charge of the crocks, because that's what he's trying to hand us — the crock.

AN HON. MEMBER: Crock?

MR. CUMMINGS: Crocks.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: The Hon. Member for South Peace River has brought out nothing but red herrings. He is against helping the old-age pensioners. This is the party that couldn't even give everyone in this province a $200-a-month income. This is the party that couldn't give Pharmacare. What a bunch of….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the Hon. Member didn't mean that.

MR. CUMMINGS: No. Just a bunch; just a bunch.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, I'm looking across there…. There are experienced people over there. What are you going to do, Hon. Member for Columbia (Mr. Chabot)? Are you going to vote against this? No!

MR. CHABOT: River, river!

MR. CUMMINGS: Columbia River. How about the Cariboo; are you still going to join the republic? But the ones that choke me up the most are the pious Liberals.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: And they're going to support him, (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: Is that the judge speaking? Who's going to inherit the seat — Bonner? Isn't that a good guess? Supreme court judge.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a one-timer.

MR. WALLACE: They'll all be Conservative judges.

MR. CUMMINGS: All Conservative judges.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CUMMINGS: But we're going to go into every one of those Social Credit ridings and say to the old-age pensioners, the people….

AN HON. MEMBER: Go into Omineca and talk about that.

MR. CUMMINGS: This is the only way we can protect our citizens, our elderly citizens. I'm completely in support of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you for exemption?

Interjections.

[ Page 3446 ]

MR. CUMMINGS: But, Mr. Speaker, I want to know…. I'm going to ask the Member for Columbia River once more: have you got the nerve to vote against this bill?

MR. PHILLIPS: You just call the vote and you'll find out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Members are not to be required to do it on a basis of courage or otherwise, but on the basis of reason.

MR. CUMMINGS: Well, okay, let's try it that way. This is a very, very important bill.

Interjections.

MR. CUMMINGS: Will you bring this Member to order?

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, you know, it's obvious from listening to the opening remarks by the Premier of the province, really, that what he represents is a crisis-oriented government. They bounce from crisis to crisis and introduce a stopgap measure that they think is going to somehow solve the problems and the plight of the elderly, the widowed and the handicapped persons in this province.

Nothing could be further from the truth, because this bill will not do anything on a long-term basis for these people. If you're really interested in their plight — and the fact the government itself must share the greatest responsibility for inflation today — then grant these people an exemption from a tax, not a deferral at 8 per cent compound interest that only provides for them a first mortgage on their home at the time of life when they should not even have to consider mortgages any more.

These people who have done the most to build this country and this province: what are you offering them? You're offering them a crumb, throwing it out to them; and then you say: well, it's elective; you don't have to take advantage of it if you don't wish to. You know — the answer to that, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker.

They have no alternative. As inflation continues to be a problem and as assessments continue to increase annually at a basis far greater than 8 per cent, most of these people will have no alternative. They'll have to accept the small crumb that's thrown out to them and, over a period of a few years, building against their property a first mortgage which they'll never be able to repay. A lien, a first mortgage, really — that's what it is. It's a lien against their property that they'll never be able to repay, at a time of life when they should not even have to be considering that.

Inflation is the one thing that every government talks about, including the present government of this province, but does very little about. When we really get down to it, it's government itself that is the greatest culprit today in perpetuating the inflationary problems that we have. First of all, you say to the people that you're going to do something for them by creating a land freeze. What did you do? You create an artificial shortage of suitable sub dividable property for home sites, and inflate the price of the property that is available from 50 to 250 per cent in one year.

Is that sound economics? Is that going to solve any of the problems of the people who wish to buy homes or build new homes, or those people who are elderly, who are widowed and handicapped, who wish to stay in the home that they presently own? No, it's not going to do anything for them.

You introduce another problem with respect to assessments in the Province of British Columbia: a policy of rapid escalation. But because you don't want to take responsibility yourselves for this problem, you toss it off into the hands of the municipal authorities in the province. They're the ones who will be blamed for the large increases in assessments and the proportionate increases in taxes in the years to come, when its wasn't their fault at all.

A tax deferral, Mr. Speaker, will not solve the problems of those who need help the most in this province today. Big brother government is not doing anything when they offer these people a deferment at 8 per cent compound interest. If you want to really be fair with these people, then give them the exemption that they are entitled to.

How long can these people ignore, or sidestep the need to participate in this programme if the assessments continue to go up at the rate they have in the last year? It's a tool, in my opinion, in the hands of the government to facilitate the takeover of private land in this province. That's exactly what this is going to do.

Let's look at what's really included in some of the provisions of this Act. Once the exemption, or deferment agreement, is entered into, it's at the total discretion of the Minister. "An eligible property having registered against it a deferment agreement cannot be transferred without the written consent of the Minister." I'll repeat that: "….cannot be transferred or sold without the written consent of the Minister."

Couldn't this tax lien wind up being more than just a simple lien against the property? Is it not possible for the Minister to control that property? Is it not possible for the Minister to grant a sale or refuse it once a person has taken advantage of the tax deferment agreement?

Certainly it is, because those provisions are included within the bill. It would be a simple matter for the Minister to deny a sale to anyone other than a public body or to the government itself if that was

[ Page 3447 ]

your policy, That's included in this particular Act and is something the Minister of Finance completely sidestepped when he told us about the great benefits that are here for the elderly, the disenfranchised and the widowed people of this province.

No, it is not philanthropy on the part of the government, It's a type of device that can be used to put people further into debt at a time of life when they should not have any debts…then they ever anticipated. If you are really concerned about the welfare of these people, forget about your deferments, forget about this type of legislation and introduce a straight, clean-cut, outright exemption.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just wish to say a few words about this bill. I can't support the concept or the principle, of this bill either, I just want to make the point again that the bill is really knee-jerk legislation brought in because of a mess this government made about assessments in the first place. If the government had been able to handle the assessment situation in British Columbia in a better manner and sent assessments to an all-party committee ahead of bringing in sloppy legislation, we wouldn't have been in the trouble we are in now with assessments in this province and we wouldn't had to have legislation like this as a reaction to serious problems raised by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

The Premier made a big deal in this House about taxes in Victoria going down. If he can name another six or eight communities where taxes went down, I'd like to see that list, Mr. Speaker. Taxes didn't go down in very many communities in this province. In most of them they are either staying at their present level or, in many communities in British Columbia, they are going up — despite the Premier's promise, despite the Premier's plea with people in British Columbia, "Wait for your tax notices. Don't get excited about the assessment notices. They don't mean anything. Your taxes are going to go down. Don't you worry about it, folks. "

Well, nobody's taxes in British Columbia are going down, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier also made a big deal about this myth that he has attempted to create in British Columbia that commercial and residential properties have been assessed at much lower values than homeowners' properties, and that homeowners, somehow, were subsidizing commercial and residential property in this province. That is utter, pure hogwash. It's grade A bologna from the Premier again.

All he had to do was check with the assessment commissioner of this province or read the Hansard of the committee which sat on assessments when the assessment commissioner was asked straightforward whether or not that statement made by the Premier again today was true. The answer was, "No." The answer by the assessment commissioner for British

Columbia was that commercial and residential properties on the average in British Columbia were dead on 50 per cent of assessed values. Dead on.

AN HON. MEMBER: The average.

MR. McCLELLAND: Absolutely. Ask your own assessment commissioner. It was to the advantage of the municipalities to make sure that those kinds of properties were assessed at a proper value because the municipalities needed the money badly enough so that they made sure that was the case. And the Premier continues to perpetuate a total myth throughout.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Everybody was at the same level so that it didn't make any difference. In the areas where the majority of the taxpayers of this province live, they are on dual roll systems anyway. It didn't make a bit of difference. They were being assessed at 100 per cent of value.

So the Premier doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to assessments or taxation. He jumps to the tune of the hotliners. When a hotliner makes a suggestion to him, he says, "How high should I jump?" Then in comes another piece of legislation.

If he had been smart and had any compassion for the taxpayers of British Columbia, he would have rolled back the assessments for 1974 so people wouldn't have been ripped off this year by this government and have to pay exorbitant and unconscionable tax increases in 1974. Instead, he attempts to lock the senior citizens of this province into a lien situation — mortgages in reverse — whereby the more they pay on their mortgages the more their debt goes up at 8 per cent compounded interest.

What a generous Premier, Mr. Speaker. He's ripping off the elderly citizens of this province again.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): I notice the Premier loves to use the semantics about the mill rate going down. But most people are finding that when they get their tax notices, somehow or other they're paying more money. When they finally boil it all down and you talk about the money that comes out of their pockets, somehow they have to pay more.

This bill indicates to me that this government believes we are in for a continuing period of inflation. It is obviously predicated on the basis that for the next few years this province is going to do nothing in an attempt to reduce inflation. They solve their own problems by increasing their own salaries but they cannot solve the problems of those people who are on fixed incomes — older people on fixed incomes who have to pay more taxes out of their own pockets —

[ Page 3448 ]

and their solution is just to lend them money at 8 per cent.

I can't agree with it.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: First of all, I want to deal from straight, spontaneous notes in response to this very generous debate.

I want to first of all thank the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) for putting the debate into the kind of perspective that I think belongs.

I regret — and I must say this at the outset — anybody's use around this bill of the language that this is an attempt to get a lien on peoples' homes or that it is a measure to expropriate. Those kinds of emotional words will frighten people away from the use of this legislation and they should not be frightened away. As the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound points out very, very clearly, it is purely voluntary and it has many flexible features.

The Member refers to hotline shows. I would hope the official opposition would restrain their emotionalism and point out to all listeners, all residents of British Columbia, that this bill has got absolutely nothing to do with socialism versus free enterprise. It is purely an attempt to help the elderly, the handicapped the widows and widowers in a tight situation and inflation. To make a political issue out of this and frighten people away from the use of the legislation would be a terrible disservice to the general community.

I want to deal with some of the specifics raised by my good friends in the official opposition. There were two threats to resign. One, I see, of the Members has gone already to announce his resignation to the press because he wants a by-election on this issue. We will welcome his announcement and we will notify the Peace River constituency that that Member wants to resign over this issue and have a by-election.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not running in that seat; but if he cares to, we will ensure that someone opposes him in that riding.

The second criticism we have….

Interjection.

HON.

MR. BARRETT: If that group could only restrain themselves to the point of one voice, it would be a welcome thing.

The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), with his booming voice that comes across with a ring of real tinges of hate, as if every speech he was giving was a pronouncement from on high against this socialist government and the poor people who need protection. He said if I could name six more cities he'd do something. But he didn't say what he was going to do. I'd suggest, then, that if I name six more cities that he resign. No, just a little snuffle of the nose is all we got.

My office has sent up to me a very quick check from the assessment department. This is not a complete list, just a quick check. The following are cities and municipalities with actual tax decreases this year. They are:

(1) New Westminster

(2) North Vancouver city

(3) Victoria

(4) Port Moody

(5) Port Alberni

(6) White Rock

(7) the District of Campbell River

(8) Prince George.

We have not had the time to check the other offices.

We haven't had time to complete the check because the good civil servants did stay after five. When I sent the note down that Phillips was speaking, that was reason enough for them to leave.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Revelstoke is another one. That's nine now. Residential ratepayers to get a decrease in Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Saanich, Mission…. Now we're over twelve, and some of them even happen to be Socred ridings. Will they go back into their ridings and say: "Don't pay the decrease because it's socialist propaganda. Send the money in so you don't get sucked in by the government"? I'm talking about actual cash tax decreases.

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonsense? Will you stake your seat on that?

MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. How about you? Would you stake your seat on that? Oh, there it is.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The way you operate, your seat certainly is at stake every day.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see such a rational response from the opposition when they are

[ Page 3449 ]

confronted with these facts. They always respond in a rational way.

Now we will deal with the so-called research of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). He gave us two examples: he talked about Oregon, and talked about I think it was the state of Massachusetts. To be fair, it was two American examples that he gave, and also some studies in California. The Socreds are talking about some form of basic exemption. They have not stated in this House that they are willing to forgive all taxes on the residential property of everybody 65 years of age and over. He came close. He said that we give some form of exemption for those who need it. What I got out of it was that the Socreds would bring in a means test around the tax exemption.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, I listened very closely. I stayed in the House. I listened very closely and the words I got were "some people who need it." I think others got the same words. That means only one thing — a means test.

Let's examine what has happened with the senior citizens in this province. The sociological desirability of keeping these people in their own homes everybody, like apple pie and motherhood, agrees with. It's got nothing to do with the dangerous private enterprise versus the dangerous socialist. It's a straight sociological fact we want, in this concentrated, urbanized society, more and more of the elderly people to stay in their homes, especially if they happen to be in the suburbs.

What is it that brought us to this condition in the taxation structure? I think that point must be made. I don't want to appoint the current problems entirely on the hands of the new Members of the opposition but there were Members in this House when Social Credit was the government who are still in this House when the Social Credit is the opposition, and I frankly cannot remember any single occasion where any of the sitting Socred Members who are here now ever standing up When they were in government proposing any kind of tax relief like they mentioned today or tax deferment as first proposed by Barrie Clark when he was a Member of this House. I would love to be corrected. It's a matter of record.

I don't like to point these things out because the catalogue of hypocrisy by the Social Credit Party is already well stacked, but when we reach an afternoon like we did this afternoon, to hear that pious group — not the new boys, because they can't be blamed, although they did consciously join that party, because they don't have a record — never once did any of the old boys get up in this House and make an appeal for the senior citizens of this province.

I make that point to lead into another argument missed by the inadequate research by the Leader of the Opposition. I make that point because we are not concerned with universal elimination of all taxes. That would be stupid. The wealthy can well afford to pay taxes and so they should pay taxes.

The best way to support the low-income people is to guarantee them a minimum income. Now, the opportunity to guarantee a minimum income to the senior citizens of this province came with an amendment to the budget debate one particular night. The Speaker ruled that that particular amendment was in order. An amendment to guarantee a minimum income of $200 to assist these homeowners and other elderly was brought into this House and was ruled in order by the Speaker. The governing party was Social Credit, in name only though, because there was really and truly only one leader — the Premier. The Premier of the day decided that the Speaker was wrong. Not only the opposition should be opposed but the Speaker himself should be opposed.

I find, Mr. Speaker, that it is an interesting thing to catalogue this little bit of history. I hate to do it but it is necessary sometimes just to box their ears a little bit — to give them a little bit of what we hope was sometimes called humility, guilt, and some awareness of their own sorry record in this House.

Indeed, what happened? When we attempted to get some tax relief through this guaranteeing of a minimum income so that people could meet their tax bill — when we did bring in an amendment which was in order — we found that the, Social Credit Party voted against the Speaker to refuse even a discussion of that amendment, let alone voting against it or for it. Even the Vancouver Province, Mr. Speaker, which has much to atone in terms of headlines, ran a headline: "$200-a-Month Vote Bill Killed." A certain MLA in Burnaby actually took photostats of that headline and circulated it so that the public would know. That MLA deserves a great deal of recognition.

So there it was, Mr. Speaker, case 1. They never spoke for the senior citizens while they were in government.

Case 2, they never allowed a debate on the guaranteed income to assist people to avoid these heavy tax increases.

Case 3, they perpetuated a system that allowed the corporations to get away without paying their fair share throughout many areas of this province.

Here it is on a happy Monday and I have to catalogue these unhappy memories for that singular group again, simply because they find it difficult to rationally put into compartments exactly their responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in. We don't have a means test but this government, with the support of every Member of the House now, I think, has said that no senior citizen, no handicapped person and no person over the age of 60 shall ever fall

[ Page 3450 ]

below the minimum income of $213 a month.

It is a proud moment in all of North America. Does Massachusetts have that? Does Oregon have that? You don't know? You mean you haven't done your research to find out that the difference is that we have guaranteed a minimum income to the elderly and we have ensured that no one must go through the Meaner means test? They come into this House and say that Massachusetts doesn't do it this way, Oregon doesn't do it this way; but they fail to point out that this is the only jurisdiction in North America that ensures people 'that they can have assistance to meet their taxes because this government provides a minimum income equally to husband and wife like no other place in North America.

Now when they talk about the cost of living and the cost of saving $30 or $40 a month by deferring taxes, do they bring up another point? What is the other point? Why, you know what those socialists have done? Guess what. Those socialists in British Columbia have said to the elderly not only that we guarantee them a minimum income but we've said to the elderly that because costs are high, because inflation is here, we will bring in a programme that is again unique in all of North America and we will pay for all their prescription drugs every month regardless of their income. Now the next step.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier….

HON. MR. BARRETT: They've talked about inflation and high costs, Mr. Speaker, and we've tried to point out how this programme dove-tails into guaranteeing a flat income, guaranteeing Pharmacare, and now saying to the senior citizens through this bill, to the handicapped, to the blind and to the crippled, who never had a single ounce of succour from the previous administration, that we will allow them to defer their taxes at their own choice, if they wish — if they care to. Never was there an option like that before in this province that was accepted and understood and supported with proper criticism by the Liberals, by the Conservatives. It's only natural that both parties want more and that is good. But that's what separates those two parties and the official opposition. The official opposition has presumed to announce itself as the arbiter of all issues in this province, and no matter what this government does, it is wrong according to them — absolutely wrong. And they have absented themselves from any degree of responsibility in rational political debate in this province.

Mr. Speaker, if they deliberately go out of this chamber and attempt in any way to frighten people away from the use of this bill, then I say that it is regrettable. I hope that no senior citizen or handicapped person is influenced by their emotionalism. I hope that they listen wisely to the speech of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and to the Conservative leader (Mr. Bennett) not on the basis of politics.

In these times of high inflation and these times of hardship people on fixed income now can take advantage of a major step forward in sensible, social taxation legislation presented to this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Member for raising the question of simple interest. We will look at that, and that is a good suggestion. The Conservative leader wanted to know the end of the education tax year. We have committed ourselves to the first $250 bite in that education tax over the next four years. We may be able to speed it up. We have the first year down; we've got four years to go on that first bite.

There was a question about tenants. We will look at that. It is a good suggestion. We will try and figure out how it works out. It's hard. Very quickly, it is very difficult to assess how soon that can be done; but we will take a look at it.

Remember, too, that those comments from the official opposition came in the context of the same party that initiated the $ 1,000 home purchase grant — a universal programme.

It is just difficult for me to accept two things: (1) the lack of logical arguments and research from the official opposition, and (2) quite candidly, the lack of responsibility in coming to this House as MLAs and saying: "Gosh, we didn't get everything we wanted but at least you brought in a measure that does some help;" and having the kind of political commitment that says: "We'll vote for it, but we want to get more."

But to say negatively that they are against this piece of legislation, considering the fact that they did nothing themselves, brands them as not worthy of respect as the official opposition in this province.

I find that the official opposition gets up, gives no arguments at all of substance, wants to deal in emotionalism, and is looking for a political formula that their whole government was based on for 20 years in office. Spread fear! Spread fear! And for 20 years they were successful.

I don't mind if you want to continue that kind of psychological political warfare, but don't do it on this bill because this bill helps the ordinary people of this province. That's why I ask and welcome all the opposition support on it.

I move second reading of Bill 16.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 36

[ Page 3451 ]

NAYS — 8

Bill 16, Real Property Tax Deferment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.