1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 4, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3047 ]

CONTENTS

Motor-vehicle Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 108). Hon. Mr. Strachan. Introduction

and first reading — 3047

Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 110). Hon. Mr. Lorimer. Introduction

and first reading — 3047

Municipalities Aid Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 106). Hon, Mr. Barrett. Introduction

and first reading — 3047

British Columbia Auditor General Act (Bill 123). Mr. Gardom Introduction and

first reading — 3047

An Act to Amend the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (Bill 124).

Mr. D.A. Anderson. Introduction and first reading — 3047

Oral Questions

Interim supply requirements. Mr. Bennett — 3047

Regular reports from ICBC. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3048

Law courts renovation. Mr. Wallace — 3049

Imported frozen butter. Mrs. Jordan — 3049

BCR work stoppage at Fort St. James. Mr. Fraser — 3050

Election expense bill. Mr. Gibson — 3050

Drug traffic in B.C. airports. Mr. L.A. Williams — 3050

Copper task force report. Mr., Richter — 3051

Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Amendment Act,

1975 (Bill 68). Third reading.

Division on third reading — 3051

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 76). Third reading —

Automobile Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 69). Third

reading.

Division on third reading — 3052

Trade Practices Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 88). Third reading — 3052

Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 85).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 3 Mr. Wallace — 3052

Amendment to

section 3. Mr. Smith — 3053

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3054

section 3. Mr. Smith — 3054

Amendment to

section 3. Mr. Wallace — 3055

section 4. Mr. Gibson — 3055

Amendment to

section 6. Hon. Mr. King — 3056

section 6 as amended. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3057

Amendment to

section 6 as amended. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3057

Amendment to

section 7. Hon. Mr. King — 3058

Division on amendment to

section 7 — 3060

section 9. Mr. Gibson — 3061

Amendment to the title. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3061

Report stage — 3062

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill

86). Committee stage.

section 1. Mr. Morrison — 3062

Amendment to

section 3. Mr. Bennett — 3062

Hospital Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 98). Committee, report and third

reading — 3069

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (Bill 105). Second reading. Hon. Mr. King

— 3069

Municipal Amendment Act, 1075 (Bill 103). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Lorimer

— 3073

Renters Resource Grant Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 104). Second reading. Hon.

Mr. Nicolson — 3074

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 102). Second reading. Hon. Mr. Cocke

— 3077

Privilege Control of government expenditures. Mr. Gibson — 3079

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

MOTOR-VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment

Act, 1975.

Bill 108 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.

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

Speaker, with your consent, I missed the introductions, and I

do have a group of children — not children, really, students —

from Moscrop junior high who are here in the gallery, and I

would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll see if my consent can be obtained.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Are there any other introductions?

MR. SPEAKER: I think you have already introduced them. Do

you have some more?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No, but I have some messages.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think message bills come before

anything, if advantage is taken of message bills.

Does the Minister have something further to add?

HON. MR. LORIMER: A message bill, but there seem to be

further introductions.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I, too, would like to

have consent to make an introduction. I would like the House to

welcome a group of students from Strathcona School with their

teachers, one of whom is Mr. Kehar Sekhon, who is a leader in

the East Indian-Canadian community in Vancouver South. I would

like this House to welcome them.

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to take this opportunity to welcome a group of students who have come a

long, long way to observe our proceedings here today. They are a group of students

from the secondary school of Valemont, and their teacher,

Orville Brown.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): I'd like to

welcome a group of students from what used to be Rutland, but

is now Northeast Kelowna since we had our enlarged city, and I

ask the House to bid them and their teachers welcome.

NATURAL GAS REVENUE SHARING ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Gas Revenue

Sharing Act.

Bill 110 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.

MUNICIPALITIES AID

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipalities Aid

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 106 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.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

AUDITOR GENERAL ACT

On the motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 123, British Columbia

Auditor General Act, 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.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Is that the end of the

independents' legislative programme?

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPALITIES

ENABLING AND VALIDATING ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 124,

an Act to Amend

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

INTERIM SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, to the Premier and Minister of

Finance.

On March 26 the Premier brought to the interim supply bill,

which was for $537 million, or one-sixth

[ Page 3048 ]

of the proposed budget, which I presume would cover two

months of expenditure so that the much-needed programmes could

continue while democracy took place and we discussed the

estimates. Has this amount been adequate, and do we need a new

supply bill now that it's June 4?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. BENNETT: While you're taking it as notice, there's a

problem that relates to this, if I might just read a letter.

There's some confusion in the public from a small business in

Penticton which writes to me quite concerned. He says:

"We were successful in winning a number of truck tenders

totalling 120 trucks. To date, out of these 120 trucks, we've

only put out some 15 trucks, and the various departments, such

as fish and wildlife, forestry, parks branch, and so forth,

have cancelled all other orders. They cannot take any trucks

until the budgets have been approved by the Legislature.

"In addition to this, the departments have notified

university help they cannot hire them at the present moment,

due to the fact that the budgets have not been approved."

Has the Minister advised his departments to advise the

public that normal business is being held up because the

Legislative estimates have not been passed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I understood the slogan was "not a

dime without debate," so I suggest that you write a

letter and tell him where the fault lies.

MR. BENNETT: Supplemental. Is the Minister saying, then,

that the departments have been authorized to spread this

misinformation because of their new austerity programme...

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: I want to find out. Are the rights of the

Legislature being blamed, after we passed an interim supply

bill, for the government holding back on contracts?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the question is more

rhetorical than argumentative.

MR. BENNETT: No, it isn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member rephrase his question so

we can grasp the full intent of it?

MR. BENNETT: The question is, because this has been offered as a reason

for business contracts not being continued that were awarded to this truck firm,

would the Minister of Finance please advise the House that surely the departments

are not under instructions to blame a slowdown in government activity on the

rights of the Legislature to debate estimates after we passed an interim supply

bill?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Not a dime without debate, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, that's a frivolous answer.

(Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Would the Minister take it as notice, then?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: Do you mean that the departments have been

advised to play politics, and blame it on the Legislature?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

REGULAR REPORTS FROM ICBC

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Can I ask the Minister of

Transport and Communications whether ICBC provides him with a

monthly progress report on the operations of the

corporation?

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

Communications): I attend directors' meetings. They're held

when required. It depends on what is on the agenda whether or

not there's a monthly report.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I ask the Minister more

specifically, then whether he receives a report from ICBC on a

monthly, or at least regular, basis which includes information

on estimated profits and losses, and in particular if the

Minister would check whether he received such a report for July

of last year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I get indications, reports. I don't see

every report that's prepared within. I've already explained

many, many times that, especially in the early months of the

organization, there were unlimited numbers of projections that

were not reports as such. They were internal projections. This

was all discussed on the air, I think, last August when someone

obtained one projection sheet.

[ Page 3049 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, as it has not really been

discussed in this House, could I ask the Minister more

specifically whether he receives any regular report on the

financial position of the corporation either on a monthly,

weekly or bi-monthly basis so that he is aware of expected

losses and/or profits if any? Is he aware of the actual

financial position of the corporation in terms of expectations

for the remainder of the year?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, I get these reports.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members who wish to speak or get the

floor, just leave your microphones up. It will save jumping up

and down. I'll recognize you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Not all of us play tennis with Riggs.

LAW COURTS RENOVATION

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

question the Minister of Public Works with regard to the plan

to renovate the law courts building on Blanshard, and for cases

to be heard during the renovating period of at least a year in

what was formerly St. Ann's Academy. Could the Minister tell

the House how many meetings took place between the Department

of Public Works' planners and the professionals using the law

courts, namely the judges and the lawyers, with regard to plans

for the future use of the existing building and the two new

floors to be added?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Several

meetings. I know I met on at least two occasions, personally,

with Chief Justice Nemetz. I know our planners met both with

lawyers and judges while the whole programme was being

developed. It was as the result of some of the meetings that we

have prepared temporary space in St. Ann's, should the noise

become too great during the period of construction. If not,

they can carry on.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary. I take it from that, Mr.

Speaker, that the decision is not irreversible that they will

move to St. Ann's Academy on July 1. The Minister's answer

implies that there's an element of doubt. The lawyers have been

given to understand that the move certainly will take place.

Perhaps to save time I could also ask: is the Minister

satisfied that the facilities for prisoners or witnesses that

exist in St. Ann's Academy would be adequate for a period of a

year?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Originally the engineers who did the sound

studies felt that court could be held, particularly by doing that part

of the work which would create the most noise during the summer recess.

Then they would be able to carry on. But we are planning on having the

extra court space ready for July 1 so that the courts can and will move

in there. I'm advised that both court services and ancillary services

in connection with the court are adequate.

MR. WALLACE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The extra

two floors that are to be built on the Blanshard Street

building, I understand, are to be used for government office

space and not for new court rooms. I wonder if the Minister had

consulted with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), since

it was always my understanding that the courts and the

executive branches of government should always remain separate.

Yet here they are cheek by jowl in the same building.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is possibly some misinformation that

is being sent out. Over the years....

MR. WALLACE: What will those two new floors be used for?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: They will be used for office

administration, with our open-area design. In future, as the

need for greater court facilities grows in Victoria, this space

can be converted to court space in the future. At the present....

MR. WALLACE: Not immediately.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Not immediately. But over the years there

has been a mix of people and court business offices. Throughout

B.C. most of your government agents act as clerks, and the

courtroom is in the provincial government building, and often

referred to as the court house. But there was often a public

health person, a human resource person, government agents and

other government representatives in those buildings. So this is

certainly nothing new.

IMPORTED FROZEN BUTTER

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'd like to address my

question to the Minister of Consumer Services — when she gets

her eye drops in. Is she aware of the fact that approximately

95 per cent of the butter sold in British Columbia is imported

from Canada, the United States, New Zealand, Australia and

other countries and comes in in a frozen block, is thawed,

wrapped, labelled and, in a majority of cases, refrozen and

sent out to the retail marketplace, put

[ Page 3050 ]

on the shelf and not marked as a frozen product?

I'm also advised, and would like to know if the Minister is

aware, that frequently this product is taken home by consumers

and refrozen, making a possible three refreezings of butter as

well as at times being frozen and defrosted in the process of

getting to the marketplace. Is the Minister aware of this

fact?

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

the Member's question as notice.

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary. If the Minister is not aware of

the fact and is going to take it as notice, would she also, in

bringing in her answer, advise the House if she is prepared to

look into this problem and meet with the industry to bring in a

reasonable solution in order to inform the consumer that this

product has been frozen, and whether or not it is in the best

interest of the product to be refrozen two or three times?

BCR WORK STOPPAGE AT FORT ST. JAMES

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Minister of Economic Development in his capacity as executive

vice-president of the British Columbia Railway. The British

Columbia Railway has been stopped and put out of function at a

point 40 miles north of Fort St. James for a period of several

weeks. I would like to know from the Minister what he is going

to do to get this railroad functional, because either now or in

the immediate future there are 800 jobs at stake. In other

words, the people can't work.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, this is currently under review. I'll have to take the

question as notice.

ELECTION EXPENSE BILL

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

question for the Premier. In view of the Premier's statement of

possible delay in the election expense bill, I wonder if he

could assure the House that it will definitely be introduced

before the next election.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unless the election comes within the next

few days or so, I'm hopeful that it will be introduced. We are

experiencing some technical problems. It may be later in this

same session; we may adjourn and come back in the fall, as has

been our practice. I don't anticipate an election before

returning in the fall, but you never know. I have to follow the

course of the federal Prime Minister when he said: "The

universe is unfolding." (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the Premier

could unfold a little bit more of it.... (Laughter.) In view

of the fact that the redistribution process may take longer

than the other, can the Premier say whether that will be put in

effect, set in motion, before the summer recess?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am not the universe, so

it's difficult for me to unfold any further. As a consequence....

MR. BENNETT: You're sure unfolded.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've lost a little weight. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To answer your question, it is the

information of the government to name an independent committee

to work through the summer hopefully, and earlier in the fall

on redistribution, and then, report back to the House in the

fall.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tony Gargrave?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tony Gargrave — no, Mr. Member. Are you

suggesting some other independents? (Laughter.)

MR. BENNETT: When they report back in the fall, will it be

dealt with in the fall session?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is the idea, Mr. Speaker.

DRUG TRAFFIC IN B.C. AIRPORTS

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

the Hon. Attorney-General: is it true that your racket-busting

career is at an end? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: He pulled the strings.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I would not want at

any time to humiliate an older man. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for

Boundary-Similkameen, I think. Do you have a catch-line?

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, I

would like to direct my question to the....

[ Page 3051 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member wanted

to cap it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it was a serious question. I

don't know why the Attorney-General treats it so lightly. I was

going to ask him as a supplementary if CLEU is taking into

consideration whether or not the experience with regard to drug

trafficking is to be found in the airports of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's no special attention given to

airports in B.C. that I know of. I hope we don't have the

Montreal problem. I don't think we do.

COPPER TASK FORCE REPORT

MR. RICHTER: I direct my question to the Hon. Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources. Could the Minister tell us if

and when he is going to release a copy of the copper task force

report?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): In due

course it will be released.

Orders of the day.

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

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, third reading of Bill 68.

INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH

COLUMBIA AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): On a point of

order, I wonder if the Hon. House Leader could make available

to all the opposition Members the list of business that she

proposes to deal with this afternoon.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it was

noon when the House adjourned today, when I would assume that Members would

be here if they could be, although I understand there were meetings. I did make

available verbally to the House and gave the list to all who were present in

the House. I regret that you were unable to be here, but I am sending across

to you now the list. In the future, I will attempt to see that you all have

it at the same time. I need to know whom to talk to in the three independents.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: We are all independents, Mr. Speaker. You

just send photocopies. We talk to each other from time to

time.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the

House, while we are waiting for the count, it might be easier

if I re-read the order. Then we won't have to send it over.

Third reading of Bills 68, 73 and 76.

Report on Bills 69 and 88.

Committee on Bills 85, 86 and 98.

Second reading of Bills 102, 103, 104, 105 and 107.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Scratch 107.

Bill 68, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia Amendment

Act, 1975, read a third time and passed on the following

division:

YEAS — 33

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Dent

Gorst

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Lauk

Radford

Young

Lea

King

Cocke

Lorimer

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

NAYS — 15

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Anderson, D.A.

Gibson

Fraser

Phillips

Bennett

Jordan

Smith

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we have the motion there by

Mr. L.A. Williams on third reading of Bill 73. The Premier

replied and said the report would come in. We will now move

instead to third reading of Bill 76.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

[ Page 3052 ]

Bill 76 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 69.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Bill 69 read a third time and passed on the following

division.

YEAS — 34

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Dent

Cummings

Sanford

Brown

Calder

Hartley

Stupich

Nimsick

Strachan

Dailly

Barrett

Macdonald

Hall

Barnes

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

NAYS — 15

Wallace

Anderson, D.A.

Gibson

Fraser

Phillips

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Williams, L.A.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, report on Bill 88, Trade

Practices Amendment Act.

Bill 88 read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 85, Labour

Education Centre of British Columbia Act.

LABOUR EDUCATION CENTRE

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 85; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Chairman, I move

the amendment standing in my name on the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 22, in orders of the day — the amendment

standing in the name of the Hon. Minister of Labour.

Pardon me, it is the amendment standing in the name of the

Hon. Member for Oak Bay. (See appendix.)

HON. MR. KING: Oh, I've got the wrong....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was just an error. Let's correct the error.

I should have recognized the Hon. Member for Oak Bay. These

were his amendments.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will

be brief. The amendment merely echoes the points that were made

in my comments on second reading that this educational

institution is designed to provide services for everyone

involved in the matter of collective bargaining and

negotiations. All the amendment does is to add after the words

"trade unions," the words "and members of management,

including small businessmen." I think this small amendment just

puts into simple language the principle that we were talking

about in second reading. I move that

section 3(l), line 2,

after the words "trade unions," be amended by inserting

"and members of management, including small businessmen."

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there is no conflict of intent

here between what the Hon. Member for Oak Bay proposes in the

amendment and the intent as I outlined it in second reading on

this bill. It is indeed anticipated that industrial relations

education will be open to managerial groups. I stress the need,

particularly in areas of elective positions, such as councilmen

and so on, for these persons to become familiar with bargaining

processes. But I suggest and submit, Mr. Chairman, that under

section 3 there is ample scope for inclusion in this programme

of all others involved in the collective bargaining

process.

It is a matter of semantics, really, but the bulk of the

people to whom this new education centre will be directing its

activities will be in the trade union area. That is by sheer

volume of numbers. I don't think it is really necessary to

amend the language of it at this point in time. It is clearly

broad enough to encompass all interested parties. Therefore I

suggest that the amendment is really redundant and I oppose it

on that basis, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if you will correct

me on procedure. I also have another

[ Page

3053 ]

amendment to a different line in

section 3(2). In fact I

have four amendments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think we could take them in

order, one at a time.

MR. WALLACE: I am trying not to waste the time of this

House, because the principle in all four amendments is the

same. I am asking for something in black and white, in writing,

which simply states the principle that both sides of this House

have mentioned in speech. Now if you wish to go through them

one at a time, I will take my place and come back to the second

amendment later on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is agreeable and the Hon. Member wishes

to put them in one group, if they are of the same intent

....

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had better get leave

first.

Leave granted.

MR. WALLACE: These other amendments include such simple

phrases as in

section 3(2), line 4: after the words "process"

add the words "including any employer and any small

businessman." In line 6 of subsection 2: after the word

"organizations" add the words "and for members of management

representing employers in negotiations for collective

agreements," and so on.

In other words, I accept the Minister's clear statement of

principle here. But again, I find it a little unfortunate that

I had to congratulate the Minister in second reading in that he

had taken the step about otherwise acquiring property other

than by expropriation. In other words, he had made in very

been asking for in other bills. Here we have the other example

whereby these very simple amendments that I have made and that

it is not just the trade union movement that is involved in

this bill. Although the Minister quite rightly quotes

section

3(2)(a) — "others involved in the collective bargaining

process" — I just feel that that is about the only line in the

whole of the bill that seems to imply that everybody in the

collective bargaining process will be included and involved in

this educational institution.

So I don't feel that these amendments are really unreasonable. I think they

are simply spelling out in just a few words exactly what the bill is intended

to cover. I think that the word "trade union" is mentioned many times throughout

the bill, but there is only one line in the whole bill which can be looked upon

as referring to management and employers; that line is the line quoted by the

Minister, "others involved in the collective bargaining process." I really feel,

Mr. Chairman, that these five amendments are simple, they are explanatory, they

side of the House understand as the intent of the bill.

On the amendments.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I join in support of the

Member for Oak Bay and his several amendments. I disagree

entirely with what the Hon. Minister of Labour has said. I

think it's unfortunate that he has risen so quickly to express

his opposition to this amendment.

The first subsection to

section 3 is the purpose

section of

this whole legislation. It is spelled out very clearly there

that the purpose of the centre is "to initiate, stimulate and

engage in educational activities for members of trade unions" —

it is exclusively for that purpose. The centre is then given

certain powers which it may or may not exercise. Among those

powers you find some passing reference to other persons who are

involved in the collective bargaining process. If you look

through the other powers, you will find that out of seven of

them the restriction to trade union members is repeated. This

was discussed during the second reading. The Minister has

indicated that this educational centre is to assist in the

improvement of industrial relations in British Columbia, to

improve the calibre of bargaining. You're just not going to do

that by excluding everybody except the trade union members. If

it is not your purpose to exclude others, it's obviously

necessary for you to spell out in the purpose

section of this

legislation those very words. What the Minister says is what

this Legislature intends. That's the important thing because

the legislation will be read as this House speaking, not as the

Minister may choose to speak from time to time in debate or

elsewhere.

Amendments negatived.

section 3.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I have an amendment to

move to

section 3 if you'll just give me about 30 seconds to

complete writing it out. For the benefit of the Minister before

I complete it I will tell him what the content of the amendment

is. It would be to add to

section 3 another

section known as

section 3(3):

"Notwithstanding anything in this Act otherwise contained,

the purpose of this Act shall be to advance on an equal basis

the education of those engaged in management and small

business, as well as those in trade unions. To ensure such

result, 50 per cent of the budget of the centre shall be spent

in respect to trade

[ Page 3054 ]

union members and 50 per cent in respect of management or small

business."

The intent is the same, really, to a great extent. I'll just

have to complete it, Mr. Chairman. It is relatively the same as

the previous amendments moved by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace), and that is to spell out by statute what the

Minister has said in debate of second reading of this bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could we have the amendment

before the Hon. Member proceeds any further so that the Chair

can rule on it?

MR. SMITH: Okay. I've got to finish writing it out so I can

put it.... I have it in my book.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. The amendment,

and I'll repeat it for the benefit of the Minister, would have

the same intent and the same purpose as the amendment

previously suggested by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), and that is to say not only verbally that the intent

of the Minister to encourage....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member

proceeds, the Chair would make a ruling. I would have to,

unfortunately, rule the amendment out of order on two grounds.

First of all, it's basically the same subject matter on which

the committee has already ruled. Secondly, it directs the Crown

as to how money is to be spent. An amendment giving this kind

of direction is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

Therefore I have to rule the amendment out of order.

MR. SMITH: On the basis of your first comment, Mr. Chairman,

I would have to challenge your ruling. But on the basis of the

fact that it directs the expenditure of funds, I have to abide

by your ruling.

I do hope the Minister will take into consideration the

legitimate concerns of not only the opposition, but all people

who are concerned about this matter of labour-management

relations and the furthering of a catalyst that will promote

better understanding. If it was the general feeling abroad —

and speaking on this

section as it is — among most people that

this particular

section of the bill was to apply only to those

people in trade unions, to the exclusion and at the expense of

management and small businesses, it would be unfortunate.

In order to relieve some of the tension that is quite often generated in this

matter, and to provide a more peaceful situation with respect to the whole problem

of labour-management relations in the Province of British Columbia, I would

hope that the Minister will certainly follow through on his suggestions, and

in fact his words on second reading, and that there will be an encouragement

to management and small businesses to take advantage of any educational process

so that it is an exchange of ideas which can then be taken back to both sides.

That is the only way, in my opinion, that we'll ever come to any sort of a resolve

that will be effective in this whole problem of labour-management relations

in the province.

HON. MR. KING: If I might just say to the Hon. Member that I

have, indeed, outlined the intent of the bill in second

reading. I have pointed out that

section 3(2) does indeed

provide the involvement of all those involved in the collective

bargaining process. I have indicated that the main thrust

naturally is toward the trade union movement, because

certainly, by sheer volume of numbers, they are the bulk of the

people who will benefit by this programme. In my view, that's

as it should be.

I would draw to the Member's attention the Labour College of

Canada which caters exclusively to the trade union movement

rather than to management at all. I think that's an error. I

think there must be scope for management to become involved,

too.

We're dealing with semantics in a way. I've clearly outlined

the function and the intent, but one should recognize that this

Labour Education Centre will be administered by an independent

board. To that extent, I think we have to provide flexibility

for them to direct the main thrust, the imperatives, in accord

with their own perception of what's necessary and what the

priorities should be.

I think it would perhaps be a mistake to try to spell out

too specifically in legislation all of the conceptual ideas

contained in the bill. I agree with the Members. I think that

certainly there is a case to be made for involvement of the

people on the management side. There's no conflict; there's no

disagreement there. I have given that commitment in speeches

I've made in this House and publicly. The flexibility does

obtain in the Act, to deliver that, and I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that that's adequate.

MR. SMITH: I shall be very brief.

If nothing else, Mr. Chairman, I think the discussion we

have had this afternoon in committee and in the second reading

of the bill, when the Minister introduced it, has probably

given food for thought. Certainly the board that will be

appointed to administer such an educational centre would be

well advised — and I think they will — to look at the remarks

made in debate concerning this particular bill, and be guided

by some of the thoughts and suggestions that have been made on

the floor of this House. If they follow through on those ideas

and suggestions, then the purpose of both government and

opposition will be well served.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I will also be

[ Page 3055 ]

brief, but I just can't understand in regard to this bill —

and no more or less in regard to any other bills — that when a

principle is spelled out.... We as supposedly intelligent

people just want to spell out that principle clearly in simple

in this House why it is so immensely difficult, apparently no

matter which government is in power, to accept a simple,

principle of the bill has verbally been said to contain.

I find it disturbing, when we have such a simple argument to present and such

With respect to the Minister, he's said several times today that it applies

to all others involved in the bargaining process. Just let me point out in the

section we are debating that the word "all" is not included in that sentence.

Line 4 of

section 3(2)(

a) reads:.... as well as rank and file members and others

involved in the collective bargaining process It doesn't say "all others involved."

It says "others involved." So I move an amendment to

section 3(2)(a), line 4,

to insert after the word "and" the word "all." I so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have the amendment in writing before

we debate it?

MR. WALLACE: In moving the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I'm at

least trying to insert the clear understanding that anyone and

everybody would be considered legally entitled to be involved

in this educational institution. Since the Minister has said

once or twice this afternoon in this discussion that it does

involve all others, but the word "all" does not appear in the

section, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable just to put the

word "all" in line 4. I so move.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, sometimes I wonder about the

opposition, though I have, indeed, accepted amendments — the

Labour Code, when it was being debated, and certain other

statutes which I have introduced — where the opposition made a

rational and worthwhile suggestion in terms of an amendment. I

don't believe in resisting for the sake of resisting. On the

other hand, I question the inclusion of redundant language when

the intent has been quite clearly spelled out.

In this case I have no objections to including "all." I really don't think

it contributes that much, because "others involved in the collective bargaining

process" is pretty clearly identifiable. But if the Member for Oak Bay feels

that "all" is a little broader and a little more all-encompassing, then I'm

prepared to accept that amendment as a show of good faith.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I am pleased that the Minister accepted

this amendment because I was very concerned when he spoke a few

moments ago to think that we had finally come in this province

to a situation where we were being governed not by legislation

but by Ministerial commitment. As we all well know, this

Minister of Labour won't be Minister of Labour much longer, and

his commitments then won't have any effect whatsoever in this

province.

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

section 4.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I have a

question for the Minister on

section 4, Mr. Chairman. First of

all, I would ask why these appointments are during pleasure

rather than for a term definite.

Secondly, I would draw to his attention what appears to be a

drafting error or omission, and that is due to the fact that we

are told in subsection (2) that eight of the first members will

be appointed for two years, during pleasure, and the remaining

eight for a period of one year, but it makes no reference to

the term of persons appointed thereafter. In other words, it

seems to me that the statute being silent on this, it would be

incumbent on a subsequent government to appoint members for

three years or five years, or whatever they might wish, there

being no prohibition of that in the Act, and no specification

of a term except for the first board of governors.

I would ask the Minister if he could comment on that. First

of all, why are members appointed during pleasure rather than

for a term certain? Secondly, what will happen after the first

directors when there is no provision as to the terms of

appointment?

HON. MR. KING: If a vacancy occurs, there is provision for

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to appoint a replacement.

Once the terms are established, the date will be two-year terms... date will be one-year terms. That ratio, that timeframe for

appointments obtains until it's altered, regardless of the

possible turnover of representatives. That's the explanation I

have; that's the intent of the provision. I am informed that is

the legal application of it also.

MR. GIBSON: I respectfully suggest to the Minister that if

that's the advice he has received, it's not very good advice.

There's nothing here that refers to the term of the persons

after the first appointments are made. The learned Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) was

[ Page 3056 ]

commenting last night and he may have something to add to

it.

I would also ask the Minister why these appointments should

be during pleasure, which to me, Mr. Chairman, means that they

can be cancelled by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for

cause or without cause at any time they might wish. Therefore

it would seem to infringe upon the independence that one would

want to have in the board of this kind of institution.

HON. MR. KING: I wouldn't think there would be any conflict

there. I think this is consistent with appointments that the

government makes in other areas. There is always the possible

eventuality of conduct which requires removal. There are a

variety of eventualities that could occur which would require

removal from the board, perhaps through the volition of one of

the board members rather than initiated by the government.

That's simply a power that's consistent, I think, with most

government appointments and other boards pertaining to

educational institutions.

I can't quite understand where the Member finds the

restriction of the terms of appointment to simply the first

appointments. As far as I am concerned, that continues in

subsequent years.

MR. GIBSON: I will just explain to the Minister where I find

it difficult. I'll read to him the only

section of the Act that

I can find that fixes the terms of members of the board, and

that's subsection (2). "Eight of the first members of the board

appointed under subsection (1) shall be appointed during

pleasure for a term of two years..." That's eight of the

first appointees. "... and the remaining eight members shall

be appointed during pleasure for a period of one year from the

date of their appointment." These are the original appointees,

Mr. Chairman. There is no provision whatsoever made for those

persons to be appointed thereafter, even as to the possibility

of their appointment, though perhaps that's implicit in the

statute — but certainly not as to their term.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Maybe as we are discussing this matter, the Hon.

Minister could engage himself in conversation with one car with his distinguished

Depute on this important point. The fact of the matter is that there is no power

to make successive appointments to the board. The only power you have is to

make appointments in respect of a member who leaves the board before his term

has expired. But once his term expires there is no power to make successive

appointments. You will have eight people serving for one year with no power

to reappoint and you will have eight people serving for two years with no power

to reappoint. After two years you are going to have nobody on the board.

HON. MR. KING: Clause 1 of

section 4 indicates very clearly

that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall appoint to the

board of governors of the centre not more than 16 persons.

That's authority for the appointments and that's not restricted

to the first-term appointments. So it's clear from the first

section what the power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

are. Subsection (2) simply refers to the method in which the

first appointments will be made so that there will be a varied

appointment in terms of the timeframe to maintain some

continuity and so that all the members will not be terminating

their appointments on the board at one time. I think if the

section is read in proper order by my distinguished legal

friends on the other side, they would agree that the power is

inherent in the section.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. KING: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper. (See appendix.)

MR. WALLACE: I just wanted to ask why the Minister is

choosing to delete the words "the appointment of a chairman"

as, coming within the authority of the board to make bylaws and

pass resolutions with respect to the appointment of a

chairman.

Is this an afterthought on the Minister's part or is it

basically that the Minister has some concern about the board

being in an authoritative position to choose its own

chairman?

HON. MR. KING: No, Mr. Chairman, that is a drafting

amendment. There is really no change in the intent of the

section.

MR. WALLACE: But, Mr. Chairman, the appointing of a chairman

is a very important matter, whether there are 6 or 16 or 60

people on a board. In the appointment of a chairman, who is the

leader of the orchestra and the person who can make or break a

board sometimes, it seems to me that it makes a very

substantial difference to subsection (

f) to take out the words

"appointment of a chairman."

The

section is described as the

section dealing with the

powers and capacity of the board. One of the powers and

capacities of the board in the original bill, before the

proposed amendment, was that the board could make bylaws and

pass resolutions. One of the bylaws and resolutions which was

in the original bill was in relation to appointing the

chairman. Now we find this amendment is taking away that

power.

[ Page 3057 ]

I think for the Minister to suggest that this is just a

drafting change is really less than accurate. I think that if

board members of any board have the power to be involved by

resolution or otherwise in selecting or suggesting or

disciplining or doing anything else about the chairman, that is

a very considerable degree of power. Now we have this amendment

which is removing that from

section 6. I feel I would like to

have a better explanation as to why the Minister doesn't want

the board to have some say in relation to the appointment of

the chairman.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman,

section 4(6), which has already

been passed, clearly spells out: "The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall appoint the chairman of

the board, who has the casting vote." That has already been

approved. The amendment in

section 6 is simply to bring it into

consistent language with the provision of

section 4.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to drag this out;

I am just trying to make the point. I quoted what

section 6

says, that the board could make bylaws and pass resolutions

with respect to the appointment of a chairman. I suggest that

if we delete that, they can't even make a resolution relating

to the whole area of the appointment of a chairman. It may well

be that the Lieutenant-Governor has the ultimate authority to

appoint the chairman, but doesn't this mean that this deletion,

this amendment is even taking away the power of the board to

pass a resolution relating to this subject of the appointment

of a chairman?

I would think that, again, a chairman can be such a key

person in the efficiency or inefficiency of the running of a

board that surely the board members should be given the

authority at least to pass resolutions about the appointment of

a chairman. I think it is a dilution of authority to greater or

lesser degree, which I feel is unfortunate. I feel that any

board should have some authority, at least to pass resolutions

about the whole question of appointing a chairman, even if they

can't nominate the person or select the person or have any

authority beyond passing. resolutions. It seems to me that at

least they should have that authority.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the authority and the functions and responsibilities

of the board are outlined in the Act. They may pass resolutions pertaining to

those matters which they are specifically given jurisdiction over in the framework

of the Act. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council clearly has the authority to

appoint the chairman. I think it would be improper under those circumstances

for the board to pass resolutions. They are certainly free to make submissions

and suggestions and, indeed, that is customary in the normal practice. But their

function is clearly pertaining to the educational role, the curriculum content,

the manner in which courses will be mounted, and so on. That is specifically

their function.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I oppose the amendment

because it is a clear indication that the government wants to

control this labour centre not only with respect to the way in

which it will conduct its affairs but with the appointment of a

board of governors and the chairman of the board of governors;

and later on we are going to come to the executive director.

This is certainly going to ensure that this education centre

for labour matters in British Columbia is not all independent

of government.

Amendment approved.

section 6 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I would like to

know why in

section 6(2)(

b) disclosure of interest is not

required from members of the board where it becomes

discretionary to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Once again

it seems unnecessary to give the government this extra power.

If the principle that the government accepted last year when

they passed the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act

can be accepted and the statements made by the government can

be accepted, surely the people who serve on the board should be

required to disclose just as people who serve on school boards,

municipal councils or in the Legislature should be required to

disclose.

If the Minister can provide a reason, perhaps he will be

willing to give it when I move an amendment, which I will do

now — namely, to delete in 6(2)(

b) the words "disclosure of

interest and," and add a new

section which would follow

section

Section 6A would be: "The Public Officials and

Employees Disclosure Act applies to all members of the board."

I so move. Perhaps the Minister could indicate if there is any

reason for the government holding that power.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there's been no suggestion

under the Public Officials and Employees Disclosure Act that

those provisions should extend to the board of governors of

universities, as I understand it, in this province. These are

hardly public officials in the sense that was anticipated under

that particular statute. They're not elected members, and

they're not in positions of confidence such as highly placed

public servants. I would suggest that it would be most improper

to make fish of one and fowl out of the

[ Page 3058 ]

other in terms of the similarity between their function and

that of the boards of governors for universities.

The provisions of

section 6(2) indicate that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations respecting

possible conflicts of interest, which I think would be fairly

narrow in terms of the function of this kind of board. But

provisions may be made which would be appropriate, and I think

that's adequately covered in the section. I oppose the

amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, once again, why is it

necessary for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to interfere

with the appointment of the executive director? Surely the

board and the chairman of the board appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council should have the power to

determine who shall be the executive director. Surely there's

no need for the government to adopt this nursemaid approach

which they're doing, whereby they're going to keep interfering

and advising and commenting upon the decisions of the board. If

the board is properly appointed and good people are chosen,

surely the appointment of the executive director is well within

their abilities and within their powers — and should be within

their powers, not subject to the approval of the cabinet, as is

suggested here.

This amendment simply once more indicates the heavy hand of

government control creeping in on the board, and I just fail to

see any justification for it whatsoever. Perhaps the Minister

has one, but I certainly can think of none offhand.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is an initiative that has

been taken by the government for clearly identified purposes;

and those are to improve the quality of industrial relations in

the province. There will be a considerable outlay of public

expenditure for this purpose and I think it's reasonable that

in terms of selecting and setting the remuneration for a

director the government should have a part to play in ensuring

that the tax dollars of the people of this province are being

well spent and prudently spent.

We're very much involved in making this institution

possible. The main concern, I would think, with respect to

independence would be the full independence that the agency has

through the board and through the executive director,

pertaining to course content — the policies and the course

outlines that are pursued. That's the imperative thing in terms

of the sanctity of their independence.

But I think, so long as the taxpayers of British Columbia

are involved to the extent that they are, that we should have

some part to play — in ensuring that the executive director is

chosen wisely and his remuneration is set reasonably, and that

the public interest is protected.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can see those are laudable objectives.

But what on earth makes him think that the 16 people he

appoints to the board will not be capable in their collective

wisdom of coming up with a decision on those points which would

be generally acceptable? Why should the government once more

interfere? It just seems unnecessary to have that additional

amendment which the Minister is trying to put in. He talked

earlier with a fair amount of heat and passion about not having

the centre so bound up with unnecessary amendments, and yet

here is what is clearly a totally unnecessary amendment being

inserted by the Minister.

I find him contradicting the earlier statements he made in

opposition to the amendment by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), where he now starts introducing restrictions which

just in no way seem necessary in the light of the hoped-for

competence of the board itself.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I also would want to oppose this

amendment to

section 8. I am very well aware, as the Minister

has pointed out, of the very sensitive nature of this new

educational centre. On both sides of the House we have talked

about the importance of independence and trying to ensure that

government appear not to be interfering in the independent

decisions of the board and the way in which the centre is run,

the content of curriculum and many other things which the

Minister has mentioned.

It seems to me that it's established by numerous examples

that where you have a board running an operation, and an

executive director, the executive director is responsible to

the board. I can't think of too many examples — in fact, I

can't think of any — where executive directors working for a

board, in a very responsible position and responsible to that

board, are not, in fact, appointed, hired or fired by that

board.

I think this is another initiative that the government is

taking whereby it is saying to 16 people: "We are asking you to

run this new

[ Page 3059 ]

educational centre. We're giving you the capacities and

powers that are spelled out under

section 6. You will need an

executive director to carry out these powers and capacities,

but we, the government, want to pick the executive

director."

I don't know why the Minister is shaking his head. The

amendment reads: "that the board shall, subject to the approval

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, appoint an executive

director," Now if that doesn't mean that the board can

say they want John Brown to be the executive director, and the

cabinet can say that they don't think John Brown is a suitable

person, for whatever reason.... The 16 board members might be

unanimously agreed that John Brown is the man for the job, but

if John Brown is not acceptable to the cabinet for any one of

many possible reasons, then John Brown's body would lie

moldering in the employment grave because he wouldn't get the

job.

I just feel that, again, if the principle of this bill is as

we have been told — that it's for everybody in the

labour-management field, and it's to operate and function

completely free of government and possible political

interference — then it's very difficult to reconcile that

principle with this amendment, because there is no doubt at all

that this amendment supersedes the authority of the board to

really determine their own executive director.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the

section we're amending, the

executive director has some very considerable powers of his

own. If you read the bottom of the page, it says that he

generally will supervise and direct the instructional,

administrative and other staff, and exercise such other powers

and perform such other duties as are assigned to him by the

board. In other words, the executive director is a very

powerful individual in his own right.

When you consider the authority and power vested in the

executive director, and then consider that the government wants

the right to say yea or nay to that appointment, one has to

wonder to just what degree this body, this new educational

centre, can be looked upon as truly being independent of

politics and independent of the government of the day.

Further on in the same section, without prolonging the

debate unduly, there are certain other considerable powers

afforded to the executive director under (a), (

b) and (c).

Really only one of these powers relates to the curriculum, as

the Minister has emphasized. If we really want to follow out

the original principle of this bill in relation to independence

from political influence, I see no good reason why the cabinet

should want to have the authority to appoint the executive

director. For that very strong reason, I oppose this

amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Member is presuming that in the first

place there will be a conflict between the wishes of the board and cabinet's

receptivity to accepting their appointments. But when he turns it around and

puts it in the blatant fashion that cabinet is hiring and is designating the

executive director, that's a bit much.

It says that "the board may, subject to the approval of the

cabinet." In other words, they make their selection and submit

that to cabinet for approval. That's a good deal different from

the kind of picture that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay was trying

to draw. I'm surprised at him; he's usually a fair-minded

individual. There's a vast difference there.

I see nothing objectionable about it. I think the government

has certainly taken the initiative in developing something that

is unique in Canada, as a matter of fact, with respect to this

institution. I think that the funding of it has been carried

basically by the taxpayers of this province — not industry, not

labour. Therefore I think we have a valid and legitimate

interest to make sure that this instrument functions in the

most efficient and effective way possible. We have an interest

in who the directors are and who the executive director is.

It's not quite like an academic institution. It's a

different kind of thing getting off the ground for the first

time. While all the Members across the way may be paying great

lip service to it, I think they should recognize also that this

has been a need in the province for the last 20 years. It's too

bad it wasn't introduced before now. Perhaps we'd have a better

climate of industrial relations in this province.

Every new idea, every new concept this government brings in

is usually damned roundly by the opposition in debate in the

House and subsequently voted for. I can remember the debate on

the Labour Code of British Columbia, where all the expressions

of fear and awesome powers were expressed regarding the Labour

Relations Board. It has proven to be a very effective and a

very acceptable institution that's doing a good service for the

parties who are most interested. I'm getting a bit tired of all

the picayune sniping at the language of these bills. The

concept is a good one; and if the Members disagree that

violently, well, all they can do is vote against it.

MR. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems that we've struck

a tender cord.

Interjections.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Stop the mumbling over there. One

at a time, please.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: First of all, I don't believe I tried to create

the impression that this amendment gave

[ Page 3060 ]

the cabinet the right to choose the chairman. I said it gave

the cabinet the right to turn down the recommendation of 16

board members, either if they were unanimous or a majority. If

I left the impression the Minister says I left with the House,

that was certainly unintentional. I withdraw it and apologize

if I made that implication. I simply want to make it plain that

I don't see the need to give the cabinet the authority to

reject, if it so chooses, the chosen person that the board

wants as executive director.

The Minister seems very full of self-righteous indignation

this afternoon that we're not 100 per cent behind every bill

that comes before this House under the Minister of Labour.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: I'm glad to see the smile back on the

Minister's face. He looks so intense when he's unhappy. I'm

glad to see him smile again, because this effort — at least

from this particular desk — is only an attempt to make the bill

a little better. Just because we support certain bills — and

we've supported quite a few and I'll go on supporting bills

that are good bills — I think it's going too far to suggest

that because we support most of the bill or the principle of

the bill, we should have our motives questioned because we're

trying to make it a little better.

This is a difficult area we're moving into, and I do again

commend the Minister for the initiative that he's taking. But I

don't think he should become affronted because we feel on this

side of the House that there's a little

section here, a little

section there that might be made better. I just feel that if

the concept of setting up a board of 16 people, who will

obviously be experienced people and highly capable people in

their field, and we give them the authority as directors of the

board, but then say to them: "We don't think you should have

the total authority to select your own executive director,

" when the executive director has the kind of power

that he has, then I think that is contradicting your stated

principle.

I'm trying to think of other examples where boards.... Let

us take, for example, the Workers' Compensation Board. What

about the executive director in the Workers' Compensation

Board? I wonder if the Minister knows — I don't know without

looking up the legislation — whether the appointment of the

executive director of the Workers' Compensation Board is

subject to cabinet approval.

HON. MR. KING: It is.

MR. WALLACE: It is?

HON. MR. KING: Right.

MR. WALLACE: Well, there's the one example where a large

amount of money is being spent — which isn't public money in

the first place; it's money put up by corporations — and yet

the government seeks to control or to approve or disapprove the

appointment of the executive director.

In this first step towards an educational institution in the whole

sensitive area of labour-management, I just think that the Minister

might well have left the executive director's appointment to the total

authority of the board to see how things go. If there has to be

amendments later on down the road, I feel that that would be more

judicious than creating this element of government interference right

at the start.

As the Minister knows, the initial phases through which this

new institution will go are very crucial to its ultimate

success. One of the primary initial goals was that it not only

appear to be free of political interference but that it be seen

to be free of political interference.

This would be just one more way in which the Minister would

be showing his confidence in the ability of the board to run

its own affairs in an independent manner. I really feel that it

would still be reasonable for the Minister to reconsider this

amendment and not proceed with it.

Amendment approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

Cummings

Lockstead

Gabelmann

Skelly

Nunweiler

Nicolson

Lauk

Radford

Young

Lea

King

Cocke

Lorimer

Anderson, G.H.

Rolston

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

NAYS — 16

Wallace

Anderson, D.A.

Fraser

Chabot

Phillips

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Gardom

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano —

on which section?

[ Page 3061 ]

MR. GIBSON:

Section 9.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: I was on my feet, Mr. Minister!

MR. CHAIRMAN: In order to deal with this matter, when we get

to the end perhaps I could ask if the

section could be

reopened. But we have gone by it.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have leave to reopen

section 9?

Leave granted.

section 9.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano proceed on

section 9?

MR. GIBSON: I will, Mr. Chairman, but I object a little.

There shouldn't have had to be leave. I was on my feet and I

want to make that point. I just have a simple question for the

Minister which relates to the financing of this institution. I

would ask if the Minister contemplates that in the various

courses which will be extended by the institution, either

through its own facilities or through colleges, schools or the

like, any fees will be charged as a matter of income to the

education centre.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I think it's customary that certain

costs be borne by the students, depending on the kind of course

involved. I foresee a variety of courses. Some will be

structured courses, perhaps for two months' duration. Under

those circumstances, I would imagine that a cost would accrue

in terms of the books and other costs for accommodation and so

on that might be involved. In this respect it's quite customary

for the Government of British Columbia and for industry and

labour to mount bursaries or scholarships to help those

attending with the costs incident to that kind of course.

On the other hand, I see a variety of course material going

out to various areas of the province which would be, I think,

very minimal in terms of cost pertaining to the books and that

kind of thing. Where people could attend within the vicinity of

their own domicile, of course, material that was available,

audio-visual material that might be developed for the purpose

of giving instruction, lectures and so on — that's the kind of

thing that I anticipate the board will be directing and

addressing themselves to in developing curriculum. You are

probably aware, but maybe you are not, that the Government of

British Columbia has for some years made a contribution to the

Labour College of Canada to the extent of $4,000, I think, a

year. This basically provides scholarships for various students

from this province. Industry and trade unions mounted

scholarships for their own people as well.

Section 9 approved.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On the title.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To better indicate what this bill is all

about and what this centre is all about, I would suggest that

instead of having it called the Labour Education Centre which

might indicate a large number of possible courses to the person

who simply saw the title, we change it to read the Labour

Relations Education Centre. The Minister has made constant

reference throughout that this is essentially a labour

relations college and a college which will be attended by

people other than just members of the union movement. Therefore

I would suggest that an amendment of this nature would better

reflect the true nature of the college and also at the same

time better indicate the Minister's intention with respect to

this institution.

I move that the word "Relations" be added into the title so

that it now would read: "Labour Relations Education Centre of

British Columbia Act."

On the amendment.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, again we are becoming involved

in a matter of semantics. What's more important than the title

of the bill is the customs and the practice and the respect

that is built up around the institution, and I think that is

what it will be known for. I doubt, quite frankly, whether the

title of this bill bears any significance in terms of the

direction and the policies that are developed by the board.

Accordingly, I think the amendment to the title is unnecessary

and I oppose the amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps the Minister has forgotten the

fact that we come to this Legislature and we read enormous

numbers of pieces of legislation which are on the books of the

Statutes of British Columbia and it makes sense to have the

title of any piece of legislation reflect the intent of the

legislation. It's a relatively simple amendment. It's not

something I wish to beat to death; it's just that this would

better reflect what this bill is all about. It would aid people

who try and judge these bills when they look at them, and I

think it would be a minor step in terms of clarity.

[ Page 3062 ]

I have to, at this stage, express my opposition to the

Minister's approach which is that words don't count — that it

is what he says in this House that counts in terms of what this

thing will do. Well, that's not so. Legislation stays on the

books for years. It should reflect as closely as possible the

intent of the Legislature; the words should reflect the intent

of the Legislature.

We are not in an American jurisdiction where judges or

others have the opportunity of checking back to the debates

which set up the legislation to find out what the intent of the

legislators was at that time. We are in a commonwealth

jurisdiction where the words themselves are meant to indicate

as clearly as possible what the intent of the legislators might

be.

I think this amendment is similar to the others put forward

from this side of the House. These have been to try and clarify

this bill, to make it a better bill, better capable in the

words of the legislation of reflecting the ideas the Minister

has put forward in the House. This amendment is nothing more or

less than just that, and I just fail to see why the Minister

cannot accept it in that spirit.

Amendment negatived.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 85, Labour Education Centre of British Columbia Act,

reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next

sitting of the House after today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In committee on this bill a division took

place. The committee asks that this be recorded in the Journals

of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall leave be

granted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correction, there was no request for

recording.

MR. SPEAKER: There was no request?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then, in that case there will be no

recording.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 86, Mr. Speaker.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

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

chair.

section 1.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask

the Premier if he would give us an explanation of what

guarantee means in the

interpretation section. What are the

limits of the guarantee? Who will be guaranteeing it and what

will the client be able to look to for that type of

guarantee?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The guarantee will mean that the

provincial government will guarantee the funds in the

organization. The limits are spelled out in another

section.

MR. MORRISON: So it is the provincial government that

guarantees.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's the provincial government, yes.

MR. MORRISON: A question then on that same section, on item

(v), a "public body." Could he give us some indication of the.... It's a pretty open-ended section, and what are the people

you have in mind who might come under that

section for the need

for it? What type of body?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it's spelled out in (iv) — "any

other body elected or appointed under

an Act to administer Now represents....

MR. MORRISON: No, no.

Section l(v).

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, subsection (v) — I'm sorry. It means

generally the same description as item (iv), Mr. Member, a

public body.

MR. MORRISON: Can you name one specifically?

HON. MR. BARRETT: A village perhaps, or a municipality.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

wish to move the amendment

[ Page 3063 ]

standing in my name on the order paper by adding the

following to

section 3, and numbered 3A: "Notwithstanding

anything in this Act and the regulations made pursuant to this

Act, the company shall not open branch offices so as to be in

competition either directly or indirectly with the credit

unions as defined by the Credit Unions Act."

In speaking to the amendment, I might point out that we are

dealing with the objects of this section, and while one of the

objects has been referred to in second reading as to be a

partner with the credit unions, it certainly isn't spelled out

in this object. In fact, the intent of the bill, if taken with

all the good intentions that may be stated during second

reading and in any discussion surrounding this bill.... Once

the bill is passed it's there, and nowhere does it say that

this savings and trust corporation will not be a competitor to

the credit unions in this province and will not eventually,

because of the weight of government ownership, do away with the

credit union movement in this province.

It doesn't suggest in here that we are going to offer them a

10 per cent equity. Even a minimal equity like that doesn't

guarantee any opportunity to stop any move any government would

take with this savings and trust corporation. I think we need

to spell it out.

The credit union movement was originally established to meet

the special needs of the communities. I know we have a B.C.

Central Credit Union which has brought some stability to the

credit union movement, but originally the credit unions have

tried to reflect special needs area by area, community by

community. In many cases the type of financial services they

have offered have varied from various areas. When they formed

the B.C. Central, the B.C. Central was to bring some stability

to the smaller credit unions. These special rights of these

local credit unions must be protected. I am sure that all of us

in the province are concerned that this bill or this savings

and trust corporation at any time could be used without this

provision by any government in the future to eventually

unfairly compete or perhaps replace the credit union

movement.

I would say, in support of the regional aspects of credit

unions and why they are so important, that we have 16 credit

unions in the Kootenays, Mr. Chairman. They have 53,000

members. We have 17 credit unions in the Okanagan where I come

from; they have 80,000 members. Westminster and the Fraser

Valley have 28 credit unions with 95,000 members. Greater

Vancouver has 74 credit unions with 174,000 members. In the

north, there are 17 credit unions with 46,000. Of course,

Vancouver Island has 31 credit unions with 91,000. From

community to community, area by area, these credit unions have

filled a special need.

They were originally formed because the types of loans and services weren't

available through the normal banking institutions or through any of the savings

and loan or trust companies that were doing business in their areas. In many

cases in the early days, when no mortgages were available in the interior of

this province from any of the large financial corporations, the credit unions

themselves provided the capital for the type of mortgages for their members

that weren't in those areas or allowed in those areas or provided in those areas.

I think we have to recognize the uniqueness and the distinct advantages of a

credit union movement that will not become institutionalized by government takeover

or government participation. They must be allowed to continue to develop on

the basis for which they were formed.

I agree that this savings and trust can indeed do a great

service to the credit union movement. We know the B.C. Central

has brought a great amount of stability to the smaller

branches. But we also know that the B.C. Central and the credit

union movement are the largest customers, I understand, of the

Royal Bank in B.C. Indeed, if they have to borrow their money

from one of the chartered banks, it is hard for them to then

re-lend it to their smaller institutions and compete.

Through the savings and trust, the government could provide

financing through arranging loans with the credit of the

province. The credit of the province could be well used in this

manner. I would like to see the province's guarantee on this

savings and trust corporation being used to float long-term

money available to the B.C. Central to guarantee funds to these

smaller credit unions throughout the province so they can get

into more and more diversified long-term borrowing. It is also

possible that by providing this service, the government can,

even though they already have the authority under various other

statutes to subsidize mortgages and make them available, direct

the type of mortgages and some of the special rates that the

credit unions would lend this money out at. Of course, that is

why I believe the savings and trust with this provision, with

this amendment, could guarantee to the credit union movement

that they could continue, they would have greater strength,

they would be able to provide a better service to their

customers and to their communities. The government would be

making a strong contribution to their movement and to their

financial stability, and yet at the same time would be

guaranteeing that no government in the future, let alone the

good intentions of any government, would use this savings and

trust corporation to go directly into competition and perhaps

weaken the credit union movement, perhaps even take it

over.

The offer of a 10 per cent equity, which isn't contained

anywhere in this bill, does not guarantee them a future. It is

not guaranteed and does not provide the guarantees that this

amendment would

[ Page 3064 ]

provide, an amendment which would show clearly to the credit

unions of this province that this Legislature and this bill

which would set up the B.C. Savings and Trust Corp. is indeed

designed to help them and not to be a competitor, is indeed

designed to strengthen them and help them provide additional

services and not be a takeover, and indeed is designed for the

government directly through their large network of retail

branches to provide specific types of loans, perhaps even

subsidized, that they can't do now because of a lack of

long-term financing that they haven't been able to make up from

their deposits.

I would be hopeful that the government and the Minister of

Finance will accept this amendment and will encourage its

passage so as to indicate clearly to the credit union movement

that we in this Legislature are on their side.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the arguments presented by

the Member, I think, are essentially political. If you really

believe that there was any possibility of takeover, then don't

vote for the bill on second reading. You're just flogging a

political horse.

How can we possibly pass an amendment like this saying we

won't go in and open up some offices? The credit unions haven't

even said that they're going to become partners, and we

wouldn't take the position that the credit unions are going to

make up their minds because of this bill or amendments. They

have the freedom to make up their minds on their own. If they

don't want to come in on this, fine; but if we pass your

amendment and they don't come in, that means we don't open up

shop at all. That's absolutely foolish on your part.

I don't see why you keep on repeating the words "takeover"

or "threat to the credit unions" when you vote for it on second

reading. There is no intention of this government to take over

any credit union, and there is no capability in this

legislation to do that — absolutely none! Not one single lawyer

anywhere in the world will tell you that this bill can take

over the credit union movement, and the only people who are

flogging that line are the mixed up Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey — the independent mixed up Member — and the Leader of the

Opposition. Not one lawyer anywhere in the world will tell you

that this has got any capacity, ability or law to take over the

credit unions. So what are you trying to peddle here? Are you

really coming here to help this financial instrument, or are

you coming here to play politics?

Now what's it going to be? You keep on repeating the word "takeover." You keep

on repeating the word that we're going to force the credit unions to confirm

to us. The credit unions have the option to pick up 10 per cent of this corporation.

If they do, it will strengthen them in terms of giving a broader base of money

to provide services to their members. If they don't, that's their choice.

But the point is this: if the credit union movement takes up

the option, I've said we would open up a limited number of

regional offices — no more than 14.

MR. BENNETT: Where does it say that in the Act?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It doesn't say that in the Act, Mr.

Member. The credit unions haven't even bought in yet, and maybe

they won't want to, and then if we pass your amendment we can't

do anything with your amendment. Your amendment is designed to

hamper the implementation of the purpose of this Act.

I don't understand why you find it necessary to take this

kind of political line when you should be helping the

development of this financial institution, not hampering it.

Why do you get up and say those things? You have no basis in

fact. No lawyer will tell you that your statement is correct.

This is an opportunity for the credit unions, and if they don't

buy in, someone else can, if they care to, to help us provide

this service to the people of British Columbia. Your amendment

emasculates the very purpose of this bill which you voted for

yesterday.

If you show me where a lawyer says that the 10 per cent

partnership is a takeover of credit unions, I'll show you a

lawyer who's charging you for bad advice, because the bill

doesn't say that. There is no legal capacity to take over the

credit union movement in this bill. Your whole argument is

specious.

MR. BENNETT: Well, the Premier is being highly political.

We're trying to bring some guarantees to the credit union

movement, guarantees that he only says, with his usual

flamboyance and rhetoric.... We know how much the people of

this province trust the word of the government. We know how

much they trust the word of the government. They can't trust

the word of the government.

What we said in second reading is that we want a guarantee

that this savings and trust corporation would not go into

competition with the credit union movement. Today the Premier

threatens the credit unions: "If you don't buy equity in this

corporation, you get no help." That's what the Premier and

Minister of Finance just said. He threatened the credit union

movement. "Buy shares or you get no help. We'll go somewhere

else." That's what he said.

All the concerns that we had for the credit union movement

are justified with that type of argument and that type of

threat. Just ridiculous. The government could destroy the

credit union movement through competition, competition that the

government can direct through subsidized mortgages in direct

competition. With their type of lending

[ Page 3065 ]

facility in community after community, they could emasculate

the credit union movement; certainly they could. And we want

guarantees. We don't need threats from the Premier, with the

taxpayer's money, that if the credit union movement of this

province doesn't buy 10 per cent, doesn't buy shares, they

won't get any financial help. "Not one cent" is what you said.

You said you'd get it somewhere else. You threatened the credit

unions of this province.

It's just incredible. This Legislature is to sit and

establish laws and facilities for the benefit of the people.

The benefit of the people's financial institution, the credit

unions, was one of the reasons the Premier said — although it's

not in here — that this bill came down at all. Yet nowhere is

there any guarantee that the government through competition

won't emasculate the credit union movement. Today we have the

ultimate insult: the Premier is threatening the credit unions

that if they don't buy shares, they won't get any funds from

the government savings and trust corporation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't say that.

MR. BENNETT: You said specifically that you would turn to

some other financial institution.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For another partner.

MR. BENNETT: What they want, in talking to the credit unions

since this bill was first discussed before the concept was

presented to the House and discussing it with credit union

members and executives around this province, is some guarantee

of stability through long-term funding. None of them want

competition from the government. They want the government to be

a partner for security. A partner for security doesn't mean

equity or threats; it means providing the guarantee of

long-term funds which they are short of and which presently

they have to get from the Royal Bank.

Mr. Chairman, we're not being political. (Laughter.) We're being the

advocates of the guarantees to the credit union movement that they will

survive because this financial instrument will be a partner for

security and not a competitor to spell the death knell of the credit

union movement.

If the Premier was serious when he talked about this bill

being designed to help the credit unions he will accept this

amendment and give guarantees to the credit union movement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Member said that I said

"not one cent to the credit union movement." I did not make

that statement; the Blues will prove it. You're just as wrong

as you are when you talk about misinterpretation about your

statements on Kierans.

This bill offers the credit union movement the opportunity

to buy 10 per cent of a new facility. If they wish to buy it,

fine; if they don't, fine. That is the government's statement

of policy. If they don't buy it, then we will look for another

partner. But when you say that we're threatening the credit

union movement with your new-found interest....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said if they don't wish to participate

in this, they do not become a partner. Then you went on to say

"not one cent," which was absolutely false. Did I say

"not one cent"?

MR. BENNETT: I heard you. I heard you say you'd get another

partner.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what I said. But did I say that

they wouldn't get a cent, Mr. Member?

MR. BENNETT: Will they get...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, now we're getting down to it. Let me

read what the credit union movement....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you please be quiet? Let me read what

I said before and say again that this government has done for

the credit union movement what Social Credit never did. They

have had up to $25 million of short-term funds from the NDP

government; never a penny from Social Credit — that's a matter

of record. Your government — your party — never allowed the

credit union movement to handle one cent of general revenue —

not one penny — and now you come in here with this crying

new-found interest in the credit union movement when for 20

years your government refused to deposit one single cent in the

credit union movement.

Whether the credit union movement wishes to participate or

not, the following things that we've done with the credit union

movement will stay. I challenge any party to say that they'll

take them away from the credit union movement. We will still

continue to deposit money with the credit union movement, which

that outfit never did before. How are you able to stand on your

feet and feed us that pompous guff about some new-found

interest when your own record against credit unions was

scandalous?

MR. BENNETT: That's wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was scandalous! You never allowed them

to have a cent of government

[ Page 3066 ]

money — never. Is that true or false?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we have allowed the credit

union movement in drafting the new credit union movement to

meet modern day conditions... that Act was brought in by

us.

We have allowed them to act as agents for the motor vehicle

branch as a convenience for credit union members. Is that a

takeover of the credit unions, allowing them to act as

agents?

The request to act as agents for B.C. Hydro — is that a

takeover?

The request to act as agents for B.C. Telephone — is that a

takeover?

They requested to act as agents for Okanagan Telephone — is

that a takeover?

They requested to act as agents for the municipalities — is

that a takeover?

They requested to act as agents for Inland Natural Gas — is

that a takeover?

We made it possible for credit unions to act in the sale of

Olympic and Western Canada lottery tickets — is that a

takeover?

We made amendments to allow the economic.... I read all of

this yesterday — two pages of moves that this government has

deliberately made to allow the credit union movement to

participate. I'm not going to read it all again today.

Mr. Member, I put the challenge to you. We reject your

amendment because it is an attempt to emasculate this

legislation before it gets a chance to serve the people of this

province. If you feel that strongly about this amendment, then

I tell you, Mr. Member, vote against the bill.

Vote against the bill, but don't play that shallow game of

coming in this House, talking one way and voting another way.

That's my challenge to you. Vote against the bill.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, all through second reading,

introduction and the windup on the bill, we never did get anything but this type of rhetoric, talking about the Credit

Unions Act that was introduced and passed in this House. I'd

like to say that the very fact that there is a healthy credit

union movement that has grown over many years in this province

indicates that from time to time.... If we look back at the

Credit Unions Act and the many times it was amended at their

request, giving them additional responsibilities as they grew

and were able to take on more services, you would know that

various governments have had a commitment to the credit union

movement by making changes as they've requested them.

What we're talking about is not money that was given but money that they were

allowed to borrow on a short-term basis. What was the rate? What was the rate,

Mr. Chairman? Was it a special rate? Was it 6 per cent? Was it 7 per cent? Was

it 8 per cent, or was it the rate that the chartered banks pay? What's the favour?

What we're looking for in this savings and trust corporation

is a guarantee of long-term money, not money that they perhaps

can get from time to time in bidding on government money as we

have it, which is short-term money. We're looking for long-term

money. They didn't get special rates on that $25 million. That

was competitive rates at the particular time. It wasn't

long-term money; it was short-term money.

What the credit union movement in this province needs is a

specific amount of long-term money to give them the stability

they need. They need guarantees; they don't need the talk that

we did something else in another bill. That has been going on

continually and will go on when this government is gone as the

credit union movement matures and progresses. That's part of

the continuing responsibility of any government of the day: to

meet with the credit unions as they make additional

requests.

I looked back through the statutes at all of the changes

that have been made over the years. I went to the credit unions

and asked how many times they had been turned down. It was

amazing. I couldn't find some of the specific areas that they'd

been turned down on. You would have thought from the Premier

yesterday and today that they'd been made to live in the

basement, muzzled. That's not true.

It was a good move to allow them to bid on short-term money,

but what we're looking for is long-term money. Short-term money

at the same rates the banks pay is no great advantage. It's

short-term help. What they're looking for is long-term

stability.

I don't think there's anything wrong. In fact, I think

there's something very right in making this legislation to set

up this savings and trust corporation specifically, relating it

to the arguments that have been made but aren't incorporated

into the bill, that is here to help the credit union movement.

Nowhere does it say that 10 per cent of the shares will be

offered. Nowhere does it say that the credit union will be

guaranteed large sums of money. Nowhere. What it does do is set

up a savings and trust corporation that could be a major

competitor and that could weaken the credit union movement. I

say they have a structure, a structure that's community

oriented to people who developed this movement over many years.

It's grown; and now it needs stability, not competition.

All I'm saying is: provide that stability. Guarantee that

you won't compete it out of existence or into weakness. Put in

the legislation what you allude to in your remarks. But if

you're not prepared to put it in

[ Page 3067 ]

the legislation, then the legislation can be a sham.

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

out that the Member is now saying that we would weaken the

credit union movement. He's dropped the takeover. I appreciate

that.

Now he also says — as I tried to make notes — that the

credit union movement was granted everything it asked for by

the previous government.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is interesting, Mr. Member, that you

have to listen very closely to what the Leader of the

Opposition says. When he's pinpointed down, he changes his

statements as he goes along. He's changed from "takeover" to

"weaken". When I said that I wrote down that he said the credit

union was granted everything it asked for by the previous

government....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said you met with them and they told

you that everything they asked for they got. Now he says

"almost everything."

I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that for many, many, many years

the credit union movement of this province asked for the right

and the opportunity to competitively bid for short-term money.

It was denied every single time they asked for it by the Social

Credit government. How can you come in this House and try

somehow to leave the impression that every request was granted?

When I try to pinpoint you, you say "almost." The facts are

that at no time was there ever a policy granting the request of

the credit unions....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't believe that? The truth is, Mr.

Member, that the credit union movement asked for the rights to

bid on short-term money, and Social Credit consistently said

no. And that's true. So when you come in here and try to leave

the impression that everything was granted to the credit union

movement, that is not true. When was the date of the first time

that short-term money was deposited with the credit union

movement? It was after the election of this government.

MR. BENNETT: At what rate?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They bid for it competitively. They had

the right to bid for it. When was the first time they had the

right to bid for that?

MR. BENNETT: What rate?

HON. MR. BARRETT: After our election. They were never

allowed to bid before we were elected, yet you come in here and

say....

MR. BENNETT: What rate? What rate?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't be silly, Mr. Member. What

rate!

MR. BENNETT: Just answer the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you are really something else.

Now when you come in here you have altered your story twice

in the period of 15 minutes. Mr. Member, I am telling you, and

I tell you again clearly: the intention of this is to provide

an alternate system to traditional banking. When the Bank of

British Columbia was introduced, it was a threat to the credit

union movement on the same terms that you define because it was

a competitor.

MR. BENNETT: It was a chartered bank.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was a chartered bank and it was a

competitor. As a matter of fact, it was so much a competitor

that the former Premier got on the phone to sell shares of the

other bank. That's a matter of record.

Was there ever a statement by the former government or the

former Premier that his flogging those shares would threaten

the credit union movement? I don't recall that. I don't recall

one single statement by the former government saying that the

Bank of B.C. might endanger those community efforts known as

the credit union movement. Yet the former Premier was recorded

as stating that he had indeed gone out and flogged shares for

the B.C. Bank which is no longer really a B.C. financial

institution — a major shareholder is in Ontario.

So I just don't understand the logic of your position, Mr.

Member. You've changed your story twice in 15 minutes. I have

said that there is no way that this bill can be a takeover, and

now you've said it is weakened. You said that they granted

everything the credit union wanted. I point out that for years

they wanted the opportunity for short-term money and never got

it. So where are you going? Where are you going?

I'm telling you that this government will not accept your

amendment, and if you are unhappy with the bogeyman that you're

trying to create, then vote against the bill. Vote against the

bill. But the people of this province will have to know and

read Hansard as to your arguments.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I can't let the

[ Page 3068 ]

Premier go with some of his asinine statements without some

comment. The B.C. Savings and Trust Corp., as it is

incorporated here, the powers granted and utilizing being a

creature of the provincial government with its credit, is far

different than B.C. getting its first chartered bank in many,

many years with a head office in Vancouver. That wasn't to

compete with the credit union movement; that was to provide a

chartered bank under federal regulations that could compete

with those eastern-centered organizations. If you're against a

chartered bank with its head office in B.C. — and the Minister

of Industrial Development, (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is.... Are you

against a chartered bank centred in B.C.? Are you against a

chartered bank with its head office in B.C.?

MR. PHILLIPS: Let the people know.

MR. BENNETT: Are you against a chartered bank?

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: All right. No, he says. That's just like the

Premier saying that the former government or governments were

against the credit union movement. I tried to tell him that

time and time, year after year, when amendments were brought in

they were initiated, in the most part, by the credit union

movement.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: They were initiated by the credit union

movement, and that isn't being against the credit unions.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): They were

given everything they asked for; that's what you said.

MR. BENNETT: That isn't being against the credit unions.

Now we know the Premier would like everybody to believe that

this bill is what he says it is outside. But the people of this

province can only go by what is passed in legislation, and

they've learned from other Acts and other statements that this

Premier and this government have made that they have to be

concerned that the legislation and the guarantees are spelled

out.

There is nothing in this Act that mentions that it's to help the credit unions.

There is nothing in this Act to say they can buy 10 per cent, or can even continue

to hold it. There is nothing to say that they are going to get help from the

government. All we want is a simple guarantee that the government will not compete

the credit unions out of business. All we want is a simple guarantee that you

won't compete the credit unions out of business. Just a simple amendment, an

amendment that should be there if you mean what you say, and if you have meant

what you said. But certainly if the government and the Premier are not sincere

in their comments, then don't accept the amendment, and we'll tell the credit

unions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh. Here comes the heavy.

MR. SMITH: If we look at the objects in

section 3 of this

new financial institution, we note that

section 3(

a) suggests

the institution will provide a full range of financial

facilities and services. In

section 3(

b) it is being

incorporated to provide competition to the financial markets

with a view to reduction of the interest rates on borrowing by

citizens and institutions of the province.

Look at

section 3(f): "To increase the availability and

amount of credit for low-income and middle-income citizens."

I'd like to repeat that, Mr. Chairman. "To increase the

availability and amount of credit for low-income and

middle-income citizens, and to farmers, fishermen, and small

businesses." Is that not the traditional market of the credit

unions in the Province of British Columbia? I suggest to you,

Mr. Chairman, that it is and it always has been the low-income,

the middle-income people, the farmers in the province, the

fishermen and the small businessmen, the people who did not

have the type of collateral that many of the large financial

institutions in operation in this province would accept.

That is the traditional market of the credit union movement

in the Province of British Columbia. Those are their

traditional customers. There must be great apprehension on the

part of the credit unions at this particular time because they

have been told this afternoon: buy in, or else. Even if they do

buy in and take an interest, a 10 per cent equity, there is no

guarantee by the government that they will be looked upon more

favourably than in the past and that they will receive

equitable treatment from this new savings and trust

corporation.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, we believe the government knows

full well that the credit union movement, through its members,

represents a substantial segment of the population of this

province who traditionally look to that institution to supply

them with their needs. They should be protected, and the

protection would be a simple amendment, as suggested by the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). Not only what is said

on the floor of this House but what is written into the

statutes of this House when they are passed would give a

clear-cut definition of the position of the credit unions not

only now but in the future.

[ Page 3069 ]

They have been a substantial contributor to the overall

economy of the small and middle-class individual and business

person in the Province of British Columbia.

I think the Premier has tried to confuse the issue and not

to clarify it. He would seem to suggest in the remarks, as I

have listened to them, that really this institution will become

a major competitor to the credit union movement in the Province

of British Columbia. Whether they buy in or not is of no

consequence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SMITH: They will become a major competitor to the

traditional market of the credit unions.

Would it not in many respects to far more simple to

guarantee to the credit unions that there is no intent on the

part of the government to go into competition in their

traditional markets, that there is no intent on the part of the

government to establish branches in close proximity to the

credit unions now in operation in the Province of British

Columbia?

Their history is long. It's been an uphill battle, and not

without setbacks. They've learned the management and the skills

that are necessary to manage finances and funds, certainly far

more adequately than I would say the Premier of this province

has demonstrated as Minister of Finance. But they have learned

it the hard way, over trial and error — a situation which has

developed over a period of 20 or 30 years.

Now I think it is time they were given an opportunity to

advance that other step that would put them on equal footing

with any banking and financial institution in the Province of

British Columbia. They are certainly on the threshold of that

now. But the establishment of a savings and trust corporation,

which will not only be a competitor in their traditional

markets but which will allow them to bid for short-term money

at the highest going interest rate — and, after all, the only

way they are going to receive the benefit of those funds is to

pay the highest interest rate among those people who bid for

them — will rob them not only of their traditional market but

will undercut them by subsidizing loans. That's exactly what

would happen if you try to reduce the interest rate paid by the

preferred customers of the Savings and Trust Corp. of British

Columbia.

You could wipe out the credit union movement as an institution for the benefit

of small people in this province. In one year they could be wiped completely

out. The people who have invested their savings and money there would be wiped

out with them. I hope it is not the intent of the government to do that, but

if they do not accept the amendment that is proposed by the Leader of the Opposition,

then the government is saying to the people of British Columbia: "Once this

bill is passed, we are in competition to every credit union in this province

for their traditional customers." Make no mistake about that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am enjoying this debate so

much that I regretfully have to ask the committee to rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again. Unfortunately, I

have to go to Vancouver, but I have enjoyed the debate and I am

looking forward to it being resumed.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 98,

Hospital Insurance Amendment Act.

HOSPITAL INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 98; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 98, Hospital Insurance Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendments, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I will just have to break the

order because the two Ministers are not here. They will be here

in a couple of minutes, but instead of wasting time waiting, I

would like to proceed to second reading of Bill 105, Workers'

Compensation Amendment Act, Minister of Labour.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to continue the

improvement to the Workers' Compensation Act in the province.

The main content

[ Page

3070 ]

of it relates to the inclusion of commercial fisherman for

compulsory coverage under the Workers' Compensation Act. The

Members of the House will undoubtedly be aware that there are a

variety of problems in extending this kind of protection to

commercial fishermen, because they are involved in a different

industry, an industry which differs from the industrial sector

in that there is not always a constant employee-employer

relationship. Some presumptions have to be made in terms of

determining that kind of relationship and providing for the

compulsory payment of assessment.

However, I think all Members of the House will agree,

particularly in light of the tragic events of the current

fishing season, that it is imperative that the workers in the

fishing industry and their families be covered in a compulsory

and a comprehensive way by the protection of workers'

compensation. Certainly we had a tragic loss of life in the

fishing industry this past season. It is imperative that the

families of those people in future involved in tragic accidents

of that nature — the sinking of vessels and so on — be covered

like other industrial workers. So within the administrative

machinery and capabilities of the Workers' Compensation Board,

certain presumptions are proposed in these amendments which

will make it possible to extend the right of coverage to all

fishermen, whether or not they be involved in fishing as a

personal enterprise or from packers at sea or whatever the

relationship.

The other general area of the amendment — the most

significant one, at least — deals with the upgrading of old

pensions, those pre-1966 pensions that were not provided for

under the consumer price index adjustments; they were the

pensions that were established on the basis of projected

earning capabilities.

It seems appropriate at this point in time, some 10 years

later, to have a look at what has happened to those projected

earning capacities and the projected pensions of people in the

category of permanent disability pensions or partial disability

pensions. That's what is proposed in the second major

section

of the amendments so that the board might upgrade those

pensions to a certain basic floor level and assess partial

disability pensions that were granted pretty nearly 10 years

ago on the basis of a loose projection. Certainly in those days

no one could anticipate the startling increase in the cost of

living, the inflationary impact on wages, pensions and fixed

incomes of all sorts. I think it's appropriate that this group

of workers be looked at with a view to upgrading and improving

their circumstances so that they can function in today's

high-cost economy.

There are a number of other amendments embodied in this

bill. Most of them are basically housekeeping amendments,

administrative amendments clarifying the function of the commissioners. There is one giving the board more

flexibility in terms of the pay — but for workers under

custodial care when there are no dependents. But generally the

two most significant aspects are the broad inclusion of

commercial fishermen for compulsory coverage and the upgrading

of the pre-1966 disability pensions. So I support the bill in

second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. WALLACE: I would certainly like to give strong support

to the Minister in his effort through this bill to give

protection to fishermen. It seems to me that there's been some

unfortunate lack of clear action by the federal government in

some of these areas regarding fishermen. The tragedies to which

the Minister referred as having happened in the herring season

this year certainly should have brought home to everybody in

this province that the fisherman perhaps has, if not the most

dangerous job in the world, certainly one of the most dangerous

along with others in the mining industry, perhaps. But we have

recently a very good record in the mining industry. There's a

great effort on the part of this government to protect the

miner not only from accidents but from silicosis and other

diseases. I think that this action in trying to protect the

fisherman and give him fair play in the work force is to be

commended. It certainly has our strongest support.

I think sometimes it's a whole question of out of sight, out

of mind. The fact that the fishermen often seem to be many

miles out at sea and we hear about the tragedy sort of less

than first hand, perhaps, has led to a tendency by the

community at large to put them into some kind of separate

category. Certainly this bill in that regard is just catching

up with a situation that should have been dealt with

formerly.

The committee which went around the province felt that the

time was now for fishermen and workers in the agricultural

industry to be given the same kind of support in society as

other segments. So I can't support too strongly the attempt in

this bill to give the fishermen what is only their just

protection in society.

Secondly, if the rest of the bill is mainly to help

pensioners keep up with the cost of living, I certainly support

that most strongly. If we have those who are still in the work

force or those who have retired with a disability talking very

much in terms of cost of living, allowances, surely it only

stands to reason that people who are already on pension or who

have been on pension for some considerable time — I think it's

pensions prior to 1974, in particular, that are mentioned in

one

section of this bill — it seems that adjustments in keeping

with the cost-of-living indices, again, is a very sound

principle. So we very happily support this bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, certainly I

[ Page 3071 ]

rise in support of this

bill amending the Workers' Compensation Act provisions to fishermen is an excellent

one.

I trust that we will see further extensions very shortly

when the committee report is accepted by this House. It was

delayed the other day due to the absence of the Minister,

actually. It was not discussed at that time because he was not

with us. Perhaps, when that committee report comes in, we can

extend it to others as well, namely those in domestic service

and those specifically in agriculture. That's what our

committee spent a fair bit of time looking into.

I would, however, at this stage indicate once more my

concern at the artificial division that exists between those

who are self-employed and unable to take advantage of the

Workers' Compensation Act with respect to rehabilitation

programmes and those who are employed by others. We discovered

in our committee travels that if we do amend the legislation, a

farm worker would be entitled to protection of the Act and the

rehabilitation services — which are excellent, I might add; I

think the Minister and the board are to be congratulated on

this — but the person who is self-employed, even though he may

earn less or as little as an employee of another man or another

person, is not able to take advantage of the excellent

facilities and the fine services provided.

As this is a discussion of principle, Mr. Speaker, I would

like to suggest that while we extend this Workers' Compensation

Act step by step, group by group, we should also think of

extending it so that any person injured in the course of an

accident might well get the advantage of what have to be the

best facilities available in the province for

rehabilitation.

Back to the example often referred to by the Hon. Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) who was on the committee with us,

she and I discussed a number of times the curious dilemma that

a domestic servant — if we put them under the Act — might be

entitled to benefits if injured on work but the housewife would

not be. It seems a very serious distinction whereby the

housewife, who would be doing the identical work, who would be

doing it for most of the weeks of the year, but who might

because of illness or otherwise have someone in to help during

a particular period, would be placed in a different category

when it came to rehabilitation and the advantages of the

rehabilitative medicine than the employee who might be in that

home for just a week or two or three or four.

I wonder whether the Minister in closing this debate will give us some indication

of the government's intentions with respect to extending this service. I believe

that anyone injured in British Columbia should be entitled to the same rehabilitative

medicine and services as anybody else. I believe that if we're going to have

a system based on medical health plans by contribution or by tax money, we should

set up a system whereby all citizens are treated equally and, in particular

in the health field, are all treated equally when it comes to rehabilitation.

It should not be the situation we have at the present time where some are fortunate

because they fall under this Act and some are far less fortunate because they

are excluded from it.

I must admit this is a detail which perhaps should be looked

into in committee stage. The self-employed fisherman, for

example, might be in a different position than the person

employed by a company — B.C. Packers or a fish-packing company,

Canadian Fishing Co. or something like that. I don't think that

distinction should exist. If we extend this to farmers, the

self-employed farmer who has no employees should be entitled to

the same sort of rehabilitation if a tractor tips and injures

him as a person who is employed by another farmer whose tractor

might tip and injure the employee.

It's wrong in principle, when we believe in equal

opportunity for obtaining health services, to have a system set

up whereby rehabilitation is very different depending upon what

category you fall into. That's an extension of the principle of

this particular bill. This bill adds fishermen to those who are

covered. My arguments simply are that the extension we can

accept, but the extension obviously should go a great deal

further. I trust the Minister, in c