1976 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 31st

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)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1976

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2231 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Trident missile base, Mr. Skelly — 2231

Provision of doctors in remote areas. Mr. Gibson — 2231

Low-priced Scotch at Habitat. Mr. Wallace — 2231

Egg Marketing Board problems. Mrs. Wallace — 2232

Food services on B.C. Ferries. Mr. Wallace — 2232

Keep Women Alive programme grant. Mr. Cocke — 2233

B.C. Ferries layoff. Mr. Lockstead — 2233

B.C. Hydro power development. Mr. Skelly — 2233

Ombudsman Act (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 2234

Statement

Monitoring of food prices. Hon. Mr. Mair — 2234

Routine proceedings

Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 21).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2234

Mr. Skelly — 2234

Mr. Gibson — 2235

Mr. Lauk — 2237

Mr. Wallace — 2238

Mr. Macdonald — 2239

Mr. Lloyd — 2240

Mr. Lockstead — 2240

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2240

Division on second reading — 2242

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 13). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2242

Mr. Macdonald — 2243

Mr. Lauk — 2243

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2243

Extra-provincial Custody Orders Enforcement Act (Bill

18).

Committee, report and third reading — 2243

Interprovincial Subpoena Act (Bill 19). Committee stage.

section 7.

Mr. Lauk — 2243

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2244

Report and third reading — 2244

Interpretation Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 20). Committee

stage.

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2244

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2244

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 2244

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2244

Mr. Lauk — 2245

Hon. Mr. Gardom — 2245

Revenue Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill 8). Committee stage.

Division on

section 2 — 2246

Division on

section 1 — 2246

Report and third reading — 2246

Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976 (Bill

17). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2247

section 5.

Mr. D'Arcy — 2247

Mr. Wallace — 2247

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2247

Mr. Skelly — 2247

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Fraser — 2247

Report stage — 2248

British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act (Bill 23).

Committee stage.

section 2.

Mr.Cocke — 2248

Mr. Gibson — 2248

Amendment to

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 2249

Mr. Wallace — 224

Mr. Barber — 2250

Mr. King — 2250

Mr. Lauk — 2251

Mr. Barnes — 2252

Mr. Barber — 2253

Division on amendment to

section 2 — 2253

section 4.

Mr. King — 2254

Mr. Barnes — 2256

Mr. Barber — 2257

Mr. Wallace — 2259

Amendment to

section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 2259

Mr. Gibson — 2261

Division on amendment to

section 4 — 2261

Amendment to

section 4.

Mr. Wallace — 2261

Division on amendment to

section 4 — 2261

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 2262

Mr. Macdonald — 2262

Amendment to

section 4.

Mr. Cocke — 2262

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1976

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the

gallery today we have the provincial secretary of the New Democratic

Party, Mr. Cliff Scoton. I would ask members of the House to join me in

giving Cliff a warm welcome.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, in

the Speaker's gallery today we are privileged to have Mr. W.F.L. Reese,

member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, Australia. He is

accompanied by Mrs. Reese and Mr. and Mrs. Mellor of Australia, and I

would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker,

this is obviously Australia day in British Columbia. I am very pleased

to welcome in the gallery today Mr. Peter Murfett, who was secretary to

the Consumer Affairs Council of Tasmania, and I would ask the House to

make him welcome.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, it's also Nanaimo

day. In the gallery we have a group of students from the Nanaimo Senior

Secondary School who have been down going through some government

offices getting some idea of what it's like to work in a government

office. They are accompanied by their teacher, Marilyn Frietag, and I'd

like the House to welcome them.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, today the hon.

member for New Westminster is 39 again. I would like the House to join

us in wishing him a happy birthday.

Oral questions.

TRIDENT MISSILE BASE

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, a question directed

to the Premier. Did the government discuss the issue of the Trident

nuclear submarine base in their meetings with Governor Dan Evans and

his staff yesterday? If so, what position was taken by the Government

of British Columbia, and which minister presented that position?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): The subject was discussed

between Governor Evans and myself.

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary. What was the position adopted by

the Premier in his discussions with Governor Dan Evans?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We reiterated the concern of many British

Columbians that our part of Canada would become a target because of the

location of the Trident missile base.

MR. SKELLY: What was the response of Governor Dan Evans to

the presentation by the Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Governor was duly sympathetic, and he

said he would transmit our feelings to his Legislature.

PROVISION OF DOCTORS

IN REMOTE AREAS

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Minister of Health. Now that the Human Rights

Commission, on the grounds of discrimination, has ruled out the scheme

of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to assign immigrant doctors

to remote areas as a condition of licensing, and given that I know the

minister wants to promote good medical attention in remote areas, can

he tell us which option he now favours — the extension of remote-area

service requirement to all new doctors, whether trained in B.C. or not,

or the provision of suitable financial incentives which the minister

has power to do?

HON. R.H. McClelland (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we've

agreed to meet with the British Columbia Medical Association and the

College of Physicians and Surgeons to establish a policy for the future.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary then, Mr. Speaker, will the

minister undertake to report back to the House when he has reached such

a policy?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we always do.

LOW-PRICED SCOTCH AT HABITAT

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the

Attorney-General a question regarding a report today that at Habitat

bottles of Scotch are being made available at much reduced prices to

delegates of Habitat, who apparently are reselling these bottles at

cost. To point out the gravity of the problem, (laughter) an $8 bottle

of Scotch is selling for $2.38.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. member takes full responsibility

for what he has just said.

[ Page 2232 ]

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Well, it really is grave, because I've been

unable to acquire any at that price. But I wonder if the

Attorney-General was consulted regarding these arrangements for the

delegates at Habitat and whether he considers that this is not

stretching hospitality just a little too far.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'd like to, first of

all, thank the member for his jolly question. I'm unaware of the

specifics which you have referred to, hon. Member, but I do know that

there's a practice of liquor being sold to the consular service and to

people of other countries in bond, and maybe that's what's going on

there. I'll look into it and give you a report.

MR. WALLACE: I appreciate the Attorney-General's answer

because I understand that he kept his word on the question of firearms

being brought into the country. I understand that several delegates

have been separated from their weapons. I wonder if he could give us

the same assurance that we're not encouraging bootlegging during

Habitat conference.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I wouldn't think it was a question of

bootlegging, hon. Member

EGG MARKETING BOARD PROBLEMS

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Speaker, yesterday

both myself and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) asked a question

of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, and, to the best of my ability, I

was not able to understand or grasp the answer. I'm going to try it

again today. Is the minister moving to ask the provincial marketing

board to investigate the situation with the Egg Marketing Board?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Yes or no?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I

answered this question as best I could yesterday without going into a

matter of policy, and I think that my answer yesterday is on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: I point out to the hon. member for

Cowichan-Malahat, Beauchesne , 4th edition, 1958: "It is out of

order to multiply with slight variations a similar question on the same

point."

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental question. I had

asked the minister a question which requires only a one-word answer,

and I'm not able to get it. I wonder if perhaps, as a visual aid, I

could send these flash cards across the floor to the minister and

perhaps ask him again: is he considering asking the provincial

marketing board to intervene?

FOOD SERVICES ON B.C. FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport. With

regard to changes in the ferry services which began yesterday, and with

particular reference to food services, has the minister been informed

that on the first day in which the new frozen food supply was used at

least 50 complaints were received from passengers, including one

incident where an irate passenger threw a tray at an employee because

of the poor standard of food served?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr.

Speaker, I have been informed as to a few complaints. I might add that

the dining rooms were all closed on June 1 and have not operated since.

This has placed an additional load on the cafeterias. There are certain

problems, although the numbers of passengers are reduced.

MR. WALLACE: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Following on the

minister's answer — which was the introduction of a deliberate policy —

I assume the minister was aware that by closing the dining rooms there

would be an increased pressure on the cafeteria. But prior to the

changeover in the food service, from fresh food cooked in the galleys

to the now frozen food supply which is being used, I understand that

the Purchasing Commission previously sought tenders from food

suppliers. I'd like to know if the management also sought tenders

before they implemented the introduction of the new supply of frozen

foods.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question

as notice. I should perhaps add that the non-licensed employees are

limiting the extent of their service in the first few days of the new

arrangement.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for New Westminster.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, if I may, quickly, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. I had recognized the hon.

member for New Westminster,

[ Page 2233 ]

unless he yields the floor.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I yield.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Member. In view of the increased

ferry fares and the increased costs on the ferry system — such as a cup

of coffee, which has gone from 25 cents to 35 cents — the obvious

complaints about the inferior quality about the frozen food, and the

number of complaints being received, will the minister give any

undertaking to review the basic decision to change the type of food

service being provided in the cafeterias on the ferries?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The nature and the quality of the service

provided by the cafeterias on the ferries is, in fact, under review,

and we hope we can improve that service.

KEEP WOMEN ALIVE PROGRAMME GRANT

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Provincial

Secretary: on March 22, 71 days ago, I asked the Provincial Secretary

whether she had consulted the Medical Advisory Grants Committee before

making a grant to the Keep Women Alive Programme. She did not answer

the question. The second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

repeated the question to her on April 15, and she took the question as

notice. On April 27 the second member for Burrard asked the question

again. The minister's answer was: "I believe I took that as notice, and

I will have to report to you at a later date." Mr. Speaker, is the

minister yet ready to report on that very simple question?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I did report to the House on

a date when the hon. member who has just posed the question was absent

from the House. It was on the Friday preceding the Easter vacation. At

that time I reported that indeed we had reviewed the grant and the

Department of Health was going to oversee the programme as it went

along for Keep Women Alive. The report was fully given to the House and

tabled in the House, Mr. Speaker.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. I read that in the

Blues. But the question I asked was: did the minister consult the

Medical Advisory Grants Committee? That's all, pure and simple. You may

remember that I outlined who the Medical Advisory Grants Committee was

at the time. A very simple yes or no would do.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, in reporting to the House I

said that my staff was looking into all of the aspects surrounding the

grant and also the question that had been raised by the opposition

members. All of that was canvassed by my staff, and the full report was

given to the House. I think it was well done by my staff.

B.C. FERRIES LAYOFF

MR. D. F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the hon. Minister of Transport: I would like to know if any workers

have been laid off from B.C. ferries since June 1 of this year.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I don't know that any additional employees

have been laid off since yesterday, Mr. Speaker,

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the

minister misunderstood me. I would like to know how many employees have

been laid off, including yesterday, since June 1 - yesterday and today.

How many workers have been laid off from the B.C. ferries service since

May 31?

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'll have to take that question as notice.

I'll examine the Hansard and try and get the details.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Final supplementary. Could the minister as

well take as notice how many workers he expects will be laid off, how

the minister expects those people will be relocated to other jobs and

how he expects these laid-off workers to be handled?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, the government and certainly the

ferry service is doing its utmost to relocate all of these employees

who are being laid off.

B.C. HYDRO POWER DEVELOPMENT

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a question directed to the Minister

of Environment: B.C. Hydro chairman Robert Bonner has indicated massive

power development around the province, based on a 9.2 per cent annual

power growth rate. Last Saturday the minister told the SPEC annual

convention not to take Bonner's plans too seriously, and not to be too

concerned about what he is saying. Can the minister assure the House

that the public can safely ignore Mr. Bonner's plans?

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): The question

from the member, unfortunately, is quoting from a newspaper, which is

an error — unfortunately. That question was raised by a reporter after

the meeting, and I told the reporter that Mr. Bonner's recommendations

are taken into consideration, as are the recommendations by any other

government agency. It is a government decision,

[ Page 2234 ]

which will be made, to determine the growth rate

necessary, and government will make that decision.

MR. SPEAKER: That concludes the question period, Hon. Members.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last Thursday I

asked the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) a

question. The question was if the alleged overcharging by certain

personnel of B.C. Ferries were statements he had made to elected

representatives in my group. I would like to tell you at this time, Mr.

Speaker, that I based my question on incorrect information. It was

verified this morning that the information I based the question on was

incorrect, and I wish to apologize to the minister and to members of

his department for any injustice.

Introduction of bills.

OMBUDSMAN ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Ombudsman Act.

Bill 48 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.

MONITORING OF FOOD PRICES

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer Services): Yesterday I

was asked a question by the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) concerning

the monitoring of food prices, and I wish to answer it now by saying

that there will be no change in our department's policy in monitoring

food prices. The policy will continue as it was when she and the member

for Vancouver South visited the office and were given a tour.

Orders of the day.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): By leave, public

bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 21.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill 21 is a very small bill — it has only two parts — but

this bill does demonstrate this government's desire to encourage

personal initiative and enterprise among its citizens. This bill does

something for the little guy, and this government is always wanting to

do things for the little person. The members opposite, Mr. Speaker,

quite often say things about the little guy and wanting him to have a

chance, and yet I find it necessary to amend

an Act by that government

which, in fact, took the chance of the little guy away.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Prospectors Assistance Act takes

away the government's right of first refusal on properties discovered

by prospectors when working under the Prospectors Assistance Act. This

government does not intend to become involved in the mining business,

and this government does not think that the tax moneys collected from

the citizens of British Columbia should be risked in the high-risk

business of mining — the high-risk, low-return business of mining.

Prospectors, when they discover a prospect of merit...generally the

first procedure is to find someone to offer financial help, technical

expertise and physical resources to develop the property. It's

impossible for a prospector to get anyone interested in a prospect if,

in fact, the government has the right of first refusal. It takes, in

many cases, a great deal of expense and time to develop a property to

the point where it can be demonstrated whether it is viable or not.

Mining companies, mining developers and people with the resources to do

this work will not look at a mining property if they know that should

it prove to be viable, then the government will take it away. If it is

not viable, of course, then it must do as most properties do and just

disappear. This is, I think, a very basic part of our free enterprise

system, in that individuals should have the right to do things for

themselves without interference by government.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this bill be now read for a second time.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this

bill which, as the minister has pointed out, limits the right of the

people of the province to share in the value of the resources which

they assisted in financing in the first place, in discovering in the

first place.

This province, under the New Democratic Party government, increased

assistance to small prospectors — the little people that the Minister

of Mines talks about. In return they expected that the province should

share in the right of returns from the prospects which were located

through government financing — not to take away the prospects but

simply to share in the returns by the right of obtaining first refusal

to lease or to purchase the mining claims discovered, or to enter into

agreements with the prospectors or other corporations to develop

[ Page 2235 ]

the claims located by those prospectors who were

assisted by the government.

I believe that this

section is regressive. By removing

section 6(

b) and (

c) it's regressive. At the Economic Outlook Conference, held by

the Economic Council of Canada in 1973, it was pointed out that

countries all over the world are seeking a better return, a higher

return, especially from non-renewable resources. They pointed out,

especially in the mining subsection of that Economic Outlook

Conference, that over the past 13 years or so, up to 1973, government

participation in mining had increased tremendously. For example, they

pointed out at that conference that one-half of 1 per cent of worldwide

copper production in 1970 was attributable to government mining

enterprises, but by 1973 that had increased to something like 45 per

cent of the value of copper output in the world.

So this is a regressive piece of legislation in that it prevents the

government from sharing in the development and the returns from

non-renewable resources which other countries are taking advantage of —

in fact, other countries which, supposedly, mining companies from

British Columbia are escaping to. So those countries are becoming more

and more involved in mining production and mining development in

conjunction with private corporations.

The minister said that he does not intend to become involved in a

high-risk, low-return industry. That's a phony statement if I ever

heard one. Mining isn't a high-risk, low-return industry. It has been

demonstrated over and over again that it's not a high-risk, low-return

industry. If there were low returns, as the mining companies themselves

say, they would be going into other businesses. So the returns are

fairly substantial. The mining companies realize that, and although

they don't admit it, they know the returns are substantial, and that's

why they are still in the business.

Other countries — especially in oil, which is becoming a scarce

commodity — are taking more and more of a percentage of that

non-renewable resource as their share in the ownership of that

resource. Guatemala, a banana republic in Central America, recently

passed legislation that 55 per cent of oil discovered in Guatemala by

private companies would be owned by that government, the government of

Guatemala. The companies are flocking into Guatemala because of recent

oil discoveries in Mexico, knowing that a minimum of 55 per cent of the

oil they discover will go to the government of Guatemala.

Peru, another banana republic in South America, has the same type of

legislation — that any company discovering oil, any private company

discovering oil in Peru, will have to share 50 per cent of the oil

discovered with the Peruvian government, and those oil companies are

flocking into Peru as well.

All governments are becoming involved in mining and oil enterprises

— all but this government, this regressive Social Credit government,

this regressive coalition. We're going back to 1951 here.

All governments all over the world, with the possible exception of

this one, are becoming involved in mining and in the oil industry —

including the Canadian government — because they are dealing with

non-renewable resources and they feel that the people of the country in

which those non-renewable resources are located have a right to share

in those resources of which they are the owners.

So I think this is regressive legislation. I don't think it protects

the small prospector, the individual prospector. Instead of having the

option of selling to the government.... And the government doesn't have

to exercise its right to first refusal. I'm sure this so-called private

enterprise government wouldn't exercise its right; it could leave it on

the books but it wouldn't exercise its right. I think it's a sellout of

the small prospector to those huge mining companies that operate

throughout the world.

The facts are that there are six companies in the world in the

copper business — six huge multinational corporations that are involved

in the copper industry throughout the world, and you're driving the

small prospector into the hands of those huge corporations. It's the

same in every other mineral mining enterprise — they're controlled by

huge industries, huge multinational corporations; and you're leaving

these small prospectors at the mercy of those huge corporations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Those huge governments.

MR. SKELLY: So I think that what this bill does, essentially,

is to sell out those small prospectors to the large corporations. It

leaves them unprotected. At least under this

section of the bill the

prospector had the option of selling to the government if the large

corporations were holding him to ransom. I think it sells out the

people of this province, because rather than the people sharing in the

ownership of a mining concern, or a mining enterprise in British

Columbia that was discovered by a resident British Columbian

prospector, instead we will be selling it out to one of the six, huge

multinational corporations, whose head offices, or all of whose head

offices, are located outside of this country.

So it's a sellout bill, and it sells out the little guy. It sells

out the people of this province. This opposition opposes the bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

reluctantly have to come to the

[ Page 2236 ]

conclusion that the NDP still doesn't understand

the mining industry in this province, and it's important that they

should. It's incumbent upon the group that's the official opposition in

this province that they should have a sensible economic appreciation of

one of our very fundamental, basic industries, or else down through the

years the fear that their ridiculous policy from 1972-1975 may be back

again will continue to inhibit mining development in this province.

It's terribly important that the NDP should re-examine their philosophy

and at their next conference, which I think is only 10 days or so from

now, change their line and come out in favour of jobs for British

Columbians, because that's what we're talking about.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: I just heard the hon. member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) say: "Now mining isn't a high-risk, low-return industry." Well,

I don't know which mines he's looking at, Mr. Speaker. There are a few

mines that are very profitable. There are a lot more mines that have

disappeared; nobody's ever heard of them since, and they've lost their

capital.

The fact of the matter is that the British Columbia average last

year was something like a 5.8 per cent return on investment. Any mining

company with that kind of return could have done a lot better to put

their money into B.C. Hydro bonds or Canada Savings Bonds, or just the

bank — whatever it might be.

MR. SKELLY: Why didn't they?

MR. GIBSON: "Why didn't they?" says the hon. member for

Alberni. He doesn't realize their capital is locked in there. They've

got nowhere else to go. That money is in those operating mines. They've

got no choice but to keep those mines going, but they've got a low rate

of return.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): What about in 1974?

MR. GIBSON: The former Minister of Mines (Mr. Lauk) — who I

devoutly hope will stand up and speak to us in this debate because he

was starting to move a little bit in the right direction just before

the last government went out — says: "What about 1974?" In 1974, the

rate of return, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Speaker, was something

like 11 per cent, if memory serves right. I'll be glad to go and look

that up, but I'm pretty sure that's what it was.

MR. LAUK: I think you better.

MR. GIBSON: No, you go do your own research, Mr. Member.

That's the number, more or less.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: What are we talking about here, Mr. Speaker? We

are talking about $150,000 provided in this year's estimates — $150,000

only, and I wish it were more — for the prospectors' assistance

programme. These are small grants of, at most, a few thousand dollars

each. The applications to date in this year have been 280, as compared

to about 210 last year, according to inquiries I've made. The approvals

to date have only been something like 50, as opposed to 162 last year,

but there is less money this year — which, as I say, I regret. But the

point I'm trying to make to the hon. member who just spoke is that

we're hardly giving away the keys to the treasury of the province of

British Columbia. This is a very minor programme.

Now let's say that a prospector under this programme goes out and

finds something. Are we giving away the public right in that deposit?

Of course not.

Mr. Member, should your group get back into power and want to take a

piece of that deposit, they've a perfect right to offer the owner — the

small prospector who found it, because he is the kind who is given

grants under this programme — offer, like any other buyer, to purchase

it. That's fair enough. But the sections being repealed gave an

unconditional right of first refusal, which meant that that was a

charge on that particular deposit.

MR. SKELLY: What if he's financed by Noranda?

MR. GIBSON: The member says: "What if he's financed by

Noranda?" If that member still wants to have a piece of the action,

then it's very simple: you offer equally good terms, or better terms.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): That may not be the condition of

his agreement with Noranda.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the minister introduced this bill as

a very small bill, and it is. I'm waiting for the big bill. I'm waiting

for the bill that is going to get rid of Bill 31 in this province,

because that's what we have to do, and do it this session, Mr.

Minister. I appeal to your cabinet colleagues, and I know you are

appealing to your cabinet colleagues: let's do it this session, because

the industry in this province is still being seriously hampered by

these uncertainties.

This prospectors' assistance

section that is being repealed was an

unnecessary incursion by the government into a field that is already

difficult enough for the small prospector. He is hampered with

regulations of various kinds.

[ Page 2237 ]

Under this old legislation he was told that had he been grub-staked

to a small amount by the government; he really didn't have the right to

deal with what he found.

AN HON. MEMBER: He could sell it.

MR. GIBSON: He didn't have the right to deal with it freely,

Mr. Member. Always he had hanging over his shoulder the right of first

refusal. That meant that when he or she — because we now have female

prospectors around the province — went anywhere to try and deal with

this property, there was always that right of first refusal hanging

over the possibility of a deal. Therefore it became very, very

difficult to complete any kind of a deal. It was an unnecessary

incursion.

You know, the position of the Crown is well protected by the right

to tax, Mr. Speaker. We can differ in this House as to what the

appropriate forms and levels of taxation are, but that right to tax is

always there, and it is an appropriate protection for the Crown,

especially at the prospecting level where in terms of these grants....

I remind you once again, hon. members, we are not talking about

giant multinational corporations; we are talking about individual

British Columbia prospectors. Why are you afraid of them? It's kind of

tough work being a prospector. You get out there with the mosquitoes,

you're away for a long time, you're tramping up one hill and down

another, and probably you're not eating quite as well as you'd like,

but you're out there because you've got a gleam in your eye, or some

kind of a vision. You are looking for that chance to make a big win —

not big in terms of the wealth of our province, but big in terms of the

return to one individual. Most of them never get that big return, and

this takes away most of the chance of it — that's why this bill is

proper, this bill to repeal that

section giving first refusal.

If hon. members to my right, physically, are concerned about this

small incentive, this $150,000 prospectors grant, they should compare

it with incentives in other parts of the country, particularly in

northern Canada.

Our members there are aware that for many years — and I'm not sure

if this programme is still in effect — there was a 40 per cent absolute

reimbursement of cost for exploration expenditures. It wasn't just to

the small prospector; it was to anybody. It was to the large companies,

as long as the exploration programmes were approved. This is

chickenfeed in terms of exploration expenditures, and it's going to the

right people; it's going to the small person.

Mr. Speaker, I think I've pretty well said what I have to say here.

I support this bill as being a step that does not in any way detract

from the public interest and contributes to it, because we have to

remember that in our province the only way we are going to progress in

this world is not by taking in each other's laundry; it is only by the

creation of wealth which we can dispose of abroad and receive in return

the goods and services we must purchase from abroad because we don't do

everything in this province.

Therefore the discovery of a new mineral deposit, which is done by

prospectors, is a thing of inestimable value to this province. It's the

kind of thing, if anything in our province deserves headlines, that

should be on the very front page saying: "New Copper Body Found" — so

many million tons, or whatever the discovery may be, because that means

something to every family in British Columbia something in terms of

their welfare. It's very, very important.

Mr. Speaker, I won't go into the whole philosophy of mining

legislation with respect to this bill. I will agree with the minister —

it is a little bill, but it's a positive step forward. I wholeheartedly

support it.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I couldn't

allow the hon. Liberal leader's remarks to go unanswered. I think this

party does understand in fact the mining industry in this province and

the major corporate involvement in the mining industry throughout the

world. I think this bill is really not meeting any problem whatsoever;

it's an excuse for the minister's inaction in bringing about, in their

view, in his coalition party's view, a more equitable taxation policy

for the mining industry.

Our hopes on this side of the House that the pendulum would not

swing too far the other way after the coalition victory were dashed

when a special committee, set up by the previous administration, was

summarily and practically without notice dismissed — a committee that

was to advise the minister on this Act and other mineral legislation, a

well-balanced committee made up of, among other persons, the president

of the Mining Association of British Columbia, Dr. John Helliwell, a

distinguished, internationally known resource economist, and the

regional director of one of the major labour unions involved in the

mining industry — a labour union that was not that supportive of old

mineral royalty legislation passed by the NDP administration, as you

might know.

I would say that this cosmetic lip service the minister is paying

through this bill to the dramatic and outrageous statements made by

that party during the campaign is small support for the votes they did

get as a result of that unrealistic campaign.

There are regulations, a morass of regulations, involving

prospectors in, indeed, all aspects of prospecting and staking of

claims in this province that must be dealt with — regulations that did

not only

[ Page 2238 ]

accumulate under the previous administration but

accumulated over many, many years, regulations that were passed by the

previous Social Credit government to patch up a mining Act that had not

been substantially amended for the last 55 to 60 years.

The Social Credit government in 1954 passed legislation that had to

be withdrawn 12 months later in the face of tremendous opposition from

fledgling multinational corporations of the day. They caved in, in

facing up to their responsibilities to represent the people of this

province. They caved in under an attack made by the major multinational

corporations that were then in place and which have grown multi-multi

times since 1954-55, Mr. Speaker, and which pose a great threat not

only to the prospector but to every citizen of this province.

We talk about jobs, and we talk about economic development — it's a

farce. It's a farce when you say that we must provide jobs and economic

development only by caving in to multinational corporations which have,

through their American control primarily, mortgaged this country for

the foreseeable future. We talk about the Canadian economy and its

vibrance and its strength, but it's in the face of multinational

control, and particularly the mortgage that is held by the United

States on all of Canada, making our dollar overvalued on the exchange

and so on. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this little bill, this

trickle over the waterfall, is only lip service. It attacks the most

wrong area of the legislation that should be reviewed and changed. The

right of first refusal is disallowing the major multinational

corporations from forcing up the price to the public.

You must understand that this

section was placed in the Prospectors

Assistance Act as a good section, and supportable for various reasons.

First of all, the prospector — the little guy, the British Columbian —

who discovers a deposit that may be commercially viable should have had

an opportunity to deal not with the mining cartels but with another

party to get a better price, perhaps, and to avoid the multinational

corporations forcing up the price to the public, making the public pay

a lot more than was economically viable for this claim. The right of

first refusal was essential. It's a minor thing, but it is an important

thing when it comes to the public purse. The only reason why it's being

proposed that it be repealed at this stage is because the government is

indicating by this action that it has no intention of bidding on

properties in competition with the multinational corporations; it has

no intention of entering the marketplace and protecting the little

prospector in this community. But it has every intention of throwing

that prospector to the wolves: those multinational corporations.

I find the policy of the new minister insincere. I don't find him

insincere; I find his policy insincere. It does not reflect and fulfil

an implied promise made by any political party to represent all of the

people of British Columbia, and that's why the opposition must oppose

this silly amendment that's being proposed. It's silly, it's lip

service, and it doesn't come to grips with problems.

Before I take my seat, Mr. Speaker, I must add one further comment.

By the dismissal of the special committee that was set up to review all

of the mining legislation, this government has revealed a dangerous

trend, insofar as its mining policy is concerned. They are willing to

sell out the birthright of this province for future generations,

without proper public control. They are willing to conduct policy and

Star Chamber–type proceedings. I caution the minister, through you, Mr.

Speaker, to let the legislation that comes on this floor dealing with

mining legislation be public policy legislation, not out of the

boardrooms of the major corporations. If there's any evidence that that

is so, this opposition will be very, very much compelled to attack that

minister and his position in that government. It is absolutely

essential that public protection be the watchwords of his ministry in

mining controls and legislation. If he sells out purely to the industry

as an excuse, and allows the pendulum to swing so much, so

dramatically, in another way, this opposition will oppose him every

step and every inch along the way. He will not be sleeping nights, Mr.

Speaker, if that becomes the case.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting

this bill for the simple reason that, as I've mentioned in other

debates, we're concerned to keep government out of the affairs of

business and of the individual to the greatest possible extent. That's

why, while I support this bill, I find it so much at variance with the

kind of bill we debated the other day, where we create another Crown

corporation.

We felt, during the last election, that this was a very big issue,

the principle of increasing interference and authoritarian measures by

government in a wide variety of fields, including mining. The minister

was very honest with the House and said this is a small bill, because

indeed many areas of the mining situation desperately need legislation,

more so than this particular bill — important as this bill is in

relation to the individual prospector. I'm talking about ministerial

discretion, the mining Act and the mineral royalties and such

enormously serious matters as federal-provincial tax measures in the

mining industry.

But to deal specifically with this bill, we don't like any kind of

legislation which puts the government or an arm of government in a

completely monopolistic position. We opposed ICBC for that kind of

reason, and we would oppose this kind of bill for the same basic,

philosophical reason.

There may well be points to be made for giving the government

participation in corporations or

[ Page 2239 ]

companies dealing with natural resources. But I

think that the government should be an equal competitor under the same

ground rules and with no privileged position and compete as any other

potential buyer would do — and, as the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) put

it so well, pay a fair price, or a better price if they consider it is

that important for the project to go ahead and if it is worth X dollars.

We feel that one of the most serious challenges facing society, not

only in mining but in the environment and resource management and

health and so many other fields, is that the government spends so much

of its time building up various bureaucracies and tribunals and

commissions and boards — and if I could just pick the example that I am

so perturbed about these days, the Egg Marketing Board — that we finish

up, through the vehicle of government, trying to solve problems, and

half the time we only seem to create more problems because the

government, through its top-heavy bureaucracy, loses sight of what the

original goal is. Surely the goal in the mining industry is to

resuscitate it right now and as fast as we can with this kind of

measure and many other measures. So I feel that this is a bill we can

support without any hesitation.

I'm a little amused by some of the comments in the debate — that we

visualize in the words that have been used in the House that the

prospector is some timid little person who really can't look after his

own interests and that he can so readily be taken in by multinational

corporations. It would be my feeling from what I have read, and a great

deal of comments, that the mineral prospector is a pretty hardy, tough

guy with a great deal of initiative and self-reliance. I wouldn't

expect that he would be the easiest guy in the world to get fooled when

he finds that he's made a mineral discovery of some very significant

value. He's in the business of mining, and he presumably is.... If he's

prepared to put up with some of the difficulties involved in being a

prospector, I don't think that he would be any kind of easy prey for

any fast-talking representative of a multinational corporation.

But that is secondary to my thinking on this bill. I'm just opposed

to more and more government of any kind in just about any area you can

imagine, unless there is some very important social...or matter of law

and order, or subjects of this type. Government may have to spread its

wings, as it were. But in areas such as this, the best government is

the least government.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I can't add

very much to what has been said by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly)

and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . There is no way

in which I can hope to educate, in a couple of minutes, the leader of

the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson).

He seems to believe that British Columbia should export its precious

mineral resources onto the markets of the world without any rental or

royalty whatsoever back to the people of the province. You know there

is no area in the world that would even listen to that kind of thing,

which is promulgated by the Mining Association and, unfortunately, by

the Liberal Party.

I want you to take to your convention, Mr. Member, the proposition

that there is something to be said for protecting the public interest

in its own resources.

This bill, Mr. Speaker — the minister says it is fair to the little

people. Let me tell him that the little people are the taxpayers of

this province too, and this bill is unfair to those taxpayers. They

pony up, whether it be $1,000 or $1,500, to help some prospector make a

find, and the incentives should be improved. But it's the public that

puts up the seed capital for this little venture that has no protection

whatsoever when it is gobbled up by a multinational corporation. You've

got to remember that in Canada 80 per cent of our mining industry is

foreign controlled, and you people who want to repeal even this little

section are promoting greater foreign ownership of our natural wealth.

The small prospector is not hurt in any way. In fact, he is

protected by this additional option. He either gets a good price from

the company that wants to develop that claim or the government can come

in with public money and purchase the claim. That's an additional

option. He doesn't have to sell, but he has that assistance.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the Minister of Mines really does

have any concern for the public interest in the administration of his

portfolio. He gives a $1,000 grant, without tender, to the son of his

executive assistant to promote the interests of the mining companies in

the province of British Columbia which are very well able to look after

themselves. When you see that kind of use of public money, you have to

ask: whose side is the minister on? Is he on the side of just the

mining companies, or is he on the side of the whole people of the

province of British Columbia?

AN HON. MEMBER: The member for Noranda.

MR. MACDONALD: He has demonstrated at this point that he is

not ready to stand up and protect the people of this province, but

rather to protect a resource which is so largely foreign owned and

dominated. He is turning his back upon all of the history of all of the

other countries of the world where mining goes ahead now as a joint

enterprise with public participation; and that has to be the future of

mining in British Columbia.

The old days of cap and get out, dig and sell off,

[ Page 2240 ]

and find something and flog it on Howe Street....

As the member for Vancouver Centre said, flog the licence back and

forth, make speculative profits along the way, hike up the cost of the

mineral instead of developing the mine or the resource. That's the way

this government is pointing, and it's certainly not in the interest of

the development of our natural wealth in this province. It isn't the

way that protects in any way the public interest, and it means

additionally that we are selling out once again to foreign ownership of

the natural resources of the province of British Columbia.

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): I'll be very brief on this too.

I think the bill is pretty well self-explanatory — certainly it has

been long waited for. The mining industry has suffered enough in the

last three years.

I'll have to agree with the member that there isn't too much

possibility of trying to educate the opposition into the economics of

mining or lumbering, or practically anything else that's got any real,

basic value to it. Their heads are up in the clouds so far they can't

really see what the common person does require. They feel the small

man, the prospector, is ripped off by taking this right away. I think,

after the last legislation brought down by the previous government,

they should be fairly well aware of what the public thinks of the

protection they were trying to evolve for the small person. I think it

was fairly clearly demonstrated last fall.

It was a pledge of this government to get the mining industry back

on its feet, an industry which supplied a good deal of revenue to this

province up till three years ago, an industry that was really getting

on its feet, up till three years ago.

MR. MACDONALD: We increased the revenue.

MR. LLOYD: Certainly I'm hopeful that it will make some giant

steps again.

Mr. Speaker, another thing I think a lot of people overlook when

they talk about the mining corporations and how large they are is where

the expertise for mining actually comes from. B.C. and Canadian mining

expertise is some of the top expertise in the world, and it's expertise

that we've developed locally. We are discouraging this and driving them

out of the province, driving them out of our country even, by the type

of legislation that was proposed three years ago. In all fairness, I

think I'll certainly have to agree with the member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) that this is only a step along the way.

We have to repeal that entire Bill 31.

I think another thing a lot of people overlook is that, sure, B.C.

has got a lot of ore; it has a lot of resources. It also has a lot of

mines that have been already closed down because the ore wasn't of a

high enough value, and here we're talking about let's keep soaking it

to them, boys, let's keep soaking it to them. All you're really waiting

for is some of the better resources, located in some of the more

backward parts of the world, to be developed and come on stream; then

ours will sit in the ground for another 50 years.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, that this is only a step in the right

direction, and I speak in full support of Bill 21. Thank you.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, just a few

words, because I wasn't going to speak on this bill. I oppose the

principle of this bill for the reasons that have been outlined by other

members of this House.

I should point out, Mr. Speaker, some of the statements made: first

of all, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) talked

about jobs in the mining industry. Well, we all know that the mining

industry in all parts of Canada in the last four years has been in a

very unsteady state and there have not been many new mines opening.

Certainly we admit in British Columbia that there have been some new

mines opened, but not many. But neither has there been in the Yukon or

in Ontario, Quebec or other major mining provinces of this country.

But in regard to jobs, there's more to extracting a non-renewable

resource than just jobs, Mr. Speaker. Jobs are important and those

resources should provide jobs, but the people of this province must get

a fair return for that resource.

The member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) discussed revenue to the

province from the mining industry. I'd just like to quote a few figures

from Price Waterhouse and Co. In 1971 taxes paid to the province of

British Columbia by the mining industry were $24,372,000. In 1974,

under New Democratic Party administration, the taxes paid by the mining

industry to this province were $97,072,000, or more than triple.

So, Mr. Speaker, I don't like to hear members get up in this House

and say that the New Democratic government stifled the mining industry

in this province, because we did not. We actively promoted the mining

industry, and profits were never so great for the mining industry in

this province as when we were the government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Some of the remarks I hear are quite

amusing actually. Starting with the member for Mackenzie — he quoted

probably two statistics. However, statistics can be made to say

anything. He said that in 1971 the mining industry paid taxes of $24

million — was it? Mr. Speaker, in

[ Page 2241 ]

1971 the mining industry in British Columbia

suffered a net loss on total capital invested of 1.6 per cent.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The mining industry under Social Credit —

that is right.

Mr. Speaker, the mining industry in British Columbia between the

years 1967 and 1973 had an average net profit on invested capital of

9.8 per cent. When we speak of invested capital we speak only of

capital invested in mines that eventually become mines. We do not

consider the vast numbers of dollars which are spent on mines which do

not ever become mines, on prospects which turn out to be nothing but

waste rock.

The mining industry in British Columbia in 1973 had a net profit of

24 per cent on invested capital. It was that year — that one year — on

which that government based all its thoughts on the mining industry.

MR. LAUK: That's not a correct statement.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They were so myopic in their thinking —

as far back as they could see — that they chose to base their whole....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: They could see here, Mr. Speaker, a

fantastic source of wealth and revenue for the government because they

looked at one year when there was 24 per cent return — and that was it.

It must be a fantastic rip-off. But they didn't look back to the year

before when there was a profit of 1.7 per cent or the year before that

when there was a net loss of 1.6 per cent.

So if they look at the industry instead of at the end of their nose,

Mr. Speaker, perhaps they can have some correct thoughts of the real

nature of this industry.

I'm sorry, Mr. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson). I

think your figure was wrong.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's doing his own research.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, there's always great concern

by the members opposite about the people of British Columbia sharing in

the products of the resource. Well, people do share. Under a

profit-based tax system, half of the revenue generated by these

companies — by this terrible, nasty mining industry — comes back to the

people. They don't have to buy the cow when the milk is free.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the late 1950s and early 1960s there

was a man — and I think we have all heard of him — whose name was Spud

Hustis. He was a prospector who went around the Highland Valley of

British Columbia with the backside out of his pants. He was looking for

somebody, some terrible multinational company, to help him finance this

little mine. But the multinational companies looked at it and said:

"No, there's no chance of doing anything there." This man, with his own

determination, his foresight, his desire to really create something,

went ahead, and he eventually did find financing for this mine. He was

a prospector just like the prospectors who work under the Prospectors

Assistance Act, and because he had this kind of foresight, Mr. Speaker,

another multinational corporation developed, one of those terrible

monsters.

This multinational corporation is primarily owned by Canadians and

British Columbians, and it's Bethlehem Copper. This company has

generated a great deal of capital, and Mr. Hustis himself attained

quite a lot of personal wealth. But the wealth he generated for the

province of British Columbia in terms of jobs and opportunities and tax

revenue for this province would never have existed had the attitude of

that former government existed at that time.

MR. LAUK: CPR owns it now.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The former Minister of Mines tells about

the Helliwell commission, which he appointed as soon as he was

appointed Minister of Mines. The terms of reference of this Helliwell

commission were to determine the effect of royalties on the cut-off

grades of mining property. I know what the effect of royalties is on

cut-off grades. It reduces them. That member certainly did not have to

have a commission to tell him that.

MR. LAUK: That's wrong.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, that member was looking for

some way of saving face and of getting out of a royalty taxation system.

MR. LAUK: False statements. Tell the truth, Tom.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, this is but one step towards

our stated objective of getting this industry moving again. Admittedly

it is a small step, but others will follow.

[ Page 2242 ]

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

MR. LAUK: Point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please. There is a motion on the

floor, Hon. Member. Has it to do with the placing of the motion?

MR. LAUK: It has to do with standing orders and correcting

statements made by the minister before the vote is put.

MR. SPEAKER: What standing order are you quoting?

MR. LAUK: I don't have my book with me. I think it's standing

order 42. The member wishes to put the truth before this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member referring to standing order 42 —

the learned member?

MR. LAUK: You've been waiting all spring to say that, haven't

you?

It says: "No member may speak twice to a question except in

explanation of the material part of his speech which may have been

misquoted or misunderstood."

Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister indicated that the terms of reference

for the Helliwell commission were only a very narrow term of reference.

That's not correct. All of the terms of reference — and there were

three major ones — were publicized at the appointment of the committee

and are public knowledge. I won't deal with them now with the House,

but they included several other points besides that which the minister

mentioned. I think it's unfair of him to pretend that it was only one

narrow term. It was the broad range of legislation affecting the

mineral industry.

Second reading of Bill 21 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Schroeder

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

Mussallem

Strongman

Veitch

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 14

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): On a point of order, the

Clerk was announcing the vote, and I didn't see the Member for Skeena

(Mr. Shelford) in his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: There are a number of members not in their

seats, Hon. Member.

Before the point of order was raised there was a request for

recording, but I'm not sure how many members were standing at that

time. (Laughter.)

Bill 21, Prospectors Assistance Amendment Act, 1976, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Second reading of Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I think

perhaps this is a bill that could be better considered in committee,

but there are two principal aspects of the bill. First of all, it is to

increase the number of the Supreme Court judges from 24 to 25. Mr.

Justice Berger at the present time, as all members know, is engaged in

the royal commission re the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, and it's

contemplated that his duties there will be concluded by the end of the

year. Mr. Justice John Bouck has been appointed vice-chairman of the

Canada Law Reform Commission. He assumed his appointment on May 1 of

this year, and he'll be staying for two years, living in Ottawa.

As the hon. members know, the responsibility for the appointment of

the judge will be that of the federal government, which will pay his

salary. The support services, of course, will be the responsibility of

the provincial government. This is enabling the federal government to

make this additional appointment to increase our bench of the Supreme Court in this province to 25.

The second

section of the Act is a complicated one. In essence it's

this. Formerly a county court judge sitting as a local judge had

certain specific powers given to him within

section 18 of the Supreme

Court Act. There was a great deal of difficulty experienced over the

years as to whether or not this county court judge, sitting as a local

judge of

[ Page 2243 ]

the Supreme Court, would in actual fact have certain or necessary

powers to hear some of the matters before him.

Hence it has been concluded, as a result of considerable negotiation

between the bar and the bench and advisers to this department and

within the department, that the

section would be better phrased by

granting a local judge of the county court, sitting as a local judge of

the Supreme Court, powers almost comparable to those of a Supreme Court justice save and except certain items that are now

restricted within the statute.

Within the statute, the items wherein the county court judge will

not have powers to sit as a local judge of the Supreme Court

essentially are those that deal with acts that are private in nature

and many of whom specifically refer to hearings or appeals or

what-have-you being directed to a Supreme Court judge, so only a Supreme Court judge will have the power to sit there.

Furthermore, it is restricted under certain specified additional

trials: the Insurance Act, the Occupiers' Liability Act, Families'

Compensation Act. Those will still be within the total and sole

jurisdiction of a Supreme Court judge, and furthermore, a local judge

of the county court would not have jurisdiction with respect to

criminal proceedings vis-à-vis the assize, but this does not mean, of

course, Mr. Speaker, that he would not maintain his jurisdiction as a

county court judge as long as he's sitting as a county court judge.

I would, therefore, move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I agree the bill can be discussed

technically in committee, but I am glad the government has finally got

around to tackling the problem of unemployment: you're increasing the

number of judges to 25 from 24, and I assure the hon. Attorney-General

that there will be no want of willing aspirants.

MR. LAUK: In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East

(laughter), I don't know whether his application was in before mine or

not.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Don't take either of them.

MR. LAUK: There are a number of questions that should be

asked, but I'll leave them for committee stage. The thing that is most

appropriate is.... Oh, I'll leave that for committee, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: I think that's the thing that's most appropriate.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. GARDOM: I regret that the hon. member left the

appropriate matters to be considered in committee; however, if he has

any specific questions between now and the committee stage I'd be

delighted to hear from him. I would also like to inform him not to be

in the slightest bit alarmed about the fact that wigs are no longer

permitted in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 13.

Motion approved.

Bill 13, Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1976, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

EXTRA-PROVINCIAL CUSTODY

ORDERS ENFORCEMENT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 18; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: 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 18, Extra-provincial Custody Orders Enforcement Act, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

INTERPROVINCIAL SUBPOENA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 19; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, this causes me great concern: I

notice a number of practitioners complain that their clients, who must

call witnesses from jurisdictions at great cost, even within the

province, I should say, have not been able to obtain the full

[ Page 2244 ]

measure of compensation for calling such witnesses. I realize that a

certain amount of discretion should be permitted with respect to the

judge awarding such costs.

With respect to this section, and without asking for an amendment at

this stage, is the Attorney-General considering a more formalized

guideline for the allowances that should be paid to witnesses who are

subpoenaed? Sometimes witnesses are subpoenaed in a quite irrelevant

way, needlessly travelling long distances to come to court, and

sometimes are not even called by counsel. On some cases I've seen

judges award costs against the solicitor. That's a fine discretion — if

it's exercised. There has been some suggestion from the bar that this

extend to a more formalized situation where the judge, in some cases,

must award costs against the solicitor, or must allow that costs in

compensation to witnesses be ordered. Is the Attorney-General

considering that?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to thank the member for his

remarks. They're not really relevant to this bill or to this section,

as he and I both appreciate, because the fees that are set forth under

this Interprovincial Subpoena Act, Mr. Member, only refer to something

that is dealt with interprovincially, as opposed to within the confines

of our own province.

But the question of remuneration for witnesses, the greater

formalization of it and the greater heed given to the expenses and

difficulties that many people have been put to in being witnesses in

cases, is a matter that requires consideration. However, I would

mention, as the hon. member knows, that it is, of course, considered to

be a responsibility of citizenship to be a witness in a trial; the fees

have been set and have been standardized in this province for many,

many years. They are not expected to compensate a witness in performing

that civil responsibility. I think, though, that we could well

entertain a review of the amount that is being paid today, and I'd be

most interested to find what amounts are being paid in other

jurisdictions.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Schedules A and B approved.

Title approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 19, Interprovincial Subpoena Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 20.

INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. GIBSON: I express curiosity here. This

section mentions

how enactments come into effect. I would presume that this enactment

comes into effect under the terms of the enactment which it is

repealing.

HON. MR. GARDOM: In response to the member:

section 4(2) is

new, and it prevents an overlap between the repealed and the substituted

provision.

Section 4(3) is a rewording of the present 4(2);

section

4(4) is the present 1(2). This

section deals with the timing of the

repeal sections.

MR. WALLACE: It's the numbers game.

HON. MR. GARDOM: At present there is a gap between the

beginning of the day when a replacement enactment comes into effect and

the end of the same day when, under this section, an enactment ceases

to have effect.

Section 4(2) is designed to close the gap, Mr. Member.

We are trying to eliminate gaposis. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Will there be a full day then, Mr.

Attorney-General, when this new

section will not apply?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I hope not.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the

Attorney-General's eyes to subsection (

b) of 21, as indicated here,

which, as I read it, would state flatly that the deputy of a minister

is entitled to do anything which a minister may do. That would seem to

me to be a very broad power — from a layman's reading. Could the

Attorney-General tell me if that is correct?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, within the confines of the delegated

power, Mr. Member, the explanatory notes that have been furnished to me

by Dr. Kennedy on this point indicate that

section 20 has been

rewritten to simplify it as before, but it has the same content. It's a

rewrite of the previous section. Apparently certain questions arose

about the

section

[ Page 2245 ]

when the office itself happened to be vacant, but that's now been

clarified.

MR. LAUK: With the greatest conceivable respect to Dr.

Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, through you to the learned Attorney-General, I

am sure that every schoolboy can tell you that delegatus non potest

delegare .

HON. MR. GARDOM: Oh, that's good!

MR. LAUK: Do you like that?

MR. WALLACE: Don't be rude!

MR. LAUK: I think that is not just the same content. The way

it is worded, it is allowing a minister who is empowered to do certain

things designated to him to redelegate that authority, and

constitutionally that offends the principle that....

HON. MR. GARDOM: It includes the deputy.

MR. LAUK: But it should not. It should not allow a deputy to

have the same powers as a minister, with the

Interpretation Act trying

to do in the back door what cannot be done in the front. Are you saying

that now a deputy minister has the power to sign orders-in-council and

do all those other things? Are you saying that a deputy minister can be

an acting minister? Are you saying that a deputy minister can sign ICBC

cheques for $181 million — NSF?

I'll allow the Attorney-General to consult with counsel, Mr.

Chairman, for the moment. (Laughter.) I don't know whether it has

anything to do with my remarks or the membership in the Union Club.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry the Attorney-General was turned down for

membership in the Union Club, but what are you going to do when you

have the Law Clerk...? Anyway, I'm asking these questions. What

about this kind of thing? Suggestions have been made that the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Curtis) should delegate the authority of

various of his powers to his deputy to avoid him spending too much

time. Perhaps the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) can delegate powers to the deputy for signing permits and

oil leases. Is this what is suggested by the section?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 7 pass?

MR. LAUK: Well, I was just thinking, Mr. Chairman, that it's

unfortunate that the Attorney-General didn't have a better explanation

from Dr. Kennedy on this matter, as it is a serious problem in

administrative law and constitutional law. If the Deputy Minister of

Mines can sign an oil permit, where do we go from there?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon.

member, he's placed a different

interpretation upon this than the

government and the adviser to the government have, but I would very

much like to consider his

interpretation of the point in question.

I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

again.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 8.

REVENUE AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's a little irregular to have a point of

order in the middle of a division, Hon. Member.

MR. LAUK: Something irregular has happened that has been

brought to my attention. I was intending to call a division on

section

1, and I would ask leave of the committee to return to

section 1 to

divide on that issue. It's been granted before in committee, and I would

ask that. It happened in the spring of worra-worra where Speaker

Dowding said that worra-worra. (Laughter.) It was the well-known case

of Worra-Worra. (Laughter.) Irrespective of what the Law Clerk says, it

was done previously. I'm learning how to read lips. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, may I just acquaint all the

members of the House with the procedures to which we are bound. The

committee has no power to suspend the rules. As a result, a division

was called on

section 2. Now we will proceed with the division on 2 and

if, following that, you wish to ask leave of the House to go back to

section 1, that would be in order.

MR. LAUK: By leave of the committee?

[ Page 2246 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. LAUK: That's fair enough.

Section 2 approved unanimously on a division.

Hon. Mr. McGeer requests that leave be asked to record the division

in the Journals of the House.

MR. LAUK: I ask leave of the committee that we return to

section 1. It's important on the part of the opposition to have a

division on that section.

Leave granted.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Lloyd

Mussallem

Strongman

Veitch

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 14

Macdonald

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

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

Title approved.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, I move

the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Revenue Amendment Act, 1976, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

The acting Minister of Municipal Affairs will carry the debate.

PROVINCIAL HOME-OWNER GRANT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1976

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

MR. LAUK: Is the Attorney-General the acting minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: House Leader, would you like to answer that?

MR. LAUK: Oh, I see — the Minister of Public Works. I just

wondered whether he could tell the House where the Minister of

Municipal Affairs is today. His bill is in committee, and we were

anxious to ask him questions concerning his statements that certain

evidence given by Mr. Bonner and Mr. Duncan of B.C. Hydro before the

public accounts committee was false and incorrect and erroneous. I was

wondering why the Minister of Municipal Affairs isn't here to answer

these charges. This is very, very serious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member knows that we

cannot in committee discuss details of things that happened in other

standing committees.

MR, LAUK: Thank you for that advice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the hon. member in regard to

the absence of the Municipal Affairs minister, he is representing the

government at the conference on human settlements at Habitat. In

deference to the concern expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver

Centre (Mr. Lauk), I think we would move that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. You've heard the

motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw the motion.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the members are

prepared to debate the bill today in committee, then we will proceed

with committee on Bill 17. I would so withdraw the motion.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

[ Page 2247 ]

HON. A.V. FRASER (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Chairman, I

move the amendment to

section 3 standing on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): I would like to make the

point on this particular

section that while I agree with the principle

and the practice of raising the minimum to $50 from $1, the fact is

that in the case of some municipalities, particularly the smaller ones

and especially those with frontage taxes, they are actually going to

realize less money from the provincial government under this

section

than they otherwise would. Now I'm not suggesting that they're going to

receive less funds in total taxes — they are not — but they are going

to receive less from the province and more from their local taxpayers

than they otherwise would.

I would have liked to have seen a rider or a condition on this

section that the province would guarantee that through this

section no

municipality in the province would receive less money under the $50

minimum than they would on the $1 minimum. Unfortunately that is not

there. It may be a minor point, Mr. Chairman, but I see it as simply

one more way that the government is reneging on a number of

responsibilities to municipalities which it formerly assumed, and

especially to smaller ones.

It is unfortunate that the minister isn't here, but we have seen the

disparity grants ruled out, which last year resulted in some $150,000 to

the smaller municipalities in my riding. And here is another way which,

in fact, is going to take away some of the responsibility that the

province has assumed to these municipalities in the years past. I doubt

that anything is going to be done about it, but I would like it on the

record that I'm aware this is happening. I'm sure that all of the

smaller municipalities around the province — medium-sized and smaller

ones — didn't realize at first, but they realize now, that in fact they

are going to get less money from the province because of this section.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the minister

what the reasoning was behind the raising of the $1 minimum payment to

$50. Obviously the decision was that everybody who owns a home should

pay at least $50 in tax. But what is the reasoning behind that, and why

$50? Why not $25 or $75 or whatever? It just seems a very arbitrary

decision that's been taken in this bill. I can't understand any valid

reason — either arithmetical or social.

The people who previously finished up paying $1, generally

speaking, would be people living in moderate or modest-sized homes who,

when you take off the homeowner grant, are left with little or nothing

to pay or $1 to pay. Why is this, at a time of inflation, being added

to that particular group of homeowners in the province, who perhaps for

the last year or two have paid $1 and now are being asked to pay $50? I

just don't see any real rationale other than the arbitrary concept of

ensuring that at least every homeowner pays $50. Can the minister

answer that?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not sure how the $50 was arrived at, but

I think the thinking here is that it was quite ridiculous for a lot of

people to have the service they had for $1, so they raised the minimum

to $50.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm in the same position as the

member for Oak Bay. I find it difficult to understand why the $50 was

arrived at, or why the tax was placed at the lower end of the scale

rather than not increasing the exemption. It makes the property tax

even more regressive than it is now. I'm wondering why. Perhaps the

minister can answer this question as to why the homeowner grant was not

increased a smaller amount and have the tax paid on the other end of

the scale.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 5 pass?

MR. SKELLY: The minister is studying that question, I think,

Mr. Chairman — or answering his correspondence.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. FRASER: I move the amendment to

section 6 standing

on page 9 of the orders of the day. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 and 8 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

[ Page 2248 ]

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Provincial Home-owner Grant Amendment Act, 1976, reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Committee on Bill 23, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BUILDINGS

CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like the minister to stand

in his place in the House and admit that this

section gives the

executive council and government of this province the right to go into

deficit financing. Having done that, then, Mr. Chairman, we certainly

will agree. We know that the government's in trouble, and we'll

certainly agree that we'll help bail you out by supporting this and

other sections of this particular bill that really and truly indicate

that the government is changing a policy with this particular bill,

enabling themselves to spend $200 million that they would not otherwise

have had access to.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't quite hear what

I suggested.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I challenge the quorum.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on!

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a challenge of quorum.

MR. W.G. STRONGMAN (Vancouver South): On a point of order,

Mr. Chairman. When the count was asked for there was more than a quorum

in the House, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King), after

clueing in the speaker at the time because he wasn't able to count

himself, elected to leave the House. I think it is obvious that there

was a quorum at the time, and that these people are trying to cause us

difficulty. I would like you to realize there was a quorum in the House

when the count was asked for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While the point of order was being made there

was one other member leaving. Counting that member, there was a quorum

at the time, hon. Member for New Westminster.

MR. COCKE: I withdraw my challenge, Mr. Chairman.

I would again appeal to the minister to stand in his place....

MR. STRONGMAN: It's part of a conspiracy.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what we're trying to do is keep the

government alert, keep the government on their toes. They're all away

at coffee.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Where's the opposition?

MR. COCKE: The opposition asked me to represent them in the

House, because we can only speak one at a time.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 2, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to draw your

attention to

section 2: "There is hereby established a corporation to

be known as the 'British Columbia Buildings Corporation' consisting of

five directors" — and so on. It means the people who should be on

it.... It's kind of a political corporation, and in a way I don't blame

the government, but, on the other hand, it strikes me the government

was always challenging Crown corporations of the past as having been

political. Well, here we have members of the executive council, members

of the public service — who are, I believe, entirely dependent for

their direction on the executive council, or certainly on their

minister — and then the executive council, that is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, appoints one of the directors as a

chairman. The directors don't even have a chance to vote on their own

chairman. So be it.

Mr. Chairman, the other aspects of this

section 1ndicate to me quite

clearly that we have here set up a corporation which will take a lot of

the onus for future expenditures away from the Public Works department

— and under those circumstances be directed by the executive council —

but will provide that an opportunity is granted this government to go

into deficit financing. Now if the minister would just step up and say,

yes, that's what we're doing, then we'll support the section.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this

section 2 is critical to the

patronage powers of this bill, because

[ Page 2249 ]

it's under this

section that the board of direction is constituted,

and that board of direction is very clearly the tool of the government

and, indeed, may be composed entirely of members of government. As the

Chairman will recall, other sections exempt this corporation from the

Public Services Act, and therefore the hiring and firing provisions are

entirely in the hands of members of the government.

This corporation, of course, is not subject to the Purchasing

Commission, and therefore it's not required to do business for

construction by tenders. It's not required to obtain its materials and

other purchases in ways that have been sanctioned and governed by long

practices developed in the history of the British Columbia government.

I suggested to the treasury benches the other day the way that this

serious defect might be remedied and the way that all accusation.of

patronage could be removed from this bill, and that is by making it

possible for a member of this House to sit on the board who is not a

member of the party supporting the government. It seems to me that this

is an opportunity that the government should welcome, Mr. Chairman.

Therefore I would suggest the following amendment on

section 2(1)(a),

adding after the word "or" the words: "a member of the Legislative

Assembly sitting in opposition to the recognized government party,

or...." It seems to me that that is an amendment with a great deal of

merit to commend itself to the government, one that would free them

from the very reasonable public suspicion that there would be a chance

that patronage might creep into the operation of this powerful and

otherwise uncontrolled corporation.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest too that this amendment is in order.

It is not a directive upon the Crown. It is enabling upon the Crown and

increases the flexibility of the government to make appointees that

could clearly bring an impartial — or at least different — viewpoint to

the operation of this very powerful board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

MR. WALLACE: Well, the point that I made in second reading

has to be re-emphasized here — that the composition of the proposed

board under

section 2 is such that this amendment, at least in some

measure, minimizes the risks that are obvious in the form of such a

board where the members are either members of the cabinet or members of

the public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tools of the government.

MR. WALLACE: In fact, Mr. Chairman, if the NDP had tried to

bring in a bill like this, there would have been a tremendous outcry,

and that refers to a lot of the other sections on this bill, too.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know that. You would have been the first

one up.

MR. WALLACE: I propose to speak on other sections of the bill

to emphasize that same principle. Perhaps one should hesitate to

criticize the newspapers when, as a politician, newspapers are pretty

important. But I'm amazed that there's been such little reporting in

the press about the content of this bill and some of the elements of

the bill as included in

section 2. We have a proposal in

section 2 to

give tremendous power and authority to five people, all of whom have

the most blatant political advantages to gain from being in this

position of authority.

It would be a very timid step in the right direction, in my view, to

support this amendment which the Liberal leader has brought forward.

It's certainly a minimum step, inasmuch as there would be one voice on

the board which would not be regarded as being motivated for purely

political reasons in the making of board decisions. This refers, Mr.

Chairman, to any government in power, whether it's the present one or

the former one or any government in the future — that a board given

this kind of authority to borrow the kind of money that is incorporated

in the bill is such that really there should surely be more than just

cabinet ministers and public service employees constituting the board.

As I have to say again, I think if the former NDP government had

tried to bring in a bill like this, we might have had a public response

by the media and many people similar to the Land Act. I have to keep

saying this repeatedly; citizens today, I think, are very concerned

about the ever-enlarging authority of government and the different ways

in which that increasing authority is being exerted through various

boards and superboards and commissions and many other arms of

government which I could mention.

I find it very disappointing that this government, which stressed so

strongly in the election campaign that it would reduce the size of

government, reduce the power of government and minimize the

encroachment of government into a variety of areas of public concern,

now comes forward with this kind of bill. Not only is the intent of the

bill questionable and the powers extended to the Crown corporation

enormous, but even in the composition of the board it's a tight little

group of cabinet ministers and public service employees where the

political value of their decisions would inevitably rank as No. 1

priority in their deliberations.

I just don't believe that that would be to the

[ Page 2250 ]

advantage of the province, and I think that....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking the civil service.

MR. WALLACE: Well, one of the members interjects that I'm

attacking the civil service. I'm not attacking the civil service; I'm

trying to emphasize that a civil servant in this position must

inevitably have some great consideration for his own security and

position. It's highly unlikely that the public service employee would

have much success — even if he disagreed with the cabinet members on

the board — of persuading cabinet ministers to change their decision

that should have been motivated in the first place by political

considerations.

AN HON. MEMBER: Off with his head!

MR. WALLACE: It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that having

within the statute a requisite that at least one member of the

opposition in the House be a member of the board, at least the public

would have some kind of awareness and understanding of the fact that

all the decisions were not simply made on the basis of the political

advantage to the government of the day.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): On the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I

ask the rhetorical question: has that coalition government got no shame

at all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: None, none!

MR. BARBER: For three and a half years in opposition they

campaigned on the promise that government agencies and corporations

should be at arm's length distance from members of government. They

promised in the most recent campaign, Mr. Chairman, that they would, if

they were to assume power, ensure that no longer were politicians on

the boards of Crown agencies and corporations in the Province of

British Columbia. They made that promise not once but a hundred times.

I support the Liberal leader's amendment; it's an excellent one. If

they're going to introduce politicians at all to the boards of these

corporations and break their campaign promise doing so, let them at

least ensure that justice and fair play that would see members from

both sides of the House on the boards of such corporations.

This coalition has broken a campaign promise, Mr. Chairman. They've

broken it here again today. They persuaded the people of British

Columbia that they sincerely believed that politicians do not belong on

the boards of directors of these corporations. In one of their first

opportunities to prove their sincerity they did nothing but disprove

it. Sure enough, they have named themselves to the board of directors

of the British Columbia Buildings Corp.

I support the Liberal leader's amendment. He at least has the sense,

he at least has the fair play, he at least has the interest of the

province at hand and in heart when he suggests that if there are to be

politicians at all appointed to these boards they should come from both

sides of the House and not just from one.

I myself would prefer that that amendment were not necessary because

that

section were not in place, and that this board was composed of

persons chosen at large from the public sector, and not from that of

the government. If we're not going to get that out of this coalition,

they're going to break their campaign promises again and again.

At least allow members from both sides of the House to sit on the

board of directors of this corporation. It's a very reasonable

proposition, Mr. Chairman. I'm positive the fair-minded members of the

coalition will support it, as we do too.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment put forward by

the Liberal leader is worthy of support by all members of the House.

I'd just point out that in the past, during our term of stewardship in

the province of British Columbia, our government was roundly criticized

for having members of cabinet serve as directors of the British

Columbia Railway, members of the board of Hydro, and so on.

I just want to point out that in those particular Crown corporations

the political representation, either from our government or the former

Social Credit government, did not dominate in the way that is proposed

section 2 of this bill that is before the House where there is an

absolute preponderance of political domination on the proposed board of

directors, because there is very little difference between a member of

the executive council and a public servant. A public servant, of

course, usually the kind of public servant who is directly under the

control and the supervision of the ministers that are represented on

that board, I would suggest, would be extremely unlikely to strike an

independent posture in terms of the decisions and the policies that

were required for the direction of a Crown corporation when their boss,

the minister, is hovering over them.

So unlike Hydro and unlike the B.C. Railway Co., where we had

directors elected from the public at large on the basis of their

business acumen, on the basis of their standing in the community, what

we have before us here proposed in this bill is a creature of the

existing government — a political creature of the existing government.

In order to give some balance to that kind of heavy political

domination so that we are reassured and the public is reassured that

this is not going to be a partisan political venture, then I think the

House can do no less than support

[ Page 2251 ]

the amendment proposed by the hon. member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) .

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with the remarks

of the hon. member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). I think it is

important to recall the remarks that were made by opposition members in

second reading on this bill, which were largely ignored by the press.

This section,

section 2, is critical in....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you know you cannot repeat

arguments used in second reading in committee.

MR. LAUK: Would I do that? Would I do that, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope not.

MR. LAUK: Now, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyone who would do that would make a

mistake for a division on a vote.

MR. LAUK: With respect to

section 2, it says clearly that the

board of the proposed British Columbia Buildings Corp. be made up of

members of the executive council or members of the public service.

Dealing with those two propositions — (

a) members of the executive

council: it has been argued that this corporation, if it is not simply

set up to do deficit financing, is set up to be a pork-barrel operation

to hand out goodies to political friends of government.

That charge has been made by various individuals in society, perhaps

more uncharitable than any members of this committee. Nevertheless, the

suspicion and the cloud is there. When this

section is placed before

this committee, obviously we can conclude in no other way that that it

is intended to be a pork-barrel operation handing out goodies to the

friends of government and campaign donors who may be in the

construction business. This goes on all the time...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I....

MR. LAUK: ...so that the amendment brought forward....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please! The hon. member

will remember, particularly if he renews his memories by the use of the

Blues, that this same argument was used by this same member in second

reading.

MR. LAUK: Well, why didn't the press print it? Because it is important. (Laughter.) This is of critical

importance — the press has missed a point. The government side hasn't

missed a point. They want to set up a pork-barrel operation, for

heaven's sake! They're going to appoint members of the executive

council....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I can sympathize with the hon.

member. However, we cannot change the standing orders....

MR. LAUK: It's frustrating, isn't it, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We cannot change the standing orders.

MR. LAUK: Dealing directly with the amendment, then, Mr.

Chairman....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Why don't you call a press

conference?

MR. LAUK: If they appoint members of the executive council

and members of the public service, we know full well that members of

the public service under the right-wing coalition have not been able to

act independently and with good conscience unless they sue ministers in

courts for slander and wrongful dismissal for the shameful way that

they have been coerced.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: So now they are suggesting they appoint members of

the public service to this board, when sitting in this House is a

minister of the Crown that has to be sued by a civil servant to get

justice...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: ...and fair play.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: They expect the public to believe that members of

the public service can sit independently on such a board.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Did you always

want to be an actor?

MR. LAUK: The Minister of Health says I have always wanted to

be an actor. Boy! I'll tell you — the Minister of Health is a bad

actor, a bad actor. There should be more writs served on that minister.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let us now go to

[ Page 2252 ]

the amendment on

section 2.

MR. LAUK: So I think the amendment proposed by the hon.

Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson)....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I don't associate myself with those uncharitable

remarks. Thousands would, but I would not.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that the amendment proposed by the member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), an honourable member who

believes in ethics in government, arm's-length Crown corporations that

will not pass out goodies to campaign donors....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I think that we should all support this amendment,

and I think it should be known that if the government side does not

support this amendment they are voting for pork-barrelling in this

province — something that hasn't existed in this province since the old

coalition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Since December 11.

MR. LAUK: Since the old coalition. W.A.C. Bennett came to

power arguing against pork-barrel Crown corporations, and he stayed in

power for 20 years. The NDP upheld that, and now this new coalition

goes back to the old coalition's tactics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. member....

MR. LAUK: If they don't vote for this amendment....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member is having a great deal of difficulty

keeping his remarks.... But may I read the amendment again?

MR. LAUK: It's a good amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is: to add after "or" in the

fourth line the words "a Member of the Legislative Assembly sitting in

opposition to the recognized government party." That is the amendment. I

know you do not have it before you, but I wish....

MR. LAUK: I'm glad that Mr. Chairman read that excellent

amendment out again.

Now the way to prevent any suggestion of handing out goodies to

campaign donors....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: There he is; he's running out of the House again to

check on his Imperial Oil stock. (Laughter.)

The public could be alleviated of this suspicion and this allegation

if a member of the opposition was on the board as a watchdog to ensure

that the government party does not participate in this kind of pork

barrelling that used to characterize the old coalition government. This

is their opportunity to put at least that argument to rest.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I only rise

to give my support to the proposed amendment and to simply ask: why

doesn't the government just follow its good will in what it did with

the auditor-general bill? We suggest that you do the same thing — to

expedite the work of the auditor-general you could allow an opposition

member to sit on the board of not only this Crown corporation, but

perhaps you would want to consider seriously making amendments to other

existing Crown corporation legislation and indicate to the public that

when you bring in the auditor-general, his work will be facilitated by

your assurances that there would at least be one person on the board

whom we can look to, considering the credibility this person would

have because of no political affiliation.

I feel that the amendment is really an opportunity for you to

perhaps clear up a point that I'm sure you overlooked. I don't believe

that — with all due respect to my colleague the first Member for

Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — you really wanted to deprive the people

of the kind of stewardship and fiscal responsibility they deserve when

it comes to the management of a public utility. So I'm merely

suggesting that when you rise to close the debate on the committee you

will....

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that a motion?

MR. BARNES: No — that you will say: "By gum, that's a good

point, a very good point." I think that the Premier would go along with

it. I don't think he would speak against the inclusion of opposition

members on the board. Certainly if I were in your shoes I would be most

pleased to refer any matters of serious consequence back to the public

before making any decisions respecting some of the things you have in

this bill.

When we get back to some of the other sections, I'm sure you'll want

to assure us that your intentions are to guarantee that the public's

interest will be

[ Page 2253 ]

served at all times. The best way to do that, really, is to put

someone on the board to dissuade any idea that you are going to play

favouritism for special people by appointment. I think the political

scene is such today that we need to demonstrate our credibility by

example and to bring forward, in fact, some of the kinds of things

people have lost faith in.

I don't want to see you appoint five members from the cabinet and

pick out others, perhaps from the public service, who you feel will be

leaning toward any specific or special programmes that the government

may have and which may from time to time be to a disinterest of good

public service. It may merely have only a political consequence.

So I would just close by saying that I hope this amendment will

pass. It is an opportunity for the minister to clean up a real concern

in this bill. If he were to do that, I'm sure that we would have more

faith in your good will respecting some of the other sections.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening very carefully

across the floor to the response of the coalition to the proposed

amendment.

There have been two responses: one of them is the usual one of

chagrin, shock and embarrassment when they realize that they've broken

another one of their campaign promises, and when they realize that we

know it. They have broken a promise, Mr. Chairman.

The other objection that they raised is one which I'd like to deal

with now, discussing the amendment. That was the suggestion that the

auditor-general is somehow in a position to undertake the same duties

as would be undertaken by a member of the opposition were he to serve

on the board of directors of the British Columbia Buildings Corp.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, the inaccuracy and

falseness of that claim. The auditor-general serves an important

function, but in a very special sense he's only around to close the

barn door after the horse has run away. He cannot anticipate the work

or the responsibility of the corporation — any corporation; he does not

sit on the board of any corporation. The auditor-general is solely and

exclusively in a position to examine the records of action already

taken.

What this amendment proposes, Mr. Chairman, is that a member of the

opposition — accountable, honest and not susceptible to the political

pressures that members of the coalition are susceptible to — sit on the

board of directors and be in on the decision-making. The

auditor-general can only report after the decision has been taken. He

can only report after the money has been spent. He has no power and no

authority whatever to have a hand in the decision before it's made; he

can only report upon it after it's been made. So it's a false argument,

and should be rejected by any logical-minded member of this Legislature, to think that the auditor-general can somehow perform a

function that would be performed by the amendment suggested by the hon.

Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson).

So I'd like to remind this House, Mr. Chairman, through you, that we

need on the board of directors of this corporation a person who will

speak for the public interest; a person who does not represent the

political philosophy of the government in power; a person who's willing

to act in the public interest in advance of any possible accusation of

unusual dealings. We need a person there who's in a position to

guarantee the honourable and the fair and the honest conduct of this

corporation. The auditor-general can't do that. He can only make his

report after it's happened. He can only speak when it's too late.

If they are going to break their campaign promise, let them at least

overcome some of their shame by accepting this amendment. What

objections can you have? What reasonable arguments can you present, if

you intend to do your business properly, against having an opposition

member on the board of directors of the British Columbia Buildings

Corp.? What reasonable objection can you have? The answer's very

simple, Mr. Chairman. You can have none at all if you intend to do your

business honestly.

We're going to be watching the affairs of this corporation very

closely indeed.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Macdonald

King

Dailly

Cocke

Lauk

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace, B.B.

Gibson

Wallace, G.S.

NAYS — 24

McCarthy

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Phillips

Calder

Shelford

Chabot

Fraser

Davis

McClelland

Williams

Waterland

Mair

Nielsen

Davidson

Haddad

Hewitt

Kahl

Lloyd

Mussallem

Strongman

Veitch

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in

the Journals of the House.

Section 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

[ Page 2254 ]

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm appalled at this bill. I thought

that the government would have wanted to bring in amendments to

section

4 of this Act, which contains that terrible word "expropriation" — or

otherwise construct, maintain, sell, lease.... I recall, Mr. Chairman,

the terrible squeals of anguish and righteous indignation that were

mouthed by members of the coalition when they sat in the opposition

here. They talked about the danger of government having these broad,

sweeping powers.

The Attorney-General remembers very well. He knew the words before I

spoke them. He recalls the speeches he used to make. When I see the

really unnecessary powers that the government has taken unto themselves

in this bill, I find it absolutely amazing.

Mr. Chairman, the Social Credit Party opposed legislation that our

government introduced on the basis that expropriation was implied. I

recall wild and wonderful statements made by some of those people that

wristwatches and personal possessions would be taken from people, on

the basis of an

interpretation in their mind of "otherwise acquired."

In this bill, in

section 4(2)(a), we have expropriation powers

spelled right out: to acquire personal property, arbitrarily,

unilaterally. I see nothing in the bill, Mr. Chairman, that guarantees

a fair and equitable system of arbitration to residents of British

Columbia, citizens of British Columbia, who are subject to

expropriation moves by the government. I see nothing that protects the

interests of the private landowner or the property owner who is subject

to this arbitrary expropriation. Nothing guarantees that if he

disagrees with the offered price a system of fair arbitration will be

accorded to him, and I wonder at the double standards of the government.

They talk about bringing in an ombudsman,

an Act to provide an

ombudsman to British Columbians. They talk about bringing in more

enlightened legislation in terms of providing an auditor-general, and

yet where it counts, in a bill such as this, they seek and take unto

themselves extremely arbitrary powers, guaranteeing to citizens that

are injured or find their rights abused by these powers absolutely no

statutory guarantee that there will be a fair and equitable remedy in

law available to them.

This is a contradiction. It's in absolute contradiction, in my view,

with the government's stated policy of trying to provide a system of

open government, a system of protection of individual rights in this

province. I find it appalling that in further sections of the same

bill, which I'll have to come to at a later point, I guess.... No, it's

the same section,

section 4. We find such language as: "In addition to

its powers under this or any other Act the corporation, for the

purposes of this Act, may, in its own name, acquire land and buildings

by purchase, lease, exchange, expropriation, or otherwise." Now does

that "otherwise" mean arbitrary seizure? Does it mean that they're not

even called upon to go through the expropriation procedure? Does it

mean that they are able to acquire against the will of the citizen

without any respect to an expropriation procedure?

Further on, subsection (

e) uses this language: "...which provide more accommodation than is required for its

purposes at the time." I can recall, as the Conservative leader (Mr.

Wallace) pointed out the other day, extreme criticism coming from the

Premier about the former administration having more rental

accommodation than they could fully utilize at that given point in

time. Here is this government that was so vocal in criticism taking

unto themselves, by statutory right, far more accommodation, far more

premises and chattels than they have any prospect of utilizing fully,

and this by statute. I find this absolutely shocking, a complete double

standard in terms of that government's position.

I wonder where the press are on this particular issue that used to

zero in on the Premier's questions about X number of square feet of

rental property that was not fully utilized. Here's a statutory

provision for the government to take more than it actually needs for

the existing purposes of government operation. I don't know what they

have in mind, Mr. Chairman. It sounds rather sinister. I wonder if they

intend to speculate in land, for instance. I wonder if they want to

seize more land than is necessary to the day-to-day and current needs

of the government with the prospect of using this arbitrary power of

acquisition to simply speculate on the land market.

Yes, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) is giving me the

signal, and I intend to blow the whistle on this government, Mr.

Chairman. I certainly do intend to blow the whistle on them, because

this speculation is not idle.

I want to tell you that I come from an area of this province that

has seen the kind of land speculation by an agency of the Crown which I

refer to. I have seen and witnessed British Columbia Hydro acquiring by

expropriation more land than was necessary to their current needs and

ultimately selling back that land after subdivision to citizens of the

province at highly inflated prices, far more than they paid for the

land in the first place in terms of compensation to the initial owner.

I say that this is a shocking thing. To use an arbitrary power of

expropriation and of acquiring something against the citizen's will

flies right in the face of right to private ownership in this province,

which that government pays lip service to. Here they are in this bill

not even maintaining the status quo but, I submit, Mr. Chairman, going

much further than anything that existed on the statute books of British

Columbia in terms of intruding into the rights of

[ Page 2255 ]

ownership of private citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I have absolutely no assurance and this House has no

assurance that this kind of arbitrary acquisitory power is going to be

confined to land. Indeed, there's provision for premises. Subsection

(e)(ii) goes further and says: "....which include premises suitable

for commercial use and lease any such accommodation or premises to any

public or private body or person." In other words, they have the

specific, clearly spelled-out right to acquire, above the current needs

of the government, for the purpose of speculating — for the purpose of

exploiting an inflated rental market.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if their purpose in increasing the allowable

rental increases to the landowners of this province was tied to their

direction in this bill. I wonder if this government had an ulterior

motive in mind when they increased the allowable rental increase to

10.6 per cent and removed the New Democratic Party plan of protecting

small businessmen's interests in terms of commercial rentals. I wonder

if they had in mind to get in there and seize, by arbitrary power,

commercial development and buildings, premises beyond their needs, and

then speculate and rip off on the uncontrolled rental market they have

provided to the landholders in this province. These are powers that I

think this government must answer for.

I can just imagine the hue and cry if our government had ever

brought anything in like this. I say that it's about time that some of

those northern members — those who talk about the rights of

citizenship, who pass themselves off as the defenders of civil

liberties and human rights in this province — it's about time you got a

little starch in your spine and stood up and took a position on powers

like this, in opposition to those people who sit on the treasury

benches. Let's hear those voices that pass themselves off as the

defenders of the free rights of citizens in the north of this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: freedom-fighters!

MR. KING:

Section 4(h): "subject to and in accordance with

the Purchasing Commission Act, acquire by purchase, rental, or

otherwise, equipment, fixtures and other property" — other property —

"real or personal and movable or immovable, required for the land and

buildings." My goodness! This is carte blanche in terms of

expropriation rights to this government.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I remember all too well the

debacle of the Columbia River Treaty, where the rights and the private

property of people were, in fact, trampled over under the former Social

Credit administration — where bulldozers moved onto the property

because those landowners couldn't agree on an arbitrated or bargained

settlement of land costs; where Hydro sent in bulldozers to bulldoze

down buildings, and actually set them on fire, before any deal was made

for the acquisition of those chattels from the landowner.

So I think we must take this legislation very seriously. That has

happened in the past. I thought the era had gone by long ago where the

rights of citizens in this province would be brushed aside in such a

cavalier manner by any government. I view this extremely seriously —

personal property. What are you after in order to run an effective

government administration in this province? I submit that no government

needs that kind of unilateral, arbitrary power. I suggest that before

expropriation rights are extended any further in British Columbia, in

any area, there must be a fair reappraisal of all the expropriation

laws in this province. Lord knows, they're outdated and date back to

the Dark Ages in terms of recognizing citizens' rights. Our

administration had intended to move on this, and in fact had. I believe

my colleague, the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), was halfway

to his goal of submitting a new bill to this Legislature which would

enshrine in it the right of a fair arbitration procedure to all

citizens in conflict with the government over arbitration — the right

of an arbitration procedure, free from cost, to that citizen.

I suggest that before this new coalition administration intrudes

further into the rights of citizens, they have an obligation to protect

the citizen by providing a fair framework of law which offers redress

without unusual cost to the landowner. In the past I have seen those

landowners who could not agree with the government's offered price, who

subsequently went to court in an effort to find a reasonable and fair

resolution to their conflicts and ended up winning the case, Mr.

Chairman, only to find that their costs of taking that issue to court

far transcended the value that they achieved from the settlement.

That's pretty empty justice in this day and age, Mr. Chairman. It's

pretty empty justice when the government is willing to subject citizens

of this province to those kinds of costs to protect what is theirs

under law — what is theirs already under law — and should be recognized

rather than taken away in arbitrary, statutory form by this government.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this language is absolutely appalling.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if perhaps my colleague is right — perhaps this

is the legal profession's delight in terms of the litigation that will

flow from this kind of dilemma confronting our citizens. Perhaps that's

so.

What frightens me particularly, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that in

the Revelstoke area, in my area, o