[ Page 1891 ]

CONTENTS

Privilege

Pre-release of government policy in Unity News. Mr. Wallace — 1891

Mr. Speaker — 1891

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Increase in Vancouver consumer price index. Mr. Macdonald — 1891

Information on GAIN given to Unity News. Mr. Levi — 1892

Funding for volunteer organizations. Mr. Barnes — 1893

Sale of government interest in B.C. resource industries.

Mr. Wallace — 1893

Administering of oath to David Brown. Mr. King — 1894

Statement

Hospitals strike. Hon. Mr. Williams — 1894

Mr. King — 1895

Mr. Wallace — 1897

Routine proceedings

Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 17) .

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 1897

Mr. Nicolson — 1898

Mr. Wallace — 1898

Mr. Hewitt — 1900

Mr. Chabot — 1902

Mr. Bawtree — 1904

Mr. Cocke — 1905

Mr. Gibson — 1905

Mr. Bawlf — 1905

Mr. Lauk — 1906

Mr. Shelford — 1908

Mr. Lloyd — 1908

Mr. Mussallem — 1908

Mr. Barber — 1909

Mr. Stupich — 1910

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 1910

Division on second reading — 1911

Revenue Amendment Act ' 1976 (Bill 8) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 1911

Mr. Stupich — 1912

Mr. Gibson — 1913

Mr. Wallace — 1914

Mr. Lauk — 1915

Ms. Sanford — 1917

Mr. Lea — 1917

Mr. Barber — 1919

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 1920

Mr.Cocke — 1921

Mr. King — 1922

Statement

Details of northern tour. Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1924

Mr. King — 1924

Mr. Gibson — 1925

Mr. Wallace — 1925

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1925

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to introduce to the House this afternoon a group of students from the Vancouver Community College. They are accompanied by Marlene Yri and I would ask the House to welcome them today.

HON. LA. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to acknowledge the presence and welcome two of my relatives from Kelowna, the Reverend and Mrs. Filer.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of privilege.

It is in the rules of the House that members are not permitted to question or inquire into or pursue what might be government policy. You yourself, as recently as yesterday, Mr. Speaker, drew this to my attention. I respect the matter you raised, but today it's quite obvious, in relation to a specific piece of legislation introduced into this House on Monday afternoon, namely the so-called GAIN legislation, that the government through a newspaper of its own, published and printed and made available on Monday, has in fact revealed a very substantial amount of government policy before the bill was even introduced to the House. I wonder if in fact there are other elements in the same newspaper raising the same point, less vividly I guess, because we haven't had legislation on some of the other statements regarding policy in the Unity News that was published on Monday. I wonder if the Speaker could take into consideration the specific item I've raised in regard to the Bill 16 dealing with GAIN legislation.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a debate at this point, Hon. Member. The hon. member for Oak Bay has raised a point of privilege which I must now reply to, and I would hope that if there's something that needs further clarification, after my reply you would have the floor on a point of order.

MR. WALLACE: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. On a point of order, I want the record straight that I quoted the wrong number of the bill. It is Bill 28, entitled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member. The matter of privilege which you have raised is one that I cannot deal with quickly in a matter of a few moments or in a few minutes. So I would like to reserve any decision on the matter that you have just raised. I would also like to point out to the hon. member that there is a Speaker's decision, which I do not have at hand at the moment, that I would like to review along with the matter that you have raised. So I will review the matter and reserve decision on it and bring in a decision as quickly as I can, Hon. Member.

Oral questions.

INCREASE IN VANCOUVER
CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, in view of the latest figures on the increase in the cost of living in Vancouver — 1.4 per cent — which is largely attributable to the sales tax increase, whether, with all the plans that we have had to increase the cost of living in this province, the Premier has any plans whatsoever to reduce the cost of living to the people of British Columbia.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member for Vancouver East could be more explicit. Is he referring to the rise in the consumer price index or the cost of living? Because the two are different. Could he just elaborate?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: One costs as much to the consumer as the other. I am referring to the consumer price index.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have mentioned, Mr. Speaker, that the consumer price index is noted as being different than the cost of living, because all prices, not those considered necessities for living, are considered in the consumer price index. What we have, though, in the cost of living is the one item that actually went down and didn't go up. Of course, food went down. Such items that went up couldn't be considered in the cost of living because they can be considered luxuries; the big jump was in such items as tobacco, alcohol and related items.

MR. MACDONALD: Sales tax.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you, through to the member for Vancouver East, is that in assessing the cost of living there has been no measurement of increases in any other tax but the sales tax. Yet we know that the cost of living is raised by the income tax and we know that deficit budgeting is a cost that will be borne by the consumer, if not this year,

[ Page 1892 ]

next year. So it is very difficult to measure the cost to people directly.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has the Premier any estimate of the additional increase in the cost of living that will be brought about by the new price for gasoline starting in a few months?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that price will not be passed along. Of course, there is an agreed freeze — or suggested freeze — of 60 days; British Columbia has a freeze in now. We will be monitoring the situation. I would be pleased to take your question as notice and get any projections from the departments that we have that I could place before the House.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier. Is the Premier aware that Dr. Rae, the Associate Deputy Minister of Economic Development, said that the last increase in the consumer price index was caused almost exclusively by the sales tax increase and the ICBC rates increase?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I thank the member, Mr. Speaker, for bringing that to my attention. I think again he is talking about the consumer price index.

MR. LAUK: That's exactly it.

MR. WALLACE: On a supplementary. Regardless of the specific interpretation on these indices, Mr. Speaker, but having in mind in particular the unemployment rate of 9.7 per cent, has the minister had any discussion with his deputies or his associate deputies on the subject of introducing a supplementary budget as an emergency measure to increase the province's capital expenditures in productive and job-creating ways?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, no, we have had no plan to bring in a supplementary budget.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, supplemental to the Premier. I am wondering if the Premier is aware that the consumer price index is the highest in Canada for this particular month. Could he inform the House as to why it should be the highest in Canada here in this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I think the consumer price index is not a provincial...but the Vancouver consumer price index. I'll take the rest of your question as notice.

INFORMATION ON GAIN
GIVEN TO UNITY NEWS

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): A question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware that information on the GAIN legislation was given to the Unity News, the organ of the party over which he is...?

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: No, no. I am dealing with you, Mr. Premier, not a question of privilege. Were you aware that the information regarding the GAIN legislation was given to the Unity News, the Socred organ? You're the leader of that party; were you aware of that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet read the newspaper in question. I take responsibility for my own interview, and I didn't discuss the GAIN legislation. I understand in this Legislature that government policy, which is discussed by ministers in a general way from time to time, was included in the newspaper.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Do you wear a seatbelt?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: To the hon. Premier: having regard to the question of privilege that was raised and is now being considered by Mr. Speaker, and that you were not aware that specifically the legislation, Bill 28, was discussed prior to its introduction to the House, if those allegations are proved correct can we expect a change in the portfolio as to the...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter of privilege is before the Speaker for consideration.

MR. LAUK: Rotate! (Laughter.)

MR. LEVI: Can the Premier inform us whether it's going to be the practice in future to obviate the need for the press gallery up here and that all announcements are going to be made through the Unity News on government policy? We're never able to get any answers on government policy in question period, because that's what you hide behind.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: That was not a question. It was more of a statement.

[ Page 1893 ]

FUNDING FOR VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): My question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources. I would like to ask the minister about a quote in the Family Times, which is a family services publication. In an interview he was quoted as having said: "We are prepared to provide moneys to organizations if they can show us that they can get the volunteers in."

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Well, Mr. Speaker, if I may explain to the hon. member, certainly there will be a real effort within the department to encourage volunteerism in British Columbia, which has been sadly lacking due to previous attitudes. We will certainly be working very closely with any and all organizations that encourage volunteerism, and I would be pleased to receive their submissions, because that's the type of thing we're looking for.

MR. BARNES: Then I would like to ask the minister: why did he reply to an assistant executive director of the information services joint committee when he sought funding for a number of member organizations made up of some 400 volunteers or some 80 per cent of the total staff?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know of what specific....

MR. BARNES: Just take your seat a moment. (Laughter.)

There was a little portion I forgot. I would like to quote you a letter — your response. (Laughter.) I hate to give him too much information, but I'll have to give him at least the question. (Laughter.)

Mr. Minister, you were quoted in a reply last February as saying:

"While I found the information contained in your report very interesting, unfortunately I cannot be more encouraging about specific grants until after a review of the grant structure has been completed."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Which is it?

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Are you going to give it or aren't you?

MR. LAUK: How do you explain that?

MR. BARNES: You know, this is an organization that has 400 volunteers. Now has a review been completed?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member, the review certainly has been completed, but I should assure the member also that this is not something that can stop now. It is an ongoing thing, and we certainly would be prepared to receive further information for following budgets.

MR. BARNES: A final supplementary. I take it that the minister is suggesting that information centres throughout the lower mainland and the province are now encouraged to reapply, those that have been cut off in the past, and they can now reapply for assistance.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have a procedure established for that very purpose, the procedure for making application and so forth, and I would be very pleased to give the hon. member a copy of that procedure so he may pass on the information to his inquirants.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Oak Bay.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I hear a supplementary question. Will you yield the floor for one moment please?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI: The original question was related to volunteers. Can the minister tell the House whether he's prepared to continue the grant made by the previous government of over $40,000 to the Volunteer Bureau of Vancouver?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, that was not a supplementary question. It was a completely different question, although it may have been on the same general matter area.

SALE OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST
IN B.C. RESOURCE INDUSTRIES

MR. WALLACE: This is a question to the Premier who has made the statement that the government cannot be in business where it is controlling the game and also allowing the private sector to operate, since the government favours its own interests and creates thereby a conflict of interest. Can I ask the Premier if he or any of his cabinet have entered into negotiations with companies in the private sector to discuss the sale of government interests in resource industries to the private companies?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the government has initiated no discussions with any

[ Page 1894 ]

private companies.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Have the Premier or any of his cabinet involved in resource management received any approach or request from any private companies in the resource industry to purchase existing government interests?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the one request that I know of was a suggestion that was made by Can-Cel that they would like the government to divest itself of its shares. No discussion has been participated in by the government as to their suggestion. There may be others who would like to initiate offers but the government isn't contemplating any discussions at the present time.

MR. WALLACE: Final supplementary. Under these circumstances, could I just ask the Premier if he has set any deadline or date by which these decisions will be made, one way or the other, to enter into negotiations or to leave the situation as it is?

HON. MR. BENNETT: All of these companies are under review. The government as it gets through the very immediatproblems of cleaning up from the last government and bringing in new legislation, will address itself to these additional items.

ADMINISTERING OF OATH TO DAVID BROWN

MR. KING: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. On April 12, 1976, Hansard records the fact that the Provincial Secretary told the House that Mr. Dave Brown was not required to take the public service oath of secrecy as he was only a temporary employee doing a communications study for the government. Yesterday she informed the House that Mr. Brown was required to take the oath on May 6, 1976. Can the Provincial Secretary explain what changes took place in Mr. Brown's temporary status between the date of his appointment and May 6?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: There is no change in Mr. Brown's status. He's still doing a study. As you know, by order-in-council the study was continued for just a few weeks or a few days longer — I can't recall how many days. During the time that the questions were raised in the House there was not any intent to preclude Mr. Brown from taking the oath of secrecy. He did it voluntarily, and as he's working on a study for the government, it's quite all right with us that he does.

HOSPITALS STRIKE

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The statement relates to the problems we are recently experiencing in the province of British Columbia with respect to hospital services.

By order-in-council, pursuant to section 73 of the Labour Code of British Columbia, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council today imposed a 21-day cooling-off period in the current dispute between the Hospital Employees Union and the Health Labour Relations Association.

Compliance with the laws of this province by the union, their members, the employers and the representatives I know we all can expect will put a stop to the strike that has affected the services provided by six hospitals on the lower mainland and Vancouver Island.

The order-in-council is effective from this date, and notification of it has been given to the union and to the employers, as well as to the administrators of the six hospitals who are directly involved.

This action was taken after the rejection by the Hospital Employees Union, and a qualified acceptance tantamount to a rejection by the Health Labour Relations Association, of a proposal which I made to them on Tuesday evening involving the appointment of a special mediator pursuant to section 122 of the Labour Code of British Columbia. The rejection of this proposal left little reason to believe that an early end to the strike could be achieved. Hence it could only be reasonably concluded that the six hospitals presently under essential services designation orders and other hospitals which are in receipt of strike notices would continue to experience the stresses which essential services place on their facilities and staff. Without the likelihood of an early settlement of the dispute, the government therefore was obliged to take into more serious account the intangible and unidentifiable implications flowing from the disruption of normal hospital services throughout the province.

It is to be made clear, however, that the government is satisfied that the essential services orders have effectively maintained a high level of medical care, principally because of the way in which the administrative personnel, medical personnel and those Hospital Employee Union members whose jobs were deemed essential have discharged their responsibilities. All of these people are entitled to the fullest measure of our appreciation for the way in which they have responded in light of these circumstances. I would include as well, Mr. Speaker,

[ Page 1895 ]

the chairman and members of the Labour Relations Board and the industrial relations officers who have been stationed in each of the essential-service hospitals throughout the course of this dispute, plus those other union representatives whose members were affected by these orders and who have been called upon to ensure that their services would remain fully available during this period.

The exercise of this action by the government will obviate the necessity of making essential service designations at Shaughnessy Hospital, which was scheduled to strike at 2 p.m. this afternoon; likewise such designations will be unnecessary with respect to the Gorge Road Hospital, which was served with a 72-hour strike notice this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I wish the members to be aware that in the course of negotiations between the Hospital Employees Union and the Health Labour Relations Association in attempting to achieve a collective agreement, the parties were offered the services of Mr. Bert Blair in the capacity of an industrial inquiry commission. Mr. Blair made his report on April 5, 1976, and copies were made available to the parties. The provincial executive of the union accepted the recommendations and submitted them to their membership for ratification. The Health Labour Relations Association rejected the recommendations as being excessive in this period of economic restraint. This was followed by rejection by the union membership at Vancouver General Hospital.

In my first meeting with the parties, following Mr. Blair's report, I suggested that they meet with Mr. Blair for the purpose of any clarification which might be needed concerning his recommendations. This proposal was accepted by the union but rejected by the employers. It was the opinion of the employer's representative that the increases in compensation recommended by the Blair report were in excess of the guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board of the federal government. The union expressed the view that the opposite was the case.

Accordingly, in proposing the appointment of a special mediator, I suggested to the parties that they be assisted in the resolution of this difference of opinion, and that during such determination, the strike be ended. As I have already indicated, this proposal was unacceptable to the parties.

In the imposition of the order-in-council on the parties, I have urged them to resume negotiations forthwith and have assured them that all the facilities of the Department of Labour will be available to assist them in achieving the earliest settlement of their dispute,

Mr. Speaker, this experience leaves the government with the most serious concern as to the effectiveness of the laws of this province in resolving essential-service disputes. I wish to assure the people of British Columbia that the government will be looking most carefully at this particular problem. I think we all recognize that in matters of essential-service facilities in this province, it is the entitlement of our citizens to have these services available to them, and it is not appropriate for the individual desires of either employees or employers to interfere with the availability of those services.

I must, in making this statement, directly acknowledge to the Leader of the official Opposition receipt of his Telex message of today in which he was kind enough to set out his views as a former Minister of Labour in disputes of this nature. I find the recommendations which he has made in his Telex — which has also been addressed to the union and to the employers — and the initiatives I proposed to the parties last Tuesday night are in almost identical terms. I commend him for that and for his encouragement to the parties to accept such a method of achieving a settlement.

I trust that in the next few days the parties will consider very seriously again the proposal which was made to them last Tuesday and also the proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition. I trust that with this additional incentive these parties may be able to resolve this difficulty. In so saying, I wish to make it perfectly clear that if this is not possible for these parties, then this government will stand ready to take further action as is appropriate.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. Minister of Labour for his statement. I would note that the Minister of Labour has the advantage of knowing what my proposal was; and that is an advantage in that I do not know precisely what his proposal was to the parties.

However, I do feel that I should point out that when this Telex of mine was directed to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), to the union and the hospital association, I was not aware that the minister had initiated the 21-day cooling-off period, which was an amendment to the Labour Code introduced in 1974. I feel that's an appropriate thing for the Minister of Labour to do. I feel it in no way detracts from the validity of the solution which I have urged upon the parties; it simply buys time so that a solution may be found.

The government and all of us, indeed, are left with the problem of trying to find a permanent solution to this problematic dispute. I think it's appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that for the record I deal with the precise recommendation I have made in this regard, and I'm prepared to table it in the House. The telegram reads as follows:

THE CURRENT DISPUTE BETWEEN HEALTH LABOUR RELATIONS ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE HOSPITALS OF OUR PROVINCE AND THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES

[ Page 1896 ]

UNION HAS REACHED A CRISIS STAGE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA. AS LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION AND FORMER LABOUR MINISTER, IT IS MY VIEW THAT A RESOLUTION TO THE DISPUTE MUST BE FOUND IMMEDIATELY. DESPITE THE BEST INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, FURTHER PROLIFERATION WILL INCREASE THE CHANCE OF HEALTH CARE BEING NEGLECTED AND LIVES LOST. I AM CONFIDENT THAT BOTH THE HOSPITAL INDUSTRY AND THE UNION ARE SENSITIVE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN A DISPUTE OF THIS NATURE. THEY MUST SURELY RECOGNIZE THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR IS LIMITED IN FACILITIES AND PERSONNEL WHICH WOULD ENABLE ADEQUATE MONITORING OF FURTHER PROLIFERATION. ACCORDINGLY, I AM TODAY TAKING THE UNUSUAL STEP OF APPEALING DIRECTLY TO THE PARTIES TO ACCF.PT THE PROPOSAL FOR AN IMMEDIATE SOLUTION ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:

1. THE MINISTER OF LABOUR SHALL APPOINT MR. PAUL WEILER AS A SPECIAL MEDIATOR WITH AUTHORITY TO BRING THE PARTIES TOGETHER AND ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE OUTSTANDING ISSUES. FAILURE TO FIND VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT WILL RESULT IN THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR FILING A RECOMMENDATION FOR SETTLEMENT WITH THE MINISTER OF LABOUR WITHIN 14 DAYS.

2. THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR SHALL CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES IN ADDITION TO THE REPORT OF INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONER MR. B. BLAIR'S REPORT IN REACHING HIS DECISION.

3. BOTH HEALTH LABOUR RELATIONS AND THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION UNDERTAKE TO ACCF.PT THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR'S REPORT AS FINAL AND BINDING.

4. MINISTER OF HEALTH, THE HON. R. McCLELLAND, WILL UNDERTAKE TO ALLOCATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO COVER ANY INCREASE IN B.C. HOSPITAL BUDGETS RESULTING FROM THE SETTLEMENT.

5. AN IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION OF ANY STRIKE ACTION, PICKETING AND/OR LOCKOUTS SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE PARTIES SO THAT THE FULL HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL ATTENTION MAY BE REINSTITUTED AT ALL BRITISH COLUMBIA HOSPITALS.

6. THE SPECIAL MEDIATOR SHALL ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 122(1) OF THE LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

WHILE I RECOGNIZE THAT INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS IS A MOST SENSITIVE PROCESS, AND HAVE RESISTED ANY COMMENT ON THIS DISPUTE WHICH MIGHT JEOPARDIZE OTHER INITIATIVES, THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS MUST BE THE PARAMOUNT CONCERN OF ALL PUBLICLY ELECTED OFFICIALS. IT IS MY SINCERE HOPE THAT THE HON. MINISTER OF LABOUR AND THE HON. MINISTER OF HEALTH RECOGNIZE THE NON-PARTISAN SPIRIT IN WHICH THIS PROPOSAL IS PUT FORTH AND DECLARE THEIR PUBLIC SUPPORT.

THE GOVERNMENT HAS INDICATED AN INTENTION TO SUBJECT ALL PUBLIC-SECTOR WAGE SETTLEMENTS TO REVIEW BY THE ANTI-INFLATION BOARD THROUGH INTRODUCTION OF BILL 16. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS REASONABLE AND PROPER THAT THE HON. MINISTER OF HEALTH SHOULD BE PREPARED TO STAND BEHIND SETTLEMENTS CONSUMMATED THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

IN CONCLUSION, I APPEAL TO THE HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES UNION AND TO HEALTH LABOUR RELATIONS IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS TO ACCF.PT THE PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT. PRIVATE INTEREST MUST ALWAYS BE TEMPERED BY A BROADER CONCERN FOR COMMUNITY NEED. KNOWING THE DEDICATION OF ALL INVOLVED TO THE HEALTH AND COMFORT OF OUR CITIZENS, THE SICK AND THE SUFFERING, IS THE PRIME CONCERN, I AM SURE YOUR AGREEMENT CANNOT BE WITHHELD. IF THE PUBLIC IS TO RETAIN ANY CONFIDENCE IN THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SYSTEM, YOU MUST DEMONSTRATE RESPONSIBILITY NOW.

Mr. Speaker, I would just offer this observation: while I reiterate I do not know precisely what was in the Minister of Labour's initiative, I would suggest that key and crucial to any agreement must be a commitment by the governments, who are the chief and only source of funds to the hospital industry, that they must be prepared to honour a settlement bargained freely by the hospital industry, particularly, as I pointed out, when the government has a bill on the order paper subjecting any settlement to the review of the Anti-Inflation Board in any event.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances, that if the Minister of Health is prepared to give that kind of undertaking, which I submit is a reasonable one, then I believe there is an excellent opportunity that the parties will accept this process of voluntary binding arbitration I put forward and this Legislature will not be confronted with dealing with this problem again. I think that it will be a demonstration that the laws of this province are indeed adequate to deal with labour disputes in the public sector.

[ Page 1897 ]

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to express my complete support of the minister's action. There was indeed increasing public concern. I welcome the minister's recognition of the fact that no matter how diligently members of the Labour Relations Board struggled day and night to assess and monitor the nature of essential services, it is, if we're all frank about it, quite impossible to carry out some of the assessments which relate to the parsons who might otherwise be admitted to hospital in the absence of this particular strike.

It was also very obvious that any responsible government must listen to public opinion. It was quite clear from one's appraisal of news reports and comments in the public arena that the public of this province expected the government to take some such action. I asked the minister on Monday of this week if the 21-day cooling-off period would not be an advisable procedure by which to terminate this strike.

I would also echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) that we, as opposition members, individually have tried to take a responsible position in this very sensitive management-labour dispute. When we so often are criticized as politicians for our politicking approach, it seems to me very unfortunate that when one takes a responsible, non-inflammatory position as a politician, the best the editorial writers can do in Victoria is to accuse the opposition members of being tardy in their duty and not demanding an end to the strike.

Be that as it may, the minister has been very frank with the House today in pointing out the contentious part of the Blair report which still was causing the strike to continue, namely trying to put a price on the cost of the fringe benefits. Mr. Speaker, if I may interject as a complete layman in such complex matters as management-union negotiation, I had a meeting with Mr. Gerow, the manager-secretary, and was amazed to find that both sides could not, apparently, in any accurate and efficient way give a precise evaluation of the cost of the fringe benefits. Because the management quite rightly are being told by this government and all governments to keep down hospital costs, it seemed only reasonable, in my view, that they would be very hesitant to accept fringe benefits which apparently varied from 2 per cent to 7 per cent — and we must remember that we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars when we talk about 1, 2, or 3 per cent.

In supporting the minister's decision I'm even more gratified by his inclusion in his statement that this government is looking very carefully — if I may quote his exact words — "at the effectiveness of laws regarding essential services," because, as the Leader of the official Opposition has made plain, it isn't just a question of stumbling from one crisis to anther in a different field of employment. And I'm thinking, for example, of the pending or possible disruption in the very important ferry service between Vancouver Island and the mainland. I notice that the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) is listening carefully. I hope that he will give the Minister of Labour every kind of support in looking at the need for a more permanent kind of legislation which might have the effect of preventing strikes such as the one we are now discussing.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a point that in my view far surpasses the specific elements in this dispute, and that is the fact that we hear a great deal these days of individual rights. I'm the first one to defend the right of the individual, but society has rights, and people, persons and individuals requiring health care in this province must not in any way be prevented in having the care they need because of the professed rights of smaller groups, whether they be management groups or union groups.

One of the reasons that it's very easy to support the minister's action today is that he's made it very plain that on taking this action he's putting the rights of society as a whole above the rights of smaller groups in society who would in fact cause serious disruption and perhaps even loss of life. For these various reasons I would certainly give the minister my complete support.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, by leave, second reading of Bill 17.

Leave granted.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER
GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, Bill 17, the Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, will give members of the House an opportunity to debate the system of homeowner grant payments which has been in effect in British Columbia for a number of years.

The original homeowner grant mechanism was introduced in British Columbia in 1957 with the amount of the grant allowable at that time $28. It has gradually been increased over the years until in 1973 the amount of the grant that could be claimed was $200. In 1974 the amount of the grant was left at $200 by the former government. However, in addition, homeowners then were allowed to claim 20 per cent by which their school tax exceeded this $200 with a minimum of $30 and a maximum of $60.

Last year, 1975, the basic grant remained again at $200. However the school tax removal and resource grant was increased to 40 per cent by which the school taxes exceeded this $200 with a maximum of

[ Page 1898 ]

$80. At the same time, senior citizens were allowed a further basic grant of $50 to apply against their taxes. A base of $30 was also set to apply against general or non-school taxes on the property tax notice. The minimum tax payable was $1.

The purpose of the bill presented in this session is to amend the Provincial Home-owner Grant Act — first, to increase the additional grant to a maximum of $100 for persons 65 years and older; secondly, to merge the provisions of the School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act with this Act, which I frankly believe, Mr. Speaker, is a step in the name of simplicity and clarity; thirdly, to increase the homeowner grant to a maximum of $280; fourthly, the minimum tax payable for under 65 is now $50 in any given property tax year. However, the minimum tax payable for those over 65 is still $1.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, to the portion dealing with senior citizens, I realize that I should address my remarks to the bill in general only, but certainly an important part of this bill relates to senior citizens' property tax. I think it should be noted by the House that the Social Credit Party made it very clear prior to December 11 that we would remove property taxation on the homes of persons over the age of 65. This, in my view, is an important first step towards that very desirable goal. Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 17 be now read a second time.

M R. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, the New Democratic Party will support this bill. However, I think it should be pointed out that while there are increases for some, especially for senior citizens — we applaud that — for a great number of people there will be no increase in the homeowner grant. Indeed, in some instances people will be paying taxes of up to $50.

I think what we do have to look at in order to see the effect of this as weighed against other tax measures being taken, though, by the coalition is that by increasing the statutory mill levy that has to be raised by local school districts by six mills — the impact of that is about $10 million per mill or $60 million in the province. While a good portion of that is collected from commercial properties and industrial properties, still a majority of it will be collected through residential property taxation.

The amount budgeted over last year's revised estimates for the homeowner grant is $8.5 million. So we see that a good portion of $60 million is the increase in school tax alone as opposed to the anticipated property tax relief of $8.5 million. The minister has said that this is the first step towards removing taxation for senior citizens, and I would go along with this first step. But they've already broken some campaign promises, as all parties have to do, and I would urge him to consider taking this promise so literally. In my riding there's the Blaylock estate just on the outskirts of Nelson built by one of the founders of Cominco, and it's still there and it's still occupied by a person who I believe can afford that kind of tax. So should you wipe out a taxation which is perhaps property tax of one senior citizen that's $3,000 a year if he can afford to pay it?

I would urge the government to stick to the homeowner grant principle. Continue to increase homeowner grants to senior citizens, keeping that campaign promise, and do not take it to the absolute literal, and I think ridiculous, extent. It is some relief. It's really important to some people who've been hit by a very onerous shift in taxation policy by the invasion through the Department of Education of the property taxation vehicle, which is normally the preserve of municipalities, regional districts and school boards, by raising the statutory mill levy on schools from 26.5 mills to 32.5 mills. We're talking there of an increase in the order of 20 per cent. Those huge increases have an impact of about $60 million, not all of which, I admit, is borne by residential property owners, but a major portion thereof is. When we compare $60 million to $8.5 million, this is just a small measure of relief which we, of course, would not oppose.

I would like to say in passing that the move towards simplicity has something to be said for it, but something that always caused a great deal of trouble to me was the fact that a great number of people don't realize that you can claim the homeowner grant without paying your taxes. I see that's being spelled out. Almost like on a television show, Mr. Speaker, where the detectives or the policemen read out the right to remain silent to people, I would wish that there was some vehicle where village clerks and such could read out the right to people to claim the homeowner grant without having to pay their tax. I'm sure it will be a cause of some annoyance — maybe not annoyance, but it's a troublesome thing — that people don't know what their rights are. So I would suggest that a special insert be put into every tax notice in the province, or at the very least that there be a red-circled statement on every tax notice in the province which would indicate this to people. That was something that I was hoping would have been implemented.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We will, of course, support this bill since basically it carries out the goals outlined by the minister in second reading, notably to simplify under one piece of legislation financial assistance to the homeowner.

I would say, however, that although we support the bill we would like to make it very clear that despite the administrative simplicity of putting the school reduction tax under the homeowner grant, it is really quite inaccurate for the government to claim that they are increasing the homeowner grant to

[ Page 1899 ]

$280. To be very specific with the minister, if I can even be personal, I know that I got $280 last year and I'll get $280 this year and that in Oak Bay I'll still be paying more school tax.

Now I know the minister has no control over school taxation, as the Public Schools Act in its present form gives autonomy to school boards, so I'm not criticizing in that respect, but I do think it should be very clearly in the record that for many persons paying taxes on their home this bill doesn't mean anything more to them.... If I can be specific to the riding that I know best, many people in Oak Bay will still be paying more school tax this year than they did last year. They will still receive the $280, but on an average, taxation to the homeowner in Oak Bay is increased by something of the order of $115 to $120 by the municipality, I'm informed.

While I sympathize with the idea of simplifying this whole matter of homeowner grant and school tax reduction, it is only those persons who received less than $80 last year in school tax reduction that will stand to benefit by making the homeowner grant $280 for them.

There are one or two questions I hope the minister might answer in winding up second reading. The other big change in the legislation is that the minimum tax payable by any person under 65 will be $50. I wonder if the minister could give us some explanation of the thinking behind that particular decision. Perhaps I could be more specific: does he know how many homeowners who paid $1 last year will finish up paying somewhere between $1 and $50 this year? The reason I find that puzzling is that while many persons over 65 undoubtedly need the help, others are being given financial help, with the increase of another $50, who, let's face it, no more need that kind of help than they need a hole in the head. Again I'll be very blunt and very specific. I'll get shot for saying this, but I've got all kinds of very wealthy people over 65 living in Oak Bay who are going to get another $50 of a homeowner grant, while we have other groups who are under 65 who paid $1 last year and will, in fact, finish up paying more.

Now to bring intelligent criticism into this debate, one would need to have more specific figures as to the numbers involved in these two groups — how many people there are over 65 who will receive the additional aid, and out of that number, how many could be classified as having a very healthy, substantial income, and, conversely, of those persons under 65 who paid $1 last year, how many of them will be faced with paying somewhere between $1 and $50 this year. This is the apparent contradiction in this bill that puzzles me, and there may well be an explanation. If there is I'm sure the minister can go into it when he winds up second reading.

I can't find the exact statement, but in introducing the bill the minister mentioned that in the election campaign last December the Social Credit Party was committed to removing all property taxes over the age of 65, and that this is the first step. Also he said that the aim, over a period of time presumably, is to remove school tax from property. I suggest that combining the school tax removal grant with the homeowner grant sort of eliminates the use ; f the words "school tax removal grant." In any political arena as soon as you remove plain terminology and replace it with a sort of umbrella word like "homeowner grant, " I would suggest that that makes it a little easier for the government in future to fail to meet that goal of removing school tax from property. That might sound like a very cynical and suspicious comment, but....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) nods and says I needn't be worried and I needn't be suspicious and so on.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, if you have a school tax removal grant there in black and white under a piece of legislation, and it's supposed to increase over a period of years, though it's no longer necessary, at least in the political forum in this House, we as opposition members can very specifically deal with that specific commitment of government to remove school tax from property. If, however, that part of the financial arrangement by the government is included within a title "homeowner grant," it could be, I think, very much easier for the government to fall short on its commitment. The member for Omineca surely wouldn't get upset if I suggested that just once in a while governments fall short of their commitments, and that the responsibility of opposition representatives is to be able to demonstrate that and to give reasons and evidence to support the arguments that the government has fallen short.

I happen to trust the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) completely, and I know that what he said today is what he intends to carry out, but this minister is not the government and he's not the cabinet. If in the future the government collectively takes a different direction and decides that perhaps school tax should remain on property, Or, I suppose, if the government becomes increasingly powerful and decides, in its great majority, that it can do just about anything it wants — and some governments have fallen prey to that concept — then we could finish up with a much more difficult situation where the opposition would simply have to hammer away at the homeowner grant without having specific access to the issue of removing school tax from property.

Another question that I would like to ask the minister: in page 18 of the budget speech it states: "Transfer of school tax removal grant to the

[ Page 1900 ]

homeowner grant increases the benefits to the advantage of the homeowner, particularly those of modest income." I wonder again if the minister does have reasonably accurate, specific figures of the number of people who are stamped again simply because they didn't get the $80 under the school tax reduction Act last year but will receive it this year when the previous $200 is added to the $80. It seems to me that that would perhaps be the group that stands to gain most from bringing the whole question of grants under one title of homeowner grant.

I just repeat that, on the other hand, various persons who have substantial taxation on their homes received $280 last year. They will receive $280 this year. Yet they will still be paying more tax. I don't think they, any more than I, are going to be too impressed by the claim that this government is keeping its commitment to progressively remove school tax from property. To be fair, I wonder if the minister has any idea of the number of homeowners in the province who are in the situation I have just mentioned of having received $280 last year and will just receive the same $280 under a different terminology this year.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, it is very gratifying that the government is well aware of the importance of trying to allow people to stay in their own homes and to own their own homes. We will be debating, I am sure, later on this session in great detail the problems of land acquisition and the cost of land and many other factors which make home ownership difficult if not impossible for many families. But we are also having a conference later this year called the Conference on the Family, which I think is a very excellent and long overdue kind of in-depth review of the importance of the family. One of the factors in that discussion which will become very obviously important will be the question of the housing of families and the availability of home ownership at a cost many families should be able to afford even in times of inflation.

My only concern in the bill is that some people will be paying more than $1 this year. Some people will be receiving the same $280 although their taxes have gone up. Thirdly, we no longer have a school reduction tax as a specific instrument to allow clear and precise evaluation from year to year as to whether the government really and truly is carrying out its commitment to take education taxes off the homeowner.

MR. J.J. HEWITT (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Housing in bringing forward this bill. I think it is important that this Legislature recognizes the fact that the pioneers of this province, the senior citizens of this province, should get some further assistance in coping with inflation. Moving the assistance from $50 to $100 and taking that total home ownership grant to $380 will have some effect to offset the inflation problem that our senior citizens face and the fact that we are keeping that minimum tax payable of $1 for the people over age 65.

There have been some comments made that some people over age 65, of course, live in very substantial homes, homes which could qualify for property taxation of hundreds of dollars, possibly thousands of dollars. But I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that one of the things we must consider is that those people over age 65 have worked hard, have contributed through income tax, through property tax, school tax for years while they were in the work force. When they reach their golden years and retire, those who have worked hard — those who have invested and saved to enjoy their senior years — shouldn't be penalized, I don't think. I think they should be classed as senior citizens and given the benefits of the $ 1-per-year tax if their taxation isn't over $380 a year. If it is over $380 a year, then they will, of course, pay the difference between their total tax and the $380 assistance through the homeowner grant.

Mr. Speaker, the comments that were made in regard to the budget and the fact that the cost of this overall programme, the enlarged programme, will be something like $6 million a year.... I think that in itself shows the province that the government is concerned about the inflation, is concerned about the increased taxes on property, and is doing its best to assist our citizens, both under 65 and over 65, in meeting the cost of taxation.

There were comments made regarding election promises, and there were comments made in regard to simplicity by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), stating that he was in favour of simplicity. I thought maybe, Mr. Speaker, I would try and read the two clauses that were in the school tax removal and resource grant because I think it got a little bit confusing. I know myself, as a taxpayer, I wasn't quite sure just what it all meant. I imagine there are many people who received their tax billing and were trying to figure out whether they were entitled to $80, whether they were entitled to $30 or $29.50 or whatever the case may be.

The two sections go something like this: pay a school tax grant in the amount not exceeding $80 necessary to reimburse that person in respect of his liability for 40 per cent of the amount by which the amount of the school tax exceeds, during 1975, the amount of $200; where there is no amount payable under paragraph (A) or the amount payable under paragraph (A) is less than $3, pay a resource grant in the amount necessary to increase to $30 the amount payable under paragraph (A), or to decrease to $1 the balance of 1975 real property taxes payable after deduction of the grant under the Provincial

[ Page 1901 ]

Home-Owner Grant Act, and under paragraph (A), whichever is the lesser amount.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you follow me, but even I got lost part way through that comment. That's the type of thing I think confuses the average homeowner in this province. I don't know whether it's the legal linguistics, or however you wish to call it, that gets involved in a simple document which is really saying to the homeowners of the province: here is something, we're trying to help you out, but we're trying to confuse you at the same time. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) should be complimented on cleaning up that confusing part of the school tax removal and resource grant, to eliminate that Act and to bring it all under the homeowner grant. I think the minister is to be complimented on that.

Mr. Speaker, one other thing I thought I would comment on is that the under-age-65 person, of course, is faced with inflation — we've increased that from $200, plus the confusing school tax removal and resource grant, up to $280 under the homeowner grant. Again, it does help in regard to offsetting some of the inflationary costs we are faced with.

The minimum tax payable, of course, for those people under age 65 will be $50. Using the reverse argument that I did with people over age 65, a person under age 65 is an employable person, is a person with a job, is a wage-earner and does have the ability, I think, to contribute $50 as a minimum taxation. I don't think anybody today living in a home, however large, however small, would object to paying a minimum property tax of $50.

The NDP could, of course, cry hardship, that the property owners, some of them with their property shouldn't be paying $50. But I think this helps produce and make realistic a minimum tax for people who are in their earning years. And if it wasn't that, Mr. Speaker, then I think that what you would find that would offset taxation on those who have to pay tax is that the apartment landlords would pay a higher tax on their properties, rents would be increased, and that would serve no purpose, I don't think. I think the people who in their earning years shouldn't have any objection to paying a minimum of $50.

MR. WALLACE: They can't even get into a house. They can't afford it.

MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, there's one other comment, and I think the member for Oak Bay made it. Also I believe the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) made the comment about election promises and commitments. The minister has mentioned that we were working toward the removal of taxation for people over age 65. I support that concept; I support that idea. I think it is something that this party will accomplish.

But I thought I would mention the alternative or other approach to assist people over age 65. I use "assist" because there is an Act called the Real Property Tax Deferment Act which was brought in in 1974 by the NDP government, and it is, in effect, an Act which allows people over age 65 to defer the payment of their taxes.

Mr. Speaker, this Act has bothered me ever since I first heard of it. I've taken the opportunity to get a copy of it, and I'm somewhat alarmed as to what I read and as to the intent, I feel, really behind this Act.

Mr. Speaker, the Act states that persons over the age of 65....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, we are on second reading of Bill 17, which is The Provincial Home-Owner Grant Amendment Act. Would you please relate the remarks that you're presently engaged in on the line of debate to Bill 17?

MR. HEWITT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thought I was relating. We did comment, and all members who have spoken before me have commented, on the fact that an election promise was made to remove taxation for people over age 65. We are in our first step in doing that by increasing from $50 to $100 that amount. I agree with that concept and I wanted really to show the comparison of that approach, which I think is the first step in this bill, as opposed to what the bill...regarding Real Property Tax Deferment Act — what its intent was.

Now if I'm out of order, Mr. Speaker, I'll have to accept your decision, being a novice in this assembly, but if I may proceed...?

MR. SPEAKER: I am not suggesting, Hon. Member, that you are completely out of order. But it would be out of order to relate your remarks only to a bill that is not presently before the House but is a matter of legislation now. But if you are comparing these, I think you can proceed.

MR. HEWITT: I am attempting to compare, Mr. Speaker, the first step in the removal of property tax from people over age 65 by increasing the assistance to $100. Hopefully, in the future we will be able to eliminate it altogether.

If I can proceed — and if you feel I am off the track, you can certainly bring me to order, Mr. Speaker.

But in regard to legislation that is in place at the present time, the Real Property Tax Deferment Act as it affects people over age 65...the effect of the present legislation to people over age 65 is that you may defer the tax. By deferring the tax, it gives the province.... The minister may allow the person over

[ Page 1902 ]

age 65 to defer his taxation and it will stand as a charge against the property in future years, and that charge will accumulate until such time as the person who owns the property passes away or sells the property or transfers the property. If there is a family involved, then the property can be rightly transferred to the spouse without any effect, but once the family are both deceased, the husband and wife, then, of course, the province requires payment.

What concerns me, Mr. Speaker, on this type of an approach to assistance to over-age-65 people in respect to Bill 17, is that I get concerned that that's not quite the assistance as I see it. That is an approach to state ownership of land, Mr. Speaker, state ownership of land. Because at some point in time, if you take a person at age 65, they last to 90, 95. Accumulate at today's rate 20 years of taxation and I feel that what could happen when that person passed away is that the state, the province, would come along and say: "We find 75 per cent of the value of that land is now owed to the Crown and, as a result, we will be quite pleased to pay the balance and we've now acquired a piece of property."

Mr. Speaker, that's what concerned me with that particular Act on people over age 65, and the reason for my concern is that there is a definition regarding owner in this particular Act and it says: "in a building, the owner of which is a corporation." A corporation, not just people over age 65, could apply for that tax deferment as well. Then the corporation would have to be faced, within a period of 10 years of the agreement, with paying back all the taxes in arrears. I wonder sometimes, when this particular Act was brought into being — behind that Act the intent was there — that in some point in time the province or, as the previous administration might call it, the state would look to the ownership of land.

Mr. Speaker, I only bring up these comments in relationship to Bill 17 because I feel very strongly that this government did make an election commitment. It did make a promise. We have taken the first step to fulfil that promise. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in time, when the minister feels the time is right and when he brings down the legislation, that the senior citizens will be relieved of this burden in regard to having taxes deferred on their property as opposed to having taxes removed and eliminated from their property after they've put in their working years and have reached their years of retirement.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) should be congratulated. I think that the Social Credit Party instituted this programme in 1957 at a small amount of $28 a year, but I guess if we look back 19 years, $28 would probably relate to $280 today. Maybe it's coincidental, but it's one-tenth of what is being allowed on the homeowner grant today. But then again, I wonder what our income was per hour in 1957. I think, Mr. Speaker, that people over age 65 will breathe a little easier, will be pleased at the fact that this minister has moved quickly to bring this legislation before this House so we can deal with it. I would support this bill and I would congratulate the minister once again for moving on what I consider a very important piece of legislation.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a few words regarding the Provincial Home-owners Grant Amendment Act, 1976. Mr. Speaker, as I look across and I listen to the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) stand up and so readily endorse the proposition of giving assistance to people as far as home ownership in this province is concerned, all I can say is: oh, how they have changed! How they have changed, because in 1957....

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are you going to recycle another speech?

MR. CHABOT: Well, I didn't happen to be here in 1957, Mr. Member. I was running federally in those days.

In 1957, Mr. Speaker, the NDP were not prepared to support the legislation.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): There was no such party in 1957.

MR. CHABOT: Well, the CCF. You know, you keep changing your stripes and your colours.

MR. LAUK: And you keep on changing your ground.

MR. CHABOT: Your colour is pink, and some of you are a little redder than pink, and others are pink.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Getting back to the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, I don't know.... We've heard from the "pinko" over there, and there's the "red" over there, and there's the "lighter pink" right there.

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, prior to the change of the party from CCF to the NDP, there was a member in the House who sat here for some number of years. When it was originally instituted, this assistance to the people to own their own homes, that member for Alberni, John Squires, said that he would not accept the homeowner grant. He wouldn't accept. He didn't need the money, he said and: "I'm not taking it either." Opposed to the homeowner grant!

[ Page 1903 ]

That's why I am so amazed when I hear this member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) stand up here and say that he endorses....

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): This is the 10th time this speech has been made in this House.

MR. CHABOT: Well, there's yellow shirt over there, Mr. Speaker, who suggests that I've raised this issue in the House before, which is really untrue.

MR. LAUK: This is the first time you've noticed it! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: But, Mr. Speaker, the legislation is legislation in which I'm sure the NDP have seen the mistake of the past and now will support the progressive policy and the concept of the policy that is being put forward here today.

MR. LAUK: Next.

MR. CHABOT: It's a progressive policy which has been copied by other jurisdictions. It's a policy which spells stability in this province. It's a policy that spells stability because it's a policy which encourages home ownership in this province.

Mr. Speaker, we've witnessed three and a half years of an attempt to desecrate that home ownership policy in British Columbia when we had a socialist government in office, when they promoted the virtual absolute control of land in the hands of the state. They promoted rental housing rather than home-owner housing, and this is again a clear indication that the policies of this government have been consistent over the years in the encouragement of private home ownership in British Columbia. It started small and it's grown in keeping with the times. For individuals it's increased by 1,000 per cent since its inception 19 years ago, and for senior citizens it's grown by approximately 1,400 per cent. It's an encouragement; it's a clear reflection of the attitude of this government regarding its commitment and its responsibilities to senior citizens of this province.

How shallow those words are across the way when they continually harp and criticize and yack that this government doesn't care about senior citizens. Here is a clear indication, Mr. Speaker, that there is consideration because of the tremendous increase being given to senior citizens to allow them to stay in their own homes and so they won't be evicted from their own home.

MR. LAUK: Are you going to be supporting the bill?

MR. CHABOT: The member for Vancouver Centre, who is always chirping in the House, is wondering whether I am going to support the bill. I have no hesitation in telling him that, yes, I will be supporting the bill, and I'm speaking in support of the bill at this time.

MR. LAUK: Are you speaking for the entire cabinet?

MR. CHABOT: I was rather flabbergasted by the confusion that was promoted and generated by the confused government we had in his province for three and a half years. I had constituents of mine approach me and tell me: "The government has sent me a rebate of $29 on my taxes. I'm embarrassed to cash it. I'm embarrassed." I said: "Well, what can you expect from that kind of a government?" They told me: "We want to pay our fair share. We don't want any more rebates from government. We feel we own our own home, and we have a right to pay taxes" — depending on the individual circumstances of his home.

MR. LAUK: Are you against the bill? I don't understand.

MR. CHABOT: I'm suggesting that the ridiculous rebate that was instituted by the former government, as an error, was a foolish policy. It was not a genuine policy, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: ...and I think the increase to those under age 65 from $1 to $50 reflects a more realistic tax measure than the kind of foolish policy we experienced two or three years ago under the socialist regime where people were embarrassed because of a refund of $29.

MR. NICOLSON: You're against royalties on natural gas.

MR. CHABOT: No, Mr. Speaker, I'm just relating to the member who just chirped up, the Member for Nelson-Creston, that my constituency conveyed to me that they were embarrassed by the confusion that existed in the government by giving them rebates when they felt they should be paying their fair share of property taxes in this province.

MR. LAUK: Well, what do you call this?

MR. CHABOT: Now this policy that we have here is instituting something that's progressive, something that gives these people who have expressed concern to me...

MR. LAUK: You can't have it both ways.

[ Page 1904 ]

MR. CHABOT: ...gives them the opportunity of paying a minimum of $50 instead of $1, and then....

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: This is the kind of position they've expressed to me — that they wanted to pay something in this neighbourhood rather than get a rebate on their properties.

MR. LAUK: I won't tell anybody in your riding.

MR. CHABOT: Now it also takes into consideration the senior citizens of our province by keeping their taxes down to the $1 minimum. This I support because it's always been the policy of this government to take into consideration the plight of the senior citizens, and it's a continuation of this policy. Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying, after having closely examined the content of this bill, that it's progressive legislation. It's legislation which brings stability to this province; it's legislation which I can readily support.

MR. L. BAWTREE (Shuswap): I also would like to rise this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, and congratulate the hon. minister for bringing in this legislation. I believe that it is legislation which will go a long way to help relieve some of the inflationary pressures on the people in this province, those who are owning their home, but I think it should be looked at in light of other legislation.

I think it is quite easy to criticize the legislation and say that it's not going to offset all the costs that may be incurred by various people in their daily lives in the owning of their homes, but it is only one piece of legislation which is aimed at doing one part of all the things that have to be done in this province in order to correct the great inequities that we have all around this province.

I think we should look at it and see what it is going to do along with such things as Bill 17, the Anti-Inflation Measures Act. It is quote obvious that a homeowner grant of even $380 is very insignificant if we let the inflation in this province get completely out of hand, as it is at the moment.

MR. LAUK: Like insurance rates and so on?

Interjection.

MR. BAWTREE: I do consider that probably the best way to combat inflation...

Interjections.

MR. BAWTREE: ...the best way to make sure that the $380, of the $280, does continue to have some value is to make sure that inflation does not get out of hand and that we do not spend a great deal of money that we do not own, that we do not have in this province. That is what has caused inflation in the last few years: spending money far beyond our means.

I think we have to look at it in light of the other legislation to get people working again in this province, to get the railways moving so they can move our goods and services that we require in order to get the taxes off the shoulders of the homeowners and back onto some of our primary industries.

I believe that the $50 minimum tax for those people who are under 65 is also a good move. It is something that has been asked for for many years by many of the organizations around this province, including the Union of B.C. Municipalities, because there were far too many people in this province who were not paying any money at all in the way of taxes and were getting a great many services. This really did rankle with a great many people who were paying very high taxes and were not getting any greater services, but just because they had a building, a home that was assessed at a very much greater amount, they had to pay the costs of their neighbours. I think this is a good move because it will go part way down the road to solving this particular problem.

I think it is interesting to note that the homeowner grant came into existence, even though it was a very small one, back in 1957 — $28 when Social Credit was in power. It continued all down through the years and gradually got greater and greater all down through those years that Social Credit was in power. The NDP, of course, for one year even continued it and increased it. Then after that they got a little confused and brought in many other sorts of legislation, which was very difficult to understand, as the hon. member from the wine country has already mentioned.

There is one point I would like to bring up, Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, and that is the fact that there is no provision as yet.... I would urge the minister to look at this problem and to consider future changes which would give consideration to the family-farm corporation for the same sort of grants that we have for individual ownership. Many family-farm corporations are created in order to pass on the assets of that corporation to the family. It becomes rather inequitable when they are not able to share in the same benefits they would have if they were individual owners.

I agree that we made the promise during the election campaign to eliminate the taxes from our senior citizens. But as has been expressed in the House this afternoon, there are some people whose taxes, because they are very, very wealthy and because they have great assets, are extremely high. I

[ Page 1905 ]

can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I suspect that those people will never have their total taxes removed from their property if they are a great deal higher than the normal for the province.

I can only conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is good legislation. I am sure that every person in this House will support this legislation. If they would be as diligent in supporting the other legislation which we are trying to bring in, this province would go a lot father a lot faster.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I think probably enough was said by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) with respect to our position on this bill.

We are sorry that the back bench in the Social Credit, or the coalition party, couldn't quite comprehend what we were doing with the School Tax Removal Act and other legislation. But then that is to be expected. They talk of inequities, talking in terms of inflation being out of hand on this bill, and I am not quite sure of where we are able to tie that in. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we do understand that inflation is out of hand in this province. Unlike the rest of Canada where it seems to be subsiding, we are still going on our merry way increasing taxes and rates for everything from ferries to insurance.

Mr. Speaker, to get back to the bill — I was very interested in that member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot). The member for Columbia River is the chap who has the greatest ability of anybody in the House to rehash something that he has said at least a dozen times in this House. But he overlooks the most important thing.

MR. CHABOT: Now tell the truth.

MR. COCKE: He overlooks the most important thing — that he has sat in his place in this House and watched us vote year after year after year for similar legislation. He goes back and recycles something someone said way back in antiquity; then we are all supposed to sit up with our ears attuned. If we brought back some of the things that that member has said a great deal more recently than that, I suggest to you that he could be the most embarrassed person in the place, at least for a short time.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, they do have difficulty understanding. But I would just like to make it clear that I am sorry school taxes have increased; I am sorry that taxes generally have increased beyond what this bill will help to assuage in some cases. But at least it is what we can expect from the coalition, and on that basis we certainly must support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't do very much but I support it because of the help it does give to those over 65. The homeowner grant is up minimally this year in terms of total expenditure, but school taxes, to which homeowner grants relate, are up this year by over $60 million at a local level. It's clear that the government can make no claim that by bringing in this bill they're providing any relief whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the proportion of school taxes on the local resident is up again this year, and the homeowner grant hasn't given relief.

There is still nothing done under this bill to redress the injustice which is visited on persons renting in this province as opposed to owning their own homes. It has been a continuing injustice. Very minor steps have been made to put tenants on the same footing as homeowners, but the magnitude of the difference, on an annual basis, is well in excess of $200. It seems to me it would have been a good thing if this bill could have remedied that, and it would have been a simple little one- or two-line addition to it.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we must be grateful for small mercies in this Legislature, and therefore I propose to support this bill on second reading.

MR. S. BAWLF (Victoria): I rise to support this bill and certainly not to repeat the details of it at any great length. I have noted with interest the comments from across the floor that school taxes are going up, as far as the local property taxpayer is concerned. I would hope that the House would bear in mind that school taxes went up under the former government in spite of the promise from that government that they would remove school taxes.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: It's a very interesting thing to consider some of the other things that happened, particularly to my constituents, in the time of the previous government with respect to property taxes. During that time, the provincial government and the city of Victoria managed to expand their holdings and property by roughly double. Most of these holdings, I might say, are sitting idle with no apparent plan from the previous government for their use. That government was simply participating in the speculation game in land. In fact, the effect of that is interesting to note. Last year if the then provincial government, realizing that they were now in possession of some 115 acres of central Victoria commercial land, had chosen not to take such blatant advantage of the 15 mill grant in lieu of taxes which existed from days prior when the previous government did not expand its land holdings

[ Page 1906 ]

significantly, if they had, in fact, paid their fair share of property taxes, the effect would have been to save the property taxpayers of the city, a high proportion of whom were senior citizens, about 4 mills on their property tax bill last year alone.

Not only that, but the former government, of course, brought us the marvelous innovation, the provincial Assessment Authority, which took over the assessment function from the city of Victoria. The assessment function the previous year had cost approximately $150,000. The first year that the B.C. Assessment Authority operated that function, the city was billed $290,000 for the same function, an increase of approximately two-thirds of a mill in one year to administer that function.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: I'm afraid, Mr. Member, I haven't seen this year's bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: Higher!

MR. BAWLF: It might well be, but I would be surprised if it's double in one year.

Interjection.

MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the point of this is that for the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) to stand up and talk about school mill rates in isolation from the other things that affect property taxes on the part of the provincial government is perhaps a little unrealistic. Certainly the former government placed a major burden — through its property speculation activities in particular — on the property taxpayers of my constituency. I might add to that the arrangement that was made, the legislation, which enabled the province to levy a total of 2 mills for transit operation on the local property taxpayers. That was their innovation. I understand that this was to be held over the heads of the local property taxpayers as well.

Certainly when we place these things all together, the potential impact on the local property taxpayer was a far more significant one still than the increased mill rate for school purposes mentioned by that member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) . I feel that the former government had a lot to answer for in my constituency with regard to the effect of their policies on local property taxes. Certainly my constituents, particularly the very large number of them who are senior citizens, will welcome this bill and the increased aid through the homeowner grant. On their behalf I shall certainly be voting most enthusiastically for the bill.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, it's interesting; I don't know whether the first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf) made a speech, or can we call it a "mumble"? (Laughter.) What I got from the hon. member's remarks was very interesting. He's objecting to the provincial government owning land in Victoria, the capital city, the seat of government of the province. He used to be an alderman in this city and a land developer of some note, or some reputation. Here he is, a land developer. The government owns 115 acres in Victoria...

AN HON. MEMBER: Pay full taxes.

MR. LAUK: ...and he's jealous because he doesn't own those 115 acres. He owned the rest of Victoria and he sold it out to some person in Alberta that he expects will have the same interest in Victoria that a British Columbian would.

Well, in any event, I have a newspaper clipping. You know, this Act, which the opposition is going to support, the Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, is a modest, modest increase, a very slight hedge against the tremendous inflationary pressures placed on the homeowner by this new coalition government — a drop in the bucket, Mr. Speaker.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): You are a drop in the bucket. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK: Did you hear the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker? Abusive! (Laughter.) The old crocodile is sitting over there snapping at this little opposition. It's a steamroller government. He's so arrogant with power he says we're a "drop in the bucket." He regards 40 per cent of the votes of this province as a "drop in the bucket" and he looks upon this little opposition with contempt. He's leaving now, he's so embarrassed. Now if I can drive the member for Columbia (Mr. Chabot) out of the House in the same manner, I'd be willing to do so. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the point that I'm trying to make is that by the repressive measures, the fleecing of the taxpayer and the homeowner of this province brought upon those people by this government, this is a modest, almost insignificant amount, but we'll vote for it because we think that the taxpayers should have every relief they can get from the oppression of this government. And there's no question that the inflationary pressures on the average person in this province, particularly the homeowner, have been caused by this coalition government — this right-wing, coalition government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Reactionary.

MR. LAUK: I remember just recently, on

[ Page 1907 ]

Tuesday, May 18, 1976, Dr. Jim Rae, associate deputy minister, a man promoted by this government to that post, said this: "The consumer price index for Vancouver jumped 2.5 per cent in March and is expected to be about 1.5 per cent or more for the following month." Dr. Rae said: "These are one-shot affairs caused by ICBC rate hikes and a higher sales tax."

The opposition didn't say that. A senior civil servant, an economist with a national-international reputation said that, and it's true. It's little wonder.... Where did the minister go, Mr. Speaker? Is he still in his chair?

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: You know, Mr. Speaker, it's rude of the minister to leave while debate on his bill is going on in the House. I wonder if we can call a recess. Is he coming back? Where is he at?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: But I thought members of cabinet were infallible. (Laughter.)

It's little wonder that this minister, probably more sensitive than other ministers in this cabinet, brought forward as much relief as he personally could provide to the taxpayer and the home-owner. I congratulate him for at least doing that, because that juggernaut of a right-wing coalition is....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't want to destroy the minister's reputation, and I hope I don't by saying I like that minister. He's a nice fellow. He hasn't exactly got the milk of human kindness in his veins but he's got sort of like milk powder of human kindness in his veins. (Laughter.) At least he's got the basics.

Seriously, we are going to support this bill, although we do think it's only a token in the face of the tremendous pressures on the homeowner.

I have one further point before I take my seat. I represent a riding, Mr. Speaker, that has a densely populated area, almost exclusively made up of tenants. Some of them are in condominiums and the condominium population is growing exclusively.

Traditionally for 20 years in this province we saw the Social Credit Party — not the coalition party, but the Social Credit Party — have a very negative attitude towards tenants. Somehow we got the impression that they felt that tenants were transients, that they really didn't have any roots in the community and that they didn't contribute to the costs of the community or the services of the municipality.

I think it's certainly accepted without opposition now that tenants do contribute financially to their cities. Through their rents and through other costs they contribute substantially to the services of that city. They certainly contribute to the provincial coffers in large measure. I would like to associate myself with the Liberal leader's (Mr. Gibson's) remarks when he says that tenants are being prejudiced against.

I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the previous NDP administration didn't do enough for tenants. I was always unhappy about that and I fought, as my former cabinet colleagues will testify...

HON. MR. GARDOM: Like a tiger.

MR. LAUK: ...like a tiger for the tenants, not only in my riding but throughout the city and throughout the province. We didn't do enough. We only had three years, but we should have done something more for the tenants, and I'm sorry about that.

But there is no indication here that this new right-wing coalition government is going to have a different attitude than the old Social Credit regime. There is no indication that they're going to contribute more to tenants. They still seem to have the attitude that they are nothing but transients and that they don't contribute to the community and to the costs of the community.

I think this minister doesn't believe that, but I think his colleagues probably do and I wish him well in his battles in cabinet. He's got his work cut out for him and I hope that he can convince them that we have to rectify the injustices that the tenants have been suffering over so many years, and there's more and more of them every day.

There's nothing wrong with being a tenant. There's nothing wrong with renting premises. We can't own all the land in Victoria and Vancouver and live in a big house — we've got to rent. These people are hard-working people, and in my riding, particularly, they stay there. They often say the west-end residents are transients; they're not. Over a five-year period the census indicated that 70 per cent of the people that lived in the West End five years ago live there today. I think that's pretty stable population. It's not as stable as Oak Bay or Dewdney, but people don't buy many cars in Dewdney so they don't travel around much.

It's very nice to see the Member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) still well. I hear that he drank some sewer today and he's looking a little green around the gills....

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Never looked better.

MR. LAUK: He may never have looked better, but

[ Page 1908 ]

he's still green around the gills. But I do wish him well and I hope that his health continues. We'll be watching with great interest. If his eyes close I expect Dr. Wallace will go over immediately and check him, but it's nice to see him here.

But seriously I do urge upon the minister that certainly there are going to be one or two more sessions in the 31st parliament. Start the ball rolling. You'll certainly have every support from the opposition.

MR. BAWLF: I'd just like to correct the impression that the previous mumbler attempted to leave on the House. I did not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there was anything wrong with the province owning land in the city of Victoria in whatever quantity it saw fit to own, but that it should pay its fair share of property taxes. I'd just stress, with regard to his remarks on my former business interests, that I was always capable of paying full property taxes in the city of Victoria. I expect the province ought to be as well.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in the remarks a few minutes ago from my friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . I must say I was quite surprised to hear that he would support what he calls the right-wing coalition. I notice the opposition really hasn't changed too much, because I remember....

MR. LAUK: Jim's already made that speech, Cyril.

MR. SHELFORD: I remember back when the homeowner grant first came in and the about-turn. Really the same thing is true today — speaking against the bill, which I think is a real good bill — and I hope there will be further moves in the future to help the homeowner in this province.

Because of the inflation that took place, certainly during the last administration but before that as well, there's no question the homeowner does need all the help possible, especially those young people who are just starting their own homes. I'm very pleased to see the $50 minimum come in because there were too many cases around the province where people making $20,000 or $25,000 were only paying $1. I certainly think the minister would be wise to look at this very carefully because even $50 in cases such as this is certainly questionable.

I certainly want to support this bill, because it's been a progressive bill over the years, giving greater benefits as time goes by. I hope it will continue to do even more for the homeowner. I don't think this is the only answer. There are many more things that have to be done before young people in this province will be able to own their own homes, but at least it's a start. The main thing that should be looked at, of course, is the terrifically high interest rates on building homes.

I know that's out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I do think we have to continue to make even more improvements and I support this bill.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak in favour of this Bill 17, which the Minister of Municipal Affairs has brought forward. I think it's a very progressive bill, and I'll attempt to speak about the bill and not the confusion that was left by the previous government. Some of the confusion refers to the revenue-sharing programme they had last year for natural gas revenue sharing. It's a very nebulous programme. It was left up in the air practically all year. No municipality knew what its share was going to be and it makes it very difficult to budget on that basis. Again, it depends on how much the gas goes across the line. If they shut the valve off, maybe there's no revenue sharing. So I think it was about time we got away from that kind of a phony baloney business of sharing. I'm certainly pleased to see that this bill does remove that type of sharing.

However, I think it's also important that we carry forth with our election pledge of more direct revenue sharing with municipalities. While this bill here helps the individual homeowners, the municipalities themselves still face a real problem trying to finance the primary services so necessary to the citizens in this day and age. Particularly in our area, we have a lot of extended subdivisions that require servicing with water, sewers, better roads, proper sewage treatment plants — all of these things — on today's costs, which I think the member for Shuswap (Mr. Bawtree) spoke very realistically on. At today's costs the municipalities just have to have a better sharing formula there and I'll be pleased to see developments in this area that are brought down at a later date.

I think this provision of getting away from that $1 minimum is very realistic. Certainly anyone owning a home can afford to pay at least the $50, and it will ease the burden particularly on the older people. It will allow us a lot more flexibility. Another $100, I think, will help stretch their budget quite a bit. Again, I certainly agree with leaving their minimum at $ 1. These are the citizens who have built our province and I think they deserve a special place when we're making up our budgets.

I'll also be very interested to see the programme that we'll be bringing in to help them with the housing and more services on the senior citizens' recreational facilities and transit systems for them.

I'm going to be very brief on this. I just feel that this is certainly a step in the right direction and I'll certainly support it.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to rise in my place this

[ Page 1909 ]

afternoon in support of this bill. It is quite obvious that the bill is being supported by all the members of this House, but the unusual aspect to me is the fact that the opposition through the years past attacked and fought and spoke down all reference to the homeowners Act. In the days past, they said that it was an election boondoggle. They said when they became government they would remove the homeowner grant because the money — should have been given to everybody but not the homeowner. The remarks were legion and many and of all the kinds and types, and they were believed by a lot of people, but anyone that owned a home knew that it was a help to homeowners.

We believed, in our government, that it was necessary for citizens to have their roots in the ground where they lived. We believed that we should help those people no matter what station in life they were — help them to own their own home and to have a home. This is just a difference in thrust of our government. The thrust of the socialist government was.... Well, for example, it was said — I believe it is still on the books — that if you have a piece of property of a certain age and you are unable to pay the taxes, you sign off your property to the government and you live there free until such time as you pass away. Then it becomes the property of the Crown. I am not sure of that Act exactly, but this is the thrust. This is a confiscation type of thrust. Ours is different.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): They were allowed to defer their taxes.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Ours is lifting, the principle of lifting — help people to own their own homes, help people to live on their own property, help people to say they have a stake in the province of British Columbia.

The first homeowner grant came in 1957. You may well remember, those of you who were here — I am not sure if any members of this House were here then; I was not — how it was said by all that this is simply giving away the public funds to get votes. I repeat again, here we have an Act with a new thrust to help another group of people. As the years go on we will have more and more and the sums will grow more and more.

I stated before, and I say to you seriously now, that if this government had remained in office and had not gone through that period of the giveaway of 1972-75 the day would surely come when British Columbia by its resources would be the first province, the first state, the first jurisdiction to be totally tax-free. This was on the way; this could have happened with our resources. But we were put back three years — came to a standstill, all our reserves dissipated. It will take us three years to catch up, but

I think the people of British Columbia realize and realize clearly that if we remain in office — I am sure we will — the thrust will continue and the day will come — it is not far off — when the resources of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia working for the benefit of British Columbians will become some day certainly tax-free on schools and perhaps tax-free in all our taxes. Does this sound impossible? Not to me. Not to me.

MR. COCKE: Then how come you're not doing anything?

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Good management. Do you hear our people talk against the homeowner grant today? Not one word, because it was an original policy in all of North America followed by many jurisdictions. I could go on to other Acts in which we led all of Canada and certainly, in many cases, North America. But it is not necessary to bring that up at this time. Suffice to say that we are a forward-looking government and the people are with us. We will continue to progress, to lift up. The thrust of our purpose here is to help the people of British Columbia and not to suppress them. I, of course, am in favour of this bill; I am sure others are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of and in defence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Responding to the remarks of the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem), I want to say that first of all I like the member for Dewdney. I would like him for an uncle. He is a very avuncular type and a real gentleman, but he is no authority on property taxation. On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, in whose jurisdiction the question was raised, I would like to inform the member for Dewdney that there is no provision whatever to confiscate the property of senior citizens — none, neither under that minister nor under ours.

Rather, what was offered under the previous government was an opportunity for senior citizens to defer payment of taxes on their homes until they should pass away and their estates should be settled. There was no provision — there is not under the present minister nor under ours — to confiscate their properties.

AN HON. MEMBER: He drinks my bathwater.

MR. BARBER: He's been drinking too much of that famous water, it seems. I do that in respect for the member for Dewdney and in defence of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. There is not now nor has there been any attempt to confiscate the homes

[ Page 1910 ]

of senior citizens.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to end my remarks by saying I do support the bill. I congratulate the minister for bringing it in.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is out for the moment. I was going to remind him of the advice he has often received from this side of the House, and that is that the road to the cabinet is not by regurgitating his own old speeches. That is the very thing that has kept him out of the cabinet up to this point in time. He should rather adopt the method of the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Bawlf ) and the hon. member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt). That is by giving speeches that he had left over from previous debates in the House and just didn't have the opportunity to use.

However, with respect to the legislation before us, just two points that have already been made. I'll deal with them perhaps a little more briefly than some of the other members have. With respect to the special increased relief for those over 65 — the campaign promise — it seems that the Minister of Housing is a little out of step with his colleague in the cabinet, that is, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who prefers to deal with people in a mean way. Mincome, for example, is being changed, or done away with, in favour of a programme that will give assistance to people only if they can really establish that not only do they need it, but these will be the means feature as well, and he'll be dealing with them in a mean way.

In the Social Credit platform and apparently in the policy that they're following now, the intention is to give this kind of relief to people over 65 simply by virtue of the fact that they are over 65. It just seems that it's not really in tune with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

Perhaps something between the two would be better. Certainly under our administration we tried to apply a middle road. The Mincome programme was at least based on income rather than dealing with assets, and rather than giving it to everyone simply by virtue of the fact that they did reach a certain age.

The other feature of the bill is that while it does simplify calculations, and does simplify explanations — it certainly does that — to do away with the school tax removal approach as opposed to the straight homeowner grant approach, on the other hand it does go against the principle that I think the Minister of Housing himself supported before he joined the coalition party and became a member of the coalition cabinet. That was the idea that taxes should be levied against property to look after services to property, as opposed to services to people that should be paid for by taxes, preferably against income.

It seems to be going counter to that to say that all of the relief shall be melded, that there'll be a straight homeowner grant, that there will no longer be this previous government's policy — and I thought it would be your administration's policy — of trying to remove the school tax itself, because that certainly is a service to people as opposed to a service to property.

I think that by melding the two, while you are simplifying it, you are going against the principle of removing from property the cost of services to people. I wonder at the wisdom of doing that. I wonder whether this is the intention over the long haul or whether it's simply an interim approach.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the many comments made today. I must admit to being thrown off my guard by some of the kind comments made in various parts of the House, because when that happens I wonder what I'm doing wrong. I'm sure the comments were offered in all honesty, and I appreciate the observations.

MR. LAUK: Are you against this minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sorry the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is not in his seat, but perhaps he will have an opportunity to pick up this information later. I think he asked how many individuals over 65 will receive the extra $50, actually the extra $49.

We estimate, Mr. Speaker, somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000 properties will be affected. Approximately 80,000 properties will also pay more than $1 — that is, the minimum of $50 which has been dealt with by a number of the members in their remarks.

I can appreciate those who are concerned about increasing the minimum from $1 to $50. It was a very conscious decision on my part in recommendation to cabinet. I recognized that in some instances it will be an added burden. However, I think that it is important for homeowners to have some idea of the value of services they receive from local government, local government in its broadest sense — the municipality, the city government, police, fire protection, school services, all the services which we take for granted.

I know that in many instances we translate a particular cost into so much a day, or not much more than a package of cigarettes, or just $2 a week. But really, this is just over $4 a month minimum tax for those who will be paying the $50.

In many instances those individuals, a couple with one child, two children, three children, are receiving a great many services from the community in which they are located, or the regional district, whichever the case may be.

[ Page 1911 ]

I have to say also, Mr. Speaker, that the indication — not in a partisan sense — from the department, the indication from all those who were charged with the responsibility of administering the former formula, the School Tax Removal Grant, is that computing a percentage against the portion of tax that was eligible did cause very widespread confusion. No question about it.

The attempt may have been a valid one; it may have been a good idea at the time, but it did run into a great deal of confusion. It confused the individuals who were attempting to compute their own taxes or to check the computation on their own tax notice, and I think that this is an important move to remove that confusion and to make the homeowner grant, this particular transfer payment, as easily understood as possible. I don't think we should confuse individuals intentionally or unintentionally.

The point was made by the first speaker for the official opposition, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) — and I don't think you will rule this comment out of order; I'm dealing with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker. But there is one point.

We feel, and I have felt for a good number of years, that it has been most regrettable for an individual to somehow feel that since they could not pay their entire tax bill they could not claim the homeowner grant, whatever figure it might be and whatever formula it might be.

We are correcting that, and indeed notices have already gone from both the Department of Housing and the Department of Municipal Affairs to municipal tax collectors, to the provincial tax collector as well, to insist — I don't think it's too strong a term — that this be clearly identified on the tax notice, in any advertising which is done and in any dealings conducted at municipal hall counters. It must be made very clear that if, for whatever reason, the homeowner cannot pay his or her property taxes in full by the due date, certainly that owner is entitled to complete the application and to at least have the homeowner grant amount taken off the total tax amount owing. I think that is an important point.

A number of points made, Mr. Speaker, I feel will more properly be dealt with in my estimates, in committee, rather than in closing second reading on this' particular bill. I move, therefore, that the — motion now be put.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

Bill 17, Provincial Home-Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Bill 8 is a very important amendment to the Revenue Act, covering, basically, three requirements. The first and most important, we feel, is that when this party was in opposition, previous to the last election, we strongly opposed the amendment to the Revenue Act which allowed the Minister of Finance to invest in company shares. We still believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is too wide a power. This government believes that any such purchases should be open to full scrutiny, and if shares of a company are to be purchased, the purchase should be approved by an Act of the Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Therefore the first thing this bill proposes is to remove the present power of the Minister of Finance to purchase company shares.

As we know, under the previous administration, this amendment was introduced which basically opened up the whole entire matter for the Minister of Finance to buy shares in anything, and this is actually what did take place, It's simply too broad a power, and this is why we feel this amendment is most important to the people of British Columbia.

Secondly, I would classify as the more technical amendment this amendment which has to do with guarantees which are now allowed to be given by the government in various statutes. It's necessary to classify that the guarantee does cover the performance of any obligation to pay pursuant to the security. For instance, the payment of a premium obligation under a bond issue is a typical example. The underwriters of our securities have requested this clarification. Our present legislation, the Revenue Act, simply indicates the repayment under the guarantee of principal and interest, and this amendment would allow the guarantee to cover, for instance, premiums or other obligations which were accrued under the underwriting issue.

Lastly, this Act also provides that despite any previous or other legislation, all powers to borrow money, to give guarantees, to make grants, loans or advances may in the future only be exercised after approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on recommendation of the Minister of Finance. This government believes that only the Minister of Finance' s recommendation to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council should have the power to act on behalf of the government in such matters.

So those are the basic elements of the amendments

[ Page 1912 ]

to the Revenue Act. No. 1, it proposes to remove the present power of the Minister of Finance to purchase company shares. Secondly, it is necessary to clarify that the guarantee does cover the performance of any obligation to pay, pursuant to security. Thirdly, despite indications in other legislation having to do with powers to borrow money, give guarantees, make grants, loans or advances, these in the future would only be able to be exercised through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the minister, in introducing second reading of this legislation, has dealt with it section by section, and even in the second section has dealt with it in two parts. It's really the only way to deal with this legislation, so I expect the discussion in second reading will have to follow the same pattern as there isn't any way of dealing with three different proposals.

With respect to section 1, repealing the authority of the Minister of Finance to purchase shares in corporations, I think what the government is saying in this is that they recognize the inadequacy of the present Minister of Finance; they don't trust him. They don't trust his own judgment. They don't even trust him to take the advice of the rest of the cabinet, because certainly the Minister of Finance, I think, in any purchase of any importance at all would consult the cabinet.

What the government is saying in this is that we don't even trust the cabinet to use its judgment in making purchases of shares, and because we don't trust ourselves we are going to do away with the right of the cabinet to recommend to the Minister of Finance that he acquire shares when an opportunity comes up to acquire shares in the interest of the people of British Columbia.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, they can be only dealing with their lack of trust in their own Minister of Finance, because they recognize that any succeeding administration, if it had a Minister of Finance that it trusted, would simply change this legislation so that the government would be free to move when an opportunity arose to move in the interest of the people.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to mention just a couple of acquisitions of shares that definitely were in the interests of the people of the province. I could mention many, but I'd like to mention Can-Cel, for example — an acquisition that was made by the Minister of Finance after full consultation with cabinet, an acquisition that was certainly in the interests of the people of the province, an acquisition that cost the people of British Columbia not one 5-cent piece, yet for which we got assets that are worth half a billion dollars.

Not only were the people of British Columbia better off to the extent of half a billion dollars, but with a vast enterprise that included a pulp mill in the city of Prince Rupert that included much logging and sawmilling in the whole Pacific Northwest of the province that was to be closed down by the prospective purchaser — Weyerhauser. That was their announced intention, that when they acquired the assets of Canadian Cellulose they were going to close down Prince Rupert, which would have the effect of closing down a large amount of logging and sawmilling in the whole Pacific northwest of the province. They were to continue to operate only the one part of the operation that was profitable — the Castlegar operation. So, Mr. Speaker, it cost us nothing to get it. we simply guaranteed money that Can-Cel owed, and on which it had been making payments. For that we got assets that are worth half a billion dollars, and we maintained employment.

Mr. Speaker, this government of today is not really interested in maintaining employment. They seem to have the attitude that any time they do anything that contributes to unemployment, that adds to the number unemployed, they will get credit, they will get marks, for being fiscally responsible.

Mr. Speaker, we maintained job opportunities for thousands of people, and it cost the people of British Columbia nothing. We had the authority to do that because the Minister of Finance had the authority, on the advice of his fellow ministers, on the advice of a cabinet meeting, to acquire shares in that particular Crown corporation. We saved hundreds of jobs — over 1,000 jobs — direct jobs in Ocean Falls, which has not been so profitable, but at least it did maintain a city, a city that was offered for sale by the previous owners, offered for sale to anyone in the United States who wanted to buy it. We had that opportunity with that kind of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there's been a lot of amusement about another acquisition of shares, and I'm going to mention it: Panco Poultry Products, an operation that was owned by eastern interests who said they were going to close it down. They came to us and told us quietly that if there was any leak of this publicly — any public discussion that the government might buy it — they would simply close the operation immediately, with, the immediate loss of 400 jobs. The loss of that poultry-processing operation and, of course, the tremendously bad effect on agriculture in the Lower Fraser Valley....

Mr. Speaker, because we had the authority to purchase those shares, we were able to save that industry, to save all those jobs. But as I say, this government doesn't want that right because it feels that any time it does anything or let's anything happen that helps create unemployment, they're showing evidence of being fiscally responsible.

[ Page 1913 ]

I am not surprised that this government feels that the Minister of Finance and the cabinet are inadequate to make decisions on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and they want taken away from them the authority to do these kinds of things.

Mr. Speaker, we're certainly going to oppose that section of the bill.

Interjections.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): The Bob Hope of the accounting world.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, with respect to section 2 of the bill, and the second part of it.... And here I am more than a little confused.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Member for Nanaimo has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister said that what he was doing in this was taking away from certain cabinet Ministers the right to guarantee loans. Now reading the legislation, there are the words "approval may be general or specific." I don't know exactly how that is going to be applied. If it means that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may give general approval to the Minister of Finance to guarantee any loan applications that may come before him, and that he doesn't need any further authorization from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, he really hasn't done anything except to say to all the ministers that they have to come to him first before they can approve anything. But if it really means that each loan application, or application for a loan guarantee, and which the government is going to guarantee, must be considered individually by cabinet, well, then it's rather a different matter.

I think cabinet must be, as many of the members of the back bench appear to be — I get that impression in public accounts committee at least, Mr. Speaker — and the government also must be, underemployed. Because I know as Minister of Agriculture alone that there were many applications that came before me as minister that required a guarantee under the Agricultural Credit Act. If it means that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) is going to come before a cabinet meeting before he can have the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) sign these guarantees, then I think the cabinet is looking to be rather hopelessly bogged down or, as I suggest, perhaps it is just underemployed.

I think again, Mr. Speaker, it's an admission that they don't really trust the adequacy of the people who have been named as ministers of the Crown. While I might share that distrust, if I were a member of that government I wouldn't want to stand up openly, publicly, and introduce legislation that said, in effect: "We don't trust the Minister of Finance, we don't trust the ministers of this government, we don't even trust them collectively to arrive at the right decisions; so we are going to remove from ourselves certain authorities regardless of what effect that will have upon the opportunities that the government may have from time to time to do things on behalf of the people of British Columbia."

Mr. Speaker, the official opposition will oppose this legislation.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, this is a good little bill, I think. There are about a hundred other priorities before it, like repealing Bill 31 and things of that nature important to the economy of British Columbia, but insofar as it goes it's all right.

The second part of it, of course, makes sense. It's a tightening up of financial administration and channeling it through the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), and I think that's only right.

The major part of the bill would restrict the authority of the Minister of Finance to invest the funds of the province in equities. More than restrict it, it would prohibit it.

I think it is important that the public should understand, Mr. Speaker, that while this is an interesting amendment, the barn door is left open for investment in equities by the funds of the province through any number of means, Crown agencies in particular, through the B.C. Development Corp., or British Columbia Hydro, or various emanations of the Crown that the Minister of Finance can direct to invest funds in any way he chooses. So in a way this is symbolic, but insofar as symbols are concerned it is useful and I welcome it.

I was concerned that this kind of amendment might tie the hands of the Crown in an emergent situation when a matter affecting the public interest in calling for a quick equity investment arises. I thought about that for a while, but I think there are ways around it. There is not question that such cases do arise from time to time. Can-Cel was an excellent deal for the people of British Columbia, and I was....

MR. LAUK: It was subsequently ratified in this chamber, as you will recall.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to hear any member on the opposite side of the House stand up and say it wasn't a good deal. It was a darn good deal! And Can-Cel opportunities are bound to arise again, and indeed they should arise again. I am convinced in my own mind that one of the ways we are going to bring more local British Columbia control of our own

[ Page 1914 ]

industry is to a considerable extent using the government of this province as a financial intermediary to mobilize the capital of the people of British Columbia and repatriate some of the ownership of our important resource and other firms.

MR. LAUK: I've just got a membership handy here.

MR. GIBSON: There are a lot of questions as to how things should be dealt with from there; questions of control of publicly-held equities of these kinds are very important. They must be such that they are removed and put at arm's length from the day-to-day political motivations and other activities of the government. There are all kinds of spin-off possibilities such as putting these things under a genuinely independent B.C. Development Corp. or taking the Alberta Energy Corp. route and putting these assets directly in the hands of the people. But these are questions that can be discussed in other areas.

What I am concerned about right here is that flexibility does remain, even after the passage of this bill, to handle those kinds of emergent situations which should be acted on in the public interest. The first opportunity is through the Crown agency route which I spoke of before which, as I say, leaves a virtual barn door open for the government to continue to make investments without let or hindrance.

The second is the possibility of a government to enter into an agreement to purchase any particular investment opportunity, subject to ratification by the Legislature, which I would think would be an acceptable way of proceeding to the vendors of most such investment opportunities. Therefore it seems to me the protection is there for the public interest, and since this legislation extends to a certain extent the power of this Legislature over the government, which I'm always in favour of, and since it doesn't unduly hamper the government in its ability to act in the public interest, I support it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I think the issue in the principle of the bill particularly, in relation to the repealing of section 9, very much deals with the word mentioned by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), and that is "trust" — trust in a government to make wise financial decisions which are not overwhelmed by political considerations. In my view, the bill makes a great deal of sense in repealing that power and removing that amount of discretion in any Minister of Finance, and I don't care what political stripe we might be talking about or who the government is.

One of the concerns of society today is the ever-increasing power of all levels of government. I think that in no particular respect is the public more concerned than the way in which governments handle their money. As I have said earlier on in this session of the House, of course, I am not suggesting that the black-ink, bottom-line approach necessarily is the one and only approach that governments should have. I believe that governments have a much greater and wider responsibility than simply just to balance the books. In regard to this specific power which we are repealing whereby a Minister of Finance can buy shares in a company, I think we are tightening up the kind of power which the public today is very uneasy about.

I listened to the member for Nanaimo commenting on Can-Cel. I agree that time has shown this was a good deal; and, for the sake of anybody who might want to take the trouble to look up the record, I voted both in favour of the Ocean Falls bill and in favour of Can-Cel. But the point I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, in supporting the principle of this bill, is that I believe if an issue such as the acquisition of Can-Cel is so good and can be demonstrated by debate to be good, then it should be debated and passed and accepted by this House as a specific piece of legislation. We should not leave the decision within the hands or the mind of the Minister of Finance alone without bringing that kind of decision before all the members of this Legislature.

While it obviously would be faster and easier to leave the Revenue Act the way it is so that, in fact, a minister could purchase shares in a company, or buy out the whole company for that matter, I believe the public want to have some wider assurance than they have at the present time that that kind of decision would not be made for purely political reasons rather than the financial efficiency of such an acquisition, or the advisability of such an acquisition of shares for purely financial and economic reasons.

It seems to me that although the official opposition has a good point that sometimes social considerations have to be important and be acknowledged as such, it still doesn't mean by repealing this part of the bill that the government is prevented from using other approaches, such as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) has mentioned, or, as I believe, in the form of a specific piece of legislation to deal with a specific acquisition which the government believes to be economically and financially sound, and which may also have some very important social advantages.

There has also been mention that the government appears unconcerned with the creation of jobs and that perhaps by acquiring ownership or part ownership in certain corporations jobs could be created. Once again, I just have to say that if solving the unemployment problem depends on this one single section of this one bill to let the Minister of Finance buy shares, then I say, indeed, the province is

[ Page 1915 ]

in real trouble. We are indeed desperately in need of leadership if section 9 of this bill has to be maintained as some kind of important element in the anti-unemployment fight. It seems to me that there are many other ways in which employment can and must be stimulated in this province. I have already alluded to this in previous debates, that one of them would be, at least in the short term, to reconsider deficit financing, and even at this stage for the government to consider a supplementary budget, which the Premier tells me today in question period is not being considered.

So there are other ways — many other ways and many more fruitful ways — in which unemployment can be dealt with. But I do feel that the argument for retaining section 9 in the Revenue Act — that to do so would be an important element in the battle against unemployment — is a pretty thin — argument in my view. Another fact in my argument, and my reason for supporting this bill, is a statement which the House was able to read for the first time in Unity News today when the Premier of the province states that it is not healthy or suitable for the government to own shares or to participate in corporations in competition with the private sector when the government also is the referee and makes the rules.

Whether the socialists like it or not, and whether anybody likes it or not, we are living in a competitive society where the private sector makes a very substantial contribution to the revenue from which we derive our social services. I have said it many times in the House, and the kind of example I would quote is Plateau Mills, where the government moves in, buys the corporation, then forms a Crown corporation which doesn't pay income tax and claims to be able to do a more economic and efficient job than other private enterprise forest corporations.

Now it becomes tedious to keep repeating this, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, in debate after debate, but it's absolutely hypocritical of any government, this one or any other, to have a separate set of ground rules for itself in relation to revenue and taxation, than apply to private corporations, then for any government to stand up and brag that it can do a better job through some technique, such as Crown corporations, when it doesn't have to pay income tax.

So to me it makes a great deal of sense that the government, and particularly the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), does not require the power that's granted to him within section 9. Any fears anyone might have that useful and very advantageous enterprises such as Can-Cel would otherwise not be feasible is a very thin argument, because there are alternatives and one of the most important elements behind the other alternative is the importance of open government — namely, the introduction of specific legislation for a specific purpose, which is open to the fullest scrutiny of the members of this House, members of the public to contribute through their elected representatives to that debate.

I believe that this is a good bill. I'm not concerned that it will in any way cause any difficulties to government to carry out those worthwhile projects which may occur from time to time where the government could acquire ownership. On the other hand, it does give the public the kind of assurance which I think they're seeking these days to ensure that power is only given to ministers and to cabinets along with — to use that old hackneyed phrase — some degree of check and balance as to how that power is used. The way in which power is used is never more important than in the manner in which a government spends the taxpayer's money.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, some years ago in the early 1960s, the Social Credit government of the day arbitrarily confiscated a corporation known as B.C. Electric. It was an outrageous exercise of government power, the like of which this province had never seen and has never seen and I hope will never see again.

Mr. Speaker, that government of the day were such pikers that the owners of B.C. Electric had to drag them through the courts in the longest court battle in history to get a fair price for their arbitrarily confiscated property. The longest court case in history.

It was an arbitrary, right-wing confiscation of property, of betrayal of the ownership of property of this province, a black mark in the history of this province and one that characterized that previous administration. That's why I think some uncharitable individuals in British Columbia today, when they look at this amendment, say to themselves: "What hypocrisy!" What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, making a minor amendment to the Revenue Amendment Act, and pretending that they're protecting the public interest.

The government's entry into public enterprise is not a new one in Canada. It goes back to the beginnings of this country and of this province. The government has always involved itself in the economy, more so than other jurisdictions such as the United States and Europe, perhaps not more so today, but then, yes.

Government's entry into enterprises is not unusual and is accepted practice. I would like to record for you how the original section 9, that the minister is now asking to be repealed, was used and how like powers were used by the NDP administration.

May I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that a fair price was paid for Can-Cel. The government's entry into the economy of this province by the NDP administration was by negotiation, not be confiscation.

The attitude of that government is that they speak

[ Page 1916 ]

out of one side of their mouth and they do something else with their left hand — or whatever the mixed metaphor is.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's just sheer hypocrisy. Oh, "Mein Kempf" is speaking again, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There he is in his corner, the man that ran for the resource board and then he got a nomination for the right-wing coalition so he decided to run for them, and now he says resource boards are no good.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR. LAUK: Hypocrisy, I say, Mr. Speaker, to amend this Act and say: "We're protecting the public. We believe in private ownership. Governments should not be involved." But, boy! When it looked necessary to the government of the day they walked in in a jackboot way and took over this private company without proper recompense. The NDP bought Can-Cel after negotiation with the owners for a fair, agreed, bargained, price in a free economy.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Kootenay Forest Products — the same thing — a negotiated, fair market price.

AN HON. MEMBER: Plateau Mills. Same thing.

MR. LAUK: Ocean Falls — purchased after a negotiated fair price. And Plateau Mills — a fair price was negotiated, although the opposition party tried to trump up some nonsense in the area by getting some hamburger who said he offered some other price, and so on and so forth. Just a trumped-up story. You know it, Mr. Speaker, and everybody in this province knows it.

It was a fair price, bargained and negotiated for. The NDP stands for entry into the economy of this province by negotiation, not by confiscation. Not by that right-wing coalition government that has no respect for the laws of this land and no respect for the private ownership of property.

They stand indicted and condemned, and this section only makes it more difficult for there to be an open purchase of shares in the market. The government must act first. They can't bring in a bill to call the Legislature when they're negotiating for the purchase of a major industry, or even a medium-sized industry in this province. What utter nonsense! It's an excuse, Mr. Speaker, not to act to preserve the economy and jobs in this province. It's just a plain cheap excuse, hiding under some sort of phony principle that has long since been betrayed in the early 1960s by the originating party — before this right-wing coalition. The confiscatory party, I think we could call it, Mr. Speaker. I'll just have another drink and repeat that again.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Confis.... It confiscated; that's what it did. But you know exactly what I mean, Mr. Minister of Finance — through you, Mr. Speaker — you know what I mean.

You weren't there at the time. I'm sure you wouldn't have agreed with it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm sure you wouldn't have. But then, again, this amendment is some sort of phony front. It's an excuse to ignore the jobs that will be lost when situations arise from time to time where the government of the day must act quickly, not on behalf of a multi-corporation based in the United States...

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: ...not on behalf of even the shareholders, but on behalf of the public of British Columbia, to preserve those jobs, to keep the economy rolling in areas where irresponsible private entrepreneurs — and there are a few — will pull out without caring about the economy, that have no commitment to this province, no loyalty to its people. It is appropriate for the government to enter and protect those people on behalf of all of the public as a whole.

MR. HEWITT: Big government takeover.

MR. LAUK: Not one takeover. That shows you the hypocrisy of the right-wing coalition. The member for Boundary-Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt) calls it a takeover. I've just outlined the history of the jackboot confiscation of the B.C. Electric, and the longest court case in the history of the province. They were such pikers they didn't pay anywhere near a fair price. They had to be chased around in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for 15 years. Penny-pikers, confiscating private property.

You know, in my view, Mr. Speaker, it's just nonsense for them to hold up their hands so obsequiously and say: "We've got to protect the public from buying these shares." The stock exchange, Howe Street, Bay Street and Wall Street need no government intervention.

[ Page 1917 ]

They'll pick up the petty thieves and the pickpockets and the burglars and send them away for 10 years at a stretch, but allow the bandits on those streets to continue, and they say: "Oh, no, we shouldn't interfere." It's called free enterprise.

Where was free enterprise in private property in the early 1960s when they took over the B.C. Electric? They took it over. They confiscated it. They nationalized it, and they did it with a smile. I say hypocrisy.

Governments all across Canada are doing just that — entering into the private economy, taking a position in the public interest. I won't even go into detail about PWA. It's unfortunate that PWA was purchased by the Alberta government. Perhaps we should have had a look at it, but in any event the Tory government saw fit to do it.

The Ontario government does it, the Newfoundland Tory government does it, and the NDP administration did it by negotiation, by a fair bargain price — not by confiscation. To hide behind this section is an excuse. They're going to say they're not going to intervene. In situations where hundreds and hundreds of jobs are at stake, the economy's at stake, tax revenue's at stake, they'll throw up their hands and say: "Oh, my goodness, we can't do it — we're bound by the legislation." I say: hypocrisy. We'll oppose this.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, the government members obviously don't trust each other over there within the cabinet, because this bill will prohibit the minister from entering into any negotiations to purchase vessels such as the Prince George, or any other ventures that they might be interested in.

Mr. Speaker, they are concerned that the province might somehow get involved in another Can-Cel which might benefit the people of the province. That purchase of Can-Cel was one of the best things the former government did. That's what they're afraid of. They don't want to get into any area that they consider to be the prerogative of their friend, big business — that's what they don't want. They obviously don't care about jobs when you look at the record that they have had since they took office in terms of employment in this province. They don't care about those things.

Mr. Speaker, if the government at this time is asking us to support this bill and is determined to go ahead with the bill, requiring that legislation come to this House before they can enter into negotiations or before they can make any purchases, then I say that they should also come to this House to have full discussion about any of the sales that they are making.

They have just sold the Prince George without coming to ask us. They have not been here for a whole discussion on that issue. They didn't consult me, they didn't consult any of the councils such as Alert Bay about whether or not they should sell the Prince George — they simply sold it. It seems to me that if they want the province to come to the Legislature in order to enter into any purchases, then fair is fair. They should also come here to ask when they want to sell the Prince George or Ocean Falls or anything else that they might have in mind. I would like the minister to make some comments on that when he closes debate.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Mr. Speaker, I think I can bring you some new memos from my riding, because if you had lived in the northwestern part of this province up until the time that Col-Cel was purchased — it has since been known as Can-Cel — then you'd realize that the role of government is not always to be one of economics. It has to be a government that has a social conscience along with a good sensible approach to economics.

For years and years in the city of Prince Rupert and in the surrounding area there was no capital coming into that community. There was no new capital coming in to build up what could be termed as surrounding industry around the one major industry, the pulp mill at Watson Island, and the reason that other capital was not coming in was because of the insecurity of the operation of that pulp mill. There's no doubt that for years the profitable end of Col-Cel had been the Castlegar operation, and the unprofitable area had been the pulp mill complex at Watson Island.

Over the years there had been a cross subsidy within that company itself to maintain the operation at Watson Island, using some of the profits that were taken out of the Castlegar operation and applying those to making viable the operation at Watson Island outside of Prince Rupert.

The time came when American Celanese, the parent company of Columbia Cellulose in the United States were desirous of divesting themselves of Columbia Cellulose. There was a deal being negotiated between Weyerhauser and Columbia Cellulose for the sale of Columbia Cellulose to Weyerhauser. Weyerhauser, to their benefit, made no bones about the fact that if they bought that operation they were only interested in running the profitable part of that company, the Castlegar operation. I'd like to suggest to you that from their point of view they were making the correct decision, because a corporation has no real obligation to the social building of a province or a geographic region. They have an obligation to themselves and their shareholders to show a maximum amount of profit. That is their role in society. Whether it's good or whether it's bad can be discussed another day, but that is their role in society.

[ Page 1918 ]

During the last campaign I listened with a great deal of interest to the rhetoric coming from the campaigners for the Social Credit Party and it seems to me that they stressed only the economics of the province. "Let's get it rolling again. Let's get the economy rolling again." I think in itself that kind of slogan during a time of recession is a good slogan.

I don't think there was a politician or a person in this province who wasn't interested in getting the economy rolling again so there could be prosperity, both in the business community and in the community of trade unions and other people who were not organized in the working-class community. I think everyone was interested in that. But there has to be a balance in government between the economic responsibility that that government holds and the social responsibility that a government must hold on an equal basis with the economic — not one lower or higher than the other, but an equal kind of responsibility between the social responsibility and the economic responsibility of government.

If you had been in Prince Rupert and watched the uncertainty of the economics, not knowing from one month or one year to the next whether indeed that mill was going to operate and whether a payroll was going to be coming into Prince Rupert and whether or not those businesses were going to survive, whether the workers would have enough money to adequately maintain their families at a proper standard, then I think possibly you would have a somewhat different attitude in dealing with the kind of problems that you're going to have to deal with as government.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that when you get extremes in government.... If you get an extreme left-wing government which says, "We're going to go wholesale and take over all of the industry in a province and leave nothing to the private sector, " then I really believe that the people in this province have a great deal to worry about.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's why they kicked them out.

MR. LEA: I think also, when you have a government that goes to the antithesis of that proposition and says, "There is no room for government to become involved in a real way in the economy of the province," you also have a real danger, Mr. Speaker. What we're seeing since this government has come to power — and I think Bill 8 is another bill that shows this very clearly — is that you don't have a Liberal government, you don't have a Conservative government nor do you have a Social Credit government. Because I don't think a Social Credit government, a Liberal government or a Conservative government would take the action that this government is taking.

I think the real danger, Mr. Speaker, is that we have a government made up of the extremists of the extreme right of the three old-line parties. The extreme right makes up this coalition. It isn't a coalition of moderates. It's a coalition of the extreme right brought around by a polarization in this province of the voters that I think was fostered and nurtured and implemented by the group that we're looking at across the floor. It's a very dangerous kind of social circumstance for this province to find itself in, this polarization of the right, and I think the province is going to live to regret the day — if they haven't already — that they voted in a bunch of extremists representing the extreme right of three parties.

I think that is the real danger of this bill, because we have an extremist government — an extreme right-wing government made up of the extreme right of three parties who are not willing to look at their responsibility in a social and economic way, but only in an economic way, dealing with their corporate friends. I don't mean that in a way that they're going to do great huge under-the-table favours for their corporate friends. I don't think they're going to have to do it in that way, because the philosophy they hold, Mr. Speaker, is conducive to a corporate way of thinking where dollars are everything and the government should be run the same as a corporation where only profits count and the social aspects can be left up to the do-gooders in our society, as they think of them.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: If we raise social issues in this House that mean a great deal to people who need those kind of social services and that kind of philosophy, this government is going to discard that with sleight of hand, because they see their prime job only in the economic sphere of this province and that is it. They've proved it by everything they've done since they've come into office.

I believe that the people of British Columbia have the option of voting in any party that they so choose, and they do take that option and that's good. That's democracy.

I believe that this party across from us has been voted in to act on behalf of the people of British Columbia and I would hate to see — and I believe that they actually feel they are — because I think they're blinded by their own ideology.... I think that they're going to act in many ways. Common sense is going to be thrown to the wind because of their very narrow ideological concept of what life is all about. I really believe that.

So what are we going to have here? I believe that the government has been voted in by the people; the government then has a responsibility to take some initiative and to act when they see fit. If they do not

[ Page 1919 ]

act in a correct and proper manner for the benefit of this province, then they are going to have to answer in two places; they are going to have to answer in this House to the official opposition, to the Liberal leader and to the Conservative leader in a legislative way, and every so often they are going to have to answer to the voters of this province.

I believe that the kind of legislation we brought in, which is being rescinded by this government, is the kind of power that you should have. You should use it wisely. You say that you are business people. You say that you can recognize good business opportunities: You say you know how to run business. Yet you are afraid to accept your responsibility and act as you should act on behalf of the people and leave yourself the opportunity to act at a given moment if that opportunity arises for the good of this province and for the good of the people of this province.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) says: "Well, it's really only a window-dressing," because you can come in other ways, through other organizations, to do it. I believe that. To a certain extent it is window-dressing because there are other means by which you can achieve what you want to achieve if you are going to take that direction. So this really doesn't mean anything except the fact that you are removing from the books of this province the means to act quickly, the means to act openly and to do what you are going to do through the proper channels.

I heard the Minister of Finance talk earlier, when one of his backbenchers put in a comment and said that the legislation he is rescinding amounts to secrecy. I don't believe that. I believe also, by the way, that there are going to be times when you are acting as government that you are going to have to act with confidentiality because of delicate negotiations, and you are going to have to do that without telling your own back bench and people in the opposition. You are going to have to do that from time to time.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): No memos!

MR. LEA: But to remove this legislation you are tying your hands to act in a meaningful way, to act quickly for the socio-economic benefit of this province. Because you are so tied to a blind, ideological direction and do not see the forest for the trees, you think you are going to be very popular by doing this — and you may be. But are you acting correctly? That's what you have to ask yourself.

I believe this was brought in for political purposes — to say: "See, here's what we are going to do." But I think you are acting incorrectly, Mr. Speaker. I think you are acting incorrectly because you are removing the power from cabinet to act swiftly for the benefit of people in this province and for the overall good. I think you would do well to reconsider and leave yourself this legislation to act on the behalf of British Columbia when you see fit. If you act incorrectly, you will have to answer in here and to the province of British Columbia. But you were elected to govern, and by bringing in this bill I think you are exonerating yourself from the responsibility you should hold.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I hate to point out the obvious, but it is fairly clear that this bill is an excuse for inaction. The people of British Columbia believe that they have elected a government of small businessmen; it turns out they have elected a government of small minds. I would put to you most seriously, Mr. Speaker, that any businessman of first-class reputation and worth prizes the quality of flexibility.

A first-class businessman sees opportunities and acts on them immediately. He possesses the authority and the ability, the confidence, the skill, the insight, the wit and the imagination to move on his own initiative, to move with flexibility and to take advantage of situations as they present themselves. Any big businessman knows that; it appears the small businessmen have forgotten that, if they ever knew it in the first place.

The previous Revenue Act provided an opportunity for the financial leadership of this province in our government to move quickly and with flexibility in order to exploit opportunities as they presented themselves to the advantage of the people of British Columbia. I want to remind this Legislature, Mr. Speaker, of one opportunity that presented itself very quickly, and was acted upon with equal speed. It was acted upon because under the previous government the Minister of Finance had the flexibility to compete; he had the flexibility to act. He had the largeness of mind, the breadth of vision to move quickly when it was required. This bill will remove that opportunity and diminish that flexibility entirely. What I am speaking of is a matter of grave concern to the people of my riding.

Last year the CPR, having bungled everything else in the history of that operation, decided to get rid of the Marguerite. The Princess Marguerite is worth to the people of Victoria — to the tourist industry of greater Victoria — $34 million a year, and the CPR was prepared to let it fall apart.

Because of the flexibility implicit in our government's attitude towards business and implicit in the previous amendment to that Act which you are now intent on rescinding, and because of our

[ Page 1920 ]

government's willingness to exercise initiative and flexibility, we were willing to save the Marguerite. Not only did we save the Marguerite, but we were able....

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Tell us how the Marguerite was bought.

MR. BARBER: Read the whole bill, Mr. Premier. Read the second part. I've read it. Have you? Read your own bill, Mr. Premier. Take a look at it now. I'll loan you my copy. Page, would you come here? We'll loan the Premier this copy.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get Dave Brown to read it to him.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the Premier with a copy of his own bill — Bill 8.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. members of the House have copies of the bill in their bill books.

MR. BARBER: When he reads section 2 he'll know what I am referring to.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that our government had a philosophy, our government had a point of view, our government had a flexibility that allowed them to act quickly, on their own initiative, with flexibility and imagination, when business opportunities presented themselves. We had an opportunity in Victoria to purchase invaluable Inner Harbour lands which are now in the public trust. We had an opportunity to save the Princess Marguerite, a service worth $34 million a year to the tourist industry of greater Victoria. When this government, Mr. Speaker, in a foolish, small-minded, small-business, dumb act decided it would get rid of the Marguerite they finally had to back down because even the chamber of commerce told them that that was a foolish move on the part of the small minds of the small businessmen coalition government — $34 million to the tourist industry in greater Victoria. Because of the flexibility of mind and spirit, because of the legislation, and because of the enterprise shown by our government the Marguerite was saved and those public lands were purchased.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to use your influence to urge that government not to tie its own hands behind its own back. We haven't asked that those hands be tied. We haven't asked that they bring in this excuse for inaction, because they are going to tell us, Mr. Speaker, a year from now, when another enterprise comes up: "Well, the legislation forbade our purchase of it and we couldn't do it. We weren't able to move quickly enough. Sure enough, it came available but, gosh, we just didn't have the flexibility. We apologize. It's regretful that we missed that one too, but, you know, we didn't really have the power to do it because the Act wouldn't let us."

Mr. Speaker, this is an offensive bill. It offends any serious businessman who knows how any serious business works. It offends the spirit of any big business — and government is, to a certain extent, also big business — that wishes to take an opportunity when it is presented and move with it rapidly and flexibly on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, because of that spirit represented, because of the business initiative and good common sense of our government, we were able to obtain those public harbour lands when they became available, and we were able to save the Princess Marguerite and to save the $34 million a year brought into this city by that service.

A good Minister of Finance deserves this flexibility. A good Minister of Finance should have it. The Premier, if he's read the bill yet, shouldn't take it away from him.

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I'm afraid that I can't match the theatrical capabilities of the free spirits from across the floor, but I would very much like to make a few comments about some of the acquisitions of the previous government.

They purchased the Kootenay Forest Products plywood operation and sawmill in Nelson. It's a good operation, Mr. Speaker; however, Eddy Match Co. laughed all the way to the bank. Fourteen million dollars was the price tag, and of course they acquired some acreage in this purchase as well. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that Eddy Match Co. was going to take this acreage back to wherever they came from with them. The government of British Columbia has control of land in British Columbia. They didn't have to purchase that land. However, Eddy Match Co. did very well indeed in getting $14 million for that operation.

Mr. Speaker, another purchase of this government was Plateau Mills, which is, indeed, a good little operation and through a recent $6 million expansion will become an even better operation. However, Mr. Speaker, it seems rather strange to me that the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) had to hand write a letter — he didn't use his secretary; he wrote by hand — to the directors of Plateau Mills guaranteeing them sufficient wood to justify the expansion of this operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this is the reason that we don't feel that a government who is the vendor of Crown timber values should be in

[ Page 1921 ]

competition with the private sector. There is a conflict of interest and that was demonstrated by that former minister when he knew that he did not have legislative authority to guarantee timber to that company.

Mr. Speaker, the government also acquired Can-Cel, and it was a good thing for the people in the Prince Rupert area, but Can-Cel, Mr. Speaker, is notorious for being one of the worst corporate citizens in that area, and they were controlled by that government. The profits made by Can-Cel were legitimate profits, primarily due to a happy circumstance of times with dramatically increasing pulp prices, and also to the fact that they rode on the backs of the independent logging operators in that country. Many independent operators have been forced into bankruptcy, and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Shelford) will, I'm sure, be telling you about that.

Also, Mr. Speaker, during the estimates of the Minister for the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) we had a great dissertation by the members opposite about pollution on the coast. The biggest polluter on the coast has been Can-Cel. What action did that government take when they were the government to prevent this pollution from a corporation which they owned and had control over?

Mr. Speaker, I support this bill because I think that when a government decides to purchase something, just as when a company does, they refer to their board of directors, and the board of directors of this government are the members in this assembly. They should have input into such major decisions.

MR. COCKE: I'm very interested in the speech which we just heard from the Minister of Mines, Forests, and everything we eat and breathe.

Mr. Speaker, it's very seldom he gets up and commits himself to the record, but when he does we all get very excited. But, Mr. Speaker, one of the things that strikes me as being somewhat paradoxical is that there spoke a man in this House who is so enthralled with private enterprise and yet he has spent his whole life in public service.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He was a public servant, Mr. Member, a civil servant — very, very enthralled with public service. Why didn't you put it on the line, Mr. Minister? Why, Mr. Speaker, didn't he go into private enterprise and show us what a great entrepreneur he would have been and conquered the world for these great investments that he could have made?

MR. LAUK: He would have lost his shirt.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, what that minister was talking about was competition — government competing with private enterprise.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: They won't go in the funeral parlour business, so don't worry. Don't get excited. Even our government wouldn't go into that one. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Don't get excited.

Mr. Speaker. let's talk about competition for a minute.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: I wasn't in land speculation outside of Vernon and voted against the Land Commission Act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) finished his speech some minutes ago. The hon. member for New Westminster now has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. LEA: You tell me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LEA: Don't be such an ass, Pat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Don't be such an ass, Pat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, this whole discussion of government competing with the private entrepreneur is a fallacious argument. Really what we're facing in our country today is monopolies providing the kind of competition that these independent operators that that minister was talking about cannot face — monopolies coming out of the United States of America. Sixty-five per cent of our

[ Page 1922 ]

economy is controlled south of the border.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): How much was it when you were in government?

MR. COCKE: Precisely why we had that Act the way it was, and now you're amending it. Mr. Speaker, now they're amending it so they couldn't do the kind of thing that we were able to do with Can-Cel. When Col-Cel let the word out from New York that they were finished in B.C., we were able to pick up the pieces. We were able to conserve those thousands of jobs.

MR. LEA: That's right.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), jobs that had some bearing on your constituency as well.

Mr. Speaker, it's important that governments have those kinds of options, and particularly in a province that's threatened continually by huge monopolies which make our basic decisions for us in the boardrooms in New York and the boardrooms across the country. If that's the kind of competition these people encourage, then I suggest they have their values all upside-down and backwards.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the independent operators....

Forced into bankruptcy by who? You ask the independent operators who were forced into bankruptcy. They've been forced into bankruptcy over the years by the huge forest giants.

The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) will tell you when he gets up, I'm quite sure, that the attrition of the small operators in B.C. in the 20 years of Social Credit was an absolutely shameful affair. We don't have to apologize now for the senseless, faceless kind of thing that's going on in this House. A vengeful Act, Mr. Speaker, because it looks like it might be right, because it's the antithesis of what we did.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I wonder. I wonder if these people will ever come to their senses. I wonder.

Mr. Speaker, needless to say, I feel no chagrin whatsoever in standing up, when the vote is taken, in total opposition to this senseless bill.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I had not really intended to get involved in this debate, but that little minister of the wastelands over there from up in Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Waterland), the Minister of Lands — I'm not sure what his title is — resources, mining in the parks, a variety of other endeavours, has provoked some questions...

AN HON. MEMBER: Free advertising.

MR. KING: ...provoked some reminders that I'd like to extend to him and his coalition colleagues.

He talked about a note, a handwritten note, which the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, under the NDP administration, had directed, and that sounded quite ominous.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was.

MR. KING: But I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that no one has ever suggested that the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, Bob Williams, dealt in a way that would produce any charges of wrongdoing, bribery or collusion. We have no record in our party of ministers of the Crown dealing in that manner...

MR. CHABOT: Justice Anderson called Williams a liar.

MR. KING: ...and ultimately being convicted in the courts, and going to jail. I wonder if the minister ever heard of the name of Robert Somers?

MR. CHABOT: Justice Anderson called Williams a liar.

MR. KING: If he did, I think he would have thought twice about raising the kind of point he raised here today. I am surprised that he would raise that kind of suggestion.

I want to tell that minister, Mr. Speaker, despite all the noisy chirping away by the Jonathan Livingstone Seagulls down there.... We know what the seagulls are; we know how they conduct themselves. They're noisy and they squawk a lot, but they make little sense. They distribute a lot of waste, and that's what this government is doing — waste and havoc all over this province. I want to tell that minister how it used to be.

MR. LAUK: Tom Wasteland.

MR. KING: When we were first elected in 1972, I had some visitations from small, medium-sized, and large logging operators. I'll never forget the revelation that occurred in my office when a group of sawmill operators arrived and wanted an interview with my colleague, the minister in charge of lands, forests and water resources. I knew of this operation on an intimate basis because it was in my riding, and I said: "What's your problem?" They said: "Well, it's a lack

[ Page 1923 ]

of timber supply." Since I was intimately familiar with their plants and knew that they had just undertaken a major expansion to the tune of $2.5 million, I suggested that perhaps they were kidding me. I said: "Surely you're not suggesting to me that two hard-headed, hard-nosed businessmen like you would embark on an expenditure of that kind, a capital expenditure of $2.5 million, without a firm supply of timber to justify your expansion and your continued operation on the margin of profit that would have to justify that kind of outlay."

Interjection.

MR. KING: And they said to me, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The member is getting exercised. He doesn't want to hear this story. He's very vocal, but he seldom makes much sense.

Mr. Speaker, they said to me: "Well, we had a commitment from the former minister on timber." I said: "Oh, well, that's a different story. Could I see a copy of that commitment you had from the former minister?" They said to me: "Well, there was no written commitment. It was simply a verbal commitment." Simply a verbal commitment to a couple of entrepreneurs in the private sector who had just expanded their mill to the tune of $2.5 million without a firm supply of timber.

I said to them: "I'm quite a naive country boy from way up the line in Revelstoke. I don't know much about business, and not too much about politics, really. I'm here to try and represent my people well." But I did say to them: "Well, could this kind of verbal commitment, on the basis of the resources that belong to the people of British Columbia — could it possibly have anything to do with campaign contributions?"

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. KING: "Is that a possibility?" I received a rather red-faced, abashed, shamed response — some hand-wringing, and some head-hanging, but no intelligent reply. I asked: "Why would the minister give a verbal commitment that would justify the expansion of a plant, a capital expenditure of $2.5 million? Why would he give that kind of commitment to the private sector?"

The minister across the way, Mr. Speaker, who got up and spoke last was concerned about commitments in the public sector that can only benefit in terms of profit the people of the province. They are the owners. If he finds that offensive, if he finds that untoward and rather unusual, I trust that he's equally shocked by a revelation that members of the former Social Credit government, remnants of which still form the nucleus of this new coalition, acted in a very unusual way, a very indiscreet way with the private sector which gives rise to many more questions. Those kind of things happened and can be verified and that's on that basis of personal experience.

Talking about Can-Cel and what it meant to the people of British Columbia, it was not only a sound financial deal which has brought great revenue to this province, which has assisted in financing and funding social programmes. It was not only a socially needed move in terms of protecting the interests of the city of Prince Rupert, securing employment, securing the future of the business community in that area, not only those things. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that in that one acquisition by the New Democratic Party government, nine million acres of forest land in this province were repatriated to ownership of the people of this province, nine million acres, rather than to have domination and control of that land by a foreign enterprise operator, a monopoly that had no social commitment to this province whatsoever.

When I hear, Mr. Speaker, backbenchers from the north sniping away with protestations against this kind of activity, I say, my gosh, I wonder if their constituents know that. I wonder if they know that those backbenchers from the north were prepared to see British Columbia communities die in the interests of the private rights of multinational foreign corporations. That's who they represent.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the talk about small operators being protected. It was the former Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) under our government who acted to secure a reasonable price for chips, which indeed sustained the majority of the small logging operators and kept them in business at a time when the large pulp mills were not prepared to increase the price of chips, which would justify the transportation costs of that commodity to the mills. That was recognized and welcomed and applauded by virtually all of the small operators in this province. That's a matter of record.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, that when I first moved to Revelstoke in 1952, there were dozens and dozens of small logging operators and sawmills all throughout that territory. Between the city of Revelstoke and the small village of Sicamous there were some 20 small operators, each employing perhaps three or four or up to a dozen men, able to make a living with a wide variety of operations.

MR. KEMPF: At the expense of the small businessman.

MR. KING: At the expense of the small businessman? I thought we had a private enterpriser over there, Mr. Speaker. Apparently not. He's against

[ Page 1924 ]

the small operator.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there's not one left, not a single one. They have been bought out. They have been squeezed out, not by any government action but by government inaction, inaction on the part of the former Social Credit government which allowed the large monopolies to take over control of the tenure on all of the forest management licences in this province so there are no small operators left.

South of Revelstoke in the area of Arrowhead, all throughout that area, many small operators and enterprising men who faced unemployment were able to get a chunk of timber. He was able to go out and carve a niche for himself. That's really what private enterprise is. I support that.

There's no opportunity any more, not over that government's policy, not over the former Social Credit government's policy. I want to tell you....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that during our three-year tenure of office — three years, three months — we were moving in the direction of returning some control of resources to local communities.

In my own riding, Mr. Speaker, I had worked with the Slocan Valley Community Resources Society and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to provide and return to the local communities some control over their resource management and the harvesting of it. I say that's completely compatible with the kind of free enterprise, the kind of control that local people should have over their resource. That's precisely what the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, are opposing.

I wonder what's happening to that programme today. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it has no chance of being developed and brought to fruition under this heavy-handed big-business administration that serves the monopolies of this country, of this province, and the international monopolies.

Put your money where your mouth is. If you are committed to the kind of thing you say you are, which I've just talked about, a niche for the small entrepreneur to get out with his equipment and with his chainsaw and so on and get a piece of the action, then the route is pretty clear. You have a chance to stand and be counted today; and I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that they're going to be found wanting again....

MR. KEMPF: You haven't but I've been there.

MR. KING: They're going to be found doing lip-service to free enterprise, free competitive enterprise, but in the final analysis squeezing the small operator out every time and serving the multinationals. That's the history of that group. It's the history of the former Social Credit government perhaps to a lesser extent than this new right-wing coalition. Because no one knows what they represent. They have no philosophical tie to any party. They have a philosophical attachment and thirst for power. That's why they were able to come together in the crew that we see sitting before us. They have all embarrassed looks on their faces, and I don't blame them. I don't blame them. What a crew! What a crew they are!

Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement to the House, by leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Premier has the floor.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to advise the House that on Wednesday, May 26, I will be visiting the communities of Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, but more particularly Whitehorse in the Yukon Territory.

The purpose of the visit is to discuss British Columbia's position on the Alaska Highway pipeline proposal with the Yukon Government which is now in session. I will be accompanied by the Minister of Energy, the Hon. Jack Davis, the Minister of Economic Development, the Hon. Don Phillips, and the Chairman of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, Mr. George Leckner.

In addition to the pipeline proposal we will be discussing with the Yukon Legislative Council a number of areas of mutual concern. As this House well knows, I've already discussed with the governors of Washington, Oregon and Alaska British Columbia's interest in the Alaska Highway pipeline proposal. I'm sure the House will agree that it's important that further discussion with our Canadian counterparts in the Yukon take place as soon as possible, and that is why we have arranged with them this visit.

I wish to express my appreciation to the Chief Commissioner, Mr. Jim Smith, and his Council, and also that part that call themselves MLAs, my appreciation for the opportunity they've given us for this visit at this particular time.

MR. KING: Well, just to briefly respond, Mr. Speaker, as I did earlier congratulate the Premier on

[ Page 1925 ]

continuing the dialogue that our government tried to develop with other jurisdictions in neighbouring areas. I think that that's worthwhile. But I am concerned, particularly in view of previous statements by the Premier that there might be trade-offs that he will be discussing with these other states, and I would certainly welcome his statements in the House a great deal more if he would give some indication of precisely what positions the Government of British Columbia is going to be taking at these functions. Certainly I think that the House deserves some assurance that the trade-offs he referred to earlier are not going to compromise the interests of our province.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say that the Premier should, I think, consider following the practice or the precedent of the former administration in occasionally, on important conferences like this, inviting opposition members along in an observer way, because the interest of this province as it affects other jurisdictions certainly crosses any party lines. We allowed that kind of situation under our government, and I think it would show a non-partisan spirit...

HON. MR. BENNETT: When?

MR. KING: ...of maturity by the present government if he continued it. Certainly, I think the current Premier and certainly the Leader of the Conservative Party attended conferences in Ottawa at the invitation of our government....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, yeah?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: They attended at the invitation of the then government with observer status, Mr. Speaker, and I think it would be welcome if the Premier would show some degree of maturity and statesmanship and follow that lead.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

AN HON. MEMBER: All over the place.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly. The potentiality of this pipeline is an extraordinarily important question for British Columbia. I wish the Premier well in his discussions and hope that he will undertake them before any irrevocable commitments are made and that a full opportunity for debate will be available in this House with full information.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, despite the official opposition's effort to pack me off to the Yukon.... (Laughter.) I did emigrate from a cold country, but I believe it is nothing compared to the Yukon. I do acknowledge and respect the Premier's statement and wish him well, because there can be few subjects that are more important to this province than determining our energy policy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just for a point of clarification on statements made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), it is true that the federal government did extend, on the two national conferences on energy, invitations to leaders of the opposition and opposition parties all across Canada to take observer status at those conferences. As such I appreciated the opportunity. When we participate in such a federal conference again, I would urge the federal government, when they set the type of meeting that should be called, to allow the same opportunity. However, I don't remember ever being invited by the Government of British Columbia on any discussions such as a hurried trip to New York on the programme called "The Way Out." I remember "The Way Out" programme was accepted so well that the voters of B.C. showed him the way out on December 11.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, before the House adjourns I would like to draw your attention to the fact that during the debate on Bill 8 members not having possession of the floor traded remarks back and forth across the floor, interrupting the person who was in possession of the floor many, many times. Had those persons been in possession of the floor, they would have been immediately ruled out of order because the remarks that I heard were unparliamentary in the extreme. Hon. members should not exchange in asides across the floor the same type of remarks that they know would be automatically ruled out by the Chairman or the Speaker if they had possession of the floor. I would hope that all hon. members will cooperate with the spirit of what I am saying.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.