1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY OCTOBER 30, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1059 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Abbotsford school district

dispute. Mr. Schroeder — 1059

Crime wave in Mission, Mr. Wallace — 1059

Proposed regulations for B.C. pubs. Mr. McGeer — 1059

Increase in elderly citizen renters grant. Mrs. Jordan — 1060

Additional police for City of Kelowna. Mr. Bennett — 1060

Clarification on 10-acre freeze. Mr. Williams — 1060

A Brownie in every cockpit. Mr. Phillips — 1060

Public hearings on proposed 400-ft.-wide Island Hydro strip. Mr. McGeer — 1060

Government purchase of stocks. Mr. Morrison — 1061

Documents on ferry purchase. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1061

Moratorium on riverbank logging. Mr. Wallace — 1061

Death-trap conditions in Vancouver east end hotels. Mr. Smith — 1061

Employment of women in B.C. liquor outlets, Mrs. Jordan — 1061

An Act to Amend the Queen Elizabeth 11 British Columbia

Centennial Scholarship Act (Bill 97). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1062

An Act to Amend the Succession Duty Act (Bill 69). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1062

Mr. Morrison — 1062

Mr. McGeer — 1062

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1062

An Act to Amend the Provincial Home Acquisition Act (Bill

83).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1063

Mr. Curtis — 1063

Ms. Sanford — 1064

Mr. Williams — 1064

Mr. Lewis — 1064

Mrs. Jordan — 1064

Mr. McGeer — 1064

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1064

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act (Bill 84). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1065

Mr. Morrison — 1066

Mr. McGeer — 1066

Mr. Wallace — 1066

Mrs. Jordan — 1067

Ms. Sanford — 1067

Mr. Williams — 1068

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1068

Mr. Richter — 1069

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1069

Pacific North Coast cooperative Native Loan Act (Bill 87).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1072

Mr. Morrison — 1072

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1072

Mr. Wallace — 1074

Mr. McGeer — 1074

Introduction Presentation of Dr. Linus Pauling to the House. Hon. Mr. Barrett

. — 1074

Mr. Richter — 1075

Mr. McGeer — 1075

Mr. Wallace — 1075

Mrs. Jordan — 1075

Routine proceedings

Pacific North Coast cooperative Native Loan Act (Bill 87).

Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 1075

Mr. Gardom — 1076

Mr. Phillips — 1077

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1078

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 1078

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1079

Department of Transportation and Communications Act (Bill

64).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 1081

Mr. Fraser — 1083

Mr. Williams — 1084

Mr. Wallace — 1085

Hon. Mr. Lea — 1088

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed this afternoon I'd like to

advise the Hon. Members that a very famous Nobel Peace Prize

winner will be here — who's also the only one to have won two

Nobel prizes, one for chemistry and the other for peace — Dr.

Linus Pauling. He will be arriving here at approximately 3:15

or 3:30. I would consider it an honour if we could introduce

him in the House. He will be available to Members in the

Members' lounge — the DeBeck Lounge — between 3:30 and 4:30 if

you care to meet him. There will be refreshments served there

for Members who are taking a break from the session. I hope

that some people remain in the chamber — we need a quorum of

10. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: There may be megavitamins as well.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker we have a visiting class

of students with us today from the Burnsville Junior Secondary

School in Delta. They are accompanied by their teachers Mr.

MacMillan, Mr. Godwin and Mr. Wenman who is a former Member of

this Legislature.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to introduce to the House a former Member of this

assembly, Mr. Ernie LeCours, a well-known critic of the last

two Attorneys General, and a man who gave very good service in

this House over quite a few terms of office.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome students from David

Thompson Secondary School in Vancouver South here with us

today. They are accompanied by four of their teachers, and I

would again ask the House to welcome them here today.

Oral questions.

ABBOTSFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT DISPUTE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): The question is for the

Minister of Education. I'd like to ask what steps she has taken

to help settle the dispute that exists between the

administration and the maintenance people in the school

district of Abbotsford.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I have not taken

any steps to date. I have planned a meeting to discuss this

with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King). This does not mean

that we're going to take any immediate action, but the two of

us like to be kept aware of just how serious a situation

is.

MR. SCHROEDER: Is the Minister aware that the dispute is

ageing — it started off May of last year and the mediation

officer's report was filed a week ago Monday? In spite of his

report which offers a substantial pay increase, the strike is

continuing. This morning the teamsters did not cross the picket

line and the buses did not run. Is she aware?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, Mr. Member. I appreciate the

information you have given me and I will discuss it with the

Minister of Labour.

CRIME WAVE IN MISSION

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

Attorney General: in view of the 12.5 per cent increase in

crime per year, and in view of a telegram I have received from

Mission, is he aware of the serious wave of breaking and

enterings in Mission? And has he been asked to take any measure

to bring this under control?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of that

particular situation in that particular municipality. But I'm

glad that the Hon. Member has drawn it to my attention and I

will have it looked at.

PROPOSED REGULATIONS

FOR B.C. PUBS

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, the

Attorney General: in view of the inordinate delays of the

Liquor Control Board in issuing regulations regarding pubs in

British Columbia, has the Attorney General any announcement to

make as to when these regulations will be available?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, regulations are being

worked upon at the present time. But they will have to be

carefully considered by the three Liquor Control Board members,

and their view upon those new regulations will be sought, so I

can't give a time limit. I don't want to say when they're in

draft form that a certain number of months will pass before

they're promulgated — or it may be a shorter time. But the

important thing is that the drafting process is now well under

way.

INCREASE IN ELDERLY

CITIZEN RENTERS GRANT

[ Page 1060 ]

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Through you, Mr. Speaker,

to the Hon. Premier: I'd like to ask, in view of the rising

inflationary costs, the growing shortage of apartments and the

increase in rent, has he put into effect yet any efforts to

increase the Elderly Citizen Renters Grant Act to $100 per

year, effective for 1973?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): It's not an item in this year's

budget, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

gravity of the situation is the Premier prepared to introduce a

special bill at this session to meet this emergency need for

the elderly renters of this province?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, I think that would be out of

order under the rules.

MRS. JORDAN: Why, why?

ADDITIONAL POLICE

FOR CITY OF KELOWNA

MR. W.R. BENNETT (South Okanagan): To the Attorney General.

Earlier this year the City of Kelowna was enlarged arbitrarily,

and at that time the government promised to cover the policing

costs for the next three years. Although the provisional

council asked for 24 additional policemen for the new area, the

government promised 10 in this calendar year. Can the Attorney

General tell me how many of these peace officers have been

supplied as of this date?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, that question is really

being looked at in terms of the new budget for the forthcoming

year, and in terms of the total availability of RCMP officers

throughout the whole province. I can't say that it will receive

any more immediate attention than that.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary, but on the same question: I'm

talking about the promise that was made for this particular

year, not next year. They promised 10 peace officers. It is my

understanding that there are only two RCMP officers for a

20-mile radius and 15,000 people per shift at this particular

time. People are concerned that this government's commitment to

the area wasn't met.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Member has

drawn it to my attention. I will see whether or not the

budgetary question I referred to can be expedited and

consideration given to the immediate situation if there is a

real need there — even prior to the next budget — for additional

policing. It will receive consideration.

CLARIFICATION ON 10-ACRE FREEZE

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): To the Hon.

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Since the

filing of the report of the Select Standing Committee on

Municipal Affairs there seems to be a great deal of

misunderstanding and, indeed, misapprehension about the

continuation of what we know as the 10-acre freeze in our

island communities. I wonder if the Minister would be prepared

to make a statement in that respect now.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I think

it is fair to say that the so-called 10-acre freeze will remain

on the islands that are presently involved with it until such

action as may be deemed necessary is taken on the report of the

municipal matters committee. The islands will be protected

until the other action is taken in order that there can be

normality brought back to the islands again.

A BROWNIE IN EVERY COCKPIT

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the Minister in charge of the new jet air fleet. I

would like to know, since these planes are predominantly

purchased for photography, whether the Minister is going to

leave cameras on the planes so that Ministers, when travelling,

can take pictures. Or is the Minister going to supply each

cabinet Minister with his own Brownie so that when they are

travelling they can take these pictures?

AN HON. MEMBER: A Brownie in every cockpit.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Well,

I think that once the present Ministers get the long experience in flying that

the previous cabinet had, which will take us 10 years to accumulate, then we

will consider whether or not we should buy Instamatics in gross lots.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED

400-FT.-WIDE ISLAND HYDRO STRIP

MR. McGEER: To the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. Mr.

Williams). With the proposed B.C. Hydro line and the 400-ft.

wide strip that will be taken for that power line, will the

Environment and Land Use Committee

schedule public hearings

regarding the location of that line that is to run up to

Campbell River?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources) .

The environment and land use secretariat is carrying on discussions with the

B.C.

[ Page 1061 ]

Hydro regarding various environmental matters.

MR. McGEER: A supplementary here. Will there be public

hearings on this question?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I will take this question under

advisement.

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF STOCKS

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

address my question to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as

Minister of Finance. Has the government, under the Revenue Act,

purchased any shares on the open stock market during the last

month; and, if so, what stocks are being traded or were

purchased?

HON. MR. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): I will take that

question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MORRISON: Could I then add an additional question as a

supplemental? Does the government have any buy orders placed

now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take that as additional notice.

DOCUMENTS ON FERRY PURCHASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

Some time ago I asked him whether he would table documents

concerning the ferry purchase contracts. May I ask him whether

he's had any opportunity to consider this matter so that we can

determine from the documents whether or not the same

specifications were given to Canadian as well as American

firms.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I tabled all the documents that that

resolution referred to.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, the question I asked you, Mr.

Minister, was approximately a week ago in the House. You at

that time said that you would consider it and examine the

documents and let us know in due course.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said I would take it under

consideration, and I'm still considering it.

MORATORIUM ON

RIVERBANK LOGGING

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon., Mr. Williams) if he is giving any consideration

to imposing a moratorium on the logging practices on river banks as a result

of the recommendations of the forestry committee;

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Not a moratorium per se, no.

DEATH-TRAP CONDITIONS IN

VANCOUVER EAST END HOTELS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and if he would reflect

back a few days to a disastrous hotel fire in the City of

Vancouver: in view of the fact that under the liquor Act hotels

can be denied licences for cause, has the fire marshal's office

taken a hand in looking into the death-trap situations that

seem to exist in some of the Vancouver east end hotels?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, of course the fire marshal

has the authority to take action if it is a fire hazard; and

that would be the primary source of any action. But I haven't

received a report on that particular fire from the fire marshal

personally. Perhaps my department has, so I'll have to take it

as notice.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental. I presume that that report is

forthcoming from the fire marshal. Perhaps in view of his

report, the fire marshal, in his capacity, could use the powers

of his office to alleviate the situation that exists apparently

in other hotels besides the one where they had that fire a few

weeks ago — or a few days ago.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is somewhat inferential

and really is not appropriate.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

IN B.C. LIQUOR OUTLETS

MRS. JORDAN: My question is almost a supplemental question

to yesterday's question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Hall) regarding discrimination against women in the civil

service. I would ask if he has got together with the Hon.

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) to do away with the

discrimination that exists today in the hiring of women for

liquor stores.

The problem appeared to be in the area of the lifting of

weights as it related to workmen's compensation. I would ask if

the Provincial Secretary has done something, because my

understanding from discussing this with many vendors is that

very few of them actually do any lifting. There are many women

that would like to work in the liquor stores in British

Columbia.

[ Page 1062 ]

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

question, as you know, has been addressed to various Ministers

over the last little while. I understand, from conversations

with the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), who has also

been in touch with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King), that

such discussions are going on. I understand that the Liquor

Control Board personnel are looking into the question of

facilities for women who are going to be working in the various

vending places — such as the provisions of toilets and things

like that. So it is under active consideration.

As far as an amendment to the Factories Act, we are puzzled

at the moment as to how best to amend that without really

starting something we can't, in effect, finish because of some

of the federal restrictions.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the Minister's reply. I would also

just suggest that — and I do appreciate the problem — but I

hope the facilities will not be pink.

MR. SPEAKER: No speeches please.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE QUEEN ELIZABETH II BRITISH

COLUMBIA CENTENNIAL SCHOLARSHIP ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the Queen

Elizabeth II British Columbia Centennial Scholarship Act .

Bill 97 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.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I move we proceed to public bills

and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 69, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE SUCCESSION DUTY ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the British Columbia Succession Duty

Act allows a credit of taxes paid in other Canadian provinces by British Columbia

residents whose inheritance is also taxed by that other province. It is now

proposed through this bill to extend this credit by allowing it to taxes paid

to foreign jurisdictions. Most of the other Canadian provinces levying a succession

duty now provide a foreign tax credit. Its purpose is to avoid double taxation

of the same bequest.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): On this Act it would appear

that on a number of occasions during this session we have made

various excursions into the field of diplomacy. It's one thing

to give a tax credit to another province, but it appears to be

quite another thing to give a tax credit to a foreign

jurisdiction. We are wondering if this is whittling away our

legislative power and just exactly what the most favoured

nation status on this particular bill means.

We would like the Premier, in closing this debate, to tell

us a little more specifically what nations he has in mind and

what the jurisdictions are and exactly what the reasons are.

Having it in Canada is one thing, but favoured nation status is

quite another thing. In principle we are not opposed to it; we

would just like to know why.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, this is

correcting a fault in the Act that we drew to the attention of

the former government at the time this particular Act was

introduced.

The First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) who spoke about

how we were giving tax jurisdiction away to some other nation

ignores the fact that these other nations, particularly the

United States, grant exemptions on taxes they normally levy to

Canadians — to Canadian corporations and to Canadian

individuals. While every individual should pay a fair share of

taxes to every government and every jurisdiction from which he

gains benefit, it is most unfair to have people — not matter

where they live — paying the same tax two and three times.

It isn't a question of British Columbia giving away tax

concessions to a foreign nation, it is merely British Columbia

as a taxing jurisdiction behaving in a civilized accepted

manner as all nations and all jurisdictions do.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier has seen

fit to permit this change in legislation to come forward

because it is civilized and fair; it's mature, I frankly could

not understand how the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Bennett) could have permitted for so many years such a bald

parochialism to continue.

We are not doing anything great or anything striking by

this; all we are doing is showing, as a jurisdiction, we're not

in short pants any longer. We support this particular

amendment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a few comments in closing the debate.

It is not a tax credit to a foreign

[ Page 1063 ]

jurisdiction, Mr. Speaker. That is incorrect and I know that

the Member will not carry that message abroad. It is a credit

to a B.C. resident based on tax paid in a foreign jurisdiction.

As the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) points out,

it's unfair to tax an estate twice on that basis.

I'm interested in the official opposition's spokesman on the

question of this whole matter since we find in this amendment

discussion around a bill that was first brought in by the

Social Credit government and then, in the last election

campaign, opposed by that government. I'm not clear after the

Member's statement whether or not…. I find myself confused — after this party having brought the bill in and then opposing

it in an election campaign and then somehow trying to leave the

impression that we were giving something out of this bill that

they are opposed to, although they brought it in

themselves.

Now, I am very confused, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry that that

Member won't have the opportunity to explain it. Perhaps in

committee he can give us a fourth position by that party and

then we can have it split two-to-two — two for and two

against.

The Member of Vancouver–Point Grey, whose party is against

succession duty, is quite correct in his analysis of this

particular section. I recall, if I am quoting him correctly,

through you, Mr. Speaker, he was suggesting that all we

gathered out of this bill was peanuts. Well, the last lump of

peanuts we got amounted to $300 million worth of peanuts.

That's an awful lot of peanuts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Those peanuts flew

over the mountains.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, my friend says "flew over the

mountains" and I say that if any British Columbian left the

Province of British Columbia to avoid taxes — good riddance.

Those people who have made their fortunes in this province have

an obligation to see that their estates pay a fair share. We're

being mature, as the Member said, by recognizing other

jurisdictions, but I will tell you this: regardless of the

schizophrenic position of the Social Credit Party, regardless

of the position of the Liberals and Conservatives, as long as

we are in power there will be a succession duty tax in the

Province of British Columbia.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 69 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 83, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PROVINCIAL HOME ACQUISITION ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under the Provincial Home Acquisition Act ,

a person must rent in the province for a two-year period before

applying for a grant or second mortgage on the purchase of an

older home, It has been brought to our attention that this works a

hardship on returned servicemen who are unable to qualify under

the two-year rental provision due to absence from the province

on service duties. This bill, therefore, alters the

qualifications required by servicemen in order to apply for

grants or mortgages on the purchase of older homes. He or she

will now be required to have lived in the province for a

five-year period immediately prior to being sent out of the

province by the armed services, and the two-year rental

requirement is eliminated. The Provincial Home Acquisition Act

will apply to servicemen now in the same manner on the purchase

of a new or older home.

The other two amendments on the bill are designed to protect

the Crown's interest when a second mortgage loan is secured

against real property or granted against a mobile home.

Might I say, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has enjoyed a role of

being chosen by the United Nations, on occasion, to be peace

keepers. There have been citizens of this province who have

been called to that duty by the federal government and as a

result have not been able to take advantage of the Provincial

Home Acquisition Act . By passing this amendment today, we are

giving recognition, in a small way, to those citizens who have

been called for such duty by our federal government.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to congratulate the Premier and his colleagues for

moving to introduce this amendment which should have been

looked after quite some time ago.

There was one particular case, which I drew to the Premier's

attention and also to the attention of the Minister Without

Portfolio responsible for housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson), of a

gentleman who was posted out of the province in the service of

the armed forces and had a fantastic run-around when he

returned. Hopefully, after the amendment becomes law, some of

this confusion — I hesitate to use the word bureaucratic

confusion, but I think that is most appropriate — hopefully

some of it can be cleared away. This individual went from

office to office to office trying to find out precisely what

was going on and what were his rights and what was he not able

to do.

Passage of the amendment, while commendable

[ Page 1064 ]

and timely, is one thing, but making it easier for the

individuals who have been hung up in this way, I think, is also

most important.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome

this amendment, too. I know I have had constituents with the

same complaint. I know that at least one case from Comox riding

was brought to the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Barrett'

s) attention.

In Comox riding where we have one of the largest air bases

in Canada, this is a common problem. People are coming back

because they like to settle again in Comox Valley once they are

out of the air force, then find that they have not been able to

get this grant through the provincial government. I know they

welcome the change.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I do congratulate the Minister of Finance for this move, but I

wonder if in closing the debate he would indicate why he limits

the right to those people who are absent from the province by

reason of service in the armed forces. There are other citizens

of this province who serve in equally distinguished ways: with

the United Nations, with the federal government through their

services and through universities which oblige them to absent

themselves from this province for periods of time.

Because there is such a vast number of circumstances for

which citizens of this province may be obliged to absent

themselves, I would hope that the government might feel it

appropriate to bring forward an amendment which would give some

discretion for applications to be made and, in a proper case,

for exemptions to the rather stringent requirements for

qualification to be allowed.

I certainly do agree with the armed forces situation, but

there should be some method of reviewing the case of individual

residents in the province who may not fall within that strict

classification.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): I too welcome this bill, but I'd

like to ask the Premier, through you, if there is any

possibility that the RCMP could be included in this type of

legislation. I've had several officers come to me and say that

they have been sent out of the province for a period of time,

and return to the province to find that they can no longer be

eligible for the benefits. I also feel that the RCMP is a form

of public service, the same as the armed forces, and

consideration should be given to this. Thank you.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We certainly support this

amendment. The Hon. Member for Shuswap stole the force from my

words; I was going to speak on behalf of the RCMP.

I would also like to ask the Minister to take under

advisement — recognizing you don't want to open this too wide — the concern of students who have grown up in British Columbia,

who may have gone to university here, who left for

post-graduate studies and who returned to B.C. to work.

Most students graduating find themselves in a very difficult

financial situation. They come back to British Columbia, want

to start in employment, often have families and want to

purchase a home. Up to now they have been excluded. I could

cite a case of a minister who took his PhD and came back.

Ministers are notoriously underpaid; he had a family and yet he

couldn't qualify. I hope the Premier would consider this in

reviewing further amendments to this Act.

MR. McGEER: I merely wish to echo the remarks of several

speakers here. I think it is quite evident from the debate so

far that the problem with respect to the armed forces, while no

less important than the other problems that have been raised

with regard to residency, in terms of numbers is perhaps one of

the smaller exceptional groups. I would hope, perhaps even at

this session, that the Minister might consider either

introducing amendments or accepting amendments that surely will

be put on the order paper by opposition Members to permit some

of the quite severe injustices to be corrected.

Of course, I think particularly of students because they're

the ones who are leaving British Columbia to improve their

training and will be able to make a better contribution as

British Columbians at some future time. We certainly don't

offer the full range of educational opportunities here in

British Columbia, making it necessary for people who want to

acquire all sorts of advanced skills to leave the province in

order to do so.

I don't think anybody is broker than a student the day he

graduates. Here they are, usually at the stage of starting

their families and beginning the building up of an equity in

life at a later age than most people. They have double jeopardy

because, in finishing their training and extending the time

until they can start on this process, they've disqualified

themselves from the very thing that the government really

intended in establishing this legislation.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Premier in

closing the debate if he would give us a little explanation on

section 3? There are parts of that, particularly (8), that

we're a little….

Interjection.

MR. MORRISON: In the committee?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I now have some idea why the

former Minister of Finance (Hon.

[ Page 1065 ]

Mr. Bennett) refused to amend anything, because once….

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, opening the can of worms. But we're

willing to risk that. As a matter of fact, this kind of

amendment brings forth excellent suggestions and I will

certainly review some of them.

I would like to state a note of appreciation to the Member

for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and the Member for Saanich and the

Islands (Mr. Curtis) who wrote to my office outlining specific

cases rather than discussing the problem in the abstract. They

gave specific cases with reasons surrounding it which brought

forward this amendment.

MR. GARDOM: I did it three years in a row.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I wasn't around then; it was

different administration. I'm far more receptive, Mr. Speaker,

and if the Member continues to write me about his cases, I'll

consider responding…. not always.

The suggestions about the RCMP and the students are most

attractive and I will say that this will be reviewed by the

Finance department.

In terms of any civilian who has been called from British

Columbia by the United Nations on any service to the United

Nations, I will say right now that the regulations will include

that person.

I speak from personal experience about post-graduate

students. Both of our two oldest children were born between

universities.

MRS. JORDAN: I hope there were hospitals there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: …in hospitals between universities — we

lost our medical coverage of both deliveries and pregnancy

periods, and we were faced with fantastic hospital bills.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I know, but at that time we didn't

have the B.C. Government Medical Plan; we had the voluntary

plan and we lost it on a residence basis. That was one of the

motivations, Mr. Speaker, for me to fight for socialized

medicine. Although it was late in my case, it was helpful in

others.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh well, you made money, we lost it.

Mr. Speaker, the point raised by the Member for North

Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) and the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is absolutely correct.

There is added weight to the argument about students because

many of them have gone from the province to acquire skills that

we were not able to provide here in our universities and coming

back with those skills to serve the people of British Columbia.

That has a great deal of merit to it. I don't see an amendment

immediately but I will discuss it with the Finance department.

If it's feasible, we'll certainly amend it next spring.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I appreciate that they lose that

too, Mr. Member, but that's a separate matter that….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'll talk to the Minister of

Education (Mrs. Dailly). The question outlined is a can of

worms. In this particular instance, I'd like to check. I don't

think there are that many people involved; I just don't believe

that. If the case is such that these people can be umbrella-ed,

then certainly the amendments will be forthcoming.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 83 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 84, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TAXATION ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment

to the Taxation Act is to encourage persons who now wish to

donate their property to the province by allowing them to live

on the property tax free during their lifetime. This exemption

would extend to the lifetime of the owner or any other person

he designates, if approved by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

This Act is made retroactive to include donations of property

made during the year 1973.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a whole new phenomenon developed

in this province since the advent of Bill 42 and the debate

around that land bill. There is a growing consciousness, Mr.

Speaker, about the ownership of land and the fact that

ownership of land in itself may be, as a philosophical

question, a questionable practice.

Many people have written this government since

[ Page 1066 ]

the debate on the land bill offering land free to the Crown

for the benefit of the people of British Columbia. Some of the

more notable gifts to the people of British Columbia were noted

in the throne speech. I have asked the Provincial Secretary to

consider some special award or some special token of

recognition to those people in this province who do, out of

generosity, give their land to the people of this province.

Another attempt to meet this growing spontaneous

development, Mr. Speaker, is this amendment. For those people

who do donate their land to the province, then this amendment

will say that no longer must they pay taxes during their

lifetime for that land. A notable case, Mr. Speaker, is the

Ruckles family in the Gulf Islands.

There have been other notable examples: the name of the

family escapes me at this moment, but the donation at

Revelstoke of that large block of land.

This is a strange bringing-together of the ideas of young

people and of the elderly. Those of us in the middle group are

not as spontaneously generous as the very young and the very

old; but for those who are so generous I say that this is a

small recognition of their generosity. We hope that we're able

to recognize them in a far more tangible way in terms of some

award or plaque or some system of merit.

It is a wonderful development to witness that people are

actually giving land back to the Crown for other citizens to

enjoy. It's one of the most pleasant experiences I've had since

being in office. I hope it continues to grow, Mr. Speaker, and

I hope this amendment encourages that growth.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, we think that this is a wonderful

suggestion that people are giving land, but I would like to

draw to the attention of the Premier that it is not something

that is new. There has been a number of cases on record in the

past.

There are some other questions that another of our Members

would like to bring up concerning it, but in principle we certainly heartily concur with those people who wish to share

their land with the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Point

Grey.

MR. McGEER: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, did I say…? (Laughter.) Order! I want

to assure you all I was not at any party last night.

(Laughter.)

The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

MR. McGEER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You had me worried there for a moment.

There's one less seat in this little group than there was yesterday. We were

wondering if another would be gone by tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, naturally we support this piece of legislation

and welcome it. One of the attractive aspects, apart from the

fact that the public will benefit as a whole from these acts of

generosity, is to look at the other side of it and consider

what a welcome relief it is for people who are beyond their

earning years and who need the income they have to sustain

themselves, in their homes and on their land, not to be faced

with the oppressive burden of property taxes.

The government naturally will welcome property on the Gulf

Islands that will be turned into a beautiful park for the

people. But if you have a 33-foot lot in Vancouver East and the

choice is between paying exorbitant rent or perhaps trying to

find a spot in a nursing home or otherwise be dispossessed if

you cannot find exorbitant property tax funds, then the choice

isn't as happy for them as it is for the person who may be

relatively land-wealthy and who has a piece of property that

the Crown would consider valuable as parkland. For the

individuals concerned it may be just as difficult or even more

difficult to raise the property taxes, and that 33-foot lot in

Vancouver East may be more precious to them, more important to

their happiness than this wonderfully attractive plot that was

brought out as an example by the Minister.

I think we should be broadening this concept, looking at the

burden of property taxes on those who are beyond their earning

years, and exempting them from their property taxes, even if

they aren't returning the land to the Crown. They can't take

that land with them, and for many years Members of the Liberal

Party have suggested that back taxes could be paid whenever

that property was disposed of, whether the Crown disposes of it

or whether it is disposed of by beneficiaries of the

estate.

The important side of this that I would like the government

to consider is the relief it will bring to elderly people in

British Columbia to know that they can live out their lives in

their homes and on their property without facing that darkening

sword each year of increasing property taxes being loaded on a

rising cost of living when their income remains relatively

constant. We'd be doing a far better act for the people of

British Columbia if we were to broaden the whole concept of

this piece of legislation to remove all property taxes from all

people over the age of 65 — back taxes, if you like, to be

collected at some future time by the government from the

beneficiaries of their estate.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We certainly stand here to

support the principle of this bill. There are one or two

questions which will arise in committee, I'm sure, but the

examples that the Premier quoted I think will serve as a

stimulus to

[ Page

1067 ]

others.

The CBC television news, as a matter of fact, ran a film on

the property of Revelstoke — and I also forget the name of the property owners; it's a brother and sister as I recall — and

gave some real impression of the sweep of land and the

tremendous value that this land would have as parkland.

The former speaker has widened the scope of the debate

somewhat by suggesting that all property tax be taken off land

for all people over the age of 65. I think that is something

worthy of consideration, but within the confines of this bill I

think the Premier is setting a very good example to the people

of the province to take up the idea of donating their land, if

this is their wish, to the Crown.

While this is recognition by freeing them of taxes, Mr.

Speaker, through you to the Premier, I would suggest that

perhaps we should also set up some other formal measure of

recognition which does something more than just give them

freedom from taxation while they live on the land. I think

there should be some kind of role or record or some kind of

publicity given to the continuing donation of the land, perhaps

in this building or somewhere in an appropriate form, which

would not only give publicity but hopefully encourage others to

follow suit. But we strongly support the principle of this

bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't wish to repeat the majority of

statements made by the other Members in support of this bill,

but in speaking to the principle one or two questions come to

mind which I would hope the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) would elaborate upon when he's moving second reading.

The first is whether or not this bill will relate directly or

indirectly to grants of land to municipalities and regional

districts.

While I accept the Premier's statements on the generosity

and the deep motivation of people who do donate lands to the

people of British Columbia, I would suggest that this is not a

new phenomenon. There are many communities and there are many

areas of the province where land has been donated. Certainly in

the Okanagan Valley there are areas where there have been lands

donated for park purposes, for school board purposes, to

municipalities for similar purposes. If it is not equated in

this bill, I wonder if the Premier would consider an amendment

to the Municipal Act which would allow for the same opportunity

to exist if land is given to a regional district or if land is

given to a municipality. I think this is important in view of

the fact that we now have Crown lands which, for example, might

be under the jurisdiction of the Parks Branch but are in fact

being turned over to regional districts for management and

operation. And this could happen even more frequently in the

future.

The next question that comes to mind in speaking to the principle of this Act

is whether or not the donor is free to designate the use to which the land may

be put, not only immediately, but in the future. I'm not suggesting that the

donor should have complete right, but I am suggesting that when this happens

generally, with the exception of the odd weird plot that appears in various

parts of British Columbia, there is discussion with the parks branch or public

works or any number of branches as to the use to which this land might be best

put.

If this is to be the case, will there be some sort of

assurance that this commitment of use will be honoured, not

only by this administration but by future administrations? I

would think that to honour this commitment, it would probably

have to be done by

an Act of the Legislature — or it would

require

an Act of the Legislature to remove the use of the land

from its designation.

I know it doesn't happen often, but I was involved in a

specific case where a gentleman was making up his will leaving

a considerable sum of money and some property to a municipality

but it really didn't come into effect until after the end of

the 19th century. He had a very definite purpose in mind, but

at the time I advised him that I felt there could be no

guarantee for what he was proposing. I think when it comes to

the point of donating land, within reason, there should be some

assurance that it will be used in perpetuity for the purpose

for which the donor gave it and designated it.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to speak in

support of this bill and agree with the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) that we should continue to give some sort of

recognition to the people who do donate land to the

province.

I had two of my constituents down here on opening day of the

House because they were being recognized that day for the

donation which they had made in Comox riding. You know, it

meant a lot of them to be here in the House that day and to

receive that kind of recognition.

The Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was making

some comments concerning the difficulty people have paying

their taxes on 33-ft. lots in places like Vancouver. The same

applies in areas that are more rural in the province. Very

often people have bought two or three or four acres and have

found that the whole community has grown up around them. Now,

they do not want to subdivide that two or three or four acres,

but they find they just cannot keep up with the taxes they are

facing because of the increase in the value of their property

as a result of the growth around them.

These people don't want to subdivide; they don't want to

leave their home; they don't want to move into an apartment;

they don't want to move into a home of any kind. They just want

to stay where they

[ Page 1068 ]

are. I think this is an excellent opportunity for them to

live out their lives in that place free from taxation. I

support the bill.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, just very briefly and in line

with the suggestions made by the Member for North Okanagan

(Mrs. Jordan) that municipalities should be given this right.

May I assure the Member that this right already exists under

very properly drawn agreements between the donors of land to

municipalities.

The late, highly-respected Dr. Ethlyn Trapp, a decade or

more ago, gave a significant parcel of land to the municipality

of West Vancouver for park purposes. It was so conveyed that

the use of the land for park purposes was assured in

perpetuity. It was also provided at that particular time that

Dr. Trapp could continue to occupy the property for the balance

of her life, which regretfully ended not many months ago.

I, too, support this principle. I believe that donors of

land should be encouraged to come forward at times when they

can see the wisdom of making these donations, but they should

not be subject to the imposition, and sometimes the hardship,

of tax once having taken that generous attitude.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, there are a

number of questions which come to mind. This Act, an amendment

to the Taxation Act, as I see it, will apply basically outside

of municipalities; in other words, in the area where perhaps 20

per cent of the population lives.

Within a municipality if a person donates his property to

the Crown, as I understand it, this Act would not apply because

municipal taxation would still be there and the Crown has no

intention, as I understand the Minister of Finance, of picking

up the municipal taxation if someone was generous enough to

donate their property within the municipality to the Crown.

Perhaps if my understanding on this is incorrect, the Minister

of Finance will comment on it when he closes the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I heartily approve of the bill and the concept

of it. The concept, I might add, is not new at all. In Britain

we have the provisions which have made the National Trust

possible, and that dates back to before the turn of the

century. Ironically, back in the 1890s it was started up with

an American who donated money for the purchase of land for

their National Trust.

More recently, there's the Mayne Island Trust, which I know something about

and have visited, where again land is put aside with provisions such as this.

But I think the real vehicle that we need at this stage to make such donations

more numerous and to make them more attractive is some sort of vehicle such

as the Mayne trust or, of course, the British National Trust.

It's fine to donate land to the Crown — a nice gesture to

donate it all to the people — however, people generally like,

and it's been found to be far more effective, to donate land to

a trust of some sort run by a board of governors which is

independent of the government and which could then take over

more land and also acquire easement.

A very important factor, which I think has yet to be

discussed fully by us in this Legislature, is the Crown's need

to purchase easements in areas — for example the Gulf Islands.

If there is an area which is covered in arbutus and is

attractive from the water, and for aesthetic purposes it should

not be cut, there is no need to own the land. You can, however,

acquire the easement either by gift or by purchase. A great

number of our problems with land use in B.C. would, I think, be

overcome with a greater use of easements.

Mr. Speaker, there's one other point I'd like to bring to

the attention of the Minister of Finance. During the last

session we amended the Municipal Act dealing with heritage

buildings, either historic or heritage buildings — buildings of

architectural value, historic value, buildings that represent a

period, a time in our history, and, of course, Victoria has

many of these. The Emily Carr House is perhaps one very close

to us and well known.

The problem that arises, however, is that there's absolutely

no financial provision in any legislation I know of, municipal

or provincial, to protect such heritage houses by way of, for

example, tax credits or easements on taxation, by way of

granting assistance to preserve these generally large pieces of

property which are very attractive for development purposes,

but on which you have only one house which is probably an

inefficient house in terms of heating, in terms of housing

people because of its age. We have lost many houses. The Parrot

House in Victoria was one which was lost not too long ago, and

they're now building on the very site. We are losing our

heritage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Historical sites.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Finance rightly mentions

historic sites, but some of these buildings are not historic so

much as of heritage value; they represent a certain period.

There's a legal distinction here which unfortunately had not

been covered when we amended the Municipal Act and nothing

within this Act would seem to assist either.

Certainly we want to preserve properties outside of

municipalities, no question about that. We accept and applaud

the intent of this particular amendment, but we do feel it

should go a great deal further. There is no provision now for

assistance in either heritage or historic buildings. There is

no provision for assistance within municipalities, and yet that

is where the bulk of the population live — 75 to 80 per cent of

it.

[ Page 1069 ]

We feel that if we are getting into this question of

assisting by way of relief from taxes, we should also be

willing to do the corollary which is assistance by way of

grants in lieu of a taxation relief, for example, within a

municipality itself. This type of assistance is not now

provided, and we would strongly urge that it be done.

In addition, I would just like to agree with my colleague

from Point Grey that it is perfectly feasible to set up a

system whereby senior citizens can have their property turned

over to the Crown in return for having their taxes relieved for

their lifetime. The actuarial tables are established; it's

perfectly simple to set up a system whereby they can be

relieved of all future municipal taxation for the rest of their

lives, for the rest of the period they intend to live in their

homes. Indeed, it may well be possible to pay them in addition

a certain amount of money if the value of the property is

extensive.

We in this party, and I in particular, most strongly endorse

the concept of allowing senior citizens to take advantage of

the same type of legislation, legislation with the same

principle as this, which would allow them to be relieved of

municipal taxation and in the future have that property turned

over to the Crown after the death of the surviving spouse.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this

bill has much greater impact than what may appear on the

surface. While it covers Crown land or land that is Crown

granted and would be donated to the government or sold to the

government with the proviso the party would be able to live on

the land, there is nothing in this Act which says that portions

of that land may be resold by the government as they see fit.

So you could have a substantial acreage — let us use a

hypothetical figure of 20 acres — have a home on an acre or two

of it and the balance, after you had donated it to the

government, there's no provision here saying that the

government is going to allow it to remain in that particular

status or classification, and naturally they could sell it.

Under the existing legislation, much of the land today under

the Land Commission Act has become a liability to many of the

people and they would naturally be quite happy to get out of

that liability and turn it over to the government. However, it

doesn't have to remain in the classification set down under

Bill 42; there is nothing to preclude the government removing

it from that classification once they become the owners of

it.

I want to commend people who are prepared to donate land to the Crown for recreation

and other purposes of that nature that benefit the community and the citizens.

But when it comes to being forced off your land and taking this as second best,

well then, of course, I have some reservations in my mind in this relationship.

Certainly there is nothing in this Act to preclude the government changing the

status of that land in order to do with it as they see fit.

While I am quite prepared to support legislation that

permits the donation of land to the Crown, I have definite

reservations in my mind as to its future use.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier closes the debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing sinister

about the bill. You know, Mr. Speaker, I find it really

interesting how a little bit paranoiac some Members get after

they've been in this House under repression for 20 years. They

get a little bit of light in their life and immediately they

are suspicious that something can't possibly be good because

they never got anything good when they were in power.

Mr. Speaker, a new day has dawned in British Columbia and

people don't feel frustrated about their government in the way

they did before. And I understand, Mr. Speaker, why the former

Minister is suspicious; he was never even allowed to discuss

this kind of thing in the previous cabinet. When a little bit

of enlightenment hits him, he gets nervous and worried.

MR. RICHTER: Don't fool yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't kid myself?

MR. RICHTER: Don't fool yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't fool myself. You are a prisoner of

the past.

I can remember how they used to brag when they had a caucus

meeting, a two-day caucus meeting, and the highlight was that

the Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) even came for an hour.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what Dr. McDiarmid said.

MR. GARDOM: That was leap year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the highlight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. former Minister (Mr. Richter), let me

assure you and the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan),

when people donate their land, their request as to how they

want the land

[ Page 1070 ]

used will be a major factor in deciding how the land should

be used. If they say it should be used as a parking lot,

obviously, you know….

The people who have the motivation, the people who have

arrived at a philosophical decision and thus have a motivation

to donate land to the province are obviously people who have a

great love for British Columbia and a concern about park area,

are concerned about open space, and their wishes would be

respected by this government.

Now, what are the checks on this? Can you imagine a better

issue if you were a Member of the opposition and somebody

donated 50 acres for a park and the government carved it up and

put a parking lot on it?

MRS. JORDAN: How about the University Endowment Lands?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Has it happened yet?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, good. Have a good go. All I'm

suggesting is that the role of the opposition is to criticize.

I know you are having difficulty finding anything to criticize,

but if we do on occasion make a mistake, let me be the first to

point it out to you so that you can have a good go at us.

Mr. Speaker, when somebody donates land for a park,

obviously it will stay as a park, if that is the most practical

use for the land.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aha!

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, then. Okay. Vote against the

amendment and then I'll have to go and tell everybody you're

against donating land to the province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I just have to simplify this thing that

way, Mr. Speaker. I'm always forced to simplify. I don't like

to do it; it doesn't come easy to me. But when I'm forced this

way, I'll have to tell the people that you were opposed to this

concept.

MR. McGEER: Do you promise to do it on your weekly press

releases?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In my weekly press releases, on my trips

to the hustings, on radio talk shows, television appearances,

I'll try to be fair to the opposition on occasion.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention and the House's attention to the throne

speech of this session where we did list the names of John and Caroline Bergenham,

Mrs. R.W. Starratt, Truman Dagnus Locheed, Clifford A. and Dorothy A. Gorby,

Henry Gordon Ruckle, Mrs. Margaret Jane Pearse, and an anonymous donor in Hope

who has given us land. It is a phenomenon that is not brand new.

MRS. JORDAN: All those were negotiated before you took

office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If I care to respond to that, Madam

Member, I don't want to involve these people in a debate

between government and the Social Credit opposition. But that

statement is incorrect. I would not like to put these people's

names into a political debate with you, but the reaction of one

of these donors was, in the letter, "Thank God another

government was elected before we donated our land." I don't

want to go into names or anything, but I am responding to a

political statement thrown out by the Member and I thought the

facts should be made straight.

It is a new phenomenon that is accelerating. I am pleased

that everybody in this House welcomes this. It is an idealized

goal when people donate land back for other people to use.

The question raised by the Second Member for Victoria (Mr.

D.A. Anderson) is valid. I'm sorry he left before I gave the

answers; I am hopeful that you will convey the answers to him.

It is true that this amendment relates to land in unorganized

areas. There is no reason, in the instance outlined by the

Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), why that

can't be duplicated in other municipal jurisdictions.

I would advise the Second Member for Victoria that if there

is a particular donation that the municipality or the town or

the village would have to refuse because they couldn't

accommodate it financially, in those instances an appeal to the

senior government would be heard. If the situation develops

where they would have to pass up a gift because they couldn't

afford the loss of the tax revenue, I would expect an appeal to

the senior government.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the municipality? Well, I would hope we

would negotiate with the municipality. Sure, I would be very

flexible about it. We wouldn't get caught up in a fight with

the municipality about the taxes and destroy the kind of

goodwill and good feeling that obviously takes place. I can

imagine somebody donating land and the last thing they would

want would be to establish a squabble between the government

and the municipality. We would avoid that.

I would also like to hear from the UBCM (Union

[ Page 1071 ]

of British Columbia Municipalities), and certainly they

would have to be consulted on that kind of problem. Perhaps the

UBCM would come forward with some question of policy.

The concept of donating land to the state, of course, was a

matter of great philosophical import. The old Lloyd George land

socialists were a branch of the original Socialist Party,

founded on the concept that equalization of community could

come about through common land ownership. They were a major

force in the development of the early socialist movement before

the turn of the century. Their thesis was that if all land was

held in common, such as the native Indians have always done in

North America, the acquisitive demands of our more rapacious

society would be diminished.

There's a great deal of merit in that, Mr. Speaker. I think

that the buying and selling of land is probably one of the most

vicious aspects of capitalism; it is certainly one of the most

non-productive aspects of capitalism. The idea that land should

be staked out, divided and sold for profit is somewhat of the

basis within the capitalist society that has….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't think it will happen in my

lifetime that we begin to see this earth as a global village.

Even my party gets hung up on economic nationalism. I've had

some questions about that publicly. I don't think there is any

difference between an American capitalist, a Canadian

capitalist or a Japanese capitalist; they are all capitalists

to me. I don't get hung up on that. But there are people who

get trapped into that economic nationalist syndrome, the land

nationalist syndrome….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure they are. Listen, in this House we've

been tagged with that for 40 years, even in Parker Williams'

time when he arrived in the early 1900s.

But getting back to the original point: the philosophical

drive around a large segment of the intellectual group in the

Fabian Society and the development of socialism in Great

Britain was related to the concept that land should be held in

common ownership.

As I said, a native Indian practice: you can't take it with

you, including land. I think the more people in our community

begin to realize that land is for common use and for common

purpose, the more mature and the more rational our society will

be.

Mr. Speaker, I want to close by telling you a little story about the donation

of the land and the land that was involved in Stanley Park. Mayor Oppenheimer

of Vancouver, at the turn of the century, fought to keep that whole land mass

now known as Stanley Park away from developers, and he had one heck of a fight

at that time. Can you imagine anybody going into civic politics in the City

of Vancouver today saying, "Vote for me and we'll cut up Stanley Park."?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member talks about

the endowment lands as if they were a parkland forever. They

were not a parkland forever; they were endowment lands. There's

a big difference. They were to provide income from the

university, Mr. Speaker. I'll have to dig out that Member's

speeches about the use of endowment lands as I recall them.

But nonetheless the fight around land, the fight around

parks has now reached the point where more and more people are

donating land. This is one small method of recognition. I want

to thank the Members for their other suggestions — perhaps even

a plaque here in the rotunda listing the names of people who've

donated land would be a useful device.

We've come a long way, Mr. Speaker, a long way in only a

matter of eight months. When the land bill was debated in this

House last spring the concept of government ownership of land

was equated to fascism and communism and everything in between.

And now, Mr. Speaker, with the passage of time, almost everyone

in this province supports the concept and principle in Bill 42

and they've expressed it by this particular action here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't believe it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, will the leader whoever he

shall be of the official opposition, will the leaders of the

Liberal Party and the would-be leaders of the Conservative

Party put it on the record now? In the next election will they

stand up and say, "Vote for our party and if we're elected to

government we will do away with Bill 42."? Let's hear it now,

please.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You? You're going to quit in three months.

(Laughter.)

Okay, there's one yes. Let's go down the leadership

candidates. Okay, "Mr. Shoebanger," yes or no?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Sit down and we'll tell

you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. South Okanagan, yes or no? Mr.

Cariboo?

[ Page 1072 ]

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'm not in the leadership race.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the first time I've ever heard an

MLA admit he's not in it. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, how about the North Peace River, yes or no?

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that I've

embarrassed the opposition. I now move second reading of Bill

84,

An Act to Amend the Taxation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 84 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 87, Mr.

Speaker.

PACIFIC NORTH COAST

NATIVE COOPERATIVE LOAN ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't think of a better day

for this bill to appear. It is the intention of the government

to assist the Pacific North Coast cooperative to acquire

fishing vessels for its members so as to enable the

cooperative to develop a cannery run entirely by the native

Indian citizens of the Province of British Columbia.

We have allocated some $3 million to this project. It was a

project discussed by the previous administration and brought

into fruition by the present government. The federal government

refused, Mr. Speaker, to participate in this project, which is

not a self-help or make-work project but a pioneering

initiative by these native Indians to go into a self-sustaining

industry of their own.

Mr. Speaker, this is a departure from the traditional

methods of handing out welfare or developing paternalism for

the native Indians of British Columbia. This is a direct grant

to those people, with the earnest hope that they are successful

in the venture.

All native Indians across Canada, of course, will be

watching this experiment. We will assist this group in any way

possible. However, they will be on their own to make it or

break it with this project. If they do make it, let everyone in

this province applaud them for that success; if they are not

successful, I for one would not appreciate any effort to use

this project as a reason for no further experiments in the same

line.

The reason we've taken so long before we signed the

agreement is that we asked for outside business advice, outside

accounting advice and outside technical advice before

committing either the government or the Pacific North Coast

Native Co-op to this enterprise. We've had the best advice

available, we've drawn up the best agreement possible and we

think that it will be a success. I now move second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MORRISON: We're very happy to see this project go

through. We hope that it is a pilot project and that there will

be others, but one item that we would have been a great deal

happier about is if the fishermen had had the right to own

their own boats rather than to have the boats owned in common

by the cooperative.

However, as I said, we're happy to see this project started.

We realize that there will be a lot of problems throughout it.

I concur with the Premier that we would hate to see this

project fail, and as a result jeopardize other projects. We

hope and wish that this will be highly successful.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker this has

been a project that I hope I've helped in some small way to

bring to a fact. What we had to do first of all was undo what

had been done and I think that that was something that people

mistook to mean that we weren't going to do anything. Some

people rejoiced in that because they thought that maybe it was

a political opportunity for them to make light of a project

that should have been put underway a long time ago.

The original sum of money that was given during the eleventh

hour of the former administration was $1 million for this

project — $1 million to be given at $200,000 a year over a

five-year length of time. Now can you imagine trying to build a

cannery over five years with $200,000 a year?

The first year you'd see a bit of fill out in the water; the

second year you may see another couple of posts; and at the

end of five years you'd be over the last election again.

So we had to look at that, and one of the facts that became

obvious very soon was the fact that there was no provision in

the original agreement with the previous administration for

boats. Now the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) has said

that he would like to see the boats privately owned. Well, you

know, pretty well every cooperative — and there haven't been

that many — that has started in the fishing industry has failed

because all the boats were privately owned.

And so we had to ponder that question. How could we make

this cannery a success and at the same

[ Page 1073 ]

time have enough flexibility so that people could privately

own their own boats and work in this industry and still keep it

a cooperative that would be a success?

We, through negotiations with the cooperative people, came

to the decision that we can go both ways: we can have a core

fleet that would have enough boats in it to ensure that there

would be a constant supply of fish to that cooperative so that

no matter what, so that if all the members got mad one day and

walked off, the co-op would still be there and functioning with

that core fleet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think they'd get mad at you?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They wouldn't get mad

at you, would they?

HON. MR. LEA: Not mad at us. The thing is that we're not

overlooking the possibility that we could lose the next

election, then everybody would have to be mad at them. That's

the way it would be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will. You will.

HON. MR. LEA: Some of the good schemes that we do put in — and there's going to be a great many — if you got back in

they'd be ditched.

AN HON. MEMBER: You will.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. LEA: What we had to do was look at it so that it

would be a viable economic unit and at the same time leave

enough room so that it could be incentive and direction from

the Indian people themselves. So we negotiated with those

people and came to an agreement. We didn't arbitrarily say,

"We're going to give you $1 million at $200,000 a year, and let

it go down the drain."

We had to build a plant that could compete in the market of

today, and we had to ensure that that plant had a consistent

supply of fish. We have come to an agreement which we think

will fulfill that function.

Also, one of the other reasons that cooperatives have gone

broke over the years is that management has sometimes been

poor. It's been run by a board that had no idea of what the

business was all about. So we ensured, by agreement….

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: What do you know about fish up there?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will you please address the Chair?

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: You know, Mr. Speaker, even though I am from

the north coast of this province, I still feel that we, as

government, should have some feeling of responsibility for the

northeastern part of this province. As such, I have gone into

the northeastern part of this province and talked to the people

to try to find out what they want so that we as government can

help them reach their dreams and the fulfilment of their

economic problems.

I would like to think that people from the northeastern part

of the province feel the same way in regard to the northwestern

part of the province — and especially the Indian fishermen.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's some fishy business.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right; and thank goodness we are in

it with those people so that they can go ahead without the

interference of a paternalistic government. We have given them

the chance, on their own, to direct their plant. At the same

time we are going to even help them get the best manager

possible so that it will have a better chance of reaching

success.

One of the things that become obvious in the beginning of

these negotiations and which hindered them…. I should

mention that the only political party that opposed this cannery

in principle, even during the election campaign, was the

Liberal Party. I hope they do speak on it this time.

Another idea was brewing at the time: the idea of having the

cannery at the Cassiar plant in the Inverness slough. When I

spoke with the Hon. Jack Davis, the federal Minister, and

pointed out to him that there really wasn't a good water supply

there for a fish cannery….

MR. PHILLIPS: He's my friend.

HON. MR. LEA: I know. He's my friend, too. He's everybody's

friend. We don't count on it, but then he does speak to us.

When I spoke with Jack Davis I pointed out to him that there

wasn't a good water supply for a cannery at Cassiar, and that

every spring when the ice came down the Inverness slough, it

washed away the pilings. It just wasn't that good a spot.

To the fact that his own government had said that within two

years it would be obsolete because it wouldn't meet pollution

standards, he said, "Well, we'll just rip it down and build a

new one if that's the case." I said, "If you are going to rip

it down and build a new one, why can't you come along with us

and go to Port Simpson and help us on that project?"

[ Page 1074 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: But we're socialists.

HON. MR. LEA: That's right. We're socialists. But I think

that when all the counts are in, people don't care what you

call yourself, Mr. Premier. They don't care whether you call

yourself capitalists, socialists — anything you want. All they

do is took at what they've got for the money they pay in

taxes.

We believe that the Indian people in this province pay taxes

and, as such, they deserve this kind of treatment. I hope there

isn't any objection from the Liberal Party on this project

because then we would have to take a look at some of those

corporations that have been getting help in this province over

the years.

Please join with me in wishing these people every success. I

think that's what we all have to do — even the Liberal

Party.

MR. WALLACE: I am no expert on fish but I certainly feel,

from what I have read on this project and having studied the

details that were made available publicly, that this seems an

excellent attempt to create jobs in the area and among the

Indian population.

The idea of government conducting some kind of pilot project

to make use of the facilities and the boats that are there

makes good sense. I understand that we are talking in terms of

$730,000 worth of wages a year. Since we have talked frequently

in this House about trying to avoid paying welfare and creating

jobs where people can be productive and can have some sense of

accomplishment through their own individual efforts, this seems

to me to typify just that goal, whatever the label.

There are only two questions. I would wonder, in talking

about the principle of the bill, whether in fact in any way

this creates unfair competition for other people engaged in the

fishing industry. The other point I might ask is that, with

this kind of incentive — and we are all in favour of incentives — whether there is any danger of over-fishing of certain

areas.

I would like perhaps the Minister, in winding up the debate,

to just touch on these two points. Is there any possibility

that this creates unfair competition, and is there any

possibility that it would lead to over-fishing with depletion

of resources in that area? I support the bill.

MR. McGEER: I think that all Members of the House welcome

this piece of legislation and wish the North Coast Native

cooperative every possible success.

I think that along the line in this debate someone should pay a little tribute

to the former Member of the Prince Rupert constituency (Mr. W.H. Murray) who

was Speaker of the House, who did so much to pave the way for this particular

development. You, Sir, know how difficult it is for a Speaker of the assembly

to make his point of view known.

This Member, who was the Speaker, lobbied very hard in his

quiet, effective way when the Indians themselves first came

down proposing this self-help project. It wasn't an easy thing

to engineer politically, Mr. Speaker, because it involved the

federal jurisdiction; it involved licences for fishing boats;

it involved a very competitive industry. It involves all kinds

of problems in the placement of this particular cannery.

There were a great many proposals of a competitive nature

made by private industry, by government agencies; and all these

things had to be worked out. I am so pleased to learn that

things have developed to the point where this Act could be

brought forward and where an actual start could be made. But I

know that the one Member who would have been most pleased to be

able to stand in this House and actually vote in favour of this

bill was the former Member for Prince Rupert who did so much to

lay the groundwork and bring forward the development that is

resulting in this bill today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask

temporary leave of the House to make a statement?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is a rare occasion for us in British

Columbia to have such a distinguished guest as we have with us

on the floor of the House today.

Dr. Linus Pauling is a brilliant chemist and professor, an

opponent of nuclear testing and a great humanitarian. He won

the Nobel peace prize in chemistry in 1954 and the Nobel peace

prize in 1962. He is the holder of the Pasteur Medal, the

Grotius Foundation Medal, a fellow of Balliol College, Oxford,

and a member of the National Research Council, the National

Academy of Science and the Guggenheim Foundation.

Dr. Pauling organized a petition of scientists in 1958,

urging an end to nuclear testing, signed by 11,000 scientists

from around the world and submitted to the United Nations, In the field of science his work in organic protein

structure has aided in the study of the polio virus and how it

destroys human nerve cells.

Dr. Linus Pauling's book No More War outlines his support

for all efforts for peace. He is the only man to have won,

singly, two Nobel prizes. He has honoured British Columbia just

recently by his assistance at a conference on health care and

communications which he has just attended on the Queen

Charlotte Islands.

We here in British Columbia have, almost as a single voice,

regardless of party, been in the forefront

[ Page

1075 ]

of the opposition to nuclear testing. The previous

administration, this administration and all opposition parties

have, with common voice in this jurisdiction, been opposed to

nuclear testing. That is an unusual thing in itself, and it's a

proud record for British Columbia.

With that record of our own it is especially pleasing to

have that great humanitarian, Dr. Pauling, with us today, and I

ask the House to welcome him.

MR. FX RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): On behalf of the

official opposition, we, too, wish to welcome Dr. Pauling to

our midst. This has been a rare occasion that we have such a

distinguished visitor, and we commend him for his work. We wish

him well in the future. May he enjoy good health, and may he

continue to bring forth many new innovations which will make

this whole world a better place to live in.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party would like to add

their welcome to Dr. Pauling. It's a fantastic occasion for us

to have three Nobel prize winners here in such a short time — Dr. Eccles, with one, and Dr. Pauling, with two. I, like every

other college student, I suppose, struggled through the

"Chemical Bond," which was the great contribution of Dr.

Pauling to undergraduate study in chemistry. But now he's come

forward with something that's much easier to understand, the

human bond, and it's for that that we congratulate him in his

presence here today.

MR. WALLACE: The Conservative Party would also like to add

its welcome and its respect to Dr. Pauling, who is, above all

else, an outstanding humanitarian. If the world ever needed

people clearly aware of the needs of the human individual, it

is now. We respect the work you have done, Dr. Pauling, through

you, Mr. Speaker, and we hope that your voice will continue

both against the use of nuclear testing and, in an even more

positive way, in your continuing research into some of the

ill-understood medical problems of ageing. You're a great

example, sir, of your own beliefs. I understand you follow your

own advice and take large doses of vitamins every day, and as a

physician I think we'll watch your longevity increase.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence in this unusual precedent

of a private Member of the opposition speaking at this time, but the Hon. Premier

pointed out with pride on behalf of all British Columbians the fact that we

as a people have been very much in the forefront in administration and thinkers

in opposing nuclear testing and nuclear armaments. But I would like to have

the privilege of pointing out to Mrs. Pauling that we are also very much in

the forefront in our concern for women in British Columbia. We've had a schizophrenic

philosophy here: One thought is that behind every great man there was a very

surprised woman. But we also find that beside every great man there is a great

woman. On behalf of the Members of this House, I'm sure the Premier and the

people of British Columbia, Mrs. Pauling, would like to welcome you to British

Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, I earlier brought to your

attention that Dr. Pauling would be able to meet with any of

you who are taking a short break in the Members' lounge. I hope

that someone will stay and carry on the business of the

province.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): In speaking to this bill

in second reading, I've listened with interest to the comments

of the Premier, the Hon. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

and other Members who have taken their place in this particular

debate, and I couldn't help but cast my mind back a little over

a year ago to a time prior to the August election in 1972, a

time when the then Member for Prince Rupert was the silent

Member in the House as far as the debate was concerned, Mr.

Speaker, because he occupied the same position that you now

occupy. As you very well know, it is very difficult for a

Speaker to participate in any way in the debate or speak on

behalf of his own ideas or his own constituency. It was for

that reason that from time to time other Members of the party

brought before the attention of this House certain matters with

respect to the Prince Rupert area, with respect to highways and

particularly with respect to this particular proposed project

at Port Simpson.

I think I'd like to make a couple of points very clear.

Under the administration of the previous government it was

never the intent of the government that the $1 million promised

to the people of the north coast district council would be

here-all or end-all, or that that was all the money that they

could expect. As a matter of fact, they were told and told very

clearly that the $1 million that would be available to them

from the First Citizens' Fund was a start, just a start, and

that, furthermore, it was the intent of the government of that

time to bring into the House at the next session of the

Legislature a development corporation which would have been

available to their new project and that money would have been

available on a loan basis, starting at an interest rate of 1

per cent, continuing from that point at 2 per cent, and so on,

with the right to repay at any time.

So it's not only the present administration that is

concerned about the Indians of northwestern British Columbia.

It was certainly the intent of the former administration to

help this group as much as possible

[ Page 1076 ]

to become more efficient, and become employers themselves so

that they could be in a position of helping themselves.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Would you take a motion and we'll have a

recess?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, if it's the will of the House

that we have a short recess, I simply need to declare a short

recess.

MR. SMITH: I would be prepared to take my place, Mr.

Speaker, if you would so declare.

MR. SPEAKER: I so declare.

The House took recess.

The House resumed at 4:18 p.m.

MR. SMITH: Just prior to the interlude that we were able to

take for a few minutes to meet with Dr. Pauling and his wife — which was very pleasant — I was speaking about Bill 87, which

is

an Act to provide certain moneys to the Pacific North Coast

Native Co-operative. Certain speakers before me in this debate

had indicated the position of the former government, I felt, a

little incorrectly, and I brought those things to the attention

of the House so that they would be on the record.

I think it is a matter of note that the former Member for

Prince Rupert (Mr. W.H. Murray) was very active in the field of

promoting this cannery, and I'd like to read just briefly from

a copy of Indian Voice , which was published in August of 1972:

"The North Coast District Council and the people that they

represent along the coast and central interior of the province

are expressing their gratitude today to the First Citizens'

Fund, to the government of the province and to all of those who

helped to bring the Port Simpson fish-processing plant to this

stage of progress.

"Reality now is assured and, while criticism has come from

many quarters, we have had the continuing support of our own

Member of the Legislature, Bill Murray, chairman of the First

Citizens' Fund, Hon. Dan Campbell and the Minister of

Agriculture, the Hon. Cyril M. Shelford. It is to those people

especially that we wish to express our grateful thanks for

their untiring efforts on our behalf."

I won't continue reading from the editorial from this particular edition of

Indian Voice . But I think it is important to point out that no party in this

House has a monopoly on the idea of providing help to the Indian people of the

province. Most of us, if we reflect at all on the position of the Indians in

the Province of British Columbia and, as a matter of fact, in all parts of Canada,

will have to admit that we took far more from them than we have ever returned

to them. Bills of this nature will, perhaps, in a small way, help to offset

the debt that we owe the Indian people in the Province of British Columbia.

Most of them allowed us to occupy this province without war being involved.

They assimilated their lives and tried to live the way they wanted to live even

though civilization, as we see civilization, was moving in on them in increasing

measure.

It is pleasing to know that a group of Indian people, who

for generations back harvested the sea, will be given help

through this bill to not only build a cannery, but to provide

fishing craft which they will use in the harvest process. I

feel that it would have been better for the Indian people to

own their own craft but, perhaps, through the cooperative,

this can come to pass at a future date.

It will be interesting to see what position the federal

government will take with respect to helping finance this

project because certainly they have been contacted. They were

asked by the previous administration to help through the ARDA

programme. The present Minister is certainly aware of the

project, the Hon. Jack Davis. I would hope that, whatever the

Hon. Minister may personally feel, he will set aside any

prejudice that he seems to have against either this government

or the former government and elect in favour of the Indian

people of this province and provide assistance through whatever

programme he has at his disposal under the federal Acts of the

Dominion of Canada.

This is a step in the right direction where we provide funds

to help people help themselves, whether they be the native

Indians or any other branch of our society. I heartily endorse

the principle of this bill.

MR. GARDOM: It's interesting — and I'm delighted to see the

Members of the official opposition support the measure as was

enunciated very loudly and clearly by the former speaker — but

I'm talking about the overall assistance to the Indian

community, which I think was very sadly lacking under the

former administration. But I don't intend to dwell upon old

bones.

I think that any measure that we can possibly bring about to

see the eventual economic emancipation of the Indian people in

our province, whatever we can do equip them with the means to

cope, the capacity to cope and the means to become a part of

British Columbia in every sense, will certainly be in the

interest, not only of all British Columbians and of the Indian

community, but in the interests of fair play and the well-being

of all people.

[ Page 1077 ]

There's a continuing burr under the saddle of the Indian

community and a continuing inequality and a continuing

injustice and discrimination — and I do hope that I have the

ear of the Hon. Premier on this point because he has in the

past been receptive to the requirements for B.C. Indians. I'm

talking, Mr. Speaker, about the Indian Reserves Mineral

Resources Act .

I find it exceptionally unfortunate that we don't see

included in this legislation a reference to the repeal of that

particular bill. It's the only legislation of its kind in

Canada. It's to the very simple and startling effect that the

control and disposal and ownership of minerals and mineral

claims in Indian reserves are subject totally to B.C. laws,

with the power to the B.C. Department of Mines to collect all

revenues, whether by way of purchase or rent or royalties or

what-have-you in any way dealing with the sale or disposition

of minerals and mineral claims upon Indian reserves.

This is a totally discriminatory measure, and it's even more

so to the effect that it's confiscation or expropriation

without compensation. We find that the revenues, if any, under

this peculiar and very harsh piece of legislation are to be

divided between the provincial government and the federal

government, without any rights at all to the Indian community

to share in them.

When the Hon. Minister of Finance closes the debate, I'd be

most appreciative if he would indicate to me his comments and

attitudes on the points which I've been mentioning. I'm sorry

that he's engrossed in other matters — and I'm not being

critical when I say that — but just to recant for his purposes,

because I can see now, Mr. Speaker, that I do have his ear. I'm

sure, by virtue of that fact, that he would welcome me to just

indicate to him the measures that I….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Recount.

MR. GARDOM: Recount. Sorry, recount.

I was saying that it was very unfortunate that we didn't see in this

legislation nor have we had any statement from the government on the

repeal of the Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act , which purely and

simply is to the effect that the mineral resources in Indian reserve

land are owned by the province and divided by the province and the

federal government.

It's a gross injustice to the Indian community, and I appreciate the fact that it's not in this statute.

However, the Premier, being a man of compassion — I'm sure he's going to refer to it in a couple of seconds.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's why I wasn't listening, because you were out

of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: I think that this is just a fantastic day here

in the British Columbia Legislature. And I think it's more

fantastic when you realize, Mr. Speaker, what a great victory

the north coast native Indians have won here today — or when

this agreement was signed. It's fantastic because they, alone,

were able to stand in this province and fight off the principle

of the socialist government opposite in wanting to have their

fingers into the operation of this co-op. They alone have done

it. We, as opposition, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do you want to ruin things for them?

MR. PHILLIPS: We, Mr. Speaker, as opposition, have

continually fought in this Legislature the principle involved

in this very bill. Loan the money to the people, let them run

their own affairs. That's what we've been saying all along.

Either give them an outright grant or loan them the money, but

keep your own sticky fingers out of the management of their

affairs.

This bill is a breakthrough and I thank heavens Mr. Speaker,

that the north coast native Indians have won this battle in

this Legislature here today.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the Premier was very emphatic when he

introduced the bill. I'm not sure whether I misheard him or he

made a faux pas, but I hope the Premier is paying attention and

will answer me when he closes the debate. I wrote down what he

said — and he didn't just say this, Mr. Speaker, he stated

emphatically that this money was an outright donation. Now I

think he meant that this money was an outright loan.

I want the Minister of Finance to explain this, Mr. Speaker,

because the bill doesn't say that it's an outright donation;

the bill says that it is to finance a loan to the

cooperative.

But the beautiful thing about it is that it is a loan and

the government is not going to go in there and tell this

cooperative how to run their affairs. It's a great principle

and it's a great breakthrough.

I'm certainly with the native Indians here today that they,

as I said, have been able to ward off the socialist theory that

they've got to stick their fingers in and try to tell people

how to run their business. I just hope that the farmers will be

able to have the same breakthrough, that when the government

wants to loan them money they will loan them the money and not

go in and say, "Look, we're going to come in as equal partners

so we make sure you never go broke."

The Premier touched on the second great principle here that

I have been saying in this House before. He said, "They are on

their own to make it or break it."

[ Page 1078 ]

That is beautiful. That is the way it should be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's just like this little

government.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the way it should be. You know, I've

spent hours in this House, Mr. Speaker, on this very principle.

Hours trying to get through, trying to make the Minister of

Finance see it.

When he brought in his Industrial Development Act I pleaded

with the Minister, I begged the Minister of Finance to accept

this little principle: loan them the money at low interest

rates; if you want to give them a grant, forgive some of the

repayments. And all of a sudden, out of a clear, blue sky, here

on this great Tuesday afternoon in this Legislature, there is

finally a breakthrough. The Minister of Finance has finally

seen the light.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not on television, Don.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hold it, hold it.

MR. PHILLIPS: There's the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). I

want to tell you that in his very riding the Department of

Agriculture is going to put a poultry processing plant.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll process roosters.

AN HON. MEMBER: A Ministry of Roosters.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we quote you on that?

MR. PHILLIPS: Now under our constitution is the Member for

Shuswap going to be able to do business with this

government-owned poultry processing plant? Are they going to be

in there and are they going to have a say in the operation, or

are they going to adhere to this wonderful principle here and

loan the poultry processing plant money so that they can run

the plant and, as the Premier so ably put it, "Make it or break

it on their own"?

It's a wonderful principle. This is the principle involved

in the Farm Products Industry Improvement Act. Are the farmers

going to be loaned the money to make it or break it on their

own? That, Mr. Speaker, is the principle involved in Bill

I'm not going to prolong the debate any longer, but I

certainly want to congratulate this cooperative, this group of

natives who have been able to break the will, to break the

spirit, to make the breakthrough in the policies of the

socialist government, a policy that we in opposition have

preached and preached and preached in this House, and will

continue, Mr. Speaker, to preach.

I want once again to congratulate this particular co-op. I want to say how

happy I am for them and I want to say that I hope some of the other Members

of the cabinet will realize what a principle is involved here. I hope they will

listen to the Minister of Finance when he says, "They are on their own to make

it or break it. And if they fail, this does not mean that this will be the last

donation."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question of make-or-break has been

thrown around, but as I read this particular bill I understand

that we're loaning them money to pay themselves. It's a

completely internal operation, so maybe they'll both make and

break because there's a net injection of $3 million worth of

money to these individuals.

I understand the purpose, of course, is to establish a fleet

for the Fort Simpson cannery. The Minister of Finance nods his

head, and I thank him for that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you should see what else I can

do.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question that comes up is: what

happens if the numbers of members of the cooperative owning

boats are inadequate to give the Fort Simpson cannery a fleet

adequate to fish for the cannery itself? In other words, if

there are 150 boats which the members own and which this bill

covers, what happens to the other 50 required, or what happens

in the way of acquiring the other 50 that are required to get a

viable fleet together?

I don't know whether the Minister of Finance would like to

comment on this further. Are we to expect assistance at some

future time in terms of money to purchase boats outside of the

membership itself? Because this bill is entirely restricted to

the membership itself.

One other quick question which perhaps the Minister will

reply to when he closes the debate is a question of interest on

this loan. He has made it perfectly clear that if it's lost,

it's lost. That's fair enough when it comes to a loan. But if

it is to be repaid, what are the repayment terms? I wonder

whether he would comment on that and let us know prior to the

vote on this what type of terms he is insisting upon for

repayment;

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to say a few words on this bill and on some of the

comments, particularly from that non-leadership candidate in

the far corner from South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)….

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not leadership material yourself.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, apparently you made that decision

for the Member for South Peace River.

[ Page 1079 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Some of the comments that have been made,

Mr. Speaker, would indicate….

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: We have no dictatorship here. It's

different from the previous administration. The fact that we

are bringing in this type of bill, Mr. Speaker, shows the

entire difference in philosophy and difference in attitude.

That Member for South Peace River, well, when his government

was in office here they failed to recognize the cooperative

movement. They failed to recognize that a cooperative is

genuine economic democracy — one member, one vote. And each

member has shared in the overall operation. If money is made,

it's shared by all the members.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: And for that reason Mr. "Yappy" across

there, Mr. "Yappy" does not recognize that whether the

individuals own the boats themselves or if they're owned

collectively by the cooperative, they're still owned by the

members. So we're not hung up on some details like that.

But we are hung up on the fact that for the 20 years that

the Social Credit were in power in this province one

cooperative went bankrupt for each year; 20 cooperatives went

broke in the 20 years.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Can we have some order until the Member

finishes his remarks?

AN HON. MEMBER: Go buy the Glenshiel Hotel again.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Twenty cooperatives went broke in the 20

years they were there, so this blessing is 20 years late.

Actions speak louder than words. The words you speak today are

pretty empty. If you had really meant what you are saying,

you'd have been doing something about it.

Interjection.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which airplane, Bill?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Today this is real competition. This is the only really

genuine competition that the corporate enterprise in the fishing industry has

seen in recent times. And one of the reasons that the fishermen of the north

are doing as well as they are is because of that very thing — cooperative enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly welcome the new day in this

province. There is a government here that is recognizing that

true economic democracy is being built through the

cooperatives. Through a proper cooperative there's no

political involvement, and that cooperative, if set up

properly, will carry on long beyond the day of this government,

regardless of how long they live.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister closes the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's a tough act to follow.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What can I say? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I do think that there are a

couple of points that I must respond to.

The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) today has

announced a new policy and enterprise that this government will

seriously consider. Under this cooperative approach he said

the government has learned to let people sink or swim; give

them the money and let them go their own way. We're going to

consider this principle beyond the fish cannery. We'll

seriously consider opening a cooperative car sales agency in

Dawson Creek. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, there's nothing like a little bit of

competition. (Laughter.) And having learned these new economic

principles from the Member for South Peace River, if that's

Social Credit, we're all for it — the People's Co-op Car

Sales.

Well, Mr. Speaker, we won't flounder around. We'll save our

souls. We won't allow any carping criticism. We won't drag any

red herrings across this trail. No, Mr. Speaker, the People's

cooperative Car Sales in Dawson Creek will become a

reality.

MR. PHILLIPS: Know a good used car salesman?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know any good used car salesmen.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the welfare rolls in that constituency may be

added to by a certain Member but we could rehabilitate him.

Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I want to answer some of the more

serious criticism of the bill. One-half of the Conservative

caucus asked about unfair competition to other people. There is

no such thing as unfair competition in free enterprise, is

there?

Do you mean to say that those people who espouse free

enterprise would actually say that there are situations where

there is unfair competition?

[ Page 1080 ]

Why, that's what they believe in, those free enterprisers in

that jungle. What's a little price fix here and a little

arrangement there between friends?

If the "price fix here and an arrangement there, and here a

deal and there a deal and everywhere a deal, deal" gets broken

up because a cooperative comes in for a little competition, I

think that's healthy. The one thing free enterprise can't

stand, Mr. Speaker, is a little bit of competition.

It's the one thing they don't like. Everything else they like. So

there will be a little bit of competition from the people over fishing?

That's controlled by the federal government and so are the licences. I

must say that regardless of party affiliations most of us have a great

deal of respect for the job the federal fisheries department has done

with short staff and short budgets in maintaining good conservation

methods.

Now the other questions — what about other injustices or

other expenses to native Indian people? We will consider each

project on its merit. We will consider any approach that is an

alternative to social welfare. Any approach that can be shown

to us to be a viable, business alternative is something that we

will consider here in the province related to allowing these

self-help programmes to be developed.

It is true that the former Speaker (Mr. Murray) did do a

great deal of pioneering work on this project. As a matter of

fact, I remember listening to the radio programme in Prince

Rupert after we had criticized the payment plan offered by the

government. I remember hearing Bill Murray saying on the radio:

"I can't understand why the opposition is criticizing us. After

20 years we are finally doing something for Indians and they

are criticizing us." That was an admission in itself, Mr.

Speaker. It certainly was an unintentional slip.

But it is true. Everybody talks about helping the native

Indians and now we are doing it. We hope that they will be

successful. The efforts we have made have been designed to

assist them as much as possible to avoid pitfalls when they

exist.

When they decide on a brand name and when they actually are

producing, I would hope that all government purchasing services

would examine closely the particular products put out by these

people. It won't be just canned salmon. It will be bottom fish.

It will be crabs. It will be all other types of seafood. The

flexibility will be built into the cannery itself to adjust

seasonally to different products. Perhaps with a good

promotional background, they could go into the delicacy field

as well. It is in that area that the greatest profits can be

made. Especially to off-shore markets.

Interjection.

HON . MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, it is true that they will have to

continue to can red salmon and pink salmon but that is no reflection on the

socialist government. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Whitefish!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whitefish? Well, that was different at one

time. It was difficult to sell white salmon in cans until a PR

man discovered how to approach this problem. They put on the

label "guaranteed not to turn pink in the can". (Laughter.)

There were phenomenal sales of that salmon right afterwards. We

could say that about the Socreds. Despite everything we do to

educate them: "guaranteed not to turn pink, "

(Laughter).

AN HON. MEMBER: In the can! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the can! You didn't let me finish. Mr.

Speaker, get that man's name. (Laughter.) It is certainly a

matter of pride for every Member of this House. All of us have

expressed the desire to approach the economic problems of the

native Indian people in a much more mature and much more

rational manner.

It is interesting that if even just a few years ago such an

effort was attempted by any jurisdiction, the latent prejudice

against native Indians would have made it difficult for a

Legislature to pass this kind of bill without the unanimous

consent, that is obvious.

There is an abiding, lasting impression about native Indians

that is absolutely false — the feeling that those of us who

live in the west are guilty of in terms of our prejudices.

There are still people out there who believe the native Indians

are not as clever as white people. There are still people out

there who believe that native Indians are indolent. There are

still people out there who believe that as racial

characteristics they are not able to be as skilled as us "white

men" are.

Those are absolute falsehoods, Mr. Speaker. The native

Indian people have a different culture and a far superior

culture than anything the white man has shown in North America.

The native people have a love of land and a love of nature that

those of us who have come to this country through succeeding

generations have yet to appreciate and even emulate.

With this move we are asking the native Indian people to

accept, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, a small

token of repayment or a small token of perhaps even guilt

relief for the way we have treated these people in the past. We

wish them all good answers. They will be involved in an

industry that is close to their own culture.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are they going to be paying interest?

[ Page 1081 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: They may not and they may. The interest

rates will be minimal. We will see as they go how things go

along. We have established no rigid formula. We are prepared to

write off the $3 million but that's the last thing they desire

and it is the last thing we desire. They want to make it

go.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're flexible.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're flexible. We are very flexible. As

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) said, and

Liberal Party members and the Conservatives and our own Members

here — this is a good day. Really a good day. The province can

well afford it. I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 87 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 64, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND

COMMUNICATIONS ACT

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's

a very simple piece of legislation. (Laughter). A housekeeping bill. No blank-cheque

legislation. No sweeping powers. None of the adjectives that have been used

so freely during this session can be applied to this particular bill. This legislation

is intended to give effect to a decision of the government earlier this year

to establish a new department of government to be known as the Department of

Transport and Communications.

Other jurisdictions all across Canada, in recent years, have

found it necessary to establish a department similar to the

Department of Transport and Communications in the Province of

British Columbia.

Much of this bill involved the purely transitional arrangements that are involved

in the creation of such a department. For instance, the department and my responsibilities

as Minister include the administration branch which was part of the old Department

of Commercial Transport; the Motor Vehicle Branch which, until the creation

of this department, was with the Attorney General; the motor carrier branch,

which was a function of the Public Utilities Commission; the B.C. Ferries which

has been with Highways; the operation of the British Columbia government aircraft

which, until recently, has been divided between two departments with some of

the planes being handled by the Department of Lands and others by the Department

of Highways; the British Columbia government telephones, the internal telephone

system that was with Public Works, is now part of my responsibilities as Minister;

the external communications service which was with the Public Utilities Commission

is now part of my duties; and the data-processing centre which was with the

Department of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce is now part of the

new Department of Transport and Communications.

Since being given this new department, I have attended a

number of meetings. Arising out of the Western Economic

Opportunities Conference, which I attended with other Ministers

and the Premier, came some references to the western

transportation Ministry. Just recently I attended a meeting in

Ottawa with the federal Minister (Hon. Mr. Marchand) in which

we discussed an analysis of rail cost and pricing programmes

for standardization of western highways, the development of

northern routes, the development of aviation services and

facilities, as well as port improvements.

The progress made by this committee, which was composed of

the four western Ministers, included the examination,

especially in the context of the commitments made at the

Western Economic Opportunities Conference, of the relevant

aspects of the national transportation system, the governing

legislation, the pricing practices of carriers, other carrier

actions, and necessary transport, development with a view to

determining whether they stimulate or inhibit social and

economic development, particularly the growth of secondary

industry and the processing at the source of raw materials

originating in the western region.

As the Minister of Transport, it will be part of my function

to be the liaison officer in bringing together the different

aspects of the different forms of transportation operating in

the Province of British Columbia.

Even in the area of roads and highways alone, when we look

over the operations of government, we find there are actually

four different government departments involved in road

construction or operations in one way or another: the old

Department of Commercial Transport had jurisdiction over

industrial roads; the department of forestry has money within

its budget to build and create forestry roads; the Department

of Mines also has a say on where mining roads shall go; and,

of course, the Department of Highways. Very often these

different agencies haven't known what the others were doing.

Very often forestry roads were built, let go or allowed to

deteriorate without reference to the overall requirements of

the community and without reference to the eventual needs of

the province as a whole.

We've already set up a committee of the four departments to

try and bring some rationale into that

[ Page 1082 ]

aspect of road construction so that different departments

are not going off on their own and having roads built without

reference to the future needs of the Province of British

Columbia and eventual highway requirements.

The legislation allows, by permission of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to acquire or obtain a variety

of things. I point out that in the past, in the field of

transportation, the government of this province has found it in

the public interest to acquire by purchase, for instance, a

number of privately-owned ferries that have been operating in

various areas of the coast. The power that was enjoyed and used

by the previous administration is contained in a

section of

this bill which points out what is required to carry out the

duties, powers and functions: "the Minister may…purchase,

lease…. ." and so on. That particular power was used time and

time again to purchase or acquire ferry systems operating in

the Province of British Columbia. Apart altogether from the

original Black Ball ferry purchase, there was the Mill Bay

ferry, the Gabriola Island ferry, the Island Princess and a

number of others up and down the coast that have been

acquired.

I've also an interest in the new field of communications. I

attended meetings of the western Ministers of communications

from the other provinces, and a few weeks ago attended a

meeting of all of the provincial Ministers of communications.

Later this month I will be attending a meeting in Ottawa of the

10 provincial Ministers of communications when we meet with the

federal Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr. Pelletier) to

discuss the Green Paper which he released a year or so ago.

For an indication of the requirement and why other provinces

have found it necessary to set up departments of

communications, I think I could refer to this book, Instant

World , which is prepared by the federal Deputy Minister of

Communications (Mr. Gotlieb) and published in 1971. There are

three paragraphs that I think the House should be aware of and

should be read into the record to indicate why other provinces,

before we did, found it necessary to set up a department of

communications within the provincial cabinet.

As I say, I'm quoting from the report on Telecommunications

in Canada prepared by the federal Deputy Minister of

Communications, and this is what the report says:

"It seems probable that nobody, however deeply committed

to the benefits of private enterprise, would deny that the implementation of

telecommunications policy requires at least some governmental supervision and,

for certain purposes, direct involvement. It should be clearly understood, in

this context, that 'government' means the effective authority; in Canada, the

effective authority may lie, in any particular matter, within the jurisdiction

of parliament, or of the provinces, or of both conjointly. Thus, while there

is clearly a national dimension in telecommunications policy, differences in

regional, provincial, and municipal needs and attitudes can also be taken into

account.

"Governments are naturally concerned with telecommunications

as an instrument essential to national defence, to the

provision of safety services, and to the handling of

emergencies. Further, if the 'right to communicate' is to mean

anything in a country where many essential telecommunications

services are provided by private enterprise enjoying protection

from competition, governments will be concerned to see that

those services are responsive to public demand over as wide a

range as possible, and equally responsive to social and

technological change.

" The emerging technology of telecommunications offers the

possibility of an eventual network affording universal access

to the means of transmitting and receiving information in

virtually any conceivable form." I think I should mention that

that is what this bill is about: "the means of transmitting and

receiving information."

"Although this concept is already technically feasible, the

practicability and rate of its implementation are limited to a

large extent by existing telecommunications plant and

facilities which were designed for more limited services. The

development of new facilities must also be related to the

amount of capital and other resources that can be related to

the amount of capital and other resources that can be made

available in Canada. There is an obvious danger that, in the

transitional period, the nature and pace of development may be

dictated by the most powerful private interests. An objective

of telecommunications policy may therefore be to ensure that

access to services and innova