[ Page 5667 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter.

Mt. Mussallem –– 5667

Oral Questions

Appointment of Douglas Heal, Mrs. Dailly –– 5667

Mr. Levi –– 5667

Improvements at Oakalla Prison Farm. Mr. Lorimer –– 5667

Admission of boy to Riverview. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy replies –– 5667

Mr. Levi –– 5668

Unscrupulous real estate offers. Mr. Leggatt –– 5668

Income Tax Amendment Act –– 1981 (Bill 10). Committee stage, (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 3 –– 5669

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Howard

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

Third reading

Finance Statutes Amendment Act –– 1981 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 1 –– 5672

Mr. Stupich

On section 4 –– 5672

Mr. Stupich

On section 6 –– 5673

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Stupich

On section 10 –– 5674

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to section 16 –– 5674

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Davis

Mr. Stupich

On section 22 –– 5675

Ms. Brown

Mr. Nicolson

On section 23 –– 5676

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to section 23 –– 5676

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Brown

Division on the amendment

On section 23 –– 5677

Ms. Brown

On the amendment to section 23 –– 5677

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lauk

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. King

Mr. Hanson

Division on the amendment

On section 23 –– 5681

Mr. Stupich

On section 24 –– 5681

Ms. Brown

On section 25 –– 5681

Ms. Brown

Mr. Skelly

On section 26 –– 5682

Mr. Stupich

On section 30 –– 5683

Mr. Stupich

On section 31 –– 5683

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. King

Mr. Barrett

Hon. Mrs. Jordan

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Fraser

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Nicolson

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills committee report.

Mr. Strachan –– 5689

Appendix –– 5689

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, on the floor of our assembly today are some very special guests of the Legislature: social-services ministers from the provinces and one of the territories. They are here to discuss social services across this nation, and they will be deliberating today and tomorrow. It's my great pleasure to ask the House to welcome them. Present in the assembly today are: Hon. Mr. McCall representing the Yukon; Hon. Margaret Birch of Ontario; Hon. Robert Bogle of Alberta; Hon. Dwain Lingenfelter of Saskatchewan; Hon. George Minaker of Manitoba: Hon. Laird Stirling of Nova Scotia: Hon. James Lee of Prince Edward Island; and Hon. Thomas Hickey of Newfoundland.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I have two introductions today. First, I would like members of the Legislature to welcome a group of grade 10 students and then- chaperone and teacher from the community of Port Simpson; they are visiting the legislative precincts today. Also visiting us today, from the Central Fraser Valley constituency, is the president of the New Democratic Party in that constituency, Vera Velthisen. On behalf of myself, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the rest of the members of the legislative assembly, I would ask you to welcome her.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) I would ask the House to welcome to the Legislature the L.A. Matheson Junior Secondary School and a group of visitors from the province of Quebec.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have in the gallery a gentleman who is known affectionately by a large number of my constituents as Mr. Lonsdale. He's visiting us and I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Bud BraiiE to the assembly.

Presenting Petitions

MR. MUSSALLEM: I beg leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: This is a petition praying for the passing of an act intituled An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter. I move that the rules be suspended and the petition be received.

Motion approved.

Oral Questions

APPOINTMENT OF DOUGLAS HEAL

MRS. DAILLY: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. Can the minister confirm that Mr. Douglas Heal, prior to his appointment by order in-council No. 387, was employed by the government at a per diem rate?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, I can confirm that he was temporarily appointed on a contractual arrangement prior to his being appointed permanently.

MRS. DAILLY: Supplementary to the minister, over what period was Mr. Heal so employed?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I don't have the exact time period, Mr. Speaker. I could act that information. In order to be precise, I'll take that question on notice.

MRS. DAILLY: What was the per diem or form of payment to Mr. Heal for that period?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Once again, I'd rather take that on notice so that I can have the exact information for the member.

MRS. DAILLY: When the minister is taking this on notice I wonder if when he returns to the House he'd also include in his reply the total amount paid to Mr. Heal as salary, fee or expenses prior to his appointment under the order-in-council.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has that question.

MR. LEVI: Could the minister tell the House what Mr. Heal was doing when he was employed on a consulting basis'?

HON. MR. WOLFE: In general terms he was doing a study for the government on government information programs to assist us in arriving at the mandate we should need to provide proper information to the people of British Columbia.

IMPROVEMENTS AT OAKALLA PRISON FARM

MR. LORIMER: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General confirm that millions of dollars are being committed for the construction of capital improvements at what is commonly known as Oakalla Prison Farm?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I can't confirm that. No moneys have been committed to that purpose.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Burnaby-Willingdon with a new question.

MR. LORIMER: It's the same question. I didn't hear the answer. I wonder if the Attorney-General could give us the answer again.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I repeat the answer. No, I am not able to confirm that. Moneys for the construction of Oakalla have not been committed.

ADMISSION OF BOY TO RIVERVIEW

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yesterday I undertook to get further information on a case that was brought before the House by the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), and I would like to give the status of the teenager that was reported on yesterday. This boy was admitted to Riverview on an involuntary basis on May 6, 1981. The admission was arranged by the two physicians under the Mental Health Act. Under the Mental Health Act an involuntary admission requires certification by two doctors. The Ministry of Human Resources was not involved in this admission. The family moved to British Columbia in this last year. The child had a record of serious offences and disturbed behaviour in another province dating back to 1977. With regard to the child's legal status, he was apprehended by the ministry on April 9, 1981, as he was threatening to stab family members, and was then in hospital. The apprehension was made to allow the Ministry of Human Resources to become involved in planning, although the ministry never took custody of the boy at that time. He was not made a ward of the ministry by the courts until a hearing on May 13, 1981.

[ Page 5668 ]

The ministry arranged for child-care workers to be placed in Riverview last night, and arrangements are proceeding for a placement in an appropriate child-care resource. A special care home is proposed, and the foster parent and social worker will be visiting Riverview today. In exceptional circumstances, Mr. Speaker, they will admit teenagers on a certification by two qualified medical doctors. Riverview resisted until the boy's behaviour became such that the local hospital and doctors felt they could no longer handle him and asked to have him admitted.

I have other information on some of the statements that were made by the member yesterday, which I would be pleased to share with the House, in terms of services and so on that we have in the province, and some of the erroneous statements that were made on the number of services as well as dollars pertaining to those services. But I think that this case is a very difficult and important one and, frankly, I don't wish to enlarge upon my answer in that vein. Perhaps I'll be given an opportunity to do that during my estimates. With that answer, I hope that if the member has any further questions on it, he will give them to me today.

MR. LEVI: On a supplementary to the minister, you said that the young man, I presume, came into the jurisdiction of the ministry on May 13. Perhaps the minister will tell us when he came into the care of the ministry.

MS. SANFORD: May 13 — right?

MR. LEVI: Right. The deputy minister yesterday was quoted as saying that he wasn't aware that the young man was there. He is the superintendent of child welfare and he was not aware that he was in there. Now I'm going to ask the minister whether she is aware of what planning her ministry was doing up to the time I raised the matter in the House yesterday. What planning was going on up to the time I made my announcement yesterday in the House about this young man being in Riverview?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, it's unlikely that that case would have been drawn to my attention over a weekend — since May 13, because the planning would have been going m it is unlikely that it would have been. It is not unusual either, and I really would like to take exception to the comments made about the deputy minister having no knowledge. The superintendent of child welfare in this province is able, by legislation, to allocate some of his responsibility to those within the ministry. That's necessary in a province with such a large geographical area to cover. There is no doubt at all that the case would have come to his attention, but that it was also being well looked after by our ministry in the meantime, from the time they had the care of the child. If there are any other questions to be asked, I suggest they should also be asked with respect to the planning that is to be done in the future. I'd be pleased to come back to the House with a report as to what child-care facility the child is being placed in.

MR. LEVI: Can the minister advise us if the police, when they apprehended the young man, notified the department that he was in their custody? This is a 14-year-old boy.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have to take that question as notice.

MR. LEVI: The young man has been in there for 12 days. You took over the jurisdiction for the young man on the 13th. When the case went before the court, was he ministry aware that he was in Riverview? He's been there 12 clays. You took it over seven days ago.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The member has made some reference to the police. As far as I know, this placement was made by two medical doctors along with the family. It was the family's recommendation, with counsel from the two physicians, one being a psychiatrist. As far as I know — and I will take that previous question as notice — in this case the police were not involved, although there were police involved in his previous experiences.

As to the other question and the timing, again I would like to take that question as notice. The member is asking me for details of a case. We have several hundred in front of our ministry in terms of child care and protection. I'd be pleased to get the details. I might also say that in a case like this, where a child's well-being is at stake and where it is a very difficult case, it would be helpful to any minister to have the member — no matter what side of the House that member comes from — share the concerns in advance.

As the Minister of Human Resources, I would be pleased to get those difficult details, which — as the member well knows, as he was responsible for the Ministry of Human Resources in this province — are not all black and white and are very detailed. I would be pleased to get those details for him.

UNSCRUPULOUS REAL ESTATE OFFERS

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed at the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On Thursday last, in answer to a question from the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) next to me, which concerned Exeter Estates Ltd. and outrageously low offers on Gulf Islands properties, the minister gave an answer to this effect: people should get an independent appraisal if they are interested in these letters. In view of that answer, has the minister canvassed the current consumer protection law, and is he advising the House that there is no current consumer protection law on the books to regulate this unscrupulous practice?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not the substance of my response. First of all, in the course of answering that question, the immediate advice I gave to any citizens who had received these letters and were contemplating an acceptance was to be certain to obtain independent valuation. But further, I subsequently made clear that the ministry was looking at the validity of this kind of mass mailing offer. Through public press release we have made clear to any citizens who have accepted such an offer to please be in touch with us. Indeed, our view is that remedies are available under existing legislation of this government to assist those people, which is precisely why we've asked them to come forward.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it the minister is saying that remedies are available at common law as to whether in fact the contract is entered into when this kind of offer — not a bona fide offer, but an offer that appears valid in law — is made. I have another letter here from a company called 3003 Investments Ltd. offering some $7,000 on a one-acre Gulf

[ Page 5669 ]

Island property which is currently worth at least $30,000 or more. My question is: the minister, who has provided some warning to the public on this subject, is still taking a position that there is no change needed in the consumer protection law. Is that the minister's position — that the common law is adequate to protect innocent pensioners and old people who have no idea of the value of their property when this kind of blanket offer is made?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a question into a legal opinion?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: I'm very happy to answer the question. We are providing two pieces of advice to members of the public. First, as a matter of common law. It is our opinion that the purported offer, if accepted, does not constitute a valid and binding agreement for purchase and sale of that property. But apart from that, the member has failed to point out that it is our view that under the Trade Practice Act this kind of practice is in the area of the kind of false, deceptive or misleading trade practice which the legislation prohibits.

MR. LEGGATT: My question, then, to the minister is this: why have no charges been laid as yet against 3003 Investments Ltd. or Exeter Estates in respect to these matters?

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, if my friend opposite has been good enough to follow the news of what the ministry is doing.... We're in the process, first of all, of trying to ascertain if there are citizens who've accepted such an offer. We're also in the process of taking steps to deal with the matter. For example, 3003 Investments was dealt with and investigated very thoroughly in recent months by the ministry. If the letter of the member — and he's not given us a date — refers to the events of last summer, at that time no difficulties were found. But we're certainly at work on the matter, as has been made abundantly clear.

MR. LEGGATT: I'll be very happy to turn this letter over to the minister. The date of the letter is November 14, 1980. Again, it seems to me that the minister might proceed now under the law to see if charges can be laid.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman. when one looks at a tax like this.... I think we heard the minister say it would only apply to the upper 3 percent or 3½ percent of people paying income tax in British Columbia. Taxes of this type have a way, with inflation, of creeping down and affecting more and more people. I see that this surtax is to apply to people with provincial taxable incomes exceeding $3,500, which certainly means a taxable income of several thousands of dollars more than most people experience.

Can the minister not actually come up with some better means of doing this? A tax like this tends to stick around. Will it not affect maybe 5 percent of the people next year, and then 7 percent and then 10 percent? Pretty soon it will affect people who are working for salaries. even people who are partially employed. In fact, it will eventually work its way right down the economic ladder, where it will no longer be seen, by any stretch of the imagination, as a progressive tax. It will become regressive. What remedies are there to this?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the fears of the hon. member are groundless with respect to this Surtax. It was clearly instituted to reach those in the very highest income brackets. The member is correct in citing what was said on budget day and what was said yesterday in second reading — that it is intended to reach the top 3 percent. To put it another way, 97 percent of taxpayers in British Columbia will not be affected by this surtax.

With respect to years to come, I think it will be the duty of the incumbent in the Ministry of Finance — whoever that may be — to ensure first of all that the surtax is needed for provincial revenues, and secondly that it does not start to move downward into income areas where it should not be. I can only offer you the assurance with respect to the surtax contained in this bill for this year. But we'll monitor it very carefully.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, based on that explanation, I find this a very dangerous and invidious new instrument of climbing onto the backs of people. Many years ago, we had a scale of percentages on income tax in general. Doctors paid a certain percentage because they made a certain amount of income. While hourly employees, say CUPE custodians, paid a certain percentage rate. What's happened with inflation is that government has a built-in indexing and they benefit every time there's inflation, so the CUPE employee has moved up and he's paying the rate a doctor used to pay; a doctor pays a rate which has now probably gone off the maximum end of the scale. So we no longer have a graduated income tax, and everybody's basically paying through the nose. Now they're going to get it coining and going.

As they work their way up, people are automatically paying more. Because we aren't adjusting the levels or the percentages set in the income tax scheme, it works to give both provincial and federal governments an automatic increase. Yet this system is going to set a second little thing in motion where the income tax is going to work its way from the top down. The taxpayers are being squeezed from both ends. This is a very poorly thought out instrument in terms of trying to find extra revenues.

In fact, instead of looking for extra revenues in this and all these other proposals which we will be debating today, I suppose, the minister should have been looking at the areas where taxes could have been cut, such as the $24 million that this opposition has already very conservatively proposed for

[ Page 5670 ]

tax cuts. There are huge amounts more which could be dug into, and where the minister knows full well money will not be spent. On the surface this particular tax looks to be a progressive form of tax, taxing the rich. But I see this as another way of getting to everybody.

The minister talks about successive Ministers of Finance. We know that income tax was supposed to be a wartime measure. It was a wartime measure, and it's still around. I personally find this particular tax offensive and unacceptable. I think that you could have done this in a better way where it would have remained on target. So this year this tax is going to claim so many people; next year, through inflation, it is going to widen its target and its grasp, automatically bringing in more money for the government. Eventually it is going to get down to a place where I don't think anyone can defend this kind of a taxation increase.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member's name is listed in Votes and Proceedings for yesterday as having voted for second reading: for the principle of Bill 10, which is before us. I say that only because I think a couple of the comments he has made would suggest that he's opposed to all parts of the bill. Again, this surtax is one of several measures we've found necessary to impose for the 1981-1982 fiscal year, and I repeat that it is going to touch only the top 3 percent income tax payers in British Columbia. It is a surtax on the provincial income tax.

I would think that there are a number of people in British Columbia who believe that the government has taken the right step. We are a government of the people as well as concerned about the financial health of the province. We attempted to spread the taxation burden as evenly, fairly and equitably as we could. I think the member opposite knows that, notwithstanding his comments a few moments ago. It's interesting to have the member opposite arguing against a surtax on the top income earners of the province of British Columbia. But that is for him to explain to the majority who are not going to be affected by this measure.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know why the Minister of Finance engages in that kind of misrepresentation of somebody else's view. He does, and he did just now. He cast the aspersion on the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) that because the member for Nelson-Creston....

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't have to come to his defence.

MR. HOWARD: I know I don't have to come to his defence, especially when he's dealing with an insipid Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member I must ask the member to withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: What remark is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's an unparliamentary remark.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, if it's unparliamentary, I certainly will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. members, as I mentioned in this committee some days back, for a member to simply make a remark in this House on the full understanding that all he or she has to do is stand up and withdraw that remark is a practice that the Chair will not tolerate. I must ask all hon. members on both sides of the House to bear that in mind.

MR. HOWARD: In my ignorance I didn't understand that the word was not parliamentary, Mr. Chairman. It wasn't an attempt on my part to say something unparliamentary simply to get it on the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the member's clarification, a word in itself may not be unparliamentary, but when it is implied to another hon. member of this chamber, then it becomes unparliamentary. I hope that clarifies the matter.

MR. HOWARD: It does, indeed. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that that is exactly what the Minister of Finance did in his comments about the member for Nelson-Creston. He implied in the manner of his comments that the member for Nelson-Creston, while voting for the bill on second reading, really was opposed to many sections of it, if not all of it. That's an unparliamentary allegation which, I submit to you, the Minister of Finance knew full well was unparliamentary and knew full well that he was attributing to an hon. member something that was not in fact the case. If the Minister of Finance feels in his heart that he desires to have two sets of rules in this chamber — one for him and one for the opposition — that's his business. But I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that it's not very kind of the Minister of Finance to do that sort of thing. It indicates to us why he got thrown out of the House the other day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're dealing with section 3 of Bill 10.

MR. NICOLSON: Maybe my ears are playing tricks on me but I almost thought I heard the minister say that this surcharge is for this year and that other years will look after themselves. But I read the bill and it says:

"The tax otherwise payable after applying sections 3 and 8 for a taxation year by an individual residing in British Columbia on the last day of the taxation year shall be increased for the 1981 and subsequent taxation years by an amount equal to 10 percent of the amount by which the tax computed under sections 3 and 8 for the taxation year exceeds $3,500."

In other words, what it exceeds. So this does go on forever. This is for perpetuity or even longer. Frankly, the first time I heard that statement made in this House I thought it was rather humorous, Then I found out that the Indians had some land taken away from them in my riding because it had been devoted for forest use in perpetuity. But it's no longer being used for forest use. That was in the McKenna-McBride commission back in about 1910 or 1911. So I guess perpetuity is maybe about 75 years, in the legal sense.

I heard just the other day that the price of onions, potatoes and some other common commodities had all increased 100 percent in one year. We see interest rates of 20 percent as a symptom of inflation. We're not just looking at double-digit inflation now. We've almost grown to accept that. We could

[ Page 5671 ]

be looking at horrendous amounts of inflation. This thing which is intended for a target group with taxable income of, I think, up in the $40,000 range — which is pretty high — could soon be the custodian working for the school board and a little bit sooner than that it could be many of us around this House. As a matter of fact, I don't know how many of us in this House are going to be hit by this tax. I don't think I'm going to be hit by this tax; I'm pretty sure of that. But maybe in two or three years we will be, if inflation is not controlled.

This particular tax is a disincentive to the government in terms of controlling inflation, because they can leave this thing in place and the old graduated scale of income tax becomes meaningless. On the one hand everybody's moving up and paying in the high percentage ranges, and on the other hand this thing is coming down from the top and chewing into people's pocket-books. This government's remedy for everything seems to be to take another bite out of people's pockets.

I don't care if it's the rich today; what I'm concerned about is that this is going to be everybody in a doggone short period of time. It could even be in five years if the present growth in the rate of inflation increases. The rate of inflation used to be 3 percent, then 5 percent, 10 percent. 14 percent, and it's going on to 20 percent. If this thing keeps oil increasing, this particular tax is not going to be a progressive tax; it's going to be a regressive tax. Darned soon it's going to be hitting probably 50 percent of taxpayers, and more after that.

I don't know if it would be in order if I were to move that this bill be amended to take out the words "and subsequent taxation years" so that it would read: "on the last day of the taxation year shall be increased for 1981." That's the way it should read if you really want to do this. If you have the need for this type of extra revenue next year, then bring it in again. There's the objection to this particular piece. This is my personal opinion. This is not the canvassed position of the New Democratic Party, but it is my position: this particular piece of legislation is invidious. It's not drafted as it should be. It should be limited to the fiscal year 1981 or ending March 31, 1981.

The minister has not satisfied any fears. At first he said: "Well, it's just sort of temporary." If it's temporary, then it should be limited to, say, not after March 31. 1985. This is how a lot of the things got started that this government goes whining to Ottawa about: these little temporary measures and little temporary granting of powers — perhaps during wartime granting powers which became permanent. This particular thing — a new kind of tax — is one that is slowly going to stalk the poor people of this province. It might take this tax ten years to get them, but it's going to get them. It's going to get the poor people of this province unless it is redrafted in such a way that it keeps getting put up to hit that target area of the top 3 percent, so it's automatically readjusted to only take the top 3 percent. One of the best ways to do that is to limit it year by year, and if you still need it next year, bring in another bill and we'll give it speedy passage. I would give it speedy passage if it were for one year.

But I don't like this thing. It's stalking the poor people of this province, and it's going to get the working poor of this province. It's going to come from the top end down, but it will get there eventually.

MR. COCKE: I don't altogether share my colleague's concerns about the poor in the immediate future. However. I have a different slant on the thing. The minister brought in a number of finance bills, and all the bills and sections that increased....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If the House Leader wants to protract debate he's right on track. I can carry on for ever and a day. If, on the other hand....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Not in your terms.

The fact is that here we have a locked-in situation with an amount of $3,500. On the other hand you have a motor fuel tax that increases and indexes with inflation and the extra cost of gas. Had he been consistent he would have indexed this as well. That would, at least in part, answer the argument raised by the member for Nelson-Creston.

Mr. Chairman, we don't agree with the indexing in any event: we think that government should be responsible from year to year. But just to show you the inconsistency....

Why one and not all the others? I'll tell you why. Because this one is a tax that at least increases it slightly in terms of the immediate future — it’s almost irrelevant, so that it doesn't matter to the government — and it can increase it a great deal more in terms of the far future, but it would reduce government revenue in the far future if you indexed it. It’s just clear and simple.

MR. NICOLSON: With your indulgence, I'd like to use an exhibit, in case the minister doesn't understand that a normal distribution curve of incomes, ages and many other things tends to have a curve which — at least at the top end — looks something like this: what you're saying today is that you're going to take this number of people — it's a very small area under he graph out here: next year, if inflation moves that line a little bit, you could more than double the number of people being affected: and in another year you might even quadruple the number of people affected over the previous year because of the nature of what is called the Gaussian distribution. If your people in your ministry don't understand that sort of a thing, then it's about time it was explained to you. So what I'm saying is that this thing is a very Machiavellian type of scheme. It looks really innocent today, but it is going to get a darned sight more significant tomorrow and it is going to become a problem for this government sometime in the future.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think yesterday the minister may have explained why the tax increases affect revenue in 1981-82, but the tax credit does not affect revenue until 1982-83. I think he may have explained it yesterday, but I missed the explanation: I'd like to hear it again.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I wonder if I can do that under this section, Mr. Chairman. For those British Columbians who would be touched by this, this takes effect July 1 of this year, because of the requirement for a three months' notification under the federal-provincial tax collection agreement. I can't speak about the other, Mr. Chairman, without being out of order, because it relates to.... I look to the Chair for guidance.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We're on section 3. If we pay at source, this surtax takes effect commencing July 1, 1981, but

[ Page 5672 ]

it is retroactive to the full taxation year. I don't think that we're in disagreement on this.

MR. STUPICH: We're not communicating.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think we're communicating so well that there is no disagreement.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, actually I wasn't trying to disagree. Is the minister telling me that the discussion of the reduction comes under another section? As I read it, section 3 refers to the reduction as well as to the increase. Is there another section? Shall I start again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, it's okay.

MR. STUPICH: Will you tell me then why the reduction doesn't affect revenue until 1982-83?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the tax credit at the lower scale is for tax-filers. As I explained in second reading yesterday, it's not just taxpayers, because there are those who would not otherwise be required to file an income tax return, and they won't do that until the beginning of next year. We looked for a way in which we could offer that credit as it was earned, as it were, in the course of the 1981 taxation year; but in order to reach all who would benefit, we have to deal with tax-filers for the credit — and I went to some pains yesterday to explain that.

MR. STUPICH: On this surtax — and I assume this has been discussed with Revenue Canada — I'm wondering whether the minister can give us details as to how this will appear on one's income tax statement. Will it be identified as a provincial surtax?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would rather expect so. Immediately following budget delivery in this House in March, we notified Ottawa — as is the case and must be the case — of the various changes which affect any provincial/federal agreements. Subsequent to that, some weeks later we received notification from Ottawa that the proposals were in order. I believe that it will simply appear as an additional line on the taxation form.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 10, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13; Mr. Speaker.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT. 1981

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, section 1 sets up a fund but doesn't give us any indication at all as to what the government expects in this fiscal period — what sort of payments will be made into that fund. We have no idea what kind of payments are being made by people now renting land from the Land Commission; I expect that's the source of it. I'd like to have some idea of how much money we're talking about.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, first of all, this does give a name to the fund. It provides for currently outstanding loans and interest to be paid into the new fund, so it isn't a dramatic change. It allows for the fund to commence receiving revenues April 1, 1981. Those funds are known to the committee because there is no change in legislation involved in terms of the assistance which is offered or the money which flows in. That is the essence of what is occurring in section 1 of this bill.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, we know of the fund. I'm trying to find out how much money we're talking about, how much money will be added to that fund this year. I assume it will be rentals on land that is owned by the Land Commission and land that has been leased out to people who are farming it, and possibly loans to the extent that people have financed the purchase of land from the Land Commission. I don't know. I'm wondering what cash flow we're talking about.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in this fiscal year the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food contain $2.02 million which will flow into the new fund. With repayments into the fund from past loans estimated to be — and I underline estimated — $2.8 million, a total of approximately $4.8 million, approximately, will be available under this particular amendment. So we're talking about $4 million in funds which are already established and repayments which are occurring.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like some explanation of this. Subject to what the minister has to say, I believe that if there is any excess in this fund it will have been contributed to by the provincial government in part, but also by local taxpayers. Maybe I'm way out at sea on this and I don't know, but I believe that the excess will have been paid into the fund, perhaps even entirely, by local taxpayers. Yet the government is saying any excess that has been contributed by local taxpayers will belong to consolidated revenue. It's another — can I say sneaky? — way of the government getting revenue from taxpayers without saying it is levying a new tax. Maybe the minister has another explanation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This amendment to section 5 of the Educational Institution Capital Finance Act permits excess assets of the authority to be paid into consolidated revenue funds where the Minister of Finance certifies that the authority's assets exceed its requirements. This situation could arise in the management of the sinking funds established to retire capital borrowings where actual interest earnings of the

[ Page 5673 ]

sinking fund are higher than the original forecast level of earnings. With that explanation I think the member opposite will realize that the province pays 100 percent of educational institutions' debt costs. That is what is addressed in this section.

MR. STUPICH: The province pays 100 percent of the educational institution. We're talking now about colleges and universities, not about the school financing authority.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, here we're allowing the funds for the Drug, Alcohol and Cigarette Education Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund to be paid out. The fund was set up in the first place to be paid out interest only to be used for — the purpose of education, etc., in that particular area. Now in one year, as I recall — I can't quite remember the exact amount in the estimates — we have $12 million of this fund being paid into the Health budget. Am I on the wrong section? Anyway, this is fair enough. As I read it, this permits the minister to pay out the funds out of section 6. That is the capital of the fund.

On the one hand when we see the situation in that whole area of alcohol and drugs and the way it's been handled in the last four or five years — in chaos — we're just wondering what the minister is doing here. Is it to bail out all the mistakes that were made by the now Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland), the then Minister of Health, who got the government into so much trouble?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Under the three sections associated with this, I suppose I can respond under section 6. If that is acceptable to the Chair, although it may be more appropriate to do it under section 8.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it seems that we have sections 6 through 8 being wrapped up in the one debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking to sections 6 to 8 inclusive.

We are changing the status of the Drug, Alcohol and Cigarette Education, Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund from a perpetual to a regular fund. This allows the Minister of Finance to utilize the moneys included in the fund, both principal and interest, to provide funding for the programs of the Alcohol and Drug Commission. I don't think that some of the remarks offered by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) will occur under this change. It is a regularization of a fund into a more appropriate format, I think. I have no difficulty with it. If members opposite see something a little strange about it, I'm sorry. Nothing unusual is proposed in this undertaking.

MR. STUPICH: The member for New Westminster anticipated remarks that I intended to make on section 8, but now that we're doing them all together, that's well and good.

The minister talks about this as a regularization. I suppose that's one way of describing this way of getting out of the McClelland mistake — the Brannan Lake situation. I'm wondering just how much money the government poured down that hole to try to do something that they were warned was going to be a waste of public money by everybody who had any knowledge of this subject. Public moneys were wasted on the drug program at Brannan Lake. Even the government has admitted that now by changing the ground rules. The estimates at that time were somewhere around $12 million. The bill before us now regularizes, as the minister said, the reduction in this fund the some $15.2 million. I expect that is the amount of money that was actually wasted with the Brannan Lake experiment. I'd like some confirmation from the minister that that's the magic of this $15.2 million figure that we're taking out of that fund set up for a very worthwhile purpose by the former Premier of the province when he was Minister of Finance. I don't recall the arguments, but I can certainly imagine the Premier and Minister of Finance of that day speaking about the importance of having money that would be available for drug and alcohol education, and for promoting the non-abuse of drugs and alcohol. I can imagine him saying at the time that this money would be available in perpetuity so that the interest would always be there to further these programs. Now the minister of the day, because he needs $15.2 million to cover a mistake of one his colleagues, is saying that he's simply regularizing the fund. If he has any other explanation I'd like to hear about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the Hon. member for Nanaimo I think I have the constituency correct at this point — no, frankly I've had some problem over a number of years with a fund called the Drug, Alcohol and Cigarette Education, Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund. I find it a little unwieldy and I certainly wanted to recognize the now functioning Alcohol and Drug Commission in British Columbia and its need to have access not just to interest but to principal and interest front time to time. I think it is placing it in far too narrow a context to suggest that this relates to one specific undertaking which was or was not successful, as history will view it. Again, the word "regularization" is, I think, quite appropriate in this instance.

MR. COCKE: The minister can proclaim as long and loud as he likes. The fact of the matter is they're bailing out. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). who made a gross mistake in his handling of the whole heroin treatment program, ignored the real drug problem in the province, and now here we are destroying a fund, $15.2 million of which — according to my reading of the estimates — is being used up this year. That's out of a fund that was not that significant in the first place. Talk is cheap, as far as I'm concerned. I can't support this.

Sections 6 and 7 approved.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

[ Page 5674 ]

NAYS — 21

Mr. Cocke requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I want to go on record against this tax increase, and more particularly the fact that associated with the tax increase is the indexing of it. As I said yesterday, it's simply pouring gasoline on the fires of inflation. So we're opposed to the increase, and we're opposed to the indexing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, there was considerable discussion in the Ministry of Finance with regard to indexing or the introduction of ad valorem. I didn't respond to that point which was made in second reading debate. It is important to observe that ad valorem is in place now in most provinces. It is certainly in place in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. I don't hide behind the numbers of other provinces which support ad valorem, but I think that we are in some taxation activities which are subject to dramatic change. I think it is in the best interests of government revenues and in the best interests of the taxpayer to have it undertaken in this particular way.

I realize there could be a significant philosophical discussion with regard to ad valorem. I listed those provinces which have indexing. As far as the latest information I have available, the only one which does not follow the index route and is imposing a constant cents-per-litre tax on gasoline is Nova Scotia. So most provinces have moved towards that which is proposed in this legislation.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Sections 12 to 15 inclusive approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I notice a very small change in parenthesis in the amendment. You've put a parenthesis before the variable PT and following the variable UTA. What's the effect of this amendment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I just happen to have copious notes on this; I anticipated that there could be discussion on the formula. The formula would not have delivered that which was intended, in the absence of the parentheses. With the addition of the parentheses by the amendment we therefore achieve that which was sought.

Dealing with the formula which commences tax in cents, 0.2 equals 20 percent of the indexed price of gasoline. Then we hit the first large parenthesis: 32.58 represents the average price for gasoline in British Columbia that existed immediately after the initial budget tax increases were added to the retail price. Then we run up against the next parenthesis, which is x over y, not a plus b; x over y equals the percentage increase in retail gasoline prices that has occurred since March 10, 1981, as measured by the Vancouver consumer price index subcomponent for gasoline. Then we leave one of the parentheses — we have a minus. The amendment now introduces the new parenthesis immediately in front of the initials "PT." PT is the provincial tax rate on clear gasoline plus UTA — the Urban Transit Authority tax — presently 0.6 cents per litre. Then we leave the parenthesis which has been introduced by this amendment, and we also leave the largest parenthesis. I've had this at home, and instead of leisure reading I've looked at this a number of times. I'm pleased I was asked to deal with it, and I hope I've explained it satisfactorily.

MR. NICOLSON: Could I suggest something simpler? I admire the minister for keeping a straight face through that.

In all seriousness, you could have accomplished the same thing by changing the positive sign in front of UTA to a negative sign, and saved two brackets.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is carping, unwarranted criticism.

MR. DAVIS: Could I ask the minister who makes this calculation and how often? It says: "Every purchaser shall.... " Surely every purchaser doesn't have a PhD in mathematics. Who is "every purchaser," and how often is this calculation made? Does the government make the calculation and then publish some tables? How is this done?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The taxation branch of the Ministry of Finance provides the information on a regular basis as called for. But not on Sunday. The retailer would be provided with that information from the taxation branch of the ministry.

MR. STUPICH: I don't intend to get into the kind of discussion we've had for the last few minutes on the brackets and the plus and minus signs. I'd just like to point out that it's estimated that this one section alone will bring in an extra $80. I million this year — great for northeast coal development.

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

[ Page 5675 ]

Sections 17 to 21 inclusive approved.

On section 22.

MS. BROWN: I want to make some comments about this particular section dealing with the extension of the homeowner grant to cover the disabled members of our community. As the minister pointed out, this was promised in the budget debate. However. when the bill was introduced, we found that eligibility was not going to be as easy as one had anticipated. In fact it's not enough to be disabled, but the disability itself, or the eligibility based on the disability, is going be determined by regulation.

I made a phone call to a Mr. Crossett in Municipal Affairs. He indicated that disabled people should apply in the normal way and collection application forms were available from tax offices, etc. But in addition, they will need to get a doctor to fill in a section which determines whether then disability or handicap is permanent or not. Also, there has to be some indication that as a result of this disability there is a need for extensive modification to their residence and that there'is also a need for some physical assistance for them. He anticipates that probably only about 3,000 of the disabled people in the province would actually be eligible or qualify for this extension. I am disappointed that the sweeping statement made in the budget — if I can remind the minister of the budget — that the homeowner grant will be extended to all.... The "all" is so important that it was written in italics; it wasn’t even printed in the same way as the rest of the sentence. It said: "The homeowner grant of $630 will be extended to all handicapped persons in British Columbia."

It could be that Mr. Crossett's information was incorrect. It could be that the regulations are really not going to be as stringent as outlined in his telephone conversation with the research person in the caucus who spoke with him. I'm wondering whether the minister would indicate whether these criteria which I outlined are, in effect, going to be included in the regulations: namely a statement from a doctor saying that the disability is permanent, that the disability will require extensive modification to the residence of the individual and also that the disabled person needs some physical assistance. Also, why physically handicapped? Mental disability is a handicap as well. Why is it only to the physically disabled?

HON. MR. CURTIS: As we move into increased assistance to disabled persons under the homeowner grant, dealing with it in this relatively narrow sense — the receiving of the homeowner grant — I would like to assure the member that to the extent that I am able and to the extent that the regulations, when I'm pleased with the final draft as offered to me.... We want to see it offered as broadly as possible rather than as narrowly as possible. The hon. member has mentioned some 3,000 persons who would be eligible. That's the low end of the scale. We anticipate — we don't really know — that some 3,000 to 5,000 disabled persons will be eligible this year.

We will have an eligibility committee. Such eligibility committees have worked very well in other ministries — if I'm not straying too far from the section — because they not only rule or recommend on individual cases, but they give us a feeling as to how well a particular regulation or an expanded regulation is working. I can only say to the committee that I certainly want this to be as broadly received as possible. If we find some shortcomings, then we will be back to the House with a similar omnibus bill next year.

I think the doctor's certificate is a reasonable requirement. I don't know of any way we Could clearly define eligibility in most instances other than to ask that this certificate be completed and attached. There are other criteria which are required with respect to the larger homeowner's grant. Those have been in place for quite some time. A declaration with respect to your age is necessary if you are applying for the grant available to the senior citizen. I think that that's a reasonable requirement I don't know if the member agrees or not, but I'm certainly trying for the larger rather than the narrower, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: I appreciate what the minister is saying, except the promise was very clear. If I can bring page 15 of the minister's budget to his attention, it says: "The homeowner grant of $630 will be extended to all...." Again, "all" was written in italics. It did not say anything about the greater number rather than the smaller. etc. I understand that it will be necessary to have a doctor's statement signifying that the person is disabled. What I cannot understand is why the statement has to say that the disability is permanent, because some disabilities are long term but in time you get over them. At that time, of course, you would no longer be eligible, but this requires permanent disability. It also calls for extensive modification of the residence and a need for physical assistance. This was not included in the budget debate.

A promise was made and the government is backing off from that promise. I don't know whether this is the government's decision or if it's the minister's decision. I am merely pointing out to the minister that the regulations outlined by Mr. Fred Crossett are not honouring the promise made in the budget speech. We were not told in the budget speech that the eligibility of the disabled person was going to be determined by regulations. Nor were we told that the regulations would be based on this kind of criteria. It stated that all handicapped people would be eligible for this additional $630, and that is not happening. I'm expressing my concern and hoping that it was a mistake and that in fact what the minister is going to do is to have the criteria eliminated. Of course there has to be a medical certificate, but there shouldn't be a requirement that it be a permanent disability, and there should not be the other two criteria attached to it. It really should cover all disabled people, as was promised.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member opposite has pointed out her concern, the fact remains that we have taken a good step and I would like her to at least acknowledge that fact.

MS. BROWN: Oh, but I did.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that when one enters the question of what is a disability for purposes of receiving a larger grant or some form of assistance under one program or another, if you're not careful you enter into pages and pages of categories and a bureaucratic nightmare. I have given the committee my undertaking that it we err at all I want to see us err on the side of the larger number of people. I will also be insisting that the eligibility committee and those who are charged — in the Ministry of Finance with the cooperation of the Ministry Of Municipal Affairs — report back after this

[ Page 5676 ]

year's experience to tell us what problems have been encountered. Then we could approach the Legislature with further amendment or clarification, or we could clarify by regulation, if that were permitted, where we do encounter those problems. It's a first step, Madam Member, and I think it's a good one.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to accept that it's a first step. I certainly intend to vote in support of this section. I'm merely pointing out that it is not honouring a commitment which was made in the budget speech. I'm not quibbling with the first step, but it was absolutely clear on page 15 of the speech that all handicapped people.... . I'm quoting. As we've said before, the word is disabled, not handicapped. The word "all" was exaggerated; it was put in italics. It did not say a first step was going to be made. It said all handicapped people were going to be eligible, and that has not been honoured. That's all I'm pointing out.

MR. NICOLSON: As a footnote to what my colleague has so ably expressed, it's fine to say one thing when you're on television, reaching out to thousands and thousands of people in this province. But then you come back here in the almost obscurity of the Legislature at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and say: "Well, when we said 'all'...." You even said it in italics; I well remember. What you said then for mass consumption is today being qualified. I think that you have raised expectations. I've had people contact me in my office asking what these regulations are going to be. Certainly some of the first indications that we had as to what they might be were very qualified.

MR. LEA: It seemed like a good idea at the time.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, it seemed like a good idea at the time. But if you can't back up what you're going to say on television to a mass audience, then you should watch your hyperbole. You should be a little bit more careful with raising the expectations of people and then dashing them — even one person in this province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that the use of the word "all" was appropriate then and is appropriate now inasmuch as previously only those disabled persons who were receiving a handicapped person's income under guaranteed available income for need or a veteran's allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act were eligible for this larger homeowner grant. The use of the word "all" meant that we were moving well beyond the relatively narrow limitations of GAIN or the War Veterans Allowance Act and not taking into consideration those particular requirements. So in terms of "all," we have moved well along, and I think that the proof will be available to all members of the House later this year, after we see how many people have applied for the grant and how many for one narrow reason or another have been refused the grant. I've said now three times in the committee, Mr. Chairman, that I want to see it applied as liberally as possible.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I think we're having some problems with the definition of the word "all." But first of all, before going on to that, I want to apologize for debating section 23 under section 22. But we've done it, so is that okay? Or do I have to take all those words back and say them over again under section 23?

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean all or some?

MS. BROWN: All, not some. You see, the problem we're having, Mr. Chairman, is with these promises that the government makes, and not just in this particular instance. The SAFER program under Human Resources, for example, is supposed to cover all senior citizens, and we find out when the regulations are introduced that most seniors aren't eligible for it. This is the problem we're having with these promises, with these big ads in the newspaper, on radio and TV saying: "Look what we're giving you — Pharmacare, covering everybody." We find that, first of all, you have to pay the first $100. We find that the regulations say that, no, not all seniors are eligible for SAFER; the majority of seniors aren't.

Now we're finding that a promise which says that all handicapped people who live in a home are now going to be eligible for the $630 homeowner grant has an amendment which says, in effect: "...subject to the regulations." And when we inquire about the regulations, we find, as I pointed out before, that the criterion is really quite stringent. When it is brought to the attention of the minister, instead of saying, "Oops, I made a mistake," he tries to give us a definition of "all" which means a first step, and that is not what "all" means; "all" means everybody, every single person. Mr. Chairman, are we dealing with section 22 or 23? Twenty two? Okay.

Section 22 approved.

On section 23.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, taking into account the comments made under section 22, I would like to move an amendment under section 23. That is to delete the words "eligible under the regulations" after "handicapped persons" on line 3. Actually, if it were possible to change the word "handicapped" to "disabled person," that would be even better. But in any event, delete.... Is it possible to do two things at the same time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we have the first amendment, hon. member?

MS. BROWN: Okay. That's the first amendment. I want to change "handicapped" to "disabled."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order, hon. member, and we're now discussing the amendment.

On the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what the member is talking about is the fact that the term under these circumstances is misused. We're really dealing, I believe, with the disabled. Which one are we dealing with? Are you deleting "disabled"?

MS. BROWN: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, possibly it would help if the amendment was read. I will read the amendment as submitted to the table: to delete after "handicapped person"

[ Page 5677 ]

the words "eligible under the regulations." That's section 23, line 3. Is there any further debate on the amendment?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the government cannot accept the amendment for the reason that some regulation, as unpopular as it may be, is necessary when dealing with eligibility in receiving a grant. I think the member opposite knows that. Therefore the amendment, if accepted, would almost make the intent of the legislation unworkable. Regulations are required, as distasteful as they may be on occasion.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that the minister recognizes the intent of the amendment, which is that the legislation should honour in full the promise made in the budget speech to cover all disabled people in the province. Is the minister willing to introduce his own amendment, since it is possible for him to call upon the vast experience, skill, knowledge and expertise of legislative counsel? Is the minister willing to introduce his own amendment which will make this possible? In other words, will he ensure that all disabled people in the province are eligible for the homeowner grant as promised on page 15 of the budget address.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman. I believe we can meet the desires of the hen, member opposite with respect to this section through regulation. I indicated earlier and say again that if we find the interpretation is narrow and is therefore withholding the grant from some individuals who should receive it, I will move more quickly than the member would realize. I will not need the member to remind me to ensure that we overcome that difficulty. Therefore I think that the legislation of this section as drafted is acceptable. Certainly we will monitor it very, very carefully.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 28

Ms. Brown requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 23.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I need your guidance on this amendment, because it's an amendment that affects section 23, 24 and 25. If it passes on section 23, would it affect all the others?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Each one would have to be moved separately, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman. I am moving that in section 23, line 3. the word "handicapped" be deleted and replaced by the word "disabled."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman. I was aware of the discussion in this chamber just a few days ago with respect to the words "handicapped" and "disabled." While there may be very real validity, I would be extremely reluctant to accept the amendment at this point, particularly in view of the fact that it would have to be moved section by section and throughout our statute law. I believe that we would want to examine it. The points was well made the other day, as far as I'm concerned. But to ask that we accept the amendment under these conditions is completely impractical, I would submit. The government cannot accept the amendment for that technical reason.

MR. COCKE: I'm not quite sure why one should not start a positive move at a moment in time when it's practical. That's when legislation is being brought forward and when legislation is being asked to be passed by this House. The minister made the very best point of all in terms of having understood the difference between disabled and handicapped. One can be handicapped without being disabled. For an example, one could be handicapped if one belonged to a political party — the Socreds can handicap one. Or for that matter, one could be handicapped if one were carrying an extra weight in one's pockets. But that is not being disabled. Disability is a medical and a definable term indicating that someone is unable by virtue of a disability to perform certain tasks or whatever. A handicap can be superimposed; a disability is something to do with one's health and well being. They're totally different. I suggest that if our statutes — as now they do — reflect the incorrect terminology, then they should all be changed in due course.

We now have an opportunity to start cleaning up our act right at the beginning of a new piece of legislation. This is the practical time to do it. I would suggest that for the minister to turn down this amendment shows a very impractical way of dealing with legislation going through this House. I know that there are times when it's difficult to accept an amendment by virtue of what it can do to the legislative process. Amendments can sometimes invalidate legislation going through, and one has to be very careful. But here is a very clear issue. The word is incorrectly used, so why would we want to enshrine it and continue making the mistake we have obviously made in the past? This is an opportunity for the minister to show that he is being thoughtful, particularly in this year, the International Year of the Disabled. It is not the International Year of the Handicapped. It's a most practical amendment that my colleague the member for Burnaby Edmonds has moved. I can't suggest too strongly that the

[ Page 5678 ]

minister ignore the admonition of the Premier and accept this amendment.

MR. LAUK: I suppose the minister and the government benches may think this is a minor point to raise at this time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, on the contrary.

MR. LAUK: I'm glad to hear that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's a major point.

MR. LAUK: Excellent. I think the Minister of Finance once again demonstrates that in terms of awareness he's head and shoulders above the members of his cabinet.

MS. BROWN: That's a handicap, not a disability. [Laughter.]

MR. LAUK: He, as such, is in a great deal of pain and has a handicap as a result.

If you will recall, in the Education estimates some little time past the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), a very learned gentleman whose stuffed shirt is well known throughout the length and breadth of this land — as are others — said he couldn't see any difference between the two. "Six of one and half a dozen of the other," he says. The idea that the use of the word "handicapped" seems to not mean too much to the Minister of Education but means something to the Minister of Finance urges me to urge the Minister of Finance to have a discussion with the Minister of Education about that and educate him with respect to the meaning of the use of the two terms. Language is very important in human relationships and government terminology. For example, in our society we quite often use language to refer in a derogatory way to certain races and ethnic groups. We use nicknames for them, and they're made to be derogatory. We say: "What's the harm in that?" Why don't we Polish people laugh when we're called polacks and people make fun of us through Polish jokes and so on? Because it lends validity to the prejudice, that's why. Although the jokes may be hilarious and very clever, the point is they lower the status with which we are held by our colleagues and the rest of the community. Language is very important in the way we refer to each other. I don't think it's particularly funny the way we refer to women in society. Femininity is referred to in a derogatory way, and the way we refer to men is in a superior way. We use language to deal with people and lower them in the esteem of society.

I know the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) thinks it's hilarious. We have to drag him kicking and screaming out of the fourteenth century every time he walks into this chamber. He thinks it's hilarious. That kind of ignorance in society has to be brushed aside. I think the use of the word "handicapped" is clearly a word that is derogatory. These people are not handicapped. As they often say themselves, "The only handicap we have is society's attitude towards us." They're only disabled, and all of us have disabilities. The Premier and the Minister of Finance have different disabilities, but they have disabilities. It does not mean that they don't have access to equality, equal justice and equal opportunity in society. All it means is that they have, in their uniqueness as individuals, certain disabilities I and my colleagues have, which we overcome, we compensate for; we contribute to society. That's what the disabled people argue for. Help break down the financial, cultural and language barriers to the equality of opportunity that we should be offering disabled people. That's why the opposition makes a most sincere point in asking for this amendment.

MS. BROWN: The most telling argument in support of this amendment is that disabled people themselves have asked us please not to refer to them as handicapped people. That is their request, Mr. Chairman, a request which was recognized by the United Nations when, as my colleague, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) pointed out, they designated this year as the International Year of the Disabled and not the International Year of the Handicapped. Disabled people have told us that they are not necessarily handicapped; they have a disability — it can be a physical or a mental disability — which does not become a handicap until it runs into the prejudices against them in society in refusing to hire them or to rent them accommodation, or the thoughtlessness of society not making buildings and other places accessible to them, so that they can travel freely and equally the way other people without a physical disability can.

The minister says that he sympathizes and is in favour of the word, but cannot support it because it means changing all of the legislation. All of the legislation should have been changed anyway. It should never have reached the floor of this House with the word "handicapped" in it. You know, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) talks about purifying the voters' list. As my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) just pointed out, it's time for the government to purify the legislation. This is not a suggestion based on the whims and fancy of the opposition. We are merely speaking on behalf of disabled people. They have indicated that this year — their year — one small step that we can take on their behalf is to recognize that they're disabled and not necessarily handicapped. As such they have asked us, please do not refer to them as handicapped people; refer to them as disabled, as members of a community of disabled people.

That is a very simple suggestion and a recommendation. It may be expensive, but it's not as expensive as some of the other things that this government is opting to do. It is certainly not as expensive to go through and change legislation as some of the other decisions which this government is making. I am pleading with the Minister of Finance to reject this amendment, if he must, but for goodness' sake please change the legislation. It's not necessary to accept this amendment; do it on your own, introduce your own amendment, but at least have some respect for the wishes of the disabled people of this community who are saying that they do not want to be referred to as handicapped people.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we've had a lengthy and useful debate on the significant difference between the words "handicapped" and "disabled." I wish that the government could accept the amendment as it has been proposed, but again I say regretfully that we should not and cannot at this particular point. The members opposite — particularly those who served in cabinet from 1972 to 1975 — would know that we might find that the simple acceptance of an amendment such as this would cause grave difficulty for the very people we are attempting to assist. The law is riddled with words which arc no longer appropriate. I would look to others who are learned in the law; I am not, and that is an

[ Page 5679 ]

advantage, not a handicap, in my view. But I know how much difficulty we can suffer through the very quick acceptance of an amendment which on the face of it appears to have a great deal of appeal. I would be extremely unhappy were we to accept it in this particular omnibus bill only to find that we have caused a variety of difficulties.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Expense has nothing to do with it. Madam Member, I listened to you. It could trigger some difficulties elsewhere. The member has made a good point. I personally accept the point she has made, and I would urge the government at the appropriate time, as soon as possible, to examine the difference in the two words, but not in an omnibus bill where the ramifications could be extremely complicated. I've heard what you've said, Madam Member.

MRS. DAILLY: I have one simple question. I have followed this debate, and I want to ask the minister: you keep repeating that the biggest problem is the ramifications. I'm ignorant of it. I know you referred to former cabinet ministers, and I'm racking my brains trying to remember what the ramifications would be if you did change it. Can you tell us, and maybe perhaps then we can take it from there? Give us an example of what the problems would be,

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that one which comes to mind immediately is interlocking legislation at the federal level, where indeed we have in the narrower sense, which is being altered, reference to "handicapped persons" under the war veterans allowance. I just would not run the risk, in a good debate today, of accepting an amendment. I can't list all the ramifications. I know some of them, and I'm sure there would be others which we might not find in the course of a number of days or weeks. But I would be fearful that we could trigger the rejection of assistance to individuals because, in the spirit of cooperation, we decided to accept a change in wording. I think it would have to be examined very carefully. The federal law is the one that comes to mind and possibly the one that has the most validity at this point.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if I might offer a suggestion to the minister, as a method of overcoming his concern with ramifications that may flow from accepting this amendment.... I'm not a lawyer either, but as one who was involved in preparing legislation, it would seem to me a very simple task if the intention of the minister and his government is to accept the spirit of my colleague's argument, to simply say, by including a definition in the statute, that "disabled person" within this statute shall include a specific reference to whatever federal statute may be found in conflict. Introducing, at the minister's leisure, a definition flexible enough to accommodate those areas of conflict he is concerned about, would provide him with the time and the option, and would give effect to the principle which he has acknowledged and accepted. So to say that the ramifications which might flow from this preclude us from introducing it at this late date is not, I really feel, very valid.

You know, Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether it's in the minister's mind or not, but there's been a bit of a tradition in this House to refuse to accept amendments from the opposition simply because they come from the opposition. Although the spirit of the argument may be accepted, the government seems reluctant to accept an opposition amendment for fear that in some quaint or funny way the government is going to look weak, the government is going to be seen accommodating the opposition. I want to say to the minister that that's nonsense. I can tell the minister that when I sat on that side on the treasury benches I accepted a number of amendments to legislation at the time it was being debated and put through the Legislature. I accepted amendments from the Social Credit Party when they sat on this side, and from the Liberals. There used to be some Liberals down here at the other end — the current Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and his colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and the Minister of Science (Hon. Mr. McGeer) — and they had sonic worthwhile suggestions to make.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

If those suggestions improve the quality of the legislation on behalf of the people of the province, which we are all supposed to be representing, why not be big enough to accept them? It's not going to demean the government in any way. It's not going to erode the government's strength. It's not going to bring the government down. Conversely, I think it would show that the government is fair-minded and realistic enough to accept a good principle. As I've indicated to the minister and as I think his colleagues in the legal fraternity on that side would say: "Sure, look at all the other things you're doing by regulation." Well, bring in a regulation defining the word "disabled" and tailoring it to meet what other statutes may be in conflict with that definition — no problem at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke didn't intend to place an incorrect interpretation on my statement that I was unable to accept the amendment. It is not because it has been offered by a member of the official opposition. It matters not where this particular amendment might have come from in this committee. The fact is that having been in this House for a few years and having seen many amendments rejected and some accepted, I am cognizant of the fact that sometimes the acceptance of an apparently desirable and simple amendment leads to great difficulty in interpreting the law a little later on. It is for that reason that I have to say again that, notwithstanding the valid points which have been made by some members s opposite....

Interjections.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Member. I think the record in this House will show that I am not intransigent.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will all members please address the Chair. The minister has the floor.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As a matter of interest to the committee, I think I did not consult the Premier, nor did he offer any opinion with respect to this amendment. We don't have to turn to the Premier on every single matter that comes before this committee. That's one of the things that makes this a good government with a good Premier and leader. The

[ Page 5680 ]

fact remains that I am not able, as Minister of Finance, to accept....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment please. I wonder if the Premier and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would not interrupt the Minister of Finance, who is speaking.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The decision was made at this place in the committee. I cannot accept the amendment.

MR. KING: Yes, you can. You won't accept it.

MR. HANSON: There's clearly a lack of willingness on the part of the minister to appreciate the magnitude of the difference that is expressed between those terms. That is what the international year recognizing the disabled is all about. It is to break down those language barriers and force new ground. There are many people in our society who would say they were handicapped in terms of their income, their race, access to employment or their access to the various things that society offers where people, through no fault of their own, are discriminated against. But here is a year that is internationally recognized as a time when we will break down those old constructs and forge ahead and allow people access to things that they've never been allowed before.

As my friend for Vancouver Centre and other members on this side of the House have pointed out, it is not just a language problem that will technically create difficulties in other statutes. If the minister were to rise in his place and accept the amendment, he would be saying: "Yes, I as every other citizen am willing in this year to forge ahead and break new ground in language." The requests coming forward from the disabled people in our province deserve this. In what other year are you going to do it? Why wait? If you can't do it now, you won't do it later, so accept the amendment. My friend for Shuswap-Revelstoke has provided the answer. You simply include language in the definition, which will accommodate and make clear that there will not be conflict with other statutes on this matter.

MS. BROWN: I don't know whether the minister. In making his comments about the federal government, saw the report they issued on the Special Committee on the Disabled.

He expressed some concern about federal legislation. I've been looking throughout the report and the federal report is using the word "disabled," which would seem to indicate that certainly the federal government is willing to adjust its terminology so that it will coincide with the wishes of disabled people. As the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke mentioned, it's very easy for the word "disabled," written into the legislation, to encompass the federal use of the word "handicapped" until the federal government gets around to amending its legislation.

For the member's benefit, I also want to read the definition of the word "handicapped." I'm using Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, which I gather is well used around here, because it's dog-eared. It says the word "handicapped" comes from the term "cap-in-hand." It's really tied to the kind of charity that disabled people used to have to depend on in terms of their living. That's the root of the terminology. It says: "a disadvantage imposed on a person: to give a handicap, to assign a handicap, to put at a disadvantage." Disabled people arc saying that they have a disability, but it doesn't become a handicap until it runs into a lack of accessibility to buildings or discrimination in terms of hiring, housing or the general attitude of the community towards their disability.

The same dictionary gives a definition of disability as: "Inability to pursue an occupation because of a physical or mental impairment." They're two completely different words. As was pointed out earlier, really what we've been doing all along was using the word "handicap" incorrectly. It's now been brought to our attention by members of the disabled community. The United Nations has accepted that, and it has designated this year the International Year of Disabled Persons. I am willing to withdraw this amendment if I can get a commitment from the minister that he will introduce his own amendment deleting the use of the word "handicapped" and substitute the word "disabled."

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, now that the minister has had access to one of the great legal minds in British Columbia, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Intergovernmental Relations minister, surely he can advise the Minister of Finance, who is handicapped as I am in terms of legal aspects and legal terminology.... It's nothing to do with being disabled, however. That's the difference. The minister could have conferred with the member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Not having access to him — now that he's gone out the door — could the member ask the advice of the former Attorney-General? I'm sure he could give him advice.

Unfortunately, the words are interchangeable in legislation today. Why don't we start here in this province now with a piece of legislation that's before us and start making a proper and positive change? It's so simple and easy.

All the Minister of Forests can do is make fun of any positive suggestion from the opposition.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're a self-righteous bunch of hypocrites.

MR. COCKE: I hope you say that to the disabled people in this province, you Minister of Forests — whatever you are.

MS. BROWN: I think I'm losing this battle. But anyway, I found the section in the federal report entitled "Obstacles." Recommendation 106 deals with promoting a positive image of disabled persons in key areas of society. I want to quote from it. It starts out by saying:

"Attitudes and language reinforce each other. Negative attitudes towards disabled persons and patronizing terminology go hand in hand. Both must be changed, but the language must come first, because words are easier to change than ideas."

It goes on to talk about how Canadians have changed significantly over past centuries in their use of terminology which refers to disabled persons. We started out by calling them crippled. Remember that? Then we called them deformed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Freaks.

MS. BROWN: That's right. Imbeciles, morons and all of these word which arc no longer acceptable were used.

It even talks about the old age act, for example:

"In reference to legislation these have been found unacceptable. The enactment of of the Canada Assistance Plan as one attempt to move away from the

[ Page 5681 ]

categorization of persons to the description of a system which was based on need, regardless of the cause for that need. There are still terms used which disabled persons find offensive. Use of such terms should cease."

The minister talked about his reluctance to accept this amendment based on federal legislation. I am reading from a federal report — recommendation 106 of this report — dealing with precisely this issue. That is no longer a concern. The federal government has made its commitment. I'm willing to table the only copy of this report which I have, so that the minister can read it for himself. The United Nations and the federal government have accepted the term "disabled." Disabled people have indicated that the other term is offensive to them. If he cannot accept my amendment, will the minister introduce his own amendment to do precisely the same thing?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member who has just taken her place misunderstands the difficulty which I face. It's not a question of where the amendment comes from. I said that some minutes ago. If I felt that the amendment could be accepted without having impact on other legislation and without, perhaps, hurting those disabled persons we are seeking to assist through this and other sections of this bill, then I would do it. It's not a question of whether it's your amendment, my amendment or the amendment of the member for Omineca. That's not the point. The point is that I am loath and reluctant to accept it in relative isolation.

MR. KING: I just want to say to the minister that it's a sorry situation when he is more hung up on adjustments that may have to be made to legislation than he is over-the feelings and welfare of real people out there in the community.

This government has had a major review of all the legislation in this province — an updating and a statute review agency that has just completed its work. I suggest to him that it would not be a major undertaking to accept the principle of this legislation — as he has indicated he does philosophically. But in a technocratic way he says: "No. I won't accept it, because I'm more dedicated to maintaining my bureaucratic and rather slavish commitment to the statute and its language and verbiage than I am to effecting change on behalf of the sensibilities and sensitivities of people out there in the province of British Columbia who should be recognized this year." I mean people who are disabled, people who need some recognition from this government, rather than patronizing attitudes. For the minister to try to get up and rationalize that is nonsense. We've been on that side of the House too, and in terms of accommodating a change in the wording and interpretation it's no major obstacle. It's shallow and improper for the Minister of Finance to try to hide behind that excuse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is that section 23 of Bill 13 be amended in line 3 by deleting the word "handicapped" and substituting the word "disabled."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 23.

MR. STUPICH: I have just one question. I wonder if the minister can tell us what he expects will be the effect of section 23 on government revenue for 1981-82.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do I understand the Hon. member to be speaking of the cost of this? Well, it's a simple formula. We anticipate between 3,000 and 5,000 more recipients of homeowner grants — that's a best guesstimate — would receive the higher rate. I think that answers the question.

Section 23 approved unanimously on a division.

On section 24.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce an amendment to section 24, line 3, to delete the word "handicapped" and substitute the word 'disabled."

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order. Could the Chair please have the amendment. Does the hon. member wish to debate the amendment?

MS. BROWN: It's already been debated, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived.

On section 24.

MS. BROWN: I have another amendment on section 24: to delete line and insert the following: "is a disabled person or...." The intent of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to give the government an opportunity to honour the promise which it made in the budget debate on page 15 and extend the benefits of the homeowner grant to all disabled people in British Columbia, not just the ones who meet the criteria of being permanently disabled, whose homes need extensive modification and who need physical assistance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The amendment is in order.

Amendment negatived.

Section 24 approved.

On section 25.

[ Page 5682 ]

MS. BROWN: Once again, Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to section 25, line 3, to delete the word "handicapped" and substitute the word "disabled." If that's in order, I just want to say to the minister that I would suggest that he implement the recommendation of the federal Special Committee on the Disabled, recommendation 106, which says: "The committee recommends that the federal government review all terminology used by its departments and agencies in reference to disabled persons to eliminate the use of negative terms." I would suggest that the provincial government do that also.

MR. SKELLY: I think the effect of this section, Mr. Chairman, is to allow the government to define or prescribe eligibility of handicapped persons for the purposes of these previous sections. I wonder if the minister has regulations developed that would define the eligibility of handicapped persons, and if so, if he would make those available to the House today.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no. The regulations are under review, and it's not possible to offer them to the committee today. With respect to the eligibility — I spoke about it earlier — it has worked well in a number of other ministries, because no matter how difficult it is and how carefully the phrases and the criteria are established, there is always going to be some person who touches a bit of grey area. Therefore the eligibility committee is empowered to review a particular case and to make recommendations to the minister concerned, I think that's extremely important, because otherwise we are really caught in a strict interpretation.

MR. SKELLY: That's precisely what we're concerned about. One of the problems with the history of the drafting of legislation in this province is that it gives so much discretion to cabinet and to ministers. When MLAs are called upon to deliberate and pass legislation in the House we really have no idea what the content of the regulations is going to be. In some other legislatures the regulations are placed before the members along with the legislation, so that they know precisely who is going to qualify or be eligible, and there is no question in their minds. Also, in some legislatures they have an opportunity to refer those regulations to committee so that members can have an influence on how those regulations are drafted and perhaps solve some of the problems the minister just brought up.

It's unfortunate that we operate this Legislature with so much being held in secret or so much yet to be drafted that we don't really know what the force and impact of this legislation is going to be. I would suggest it would be a much better procedure if the minister would have these regulations prepared in draft form and would share their contents with the members so we can understand just who we are qualifying under these new sections of statute. I think it's particularly unfortunate that it's not happening in this case.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are the regulations — and I hear what the member has said in that connection — but then beyond that there is the eligibility committee. which is not a committee of cabinet, not a committee of politicians, but rather a committee of senior civil servants. The member will be familiar with the process which was used in the former Department of Housing, then in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and now in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, where a very careful review is made of those cases which inevitably are going to stray into the grey. I think it serves an extremely useful purpose, because it takes us beyond the regulations. I think that is helpful in a context such as this.

MR. SKELLY: Whether there are criteria in the possession of an eligibility committee, or whatever, I think the minister should share that information with the Legislature even if it's not completely drafted, so that when we're amending these sections in this Legislature we will have an idea just who we are qualifying under the previous sections.

To give the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) credit, when we were talking about uranium mining in the province of B.C., at the time legislation was presented, the minister also presented the regulations so we would have a clear understanding of cabinet's intention at that time. I think the government should take note of that, and where you're talking about an eligibility committee, possibly table or outline the criteria to the House so that we will know exactly what classes of people are going to be benefiting under the sections we've just amended.

MS. BROWN: I have just a few words in wrapping up this particular section. In the opposition we'd certainly like the record to show that although we do not support the bill, we recognize this particular section, despite all its weaknesses and faults, as a step in the right direction, and it has our support. Of course, we would have been much more enthusiastic about it if it had carried out the full promise which was made in the budget debate: that is, to have covered all disabled people in the province. It's failed to do that. We recognize that, and we recognize that the minister says it's one step in the right direction, and that he's willing to look at it again next year. We would like the record to show that we do support this very small step made by the government in this particular direction.

On the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is that section 25 of Bill 13 be amended in line 3 to delete the word "handicapped" and substitute the word "disabled."

Amendment negatived.

Section 25 approved.

On section 26.

MR. STUPICH: I want to ask a question similar to what I asked before. In this case we're collecting more tax revenue, and I'm wondering if the minister can tell us what the effect will be on 1981-82 revenue.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The revenue consideration in this particular section of the bill was not deemed to be that great. For the record, I should at least indicate that this does not touch the $1 minimum tax which is charged to persons 65 years of age and older, and others who qualify. This recognizes that for the rest of us a minimum $50 property tax payment, with the inflation factors which continue to occur, is a relatively small amount of money. Therefore it seemed that it was appropriate for the sanctity of property tax to

[ Page 5683 ]

increase it. I can't believe that it's going to be very painful for any property taxpayer, but rather it recognizes that there is a cost of delivering services to those individuals who, notwithstanding the tax which is levied, really end up paying relatively little compared to the rest of the people in a community, city or municipality. So it was simply a move to keep track of what should be the minimum charge for living in one's home and receiving the homeowner grant.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to respond to my question by saying he doesn't know, and I can accept that at this point in time. But I will raise it again when we get to estimates. The only point I was trying to make is that the government is giving with one hand and taking with the other, and I suspect it's taking a lot more away than it's giving when it's dealing with the amendments to this particular legislation. But I'll pursue the question another time when he's had time to research it.

Sections 26 to 29 inclusive approved.

On section 30.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I asked a question earlier about the government taking assets into consolidated revenue. The minister told me that in that case all of the money was provided by the provincial government. I think in this case, dealing with hospital financing authority, that some of the money is raised locally. I would invite the minister's comment on that before I dig myself into a hole. The point I'm trying to make is that some of the money is contributed by local taxpayers, but all of the surplus, to the extent that a surplus exists, is coming to the Crown. It seems to me it's another way of raising money from local taxpayers without admitting that the government is increasing taxes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman. to the hon. member for Nanaimo, among the points covered in this section 30 of Bill 13 there is.... I think I can assist the member by pointing out that subsection 8.1(2) allows the debt issued by a hospital district to be terminated. The hospital board issuing such debt will be discharged from all obligations under the debt before the maturity date where the Minister of Finance determines and certifies under an earlier subsection an adequacy of moneys in the sinking fund to retire the debt at maturity. The conditions likely to be contained in the certificate would relate to the hospital board being required to make additional payments to the sinking fund in the event of inadequate funding at the maturity date.

Therefore it's not simply a question of money which was raised locally flowing back to the consolidated revenue fund of the province, but rather offering an assurance or guarantee to the local tax-raising authority, in this case a regional hospital district.

Section 30 approved.

On section 31.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister several questions on section 31. First of all, I'd like him to tell us the anticipated additional revenue that will be yielded as a result of the increase in the hotel tax. I'd also like him to tell us what percentage of these rooms is under $50 and what percentage is over $50 in terms of the total. Can you give me an answer from your background papers on the additional revenue which will be yielded, and what percentage is $50 or less rooms?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the increase from 5 percent to 6 percent — that is. the lower of the two tax rates — is anticipated to raise an additional S3.5 million in this fiscal year. Then the accommodation, which is at the higher tax rate, will raise $1.3 million. The member hasn't asked, but against that must be offset a loss of revenue of $300,000 estimated with the increase of the exemption level from $4 to $10 per room. For the information of the committee, I'm referring to page 45 of the budget document, appendix B.

MR. LEGGATT: The minister didn't answer the second part of the question, which deals with the percentage of rooms that are estimated to be $50 or less and those considered to be $50 or more in terms of accommodation. I wanted to know how the breakdown is around the $50 figure.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There was a degree of arbitrary selection of the $50 figure, when we looked at the two-tier system of hotel tax increase. I can't assist the member at this point in committee by indicating the approximate number, except to refer him again to the revenue increase which would certainly suggest that the bulk of the hotel tax collected — $3.5 million versus $1.3 million — is going to come from the lower-priced rooms.

MR. LEGGATT: I take it then that the minister is following the philosophy of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) of seeking only quality tourists, given the fact that obviously you're going to be raising more revenue out of lower-priced accommodation than you will be out of higher priced accommodation. This would seem to be consistent with the philosophy expressed by the Minister of Tourism this year — that they were looking for higher-quality tourists in the province.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I won't stray into the area of tourism. Whether or not the member has fully identified a point made by the Minister of Tourism is not for me to say in discussing this section. I would observe, however, that one of the considerations which was dealt with at great length when I was working with senior officials concerning the total tax package was the recognition that a very large number of hotel rooms throughout British Columbia are rented to British Columbians who are moving through the province in the course of a variety of business and pleasure activities.

It simply relates to the points which I made in the budget speech and in second reading debate on a bill yesterday. We are attempting to build into our taxation package an equity which has occasionally been missing. If someone wishes to take a $300 suite, whether they live in Vancouver and are in Victoria or whether they have travelled halfway around the globe, there is an an opportunity to charge — and I think almost a responsibility to charge a higher tax rate. I would think that the member knows there are some very significant hotel taxes charged in other jurisdictions and in other parts of the world, quite apart from Canada.

[ Page 5684 ]

MR. LEGGATT: The minister is correct in saying that certain jurisdictions have hotel room tax. I think ours will be one of the higher ones in Canada. If you're examining the question of the importance of the tourist industry to British Columbia, it's beyond my comprehension why you should be trying to raise money off the backs of that particular industry which makes a very significant contribution to this economy. It always has done. For $3.5 million on a $50-or-less room and $1.3 million on those over that price, you are discouraging people from coming to this province. You're also discouraging people from travelling in this province to see other parts of it by taxing the hotel industry in terms of rooms. In an allegedly buoyant economy — in a boom year — why you should be trying to cut back on the tourist industry, Mr. Minister, is beyond my comprehension. I do not understand why the existing tax had to be raised at all. It's already substantial under the existing law. Why you would need to gouge the people trying to promote tourism in British Columbia is quite beyond the comprehension of the opposition. In fact, we question whether you need these revenues at all; but that's a whole other debate. But to attack the tourist industry and discourage people from coming to the province is a policy that is completely unacceptable to most of the people of this province and is certainly unacceptable to the opposition.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not sure that the member has gone all the way in developing the point that is before us. It is true that some provinces do not levy a tax on hotel accommodation, but those which do.... I'm sorry, I don't know off the top of my head what change may have occurred in Ontario last night in that particular tax. It seems to me that I heard there was reference to a hotel tax increase, but I could be mistaken. In Manitoba it is 5 percent, in New Brunswick it is 8 percent, in Nova Scotia it is 8 percent, in Prince Edward Island it is 9 percent and in Newfoundland it is 11 percent.

This is not an attack on the visitor industry. It's a very important industry.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Go back to Auckland.

Sooner or later members on the opposite side will understand that we had a very serious revenue-expenditure squeeze. They choose not to admit that recognition in here at the present time, but they will see that through quarterly reporting and through other documentation. There is another fact....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't blow your cool.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Like the Leader of the Opposition blew the lunch. I won't blow my cool.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will not interrupt the Minister of Finance, who continues uninterrupted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, attempting to assist the member — I said he didn't go all the way — the other point which I think he would like to acknowledge, because he's a fair man, is that we do not levy a tax on meals in British Columbia. I hope — underline the word "hope" — that we don't reach the point where we have to return to that tax. Frankly, we considered it among all the options available to us. In Ontario, while you may be paying zero....

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Alberta?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Tourism is important to Ontario, Mr. Member, and you know that. We'll talk about Quebec as well, if you wish.

While you may be paying zero tax on the room, you're paying 10 percent on every single meal you consume while you are in Ontario. So if you're going to examine impact on the visitor and the individual who moves around within a province, I think you have to look not only at the tax on the room but also at other taxes, most particularly a tax on meals consumed in restaurants.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I note on page 45 of the budget, under the heading "Hotel Room Tax Act," a line which says: "Exemption level increased to $10 per night from $4." In other words, anyone who can obtain a $10 or $8 hotel room in the province of British Columbia enjoys the tender mercies of Social Credit; they're relieved of the tax burden.

My real question to the Minister of Finance is: how is that translated into the bill currently before the committee? Clause (a) provides a tax of 6 percent of the purchase price of the accommodation where the daily rate for each unit of accommodation payable by that purchaser is less than $50. It doesn't say between $50 and $10, as was promised in the budget. I wonder if this is another example of the government's promising something in the budget which they then renege on and refuse to deliver. I would like the Minister of Finance to comment on that and explain it to the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: No cheap shots, either.

MR. KING: No cheap shots. The minister is most expensive. He's the finest Minister of Finance that money can buy.

The other thing that intrigues me here is that clause (b) of this particular provision indicates....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LEA: You've hurt his feelings.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if the minister was offended by that remark, I withdraw it. He's not the finest minister that money can buy. I withdraw. I certainly wouldn't want to ruffle that man's feathers, because he waxes right out of control when he gets angry, and I wouldn't want to be responsible for driving him to conduct another wild-man performance in this Legislature. Far be that from me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Section 31.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Now the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser), the B and B man, is starting to.... Listen to him, Mr. Chairman. He's out of control, a complete wild man.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all members please come to order. We are debating section 31 of Bill 13.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not used to being harassed in this fashion, and I dropped my notebook. I'm not used to dealing with wild men.

[ Page 5685 ]

Clause (a) provides for 6 percent where the room is less than $50 a night. Clause (b) provides for 8 percent where the room is over $50 a night. Then it has this gem, Mr. Chairman: "Where there is no daily rate, the rate that is payable shall be extrapolated to a daily rate for the purpose of applying this section." Now, Mr. Chairman, I want you to use your imagination: here we have a small hotel renting by the week. A long lineup of customers comes from the airport and they're waiting patiently to register at the desk. There is an interminable delay up there at the desk, and one guy at the back of the line says: "What are you doing up there?" And the guy says: "We're extrapolating." Somebody at the end of the line says: "Well, I thought that was illegal in public I didn't think says: you're allowed to extrapolate in public." What kind of legislation is this gang of coalition mavericks and malcontents trying to foist on the people of British Columbia? They're going to extrapolate the rates of taxation on a hotel room at the desk, while a long line of customers is waiting. I want to tell them, Mr. Chairman, that at times there could be some urgency in the public mind and the public objective in terms of gaining that haven. They don't want to face those unnecessary delays; they don't want to be forced to extrapolate in public. What a shameful thing for this government to do.

Here is a Minister of Finance who couldn't change the word "handicapped" to "disabled" to respect the sensibilities of a large community out there, but who is willing to inflict extrapolation on the patrons of hotel rooms. I think this is the ultimate, Mr. Chairman. This could only occur with a government who legislated Seaboard overboard. I would like to hear the Minister of Finance's comments on the fact that the $10 hotel room is absent from the provision of this statute — it was promised in the budget — and I'd like to hear him explain to us just how the extrapolation will take place at that hotel registry.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman. the $10 hotel room will be dealt with by regulation, as it has been in the past. Since budget day the members opposite have found this to be....

MR. LEA: Funny.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, funny. They've had a lot of good laughs at the expense of that increase. I can tell you that the people who will benefit from this are not distressed at all. They're very pleased, because the $4 limit was completely unrealistic.

MR. KING: Is $10 realistic?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member, you move around the province, I think. We're speaking of hostels, YM-YWCA and a variety of accommodation which is used by people in British Columbia — particularly youth hostels. Since the change was announced in the budget, we've had very positive response from people who said $4 was ludicrously low. So we've increased it to $10 and that will be by regulation.

With respect to extrapolation, I stand condemned.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't think we should hang you.

Mr. Chairman, I want to know the formula on extrapolation. Is the formula on extrapolation the same as the one on the gas tax? If the minister can't explain it, how do you expect a hotel clerk to explain it? Have you sent out a notice to all hotel clerks with the picture of the member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) on it? Is the Minister of Tourism giving them the formula on how to extrapolate in public? Have you given that formula? What is the formula for the extrapolation?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I am certainly not in a position where I need to defend this minister. He's quite capable of defending himself. I did want to make a few comments on this section of the bill, because it has been a matter of interest to a lot of people in the province and to this industry. I think one of the most significant things we should note first, Mr. Chairman, is that he true critics of this portfolio of Tourism haven't spoken on this, and I suspect it's because they realize that the tax imposition put into place with this section of the act is not significant in terms of a detriment to our industry. The complaints about it from the other side of the House probably fall more into a philosophical difference between that side of the House and our side of the House. I've listened to many of the opposition members talk on the platform as they attend some meetings. We feel that this industry is a strong, expanding one. It's an industry in which you need dynamism, competition, imagination, a free enterprise society, a very healthy economy plus a competitive marketing program. However. we can see that the socialists would like to control the industry. They would like to make it a hot-house industry. There are various ways of doing that. Sometimes you become part of the industry to control it.

The suggestion from the Hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) that the 8 percent tax would discourage tourism in British Columbia is really unfounded. This government is very mindful of the fact that our tourist industry must be competitive. But I would suggest the way to make it competitive is not the route the opposition suggests. The way to make it competitive is the way we are going in terms of a very strong marketing strategy, of very sound enterprise management within the industry itself, quality of service, imagination, variety and quality of experience. As well, our philosophy is that tourism, which is a basic resource along with any other resource, should not be given away. It should not be made a hot-house resource.

In this area we feet there is every opportunity to be competitive. I'm sure the minister himself has referred to other hotel taxes across Canada, ranging anywhere from 5 percent to 11 percent. Ours is only 8 percent on the room over $50 a night room, and less on the lower rooms, with the $10 exemptions.

We have to look at the fact that nearly every other province has a tax on food, and whether our visitors are our own citizens or not, those visitors eat food. There is no tax on food, and we have no tax on amusements. We have the lowest small business corporation tax in Canada. In terms of dollars, our industry is very competitive.

I would like to discuss the two-tier approach. There certainly is some thought about it within the industry, but not a convincing position. The House should know that less than 25 percent of our hotel and accommodation rooms in British Columbia are over the $50 mark, and generally they were occupied by people on business trips, conventions or family holidays that do relate to business and are income-tax-deductible. Or sometimes it's a very special experience that people are looking for.

[ Page 5686 ]

I would like to point out that even on a $100 room — and we don't have many $100 rooms in British Columbia — it 's only the addition of four more cups of coffee. I would suggest that when you have $50-a-night hotel rooms.... You're suggesting that the people we want to come to British Columbia couldn't afford four cups of coffee to contribute to hospitals, schools, roads and parks that they themselves as well as our citizens would use. You are suggesting that people who travel don't have any money, particularly if it's on business, and I don't think that's so.

The other 75 percent of rooms and accommodations around British Columbia are below the $50-a-night level. These are the rooms that are more frequently occupied by our own citizens, so this gives our own citizens a fair opportunity. I hope it will encourage other people as well as our own citizens to visit other parts of the province where accommodation is, perhaps, a more favourable price and where the tax is, perhaps, more favourable. This will be one of many incentives we intend to bring in to encourage people to utilize the whole province as a vacation area.

I don't think anyone would suggest that anyone likes taxes, but most business people realize that taxes do change. I won't go into the reasons for the tax change in the constitutional area, but our industry was cautioned through the year, by me, that constitutional changes and some of the positions being taken by the federal government would in fact reach into the pockets of every single British Columbian. I suggested to them that they might wonder why I was suggesting this to them, and I advised them that I would be very wrong six months from then if I hadn't cautioned them that our industry is maturing, growing stronger and must carry a fair share of the burden.

Also, some of the comments made by some of the members outside the House have related to the fact that there would be great losses experienced because of the sudden imposition of a tax. I would suggest to you that standard business practices in any area of the world indicate that all prices are quoted subject to tax changes without notice, or subject to tax as is applicable. I just happen to have here VIA Rail's schedule and price listing. I find that it also — VIA Rail is the Canadian government — has a notice in it saying "subject to change without notice as far as taxes and fares are concerned." It says: "Generally the wholesaler takes the responsibility for any price changes affecting this product." Unannounced tax changes are not unknown to the tourist industry. The hotel tax came in initially, and I'm sure that was an experience. Our tour operators are very sophisticated marketing people. They're working in a sophisticated and competitive market. I suggest that most of them — while certainly they're going to make every effort not to have things change — recognize that tax changes are inevitable, either up or down. Sometimes they're down, and they don't usually complain about that. That's part of a responsible business practice — to be aware of that.

This applies also to the comment about the cash registers. I would suggest that discussions with the cash register companies and with the industry as a whole indicate that most modern cash registers can be converted to the two-tier system very easily. Those who don't have this type of a cash register generally keep a card for tax and other assessments by their cash register. That calculation is very easily made.

British Columbia has a great deal to offer our visitors, whether they're our own citizens who are 55 percent of our market and who will largely benefit from the lower tax on the other hotel rooms, or our visitors from outside. We have a good product and a good, strong, growing, imaginative and competitive industry. Rather than spending time on the negative effects of an increase in price equivalent to two cups of coffee or four cups of coffee, we should be putting all our energies and imagination together to be out marketing.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Are you sure? Will you put that in writing? I just want you to go out and help sell British Columbia in a positive way. The only bad publicity we ever get comes when you discuss things in your own way and create that bad publicity. I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance has the support of the opposition for this tax increase for this very good industry.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister who just spoke for not taking a cheap shot at the Minister of Finance. In her own terms she gave a reasoned explanation of her position on the increase in the taxes. I appreciate the logic of her argument, even though I had some difficulty following it. For example, she said this — it's kind of profound, but I think it's important at 5:30 on a quiet afternoon in the House to hear exactly what she said: "Taxes may go up and taxes may go down." Now that's pretty profound. The thing that got me interested was how enthralled the backbenchers were at this explanation. I saw some of the backbenchers get up and some of them of them got down. They were involved in this very interesting explanation by the minister.

But we still don't know her position on this tax. Are you in favour of this tax? Did you advocate it? Is that what you wanted? But we didn't get that from you. We got a long, standard kind of rigmarole from that member who is now the Minister of Tourism, who was the fourteenth choice over only 11 others to pick from. I know that's kind of unfair, Mr. Chairman, but when you stand in line, it goes by the length of the line, not by the individual. Look at the ones they passed over. There are some of them back there who know the a + b theorem better than extrapolating the finance formula for this tax.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, we are on section 31 of Bill 13. I wonder if we could maybe narrow the debate to that particular section.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it's a very important question raised by the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke (Mr. King) as to how this extrapolation is going to take place in public. The minister raised the argument that people who have $50 rooms may be enjoying a new experience. Does that mean they have to be taxed for extrapolating in public in a $50 room?

Mr. Chairman, she's the Minister of Tourism. She has not stood up ad said: "I think taxes that impede tourism are bad for the tourist industry." That's what we expected to hear. She went into discussing what people want to do when they hire the room, which is entirely their own business. All that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke wants to add is that when they extrapolate then do that in private too. But the minister refuses. He's now forcing the citizens that visit this province to extrapolate in public; and the Minister of Tourism is defending that.

[ Page 5687 ]

If we're going to have this extrapolation, and if the minister refuses to state her position on extrapolation, we should at least have the minister explain how this extrapolation is going to take place in a uniform fashion. Will she be sending out a code card? Will there be an instruction booklet on extrapolation? Will there be seminars on how to deal with extrapolation in a crowded lobby? Will there be approaches to dealing with extrapolation and the outfall from this activity if it's stormy outside?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the voice from the past, the only living body that has so much to offer in this debate. Perhaps he can tell us how he's going to extrapolate.

So. Mr. Chairman, these are very important problems, and for the minister to say. "Taxes may go up and taxes may go down, but I don't have any position on it," is hardly a hard-hitting statement from the Minister of Tourism, who should be standing up here saying: "No tax that impedes tourism in British Columbia should be placed as a burden on those motel and hotel operators."

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Two cups of coffee.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, there it is. That's her line: two cups of coffee is all the tax costs. If that's it, then why doesn't this government buy itself a cup of coffee and forget the tax? The new Socred finance formula: just two cups of coffee, that's all. Wait till we tell the tourist industry what you said: "Oh, it's just a couple of cups of coffee." Do you know how much coffee costs in some of those hotels? It costs a lot of money for coffee. Of course, if you write it off on government expense, you never know how much coffee costs.

Mr. Chairman, there are two things I want to conclude with. One, I will never again give up my place in debate to the Minister of Tourism. And two, I think the minister owes us an explanation of how this bureaucratic gobbledegook — this red tape, this confusion, this whole intrusion into what should be a good experience at the hotel desk — is going to be avoided. Bureaucratic red-tape nonsense. extrapolation driving clerks mad, tourists coming to this province and getting this negative experience over this tax that the minister says shouldn't bother us — just two cups of coffee.

Now come on, Mr. Minister, how much money do you think you're going to collect for this? Is it worth the trouble for the money you're going to collect? And how are you going to let this formula not impede people when they register at the desk?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition was not in the House a short while ago when one of his colleagues asked a question regarding the revenue. I pointed out that it was dealt with in the budget speech, and I answered the question as well.

MR. BARRETT: How much money are you going to collect?

HON. MR. CURTIS: How much? It's been dealt with today and it's also in the budget. With respect to extrapolation — we've had some fun with it in the committee, and that's great — there are two ways to extrapolate. One is where there is a weekly rate, and that is converted into a daily rate. There is that accommodation in the province which only quotes a weekly rate but will rent for one, two. three or four days. So that conversion is made at the time the bill is finally computed. The other way is with respect to what could be described as a suite and would contain one room which, under normal circumstances, would not be rented as an individual hotel room but can be on occasion. The extrapolation there follows that the cost of this particular room, which is normally rented as one of two or three rooms, but in this instance is rented as a single room.... The tax is therefore applied to that single room. I trust that assists the members who were asking about extrapolation. I don't think it will cause any lineups.

MR. SKELLY: I hope to approach this in a bit more serious way, perhaps representing the tourist industry in Alberni provincial constituency. My concern is that in that area, jobs in the forest industry are declining. As the forest industry and the processing sector in the forest industry become more efficient tourism becomes a more attractive means of employment. It's a way that you can create jobs with a relatively small investment of capital per job created.

While the minister says this may only amount to a couple of cups of coffee per room, when you add up the cups of coffee per day. you're talking about jobs, Mr. Minister of Finance. It takes people to serve those cups of coffee. It takes people to process the coffee. It takes people to distribute the coffee into the area. When you take tax money out of a local economy that's just in the process of developing a tourist industry right now — $4.8 million in addition to what you're taking out now — and on take that money back to Victoria and away from areas like Port Alberni, Tofino. Ucluelet and Bamfield, then you're depriving them of needed investment money. What I'm saying is that this increase in revenue amounts to less than S4.5 million. It's $4.8 million. according to the minister's statement, less a third of a million in S4 to $10 hotel rooms that will now be exempt, less a few other things. But $4.5 million will be taken out of the community, and that amount would be creating a large number of jobs because of the minimal investment required in the tourist industry to create employment. When you look at the tourist industry in our area, basically it's 90 or 120 days a year. That amount of money invested over that number of days is a significant employment generator for the people in the area.

It reminds me of Waldo Skillings, when the Minister of Tourism says we don't want a hothouse industry. That was their main argument against the B.C. Development Corporation, which they now advertise Douglas Heal-style all over the province, saying it is the way to eliminate red tape and the way to develop industry in the province. They're always against the wrong things. What I'm saying to the Minister of Finance is that this is wrong thing again. You're hitting the wrong industry. You're hitting an industry that requires very little investment to create a lot of jobs at a time of the year when people desperately need them.

I'm saying we should vote against this tax increase on hotel and motel rooms and continue at the same rate or even decrease the rate in order to encourage development in this industry. There are certain areas of the province that desperately require that development. On behalf of the tourist industry in my area, I intend to oppose this section of the legislation. I don't think the revenue is necessary to be generated from this point in the economy. There are other

[ Page 5688 ]

areas that can more afford to bear the burden of the $4.8 million than the developing tourist industry on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I just have a few remarks to make to the committee. I might say I'm pretty fed up sitting in this House listening to lectures from the Leader of the Opposition. After 12 years, it gets kind of monotonous. I'm happy that the people in New Zealand didn't buy any of it; they never showed up. What I'm interested in is whether the seven people that showed up got a refund.

I want to talk about the proposed "Comrade Hilton" in Nanaimo. I want to know if you are going to have $50 rooms, $100 rooms or $5 rooms. I would also like to hear the Leader of the Opposition tell us what connection his party has with this Comrade Hilton. I understand there's a lot of denials going on as to whether the CCF or the NDP have the shares. A lot of people in Nanaimo would like to know.

Talking of tourism and this big hotel, they monkeyed with the zoning so they could block the view of Nanaimo harbour. I think that's a downer for the tourist industry, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for doing that. I want to know what the room rates are there. Also, I want to know if the former Attorney-General is going to be in charge of security or not, because if he is there won't be any security. He has been pretty silent on this too.

But I'm really interested in where they think they fall in these categories — $10, $50 or $100. I think this is the right place for the Leader of the Opposition, here in this committee, to state where they stand regarding this Comrade Hilton, instead of getting up and lecturing us. Everybody's denying that they have anything to do with it. Who's on the executive? We'll gladly accommodate the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) by ensuring that he's unemployed shortly, and we'll send him up there. We'll buy him a little toy crane so he can play with it — tourist attraction.

Before I sit down I just have a few short notes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do any of them happen to deal with section 31, hon. member?

HON. MR. FRASER: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I'm going to vote for this section.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as the member for Nanaimo I would like to thank the Minister of Transportation and Highways for his participation in this debate, and say to him that I'm going to try to use my influence to invite him to Nanaimo to the opening, at which time I trust he'll be ready to discuss the eight highway financial transactions that he's turned down in the last few days. We'll accept the one that he has approved.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, apparently as the only voice in this House for the East and West Kootenays tourist operators, I want to express my disgust at the shortsightedness of this particular piece of legislation. One of the realities of being in this industry in the East or West Kootenays is that the best market area, during a very short season in which people must make a return on their investment, is the province of Alberta, where they don't have this type of regressive taxation. Neither do they have a sales tax. When we see what's happening in other parts of this particular budget, of which this is but one reflection, we see that this might increase the revenues to the province by $4 million, but it is going to reduce the amount of money brought in and recycled through the tourist industry in the East and West Kootenays. There's no doubt about that.

Indeed, I think that it was with this in mind that the people of the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association said that they were "hopping mad with Victoria over a budgetary increase in the provincial levy against hotel rooms in British Columbia. The association is calling for a moratorium on implementation of any room tax increase until the 1981 tourist season winds down this September."

People make commitments and travel plans. People are sent brochures and given information and firm prices on packages long before this minister dreams up some whimsical new way of trying to get more money so that he can take it out of the Kootenays and put it into the big-ticket projects in Vancouver — Pier B-C and so-called tourist accommodation things and generators in other parts of the province.

In one community in the Kootenays — Kaslo — there is an industry which the Minister of Finance should well know. If he doesn't, his deputy minister can inform him. It is the largest retail sales outlet for pleasure craft in all four provinces of western Canada. As strange as that might sound for the small community of Kaslo, that happens to be the case. I'm sure the minister can confirm that from the social services tax records.

That industry is part of a tourist industry. I'll speak at more length on that when we get to the social service tax amendment. That industry is part of a whole way of life in the Kootenays. If it were to close down and move to Calgary, where the taxation climate is more attractive to their customers.... A majority of the people who come into our area and spend $10,000 and $20,000 at a crack to buy a pleasure craft are from Alberta. Buyer resistance is increasing, and tourist resistance toward taxation in this area is increasing. We have people in the Okanagan and the Kootenay Lake tourist operators association up in arms about this. What we try to do by exploiting the potential of tourism in a place like the Kootenays is try to jingle a bit of that change out of people's pockets when they come to look at the natural scenery. They will gladly do it to pay for good accommodation, a good fishing guide, good boat facilities and so on, but they sure don't like to do it when they're told that this is provincial government sales tax. That's what this really is. Accommodation tax is simply a sales tax. We're increasing the sales tax and we're increasing this tax at the same time. This is going to drive tourists out of British Columbia. It is creating a negative attitude in British Columbia. This government can't seem to understand what the tourist industry is about. We tried to tell them this about the Marguerite; we tried to tell them this when they increased ferry fares back in 1976; and we're trying to warn them now. An accommodation tax is just one more way of telling tourists to stay home, not to come to British Columbia.

It is particularly difficult in the Kootenays. We are closer to Alberta than we are to Vancouver. When people go to make an airplane connection, they go to the Calgary airport. When the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) goes to buy a suit, he goes to Calgary, Alberta. That is not only the natural place for us to go, it is the natural place for that large metropolitan centre to come for a vacation. When they are looking for a vacation, they come as far as our area. They come to buy fruit in the Creston valley. But they won't

[ Page 5689 ]

buy fruit in the Creston valley if they feel they're being tagged with an onerous accommodation tax.

The Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), rather than being the champion of tourism, is the chumpion of tourism. She probably didn't even know about this until the budget was read in the House.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this is not a joke in the East Kootenay or the West Kootenay. This is a very serious problem. As my colleague from Alberni said, when new technology is coming in, when plywood technology is going to be replaced by oriented strand-board technology and the number of jobs is reduced by two-thirds, then people are looking for other types of employment. The natural type of employment, whether on the west coast of Vancouver Island or in the Kootenays — east or west.... One of the natural growth areas of great potential is tourism. This is simply milking the resource areas of this province with no return. You are now taking more money out of the Kootenays, and there is no return. There's no sign of any definite return of this money.

Mr. Chairman, I think that if hon. members take a quick count when this does come to a vote, they can decide whether or not standing on principle and fighting for the people of their riding, rather than propping up the government....

It might not even come to a matter of numbers. It might not even cause the government to rise or fall by losing a vote. I think that some members on the other side of the House who realize the importance of tourism in their area will have an opportunity to vote with no fear of defeating their government, but to give them a message.

If they really do represent the people in their riding, if members on that side think that being in greater proximity to Calgary than to Vancouver does not present new realities, then they had better think about it a second time. The reality is that the people whose help we need with our economy are from Alberta. They do not like sales tax, they do not like hotel accommodation tax, and they do not like accommodation tax of 8 percent.

On rooms of $50 or more.... Well, I must say that some of these rooms aren't worth $10 night in the middle of winter, but when it's summer and the weather. golfing and fishing are all good, these rooms are worth $50. $80 or $100 a night. Yet we're going to throw a surcharge on of another 2 percent with this piece of legislation.

I hope that the minister will get up and respond. I would hope the Minister of Tourism would get up and say that these concerns are hopeless. She says it's hopeless for the tourist operators in the Kootenays to expect the government to recognize that 6 percent and 8 percent rates on accommodation tax are a problem to them.

For that minister's information. I would like to quote from a paper where it says that they want a consistent room-tax levy, one that does not exceed the province's social services tax. It says in the article that that tax was raised to 6 percent last week. This is the Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association. They say: "Besides opposing the new system, manager Bob Sheeley said the group is very annoyed because the private sector was not involved or informed about the increase, and because individual operators are going to be held responsible for accounting charges on prepaid business." The minister says it's hopeless to be concerned about such a sudden change in the ground rules. So the question is: who's going to take the loss? The association spokesman projected that with the tax increases brought down last week the Okanagan tourist industry will contribute some $2.8 million to the general revenues of the province this year through the room tax alone. That's not in increase, that's in total, because. of course, in 1980 the room tax brought in about $12 million.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I will, because I'm not finished.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Strachan, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, presented the committee's report, which was read as follows and received:

"Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"That the preamble of Bill No. PR-402, intituled West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited. Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981, has been approved and the bill ordered to be reported without amendments.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. W.B. Strachan, Chairman, Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills."

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, by leave I move that the rules be suspended and the report adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

Appendix

30 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

For each calendar year from 1976 to 1980—

[ Page 5690 ]

1. How many pollution control Permits were issued and how many amendments to pollution control permits were issued in each year?

2. What was the total amount of the budget of the Pollution Control Branch and Pollution Control Board attributable to issuance of pollution control permits and amendments including costs associated with appeals in each year?

3. What was the average cost to taxpayers of a pollution control permit or amendment in each year?

4. What amount of revenue was generated by the Province through the issuance of pollution control permits in each year?

The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

"1. 1976, 295 permits, 158 amendments; 1977, 240 permits, 186 amendments; 1978, 288 permits, 241 amendments; 1979, 283 permits, 299 amendments; and 1980, 232 permits, 199 amendments.

"2. This information is not available as the budget is not structured to enable these costs to be adequately determined.

"3. This information is not available as the budget is not structured to enable these costs to be adequately determined.

"4. None."

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

13 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 13) intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1981 to amend as follows:

Section 11, in lines 42 and 47, by deleting "purchased" and substituting "used".

Section 16, in the proposed section 4 by deleting subsection (2) and substituting the following,

"(2) Every purchaser shall, after September 30, 1981, pay to Her Majesty for the purpose of raising revenue for Provincial purposes, a tax rounded to the next lowest .01¢/litre, on each litre of gasoline purchased by him, in an amount determined by the following formula: