[ Page 995 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Lobbying of ministers by horse-racing interests. Mr. Macdonald — 995

Government loan to ICBC. Mr. Gibson — 995

Future of the Beanery. Hon. Mr. Fraser answers — 996

Lease transfers of Inner Harbour docks. Mr. Barber — 996

Payment for the Prince George. Mr. Lockstead — 996

Minister's attendance at BCR meetings. Mr. Wallace — 997

Administering of secrecy oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 997

Calling of resolution 6. Mr. Macdonald — 998

Ruling of foreign investment review agency. Mr. Gibson — 998

Budget debate (continued)

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 999

Mr. Barnes — 1003

Mr. Strongman — 1010

Mrs. Jordan — 1013

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 11), Committee stage.

On section 1

Mr. Lauk — 1016

Hon. Mr. McGeer — 1017

Mr. Lauk — 1017

On section 2.

Mr. Stupich — 1017

Amendment to section 2.

Mr. Stupich — 1017

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1018

Mr. Lea — 1019

Mr. Gibson — 1020

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1020

Division on amendment to section 2 — 1020

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 1020

Report stage — 1020

Division on third reading — 1020

Special Funds Revenue Recovery Act, 1976 (Bill 7), Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Stupich — 1021

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1021

Mr. Stupich — 1021

Mrs. Wallace — 1021

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1021

Ms. Sanford — 1022

Ms. Brown — 1022

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1023

Mrs. Wallace — 1023

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1023

Ms. Brown — 1023

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1023

Ms. Brown — 1023

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1024

Ms. Brown — 1024

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 1024

Mr. D'Arcy — 1024

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1024

Ms. Sanford — 1024

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1025

Report stage — 1025

Division on third reading — 1025

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 9), Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Stupich — 1025

Mr. Gibson — 1025

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1026

Mr. Gibson — 1026

Ms. Brown — 1026

Mr. Gibson — 1026

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1026

Mrs. Wallace — 1026

Ms. Brown — 1026

On section 4.

Mr. Nicolson — 1026

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1026

Mr. Stupich — 1027

Report stage — 1027

Division on third reading — 1027

Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 12).

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Barnes — 1027

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1027

Report and third reading — 1027

Privilege

Confirmation of Easter break. Mr. Wallace — 1027

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy — 1027

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1027

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 14, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): This morning I was privileged to convene the first meeting under this new government of the North Fraser Study Policy Committee. I am happy to tell you that seated in the gallery as part of that delegation is Mr. J.S. Alsbury, the chairman of the North Fraser Harbour Commission, and the port manager, Mr. McEwen. The other members have had to return to the lower mainland but we have had a very fruitful meeting. I would ask the House to welcome the two members.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, visiting the Legislature today is a group of students who are touring British Columbia from la belle province, Quebec. They are members of their school basketball team there and they are students at the Macdonald High School in Quebec City. Their team holds the provincial basketball championship. Their tour of the Legislature was arranged through the Mt. Prevost School in Duncan, which school they are presently visiting. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them, together with their chaperons and coaches, to this House today.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Monsieur l'Orateur, ca me fait plaisir pour avoir l'honneur cet apres-midi de souhaiter bienvenu aux etudiants de la province de Quebec.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Monsieur l'Orateur, je voudrais me joindre dans ces sentiments.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Visiting the Legislature today are 50 students from Burnaby North Senior Secondary School and I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

Oral questions.

LOBBYING OF MINISTERS
BY HORSE-RACING INTERESTS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Is the Premier aware that following the setting of racing dates by the Racing Commission for the 1976-77 season, racing interests lobbied one or more of his cabinet ministers?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The answer is no, but you might put that to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I personally wasn't lobbied and no case of any lobbying has come forward to me.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware that the Racing Commission Act, section 6, provides that the Racing Commission shall govern, direct and regulate racing within the province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. MACDONALD: Would the Premier consider that political interference or political decision in that field was contrary to the letter and spirit of what he knows?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, through you to the former Attorney-General, I might point out that there was some difficulty with the racing days with the Department of Agriculture in Ottawa, and the recommendations that came from the department were eventually put through. That's all.

GOVERNMENT LOAN TO ICBC

MR. GIBSON: A question for the Minister of Finance of which I sent him notice and arising out of some confusion in my own mind with respect to an answer yesterday. He told us — and I would like confirmation of this — that the cheque for $181 million sent to ICBC by the government was covered out of funds in consolidated revenue. I would ask him if he could confirm that and if he could advise the date of the clearance of that cheque and where those consolidated revenue funds came from, when we'd been told a few days earlier that the province was very short of money.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the reference to funds being paid from consolidated general revenue applies to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Act, which specifically states that in making payments by the government to the corporation for these deficiencies from time to time, they, in fact, are paid to the corporation out of consolidated revenue funds. I would refer you to section 21 of the Act, which you are familiar with. That is the only reference I give. You made the reference that they were paid out of funds. I am just saying that is the proper place where the cheque would be charged to the fund. In any event, Mr. Member, you also asked when the cheque was cleared, I believe. The date was April 1, one day after the passage of Bill 3.

[ Page 996 ]

MR. SPEAKER: A supplemental?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister could advise, because I am interested in the ultimate source of the funds, whether he has as yet taken action to borrow funds under Bill 3 and to what extent.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I appreciate that question. We have borrowed these funds from the insurance corporation by the issue of treasury notes which are short-term, expiring on March 31,1977, or sooner. They are very flexible. They can be redeemed or exchanged at any time in the interim, so they, in my view, represent an excellent investment for the insurance corporation and are thoroughly flexible, though they'll be able to earn good revenue from those treasury notes.

MR. GIBSON: I have one final brief supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Are these the only borrowings so far under Bill 3, the borrowing from the insurance corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, yes, these are the only borrowings thus far until we can make further arrangements for other borrowings.

FUTURE OF THE BEANERY

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked questions about the establishment called The Beanery in the Inner Harbour. I replied that discussions were taking place about this operation.

It has now been decided not to continue the operation of The Beanery this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's the has-Beanery.

HON. MR. FRASER: The government has also decided to turn control of this property over to the Capital Improvement Development Commission so they can continue with the beautification of the Inner Harbour.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Well done!

LEASE TRANSFERS OF
INNER HARBOUR DOCKS

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): My question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Could the minister confirm that the federal lease on the piers and docking facilities of the Inner Harbour would be transferred to the possible private owners of the Princess Marguerite?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: A supplementary; could the minister confirm that the lands obtained at the Inner Harbour upon the purchase of the Princess Marguerite are being considered for sale?

HON. MR. DAVIS: There is no consideration of sale of the land. They've been separated from the steamship company and are with the Crown Development Corporation.

MR. BARBER: A final supplemental, if you will permit it, Mr. Speaker. I'll later, if I may, with leave of the House, be tabling certain material.

I would ask the Minister of Transport and Communications if he's aware of the repeated promises made during the recent campaign by the Premier that theMarguerite would remain in service and, indeed, be restructured within the administration of the B.C. Ferries?

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a proper question.

MR. BARBER: I'm asking if the minister is aware of the repeated promises made by the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, what you are asking the minister to do is comment upon something that happened or was said by another cabinet minister. That's not a proper question.

MR. BARBER: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I'm asking if the Minister of Transport and Communications is aware of the repeated commitment made by the now Premier of the province, Mr. Bennett, to retain theMarguerite in service and to place it within the B.C. ferry system.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you are asking one minister to comment on something that another minister may have said or done. I can't see that that comes under the purview of a proper question.

MR. BARBER: Well, Mr. Speaker, simply to say yes or no, whether he is aware of the promises — not to comment in their favour or against them, but simply: is he aware of these promises? Yes or no will do.

PAYMENT FOR THE PRINCE GEORGE

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): A question to the hon. Minister of Transport and Communications: I would like to know if the minister or the government has received payment for the Prince George.

[ Page 997 ]

HON. MR. DAVIS: Payment has been received, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A very short supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Are the new owners of the Prince George paying rent for harbour facilities in the Inner Harbour?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I think the answer is no, Mr. Speaker, but I'll have to take that question as notice.

MINISTER'S ATTENDANCE AT BCR MEETINGS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development, as a director of BCR? Has the minister attended a meeting of the board of directors of BCR since the House went into session?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): In answer to the member's inquiry, and I certainly appreciate his question, the answer is yes.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: since the annual report of BCR relates to 1974, and since Clarkson, Gordon obviously had access to financial facts and figures not available to the members of this House, and since the House has. Important legislation affecting the financing of BCR, could the minister tell the House if we are to receive more up-to-date financial information regarding BCR within the next week or two?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not at this time.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I've made inquiries, and audited financial statements for 1975 have been completed. Could the minister tell the House whether he will seek the cooperation of the board of directors of BCR to make these audited financial statements available to the members prior to debate?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll have a talk with the directors, but we're dealing with a very touchy subject, Mr. Member. I hope the member will appreciate that.

MR. WALLACE: That's why I asked the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, because of certain labour relations that are going on with the railway....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You can say "oh" if you want to, and you can hum and haw, but I just wanted to tell the member that there are negotiations going on on which the financial statements could have a bearing, and I don't want to prejudice the negotiation. I'm being perfectly open and frank with the member. I don't know how I could be more open and frank.

Interjections.

ADMINISTERING OF
SECRECY OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Provincial Secretary if she is familiar with the contents of order-in-council 103, which reads: "That pursuant to the Public Service Act and upon the recommendation of the undersigned administrator, by and with the advice and consent of the executive council, every person employed or appointed to a position under section 2 of the Act is required to take and subscribe to the oaths required to be taken and subscribed by persons appointed to the public service." I want to ask the minister if she's familiar with those requirements.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer is yes.

MR. KING: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: can the Provincial Secretary then explain why one Dave Brown, according to her response, has not been so sworn?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't from my department run a check on what is happening in the Speaker's office or in the Clerks' office in terms of swearing in. I'm sure there are still some members of the public service who have just been taken in our employ, members of committees and so on and counsellors, who still have not taken that oath, but I don't have a daily record of them as the hon. Leader of the Opposition would seem to indicate in his question. I have answered the question; I've answered it truthfully in your former questions in the House, Mr. Brown did not take the oath of secrecy, and I gave you that information. In answer to your question, yes, I am aware of the order-in-council and the information contained therein.

MR. KING: Two points: I wonder if the Provincial Secretary could apprise the House of whether or not any of the other people whom she suspects are in the public service and have not yet taken the oath, if any of those assisted in the preparation of the budget also; and I wonder if she could further tell me who is responsible for the administration of the law as it exists under order-in-council 103.

[ Page 998 ]

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'll take that question as notice. I certainly can't give that answer at this point in time.

CALLING OF RESOLUTION 6

MR. MACDONALD: I'd like to ask the Premier if the government has plans to call resolution 6, pertaining to a possible budget leak.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member knows well that it's on the order paper, and when the House moves to that order of business I would presume that it is one of the things that will be called by the House.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I asked, in view of the urgency of the matter, whether the government has present plans to call resolutions, and particularly resolution 6 which has urgency to it — present plans. That's a question of fact.

No answer. Well, I think you're covering something up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): You know you're out of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said "ordure"?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! In any event, motions on the order paper would be called, I presume, in the order that they appear. No. 6 is certainly not ahead of No. 1.

I now recognize the hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sit down!

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're filibustering question period.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

RULING OF FOREIGN
INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Economic Development: does the government agree with the recent ruling of the foreign investment review agency that the province will henceforth have only 10 days to file their opinions on proposed foreign takeovers of small firms, or will the government make representation to have this limit extended, at least on a case-by-case basis?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the hon. member's question, the province has been processing the questionnaires in about 17 days. I have a full report. I'd be happy to supply the member with that information. The province itself is not the tie-up in processing these investigations. The problem is really back in Ottawa. We will have no problem whatsoever in meeting the 10-day limitation. As a matter of fact, we try to do it before the 10 days are up because we don't want to hold up industry coming into this great province of British Columbia. We want to keep the wheels rolling.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: Next question.

Interjections.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Has the bell rung? Saved by the bell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You can ask the question any time you want.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LAUK: The minister indicated that I could have leave of the House to ask one question.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair didn't indicate so. Please take your seat. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You were saved by the bell, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I ask the permission of the House to table certain materials regarding the Princess Marguerite.

Leave granted.

Orders of the day.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a great

[ Page 999 ]

Attorney-General.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I think I'd better quit while I'm ahead, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's a great issue; it's been borrowed. But we're going to bring reform in, Mr. Speaker, and I know you'll be glad to hear that. Every member in the House will certainly support what we're going to do to try to eliminate that long-suffering misery that has been undergone over the years.

I'd like to express, Mr. Speaker, firstly my commiserations and/or congratulations, depending on point of view, to you, sir, and to the Deputy Speaker on your respective ascensions to positions of neutrality. Your mutual duties, Mr. Speaker, are not unonerous and I would, indeed, express the wish that all members on all sides of the House cooperate and assist to not only make your task easier, but most importantly, to more readily facilitate the proper exercise of the democratic process.

Also my commiserations and/or congratulations to all new members, all of whom have very well complemented this House with their very thoughtful discourses and suggestions. I wish each and every one of them good health and good fellowship during the time of their tenure in this assembly and afterwards.

If I could volunteer a word of advice without being impertinent, it would be to suggest that they hold on to their sense of humour; at times it could well prove to be their last resort.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd also like to offer a formal hello to all of the veterans, battle-scarred, bleary, masochistic souls that they be. It's good to see them back, even though the sides of the House have changed. And I'm very grateful that the sides of the House have changed, Mr. Speaker.

There has been a lot of talk of the difficulties of the change of office some new ministers have experienced with former ministers. I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have run into similar problems. I haven't had any problems, though, with peripatetic files; they were all there, cobwebs and all. (Laughter.)

I would like to mention that if the former tenant of the office which I now occupy has realized that he's misplaced some of — what shall I say — his memorabilia, I can assure him it was found beneath the radiator near the window. For the best part of three weeks the Department of Public Works thought there was a dead mouse underneath the rug. (Laughter.) The former minister also left a fridge, stocked as you would expect a Scotsman would stock it. Empty! But the office is slowly converting to the change; no longer am I called Alec. Now it's Mr. Macdonald. (Laughter.)

A few days ago my wife, Helen, who telephoned, felt the staff went a little far when she heard me being called and overheard one of them say: "It's Dorothy again, wondering as to whether now everything is hunky-dory between you and Bob." (Laughter.) Well, that reference is far too subtle for me to understand, Mr. Speaker, so I'll leave the interpretation of the same to the member in question.

On the first page of the budget is stated that "no one political movement can lay exclusive claim to serving the interests of all the people." We must all agree with that. Similarly, no one person and no one party has the monopoly in virtue. That is perhaps something that all members of the House should jog themselves about from time to time, and most specifically when we are articulating points of view from the position of very different philosophies. Make no mistake of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that very great lines of demarcation exist between this government and the socialistical alternative which is across the way.

They believe in state controls, state bureaucracies, structurism, regulationism, and very genuinely feel that those mechanisms are the best course for the emancipation and betterment of mankind, and for cures for its multiple miseries. But we don't; we favour the route of individual enterprise, and say that that has produced the best of societies, the best in societies, and all of the good that can flow from that.

The general public of this province made its decision on December 11 that they were not content with the ideological direction that was occasioning in British Columbia, and specifically the fact that the minority of the people in B.C. were imposing on the majority a philosophy they did not subscribe to. It was the collective wisdom of the general public that change was necessary, and it brought about that change. Every time the opposition is criticizing the government for taking the course it has committed itself to, the opposition is, in effect, criticizing the wishes of the majority of our citizens as well, because the direction this government is taking is the direction that the majority of the citizens of B.C. approve of and desire.

The task has not been easy. It is probably the most difficult transition in the history of Canadian politics. There was a logjam of problems, a cupboard that was bare, almost instant confrontation, a paucity of time, and, in the face of immediate demands and constraints, difficulties had to be resolved and very tough decisions had to be made. But from the outset, Mr. Speaker, the government has lived up to its public commitments that its goals and philosophies would

[ Page 1000 ]

be freedom for the individual, better government but not more government, and social reform but not socialism.

In the very few months that have transpired we started to develop and propose our own initiatives as well as to evaluate existing programmes and, as assessments are on hand, to improve and to reduce or cancel the same when necessary.

Now as part of this process, as a government that favours free competitive enterprise, providing it is free, competing and enterprising, it is our job to see that the taxpayers receive value for their dollar. We've got to trim the fat when necessary and get rid of duplicating and competing functions and certainly ensure that the benefits that are available to society make their way through to the recipients rather than have them siphoned off and eroded through any multi-level bureaucracy.

This government, Mr. Speaker, also committed itself to the task of restoring public confidence and capital confidence in British Columbia, and I'm very delighted to say that that is happening already. It's mighty interesting to note the comparative figures for the first two months of 1975 and 1976, out of the offices of our registrar of companies. In 1975, Mr. Speaker, 1514 companies were incorporated for gross revenues of $502,541 and in 1976 incorporations over the two-month period were up by about a third to 1973 with revenues up about $80,000 to $582,375.

Well, as two swallows don't make a summer, neither do two months make a year, and this is probably far too short a period in which to forecast any kind of a trend, but it's a most hopeful sign and the former registrar of companies always claimed that the number of corporations, with about six months lead time, was an unfailing economic indicator. So I think we can say to the people of B.C. to be of good heart. We have the energy; we've got the skills and the know-how and the resources in this province, and indeed our future can be fabulous.

I don't think any member on any side of the House, Mr. Speaker, will disagree with the fact that we're living in highly confrontative times. Confrontative times are very difficult times, but not necessarily unhealthy, providing there is accompanying some basic democratic mores and some elementary democratic ethics. However, without such companions confrontative actions can result in a demeaning and an erosion of the democratic process. Now that, unfortunately, indeed may well be the goal of some of those who are so involved in this day and age, but for all of those who are not so inclined — and we certainly do hope that they are the majority — they should be totally aware of the fact that in the confrontative process they could be associating themselves with a very fragile thread. I'm talking about the concept espoused by some that, depending upon the fervour of the cause, an illegal means is a satisfactory method of arising at an acceptable end. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a denigration of the democratic process and is hardly a reasoning that can be effectively considered.

In support of these sentiments I would like to refer to the House some of the statements of the Hon. Bora Laskin, Chief Justice of Canada, in two speeches he gave, one in the convocation address at Simon Fraser University in May of last year, and an earlier one at a similar convocation at the University of Alberta in May of 1972.

The Chief Justice said:

"There is a social duty to respect the law and to uphold its authority even while seeking to have it changed or amended. Unless this is seen as a social imperative and a protection for all of us as persons living under and within a regime of law we deny the distinction between lawful social protest and illegal behaviour upon which our social stability is based."

The Chief Justice clearly indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we must not elevate demonstration and protest above the law but rather make them subservient to the law.

Then in 1972 he uttered these sentiments:

"The dilemma of democracy is an old one, that of giving full play to its values by maintaining the stability and integrity of its institutions, especially legislatures and courts through which those values are monitored. The dilemma has been sharpened over the past two decades by the concurrence of new social claims for the political and legal systems of the country to satisfy and of an aggressive assertiveness of organized groups in support of those claims. There is danger to our society if the merits of particular social demands about which people may differ come to be determined by the size of demonstrations mounted in their support. Those in authority, whether in the university, in the municipality, in the province or in the country as a whole, are undoubtedly under a duty to receive petitions for a redress of grievance put forward by petitioners. But they are not under any duty to submit to exercise of force through which regress for grievances may be demanded."

Mr. Justice Laskin also said:

"We cannot have a selective policy that would permit some causes supported by some groups to be pursued by intimidation or by force and others to have to depend for their realization on rationalizing and peaceful persuasion."

He posed the question, Mr. Speaker:

"If the ballot box and supports provided by a free press and by peaceful assemblies and

[ Page 1001 ]

meetings should seem to some or many of us to be too slow a means of achieving social betterment, is disruption and intimidation, and its likely successor terrorism, to be preferred?"

He readily answered in the negative and said this: "...if there is to be any continuing assurance of civility in our social relationships."

Now those are sentiments, Mr. Speaker, that are clearly detailed and finitely expressed by a man who all his life has worked for betterment and change, but within the confines and structures of an organized democratic society. It is a good message, it is a correct message and, I'd say, what democracy is all about.

I'd like to make a few general comments, Mr. Speaker, about the attitudes and directions this department contemplates taking in certain of its many varied fields. Now none of the matters that I am going to talk about this afternoon is etched in tablets of stone. They can be subject to variation as necessary and as called upon by the vicissitudes of change, the benefit of experience, necessary dollars and priority decisions.

But I would like to say in the area of family law, that the unified family court is a concept of considerable merit. It is one that I have argued long and hard for from the days when I was first elected. I am happy to see that pilot projects initiated by the former administration I compliment the former administration for that in the lower mainland at Richmond and Surrey are now operational. The results there are being collated and assessed and valued. If everything points to the continuance of the programmes in the same or in an improved or modified form, as I am very hopeful will be the case, then budgetary control permitting, Mr. Speaker, phase-ins will commence in certain other parts of the province. At this point it is not possible for me to furnish the House with a timetable, but I did wish to illustrate the general thinking.

I do think it is a matter of distress that during the reformative period of the former administration it was not able to bring to fruition satisfactory remand and diagnostic assessment facilities for young people in conflict with the law, and not any high-security custodial and treatment centres for those hard-core juveniles who have to be removed from the community for a period of time for its protection.

We consider it highly inappropriate to continuously leave these situations in the lurch. During this administration we plan to make these facilities a reality. A start has been made at Willingdon School. There, in concert with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), we were pleased to announce after being in office really less than a month that we would have the first remand and assessment centre for young people in conflict with the law — girls and boys. It will absorb the lower mainland custody remand cases. The assessment model that is being produced is the result of the cooperative effort of four departments of government: the Departments of the Attorney-General, Human Resources, Health and Education.

The current facilities such as the pool and the gymnasium will remain available for the present users. Appropriate renovations are now underway by the Department of Public Works; some of these will include improved security. Additional staff — some 15 — are to be trained. We are certainly hoping, Mr. Speaker, for an official opening of this great facility before summer.

I have also requested the department to look for and to develop similar facilities in other regions with the eventual hope that no longer will juveniles have to face custody in local lock-ups awaiting trial.

Concerning the hard-core post-dispositional situation, there has to be taken into account public safety and also the continuous hope for the reformation of the individual. But no. 2, Mr. Speaker, should not overbalance no. 1. At the present time, probation and community work service orders are responding well, but for the some they don't do the job. Unfortunately, in not so doing, they can well detract from the validity of these very good programmes.

In corrections, our security treatment centre for juveniles is at Centre Creek in Chilliwack where there is a six-week Outward Bound type of programme. I'm pleased to say that that facility is being expanded to accommodate some 24 young offenders, which is about double its present capacity. I understand it is possible to have increases over that figure — perhaps by not too many, but increases over that figure — and hopefully we will be able to get to that before too long as well.

In talking of custody and security for juveniles, we must be very mindful of the fact that putting a juvenile into an adult correctional system because there is nowhere else to go is a regressive step and can well subject him to a lesser opportunity to conform, with the net result of providing a considerably increased burden to the taxpayer in the long run. The type of custody that I would favour for this limited number of hard-core juveniles is the open form, a la Secret Harbour in Washington, which I shall read a little bit about in a moment. If that's not possible, then we'll have to go back to the more conventional form, coupled with full training, treatment for the disturbed, some good but fair discipline, lots of direction and programming to the capacities of endurance, to try to teach these youngsters to have a feeling of self-reliance and self-respect and to acquire self-confidence.

Secret Harbour is an interesting programme

[ Page 1002 ]

and I'm requesting a more detailed examination of it from my department. Apparently off Anacortes, Washington — I understand one B.C. lad is being treated — there is an island facility. It accommodates about 30 juveniles. The period average about 18 months, and reading from a very excellent article in The Province of Saturday, April 10, it says there are not any bars or guards because Secret Harbour is on an island and the juveniles cannot escape. The offenders work a farm, attend classes, and receive counselling from 14 teachers, social workers and a child psychiatrist. It's said to have a success rate of 80 per cent, and I can say, Mr. Speaker, that we're going to look very carefully at this because what we wish to have in British Columbia is a success rate instead of a failure rate, which we've had up to this point.

I'd like to make a couple of remarks about an initiative taken by this province involving the administration of justice in Canada. At the Attorneys-General conference which was held in Calgary on January 22 of this year the Attorneys-General of Canada established a task force of deputy ministers, which was chaired by B.C., to examine the administration of justice in Canada. It's a great credit to the Department of the Attorney-General.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD) (Vancouver East): And to the Deputy Attorney-General.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Indeed — great credit is due to the Deputy Attorney-General for his excellent work in this field. The conference considered, Hon. Members, among the most serious problems in the administration of justice in Canada some six items, including the disparity in the quality of the administration of justice from province to province. The difficulty with shared jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments makes it very difficult to set and carry out uniform policies and to avoid the unnecessary duplication of efforts — for example, the Criminal Code provisions of driving, the Motor-vehicle Act offences of driving, and where they overlap, and the difficulties that are occasioned there.

They also concerned themselves about the fact that there's not any rational basis for sharing the burden of the costs for the administration of justice. They talked about the process for reforming legislation that is inadequate and where there is mutual interest, such as the Criminal Code. They referred to experience gained by the provinces and the federal government in the administration of justice not being sufficiently shared, and made a very strong point that the administration of justice has had a very low priority in this country. I think that's a strong statement, it's a correct statement, and I consider it to be a very sad statement.

The terms of reference, Hon. Members, that were given to this task force of deputy minister initiated by this province are: (1) to examine the existing justice services in Canada; (2) to gather data relating to the cost of the delivery of these justice services, including both operating and projected capital costs; and (3) to recommend minimum standards for justice services and present the cost implications thereof.

As the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) well knows, this province does not have too much control really, of the so-called cost-shared programmes. Because of an initiative taken, say, under the Criminal Code to create a new offence, or to create additional penalties, or what-have-you, the province can run into extremely onerous economic burdens of programming and of enforcing those particular items.

Now, it's proposed that the task force prepare and present preliminary working papers on the topics which I've mentioned at the Attorneys-General conference, which will be held in British Columbia in June this year. Work is already underway across Canada in the areas of police, courts, corrections and legal services. I'm informed it's already become clear that the cooperative efforts, the team efforts, the sharing efforts, will have both short-term and long-term benefits to the people of B.C. In the areas such as legislative reform of both the substantive and the procedural law, the quality of the justice system and rational jurisdiction of cost-sharing procedures with the federal government.

It certainly is high time that a step was taken along this line. I hope that history will prove that 1976 will be considered a banner year vis-a-vis the administration of justice in Canada and the attempt to more effectively rationalize it and come up with a set of minimum standards.

Before sitting down I would like to refer to a couple of other items. First of all, violence in sport has become a matter of considerable concern to chief law enforcement officers and the general public all across the country. Ontario initiated a study in 1974, in August. For those who are interested I would commend them to this report entitled "Investigation and Inquiry into Violence in Amateur Hockey" prepared by William R. McMurtry, QC, who I gather is a brother of the current Attorney-General for the province of Ontario. I commend it to all members who have an interest in the matter to read it.

I think we must all agree that human beings being human beings, unfortunate incidents can arise, but if so, the parties involved should appreciate that they are not beyond the law. Violence must not be promoted or encouraged by those in charge. I very much hope that the promoters of the sport in question would take note, and I would suggest that they could well manage their own activities without the necessity of intervention of law enforcement. Again, without being presumptuous, I would suggest

[ Page 1003 ]

to them that perhaps they could bring an end to fighting on the rink. I would say that if players choose to fight on the rink they should be out of the game, period. Save and except boxing and wrestling, that's the way it is in any other amateur or professional sport. If you are caught fighting in football, soccer or basketball you are taken out of the game, period. You are not allowed back in after a few minutes.

I think if the sport in question would give serious consideration to incorporating that as a rule, it would be first class. Hockey by some appears to be promoted as a blood sport, and fighting is not actively enough discouraged. Bad leads to worse, and that's what's happening across the country today. If the sport cannot stand on its own feet without gutter brawls, I say it should offer something better.

It should certainly not be promoted as a blood sport. Mind you, I'm going to be criticized for making that statement. It certainly isn't by the majority of people, but we know there are the exceptions and there is not any problem whatsoever with those responsible in the sport controlling their own activities.

In this department, Mr. Speaker, we are also concerning ourselves and the government with the review of the unproclaimed Liquor Act and its regulations to be able to get along with the necessary reforms in that area and, hopefully, before too long. There is an ever-increasing number of constitutional cases. That seems to be a sign of the times — the growing up of Canada and the numerous interrelated functions that we see being carried on between governments and their continuous — perhaps not encroachments but infringements upon their respective powers.

There have been very many valuable reports furnished over the past few years — those of the Law Reform Commission concerning amendments to many of our laws; the Berger reports on children's rights; married women's property; the Keenleyside report on fire-fighting services. All of those are going to be given very careful consideration and when and where appropriate governmental action will be taken will be decided.

There's a staff of around 4,500 involved in this department outside of the liquor branch, I gather, and I am, indeed, looking forward with considerable hope, economics permitting, to be able to say before the term of office expires that a justice building will be contracted in Victoria to house the legal advisers to government plus many of the others employed by the Department of the Attorney-General including corrections, companies, real estate, insurance, securities, public trustees and liquor licensing.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting debate on this first budget of this new government. A lot of thought has been put into the budget. It's a great budget. It's a recovery budget and I think all of us own our Minister of Finance a great deal of gratitude for his hard work in his presentation. I indeed intend to support it.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to participate in the debate on the recovery budget, I believe it's being referred to. But that's a debatable point, and I hope that by now we have just about outlined some of the faults of this budget.

But before I begin, Mr. Speaker, to add my few brief comments on the budget specifically, having had an opportunity previously to speak on certain pieces of legislation relating to the fiscal programme that the government intends to implement this year, I'd just like to refer to some of the comments that were made by the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) who indicates his concern and interest in curtailing, if not eliminating, some of the difficulties some of the professional athletes are having these days in the arena of entertainment. (Laughter.)

I commend him on his interest in the furthering of any legislative means at our disposal to try and assist those participants in realizing their place in society — that is, being no further ahead or behind anyone else when it comes to the law, and that violence on and off the field is not tolerated in this society of compassion. I think sometimes they forget that.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Even golf!

MR. BARNES: Even golf, my friend.

Now in that line, Mr. Speaker, of compassion and concern, I would like to hear that the Attorney-General will assure this House as the months go on that this budget will endeavour to carry on in that same spirit of being absolutely compassionate and concerned for the subjects that will be relying on the government to assist it in functioning on an equitable basis and with a certain amount of pleasure and enjoyment throughout the next fiscal year.

So while I'm hopeful that we will get this kind of representation on behalf of the government, the debate up to now hasn't supported that possibility very much. In fact, I think most members on this side of the House have tried to point out to the government that what they have unfortunately done is use this chamber to further causes which should be alien to those of us who are in this undivided House, who are here to do the people's business.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid, in their overzealousness to achieve power and to maintain power, that they have misguided and misrepresented the public in many ways by introducing programmes and legislation that are designed to discredit the previous

[ Page 1004 ]

administration. Without going through many of the comments that have been debated before, there was, of recent date, an editorial in The Province that talked about.... It put it in a fairly concise way, and it will just take a second or two to read it for the record. It starts off by stating:

"The opposition in the British Columbia Legislature has long and loudly been insisting to the Premier that the recent transfer of $181.5 million to the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia was unnecessary at that time. The timing, they said, was a straight political act designed to make the deficit run by the NDP look just that much bigger, and thus make the NDP look that much worse."

Imagine, at a time like this of restraint and of the need for leadership, they would be associated with something that indicates they were playing politics.

"We should not borrow to give them ICBC money they don't need. It's ridiculous." This was one of our hon. members, the former Minister of Finance, commenting. But as he was attempting to make that point, the government did just that. It borrowed $181.5 million back from ICBC after loaning it to them, at an interest rate of 10 per cent. But on the record it looks as though the $400 million loan legislation that was passed recently to permit the government to borrow to pay for a deficit that was created in the 1975-1976 fiscal period was not really necessary, because in fact we now have some money that we paid out, that was credited last year, back in this year in the consolidated revenue. It's not fair, I don't think.

I was hopeful that I could stand up and be very constructive about the budget, try and look at it objectively. But let me quote to you what the budget says on the very first page, in the introduction. It says that this government, even before approaching office, was concerned for the welfare of all groups in society, both the people who are able to contribute to our economy and who, through no fault of their own find themselves in an underprivileged state. They were making reference to those . people who are unemployed but who are employable, and making reference to the aged — also, I suppose, to the single parent, mainly females who find themselves at a disadvantage because of the economic state of the economy.

The problem is that those are words — those are rhetorical expressions — with very little substance. I really find it difficult to keep repeating over and over things that have been said so much, Mr. Speaker. But I hope that maybe the government — I know it's going to be 7 per cent — will listen and in future be guided by some of these suggestions being put forward by the opposition.

I had hoped to make a few comments about some of the programmes that had been eliminated but they are so numerous — you know, social programmes are so numerous and such a tragedy — that I think I'm going to start from the other end.

Let's talk about some of the things that the budget stated it was going to do, some of the measures that it felt it had to take in order to balance the budget to assist those people who through no fault of their own — and that's a quote from the budget speech — "who through no fault of their own find themselves in need of compassion from the government." It's incredible that they really talk about compassion when one of the very first acts by one of the ministers.... Well, there were a number of very, very strange acts by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

But in his attempt to save the public funds through the social programmes he's suggesting that we're going to provide services only for those people who qualify. It's interesting the means by which one determines what the qualifications will be. He's come down with a series of regulations, including such things as dress, appearance and availability, which, unfortunately, restricts the movement of citizens in the province.

Perhaps this is something that many people haven't given much thought to, but I've always felt that in our society we have freedom of movement, freedom of speech and certain other liberties that were inalienable as far as the citizenry in this society is concerned. But I can assure you that that isn't the plan of the minister when he suggests that there are going to be some 175 designated areas that will no longer be available to those people who are seeking social assistance, that they have to be in an area designated as "with a high-employment potential". Well, that scares me, Mr. Speaker, quite frankly.

It's the kind of witch-hunt approach and the kind of categorization of people that alienates a person. It makes you feel that there are those guys over there and there are these guys over here and there is us here. I really would like to have seen in the budget a different thrust, instead of one of going out and catching those criminals, those guys who are getting something for nothing — they call them the "welfare bums".

That isn't really forward thinking and it isn't really all that encouraging to the province of British Columbia. It certainly doesn't give much leadership where it's needed because many people have been misled in this regard. I can understand why — because we're in a competitive society, a very, very competitive society. In fact, it's so competitive that unless you are prepared to go out and break all the rules of etiquette, ethics and morality in order to achieve your material due, as the saying goes, then you're liable to be a loser.

When we talk about competing we say that means there has to be something to compete against and to

[ Page 1005 ]

when, so that presupposes that there's bound to be some losers. And if they're going to be losers what happens to them?

HON. MR. MAIR: They're all sitting on that side of the House.

MR. BARNES: That's right, Mr. Member, they all sit on this side of the House — those people who lost in the last election. Right? Okay, we're on this side of the House. Well, let me tell what your government's attitude is about the losers.

If you lose, you get back and you become dictated to because this is a competitive society. That's the basis of your policy; that's the basis of your party. You call it free enterprise but you regulate it to suit your own needs. You defeat the people's needs.

We represent the people, Mr. Speaker, but do you consult with me, through you, Mr. Speaker? Does that minister consult with me before he makes a recommendation in this House? I have yet to receive a memo from that minister asking my advice or counsel on some matter of urgent public importance.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: All right. You send me over in future. I want you to consult with me before any orders-in-council are passed. Also with the back bench. What about the back bench? I'll bet you they don't know what's going on either. You mean to tell me that you know what's going on in orders-in-council?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's against the system, isn't it? If he's doing that, then he has privilege to information that.... Mr. Speaker? Oh, well, that member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said he had privileged information on orders-in-council. That's very interesting.

Well, I would like to feel that, as a member representing Vancouver Centre, I would be consulted in a House undivided when we're all here to do the people's business.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this government has taken the high hand. It has won its battle out there with the electorate and it now feels it has a complete mandate to run roughshod over the people and tell them what to do. They speak in terms of: "We were elected to govern and we were told that we have a mandate to go out and do what's best for you, and no longer do we need to bother with the democratic process. No longer must we consult about it. We know what's best." All of these bills that you bring forward are virtually a fait accompli. You've passed them all, most of them retroactive, and you're telling us to debate them. They're already over, Mr. Speaker, and they're going to run over us when we have our final speech in this budget debate, I'm sure.

But let me just say that the thrust that happened with this budget should have been that we're going to eliminate welfare, instead of saying that welfare is a condition of the game.

You know, 8 per cent unemployment is reasonable. After all, you've got a lot of people out there competing; there's bound to be some losers. So you'll set up a welfare system for those who don't make it. You'll set some stringent means tests and scare them almost to death, intimidate them and make them get out there and do something. You know — "we're going to push the people; we're not going to make it easier for them. We're only going to help those people who really need it."

You want to know an example of what really needing is?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: "Hear, hear!" the member says. Well, I'll tell you, you've got to be right on the button to get something from this government because they're not going to mess around with those guys that are trying to get something for nothing.

Now they had an order-in-council not too long ago from the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) defining the handicapped person. Fine, if you fit into that right on the button you can get what the minister says you can get, but you better fit in because if you don't, you're out. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but if just states that if you have a permanent or an apparent permanent disability.... Oh, it goes into a lot more detail, but you've got to be permanent. Now you've got to get that certified by the right physician and the right clinicians and everybody's got to be on your case. You've got to prove it positively and without doubt that you are permanently handicapped — not temporarily handicapped as so many of us are, even in this House from time to time. We all require a little help every now and then.

What about the guy who goes to the psychiatrist for only six months out of the year? He really is debilitated; the guy can't function. Or the woman, of course — anyone may be this way. But that's not permanent — "we can treat you so you don't need any help."

What I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, is that we should be concerned first about people's ability to

[ Page 1006 ]

function. We should do everything we can to assist. We should be encouraging people, not discouraging them, because you can be sure of one thing, that even if we were to have a few people make off with a few dollars, they're not going to make off with the kind of dollars that some of your friends have made off with.

Let me suggest something to you now, Mr. Speaker. You say that we're being unreasonable and we're got all those guys out there trying to get something for nothing. And I think the Minister of Mines, forest resources and whatever (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is planning to lift the Mineral Royalties Act. He's planning to lift that, I understand. That's interesting. The reason he's going to lift is is because the people in the industry claim that it's unfair to tax them on the exploratory stages, that they should be taxed on the profits after they have....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's right, Mr. Minister. Do you want me to read it? That's right. I know you thought I was just ad libbing, but I do have a little bit of a clipping, and I'll find it for you. It says that they feel it's repressive to tax them on profits, it discouraged their willingness to invest and explore. What they would prefer to do is to be taxed after their cost has been....

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: That's right. Here it is. I think I see it over here — a Xerox copy. Let me see what it says.

Yes, it says that during the fall election campaign a major Social Credit promise was to remove mineral royalties and replace them with a profit-based tax. Now the mining industry has said that the mineral royalties and an equivalent mineral land tax are forms of negative taxation — I'm sorry, not repressive but negative taxation. That's what they said.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND: (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Wrong again!

MR. BARNES: Okay, so the press is wrong, Mr. Minister. I guess the press are only human and they hear people say things and they get their tape recorders out, but these tapes can get the wrong information. It's just like the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) having difficulty remembering what she said about orders-in-council the other day. It said one thing on the Blues and she said something else. You know, it's amazing how these mechanical gadgets can get fouled up.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: I think that if the government had come forward and said, you know what we're really going to do? We have an excellent opportunity, following the previous administration, to continue, to go even further than they did in the social programmes, to do what even W.A.C. Bennett used to talk about years ago, bringing in the guaranteed income, eliminating the indignity people have to suffer because they're being subjected to all kinds of programmes, and having to go half a dozen different places in order to get through the week for basic essentials, and being categorized.... You know, you've got the unemployed, you've got the employed. You've got the single, you've got the married, you've got those with one family, those with two families, with three, those who are half-incapacitated, those who are fully incapacitated. You've got those who are in the minor category who can get a little help providing they haven't been away from home more than six months, and those who've been away longer, and it goes on and on and on. Take a look at your regulations. So when a person gets into difficulty they don't know where to go, and wherever they go they're going to be subjected to the scrutiny of someone who has been given the authority to make a decision about the complexities of their personal lives.

We seem to feel, as long as we provide a little bit of financial assistance that we've taken the responsibility that was left with us for these people. But we have a moral responsibility. We have a duty to assist people in maintaining their dignity, and to feel not alienated or categorized or classified as this or that or the other group.

We talk about the poor and we talk about the rich, but just think, you'redividing the community when you talk that way. We think it's acceptable, sure, but wouldn't it be better if a person knew that they did not have to subject themselves to the whims of a social worker or some bureaucrat in a given day, depending on how he got up that morning, or whether he was happy or unhappy? They're going to be scrutinized and asked questions which are highly personal, or subjected to rather unnecessary running around and abuse. It happens all the time.

The welfare system is a product of the capitalist system. It's a product of your so-called free enterprise system, and you are the ones who are perpetuating it. Your budget shows it right here. These are repressive measures. What have you done to the people? What have you done to them? You say you're going to assist them? You assist them by bringing in 175 non-welfare communities. You assist them by enforcing dress regulations. You assist them by restricting access to the capital, to Victoria.

The Minister of Transport and Communication

[ Page 1007 ]

(Hon. Mr. Davis) will be raising the ferry prices. That's going to mean that people can't get over here. It may go up to $15 for a car. That's going to cut down on the access. This is the capital of the province, but you're starting to raise the rates. How're people going to get over here? You discourage them. Not only will the Victoria chamber of commerce be upset with you — and I'm sure you don't want that — but you're going to cut down on tourism. The minister in charge of tourism — it's been a long-standing platform of Social Credit to support tourism, and here you're cutting it down in the capital city. That's incredible.

What about the social services tax? Is that helping? No. What about the corporation tax? That's going to be passed on too to the people. Auto rates? Well, we've been over that so many times that it's incredible, but believe me, it all affects the net dollar that working people have to take home. Hospital insurance? That's up. Medical services? That's up almost 50 per cent; hospital insurance, seven times.

You're restricting education, putting a limit on the amount of funds available for it, forcing the people to go back to the local level in order to get the difference. We say we're going to get away from that, and you're going back to it, trying to free yourselves of the political consequences of having assumed your responsibilities, trying to put it back into the hands of the local taxpayers. You call that progress.

You've increased the electric and the natural gas rates to an average of 12 per cent. You've allowed home heating oils to go up 4.5 cents per gallon. You've eliminated the price freeze that we brought in, that the previous administration brought in.

You have not encouraged or indicated that you are going to lower the rent freeze from 10.6 to what we suggested was 8 per cent or even lower. Certainly you must realize that that cannot stay at 10.6 forever. You're going to have to start to back off, but there is no indication that you intend to do it. I am afraid that you will raise it because you promised in the campaign that you definitely wouldn't lift it. So you must be going to raise it — same effect.

All of these measures point out to me the need for guaranteed income because no matter what you say about government getting too big and too many bureaucrats and too much government spending and all of your platitudes — "We're going to cut down the public service through attrition; we're not going to fire anybody but we're just riot going to replace anybody" — that's interesting in terms of what your plans are for jobs for these people.

Mr. Speaker, to the government, how do they intend to really solve these problems without having a little more courage — having a little more courage in leadership? You should be on the federal government's door saying: "Look, what about a negative income tax? What about one with a COLA clause that says look, people will be guaranteed every month enough money to survive on?" Sure, you say: "Well, where are we going to get it from?" Well, you would save money. You could close up most of your very cumbersome and inefficient operations that require a lot of witch-hunting and a lot of scrutinizing, a lot of watching and hanging-on.

This is one of the problems. As an ex-social worker I used to have to face this thing quite honestly myself. One of the difficulties was that my hands were tied and I was asked to scrutinize people's personal lives, to watch them and to make them report every day and to keep surveillance on their activities to the point that it was really just a game of cops and robbers, rather than a person having any hope or any encouragement by any kind of constructive programme.

You need programmes which go along with your methods of training people, which is what I am afraid your approach is — to train and condition them to compete and when they lose to pay the consequence by being grateful for any assistance that the government may feel incumbent upon them to provide. But that isn't the attitude that we should be promoting.

I think this budget should be saying to the people: "Look, our first duty is to ensure that you have a place in society — any place, anywhere in this province. We're not going to say you have to live in a certain area. You live anywhere. If there is a place that you want to live where perhaps there is not very much of an economic base, do you have any ideas? Perhaps we can together find some answers."

Because most of those people want a different lifestyle. They don't all want to be located in the city in the middle of industry and highrises and where all of the activity is. Many of them want to live out in the bush and want to have an opportunity to be free of the pollution — social pollution as well as physical, Mr. Speaker. There are many problems living in centrally located areas, many problems. Many people have realized it and they have opted out. But this government is saying: "No. You've got to come back so that we can plug you into the system." But we're showing no imagination. We should be encouraging people to develop this province.

We spend all kinds of money trying to promote development of the north and to get people to go and live in areas.... We can't even get doctors to live out there because we tell them that the place is downtown. You know, live down in the lower mainland; that's where it's at. But if we were to change our attitude and were to open up a little bit and allow people to feel that living downtown is not where it's at all the time, that there are other parts of this province and there are other approaches to life....

We're going to be hosting Habitat in May, talking

[ Page 1008 ]

about human settlements and ways in which people can live in alternative ways. But what does this budget show in the way of leadership, in indicating that it really would like to be flexible and to encourage those people who want to be flexible — the young people who are looking for alternatives to the mess that they have inherited by many of those of us who have had the responsibility to administer their affairs? Because we haven't all been successful, Mr. Minister. You'll get your turn to speak later. I'm not going to hear anything out of you right now. You just wait.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): You speak for yourself when it comes to mistakes.

MR. BARNES: You take a look at the record. You want me to speak for myself? You take a look at the record. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you — I can tell that member — that the things that we are talking about today and the things that I am suggesting today were sure not invented or created by this party. They are the things that we have been fighting since the '30s. We have been trying to get free enterprise — that's a very questionable concept — governments and administrations to realize the faults that they create in society by telling people that they have to go out and compete at all costs — at all costs without exception.

MR. KAHL: That's your interpretation.

MR. BARNES: You come out with these welfare programmes and you think you're helping people by putting them on welfare? Don't you realize that that day has long since been over? Welfare is over, my friend; welfare is over. You're hanging on to it; you're hanging on to it. We've got to face the future. You're going back. You're trying to go back and back and back.

How are you going to pay for those things that you claim have happened in the past? You know you can't; you've got to look to the future. If you can't solve your problem you don't use the old tools; you get new tools — new tools. You don't use the fiscal policies of W.A.C. Bennett from 15 or 20 years ago. You have to show some imagination; you have to show some willingness. You talk about restraint — you don't know the meaning of the word "restraint", What restraint means to you is to go out and win and get a few people underneath you and put them under some kind of a hold; a wrestler's lock, you know, that's what you call restraint: "We're going to restrain you until you learn to play the game the way we tell you."

The minister knows that. He was talking about his dogs the other day, and he referred to the opposition as perhaps subject to some training programme. That was the indication. I don't think he said it, but that was the implication of his remarks. We were wondering whether we were going to be able to relate, Mr. Speaker, to the government on certain procedures and in terms of the business of the House, in a democratic House such as this, but I think he made some little remark about, "Well, it took me two weeks to train my dogs." I don't know what that was supposed to mean.

I wouldn't want to suggest that he had any indication that he was trying to give us some idea about his plan, but, Mr. Speaker, the thing is that this whole budget unfortunately doesn't have very much credibility because of the way in which it was introduced. It was introduced on the rather punitive, negative side. You know, the opening remarks were: "We inherited a mess from the departing administration, and we're going to have to go in and clean it up." Right away it was suspect! It went so far, Mr. Speaker, as to attack other countries; to attack socialism. What is socialism, Mr. Speaker? Now come on!

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: You know, Mr. Speaker, listen to this man. I'm going to tell you how I feel. I feel that what they should have done when they came in was to say: "We are now elected, all 55 of us, and we would like to discuss the problems that this province faces with a sense of cooperativeness and a sense of good will." Let's be willing to forget some of those little vendettas that we fought, because they go on and begin to cost the people, you know. They drag this province down if you go too far with that, and we haven't got time for that. I agree with you that the people's business is urgent....

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: That's what we should be doing instead of playing political games. I'm quite willing to give you my assistance; I'm quite willing to give you my counsel and guidance on any of these matters if you will just confide in me and give me an opportunity, but I have yet to have you call me.

Interjections.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where's the money tree, Emery?

MR. BARNES: No, I don't think we should have a money tree. I think we should begin to recognize the natural resource out there. You know, there's one resource that was mentioned in your throne debate, Mr. Speaker. You stated that the most important resource is the people — the human resource.

[ Page 1009 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: Then you go on and say: "Yes, and we're going to take every dime they've got." (Laughter.) Isn't that something!

Now the NDP has always said that we want to use the resources of the province to assist the people in carrying on their lives and to help to develop the economy so that people will get something out in their lifetime, Mr. Speaker — get something out in their lifetime from the resources. They have a right to them and they shouldn't be given away, especially non-renewable resources. But no, you are going to take away the renewable resource, because there are new generations coming along and as long as you herd them properly and take care of them properly, keep your welfare programme going, you can keep everything in perfect balance. Right? That's their idea of a social welfare programme, It's not really to alleviate, but sort of to carry along, to maintain some kind of balance for the system of competition, for the games that are going to be played.

I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, that that day has long passed and people are beginning to wake up. Thanks to the measures that were put forward in this budget and the programmes you have introduced, you have done more to wake the people up than anything I could ever say or do, because they are feeling it where you said it counted the most — in dollars and cents. That is the basis of your party — dollars and cents. But you have got the message across because it's dollars and cents that they're relating to, and they haven't got very many of them left — you've cleaned them out!

You say you're concerned about people, and you close down one of the most important programmes that was brought in in 1970 or 1971. It was a programme brought in called the volunteer opportunities programme, and there are some 4,000 participants in that programme right across the province of British Columbia. You tell them: "Well, we're sorry we're not going to be supporting you." There were 1,400 of those people working in the Vancouver area alone. These were people who were mainly made up of females who were single who had children and who were working in various agencies throughout the community. That's right, they were working in various offices. They were on social assistance and they were getting a little extra $50 or $ 100 a month, but the main thing was that they were getting job training and counselling and they were developing and learning how to go into the work force.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: But you have eliminated that, and you tell them that we can't afford that. I tell you, it's going to cost you a lot more.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Okay, then you get up and make a speech. I haven't heard anything from the back bench on this budget debate. I would love to have you get up and tell me I am wrong and that everything I have said is wrong. That means that everything is going to look up.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're wrong. Okay, You're wrong, Em.

MR. BARNES: Out of order, Mr. Speaker. No, I want you to stand up and make a speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: We can't.

MR. BARNES: Oh, just stand up and make a speech.

HON. MR. MAIR: I did.

MR. BARNES: Tell the people that you guarantee that they will all have employment and that they will have employment that is within their capabilities.

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: You reconcile this for me, Mr. Minister, reconcile this for me, through you, Mr. Speaker. You have the various levels of education, high school and university, vocational training and the community colleges and so forth. You tell people to study and to develop a skill and an ability. Okay. So you don't have a system set up whereby they can plug in to the work force. They can't find a job. They you say they can't move around. You are to stay in the places where the jobs are supposed to happen. Where is the programme for them to get plugged in? Now if they don't get plugged in, you tell them they have to take a job, any job, no matter what — not what they were trained for, but just a job. Now we don't know where these jobs are; we haven't seen them. Even with shovels. I haven't even seen anybody getting shovels, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Member, may I interrupt you long enough to suggest that you are on your last two minutes?

MR. BARNES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have observed that procedure that you've gone through and I appreciate that. But I would like to suggest that the idea of telling people that they have to stay in an area who are, perhaps, qualified to a special job and the government has no programme...and it has a

[ Page 1010 ]

duty because these people have gone through the institutions that were set up to train them. We've encouraged them to go, we've paid good tax dollars for the institutions and then we don't let them do their work. If these institutions are not necessary, then we close them down and tell everybody to just go out and go for themselves. That would be more honest. It would be a lot more honest.

Now I'm no engineer and if you want to challenge me I can have you one in five minutes. I can get you some engineers. You want to tell me that there are jobs waiting for them? Many of them have applied to this government, and I have letters to back it up. They are not getting into jobs. You know what the reality is. It's a big joke.

HON. MR. MAIR: Where did the mining industry go?

MR. BARNES: It's a big joke. You go look in the papers and see all these jobs advertised. But go and try and get one. You don't have to worry about that. You fellows don't have to worry. This is very alien to you, I am sure.

Well, I am not going to support this bill, this budget. I am not going to support this budget. But I would say I would be pleased to be available, should any of the hon. members on the government side wish to consult with me and ask my opinion as a representative from one of the largest ridings in the province on some suggestions as to what should be done instead of punitive taxation, instead of some of the points I have outlined. I will be very pleased to suggest to them how they could go about encouraging people to participate in this society without having to feel that big government is chasing them and that they are going to be victims of punitive measures by the Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Vander Zalm).

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I believe you are about concluded, are you not?

MR. BARNES: Just about. You are always allowed 30 seconds. You always have.

MR. SPEAKER: I would rather you conclude it than I do it for you.

MR. BARNES: In closing, I hope that you will consider the direction you must take ultimately, because this direction will ruin most working people. There is a bill on the order paper which I can't discuss but that is a frightening piece of legislation, because you are going to thrust the people even further, I am sure...because it's going to be one-sided deal, Mr. Speaker.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes). When he started he was playing to the smallest House we have had in many days and he seems to have increased the numbers. I compliment you. You do a very good job of it.

Mr. Speaker, for the past several days and some nights the budget proposed by this government has been discussed, argued, fought over, examined, dissected, applauded, sneered at, depending on one's political point of view. Honest debate and constructive criticism are both worthwhile endeavours and I salute the hon. members of this House who have addressed themselves to this problem in an objective and sober manner. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent that too many hon. members have not been objective and far from constructive in their approach to the budget debate.

I most definitely do not plan to rehash all the bickering accusation and counter-accusation that has gone on before. No, Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to address the financial plans and policies of the government in a positive and realistic manner. Grasping the crunch of reality, Mr. Speaker, I think it especially worthwhile at the outset to remind the hon. members of this House of the meaning of the word mandate. In its strictest sense the word mandate means command — an order, a positive directive. The people of the province of British Columbia have commanded this government to proceed with the fiscal policies they outlined so clearly in the platform policies during the last election campaign. People of this province had a clear choice as to how they wanted their tax dollars managed and spent. They went to the polls, they made their choice and they delivered a government mandate, a positive directive to govern according to the wishes of the majority,

Mr. Speaker, the government of today is in power because of these policies, not in spite of them. Therefore, I believe the hon. opposition would be well advised to remind themselves of the reality of the election mandate. Moreover, as members of opposition, their sworn responsibility is to work constructively, not destructively for the people of this province. To this end I would recommend to those hon. members that they now cease and desist refusing to face the reality of the mandate that this government has. If they will do that, the will of the majority of the people in this province is going to be upheld by the government.

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but comment on a condition that's been occurring in the House for the last four weeks. We've been here four weeks and something that I take notice of and exception to is the constant referral by the opposition that we are a government of car dealers and millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask: since when has it been necessary in our society to defend one's success? I

[ Page 1011 ]

think that the province and the opposition should be delighted that successful people.... People who are successful are ones who have a combination of two things — No. 1, ability, and, secondly, they've been able to put that ability to work in a hard manner; they worked hard to attain some success. I think the people of this province, as the loyal opposition should recognize, should be pleased that these people are willing to give their time to the service of the people in this province.

One of the basic tenets of our society is that the itinerant worker, through the combination of the two points that I've just made, has the right to be successful. At no time should anyone try and make that right an impossibility, nor should you insult a man because he might have been able to do that.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Are you insulted by being called a car dealer?

MR. STRONGMAN: No, I'm not. I'd like to expand on that, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. leader. The so-called car dealers are entrepreneurs. They've been elected by the people in their communities. The people in their communities recognized their expertise, their ability, their honesty, and they gave them the plurality they needed to become elected in the last provincial election — and you know the results of that.

I'm asking you: if you're going to attack us, and so you should, attack us on our policies, the platform that we stand for, our political philosophy, but don't attack us on our vocations.

Mr. Speaker, we do not attack the opposition on their vocations. We have not attacked the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) or the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on the fact that they happen to be lawyers. We haven't attacked the teachers in your caucus. We haven't attacked the fact that you have a professional football player — we haven't accused him of being good or bad. We haven't attacked the professional socialists that you have within your party, and we don't intend to.

We would hope that you would stay away from attacking us on our chosen vocations. Attack us on our policies; we'll be delighted to defend them.

Mr. Speaker, back to the budget. My intent is to address the budget of this government in a positive manner — a task I find great security and satisfaction in performing.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): However difficult.

MR. STRONGMAN: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the precisely drawn and carefully considered budget of this government is at once effective, pragmatic and realistic.

The budget of this government in 1976 has responded to the common-sense priorities demanded by the people in this province, especially when you recognize the voting patterns in the last election.

MR. LAUK: What about the rubber cheque?

MR. STRONGMAN: Even a cursory reading of this budget, Mr. Speaker, reveals that to be strongly people-oriented. In fact, this budget clearly reinforces many of the good programmes already in existence in the province. Some were initiated by the former government, and I commend you for it. Others, though renamed, like Mincome, were reinforced and updated by the former government taking on the philosophy that the previous government — the government before that — had and had in existence for many years.

MR. LAUK: Oh, that's stretching the point.

MR. STRONGMAN: Not at all, hon. member. Not stretching it at all.

In this fair and pragmatic budget, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day has indeed responded to the demands of the people. Common sense prevails. People priorities prevail.

The largest single expenditure is health care — people benefits. Health care, it's up 20 per cent.

The Department of Human Resources will increase its spending by 20 per cent. People — we're dealing with people. The Department of Education will increase its spending by over 10 per cent.

I'm sure we all agree we're talking about people, and that will constitute the second-largest budgetary commitment. Health, Education, Human Resources are all people-oriented priorities. Mr. Speaker, every one of these departments will increase its spending to meet the real needs of British Columbians.

Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this government is also committed to responsible fiscal management. Some departmental budgets have had to be decreased. More direct and competitive means have had to be found to pay for these increased expenditures.

AN HON. MEMBER: Like rubber cheques?

MR. STRONGMAN: The hon. member seems to have a rubber tongue right now. I wish he'd come up with some new comments.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for the critics of this budget to wake up, to face the straight facts of this government's spending priorities and, more importantly, the announced methods of raising the much-needed revenues to meet those commitments.

Let's start by exploring a few myths so noisily put forth by those critics. A favourite myth concerns the sales tax increase. This says it is a regressive,

[ Page 1012 ]

destructive tax. It affects poor people rather than rich people. Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is unmitigated garbage, but probably looks good in the press, and I'm sure people are playing to the press when they want to criticize what I think is a good tax, a good way to collect tax.

The hard facts concerning the sales tax are these. B.C.'s new 7 per cent level is now the same, or less, than every other province in the country except Alberta. B.C.'s new 7 per cent sales tax is not one penny higher than the other two socialist provinces in this country, namely Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

There is no sales tax on items poor people or rich people absolutely must have to live. Food, clothing, shoes for children, shelter are tax-free.

Interjection.

MR. STRONGMAN: Well, rumour has it that rich people do eat occasionally and even have children, and thus are exempt from sales tax in essential items. The fact is that the buyers of big-ticket items do pay increased tax for big cars, big stereo sets, television sets, expensive jewellery, fur coats, travel and so on. These are all non-essential items that presumably rich people can afford and so deserve to pay a higher tax on. Some day-to-day items also carry the increased tax, but most, Mr. Speaker, can fairly be classed as optional. They are not essential for day-to-day living.

The next myth I would like to explore is a great favourite, that this is a government for big business interests. Again I call it as I see it, unmitigated garbage.

AN HON. MEMBER: That again?

MR. STRONGMAN: Not as often as I hear the lines you shout out, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

This government has, in fact, raised the level of corporate income tax to a point where it now stands as one of the highest in the country. Moreover, it is higher than the other two socialist provinces in the country, and we know that's Manitoba and Saskatchewan — higher than the other two socialist provinces. A good way to collect tax, and you're knocking it in the budget.

Another myth that should be shown in the light of stark reality is that the budget hits harder at people least able to afford the cost increase. I can't accept that one either.

The budget of this province has increased provincial income tax, and who gets hit hardest when that happens? People with large incomes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, people with small incomes!

MR. STRONGMAN: People with large incomes, the people with the greatest ability to pay. And guess what? Once again B.C.'s high level of personal income tax, hitting those with high incomes, is higher than the other two socialist provinces in this country.

Mr. Speaker, my remarks to this point have been, I believe, a fair and necessary exercise to explode the myths that have been presented as valid criticism of this government's budget. It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that such criticism is, at best, uninformed and, at worse, inaccurate.

Having explored the spending priorities and necessary revenue-raising measure to be undertaken by the government, it is of even greater importance to understand that British Columbia's overall prosperity is directly dependent upon her economic development. Without a healthy, growing, productive economic base this province simply cannot ensure the maintenance of high living standards and social services which we all expect from an industrialized society, benefits that we have expected and maintained in this province.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention to the House of my maiden speech delivered in this House on March 25. At that time I dealt very directly with labour-management relations as they now stand in the province. I feel the hon. members would be well advised to consider those remarks, as they were constructed carefully, after much thought and several years' experience in the labour-management scene in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we have experienced in the last years, five years at least, strikes, lockouts, wildcat walkouts, thousands of man-hours lost, and, Mr. Speaker, I urge that we correct this problem. I believe this government must direct itself to new definitions in the area of essential services. To this end British Columbia's major economic enterprises must be viewed as essential services to the people. Today, B.C. Is still, to our great disadvantage, dependent upon two major industries. We're dependent for our very economic survival. These industries should be classed as essential services.

In my view, Mr. Speaker, defining many of our major resource industries as essential services would be a first step in restoring British Columbia's good reputation. Both management and labour must be educated to the consequences of irresponsible action. I would like to stress again that we're talking about labour and management, not one or the other. They must be forced to bargain collectively, quickly and decisively to avoid strikes such as we have seen in the past years. I believe that if this condition was allowed to exist and was improving continually, strikes would cease to be inevitable, and they could become a rarity.

Mr. Speaker, I've spoken briefly on the budget, with a few asides. I support this budget as a fine, responsible budget that all of us on both sides of the

[ Page 1013 ]

House can live with.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth budget debate in which I've had the privilege to participate as the representative for Alberni constituency. As is customary, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the office of Speaker and to welcome those members, old and new, who have been elected to this assembly on December 11, 1975.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Skelly moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion negatived.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In addressing myself to this budget debate I'm inclined to comment that it is becoming more known for length than strength. I hope that my contribution will join with many of those who have added the substance to the length, and that there will be some remarks which will be of help to the people of this province and to those in my constituency.

Mrs. Jordan moves adjournment of the debate.

HON, W. R. BENNETT (Premier): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if we go through this two of the members who should be allowed to speak in this debate will lose their place — the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), I'm sure the House doesn't wish that to happen. We had hoped that every member would speak in this debate, and I wonder if, with leave, the member for Alberni could be allowed to continue his speech and, following him, the member for North Okanagan.

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty with my voice. I wonder if perhaps somebody on the other side of the House would prefer to continue on.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Alberni defers to the member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that it is a pleasure to have this opportunity to take part in the debate on a budget that was brought down by a new Premier, a new cabinet and a new government. It is a budget which I believe and this side believes will introduce a new era into the province of British Columbia, and a budget that in itself has assumed the first responsibility made by the Premier of our province as a commitment in the last election.

That was, in itself, responsibility — to return responsible government to this province; to have the courage, Mr. Speaker, to be responsible, and that's not always easy. The easy way out, as we have seen. was taken by the NDP in the province of British Columbia who were flushed with success and flushed with idealism, but failed to realize the enormities of life and that success and idealism do not create services to people nor they create a climate in which people can have confidence.

The second commitment by the Premier of this province in the election, and which is in its first stage of being carried out in the budget, is responsiveness. It isn't enough to be a responsible government; it is only enough when we are a responsible, responsive government.

Without repeating the many figures that have been brought forth with great sincerity by other members in this debate, I would point out that where the budget is pulling in to a sense of responsibility, it is then adjusting to a sense of responsiveness with emphasis on people services such as in education, human resources, and in health.

Just on the point of health, I would like to digress for a moment to give my support — and I'm sure the support of many other people — to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) who has an extremely difficult job and who, when he took over his office, was the successor to a popular position made so because of a lack of responsibility of the then minister, and the lack of ability of that then minister to really come to grips with the health problems of this province, and also with the budgetary problems.

That minister carried on some of the policies that were laid down by the NDP — and I would refer specifically to the 15 per cent staff cutback. But he diligently adjusted, worked and tried to overcome some of the serious internal problems which led to a lack of flexibility in that programme and that cutback. When the people who were involved in this programme of home care throughout the province sat down and showed how they could meet the requirement for responsibility in managing their budget and cutting back, with their cooperation, and through his efforts, we were able to embark not only on a new programme in terms of increased money in the budget for home care, but to do away with the NDP stilted cutback programme, and see home care move on, not only as it was, but as a priority of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want to get into a deep philosophical discussion on financing, because this has been done by many. I might add that it's always very interesting to hear the various accountants in the House go over the figures. It certainly goes to prove that if you put 10 accountants in one room with one set of figures, they'll come out with 10 different

[ Page 1014 ]

answers.

I was really most impressed with the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), at first, when she talked about kitchen-table financing. Really, that's where it's at. There's no magic and there's no miracle in bringing in a level of government budget. There's no magic and there's no miracle in what happened to this province under the NDP. There's no magic and no miracle in what is happening now. It is simple kitchen-table fact: when bills are run up, they have to be paid, and that money has to be handled carefully and with dedication. I would suggest that where the member for Cowichan-Malahat went astray in her kitchen-table politics was not in suggesting the need for it, but in failing to realize it's the accountants who appear to muss up kitchen-table politics or financing.

If you put a family of 10 around a kitchen table, and with an income of $700 a month after taxes, I assure you they would know what bills have to be paid, and they would pay them. They would know and exercise the fundamental philosophy that all of us have to learn in'life — that we simply cannot have more than we're capable of creating and paying for.

I was interested in the comments from the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) when she insisted that the increase in sales tax would work a hardship on those on lower incomes. She also referred to this increase in sales tax under the Social Services Tax Amendment Act, and its effect upon the poor, and what she felt was its effect on the rich.

I don't want to transgress in that area of the bill, but I would like to point out that there is very much evidence to suggest that an increase in the tax will have very little effect upon the poor and lower economic sectors of British Columbia. Approximately two-thirds of British Columbians can be classified as low-wage earners and poor people.

If we use the 1971 census figures, approximately 27 per cent of urban British Columbians and 19 per cent of rural British Columbians fall within the so-called poverty class. That averages out to 23 per cent of the total population. The earnings level used to determine the poverty level are those determined by Statistics Canada for 1974 — $7,601 for a family of four living in a metropolitan area, and $5,527 for a family of four living in a rural area.

The new sales tax provisions will not greatly affect these people except as it indirectly contributes to the general inflationary trend. That, Mr. Speaker, is the important point because it is inflation that hurts the poor. For example, between 1966 and 1969 the bottom 40 per cent of all wage earners benefited from an increase in their salaries. However, in terms of 1961 dollars, the actual purchasing power of those workers declined during the 1966-1969 interval and accelerated in British Columbia considerably during the 1973-75 period of the NDP government.

My colleague speaking before me has outlined where the necessities of life — clothing, food, medical supplies — are free of the sales tax and that, in essence, those who pay the greatest amount of sales tax are those who exercise the greatest degree of spending scope and those who buy in terms of greater luxuries in our area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a vast province and there are a vast number of people out in this province whom I believe are supporting what they voted for in this election, and that is responsible and responsive government. I believe that there are many people in this province who feel that the greatest problem we have in our country and in our province, other than inflation and our economic problems, is a lack of confidence in ourselves as people, in ourselves in terms as parents and in ourselves in terms of government and our responsibilities. These people want to become involved.

They know that in British Columbia we have simply been living beyond our capabilities. They know that if we, as a generation in this year who live among the world's highest standards of living, who have among the world's highest medical care for all, who have among the world's highest standards of education for the greatest number of people, who have the free world's highest standard of education in our labour force, and who in Canada enjoy the highest average wage and income, and certainly among the highest in the free world, if we in this time of opulence have stopped short long enough to ask ourselves what it's all about and what will happen if we don't come to grips with these relatively minor problems, then they know and we know that if we can't accept our responsibilities, if we can't come to grips with this, the generation behind us won't.

There are many young people in this province and in this gallery, and many of us have families all of whom when they grow up are going to have their own problems in terms of their choice of career, their opportunity for a career, in terms of their social values, in terms of what problems they're going to be confronted with — pollution, education needs, health needs — and these are not going to go away. They are going to have their problems, and we simply can't, because we fail to stop and take stock of the current situation and our own abilities, or lack of confidence, burden them with our problems as well as their own.

I think the fact that in this country most of us are floating, because we've lost the sense of national pride, comes into play in this budget. I'm not suggesting that we should return to any sort of a situation where we believe "my country, do or die." But I do believe that the time has come when we have to stop as individuals, whatever our age, whatever our occupation, whatever our interests and whatever our role in public service, and ask ourselves about my country and me. Are we willing to truly serve others

[ Page 1015 ]

and to truly be part of changes in our society, not with talk, but with action?

As I mentioned before, I believe that there's a vast army of people in this great province of British Columbia who feel as we do, who do want to stop, take a breather and, if necessary, tighten their belts in order that we can bring our house in order, in order that we can go ahead in terms of social services, go ahead in terms of a healthy economy and provide the opportunities for the future that we so dearly want to.

This brings to mind the role of the volunteer, It seems that over the last few years society has been gyrating from left to right. We've been turned upside-down and through self-analysis we tend to have lost our confidence in ourselves. But also, in a great effort to try to offer equal opportunity to people, whether they are men, or children or women, we have lost sight of one important sector of our society, and that is the volunteer.

I was interested the other day on a bus going back to our constituency when I met a very nice young lady. We were talking and I asked her what she did. She said: "Oh, I'm just a housewife and mother." I was quite angry with her. I said: "Don't say, 'I'm just a housewife and mother.'" As one lady said the other night: "No way. I'm a home engineer."

What is wrong when we have a bright young woman, a mother, a woman who has one of the greatest sensitivity points of influence on our future society — her children — when she says: "I am just a mother and a volunteer and a housewife"?

I believe that in order to accomplish what we want to do, in a way to be able to utilize our resources in terms of people, we as a government have to put great emphasis on the role of the volunteer. We have to clear away the clouds that have basically almost embarrassed this position and recognize that there is nothing very glamorous about standing for eight hours in a 15-cent store, although there should be that opportunity and it should be well paid for a good day's work if that is desired. But we must honour those who choose to serve our society by volunteering, by being mothers, by working in partnership with their husbands or wives — whichever partner chooses to do this — but don't seek any financial reward for this. I would hope that our government will not only declare this a matter of urgent priority but that we, through legislation, will provide an opportunity for people to take part, if they so wish.

Perhaps we could establish legislation along the wartime legislation dollar-a-year people, people with great knowledge in many fields who would like to work with government to assist and lend their expertise but are quite willing to do so without pay, that we would develop a year somewhat similar to the centennial years that we used to have in British Columbia when there was an appropriate time which united this province together — people in communities planning projects, working together. No one was paid but the accomplishments were tremendous in terms of physical construction; they were even greater in terms of community unity, provincial unity and community and provincial pride.

I suggest that we have a year in which we would unite this province in developing community service, community projects and provincial projects and which would honour both with certificates, if you like, perhaps medals, the many hundreds of volunteers in our province. In doing this we would help bring to our own attention what we as individuals can do in terms of developing our great province as it should be, whether it be culturally, industrially, socially or just plain humanly.

We would recognize that this type of spirit must also start with our young people and in our schools. In focusing attention on this type of emphasis when we are also discussing this budget, we would call upon the best of ourselves, whether we are teachers, whether we are train engineers, whether we are lawyers, doctors, students, to face the issues that confront us today, to tighten our belts, to develop confidence in ourselves and to develop not only responsibility, but a sense of pride in our province.

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that I would like to discuss in relation to my constituency, or the constituency that I have the honour of representing, but I recognize that there are other members who wish to speak in this debate. There will be ample opportunity under the estimates. So I would just close by calling as one human being to another on all the people of this province to join with this government, regardless of their partisan views — criticize constructively, the government will be responsive — to join together in meeting the necessary adjustments that have to be met if we are to be fair to the next generation and if we are to be fair to ourselves.

I also would call on all of us to think of my country and I, my friends, my neighbours and I.

Mr. Mussallem moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 11.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 11; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

[ Page 1016 ]

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: In dealing with section 1 of Bill 11 it has occurred to me that there would be no need to have the 5 per cent sales tax raised to 7 per cent had not the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) gone through this kiting operation with ICBC by writing a burn cheque that was never cashed. Now they pretend it's cashed. If they have got money and they borrowed money from ICBC recently, they're using trust moneys out of ICBC held in trust for insured automobile owners. They know and everyone in British Columbia knows that if a private citizen did that kind of paper chase, he'd be charged with a criminal offence.

It's a paper chase, that's all it is. They had to figure out a way to pay a subsidy to the insurance corporation, and this is the way they did it.

They promised not a subsidy but then they went around and paid a subsidy, and they're paying a subsidy.

Everyone's talking about $181 million, but there is no $181 million. What the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did was write an NSF cheque to pretend that he was borrowing that money back from ICBC. No, he's not. He's borrowing trust funds. He's borrowing ICBC premiums back to the government and that's a hoax.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Are you against that?

MR. LAUK: I'm not against the subsidy — you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: You're borrowing premium funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Thank you so much for your attention.

I've been waiting for the last few minutes to make sure that the hon. member relates his remarks to section 1. We are recanvassing the material that was covered under the principle of this bill. Can we go to section 1, please?

MR. LAUK: I don't know whether anyone has congratulated you on your first address in the 31st parliament, and I don't know whether anyone will. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: No, with all respect, I always look upon the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) as being...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: ...a very pleasant fellow indeed: misguided politically, in the wrong political party, but a decent chap and an excellent chairman of this committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Now to section 1.

MR. LAUK: Having complimented you, may I now move on to ICBC? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LAUK: That won't wash either. Will you accept a little talk on Hydro?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Section 1, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: I think, Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, that if the government wants to raise the sales tax and is feigning this need for more money, they should come right out in the open and say that what they've done is provided a 10 per cent subsidy of $181 million to the ICBC.

The Minister of Finance in an answer in question period today said that $181 million was the only amount that we've borrowed. If ICBC had cashed the cheque, which they didn't, the government would have to make that cheque good....

HON. MR. WOLFE: I said "so far."

MR. LAUK: Oh, you're a sneaky little devil. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am still waiting for the member to move to section 1.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is "sneaky big devil" on that list, Mr. Chairman?

MR. LAUK: I didn't say a sneaky big devil. I said a sneaky little devil, and that's on the list of approved terminology.

Mr. Chairman, on section 1, which you so astutely pointed out to me is the subject of our discussion at the moment, the 7 per cent sales tax represent, in my submission, an unnecessary increase in taxation. As has been pointed out prior to the luncheon adjournment, there are many, many promises that were made by the Leader of the Opposition as he then was — the current Premier of the province — and I think that the Minister of Finance forgot that that promise for an exemption on building materials was made.

[ Page 1017 ]

Building materials clearly comes within this section.

The Minister of Finance I hope had lunch with the Premier, because with his paucity of answers in committee stage he has little else to do. I am sure he discussed it with the Premier and found out that indeed the promise was made. Let's forget for the moment that they also promised to freeze taxes and not sell theMarguerite. Let's forget those broken promises. The road to power is paved with broken promises, Mr. Chairman. But let's find out whether or not the Minister of Finance has agreed that he will amend this bill by exempting building materials.

He's presently occupied, so maybe I should move on to ICBC. No, here he is. Are you ready now to accept that kind of an amendment?

HON P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I think that the member probably doesn't understand yet the situation with respect to ICBC and the obligations that were incurred by the former government which makes it necessary for the tax increases which are exemplified in section 1 of this bill, because there is no question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, Please let's move to the subject which is covered in section 1. We are in committee.

HON. MR. McGEER: That's quite correct. It's in committee, Mr. Chairman, that questions are asked by the opposition and where they are answered by the responsible ministers. In this particular case the member has launched into a vicious attack on ICBC — once more, Mr. Chairman, denying the culpability of his government for the debt which was incurred which required the borrowing of funds and the raising of taxes in order to pay back that borrowing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I remind the hon. member that the question was ruled out of order. Therefore I would have to rule the answer out of order. I would ask you to move to section 1.

HON. MR. McGEER: Not, Mr. Chairman, after he casts a slur on this corporation that is being rescued by section 1 of this bill. There is no question that the debt that has been incurred by ICBC — and I will be bringing down on the first day after the recess of this parliament the audited statement of ICBC showing the extent of those losses — has to be covered by current taxes, It's got to be covered by the kind of current taxes in section 1 of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Minister. Can we draw the debate now to section 1?

HON. MR. McGEER: That's right. It's why section 1 is necessary. It's necessary because the fenders that were bashed during the regime of the NDP were not covered by premiums charged to the drivers of British Columbia. Therefore current taxes are required to pay for those bashed fenders. It's a shameful, shocking situation that bills such as this one have to come before this House, but it was necessitated, Mr. Chairman, by the complete irresponsibility of the member who got up and asked that question and of his government.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: On section 1, Mr. Chairman, I have a great respect for the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and his ability to stick to the point. The point is this: if it was necessary for a subsidy, why all the flim-flam?

Section 1 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Nanaimo on section 2.

MR. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, actually I was trying to get in between sections 1 and 2. I know that is a bit of sandwiching, but let me just try that on you for size.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sorry.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I will try to make my point, Mr. Chairman. During the discussion of section 1 there was a considerable discussion of further exemptions. It would seem to us that the Minister of Finance was listening carefully to these and there was even some nodding. I do have an amendment that would insert a new section 2 and renumber section 2 and section 3. I would like to move this amendment, Mr. Chairman. It is not only in order, I hope, but it is in line with election promises that have been referred to and that have been made by the Social Credit while they were in the campaign. There is one here with a picture of the Premier where they promise to keep home-building costs down, and certainly that's in order, Mr. Chairman: "Social Credit will remove the 5 per cent tax on building materials."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. STUPICH: The amendment before you proposes a section 2 that would add two exemptions to the list, one with respect to building materials and one with respect to motor homes. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the arguments that have been mad" and the obvious attention of the Minister of Finance, perhaps this amendment would be acceptable to the government.

It is also, of course, in line with, as I say, the

[ Page 1018 ]

promises made by the Social Credit Party during the election campaign. I think this would be an opportunity for them to accept an amendment that would put them in line with one of their own promises. I think they'd like this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to bring this bill in line with one of their own election promises, perhaps one of the election promises that helped them get the vote that they did in the campaign and elect the number of members that they did.

Mr. Chairman, are you accepting the amendment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We've just perused the amendment. The amendment appears to be in order; however, since it was an amendment without notice it is incumbent upon me to read the amendment for all members to hear.

The proposed amendment, hon. members, is to Bill 11, and it's by adding the following after section 1, as section 2: section 5 of the Social Services Tax Act is amended by adding the following: "residential building materials, mobile homes used as residence," and further, by renumbering section 2 and section 3.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I feel I should speak to this amendment because, while I undoubtedly agree with its objectives and I can remember advocating removing the 5 per cent tax on building materials when I was in opposition, I can remember the then Premier (Mr. Barrett) saying it was a worthy objective but couldn't be done at that time. Little did I know he knew more about the financing than I thought he did, because he knew very well the province was in difficult shape. He just didn't spread the word around.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now if you'll remember, Mr. Chairman, we did campaign in the election and we put before the people some goals which we said we would try to achieve during our mandate — not in one year or two years, but within the framework of our five-year mandate that we achieved on December 11.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We also qualified.... It was not a qualification to waffle, as the opposition often does, but a qualification because there was uncertainty about the financing. We were concerned that British Columbia was having difficulty, both out there in the private sector — its ability to send money to government — and in the very fact that government itself was in difficult finances.,

We said: "These are our goals and we will implement them depending upon the finances of the province and the government to afford them. We may not be able to bring them in in the first year. We may not be able to bring them in in the second year, but they shall remain a goal of government, a goal of our party, and when we can afford it, we will indeed meet these commitments." This was one of them.

I've often said in this House that I would hope that when the province is able to reduce the cost of building material for housing, the federal government will move in concert, and certainly this amendment reiterates a position I have taken in the past, and one that their party talked about but never did as government for three years before they destroyed the economy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, it is something I will take to the federal-provincial conferences because I am confident that if the federal government can find some way to take their tax off building materials, we will certainly work towards lowering the cost of building materials for homes in this province, because home ownership is a No. 1 priority of this government.

The minister himself, during this debate, has also talked about exemptions. Over the years various governments have brought in exemptions to try and lessen the impact of the social services tax on people of modest incomes and tried to make exemptions on essential materials or services or goods. I believe that all governments have worked towards this end, and the minister himself and this government will work towards reviewing further exemptions.

It's unfortunate that at this time the economy of the province does not allow us to accept this amendment. It's unfortunate that the economy we inherited, and the position of government and the problems with the private sector, have forced us to even consider bringing in the tax bills that have been presented in this House.

We had to make some decisions, Mr. Chairman, and our decisions were these: the government did not immediately have the opportunity to raise the money for government where it should be raised, and this is not putting up taxes at all but creating employment opportunity and business activity so money would flow to government. Within three months that's not possible, and we were forced into making immediate decisions so that essential services to people would not be cut off,

The most unpleasant decision we had to make was...yes, to continue money to education, to guarantee continuity of health services, to guarantee continuity of pensions to those who need then and expand them to those who need additional help —

[ Page 1019 ]

that we would have to do in the short-term to raise taxes, because we felt that these services were a priority of government, and I don't apologize for the tax increases that were necessary for those reasons.

But it is not the long-term answer, Mr. Chairman. The long-term answer is the commitment we have made and the commitment we carry forth, to rekindle the economy, to provide opportunity, not only in the primary industries but in secondary industries, to create opportunity for employment for our people, because people working and producing are the best source of revenue for government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: These tax increases, the exemptions we would like to give that are not possible at this time, are not pleasant for us in government. They certainly aren't for the Legislature, but I feel the people understand that government has priorities. We've cut back on things that I consider essential, but within the framework of the money that was available this year.... We had to cut back on highways at a time when they have been suffering from three years of neglect, when the maintenance programmes that were required were not carried out, but we felt that at this time, Mr. Chairman, it was necessary to create priorities and those priorities were people.

To meet those priorities we had to raise taxes, but the long term is to rebuild the economy, get the people working, and then there'll be exemptions, and then there'll be tax reductions, and that is the way sound economy should finance government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment, and in doing so I have to say that I agree with most of the things that the Premier has said.

HON. MR. GARDOM: However....

MR. LEA: However, I think there's a fly in the ointment with the Premier's thinking, Mr. Chairman, because for a government that says they really want to bring incentives to the business community, and incentives to the economy generally of the province, I believe that in accepting this motion they would do just that. Obviously if people did not have to pay that kind of sales tax for building supplies, that might bring an incentive to those people to do repairs in their homes they would not otherwise do. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that by getting those people to do those repair jobs on their homes, on their residences, during this time of recession it would be a stimulus to the forest industry itself — not a big one, but some stimulation to the forest industry.

Obviously to the suppliers of lumber, to those small community stores that sell lumber to the people who own those residences, it would be a little bit of economy for those businesses, which would mean that they would make a little more money, pay a little more corporation tax to the coffers of the province. I would suggest that with that stimulation in the economy, not a big one but a small one, it would surely help those people who own those residences. It would help them to get the jobs done around the house. They wouldn't have to pay that extra sales tax. So that would be good.

The local store that sells the supply of lumber and nails and that sort of thing to those people would get a little bit of extra business. They would pay a little bit more corporation tax; maybe they wouldn't have to lay off the last person hired; and instead of the Minister of Human Resources having to pay some money out in services, that person would continue to be employed and pay a little more income tax.

I would suggest that probably if the Department of Finance were to go through all of those ideas that I've presented and take a look at the kind of money that would come into the province by that little incentive of accepting this amendment, probably the revenue to the province wouldn't be down.

It would give those people a break to do the repairs around their hones that they may not have done without this incentive. It would be good for the people directly doing the repairs. It would be good for the businesses they bought their supplies from. I suggest that the revenue to the province from other areas, corporation tax, income tax, and not having to put that money out for the services that the Minister of Human Resources may have to put out — by people being laid off — would probably not go down and probably we wouldn't have to pay out in social services money that may have to go out if people are laid off. The last one hired, the first one fired.

I think that if the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, were to go through that with his people in his department, he would find that he probably would accept this amendment.

There is a person sitting beside him in this House who I am sure is quite aware of all of that. Maybe he could give him some advice, sitting right here in the Legislature, and this amendment would be accepted.

The opposition did not put this amendment forward to embarrass the Social Credit for not keeping their campaign promise. That is not the intent of the amendment. The intent of the amendment is to try and help people, and not lower the revenues of the province at the time. We think it's possible and should be done. I hope that the government will accept the amendment and not just say out of hand: "It was brought in by the opposition, so we won't accept it." Accept the amendment.

[ Page 1020 ]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Yes, we did do it, Mr. Member, on occasion. Governments aren't known to accept amendments from the opposition, but we think this is a good one. Why not accept it?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I am seeking some information from the minister on this amendment. We just had the Premier say that the alleviation of the sales tax on building materials was one of the election promises of the Social Credit Party, and, I imagine, a care fully-considered promise. The Premier suggested that it was part of a programme for the life of the Legislature, and that it had been considered — at least I understood him to say this — when the thinking for the budget was done.

Just so that we can get a better understanding of the impact of this amendment, were it accepted, I would like to ask the minister if he could suggest to the House what the direct cost of accepting this amendment might be to the treasury. I am inclined to accept the overall economic argument of the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) that this might well stimulate economic activity sufficiently that there would be no overall loss in revenue. But to understand the effect of the amendment, could the minister tell us what would be the direct impact on revenue of the passage?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, through you to the member: I would hesitate to mislead the House by indicating a figure which was completely inappropriate. I am advised that it is a substantial amount of money. We can easily develop a figure that would answer that question. I don't have one for you today, but it is a very significant figure. As the Premier has indicated, because of this, the amendment is not something that we can consider at this time.

I'd like to point out just one thing, though. Incorporated in your amendment is the matter of mobile homes. What might not be appreciated is the fact that mobile homes are, in fact, exempt to the extent that they are attached to property. So once you buy a mobile home and attach it to property, you are, in fact, eligible for a refund of the tax.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 19

NAYS — 28

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister indicated it would be possible to develop a figure on the cost of a measure of this kind, were it implemented, but he said he couldn't do it today. I would ask him if he would be kind enough to do so and table the result in the House, or communicate it in some way. Thank you.

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 11, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

[ Page 1021 ]

NAYS — 18

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS REVENUE
RECOVERY ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just wonder in the time that has elapsed since we last discussed section 1 whether the minister is now better prepared, not to tell us how much is provided but simply where in the accounts the expenditures that would have come out of these various funds will appear so that we will know at precisely what point we might ask the kind of questions we have been asking in this section, so, with respect to the various funds, we could identify the place in estimates where they would appear.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I could direct the member, in the case of the major disaster fund, to the Environment vote. I don't have the number of that vote in front of me but I can get it for you. Okay?

The second one, powerline beautification, you'll find in vote 70 under Finance. Greenbelt protection you'll find in Environment vote 50. Agricultural aid to developing countries is under Department of Agriculture, vote 4.

MR. STUPICH: This is another question, Mr. Chairman, one that we were pursuing yesterday evening: if he could tell us what sort of security the perpetual fund is invested in and at what interest rate.... We are wondering whether or not he's going to realize the $5 million capital out of that, because if they were at low interest then and he is buying, I think the question is....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, if I recall, the question raise d yesterday was whether under perpetual funds, which might have had permanent investments, there was some problem in transferring these into general revenue insofar as these fixed estimates were concerned. I think the answer to that question would be in the fact that these fixed investments, whichever they were, would be transferred or sold into other provincial funds to be replaced by more liquid investments or cash. There would be no problem in transferring these into some other funds — like pension funds, et cetera.

MR. STUPICH: The problem that I anticipated was that if these funds were invested — particularly in the case of the agricultural fund which is quite an old one — in perhaps 5 per cent bonds and we are now getting something like 9 per cent, perhaps — I'm not sure what the percentage is with our pension money — then it might be that we could realize something less than the $5 million. That's really the question I'm asking.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): I'm particularly concerned about the major disaster fund and the agricultural aid to developing countries in the Third World. I'm concerned and I've really had no assurance, though the Minister of Finance has indicated on the floor of the House that this government, for its term, will undertake to assure that those moneys are available. But I'm concerned that in doing it this way, and doing away with this fund, the stature of British Columbia within the international community may suffer while we here in this House even are concerned as to whether or not the money will be provided.

I'm concerned about those people in the Third World countries and their ability or lack of ability, to realize that we are going to provide this money. It bothers me to find a fund like this with such international implications, and so greatly needed by people who are in far greater stress financially and economically than we are here in British Columbia.... It's a great, disturbing factor to me to find this fund being dissipated, as it were, as far as the eyes of the international communities are concerned. I wonder if the Minister of Finance can assure me that in some way there is going to be some approach made to those countries to assure them that the fund will still be available to those Third World areas.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): I certainly appreciate the member's concern and I want to assure the member that the same amount of funds will be available in this fiscal year as was available in the last fiscal year, though the fund is being withdrawn. You know that in the budget there is a sum of $350,000 which will approximate the interest that was spent last year. This money will still be available.

Now we regret very much, Mr. Chairman, that we were handed such a financial mess that we had to

[ Page 1022 ]

withdraw this fund temporarily. But I want to assure the member that once the province gets the economy growing again, then we will certainly replace the fund, and it is my hope that it will be larger than the one we are taking away. I just want to assure the member of that. We're sorry that the finances of this province are in such shape that we have to do this, Mr. Chairman, but I want to alleviate her fears and assure the member that the same amount of money will be available this year as was available last year.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, we've just had the assurance from the Minister of Agriculture that that particular fund will be available in this fiscal year. I think the question that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was raising was certainly.... It may be here in the estimates for this coming year, but what assurance can we give the overseas countries that that fund will be there year after year after year, whether it appears in estimates or whether it appears again as a special fund established by your government? I think that is an important question for the people overseas who certainly have made excellent use of the money available to them in order to enhance their own agricultural production.

The other question that I would like to raise at this time, Mr. Chairman, relates to the greenbelt fund. I was just looking at vote 50. The Minister of Finance, I believe, said that purchases for greenbelt would be made under vote 50 — am I correct in that?

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: I'm not too clear under the land management branch vote, which is vote 50, which of those sums is the one which has been set aside for greenbelt purchase. I think that, too, is very important. In my own riding, for instance, along the Courtenay River estuary some $90,000 was spent through that fund last year in order to purchase some 25 acres from Crown Zellerbach in order to protect the Courtenay River estuary.

Now the regional district of Comox-Strathcona has done an excellent job in compiling a list of areas they feel it is essential to purchase at this time. They have gone to the trouble to contact any interested groups in the area such as the natural history group and SPEC. They have contacted every municipal council in the area, they have had their own staff people working and they have contacted the advisory planning commissions for each of the regional board directors to seek their advice with respect to which areas should be purchased under the Green Belt Protection Fund.

Some of the recommendations that eventually came back to the regional board were discarded, but they have three specific areas which they consider to be top priority and that should be purchased at this time or it will be too late, Mr. Minister. I am really concerned about having enough money available in that fund in order to continue the excellent job of purchasing land which in the future will probably not be available.

In addition to the three top-priority areas that have been arrived at through this very comprehensive process, there are another 18 that have been recommended for purchase. So you can see that the need for this fund certainly remains in the province. I think that the longer we delay in purchasing these areas, the more difficult it is going to be to obtain them and the more costly they will become. I am wondering if those two questions could be answered at this time, Mr. Chairman.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I would like to repeat a question to the Minister of Agriculture on behalf of you, Mr. Minister of Finance, since he is now in the House. It has to do specifically with the additional money which was put aside to fund the community-based group known as IDERA which was responsible for educating the community at large about the agricultural aid fund to developing countries.

I asked you last night and you said maybe the Minister of Agriculture would be able to answer what I am trying to find out: will financial support of this group be terminated now that this particular fund is being recaptured, or is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to continue funding this particular group to continue doing the very important work which they are doing? That is my first question.

The second one has to do with the reassurance to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, Mr. Minister of Agriculture. As you know, Dr. Lotta Hitschmanova of the Unitarian Service Committee particularly congratulated the people of British Columbia on the sums of money out of this fund which were contributed to the people of Lesotho to make it possible for them to set up their egg circle. Is the Minister of Agriculture listening, through you, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure he is, madam. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Or should I wait until he is...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Minister of Agriculture, I was referring to the fact that Dr. Lotta Hitschmanova particularly congratulated the people of British Columbia for their contributions through this fund to the people of Lesotho to make it possible for them to set up their egg circle. I think that what the member

[ Page 1023 ]

for Cowichan-Malahat asked was not just whether this would be continued, but rather what kind of plans were you making to reassure the people of the Third World that this kind of funding would continue, because I am sure they are viewing with alarm the decision of your government to recapture these funds at this time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the member's concern, and I appreciate it all the more because we don't want to go to these countries and tell them what a mess British Columbia's in. So that we don't have to tell them....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't stir them up.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, but I do want to tell the member that I had a meeting with my deputy, who has been away. As soon as he came back, I had a meeting with my deputy. As a matter of fact, I had a meeting with him at I o'clock today and he outlined for me in a written form the fact that all of these funds we had available, all the educational funds — I think it's $25,000 in various sections of the province; I don't want to misinform the member — will be available this year. Now what I'd be happy to do for the member...as soon as I get this memo which will be all typed up from the deputy assuring me that these funds are all going to be available, I'd be happy to make it available to the member, because I know of her great concern.

Certainly it's the concern of this government that we want to help those in need, and we're going to carry on. Now you'll have to take my word for it, and I certainly wouldn't want to mislead you, but I am assuring you that the same amount of funds that were available last year will be available this year. We're not going to cut anybody out. Again, I want to say that I hope that in another budget we can restore this fund — not only $5 million; maybe we can make it $10 million; it depends on how fast we get the economy rolling — and be able to give greater help to these people in need.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm going to try again, and perhaps if the Minister of Agriculture will listen very carefully he will understand the question. He apparently didn't even listen to the Minister of Finance, who assured this House that not only would the government undertake to include in this year's estimates the same amount of funding, but he promised that as long as this government is in term of office they will provide an equal amount. Now the question I am asking is, Mr. Minister: are you taking any steps to let the Third World countries know that this money is still available? That's the question.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: We never took any steps to know that it was being withdrawn, so why...? (Laughter.)

MS. BROWN: I would first of all like to thank the Minister of Agriculture for offering to make that list available to me, because I want to assure you, Mr. Minister, that the people of IDERA are a little bit concerned about whether their funding is going to be terminated.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You've got them all upset.

MS. BROWN: No, your budget got them all upset. I didn't get them upset.

To the Minister of Finance, one more question about the green belt funding. In view of the fact that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is beginning to take steps to wind down the Islands Trust, it seems to me more crucial than ever that the funds made available through the green belt fund should be protected since the Gulf Islands are now being thrown to the mercy of the developers.

Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, can we once again have some kind of reassurance from you that there will be sufficient funds available each year in this green belt fund to assure that there will be money to protect some of the islands in the Gulf Islands?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last question of the member, it would be impossible for me as Minister of Finance to indicate that. That should more properly be directed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Also, of course, future commitments are, as always, dependent on our resources and our revenues to accommodate this. What I said yesterday with regard to our future intentions on the purposes of these funds — particularly with agricultural aid to foreign countries — is that we've established from a long time back, including your own government, our intentions of carrying these purposes forward. You can assume that that will be the case in the future.

You have brought up before, and now, IDERA. I found a list of last year's expenditures under the agricultural aid fund, and I don't see that item in there.

MS. BROWN: That was an additional allotment which was attached to the aid to developing countries fund. Now what I'm asking is that once you have terminated the aid to developing countries fund, does that mean that this group, whose sole function was educational in terms of aid to the developing countries fund...? Will their funding be terminated too? Now you've reassured us that there is going to be continuing funding for the aid to developing

[ Page 1024 ]

countries. Does that mean that this group will also have continuing funding so that they can carry on their educational work? The Minister of Agriculture is really the one who is responsible for IDERA's funding.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Are you saying, Madam Member, that they received funds under the agricultural aid fund last year?

MS. BROWN: No, no. Because of the existence of the agricultural aid fund, additional funds were allotted through the Minister of Agriculture's department.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Oh, I see. They were not paid through the agricultural aid programme before.

MS. BROWN: No, but they were hooked to each other so that when one falls off the hook...

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm glad you explained that.

MS. BROWN: ...the other falls off the hook too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'm going to incur the wrath of Hansard for not having identified these various voices. Please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Minister of Agriculture, would you be able then to tell me whether IDERA Funding will still continue to exist?

AN HON. MEMBER: Ask it under his estimate.

MS. BROWN: You already made a promise on the floor that it would continue and you would give me the list.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I did have a discussion with the deputy — and please believe me, I don't want to mislead you — but I'm positive that he told me that it was four sums of $25,000 apiece, to make a total of $100,000, and he mentioned that it was for educational purposes. I'm sure he mentioned the IDERA Fund and and he's going to type it up for me and I'm positive.... I don't want to mislead you — you'll give me Hail Columbia during my estimates — but I say from the knowledge I have now and the discussion I did have with my deputy that I'm positive that it's in there. Now I wouldn't want to swear it on a stack of Bibles, but I'm almost positive that it is in there, and as soon as this information is made available to me in typewritten form, I'll have the report. I'll let you see it, and if it isn't in there, well, we'll have to discuss it again during my estimates. But I'm almost positive it is in there.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Just to briefly take a minute and say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm very encouraged by the response of the Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development that not only will the disbursements be maintained; they would be equivalent to the funds which are going out of existence. Not only will the amounts be maintained, but it was also indicated a couple of times that it is his intention to see that these funds are re-established.

I would like to ask that minister if he could possibly tell the House what level of real growth the economy would have to attain before he would see that those funds are re-established? What are we talking about — 1 per cent, 2 per cent, 4 per cent?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as we stand on this great threshold of economic development, I wouldn't want to talk in such small terms. I wouldn't even want to mention funds because then I might be setting my limits too low, and I might even have made myself and my colleagues in the whole province.... I just won't want to, you know. I just don't want to mention any figure at all, because it would probably be too low, and I don't want to set my sights too low.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, evidently the Minister of Agriculture and Economic Development does not want to even give a minimum figure of 1 or 2 per cent. However, carrying on with this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wolfe), who has suddenly become talkative, as to whether.... We've certainly become reassured by the Minister of Agriculture that he intends to work toward the establishment of, one of these funds. Can the Minister of Finance give us any indication that any of the other funds that are going out of existence would be only a temporary withdrawal, or that there may be some other, perhaps totally new funds, which the government may consider — and I say may consider — establishing or re-establishing during this 31st Legislature?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would answer that question by saying no.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Finance — I don't know if he's forgotten — which area under vote 50 would apply directly to the green belt purchase. As I understand it, there was some $2 million left in the fund, and I can't find it under vote 50. He indicated that there was where it was. Could he advise us of that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I might suggest

[ Page 1025 ]

a good time to ask that question would be during the estimates, when the various votes are before us.

MS. SANFORD: Well, it relates directly to this, Mr. Chairman, because they're recapturing this fund, and I really want to have the assurance that vital purchases such as those recommended by the Regional District of Comox-Strathcona will be made during this fiscal year. As I tried to point out, if some of them are not made at this time, it will be too late. Would you agree? Could he answer that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think what you suggested is more reasonable. Questions like that might better come up under the estimates, but in any event in a specific request for green belt purchases in a given area of that kind should really go before the Minister of Environment, who has responsibility for that now. He has responsibility for the vote we are referring to.

MS. SANFORD: I'm just interested in the amount of money and where it is. You know, we are recapturing this, and we are assured that green belt purchases will continue, and the Minister of Finance has indicated to us that it's under that vote. But I just simply cannot find it. Could he advise me in which particular section 1t might be?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I referred earlier to vote 50 in the Department of Environment.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Special Funds Revenue Recovery Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 15

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the point was made in second reading on this, and I think now additional evidence is before us to show that another Canadian province has adopted the policy of getting more revenue from income tax, which everyone agrees is the most fair of all, being based completely on the ability to pay. It is also cooperating with the anti-inflation programme in that it is a means of getting money from those who are able to evade some of the provisions of the Anti-Inflation Board programme — in particular, professionals. The Anti-Inflation Board admits that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to control them. We notice in the papers this morning that Manitoba has imposed appreciably higher taxes on the higher-income earners.

Now I appreciate that the Minister of Finance is not going to make any changes in the legislation at this time, but we previously drew to his attention that the province of Saskatchewan did that. Those are the only two Canadian provinces that I am aware of that really lived up to the anti-inflationary programme by going after the high-income earners. It is the fairest form of taxation, and I would certainly commend to the Minister of Finance that he do consider doing something about this — not in this legislation, that he do give some thought to raising more of the money. It would be in line with a lot of the discussion that has gone on on both sides of the House with respect to raising government funds.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is another point that was raised in second reading — a different point — and it's a question to the minister.

[ Page 1026 ]

The concern I expressed with respect to clause 1 was that subsections (h) and (i) impose different levels of taxation for the two taxation years 1976 and 1977. I would ask the minister why there is a different level for the two years, and why the House should at this time be asked to vote any tax rate beyond the present taxation year.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I thought we had covered that matter on second reading. Inasmuch as the effective date of the increase of the personal income tax is July 1 — it has to be either January 1 or July1 — this becomes then an effective rate, inasmuch as we're raising it 2 points for the calendar year 1976, of 31.5. Then for the following year it will be 32.5

MR. GIBSON: That's my question, Mr. Chairman. Why should the rates be different for the two calendar years? I appreciate that you can only impose changes twice a year.

MS. BROWN: Very briefly, to the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, again I just want to repeat something that was said in second reading of this bill, and that is the base in terms of exclusions from this bill. I think it would have been a more progressive piece of legislation and would have been fairer if the base level for'exemptions had been increased, again in keeping with the way in which this form of taxation is used in other jurisdictions, Mr. Minister of Finance. I am not recommending an amendment, but I certainly think that taking into account all the other levels of taxation — all the other forms of taxation being levelled again people on low and fixed incomes — that it would have been a good idea to raise your exemption base, say, to $5,000 or over so that it would have excluded at least the people who are making the minimum wage or very close to that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, either I didn't understand the minister's answer or he didn't understand my question. Let me pose my question again. The 1976 taxation year — this may be a problem of definition; let me see if I understand it correctly — is not the 1976 fiscal year. Rather it is the calendar year January 1, 1976, to December 31. Now the proposal in section 1 here is that the tax rate commencing July 1 of 1976 taxation year should be 31.5 per cent running through until December 31. No, the minister shakes his head. That's what it says in the bill. Perhaps there is something I don't understand here. I'll sit down.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I didn't make that clear earlier. If you will refer to the budget speech, page 31, it indicates there that the personal income rate is to be increased 2 percentage points to 32.5 per cent effective July 1. If you just look upon it simply on that basis, it becomes clear that then for the full calendar year the effective rate is 31.5. Therefore from there on to July 1 the following year, the effective rate becomes 32.5. The clauses in section 1 are just delineating those particular two cases.

MR. GIBSON: I thank the minister very much for his explanation.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Okay.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am sort of following up the question from the member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown). I am concerned when I consult the taxation books relative to income tax and find that at the federal level there is actually an exemption of, I believe, $1,400 before the tax is applicable where the provincial income tax is applied right from zero dollars. I wonder whether or not the Minister of Finance has given any consideration to a revision to allow the same kind of exemption provincially as is allowed federally.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: A very important concept, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of Finance indicate whether there is any possibility of the exemption base level being raised, so that this additional tax does not work a hardship on people on fixed and low incomes? That's all we're asking.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, we'll look at that, Madam Member.

MS. BROWN: Okay, thank you.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I'd like, through you to the minister, to ask if he has addressed himself to the question which I raised in second reading which pertains to this section on the rate of tax being increased for small business. How much revenue is raised under this section and how much is the increase?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I have your question clear that you wanted the incidence of the corporation income tax as it affected the lower bracket as compared to the higher.

[ Page 1027 ]

MR. NICOLSON: Well, yes. I'd like to know the total revenue on the higher rate and the total revenue on the lower rate.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that of the total $31 million of additional income from the corporation income tax rate which we anticipate from the increase, approximately $5.8 million is estimated to come from small businesses.

MR. STUPICH: Just a brief comment, Mr. Chairman. B.C. Is still the only province that has this two-rate system for corporations. I do appreciate the support of the administration opposite for the policy introduced by the previous administration.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Is that a question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, rhetorical.

Sections 4 and 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: 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 9, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

CIGARETTE AND TOBACCO TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. BARNES: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. I note under the section that reference is made to the male — to "him". Does that mean that the women will not be taxed? (Laughter.) Well, it is just a matter of legality, because I think that they have every right not to pay the tax.

I know that an amendment would be out of order, 1, but I would like the minister to explain how he intends to enforce this bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'll take the matter under review with my wife.

Sections I and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 12, Cigarette and Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. WALLACE: On a point of privilege, could I ask the Provincial Secretary to confirm what is on the front page of the newspapers but what the House has not been told — that we will be recessing for one week at Easter?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to report to the House that the statement made by the Premier and circulated to all of these offices was that the House, indeed, will adjourn on Thursday and will return after the Easter week is over.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the member, all offices were circulated, I had hoped. If you were inadvertently missed I apologize, but I did make the statement earlier today that the House Leader would adjourn the House tomorrow until the Monday following Easter Monday to allow the MLAs to get back and work and meet with their constituents.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.