1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3211 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of Dr. Walter Gage to the House — 3211

Speaker's ruling

Control of government expenditures. Mr. Speaker —

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural

Gas Producers Act (Bill 129). Hon. Mr. Barrett.

Introduction and first reading

— 3214

Oral Questions

Letter on BCR reorganization. Mr. Bennett — 3214

Resource grant to senior citizens. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3214

Contract talks with BCGEU. Mr. Wallace — 3214

Equipment for poultry plant. Mrs. Jordan — 3214

Legality of actions of B.C. Steamships, 1975, Ltd. directors. Mr. Gibson — 3215

Railcar production at Squamish. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3215

Liquor administration branch and CNIB Cater Plan employees. Mr. Curtis — 3215

Abortion practices at Vancouver General Hospital. Mr. Wallace — 3216

BCR industrial site at Prince George. Mr. Phillips — 3216

ICBC refunds. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3216

Review of grants in lieu of taxes. Mr. Morrison — 3216

ICBC strike contingency plan re automobile accidents. Mr. McGeer — 3217

Seaweed-eating sheep. Mr. Wallace — 3217

Food prices. Mr. Gibson — 3217

Agricultural Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 126). Committee stage.

section 1. Mrs. Jordan — 3218

section 2. Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3218

section 5. Mrs. Jordan — 3222

section 6. Mr. Phillips — 3224

section 7. Mr. Phillips — 3224

On the title. Mrs. Jordan — 3225

Report and third reading — 3225

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill

86). Committee stage.

section 3 as amended. Mr. Phillips — 3225

section 4. Mr. Gibson — 3227

section 5. Mr. Gibson — 3227

section 6. Mr. Morrison — 3227

section 7 Mr. Gibson — 3228

Amendment to

section 9. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3229

section 9 as amended. Mr. Morrison — 3230

section 12. Mr. Gibson — 3230

section 13. Mr. Morrison — 3230

section 15. Mr. Gibson — 3230

section 16. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3231

section 20. Mr. Phillips — 3231

section 21. Mr. Morrison — 3231

section 40. Mr. Morrison — 3232

Division on

section 40 — 3233

Amendments to

section 41. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3233

section 41 as amended. Mr. Morrison — 3233

Report stage — 3235

School Tax Removal and Resource Grant Act (Bill 73). Third reading.

Motion to recommit the bill. Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3236

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 106). Second reading.

Hon. Mr.

Barrett — 3236

Mining Tax Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 122). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett

— 3238

Committee of Ways and Means

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3244

Supply Act, No. 2, 1975 (Bill 80). Second reading.

Mr. Bennett —

Appendix — 3248

MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to

just take a moment to welcome a very special guest and a unique

British Columbian: Dr. Walter Gage. Walter Gage is retiring as

the president of UBC. He has served in that capacity...and

has been associated with the university for 54 years. He has

been a figure in the university education department of this

province in all those years. He's a man of humour, compassion

and is modern. Dr. Gage is known throughout the whole community

of British Columbia, having taught, in this very House, many

Members of the present Legislature or members of their

families. Even the Speaker has been a student of Dr. Gage as

well — not related to May , of course, but in other

subjects.

MR. SPEAKER: More "shall" than May .

HON. MR. BARRETT: More shall than May . (Laughter.)

Dr. Gage had lunch with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) today and was asked to come over on a very informal

basis just so that we here in this House could express our very

deep and sincere appreciation for his many years of service to

the students and to the people of British Columbia. He's

perhaps even fondly known as our own "Mr. Chips" of British

Columbia — Dean Walter Gage.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): It's not often

we get a chance to agree with the Premier, but I would like to

extend our congratulations and welcome to Dr. Gage today. We

all recognize the contribution he's made to education and,

through education, to the province. We're also proud to be in

the chamber when he's visiting today, and we're proud to be in

a province where he has set an example for the rest.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I similarly would like to add

our words of welcome to Dean Gage. The Premier failed to

mention that he had some association with Victoria College

prior to the University of British Columbia and, as someone who

had two years at Victoria College, I'd like that mentioned. I

would also like to point out that to many of us he was

responsible for the student loan funds, as well as bursaries

and scholarships. As one of those who touched his generosity on

a number of occasions, I would like to add my personal note of

welcome to him.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): As a landed immigrant, I haven't

had the advantage of studying under Dean Gage, but I have a

daughter at UBC who tells me, sir, that your name is highly

esteemed, and I know very well that the university fraternity

have named residences after you because of your

contribution.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I don't think anybody has got better knowledge of Dr. Gage than myself. I remember

him when I attended university, back as far as 1924, and I followed him in later

years. When they were looking around for a president for the university, they

went all over the world and they had one right here; I think, the finest president

the university has had, Dr. Walter Gage. I give him my credit.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker,

seated in the Members' gallery are three gentlemen who had

lunch with us today, and we are very pleased to have them join

with us in honouring Dean Gage — Mr. Donovan Miller, the new

chancellor of the University of British Columbia; Dean Douglas

Kennedy, the president-designate of UBC; and Mr. William

Armstrong, the chairman of the Universities' Council of

B.C.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, while the House is in an honouring

mood while we are recognizing service to the province and to

education, I would like to bring to the attention of this

assembly the service for which we are celebrating the 22nd

anniversary of his election to the Legislature, and that is of

the Hon. Frank Richter, who has served this Legislature since

June 9, 1953.

By way of just a short biographical note, he served not only

as an MLA in government, but as Minister of Agriculture from

1960 to 1968, Minister of Commercial Transport and Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources from 1968 to 1972, was chairman

of the B.C. Harbour Board, and instrumental in the formation

and development of Roberts Bank. This list of credits and his

service to the province are not ceasing because he continues to

serve and represent the proud constituency of

Boundary-Similkameen. I am proud to be an associate of Frank

Richter, and I ask this House to congratulate him on 22 years

of service, for which I hope there will be many more years in

the future.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to

congratulating one of our own, I suppose a catalogue of events

and the successes and heartbreaks of each one of us really

doesn't sum up the feeling that we develop as human beings over

a period of years.

[ Page 3212 ]

When I served in the opposition, Frank Richter was and still

is now one of the more popular Members of the House, a very

generous and gracious Minister, but more than anything else, a

good colleague despite party differences. I think Frank

Richter, along with few other people, has demonstrated the

warmth and understanding that cuts across party lines and

becomes popular as an MLA in his own right. For that I want to

thank the Member and extend to him my very deep appreciation

for my having the opportunity of knowing him for part of those

years. I wish him every great success, even electorally, in the

future.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: A few words on behalf of Frank Richter. I

think that I was in the House when he first came here. I have

always found him very popular, a person who didn't say too much

and didn't get himself into too much trouble. (Laughter.)

I followed him as Minister of Mines and I have difficulty

finding anything to criticize in what he did during the time he

was Minister of Mines.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications) : I was here to welcome the Member when he

arrived. In the catalogue of his achievements, the Leader of

the Opposition left out one which I think is probably his

greatest achievement — he was the chairman on the Select

Standing Committee on Agriculture that met with the Farmers'

Institute and brought a unanimous report into this House

recommending public ownership of the B.C. Electric. Thank you,

Frank.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Awesome powers, heavy hands.

(Laughter.)

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, getting

on to some more important things...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order.

HON. MR. LEA: ...because it is my constituency....

Oh, does Frank want to speak?

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member would care to

reply.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Thank you, Mr.

Minister of Highways, for giving way at this time. I do want to

thank each and every Member on both sides of the House for his

acknowledgment of my years of service. I am sitting now as the

longest-sitting Social Credit Member in British Columbia. I appreciate the support that my

constituents have given me over the number of elections I have

gone through.

Certainly there has been frustration — there's no question

about that — but at the same time there have been great

rewards. I wouldn't have missed this for anything. At one time

I thought probably the most unbecoming thing for a farm boy to

ever do was to get within the hallowed halls of the

Legislature, but I've changed my mind. I think that a person

who allows their name to go forward and extends their service

deserves a great deal of credit, and I appreciate what has been

said today.

I do want to say that the most important thing I think

that's happened to me in the 22 years I've been here was to

have made as many friends on both sides of the House — sincere

friends, people I can stop and talk to at any time — and I hold

no animosities in any way because of political differences. I

think this is possibly the most important thing that could

happen to anyone. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) has

served a long time. One of the former leaders of the NDP at

that time was a Member for Cowichan-Newcastle (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) which is no more a constituency by that name. He used

to get up in his place in the House, you know, and he would

drop his h's and he would roll his r's, and he used to scare

the living daylights out of me as a farm boy, you know. I just

wasn't accustomed to this. However, time heals these little

things and I appreciate hearing him get up today and still roll

those same old r's. It's refreshing.

I want to say that probably one of the things I look forward

to in the next 22 years as a Member of this House is that I

hope that we can have the same feeling of friendship at that

time as we have today between all Members of the House, and

that we can do the people's business in a fashion in which they

can be proud of us.

The Hon. Minister of Mines has said that I didn't get in too

much trouble. You know, the theory there is that whenever the

shooting gets rough, you keep your head below the trenches.

Thank you.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, today in the gallery are 28 grade

7 students from Prince Rupert, along with their teacher, Stan

Anderson. I can't think of a better day for them to journey to

the Legislature and hear what's been said so far. I think that

only too often especially students feel that politicians are

always at one another's throats, and I think it was a good day

for them to be here today and see this humanness in the House

and see that first of all we're people and secondly we're

politicians. I think that's a good thing for the students and

teacher. I would ask you to welcome them here today.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe

[ Page 3213 ]

Sound): Tell them to stick around for a few minutes.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Member for

Yale-Lillooet (Hon. Mr. Hartley) I would like to welcome Mr.

Bill Hamilton and some of his friends who are visiting here to

do business with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer). Mr. Hamilton serves on the local school board and

regional district. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: I also would like the House to welcome a

parliamentary observer from Australia, Mr. A.W. Saxon, the

Clerk of the Legislative Council of New South Wales who is on

the floor of the House. Mr. Saxon is studying facilities for

Members, which seems to be a common habit these days.

The other matter that should be raised at this time is that

I promised some time ago the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that I would deal with the

complaint of breach of privilege that he alleged with respect

to the recently acquired Princess Marguerite vessel which was,

he stated, being operated without legislative appropriate or

sanction. He suggested that the same constituted a contempt of

the Legislature, as did the operation of the Rent Review

Commission.

I've dealt with this in great detail and I don't propose to

read all the information out at this time, as it would be quite

a burden on the House, but I think the nub of it really is

this. In examining the precedents, in order to constitute a

contempt, one has to look to all the authorities. I cannot find

anything apropos upon which to conclude that it constitutes a

prima facie breach leading to priority ahead of the orders of

the day, and that is the task of the Speaker to determine. It

would be a case to take up, if the Hon. Member proposes to do

so, by one of several other means at hand — by setting down a

motion of privilege with notice, instructing a committee, or by

normal debate as the occasion presents itself within the rules

during estimates, or when a specific bill is called relating to

this subject.

In examining the Canadian decisions, there are only two

cases which came to mind, and I can't find anywhere else which

even comes close to this complaint. One case was a complaint by

Mr. Stanley Knowles, found in December 10, 1969 in the Votes

and Proceedings of the Canadian House of Commons. It dealt with

a letter from the Minister of Finance which, he complained,

constituted a breach of privilege in that it was a production

of propaganda material, he alleged, without the authorized use

of public funds. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux stated — and I'll get to

the nub of what he said:

"The Chair has been unable to conclude that the conduct

of the Minister of Finance, as related by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North

Centre, was an effort to obstruct or impede any Member of this House in the

discharge of his duty, or that such action had the tendency, directly or indirectly,

to produce such results."

These words are important because I can extract from them

the decision that I must make, in my humble view, in this case.

Mr. Speaker Lamoureux then went on to say:

"Whether or not it was proper to prepare and circulate what

the Hon. Member described as propaganda material is, in the

opinion of the Chair, a matter of administration which can be

debated by Hon. Members in a variety of ways. In fact, a number

of questions have already been asked by Hon. Members in

relation to this matter. I have to conclude that although there

may be a grievance against the government, a prima facie breach

of parliamentary privilege has not been established."

I say this in regard to this decision, as you'll find in my

report on it:

"In finding that no urgency requires the displacement of the

orders of the day, this is not to suggest that the Member

cannot employ the usual notice of motion, should he feel bound

to have the House examine his objections."

Then I outline the occasions under which it is possible to

get supplementary estimates passed in the House, the occasions

on which novel expenditures are authorized in the House, and

the fact that our estimates cannot be altered once they are

submitted to the House without withdrawal of them and starting

the whole process over again.

The consequence of that is that usually a statutory

authority is then required to legitimize any expenditures that

may be required for novel purpose. I cite two examples that are

to be found in the authorities: the case of Air Raid

Precautions Expenditures in Britain, 1935, and the question of

unemployment insurance, in Britain as well.

These examples will show you that there is a route that

requires, when it is followed, that all these matters of

expenditure must come before this House or, indeed, it would be

a breach of privilege if in time, in the proper course of

events, any expenditures that require authorization or

statutory authorization are not at some time produced to the

satisfaction of this House. I will file the material and make

copies of it for the Hon. Member.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Very briefly, I

thank you for examining this and the careful attention you've

obviously given it. I'll have a look at the full text of your

judgment and see if any further arguments can be found which

might bring this case within the four corners of privilege; or,

[ Page 3214 ]

you suggest, there may be some alternate route in the near

future.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Introduction of bills.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PAYMENT TO CANADA

OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX ON BEHALF OF

NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS ACT

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled British Columbia Payment

to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas

Producers Act.

Bill 129 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

LETTER ON BCR REORGANIZATION

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier as president of the

railway: can the Premier confirm to the House that he has in

his possession as president of BCR a report from R.E. Swanson

and Associates, on their letterhead, signed by R.E. Swanson,

dated February 26, dealing with reorganization in the B.C.

Railway?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

RESOURCE GRANT TO SENIOR CITIZENS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Again to the Premier and Minister of

Finance, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in view of the concern being

expressed by many senior citizens about the method of

calculating the benefit of the resource grant, could the

Premier please indicate what steps will be taken to ensure that

B.C. senior citizens will receive the full benefit of both the

resource grant and the extra $50 of the home owners' grant?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, a statement will be

forthcoming on the adjourned debate on that bill.

CONTRACT TALKS WITH BCGEU

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Provincial Secretary. In light of a

statement by Mr. John Fryer, general secretary of the B.C. Government Employees

Union that the only way employees will get a new master agreement as good as

last year is through massive confrontation, and a statement that the power of

his union is almost beyond comprehension, could I ask the Minister if preliminary

discussions with the union have already taken place, and if the catch-up increases

of last year, percentage wise, are being asked again this year?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in partial

answer to the Member's question, yes, the master agreement is

being looked at now by both sides. I think I would prefer to

answer the Member in this way: I am looking at the total text

of Mr. Fryer's speech, and I think I should do that before I

respond to any further questions there may be on this.

MR. WALLACE: One supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the

secretary's statements, which have been given great publicity,

and because of some of the implications, I accept the

Minister's suggestion that the whole field should be looked at.

But it clearly implies the possibility of a shutdown of public

service. I wonder if the Minister is developing contingency

plans should that situation arise.

HON. MR. HALL: It is precisely because I anticipated that

question that I want to look at the whole of the text of Mr.

Fryer's remarks.

EQUIPMENT FOR POULTRY PLANT

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Agriculture. Would he advise the House if the

equipment for the interior poultry processing plant to be has

been purchased and, if so, did the bids go out to tender?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I'll take it as

notice, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, while the Minister is taking it as

notice, would he please consult with the Member for Shuswap

(Mr. Lewis), who is aware that it has been purchased and seems

to have all the details? Would he also advise us when he brings

in his answer what was the price, who purchased the equipment,

from whom, on what date, where it is stored, for how long it

has been stored and at what price per month, whether a site has

been selected and, if so, whether that land is zoned for

industrial development or whether it requires rezoning? It

would help a great deal if the Minister would bring these

answers in all at once. I'm sure the Member for Shuswap would

help him.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first two

questions, I suppose that rather than take them as notice I

should have said in answer to

[ Page 3215 ]

the first question, yes, the equipment has been purchased.

The second question the Member asked is the one that I wish to

take as notice.

With respect to all the other questions, I wasn't able to

take them down as quickly as she asked them, but I will say

this: a site has not yet been chosen.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, they'll be in Hansard and they'll help

you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to address a

question to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) in his

capacity as chairman of the Marguerite committee and as a

director of a private Canadian company doing business with the

Crown?

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the problem there is that matters that

are on bills before the House, if that is what it is about,

would be out of order in question period.

MR. GIBSON: It is not related to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It also must relate to his duties in the House.

Therefore a private Member can be asked questions. But if you

look at the standing orders, you would be in difficulty in

trying to widen it to some ex cathedra effort going on outside

the House.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder if the best thing, Mr. Speaker....

Perhaps I might ask the question, which I feel is in order, and

you might comment on it before the Hon. Member seeks to

reply.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you can always ask and we can always

receive. Let's see how it goes.

LEGALITY OF ACTIONS OF B.C.

STEAMSHIPS, 1975, LTD. DIRECTORS

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, addressing the question pro forma to

that Hon. Member: in view of the fact that the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) is not in the House today, and the

other day noted that each of the shareholders of this private company, B.C.

Steamships, 1975, Ltd., had made a declaration of trust in favour of the Government

of British Columbia on the shares they hold, I would ask the Member if he was

aware of

section 88 of the Canada Corporations Act, which says that to exercise

the powers of a director one must own the shares absolutely in their own right.

There are only certain exclusions for those holding shares in trust, which I

wouldn't believe would apply to the Hon. Member; therefore how can a board of

directors function with zero legal members? That is my question.

MR. SPEAKER: There again, I think you are asking for the

solution of a legal problem or proposition that you pose. It

would be out of order, as you know, to ask a question that

deals with legal service to be given to any person.

The strict rule, according to Beauchesne , page 150, is that

no question can be put by one private Member to another, except

on the orders of the day and on measures with which the Member

to whom the question is put may be connected. That means, in

the definition of "measures," matters that have to do

with his duties in the House — for example, if he were on a

committee of the House, that sort of thing.

RAILCAR PRODUCTION AT SQUAMISH

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon.

Minister of Economic Development in his capacity as executive

vice-president of B.C. Rail. Have any cars been produced from

the car plant in Squamish?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I'll take

the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker, while the

Minister, who is the executive vice-president of the railway,

doesn't know the answer to the question and has taken it as

notice, would he also advise the House whether the president's

statement in the annual report that this car plant opened in

the first quarter of 1975 is going to be corrected?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, my instructions were that it did

open. It was operating at that time, wasn't it?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I thank the Minister for that answer. In

view of his answer, could he tell us: is he really the

executive vice-president of B.C. Rail?

HON. MR. LAUK: I'll take that as notice: (Laughter.)

LIQUOR ADMINISTRATION BRANCH AND

CNIB CATER PLAN EMPLOYEES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Hon.

Provincial Secretary with respect to government liquor store

smoke shops and operated by the Canadian National Institute for

the Blind, a plan which I believe is referred to as Cater Plan.

I wonder if the Minister is aware of a request from CNIB to

discuss the status of those employees of Cater Plan

[ Page 3216 ]

who are, apparently, going to come under the jurisdiction of

the liquor administration branch. If there has been a request

for a meeting, has the meeting taken place?

HON. MR. HALL: Yes, I am aware of it. Yes, there have

already been meetings, and I think there are more

scheduled.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. I wonder if the Hon. Minister

would respond to the concern which has been expressed, in writing, I

believe, to him as to other Members of the government, by the CNIB to

the effect that while these liquor administration branch–CNIB employees

will receive higher earnings as a result of this change, there will be

a considerable degree of disparity with those CNIB employees who are

not brought in under that plan.

HON. MR. HALL: That's one of the areas upon which the

meetings are taking place.

ABORTION PRACTICES AT

VANCOUVER GENERAL HOSPITAL

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Health

regarding the specific study which he carried out on the

practice of abortions at the Vancouver General Hospital. I'd

like to ask a very specific question: did that report show that

abortions had been carried out beyond 20 weeks of

pregnancy?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): The only study we had

was a recent study. You're talking about a long time ago, and I

can't give you that, but the recent study is that there has

been a real reduction in the time frame. That's the only study

I have available.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary. In light of the petition with

one million signatures presented in Ottawa, and the obvious

concern of the federal Justice Minister, does the Minister in

this province have any plans to meet with Mr. Otto Lang, or are

they corresponding, because of the expressed concern, as was

reported in the press last week, which Mr. Lang has about the

practice of abortion at the Vancouver General Hospital?

HON. MR. COCKE: I can't see why anybody would take one

hospital and use that as the hospital that one should look at.

There are many hospitals across the province.

As far as Otto Lang is concerned, I have no contact with him. I have contact

with the Minister of Health and Welfare in Ottawa. The question has been discussed

on the agenda of our Health Ministers' conferences. It's a situation that's

unpleasant, largely by virtue of the inability of people really to grapple with

the problem.

BCR INDUSTRIAL

SITE AT PRINCE GEORGE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to address

my questions to the Minister of Economic Development, as

vice-president of the British Columbia Railway.

Some several weeks ago I gave the Minister a file, and he

took the question as notice. It was with regard to the price of

leases on the BCR industrial site at Prince George. I'm just

wondering if the Minister has anything further to report with

regard to the information I requested.

HON. MR. LAUK: I took the question as notice. Since that

time I've received one brief report. I've sent it back for more

detail. I'll review it and report back.

ICBC REFUNDS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Consumer Affairs: may

I ask the Minister whether she has received complaints from

people claiming that ICBC is not granting refunds of any sum of

$10 and under?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I'll take

that as notice, Hon. Member, and have the department look into

the file.

REVIEW OF GRANTS

IN LIEU OF TAXES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is addressed to

the Premier. Is there any review under way at the present time

by the government concerning the grants in lieu tax system

whereby the City of Victoria, for example, received a grant

equal to approximately one-third of the actual tax value of

provincial government property?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Policy is always under review.

MR. MORRISON: In view of the fact that the province is

continually buying land within the city limits of the City of

Victoria, are you concerned, and are you discussing with the

city officials what is happening to the tax base in the City of

Victoria as those properties are removed from our tax load?

MR. SPEAKER: I think if the matter is one that still

requires advice to the Crown, I don't think that can be asked

unless it's already policy.

[ Page 3217 ]

ICBC STRIKE CONTINGENCY PLAN

RE AUTOMOBILE ACCIDENTS

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications: now that the B.C. Federation of

Labour has called for everything handled by ICBC to be hot,

does that alter in any way the contingency plan of ICBC to deal

with the motorists who have accidents in British Columbia?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't seen the statement which you

indicated, and I'll have to take it as notice until I've seen

that statement.

SEAWEED-EATING SHEEP

MR. WALLACE: I'd like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a

question with regard to a statement by a British expert about a

rare breed of Scottish sheep. Mr. Alderson told the animal

science department of UBC, and I am sure Dean Gage will be

interested in hearing this, about the sheep in the Orkney

Island of North Ronald say who eat nothing but seaweed and

enjoy the kind of climate we have in British Columbia and would

breed very well in British Columbia. As the Minister is eager

to expand the agricultural economy of this province, will he be

taking any initiatives to encourage the importing of North

Ronaldsay sheep?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They taste like fish.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have asked for a report on

that particular breed of sheep.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is Oak Bay going to be the shepherd?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

FOOD PRICES

MR. GIBSON: A question to the Minister of Consumer Services.

In view of the forecast that settlements of demands in the B.C.

food industry could raise food prices to consumers by up to 7

per cent, could the Minister say whether she has taken steps to

become involved in the situation on behalf of the consumer, who

is not otherwise represented at the bargaining table?

HON. MS. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I think that would be very

inappropriate for me to do because that is a matter between

management and labour. It is quite obviously in its very early

stages.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we do, may I point out an error in the

order paper for June 9, page 24. Where it reads "adjourned

debate on second reading," it should include "second

reading, adjourned debate of Bill 93, adjourned by the Hon.

Member for Oak Bay." By error, that is apparently shown just

under the simple heading "second reading." So it should be

moved up to next-in-line after Bill 27 on adjourned debate on

second reading, adjourned by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. I

apologize for the error.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in light of the

fact that a few days ago the Premier indicated that today was

the day the province runs out of money, I wonder whether the

government House Leader would like to indicate whether or not a

supply bill is coming in today.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): It did already.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, I'm sorry.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I informed the House through the Whips. I

stood in the House and said that Monday — I think it is in

Hansard — there would be a supply bill. Today is Monday, I gave

the date.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps the House leader could indicate

when this will be coming forward.

HON. MR. BARRETT: About 5:30 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Afraid to debate it,

eh?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have an utterly ruthless attitude toward

the opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 126,

Agricultural Statutes Amendment Act, 1975.

AGRICULTURAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

[ Page 3218 ]

section 1.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): In view of the fact that

this bill was difficult to discuss in principle, I wonder if

the Minister would outline briefly section-by-section his

intentions.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman,

section 1, parts (

a) and (b), the explanatory notes give a

pretty good indication of what is in the legislation. I don't

know what I can do any more than read the explanation here.

However, since the Members have had only four days to do this,

I will read the explanatory notes.

"Section 1(a): The addition of this subsection makes it clear

that the Minister may order that the Act apply where requested by a municipality."

"Section 1(b): This amendment empowers

the Minister to use the Domestic Animals Protection Fund to administer the Act."

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister outline if he has had

requests from any municipalities for funds under this Act and

if he is complying with this request and how much he

anticipates contributing to those municipalities that have

requested assistance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I have had requests from municipalities

for funding under this. The Act itself doesn't provide any such

funding. However, it is possible out of the licence fees

collected in the municipality, when a municipality asks that

this Act be applicable within the boundaries of that

municipality. We can enter into a funding arrangement of that

amount.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. STUPICH: In complying with the request of the Hon.

Member, Mr. Chairman:

"Section 2: The opening words of

section 2 are 'The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may, for the purposes of establishing, carrying out, and administering any farm

income plan....'"

And then the amendment before us adds the words that are

in the bill before us.

This, I might say, is completely in line with the request

that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made in its 1975

presentation to the Prime Minister and Members of Parliament,

when they used actually the same words, if I can quote from

their presentation in relation to Bill C50, which we very

positively support: "Our most important submissions are as

follows: (1) for formal consultative procedures with

producers." So we are including that, which is formalizing the actions which we have been taking in the

past.

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister advising the House that up

until now requests by commodity groups to enter into income

assurance have not in fact exactly been legal, and this

legalizes those requests? Has he had this matter brought to his

attention?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. When

the legislation was introduced in the fall of 1973, I made it

very clear that it would be our policy. I did this with legal

advice to the effect that that was possible under the

legislation — it would be our policy to consult with

agricultural organizations. There was some feeling that the

agricultural organizations would be happier if it were spelled

out in the legislation. So simply to accommodate that feeling,

and also a point of view put forward by the National Farmers'

Union that the legislation, as it currently was, didn't leave

the door open for any kind of consultation with them.... From

the point of view of making it abundantly clear to everyone

concerned that we were prepared to consult with organizations

that represented a commodity, or with organizations that

represented an area of the province — that we were prepared to

consult in either way, as long as we established which was the

way those farmers wanted to be consulted with.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps he clarified it, but this in essence,

then, would allow a breakaway group from a commodity

organization to form into a second organization or association

and deal on a separate basis with the Minister on income

assurance.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as we do with members of

labour organizations, we believe that people should have the

right to be represented by the organization of their choice.

There's nothing now to prevent what the Hon. Member calls a

breakaway group from forming. All we're doing here is saying

that we are prepared to consult with organizations, either on a

commodity basis or on an area basis. We're not encouraging or

discouraging what the Hon. Member calls a breakaway

situation.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I hope the Minister's not misinterpreting

my term "breakaway." I didn't mean it in an uncomplimentary

sense at all. I am interested to know if this legislation will

accommodate a group of fruit producers, for example, on

Vancouver Island or in the Okanagan, who may not wish to

participate in one association and may wish to form their own

association. Would they then be able to enter into an agreement

or negotiation for income assurance with the Minister under

that association's auspices?

[ Page 3219 ]

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would say, not in that

particular situation from reading the wording of

section 2

where it says that we may consult with an association of

farmers when the association establishes to my satisfaction

that it represents a majority of farmers or classes of farmers.

So I would think in that situation it would not be possible, in

the wording of this legislation.

MRS. JORDAN: It seems to be a little vague, because the

Minister said "to his satisfaction." I realize this is in the

legislation. What criteria is the Minister going to use in

terms of defining an area as opposed to a breakaway group,

using that term in a complimentary sense? For example, the egg

producers in the northern areas of the province might well wish

to form their own association and deal directly with the

Minister. I'm using that as, perhaps, a different situation

than the fruit producers. Is this what the Minister is saying

would be available under this amendment to the income assurance

legislation?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it is conceivable that the

northern part of the province would be considered an area —

then we get into deciding what is the northern part of the

province. But in the case of the specific situation you

mentioned, it's conceivable that it could apply.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask

the Minister whether or not he really said that this

section

has come about as a direct request from the National Farmers'

Union. If so, does the Minister consider that the National

Farmers' Union represents a majority of farmers or classes of

farmers in any part of this province? Is this

section an

attempt in any way to drive a wedge between the existing

organization which represents the majority of farmers in the

province and the National Farmers' Union?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the answer to all of those

questions is no. I think perhaps the Minister was in his seat

when I used as my first example....

MR. McCLELLAND: You're the Minister. I'm a Member — for

now.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think the Hon. Member — hopefully for a

long time — was in his seat when I used, as my first

explanation of this section, a direct quotation from the

Canadian Federation of Agriculture, so it's not here as a

direct response to requests from the NFU. So the answer to all

of your questions is no.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I hope I didn't miss any of the debate;

I was out of the House. But when you're recognizing that a majority of farmers

in one area is banded together in an organization, do they have to represent

all of a particular commodity?

Do farmers have to negotiate on a commodity basis? Or do

they have to negotiate...? For instance, getting down to

specifics, supposing that the Minister finds that the farmers'

union in any particular area represented the majority of

farmers in that area. Would the farmers' union then be able to

negotiate, for instance, for the hog producers in the area even

though the majority of hog producers in that particular area

were not members of the farmers' union — or the majority of

grain farmers, for instance, even though the total majority of

farmers in the area were not represented on the farmers'

union?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear that

the word is "consult" rather than "negotiate."

Secondly, I think the Hon. Member is aware that even the

National Farmers' Union in their presentations said first they

would, for their own protection, want to be able to convince me

that they represented not only a majority of the farmers in

that area but also the majority of the producers of any

commodity before they would pretend to be consulting on behalf

of the producers of that commodity. That is the position I

would take, too, in entering into any consultations with any

organization.

If an organization were established on an area basis, before

I would enter into consultation with that organization for any

commodity I would want to be satisfied that that organization

also had a majority of the members producing that commodity or

farmers producing it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate the Minister's explanation of

that fine point. It doesn't really spell it out that clearly in

the Act, but I'll certainly take the Minister's explanation of

the intent for the present time.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't understand why he needs this

amendment at all. Would the Minister not confirm, if somebody

comes to him today and establishes to the Minister's

satisfaction that they represent a majority of a group of

farmers or a majority of commodities, that he can't sit down

and consult with them on any matter in his office today,

whether it is in regard to an income insurance plan or anything

else? You can do that right now. Why do you need this

amendment?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the Member is quite right.

We can do this now. We have been doing it, we are doing it and

likely will be doing it

[ Page 3220 ]

whether the House gives me this amendment or not. However,

in consultation with Members of other provincial governments,

and in consultation with our own federation of agriculture and

with the federation of agriculture in other provinces — and, as

I point out, even in the wording of the Canadian Federation of

Agriculture brief — they feel that our whole presentation of

trying to get other provinces moving in the same direction and

of trying to get more cooperation from Ottawa in this whole

question of farm income assurance negotiations, although it

says consultation in this amendment...that all of this

process will be enhanced if all the provinces will agree in

legislation to provide for consultation with farmers'

organizations.

Now that argument has been presented to me. I accept it as a

reasonable one, and it certainly is not going to harm

negotiations in any way. I have been persuaded that it will

help to have it spelled out in legislation.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister advise the House what

procedure he has in mind for establishing and satisfying

himself whether or not a group that approaches him does

represent the majority of the producers, and on what basis?

Also, would the Minister not agree that by enshrining these

words in the legislation it does strengthen his hand in terms

of making Ministerial. decisions, as it relates to the income

assurance programme?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I don't agree that it gives me any more or

any less authority than is already in the legislation, Mr.

Chairman. I still have to conclude these consultations and

negotiations, or whatever, and still make presentations to

cabinet before any income assurance scheme is put in place. So

I think it does not give me any more authority than I had in

the first place.

What was the first question again?

MRS. JORDAN: I asked the Minister if he could outline briefly the procedure,

the criteria that he hopes to establish to satisfy himself that in fact a group

approaching him does represent a bona fide group of producers. I would also

ask as a follow-up if he contemplates a vote. I think the fruit industry is

an excellent example where there may be those within the industry who wish to

operate outside certain aspects of the system as it is established today. Supposing

there is a fairly large percentage of these people who are now excluded from

income assurance, but who might well band together and make a formal presentation

to the Minister to become part of income insurance. How would he satisfy himself

in that case, for instance, as to whether or not they are a bona fide group

and whether their method of marketing should be considered under income assurance?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us does

say that the organization must represent a majority of the

farmers or classes of farmers. So in a case of the fruit

industry, for example, I'd have to be satisfied that an

organization represented a majority of the farmers. No question

was ever raised as to whether or not the BCTGA, for example,

had the authority to represent a majority of the farmers. It is

an organization to which all of the fruit farmers belong. A

plebiscite was taken not long ago — well, just about the same

time as we were dealing with this legislation — that indicated

a majority for that organization. So the question never

arose.

The time when the question would arise would be when we are

starting to deal with an area, and I can appreciate then that

that is when we would have to get down to the business of

defining exactly what a farmer is. We have been considering

that sort of a definition. Regulations would have to be

provided to define a farmer. Then there would have to be some

sort of registration, In the case of all the commodity groups with which we have

dealt so far and with which we are dealing there's no problem

because they do belong to organizations that have previously

shown that they represent a majority of the farmers in that

particular commodity. We could run into problems in the area.

There it's a matter of defining the farmer.

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister got ahead of me as far as my

thoughts on the B.C. Federation of Agriculture are concerned

and the questions I had relating to that. This is a decision by

the commodity group — whether to join the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture and to contribute to their maintenance. Does this

legislation mean that every commodity group must belong to the

Federation of Agriculture in order to negotiate income

assurance? Are there still groups who may not wish to belong to

the Federation of Agriculture who might wish to consult on

income assurance? Would this make any difference as to whether

they can do it through the federation or on their own?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this legislation doesn't

make any difference with respect to those questions.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, this

section bothers me

somewhat in relation to the procedure by which an income

assurance plan will be established in the future. The Minister

has agreed that he has all of the powers right now that are

laid down in this amendment. If someone comes to him and

convinces

[ Page 3221 ]

him that they represent the majority of the hog farmers in

the Fraser Valley, the Minister can sit down and talk with them

about income assurance plans or the price of marketing or

transportation or anything else, without this amendment. By

formalizing that procedure, which the Minister has whether or

not the people convince him that they represent a majority....

I would hope that someone who was interested and happened to be

a hog producer who doesn't represent the majority would have

the opportunity to come into the Minister's office and discuss

something of interest to them and to the Minister at any time.

You don't need any formal legislation for that. My experience

is that the Minister's office is open for people who want to

come in and consult about things like that. Some individual may

come in and give the Minister a really good idea that he may

want to advance to some other group in the future.

By formalizing this I think what you might do is circumvent

the logical procedures that are now being followed. The

Minister has recognized that there is a group in this province

which represents the majority of farmers as such, and he's set

up, through that group, a negotiating committee which

negotiates the broad terms of income assurance plans in British

Columbia today. By formalizing the idea that another group can

come in and talk to the Minister while the negotiations are

going on with that committee would seem to me to break down

that whole process and could, in fact, break down the

negotiations leading to a successful conclusion of an income

assurance scheme. I think that instead of making that kind of

formal amendment to this legislation, what should happen is

that if there is a group which represents and has the interest

of a group of growers of an area at heart, then that group or

that special interest should then go to that negotiating

committee and put their case forward to the negotiating

committee. Certainly the Minister should always be open to this

kind of approach. But to formalize this would seem to me to

break down that procedure and to break down the negotiating

routine that has been set up and which the Minister admits is

successful to this point. So why would you want to take this to

that kind of formal conclusion that might damage that delicate

negotiation in the future?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the Member's words to

the effect that my door has always been open. Secondly, I can only repeat what

I've said already, and that is that there are farm organizations throughout

Canada which have argued that it will strengthen their hand in trying to sell

this kind of programme in other provinces and federally if they are able to

wave around a piece of legislation that says right in the legislation itself

that we will consult with agricultural organizations that represent farmers

in developing our income assurance plan. I'm persuaded that that is a good move,

and anything that will help sell it across Canada will be good for the farmers

of Canada in every province in the whole country. On that basis I urge the adoption

of this amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay, so some people have said they'd like

to have a piece of legislation to wave around. Is that reason

enough to pass a meaningless piece of legislation that doesn't

mean anything and doesn't do anything, but may in the future

jeopardize the proper negotiation of income assurance

schemes?

MRS. JORDAN: The Minister seems to have exhausted his

answers. I would just like it to go on the record, Mr. Minister

that we really, on this side of the House, view your reasons

for bringing in this legislation with rather grave concern.

It's not often, even with some of the weird and wonderful

legislation that's been brought in by this government, that

along with many flimsy excuses we get such an excuse that

really the people in other provinces want a piece of paper to

wave around. I'm not sure that this government should be in the

business of satisfying the paper needs of other provinces

unless it's in the area of production. However, we will accept

the Minister's explanation in terms that he needs this, but I

want it on record that we view his explanation with grave

concern.

We wish to caution the Minister that should he abuse the

intent that he has stated here we shall be quick to bring it to

his attention, and we shall be very quick to bring to the

attention of the producers of this province his words in

Hansard today. I hope this won't be necessary. I hope we can

expect, as I say, this rather peculiar explanation on the basis

of the Minister's words. I feel that it's difficult to support

this, although we will.

I think it might also, again, be reasonable to point out the

concern that the official opposition feel when there is a

controversial piece of legislation, such as

section 2 of bill

126, in light of the Minister's statement. This type of

legislation is brought in, really, and just rushed through the

House in unseemly haste. When the Minister's explanations don't

really satisfy the questions of the opposition, it's a matter

of great concern. There simply is not time, when this happens,

for all Members of the House to discuss the details of these

amendments with the commodity groups involved or with producers

in this province who may have concerns that they may wish

expressed. I urged the Minister in second reading and I urge

him again to desist from this type of practice in the

future.

Again, we will support this section, but we want it on

record that we view it with considerable concern in light of

the Minister's lack of statements.

[ Page 3222 ]

Section 2 approved.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

MRS. JORDAN: Would the Minister give an explanation of

section 5, please, other than just the words in the explanatory

notes?

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think it would be more appropriate if

the Member asked some questions that are not answered by the

explanatory note. I'm not trying to be difficult, but I'm just

wondering what it is she's asking about. I'd like to try to

answer the question.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, my problem again, Mr. Minister, is that I

discussed this with some of the commodity people on the

weekend. In light of the fact that they haven't seen the

legislation they had some difficulty in pinpointing their

concern. The Milk Industry Act, as the Minister knows, is a

very sensitive Act. There are problems in the milk industry and

they're just a little concerned that there may be more to such

an amendment than appears in the statement.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, I'll have a go at it then.

Section 40, which is the one that is being replaced in the

Milk Industry Act, right now names two areas in particular and

then gives to the cabinet — the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

— the authority to name any other such areas it wants to

establish. So the Milk Board is bound with two particular areas

that are clearly defined, and can then do anything it wants

with the rest of the province. What we're saying here is we're

replacing that

section with a

section which will give the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the authority to change milk

production areas as the Milk Board feels they should be changed

in managing the production of milk in the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I'll get ruled out of

order here, Can we talk about classification and utilization of

milk production quotas in this section?

HON. MR. STUPICH: It depends on what you say about it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. Well, here goes.

This

section does allow for establishing

classes of milk according to acceptability for utilization in each of such classes,

and there is a serious problem with relation to the utilization and classification

right now, and the income assurance plan for dairy farmers in British Columbia.

Last year the provincial government gave every indication to

the dairy farmers of British Columbia that they wished to have

large-scale expansion of milk production in this province and,

in effect, told the farmers to go ahead and expand their herds,

expand their quotas, build new barns, and get lots of milk out

there, and the farmers did respond to those requests. They

borrowed money from the bank, built new facilities, bought

quotas, added to their herds, with the full belief that that

situation would prevail today and five years from now, as far

as that goes. They put themselves into hook to do this kind of

thing. The government said that it wanted lots of milk, so the

farmers went ahead and gave it to them, The banks loaned money

on the basis of the words from the government, as well as the

income assurance scheme.

Now, however, it seems, first of all, that the federal

government has cut back, as I understand it, on the MSQ, the

milk surplus quota, by $1.50, and the NDP government's

Agriculture department, is now, contrary to what the farmers

thought in the first place, paying income assurance on the

basis of that MSQ. They didn't tell the farmers at that time

that they'd be paid only on the MSQ, but they in fact thought

that they would get income assurance-based on the cost of

production of all the milk that is shipped.

I've done a random survey of farmers in the area, and I'm

told that about 50 per cent of the farmers in the Fraser Valley

are going to be very seriously affected because of this

cutback, because the dairy farmers....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, $200 a month cutback. That's right. I

know of one farmer who's selling milk, for instance, at $4

instead of $10....

HON. MR. STUPICH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I know that if he sells....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister on a point of order.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The Member did ask whether or not he could

discuss this question. I said it depends on what he would say

about it. Certainly I think that what you're saying now has no

bearing on this particular amendment.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the

Agriculture Minister rules on that or whether the Chairman

rules on that.

[ Page 3223 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: He's raising a point of order; we'll rule on

it from here. We'll let you continue for the time being.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to say

that what I am really talking about is the utilization and

classification of milk as it relates to the income assurance

plan. I think that I'm in order in speaking about that at this

time. I won't speak much longer at any rate.

The farmers in British Columbia now are all right because

they're going to be paid for everything they ship at the

moment. But in four or five months — I have it on good

authority that there may be some farmers in the valley that

will fold their business because they can't keep it going. One

farmer that I know of who went ahead and expanded earlier in

the year now is going to have to get rid of 80 or 90 cows — at

a reduced price, incidentally, because those cows aren't worth

what they were a short time ago. The income assurance scheme,

because of this, may backfire in the face of the Fraser Valley

dairy farmers.

At the same time, those farmers who now find that their only

way out is to expand their milk quota have to go out and buy

more milk quota. They're finding that the quota that was $35 a

pound just a few short months ago is now selling for $60 to $63

a pound. They just can't afford it.

I know of one farmer right now, Mr. Chairman, who stands to lose $200,000 — $200,000! — this year because of this

change in procedure that the farmers are now faced with. Those

are farmers who took the government at face value and really

stepped in and expanded when the government asked them

to expand. The government said: "Give us lots of milk." They

gave them lots of milk; now they're getting kicked in the teeth

because of it.

Mr. Chairman, I hope it wasn't out of order, but it's a

serious problem in the Fraser Valley and on Vancouver Island as

well. It's one that I think the Minister should address himself

to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for North Okanagan.

MRS. JORDAN: Is the Minister going to answer the Member for

Langley?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Member for North Okanagan;

you're dealing with

section 5.

MRS. JORDAN: Don't get touchy, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the Minister

under this

section whether he discussed the matter with the milk board about

the increasing of production of cheese in the Province of British Columbia in

light of the fact that his initial words were, when approaching income assurance,

to expand milk production in B.C. A study was done by the former administration

in cooperation with a number of the private sector to see if we couldn't develop

a stronger British Columbia cheese industry. I'd like his views on that.

The second point I'd like to ask the Minister about is

really going back to his own statements. This, in fact, gives

the Minister the power — reinstates the Minister's power — to

really order any changes he wishes in the milk areas of the

province. Would he guarantee this House that there would be no

changes unless a vote is held? Is that vote to be held on an

area basis or would it be held on a province-wide basis?

The other point I'd like to bring to the Minister's

attention under this

section of the Act is this whole matter of

the butter that is being sold in the Province of British

Columbia. There are many consumers — certainly our own family —

who feel that British Columbia–produced butter is among the

finest....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the Member can tell me how

you're relating that to

section 5.

MRS. JORDAN: Because butter production comes under the milk

industry...

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're dealing with areas here, I'm

afraid.

MRS. JORDAN: ...and is produced in various areas of the

province. Various cooperatives produce butter and they come

under the control of the milk Act in terms of the amount of

butterfat, et cetera, that they have to dispose of.

They have to operate their co-operative. It's a co-operative

and it's producer-owned; all the producers must operate under

the Milk Industry Act. It makes a great deal of difference to

them, Mr. Chairman, just what is going to happen, because the

situation in British Columbia now is that we produce only about

5 per cent of our butter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe that kind of connection is very,

very remote. I would hope that you would stick to the

section

40 that's being deleted and the new

section 40 that's being

recommended here.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Chairman's concern. Could you

explain to my why it's remote, if we're amending the Milk

Industry Act which gives the Minister the power to change the

various designated areas of production in the province? This

has a very decided effect on the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just urge you to continue your remarks

section 5 of this

[ Page 3224 ]

amendment Act.

MRS. JORDAN: I'll do my best to keep within the confines.

The problem is that the B.C. producers have built up a

reputation for British Columbia butter. But as the Minister is aware,

our supply nowhere meets our demand. I'd like to know if he has the

intention of

increasing the allowable supply in order to try and build up a

more profitable and more productive butter industry in

British Columbia.

The fact that there's growing concern among the consumers in

butter production is that they believe they are buying

B.C.-produced butter when in fact that butter is largely

imported. It's not only imported, which may or may not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I think you are really stretching the

rules here. There is nothing to do with production quotas here;

they are talking about areas in

section 40. I would urge you to

deal with

section 5.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, do you know enough about the dairy industry?

I would suggest, with due respect, that the Chairman knows very little about

the dairy industry and very little about the problems there are in various areas

of production because...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think that you have to deal with the

order of the House, and we are dealing with

section 5...

MRS. JORDAN: ...marketing these products is one of their

problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...which asks for the removal of

section 40

in the present Act, replacing it with one that is stated on

page 2. I think that if you check both of these Acts, you are

clearly out of order in the line you are following right

now.

MRS. JORDAN: Perhaps the Minister will answer my former

questions.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was one relevant

comment — that it gives the Minister more power. I deny that

because....

MRS. JORDAN: I asked if it did.

HON. MR. STUPICH: It clearly says that it is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

who will have the authority. There was one relevant question that was asked,

and that is: would I assure the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that there will

be a vote and that it would only be carried by a majority vote? This

section

does not provide in any way at all for referendums of any kind. It is the recommendation

from the Milk Board that initiates the action.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the

Minister what provoked this amendment, particularly

section

(b), which would allow you to enter residential premises

without entering the residence. Why?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Is that

section 6 or 7? You are on 7, I

think.

MR. PHILLIPS: Aren't we on

section 7?

HON. MR. STUPICH: We are on

section 6.

MR. PHILLIPS: Pardon me. My humble apologies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The fault may be mine. I thought you were

rising on

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. PHILLIPS: Same question on

section 7.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the concern here is that the legislation,

as it is presently worded, apparently gives the inspector the authority not

only to enter residential premises, but the house itself. It is to make it clear

that they may enter the land and buildings apart from the actual residence.

They have no authority under this. It is made quite clear now — they would not

have authority to enter the residence.

MR. PHILLIPS: I will be ruled out of order for this, but I

just hope that the weed inspectors will get onto some of the

government property, particularly the Department of Highways'

rights-of-way, and B.C. Hydro's rights-of-way. Make sure that

you clean up your own house first before you start into anybody

else's premises to inspect for weeds, because I find an

ever-increasing number of weeds growing along the beautiful

highways of British Columbia. Weeds are growing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're quite right, you are out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Section 7 approved.

[ Page 3225 ]

On the title.

MRS. JORDAN: Speaking to the title, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to ask for the Minister's assurance that this type of Act,

which is a relatively new procedure under his administration,

is not going to become commonplace. Apart from the problem that

it was introduced one day and had second reading the next day

and has had third reading the third day without an opportunity

for the Act to even be circulated among the producers of this

province, those who should be interested in this legislation,

it touches on seven major agricultural Acts in this

province.

In itself, it does not allow debate, as you yourself have

pointed out, Mr. Chairman. During this debate Members have

tried to question the Minister on some of the real reasons

behind these amendments. They are not satisfied with his

answers, There is a feeling, without disrespect to the Chair,

that it confines debate far more than is healthy for

this legislature or for the agricultural industry itself.

It also is a type of Act which means that it is basically

not debatable in second reading, as the Minister said himself.

Also, I am sure that the Chair and the Minister are aware, and

certainly the Members are aware that it is a type of Act that

is extremely difficult to amend. The opposition feel that there

is a great deal of danger in the Minister of Agriculture

embarking on this type of legislative changes.

We would hope that in future he would have his legislation

prepared well ahead of time, that the amendments would come in

in their proper form, that there would be ample time for the

producers and the commodity groups and those interested in

agricultural legislation in this province to study the

ramifications of the change, and that there would be time for

the opposition to offer constructive suggestions and

constructive amendments.

I hope that in speaking to the title of the Act, the

Minister will assure us that basically this is a one-shot entry

and that we don't look forward to this type of legislative

approach in the future.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to

reassure the Hon. Member for North Okanagan that I am prepared

at any time to stack my record as the Minister of Agriculture

against the collective efforts of the four Ministers of

Agriculture under the previous administration.

MR. McCLELLAND: Your humility is touching.

MRS. JORDAN: One must ask if modesty is not one of the

Minister's stronger points. Is it not?

Just in closing, I feel that the Minister's rather childish response is all

the more reason why his legislative programmes must be more responsibly presented

to this Legislature. We would hope that he would build his reputation on a positive

approach, not trying to downgrade former Ministers of Agriculture who, in spite

of their thinking, may well have served this province well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I think we've overdone the title.

MRS, JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe that debate is for the

Members of the House, not for the Chairman's personal

opinion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it's a question of order.

Title approved.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 126, Agriculture Statutes Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Committee on Bill 86,

Mr. Speaker.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 3 as amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to prolong the

debate on this, but I think that....

MR. WALLACE: You didn't want to prolong the debate.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you. But I do think that the Minister of

Finance owes the House an explanation here. He would not accept

our amendments to ensure that the government was not going into

areas in direct competition with the credit unions. He hasn't

stated that yet in this House. As I look further in the bill,

section 7, I see where branches of this British Columbia

Savings and Trust Corp. can act as agents for the Insurance

Corp. of British Columbia.

[ Page 3226 ]

I think it's only fair, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier tell

us what his ultimate plan is for this new corporation that's

being set up, because the legislation certainly gives him the

prerogative and the power to set up offices of this corporation

in every area of the province. I think, Mr. Chairman, if this

is the intention of the bill, if this is what the Premier

really intends to do, well, I think that he should level with

the Legislature. We don't want to prolong the debate, but let

the Minister of Finance tell us. We've discussed this over and

over again and he knows that it says that the credit unions may

have the opportunity to own 10 per cent; they don't have to.

But if the Minister would just assure the House, or at least

explain to the House what he plans to do under this section,

with all of the powers that are given to him.... The Minister

of Finance, Mr. Chairman evidently doesn't seem very

interested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor; you may continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I resume my seat, would the Minister tell

us, level with the House?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we've canvassed this subject a number

of times. I've made it clear over a period of time. Perhaps the Member was unaware

of my statements. What I said was that if the credit union movement wishes to

take the opportunity of participating, and of course they will decide — I think

they're having a meeting this month — that we would then limit the number of

offices to — regional offices, arranging between the number of 8 to 14 and that's all.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, if the credit unions don't wish

to participate to the amount of 10 per cent, will the Minister

of Finance be opening offices of the B.C. Savings and Trust

Corp., the same as Royal Trust or any other trust company in

all areas of the province? Is this your intention? Just level

with us.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it is impossible for me to

answer that question because up to, this point we are very

hopeful — and we have had no indication that otherwise may not

be the case — that the credit union movement, which have planned

this institution with us right from the very beginning in May,

and have been part and parcel of meeting with us.... We have

no anticipation that their participation won't take place, so

you are asking me to speculate on something that I don't expect

to happen.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did I hear the Minister of Finance correctly when he said

that the credit union have participated in drawing up this legislation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not the legislating — the programme. They

have participated in the development of the programme all

along. We've met with them frequently.

MR. PHILLIPS: What programme are you referring to?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The programme of a financial institution —

not the specific bill itself, but the programme. We have been

discussing this with them for months. We even helped them,

through the first deposit, to initiate that experiment with

low-cost mortgages that they initiated.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): We haven't

established very much under this section. We haven't been able

to establish whether this institution is going to make a profit

or a loss, what percentage below-market loans will be, what

percentage of government funds are going to be taken from the

current accounts and put there. We haven't established a tax

status, we haven't established a constitutional status, which

is very vague.

I have one more question, and I want to make it clear to the

Premier that I ask this question in the most neutral way

possible. I just want to get something on the record. There

have been fears expressed that a bank of this kind or an

institution of this kind could become a political institution

in the sense of people being pressured to do business with it

because of the powers of government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was canvassed before.

MR. GIBSON: I just want something specifically on the

record.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was already in Hansard . You were out of

the House when that was asked by a backbencher of the

opposition side. Look in Hansard for a clear-cut answer to that

exact inquiry.

MR. GIBSON: I just want a clear-cut guarantee. You give me a

guarantee that no one....

HON. MR. BARRETT , Mr. Member, it's all in Hansard . It's already been

canvassed. I can't help it if you were out of the House. Check the words in

Hansard .

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano has

the floor.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want a clear-cut

guarantee...

[ Page 3227 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's there, in Hansard .

MR. GIBSON: ...that no one in your government, as long as

it is your government, will ever put the slightest pressure on

any person or corporation or institution to do business with

this B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. or else be fired. That's all

I want to know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I find it very difficult to

believe that the Member is asking that in a neutral way. The

very question, I think, is a debasing question. There is an

implied suggestion that someone on this side of the House would

even consider such a thing, and it is headline seeking rather

than doing the proper kind of research, Now you weren't here for the debate. The question was asked,

in a far more gentle manner than the "neutral" aspect, and the

answer was no.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, just one

question on 3(g). The item here is to provide a full range of

credit facilities and collection services, including the

processing of payments from the Crown. Would those be on a

fee-for-payment basis, or have you got a policy

established on that particular item?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Fee-for-payment.

Section 3 as amended approved.

section 4.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 4, Mr. Chairman, suggests that the

company is an agent of the Crown. I would ask the Premier if he

contemplates that it will be acting as a fiscal agent for the

Crown in the floating of loans and one thing and another, and

what savings this might make for the people of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We may do this, Mr. Member, depending on

the situation that we analyse where there is a direct saving to

the people of British Columbia. That is why the word is "may"

rather than "shall." Each case will be analyzed on its own

merits.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. GIBSON: I hope this is the right

section to ask it on.

I've looked through the bill as closely as I can, and I can't

find the 90 per cent figure — this would be the 10 per cent for

the credit unions — anywhere in the bill. Is this a matter of

stated policy, or is it somewhere in the bill?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a matter of stated policy.

MR. GIBSON: Well, could I then ask the Minister why it is

only 10 per cent for the credit unions? It is conceivable they

might be interested in going a good deal further with this

institution than 10 per cent.

[Mr. Skelly in the chair.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's obviously a tax advantage to the Crown and to

the people of British Columbia.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. MORRISON: There has been considerable discussion on

section 6 as to whether this is constitutional, and I wonder if

the Premier could give us an explanation of that point at this

time.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I want to thank you for the

question. The question of constitutionality did come up early

in the preparation of this material. I asked the committee of

senior civil servants who were working on this bill to check

very closely with the Attorney-General's department as to the

constitutional aspect, We had, as I jocularly referred to

them, three lawyers with nine opinions, but through the

substance of all those opinions we came to the conclusion that

we were within our constitutional rights to follow the bill

under the Act, the way it is presently written.

MR. MORRISON: One other final item. Has there been any limit

on the amount of reserves that the provincial government might

lodge with this new banking institution? Do you have a limit,

or is it open ended?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's a limitation of capital.

MR. MORRISON: No, I wasn't referring to the investment in

shares or anything of that nature, but the money that you might

put on deposit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Member. Either I'm confused

with your question, or I'm confused by the answer.

MR. MORRISON: What I'm referring to, with this new banking

institution, is that some of your liquid reserves will

obviously be put on deposit with them for either short or long

periods. Is there any limitation on the amount or is it open

ended as

[ Page 3228 ]

to...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's no limit. We would expect them, on

the whole, to be fairly competitive bidders for short-term

money.

MR. MORRISON: But obviously if you removed large sums of

money from the other remaining banks you have quite a lever

there, and that's what I'm driving at.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. Look, I don't see us placing the

province in that position, quite frankly. I said in my opening

remarks that we're not going to fight the banks because we

couldn't beat them anyway. The question is a policy of

government of the day. I see this instrument lasting for a long

time. It would be foolish — I think everyone would agree — for

any government to assault the existing good relationships we

have and, frankly, good lines of credit that we have with the

banking community. When we came to power, a number of banks had

not been permitted to do business with the Government of

British Columbia. Our position was that all banks and the

credit union would be allowed to bid. We have a traditional

banking arrangement with the Canadian Imperial Bank of

Commerce Ltd. that goes back a number of years in this

province. I don't feel any allegiance to any particular bank.

You know, if they all want to compete for the same

amount of money, fair enough; but on the other hand, all things

being equal, long-term customers shouldn't kick over the

traces for whim, or fancy or anything else. I think that's

harmful to the province as whole.

The position that I see us in is that we would compete for

short-term deposits. I see us with not unusual favour, if the

financial institution can make a case for putting some

temporary deposits, but in no way do I see us threatening our

existing relationships with the banking community that has

served this province, the new banks that we've allowed to come

in and the Credit Unions to have access to that money.

However, I don't believe that any bank would put leverage

back on us either. I really believe that letter was sent in the

best of goodwill. My feeling is that the institution will

survive, our traditional contacts with those banks should

remain, and then let the nature of competition at that level

take its course.

MR. MORRISON: I wouldn't want you to misunderstand my words,

because I don't believe that you would in any way make any

change which would favour this at the expense of others.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. MORRISON: I wouldn't want you to take that inference from what I've

said by asking you if there was any form of limitation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I think that certainly when something

new comes in everyone's life, and there's a pattern that may be

disturbed, people wonder what's going to happen. I think your

question is valid. It's important for me to make the statement

I'm making.

I'm especially pleased with the response in the financial

pages of some of the people in banking circles and trust

circles. I was really pleased with Trevell's statement, for

example, who is a very experienced person in this field, and

will be a competitor. And yet Mr. Trevell's response was, I

felt, very positive and saw the limitations, but the

possibilities that exist here. Aside from politics, which can

be very emotional and rhetorical on occasion, I don't think

it's good for the province for us to engage in that kind of

leverage.

MR. MORRISON: Well, that's the reason I asked.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, and it's a good question.

Section 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, two questions here: one related

to subsection (

e) and one related to subsection (f). Subsection

(

e) enables the company to be a general agent of an insurance

company. I'd like to ask the Minister if this agency power can

be passed on to the credit unions by the bank or if the credit

unions will simply be acting in some kind of...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it will be passed on.

MR. GIBSON: The next is subsection (f), which states that

the company may act as an auditor. Would this be an auditor in

the sense we think of a chartered accountant — someone in the

business of auditing books — or how would that be

construed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: This would allow the company to provide

audit services to small companies only. To a small operation we

would provide a small audit service.

MR. GIBSON: This would mean then that the company might get

into the accounting business?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. Not on a great scale. Just for a small

company as a service to that small company.

[ Page 3229 ]

MR. GIBSON: A service without charge, you mean? They

wouldn't be competing with the established accounting

firms?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no. There might be minimal charges for

expenses or something. If we send a staff member in at their

request to help with an audit we might charge for expenses, but

that is all.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): You are

guessing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, we'd have a regular audit, not a

guess. This is not the BCR bill.

MR. GIBSON: But there's no intention of entering into the

accountancy business per se?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no.

MR. MORRISON: I was pleased to hear the Premier's response

to that because that

section (

f) is a very broad section, and

it would be embarrassing to anyone to think that they might be

wanting to audit Hydro or some of the other accounts such as

ICBC through that section. Yet it would appear that the power

was there to do it. Before we leave

section 7, (

a) and (

b) of

section 7 give fairly wide powers to public bodies. We did have

some discussion a little earlier about public bodies. We did

have some discussion a little earlier about public bodies and

what he had in mind for those, and I wonder if you'd give us a

little more explanation of these sections 7(

a) and 7(b). The

definition is open-ended on that. Could the Premier give us an

answer on that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think the wording is necessary in terms

of the existing Crown corporations, Mr. Member.

Section 7(

a) is the same as any trust company: it can give

full service by handling the printing and transfer and receipt

of money arising out of the sale of securities. It does not

mean the company can initiate a sale of securities; it can only

act as a middleman.

Section 7(

b) is the same as the above. This is to act as an

agent for a company requiring services such as a transfer

agent.

MR. MORRISON: When we get down to

section 7(o), "carry out

any of its objects in the province or elsewhere," is

that really outside of provincial power that you're looking

for, or what would be the reason for that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, that's the same as the Trust Companies

Act — the exact wording of the Trust Companies Act.

MR. MORRISON: You have no anticipation at the moment of

doing business outside of the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't see how we could. We'd run

into the constitutional problem — other than being the fiscal

agent. I would like to see us branch out and offer this service

to Washington state, Idaho, Montana, the Yukon, the Northwest

Territories, Alaska, Alberta.

MR. MORRISON: Now you've got me scared.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unfortunately, we are hampered by a very

limiting federal bill, which confines us to operating in

British Columbia. However, if any of these other jurisdictions

wish to consider merger with British Columbia, we'll consider

them one at a time.

Section 7 approved.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the amendment standing in my name

on the order paper, page 22, to

section 9. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, this is the

first time I've seen it, to be quite honest,with you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's been on the order paper for a couple

of weeks.

It's by deleting the word "insurance."

MR. GIBSON: But the intent of that is that the company may

wish to engage in the insurance business?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't think so, Mr. Member. It's

mortgage insurance.

MR. GIBSON: That is the only insurance that is contemplated

by this?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, we have ICBC to handle the rest.

Amendment approved.

section 9 as amended.

[ Page 3230 ]

MR. MORRISON:

Section 9 again is a very broad one, and it

refers to the business of banking. I realize the Premier does

not plan on printing any money...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right.

MR. MORRISON: ...but in reality, no matter what you call

it, even though we don't use the word bank, we're getting so

technically into that banking business. You know, the common

law states that it's not what the institution is called; it's

what it does.

section 9 is a very broad

section and would

appear to be putting us into the business of banking, even by

its own definition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We know we're subject to that federal Act,

Mr. Member. We would follow it, but the idea is not for us to

be a bank per se.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. GIBSON: On

section 12, with the fantastic access to

capital markets that's given to this company under

section 14, I wonder why the Minister needs power to advance money to the

company for temporary or especially long-term purposes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm advised that it's not often convenient

to go to the capital markets. For instance, there may be

fluctuations in interest rates that we may observe as being

unstable, and we may want to wait for a while.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I think this is a very serious

section

we're dealing with now because the

section would seem to point

out the purposes for which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

may approve advances. In fact, it's not purposes at all but

only the term.

What it is is that the Minister can advance, on a short-term

basis or on a long-term basis, money for what purposes the bill

does not define. This seems to me to give the Minister clear

authority to utilize the moneys of the Crown for whatever needs

this bank may have. I would have thought that if we were going

to advance short-term money or long-term money, it would be for

purposes specifically spelled out in this legislation, or else

we're giving the Minister carte blanche. I'm surprised to find

that there is not some restriction upon the Minister to require

some legislative approval for the advance of moneys, because

it's without limit here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm advised that legally we are limited to the purposes

as ascribed in

section 7 under this Act — that's what we're limited to — sections 6

and 7.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Again we find ourselves in a situation

where the Minister stands up and indicates what, in his view,

the

section says.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's the lawyers' view.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If it is for the purposes spelled out in

sections 6 or 7, then put that in

section 12. Because

section

12, as it reads, does not limit the Minister in that respect at

all. It says: "for short-term or long-term," but the

reasons for which the money will be advanced are not spelled

out. As we well know, this Minister of Finance one day will no

longer be with us, and we won't have the kind of commitment

from the then Minister of Finance. I wouldn't like to see these

powers given to anybody else — or you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is the same

section as exists in the

B.C. Hydro, Mr. Member. However, I would have no objection to

amending it to reiterate again, as in sections 6 and 7, if you

wish to forward such an amendment. My understanding is that the

lawyers interpret that as being, in effect, a limitation. The

addition would be redundant, but if.... That's my advice. But

I have no objection to putting redundancy into the bill.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

MR. MORRISON: The borrowing powers in 13 are extremely wide;

in 14 the guarantees also of these borrowing powers are

extremely wide. Can the Premier give us some indication of what

he has in mind for those two sections, because you're really

having the power to pledge the assets of the province to this

one corporation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am advised that it would be the same as

B.C. Hydro, that it's tradition for the province to follow the

standard form of Crown corporations in this regard.

Sections 13 and 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

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

section 15

gives permission for a board of "not less than three nor more than 10 directors."

They will be elected in accordance with the Companies Act, which means, in effect,

that the

[ Page

3231 ]

Minister of Finance appoints the directors.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to know how the Minister would

propose to use this power. Specifically, let's assume that the

credit union movement comes in for their 10 per cent, or almost

10 per cent. Could the Minister guarantee that they would have

more than one out of 10 directors? It seems to me important

that outside advisers are useful on a board of directors of

this kind. Perhaps he could tell us that 30, 40, 50 per cent of

the directors would be from the credit union movement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If the credit union movement wished to

participate, certainly at least 20 per cent — that is two. The

reason for that, Mr. Member, is that when you have this kind of

partnership, it's necessary to at least have someone second

your motions at a board meeting. Certainly two would be

sufficient for that.

Last week I made mention of an appeal to one segment of the

community that had not been approached as groups to being

fiscally involved in jurisdictions such as ours in the past,

and that is the trade union movement. Perhaps we would have a

person from the trade union movement participate; also persons

from other walks of life who would not perhaps normally be seen

on such a board of directors and yet not weaken the traditional

strength that is necessary for a financial institution such as

this.

We would like, especially, to find some women to serve on

the board of directors because women have been discriminated

against in conventional institutions. There are any number of

women who are really cutting the mustard in the financial

community. We'll look very, very closely at broadening that.

But at least two — at the very least, two — from the credit

union movement if they wish to participate.

MR. GIBSON: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad the

Minister said "at least two". I would commend to him the

possibility of more than that, because be they male or female,

union or non-union, I think he will find it useful to have on

that board, which has great responsibility under this Act,

people with a certain amount of expertise and experience in

looking after the security and checking of financial

institutions, which is so important in these cases.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could indicate

whether or not it is proposed that the president of the company and other senior

officers will also be directors, and whether the omission of that

section of

the Companies Act which requires that the officers be appointed by the directors

from among themselves was something more than an accident. Are we to have 10

directors plus the president and other officers who may be appointed by that

board of directors from persons outside of their own number?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Stay within the body of 10, Mr. Member —

out of the 10.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is the answer specifically that the

president and other senior officers of the company will be

directors as well?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not the senior officers. The president,

yes, but not the senior officers.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So the executive vice-president and other

vice-presidents may not be directors. The secretary, I

understand, need not be, but....

HON. MR. BARRETT: The executive vice-president could be, but

that would be it. The rest of the staff, no. That would be

it.

Section 16 approved.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to question

section 20. There's nothing in here that says the reports shall

be tabled in the Legislature. It says: "The Comptroller-General

or an auditor appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

for the purpose shall audit the books and account to the

company from time to time and at least once in each year, and

shall report to the Minister and to the company."

HON. MR. HALL: That is in

section 25.

MR. PHILLIPS: Pardon me, thank you.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

MR. MORRISON:

Section 21 does give very wide powers to the

government, and does really put them in position of direct

control if they wish to use that direction. I would hope that I

could get some assurance from the Premier that that was not the

intention of that

section to use it in that manner.

[ Page 3232 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: With the Hydro Act and the B.C. Rail Act,

that's the authorization with which we sent Mr. Minty into both

the Hydro and BCR shortly after forming the government.

Certainly, we would want the same access by the

comptroller-general to this Crown corporation as well.

MR. MORRISON: It gives you enough power to operate it if you

choose to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes. When the questions were raised

about Hydro and BCR, we checked at that time, and you'll recall

I filed both reports. The comptroller-general, on the advice of

the government, had the authority to go in under this very

section, so it would be the same thing.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong, but I think

there's a different sort of provision for the inspection of

other B.C. trust Companies. I wonder why that same machinery

wasn't used for the inspection of this Savings and Trust

Company rather than going to this different avenue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This authority to carry out inspection of

activities of the company with B.C. trust companies is done by

the inspector of trust companies. Here the comptroller-general

has the power to report to the Minister.

MR. GIBSON: But why was it not given to the inspector of

trust companies to look after this case inside his

expertise?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, because the pattern, the policy that

we inherited, and we continue, is that the comptroller-general

is the person to be called upon to do this. That's his function

of all Crown corporations. We have Mr. Minty in ICBC, in Hydro

for the first time and BCR for the first time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's available. The audited statements are

available.

MR. GIBSON: I just want to register an objection to that,

Mr. Chairman. It seems to me logical enough that the government

auditor-general should be in on every government company; I

don't disagree with that. But the trust company inspector who

looks after the other companies should have the first line of

supervision because that's his expertise and his duty, and he

should do it in this company as in any other.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'd like to go back to that. One of the

problems is that the trust company inspector works for the Minister of Finance,

and it would be far better to have Mr. Minty rather than somebody right out

of the department.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, but he's by legislation removed from

this.

Section 21 approved.

Sections 22 to 39 inclusive approved.

section 40.

MR. MORRISON: By regulation, again, we give the powers to

the cabinet to control all facets of the corporation. As in so

many bills, the regulations really determine what in fact does

happen. This certainly is a very wide regulation section. I

wonder if the Premier could give us some comment as to their

intentions under this section.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am advised that we would be guided by

the legislation as much as possible, but if something

unforeseen comes up, then, of course, like all legislation, the

regulations are the governing factor.

MR. MORRISON: I would assume that with this, none of the

regulations are written, and depending on what happens with the

trust companies and so on, that is when you are going to have

to write that

section of regulations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, that is correct.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, this extensive power of

regulation which is given to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council

section 40 is sufficient to destroy all of the other

sections of the legislation, and is, in my view, one of the

principle reasons for my opposition to this particular

bill.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-council is being given the

authority to prescribe additional objects and purposes for the

company, and is also given power to accomplish such additional

objects and purposes. Then we always have the draftsmen of

legislation of this kind going to the final, ultimate step —

giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council power to make

regulations respecting any matters necessary or advisable for

carrying out the intent and purposes of this Act. It isn't

necessary to speak at length on this matter. If the legislation

is properly and carefully drafted, as this legislation appears

to be in setting up this bare-boned structure of this savings

and trust corporation, then these extensive powers to change

the legislation by regulation should not be necessary.

[ Page 3233 ]

I oppose

section 40.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, in the

last two years since the present government took over, we have

had a complete erosion of the powers of protection granted the

public with respect to the taxes paid to government eventually

going into the consolidated revenue fund. The changes to the

Revenue Act give the Minister total power to invest any moneys

from consolidated revenue at his discretion, and no one else's,

in any venture of any kind. Prior to that piece of legislation

being introduced, there was considerable protection given to

the public, not only by the Revenue Act, but by the Audit Act

and by meticulous procedures that had been adopted since the

commencement of responsible government in this province. While

sections such as 40 frequently appear in bills of one kind or

another, in a financial bill when all of these other

protections have been removed by the Premier and his

government, it becomes most dangerous licence.

Just on Friday we were given an indication of the kinds of

things this government was prepared to do, resulting in the

Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) raising a very

serious matter of privilege, the like of which we have never

had occasion to raise in this assembly before.

If the Legislature passes this particular section, it is

taking one further step down the road of irresponsibility in

the handling of public funds.

Remember this: we have no auditor-general in British

Columbia; we have nobody to probe the expenditures of the

government itself, let alone Crown corporations such as this

one. The Premier felt obliged, on our last sitting day, to

enter a harangue against the former government for its failure

to give proper safeguard to the public in the matter of

protection of public funds through its Crown agency. Yet the

practices of that former government, suspect as they may have

been, were a model of restraint compared with what the Premier

is prepared to embark upon with this legislation and companion

legislation which he has introduced since taking office.

While I for one recognize the necessity of giving general powers under legislation

for adjustments to be made by regulation instead of amendments brought before

the House, when it concerns financial institutions within the new and rather

novel framework of financial safeguard that we have in this province now, I

would say it is totally out of place that even the smallest change in the objects

and purposes of a company, or different modes of investment, or information

required to be furnished by the company, or securities in which the company

might be permitted to invest, and so on, are appropriate matters for amendments

to appear before this House and be agreed to by legislation and the whole assembly.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in opposing

section

Section 40 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nunweiler

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Wallace

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Mr. L.A. Williams requests that leave be asked to record the

division in the Journals of the House.

section 41.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments

standing under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

section 41 as amended.

MR. MORRISON: I wonder if the Premier could give us an

indication of why it's necessary for this particular company to

be excluded from all these other Acts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The same exemptions as all other trust

companies.

MR. MORRISON: I'm not sure that that's correct. Not all

other trust companies are exempted from these following Acts; I

don't think that's a correct statement. Particularly the trust

companies aren't exempted from the Trust Companies Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: This is one of the lawyers. I've got three

answers. (Laughter.)

[ Page 3234 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I thought you only had one lawyer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what I mean — one lawyer, three

answers. What do you want? Yes, no and maybe. They have been

checked with the administrator of each of these statutes and

they agree that these exemptions are appropriate in each

case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: That's pretty confusing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's very good, Dennis. (Laughter.) I

don't know about you guys — I'm impressed! (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier could

explain the appropriateness of exempting a trust company from

the Trust Companies Act. I have difficulty in seeing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: The answer is he can't explain it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Anything from the Trust Companies Act that

is applicable at all is prior to sections 41.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: I didn't even think that was clever, Mr.

Chairman; I really didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Very few people can match your abilities,

Doctor.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I wasn't impressed at all; I was really rather

appalled. We are supposed to be passing legislation here that is important to

the public of British Columbia, and just off-the-cuff answers really aren't

good enough. I don't think it should be good enough for any Member of the House

to have a consultant saying that, really, it isn't important that these things

apply. It may be good enough for the government Members; it may be good enough

for some of the cabinet Ministers, but I am not sure it is good enough for the

public. Crown corporations are operating in a pretty fast and loose way in the

Province of British Columbia.

They are getting money from sources that are of questionable

legality. They are operating, for all we know, without the kind

of insurance that protects the public. In view of this kind of

hit-and-miss record of Crown corporations, I think it is kind

of important that we fasten down exactly what Crown

corporations may or may not do. When they are given whole lists

of exemptions which permit them to operate in a fashion that

probably would place them at a lower standard than a private

corporation, then I think the government must give some

explanations.

We had one trust company in British Columbia, governed by

the Trust Companies Act but sponsored by friendship for a

former government, go bankrupt in this province with a loss of

savings of average citizens, which in some cases amounted to a

lifetime of effort.

Presumably, average citizens of British Columbia of limited

means may be investing directly or indirectly in the paper of

this corporation. It isn't good enough to have a Crown

corporation operating outside the normal restrictions of other

financial institutions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is not!

MR. McGEER: I think we had better get in specifics as to

exactly why these exemptions are necessary, or let us remove

them from the legislation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are exactly the same as exist for a

bank, a trust company, a credit union, a cooperative

association, insurance, or the Industrial Bank of Canada. It is

designed to make them operate exactly the same way, not outside

of it, Mr. Member. It is not a blanket exemption.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I read this section, the

Premier is correct with regard to subsection (2) of the

section. But subsection (1) specifically exempts this new trust

company from the Companies Clauses Act, the Trust Companies

Act, and

part 10 of the Insurance Act. Mr. Chairman, the

explanation that you gave us earlier is just gobbledegook, We sat in here a few moments ago and had the Agriculture

Minister (Hon. Mr. Stupich) tell us that he put a

section 1n

one of his bills just so that he could wave it in the face of

somebody else, it didn't have any meaning. Now you are telling

us almost the same thing. That is not good enough. I think the

people of this province certainly demand and have a right to a

far better explanation than that, particularly with regard to

the Trust Companies Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The trust companies' provisions are

already in the Act prior to

section 1, Mr. Member. Already in

the Act.

[ Page 3235 ]

MR. McGEER: Then you don't need it in

section 41.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't want to have to look at two

places every time you look at the Act, Mr. Member.

MR. MORRISON: Well, then by 41(l), this new company is no

longer required to obey the Companies Clauses Act. That

excludes it completely. The Trust Companies Act is excluded

completely and

part 10 of the Insurance Act is excluded

completely. But 41(2) only excludes the company from the same

items that other trust companies or other banks might be

excluded from. That

part I understand.

I am not too sure in sections (

g) to (

k) exactly what the

reference is there either because we are now excluding the

Collection Agents' Licensing Act, Mortgage Brokers Act,

Personal Information Reporting Act, the Real Estate in which

you are obviously going to be dealing and the Securities Act,

also in which you are going to be dealing. What is the

additional reference to that? Is that still part of...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those are the Acts from which they have

the partial exemptions.

MR. MORRISON: I just want to be sure of that — just partial

exemption.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In

section 1(a), the Company Clauses Act...(

b) is covered in the Act itself,

section by section. I am

told that

section (

a) of the Companies Clauses Act is under

review; it is archaic. I am advised that there is an

examination by the department to remove the Companies Clauses

Act itself because it is apparently causing litigation

unnecessarily.

MR. MORRISON: And

part C of the Insurance Act — what is the

reference there?

HON. MR. BARRETT: For re-insurance of mortgages — if we go

into re-insurance of mortgages.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, throughout this debate, Members

have been concerned about the constitutionality of the Act, and

the Premier has been at pains to tell us.

section 9 of the bill

says that this institution is not a bank, because were it a

bank, it would come under federal jurisdiction.

Therefore it rather puzzles me that subsection 2(

a) says that this company

is exempted from certain Acts as it if were a bank. That puzzles me very much,

Mr. Chairman, because when anyone wants to come along and challenge this, they

can say that it at least has these qualities of a bank, whatever other qualities

it may have.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it reads: "The company is exempted from

the provisions of the following Acts to the extent that a bank is..." — not

as if it were one.

MR. GIBSON: No, but it takes on the qualities of a bank for

the purpose of being excluded from these Acts.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm advised that some of the financial

aspects of what we're unable to do are certainly within our

constitution, and are also what a bank can do, so the way of

handling it is to put it in this way. The company is exempted

from the provisions of the following Acts to the extent that a

bank is.

MR. GIBSON: But I would suggest to the Premier that anything

within the competence of the province, or an institution of the

province to do, could be so specified without using that word

"bank". By using that word "bank," you bring in that

whole constitutional question. If there's anything this company

is going to do that only a bank can do, then we're really in

trouble. So I ask: which is it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I think that it's only the limitation

of those things as I described, Mr. Member. Only that

limitation.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete with amendment, and ask leave of

the House to record a division that took place during one of

the amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 86, Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia

Act, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 73, and

the motion by a Member that the order for third reading be

discharged and the bill recommitted.

[ Page 3236 ]

SCHOOL TAX REMOVAL

AND RESOURCE GRANT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: I adjourned the debate on the motion to

discharge the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: To discharge the bill and return it to

committee, I believe. Is that correct?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's correct. Now Mr. Speaker, I've had

the department look at the reasons given by the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), and while the

department says that there is some ambiguity, the explanation

is as follows: if we were to take an amendment as suggested by

the Member, his amendment would place people in the age of 65

and over in a worse position.

The example given is: under 65, if the school taxes are

$300; the homeowner grant would be $200; the school tax removal

would be $40 and no resource grant, under the existing

procedure, which would be wiped out by the Member's amendment.

So what I'm suggesting is that the error anticipated by the

Member is not, in fact, a matter that would exist, but would

come up if the amendment was accepted.

MR. SPEAKER: I think before closing the debate on the motion

to discharge, does anyone else wish to speak on the motion to

discharge third reading?

MR. GIBSON: I would support the motion, because I'm afraid I

can't understand the Premier's arithmetic. If I understand it

rightly, on the budget debate he suggested that persons under

65 with a $400 gross school tax bill would receive a resource

renters' grant of $80, therefore their total abatement would be

$280.

He went on to say in the budget debate — which the Hon.

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, I think, cited in his

remarks — that a person over 65 would receive an abatement of

$330, again with a $400 tax bill.

Now a statement in the budget, Mr. Speaker, must be

considered a commitment of the government and the Minister. The

only way, or at least the only logical way you can arrive at

$330, that amount stated in the budget, is to follow this kind

of arithmetic: you take the gross taxes. You subtract the

ordinary homeowner's grant of $200. You add back 40 per cent of

the remaining $200, being $80, and you then add on the special

$50 credit given to persons over age 65. That brings the total

to the $330 that the Premier, as I say, specified in his budget

statement, which must be considered a commitment of the

government.

That, if I understand it correctly, was the logic of the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) in moving for recommital. In other

words his motion, far from giving less to persons over 65, would have given

them a good deal more.

While the Premier is conferring there, taking the $300

example he just gave, the abatement to ordinary taxpayers would

be a total of $240; the abatement to persons over 65, using

this system, would be a total of $290. In other words there

would be that $50 floating credit always on top for persons in

excess of 65.

Now that is the understanding I have of the speech by the

Hon. Member for Vancouver–Howe Sound, so I just want to make

sure that the Premier hasn't....

MR. SPEAKER: Since this is a formal debate in the House, I

would suggest that leave be asked to make any further remarks

out of order.

MR. GIBSON: May I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, because of the confusion that

arises as outlined by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound,

to be absolutely sure what the purpose is in terms of the

agreement that is stated in the budget speech, I have asked

that the department redefine the language and bring it in to

clear it satisfactorily for all sides of the House.

With leave, I would ask a further adjournment so that we can

clarify this matter, so that we are all reading the same thing