1974 Legislative Session: 4th 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)

FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4077 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Routine proceedings Petroleum and Natural Gag Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 13 2).

Second reading.

Mr. Smith — 4077

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4078

Placer Mining Act (Bill 144). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4078

Mr. Fraser — 4079

Mr. Gibson — 4081

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4081

Division on second reading — 4082

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

132).

Hon. Mr. Nimsick. Introduction and first reading — 4082

Coal Act (Bill 92) amendments. Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction — 4082

Division on introduction — 4082

Statute Law Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 162). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 4083

Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act (Bill 15).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4083

Mrs. Jordan — 4083

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4085

Mr. Wallace — 4086

Mr. Curtis — 4087

Mr. Rolston — 4088

Mr. McClelland — 4089

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4090

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4091

Workmen's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 119).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 4093

Mr. Fraser — 4094

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4094

Mr. Wallace — 4096

Hon. Mr. King — 4098

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, today I've asked the

Members to proceed to public bills and orders in the following

order: I would like to complete adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 132; after that, complete second reading of

Bill 144; then go to second reading of Bill 15, then Bill 159.

If time permits, we could do some routine committee work,

non-controversial committee work on legislation. If all goes

well, we could have His Honour here at about….

(Laughter.)

I now call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 132,

Mr. Speaker.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

(continued)

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, the

comments that I had to make on this bill I think I had almost

concluded last night before the House rose at 11 o'clock. So,

really I have very little more to say about the amendments to

the petroleum and natural gas Act.

I'd just like to recap, though, what I did say last night,

that I feel that the Minister has provided some worthwhile

sections in this bill. One of the things that he said…at

least it was quoted in the press that one of the reasons for

introducing these amendments was to accelerate exploration in

British Columbia. And he felt that by increasing the rental

fees for the right to drill, and that by having a discretionary

power in his hands with respect to the cancellation of leases

if the people did not perform, that he would get increased

exploration in the province. At least I'm paraphrasing what

I've read from the newspapers.

The point that I made last night, and the point I just want

to reiterate briefly this morning is the fact that it's the

wrong way to approach it, Mr. Minister, because that is not

going to increase exploration in the Province of British

Columbia.

While the increase goes from five and ten cents an acre to 10 and 20 cents

an acre, which is double, it is not really going to produce any great amount

of additional revenue. And the revenue that is produced, really, is just going

to detract, or subtract, from the amount of money the companies will have available

for exploration work in the province. This will really not produce any more

exploration. It will produce very little more revenue to the Crown in terms

of net dollars.

The place where you do realize the most net revenue to the

Crown is in the sale by public tender, or the bidding for the

right to explore for petroleum products. As long as a fair

political climate exists in the Province of British Columbia,

you can probably expect to receive bids of substantial nature,

even though the discovery rate has gone down considerably from

what it was.

But the one point that the companies today fear most is that

in legislation that has already been passed, in the amendments

proposed and in the discretionary powers left in the hands of

the Minister, they really do not have firm or fixed guidelines

to go by.

Most of the big multi-national corporations, who initially

bid competitively in British Columbia for petroleum and natural

gas leases, bid in the Province of Alberta, in the Northwest

Territories and in the Yukon for the same rights. And

exploration money, the pool of money that's available to any

company, will be diverted to the areas where the best political

climate is at the present time, in terms of stability and the

greatest degree of expectation of some sort of discovery.

So, I believe that while the increase in fees is not

substantial, and is not going to affect, in my opinion,

exploration one way or another, that the attitude and the type

of legislation and the discretionary power that's in your hands

will detrimentally effect exploration in the Province of

British Columbia. It may not do it immediately, but in the long

term it certainly will because the dollars that are available

will flow to other areas.

This is something we don't want to lose because the

petroleum industry has returned to the province substantial net

revenues every year for at least the last 10 years in just

acquiring the right to explore in given areas of the province.

Net dollars to the government for which you didn't really have

to put up anything.

The companies are also concerned where the Province of

British Columbia is going with respect to becoming involved in

exploration and refining themselves. Are you in the process of

setting up a refinery in the Province of British Columbia

through a Crown corporation? Are you in the process of setting

up your own exploration companies? If you are not in the

process of setting up a refinery in the Province of British

Columbia, then why, when the Mohawk Petroleum Company, which is

a Canadian corporation, applied for the right to build a

refinery in the Province of British Columbia, did the

government not only not refuse them the right but to date has

not acted on their request at all?

There has been a wall of secrecy there for some reason. They

have repeatedly asked the government to allow them to develop

their plans or tell them

[ Page 4078 ]

what they would like to do. They want to get into the

refining business in the Province of British Columbia but they

are frustrated by your government which refuses to give them

any type of an answer at all. That suggests to me that you are

waffling on the matter because of the fact that you are

investigating the possibility of setting up your own refinery

in the Province of British Columbia.

Mohawk is a Canadian company, controlled by Canadian

shareholders. Why shouldn't they be given the opportunity to go

ahead and develop if they have a legitimate scheme? I presume

it is legitimate, otherwise they wouldn't have spent the money

that they have spent in trying to investigate the whole problem

of refining in the Province of British Columbia.

The provisions in the amendments to this Act that deal with

the manner in which a company gets the right to go in and

explore on farmland or private land I think are acceptable to

the farming community. The fact that you are now setting up a

committee in a little different manner than we had before under

the old arbitration board is acceptable to most people,

including the petroleum industry.

But I would hope the Minister, in closing debate on second

reading of this bill, will say in definitive terms what the

government policy is with respect to the private petroleum

companies presently operating in the Province of British

Columbia. How do they fit into the future plans in this

province? That is the fundamental question if we expect to

continue exploration and discovery of hydrocarbon energy in

British Columbia.

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

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I appreciate

the concern of the Hon. Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith). There will

be some amendments that will answer some of your questions. We had a meeting

with the people concerned; we took into consideration what they thought should

be changed. We've made some changes that I am sure will be acceptable to them.

In regard to the holding of huge areas of land by the larger

companies, I realize how they get it. They bid on it; they pay

so much money. But we feel this shouldn't give them a right to

keep that frozen for many years. They wait until some smaller

outfit which hasn't got too much money but has a lot of

expertise to drill comes in. They farm it to this smaller

company which drills it. If they strike anything, they

immediately get a 50 per cent interest in it. They job out the

building, but on a 50 per cent basis.

You were asking if the government has intentions to go into this business.

At the present time we have no intentions, but if it became necessary I would

say that we have a lot of Crown land. There are those people who are willing

to drill and take a chance on striking it and become partners of the Crown.

I don't see anything different with that than these huge companies farming out

to these smaller operators. Maybe then we would be in a better position.

This act was intentionally made to prevent huge areas from

being kept out of development or exploration purposes, just

waiting for somebody to come along and do the drilling. We say

that if these large companies can't get the small outfits to

come and drill, they should be drilling themselves. If they

don't do that then they aren't fulfilling the object of the

Act.

I'm sure that when you see the amendments, everything will

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

Motion approved.

Bill 132, Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act,

1974, read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

PLACER MINING ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, the Placer Mining Act

we have had on the books for many years is quite outdated for

the considerations that go on at the present time. Under the

Placer Mining Act they even had staking of claims and

leases. Several years ago, prior to my taking office, they

stopped the staking of claims on placer mining and went all to

leases. We continue the leases.

Originally, as you well know, placer mining was a very

important feature and industry of our province. The high points

of placer mining in British Columbia were Yale in 1858; Cariboo

in 1863; Cassiar in 1875; Tulameen in 1886; Atlin in 1899; Fort

Steel, Rock Creek, Omineca and Quesnel River; in 1921 we had

Cedar Creek — that was a fairly high point; in 1972, Squaw

Creek; in 1932, Wheaton Creek. That was about the last high

point we have had in placer mining in the Province of British

Columbia.

From 1858 to 1971 we produced 5.2 million ounces, or $97

million. In 1971, to show you the insignificance of placer

mining in the province today, we produced 177 ounces, or

$4,647. In 1972 we produced 691 ounces, which is $26,905. That

is not fully one gold brick. That is in placer mining. That is

why I say the value of production of placer mining is very

insignificant to the province.

I think the more important part of placer mining is

[ Page

4079 ]

what it does to the environment. When you go back over the

old workings that happened many years ago you see what damage

can be done to the environment. We realize that the environment

can be damaged and that is the reason we have in this Act power

to designate areas where you can placer mine as having

leases.

We have left hand panning out of the requirements of having

a free miner's certificate. We realize people on holidays and

recreation sometimes stop by a creek and take their child down

to the creek and show him how to take a pan out and pan the

sand. We don't feel people should be harassed in this way by

somebody coming along and asking if they have a free miner's

certificate. They wouldn't know what a free miner's certificate

was even, let alone whether they needed one or not.

You do need a free miner's certificate if you are going into

the location and asking for a lease. At the present time, when

you want a lease on placer mining, you have to go through about

four or five different departments, including the federal

fisheries department. It has frustrated many small prospectors

by having to go to one and then they get shunted off to

another. By the time they get through they give up going

placer mining altogether.

In the future we hope this can be channeled through the

Department of Mines. The application can come in to us and then

we can channel it to the other departments. If they pass on it

and everything is completed, then the lease can be allowed. All

the departments would have to pass on whether the lease was

allowed or not.

I'm sure this Placer Mining Act will not only be

further protection for the environment but will give people a

lot more assurance as to what they can do and will facilitate

the applications that are made for leases.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I'd like to say a few words about

this. I don't particularly like this bill at all. As the

Minister said earlier, he is correct that last year and over

the years I don't imagine there was too much from placer mining

in the way of wealth. But at certain times placer mining has

saved the economy of the province. It appears to me in this Act

here they are only going to make it more difficult. For that

reason I oppose this bill.

I might say that economics plays a big

part in placer

mining. It hasn't been economic until the last year or so to

mine gold because of the price of gold on the world market. Now

gold has advanced to a substantial price. I think if the

climate was right, we would see a lot more placer mining going

on.

This bill to me seems to be the same as Bill 31 as it applies to copper. This

one applies to gold. It does give the Minister the discretionary powers here

to assess a royalty on gold. I would like to know from him if he is going to

assess this on the prospector, the fellow who goes out and gets $2,000 or $3,000

worth of gold. Is the Minister of Mines going to say, "Well, you have to give

me S I 800 or $2,800 or 60 per cent or 70 per cent of what you take.

That's one thing I don't like about this; it's

discretionary. It doesn't spell out just what he is going to

do. I believe the government has made a statement they have no

intention of doing this. But when this bill becomes law they

have all the right in the world to assess a royalty on

gold.

As far as the environment is concerned, there have been regulations

on this for some time. It is my opinion that placer mining doesn't

affect the environment anymore than a big flood of water. I

particularly refer to the water they use for washing gold that trickles

finally down into a lake or stream.

It doesn't do as much damage as a spring freshet does.

I think it's a bunch of nonsense to play up the to PT environment as related

lacer mining. There's a lot more damage done by spring runoffs in the Interior

of the province than there ever was in prospecting.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: I'd like to say here a few things the industry

has said about this.

Mr. Elliott of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines is a

well-known spokesman for the mining people. I think he is a

respected spokesman of the industry. He says:

"(They) are not opposed to regional control, but the bill is unrealistic and unfair. In the last few

years miners have been harassed by environment people. They've

gone to extremes to protect a little mud in the river. With

proper care and using mechanical equipment, miners can recover

gold from gravel without doing any serious damage to the

rivers. In placer mining, ore body and gravel is washed through

water, leaving the mineral at the bottom of a sluice box or

pan. The Minister of Mines has said the government is concerned

that placer operations can be harmful to streams, especially

when hydraulic pressure is used. The cost of government land

surveying would be several thousands of dollars."

That's provided for in here; it makes it mandatory for

surveying. Anybody knows what the cost is of getting anything

surveyed these days. How is the little prospector going to be

able to afford the cost that this bill provides? These are all

the things the little fellows are worrying about in this bill.

I would like to hear the Minister's remarks in response to the

surveying costs.

I still think the worst part of it is the discretionary

powers for the Minister to assess on gold. If gold is at

[ Page 4080 ]

$100 an ounce, is the Minister going to take $90 of that

after they have recovered it? There is still a lot of gold in

British Columbia but I can't see any activity coming now

because of this. They'll just stand still.

As an example, in the famous Wells-Barkerville area, in the 1860s and also in the I 930s there was a gold rush and it

saved the economy of the central Interior. I am very well aware

of that, but that was missed by the Hon. Minister. What I'm

trying to say is that there's still gold "in them thar hills"

and I can't see that this bill will encourage anyone in any way

to go out and find this gold.

I understand that at the present time there is a big rush on

by the young people to go out placer mining. This year,

apparently in the Interior, there have been all kinds of

miners' certificates issued to the young people.

Interjection.

MR. FRASER: No, I don't think it is at all. It's how they're

trying to garner a living. That's the information I have. Is

this going to run them all out of there? There's lots of gold

there if they keep at it, I can assure you of that. They found

it before and they certainly haven't got it all by a long

shot.

There's one good thing here that the Minister has put in

this bill. You get all your permits from the Department of

Mines. But I don't think it's going to speed anything up, Mr.

Speaker, because the Department of Mines is going to ask every

other department to report to them. What it does cut down is

the individual applicant having to go to seven or eight

government departments. But it could well slow it down a lot in

view of the fact that this will be interdepartmental. You know

what happens when you get between government departments: the

administrative red tape really gets involved. I think it will

slow it down to the point where the person will probably give

up.

I would like to hear from the Minister, when he's closing

the debate, on how he intends to apply the royalties on gold

that this bill provides for. It certainly has the small

prospector upset. This Bill 144 is of more concern in the

Interior of British Columbia than Bill 31, as a matter of

fact, because it affects more little people by a long shot than

Bill 31 does.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I support the

suggestion of the Hon. Member for Cariboo that this bill does

affect a lot of people. The placer industry may not have been

very large in dollar volume in previous years. In the

Minister's report for 1972, the reported value seems to have

been only in the nature of $27,000. It was undoubtedly several

times that, but it was still not large in 1972.

In 1974, with gold prices having quadrupled or gone up five or six times higher

than that, it's possible that this will become much more important in the future.

It does affect a lot of people. I have heard estimates of

between 2,500 and 5,000 people at some time during the year

spending some time working placer leases. So that's a fair

number of people and it's reason to give careful attention to

this legislation.

I recognize the environmental thrust that the Minister has

in mind. I noted in the press release accompanying the bill

that placer mining has been completely banned in California and

that the Minister found it possible to continue it in British

Columbia. I hope he will find that possible in the future. The

environmental damage that has to be done by placer mining is

very possibly overrated. There are ways of combining the placer

mining with good practices and not doing great damage to stream

beds.

I support, as well, the one-stop shopping idea in this

bill. I hope, however, that it might lead to leases being

granted more promptly. I understand that now there is often a

waiting period of up to nine months from the time an

application is made. I hope this new organization will speed up

the service.

There are some things I have to disagree with. One is that

matter of concern we have in most of the government legislation

these days, and that is the amount of discretion. Looking at

the old Act, there were 134 sections, and Bill 144 had only 24

sections, I think it is. The reason it has been so condensed is

that a lot of the detail in the statute has been taken out and

the Minister is given a lot more power to do things by

discretion and regulation. We have to disagree with that just

in principle. It's not only the royalties that the Minister may

prescribe entirely at his discretion, as the former speaker

said.

But there are regulations regarding staking procedures, form

and manner of application for leases, the Mines Regulation

Act to apply on development and production of minerals,

regulations regarding grouping, regulations regarding

submission of technical information and so on. All of these

things that could be of great importance to people involved in

this relatively small field of mining endeavour appear to be

saddled with too much red tape, which is so easy to prescribe

in the regulatory area.

Now my understanding is that under the provisions of the

bill there will be a certain area of British Columbia

designated as placer mining areas. One of the difficulties

arises with what may happen in the case of placer mining finds

or prospects outside of those designated areas. Now there may

be other areas designated as definitely non-placer particularly

fragile streams and so on.

But how about the grey areas that's neither designated as

placer nor as non-placer? What provisions are there? I can't

see any in this bill, and I've looked quite carefully. What

provisions are there

[ Page 4081 ]

for the recording of title or a lease on a placer find

outside of a designated area? Let's just suppose that a find

were made, and that it were environmentally not

objectionable.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: It would have to be considered whether it

would be designated or not.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister says that it would have to be

considered whether the area could be designated or not. I

appreciate that, but what protection of title in the meantime

would the finder have? Perhaps the Minister could suggest how

this problem might be dealt with, because it seems a very real

problem to me.

It's all the more a problem when one considers that placer

mining, in theory — though not a great deal in the past of

British Columbia — is applicable to other minerals than gold.

It applies to the platinum group of minerals and some of the

gem stones and things of this kind. If all that's going to be

designated are the historic gold-producing areas of the

province, we may get into these kinds of problems. It seems to

me a real one and that's why I raise it.

I also raise with the Minister the transitional question of

what happens to claims and leases outside of areas that will be

designated under the Act.

Section 23 suggests that it can be

renewed under the new Act subject to that Act. Now could the

Minister in closing debate on second reading interpret that for

me?

Does that mean that it's completely at his discretion

whether it will be renewed or is there a firm and definite

right to renew — even outside a designated area? Many of these

leases are, of course, leases that people may have put a great

deal of time into or, in some cases, have purchased at some

capital cost. It would seem to me wrong if there were a

complete discretionary right to cancel without compensation

simply because they're outside a designated area.

I see nothing in this Act to stipulate the size of the

lease. That may simply be an oversight. The old lease was a

quarter of a mile by half a mile. I see nothing to define that

and say that the new lease is the same size or some different

size. Perhaps the Minister in closing debate could confirm that

the intention is to continue the size of the lease.

Given that an individual could have two leases only,

according to the terms of this Act, I'd ask him to deal with

the problem of a lengthy gold-stream in pockets which might

well cover, not in aggregate a great deal of placer mining

territory but really all one find, and with two leases

insufficient to cover it because of a great deal of barren area

in between the pockets.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: There'd be a mile.

MR. GIBSON: Well, there'd be a mile….

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, the two leases would be one mile in

length. But there could be a productive stream-bed, say, two

miles in length, essentially part of the same operation. The

Minister might deal with that question as to how there could be

such consolidation. I think it's an important part of the

principle of the bill, Mr. Premier, and I want to cover it at

this time.

That, I think, concludes the major questions I have to ask

the Minister at this point. I'll have other questions in

committee.

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

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate these questions

the Hon. Member asks because I think they're very vital. In my

press release I say that the lease will continue as now, that

there will be only two leases allowed to any individual in any

calendar year. I mean, that's quite definite. The renewal of

leases would be automatic provided they fulfilled all the

requirements as they were laid out before. I suppose, if the

environmental people found that they were not living up to

their agreements environmentally, they could lose their lease

too.

But the claims will be the same. The idea is of not allowing

more than two. I think that placer mining should reach out to

as many people as possible, because placer mining is somewhat

of a recreational thing today. It's not the same as it used to

be in most cases.

The royalty situation in the Act was there all the time.

It's only there mostly if there were a real bonanza hit. But

when you look at the amount of gold that was reported to the

department, it's insignificant. I don't think that it would

warrant much discussion in regard to royalties.

The rentals, of course, have gone up from $30 to $50 a year

on a placer lease.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not going to assess any

royalties?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't say that. I said that it's in the

Act the same as it was previously. What you've done so far at

the present time is so insignificant that it's not worth

talking about. But if you were to hit a real bonanza like the

gold rush of the Yukon…. But I don't expect that you ever

will again in the province, because it's pretty finely covered

over. But the royalties in the other Act, of course, apply to

lode mining for gold. That would….

[ Page 4082 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, I don't think….

AN HON. MEMBER: Why don't you say you won't accept the

royalty.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, if gold is designated as a mineral

to assess a royalty on it, then, I mean, I would be contrary to

the law if I said definitely that we won't assess royalties. If

there were a bonanza hit in placer mining even, we might be

able to get some return for the people of British Columbia. So

that's all the point of that.

I move second reading of this bill.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 28

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 15

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Curtis

Bill 144, Placer Mining Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Administrator: amendments to Bill 132, intituled Petroleum

and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the

said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be

referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

COAL ACT

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

Administrator: amendments to Bill 92, intituled Coal

Act.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move that the

said message and the accompanying amendments to the same be

referred to the committee of the House having in charge Bill

Leave granted.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): We object to amendments

brought in right after a bill has passed second reading, and we

wish to record our protest by way of division.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you want a division, go ahead.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, we've asked for a division.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's a crazy way to amend bills.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I took a message.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't know, in My

recollection, where an amendment has been called to a division,

whether it be on the order paper or by message, but if the Hon.

Members wish to Pursue the matter, I'll call a division. Do you

wish to have that?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Strachan

NAYS — 13

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

[ Page 4083 ]

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

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

Administrator: a bill intituled Statute Law Amendment Act,

Bill 162 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. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

RECREATIONAL LAND GREEN BELT

ENCOURAGEMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the government is conscious

of the people's desire to have recreation facilities available

for their leisure time. It is also conscious of the

increasingly heavy land-tax burden being experienced by

recreational land, especially in municipal areas.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come on over Garde, we know you are

looking for a home. (Laughter.)

The Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement Act is

therefore being proposed as a method of enabling land to be

used for recreational purposes by the public without a heavy

land-tax burden as imposed by the former administration. All

those who would join Social Credit will have to take the guilt

of its past.

The bill will enable the recreational land user such as golf

courses, ski clubs, rod and gun clubs or the like, to enter

into an agreement with the government to dedicate its land in

perpetuity for the recreational purpose, and to offer

access to their facilities to the public. In return, during

the term of agreement, the government will reimburse the club

for the property taxes paid. Even poor little Oak Bay will get

a break.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's your big hang-up.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's my big hang-up? There are more poor

people than rich people. The poor people have made the rich

people rich. If there is any purpose for this party, it is for

some equalizing in our society, Mr. Member.

If you want to make that my hang-up, then let's make it my hang-up. We represent

the poor and the ordinary working people of this province; you represent the

rich. That is what the division is all about, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The paternalistic approach to the poor. Oh

yes, the great big right-wing Liberal Party looking for a home,

putting the knife in your own leader while he's sitting here

trying to do a job, even opposing the introduction of

amendments. That's all the support you give that Member.

This bill is to encourage green belts — and the long

livelihood of some political leaders — through the province,

particularly by the way of golf clubs, and to assist in

maintaining our present environment — that doesn't protect the

Liberal leader. By providing this type of financial assistance

the province hopes that more land will be devoted to

recreational purposes for all of our citizens.

I now move second reading.

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

listening to that smoke screen and cover-up, I just want to

congratulate the government, particularly the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), for

letting the Minister of Finance bring in a bill like this — inadequate as it is.

Mr. Speaker, we are not particularly concerned with the

Premier's personal hang-ups. We are concerned with how they

affect the people of British Columbia as a whole. We feel that

the need for a bill such as this or an alternate suggestion,

which will be put forward by my colleagues and discussed fully,

that the current utilization of

section 328 of the Municipal

Act is necessary in light of the fact that, firstly, in

British Columbia, but one year ago, the very man who just

spoke, the Hon. Minister of Finance, (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

interfered with a bill by the former administration which

endeavoured to recognize that there had to be a reasonable

limitation on taxes of people's land in British Columbia in

light of the growing inflation that was becoming evident.

This Premier and Minister of Finance interfered, Mr.

Speaker, not on the basis of sound and logical assessment

knowledge and financial thinking, but for political reasons,

with the resulting effect that a political decision in

multiplicity worked an extreme hardship on many homeowners,

many public recreational areas and many other people in this

province, in relation to taxes.

Also, as reflected by the Premier's words and much action of

his legislation, which causes us to feel that there is a strong

need for this type of

an Act, is the fact that this government

has contributed so handsomely and so unpalatably to the rising

cost of land in British Columbia, whether it is to be used for

recreational purposes or for home development

[ Page 4084 ]

purposes. He now had to find some way of equalizing

this.

I would also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is some

concern as to whether the inflationary market value of land is,

in fact, a fair way to assess people because that represents a

value which would be theirs if they could sell it and if they

did sell it. I suggest that it doesn't necessarily reflect the

ability of people, or a recreational centre in this instance,

to pay.

We feel that there is a need, and I agree with the Premier

on this point, for ever-increasing recreational opportunities

for people in British Columbia, whether it is of a natural

means or whether it is through a more formalized programme of

golf, tennis, squash, trap-shooting or whatever else interests

people. These costs must be kept at a reasonable assessment so

that recreation doesn't, as it never has in British Columbia,

become a rich-man's preserve on the basis of priority or on the

basis of the government having its hand in the pocket of these

organizations or these groups too freely in order to fatten its

own coffers and not serve the public need.

recreational opportunity for all people in British Columbia, in

keeping with the own interests and, as I mentioned, within a

reasonable cost.

There are some considerable concerns about the bill itself,

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to it in principle. I don't want to go

into the details of the various sections, but I would like to

touch on them in the broad view.

Our first criticism of the bill would be that it would have

been far more effective had it outlined a description of

recreational land, and if it has outlined some terms of

reference as to what it considered could qualify. There is no

description of recreational land in this bill. Once again we

see the common kicker of so much of this socialist legislation,

complete discretion left to the Minister.

In examining the bill further we see that there is no criteria to be established for public knowledge as to which

project, which lands or which recreational groups will be

approved. Once again, the socialist kicker-of-kickers — complete discretion left up to the Minister.

In another section, Mr. Speaker, entitled "Form and effect

of covenants" we again see no details and no guidelines for

public knowledge. The kicker-of-kickers of the socialist

government in British Columbia — complete discretion left to

the Minister.

In another

section we see a questionable view in that there is provision for

the reimbursement of total taxes. In other words, the government is intending

to let those who qualify, in terms of the Minister's thinking, off scot-free.

We feel that it would be more effective to set some basic guidelines, perhaps

freezing the taxes at the 1972 or 1973 level, then examine the situation on

the basis of future of assessment. We feel that this would be more realistic.

Then if the government wanted to openly take over, openly, any recreational

areas, they would not, in essence, be supporting forgiven taxes. They would

have been receiving, in the interim, a fair form of taxes with their, then,

reason for meeting some sort of a diminishing commitment.

I would like to see, in the bill, a level frozen at the 1972

or 1973 level, and that the bill should apply from then on,

with many alterations.

Another factor that is of considerable concern in the bill

is that there are no time limits for agreements. It is

completely open-ended. Again, it is completely up to the

discretion of the Minister.

When one combines this complete discretion left to the

Minister and this complete lack of guidelines and examines

section 7, which I don't intend to go into in detail, Mr.

Speaker, one becomes deeply concerned. I've drawn a little

hammer beside this

section in my bill because this is hammer

legislation. It leaves the whole bill open to serious

conjecture, and it certainly is likely to preclude any private

owner from taking reasonable opportunity from this bill.

It also follows again with another thread added to the

growing rope that is threading its way through the British

Columbia legislation, and leaves ample room for what the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has publicly called

"persuasion by taxation."

Again, it raises the suspicion that this government through

various means, some open and some not open, is intent on not

only controlling but eventually owning all the land in British

Columbia. It's tremendous discretion in the form of an

unanswerable club on the part of the Minister to other sections

which are completely open-ended and left to the discretion of

the Minister.

I'm concerned, in examining all these facets, Mr. Speaker,

that in the bill, to my knowledge — and I certainly stand ready

to be corrected if I'm wrong — there is no appeal procedure

should any sections of this Act be applied for an individual

who feels that the Minister, who has complete powers, complete

discretion with no guidelines, chooses to utilize

section 7,

which virtually gives him the right to take over a person's

land and to reapply back taxes from the date that the Act was

taken advantage of or utilized.

Mr. Speaker, it is conceivable that in good faith a

community golf course, for example, could enter into an

agreement with the government. It's conceivable that they could

pay as high as $2,000 a month in taxes, which would be forgiven

in agreement with the Minister. Then the Minister would turn

around and for some reason of his own, not necessarily

required

[ Page

4085 ]

by the bill to be explained, decide that the association was

not complying with the regulations. He is in a position where

he can take over the land and he could apply a complete

repayment of the money — that $2,000 a month — plus an interest

rate of 8 per cent per annum, which I believe would be

compounded.

He could virtually liquidate that property for no specific

reason given to the public or to those people. In fact, he

could be fulfilling an intent which he hasn't made public — and

that is to control the land of British Columbia. I believe that

this is a dangerous precedent, Mr. Speaker, and that it is the

wrong way to go about this type of legislation.

Another matter that concerns us seriously, in light of what

I mentioned where everything is left to Ministerial discretion,

is that there's an incredible hammer in the form of the

authority of the Minister to virtually take over a person's

land if he so wishes without major reason in

section 7. There's

no provision in the bill for comprehensive public disclosure of

the effect of the bill as it's applied by the Minister.

So we have a situation with no guidelines, no terms of

reference, complete discretion left to the Minister, no appeal

procedure, and no way that one community can examine what the

Minister's doing in another community. There's no way that a

trampoline court, for example, in Nelson can check to see how

the Minister might be applying the same thing in Oak Bay or the

North Okanagan.

It leaves a great deal of room for the possible suggestion

of political decisions on the part of the Minister who's

administering the bill, and to my knowledge there is no

provision for an annual public disclosure of who is getting

what exemptions for what reason and how much. I would very much

like to see that incorporated in the Act if the government

wishes to pursue this course.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague will speak on another aspect of

the bill under second reading and we'll be prepared to discuss

it further in the committee stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, we will be voting for this

bill in principle. We feel that it's a good thing to encourage

dedication of land for recreational purposes. We feel that the

bill will aid in this, although there are some aspects of it

which during the committee stage we will be going into.

I am pleased that the bill includes private owners as well

as clubs, as well as collective ownership. It's perfectly clear

from this that people who operate recreational facilities

Commercially and attempt to recover their costs and perhaps

provide themselves with some income will be able to take

advantage of this.

The question I raise for the Minister at this stage is that this deals only

with the dedication of certain individual properties; it does not deal with

dedication of a club or of more than one property. For example, we have in Victoria

two clubs; one has just moved its location and the other will have to do so

at the end of the year.

Victoria Fish and Game had to move from its location in

Goldstream up onto the Malahat and the Victoria Gun Club is

being moved out of the property that it has at Metchosin, and

it doesn't know where it's going. This particular piece of

legislation seems somewhat inflexible in that if property is

dedicated and then circumstances change — more housing goes up

around a particular piece of property — the recreational

facility is no longer feasible in that particular area.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the fact is that we're dealing with

recreational land, not necessarily greenbelt. That's the point

that I'm trying to make to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read the title of the bill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, I've read the title of the bill.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is one of the difficulties you

face when you try to incorporate two concepts in one bill. The

fact is, there may well be distinctions. I've raised one of

them, which I trust you'll put your mind to instead of trying

to ignore it. The fact is that where you have a property which

may cease to become, for any reason whatsoever, feasible for

the particular sport or recreation, the club or group may wish

to move. If they have dedicated their land, they may find

themselves in the position of not being able to recover

adequate funds to relocate elsewhere.

It's a problem I raise for the Minister of Finance because,

from his comments a moment ago, he clearly hasn't thought of

that particular aspect. Change of location could be a

difficulty, and I trust that some thought will be given to

that.

I appreciate that this is set up by way of a direct charge

under

section 10 on a consolidated revenue fund and revenue

surplus appropriation account, and not by way of the funding of

some of the other recreational facilities which we have seen in

this House. Better I think that the costs be clear, that the

costs come out of the budget in a regular sense where it can be

seen and not be hidden away, tucked under some fund which is

essentially investment income on investment in B.C. or some

other Crown corporation.

The bill has one major failing, we feel, and that is

[ Page 4086 ]

the amount of discretion which the Minister has.

Interpretation of sections makes it perfectly clear that

only recreational land which the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

prescribes can be considered. Further on it goes into such

covenants and agreements as the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council

or the Minister concerned would be willing to put on.

We're concerned that some of the restrictions may be

onerous. We can't tell from the legislation. We can't tell

whether the proposal will involve turning golf clubs into

putting greens or into bowling lawns, whether there will be

restrictions on who will use them or covenants insisting that

they be wide open. We just don't know what that might be.

We feel that this is a defect in the bill that there isn't a

little more precision as to what the Crown will insist upon

when it goes in with the owner into a covenant. We trust that

some light will be shed upon this by the Minister in closing

the debate and also in the committee stage.

Apart from that, we appreciate the fact that the government

is taking steps to encourage recreational land protection as

well as the greenbelt protection. We feel that some of the

assessment changes that have taken place would have totally

destroyed recreational facilities, not just for the wealthy

people, as the Premier seems to think, but also for those of

more modest income who would have felt the brunt of the

increased taxation a great deal swifter than those who have the

money to pay increased club fees and other things.

The previous legislation was working proper hardship upon a

large number of people who looked to various clubs for

recreational facilities and could not afford to buy their own

recreational facilities. It's the less wealthy that were first

hit and most affected. We trust that the bill will rectify what

was a clear failure of government policy to date.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We certainly would like to

support this bill. I just want to make a few comments. It

probably doesn't surprise the Premier that the Member for Oak

Bay would support this bill, even though we have our individual

differences as to the relative wealth of Oak Bay and the

population distribution age wise, income wise and

otherwise.

I accept some of the criticisms that the other Members of

the opposition have made. The bill lacks detail. But I think

that if one is to be fair in debating the principle of this

bill, one must realize that it is a somewhat uncertain field

that we are getting into if for no other reason than that

leisure time is on the increase for most citizens. There is a

tremendous increase in the ways in which they are developing

recreational pursuits. Some of the factors that apply today

didn't exist, say, 10 years ago.

In attempting to provide some encouragement, as the title of

the bill makes very plain, for the preservation of greenbelts

and also to encourage recreational land to remain as such, I

think the bill is very well worthwhile. I congratulate the

government for attempting to move into this field.

I don't think that anybody should be in any doubt as to what

kind of figures we are talking about though. The taxation on

the two golf courses in the riding of Oak Bay has more than

doubled this year compared to last. The tax figure at one was

$28,000 and it went up to just over $56,000. The Victoria Golf

Club taxation went from $26,000 to $56,000. These are round

figures that I have quoted.

So there is no question that the cost of continuing to

participate in this particular form of recreation in a

relatively urban area is increasing very considerably. I think

it should be made very plain that golf in particular is

certainly one of the recreations which remains available to

citizens of all ages.

Here again, if we have to take Oak Bay as an example, there

are a large number of elderly people playing golf in that part

of the city. We are very proud of one man by the name of Arthur

Thompson who is 104 years old and plays golf regularly. In

fact, he is a national figure. He has figured on CBC television

nationally because of the very unique age at which he still

plays golf.

We have many very clear advantages of preserving not only

the golf course as a greenbelt but making it reasonably

available cost wise to all these different age groups.

Another point that has perhaps been missed not only today

but on other dates on this subject is that I think — in fact, I

know — that golf courses have not been asking for fixed

assessments. The brief that was presented when we discussed

this last year made it very plain that they merely were looking

for some reasonable measure of control. Since the cost of

living and other costs were rising — the wages of workers and

the cost of operating a golf course — all they were trying to

do was raise the membership dues by perhaps the same percentage

as the general cost of living. But when the taxes on the land

suddenly double in one year, this was the red light as far as

most of the golf courses in this country were concerned.

I think that the principle of this bill makes it very plain

that the crux of the bill is summed up in two words: "public

access." There is no doubt in my mind that politically

governments have to look very closely at the provision of

public taxpayers' money being used for the benefit of a

selected segment of the population. That, to my mind, is the

nub of this bill and the reason that the Minister of Finance

has had the bill written in a rather vague and diffuse way

which, as the other Members of the opposition have mentioned,

lacks definition. But I happen to, I think,

[ Page 4087 ]

understand why it is written this way, and I can see the

difficulties that lie ahead in determining the degree to which

taxation can be rebated in such facilities as golf clubs

dependent upon public access.

The Minister of Finance should be assured that as far as

this party goes, and as far as I go personally, any

recreational facility such as a golf club which clearly has the

policy that only private members of that club shall be allowed

to use it cannot expect to be subsidized by public money.

At the present time many of the golf clubs certainly have

ready access by any member of the public on payment of green

fees and, incidentally, contribute considerably to the tourist

industry. One reason that this bill has to be a bit vague is

that there are as many variations in kind of facilities and in

the method by which the facilities function in relation to

public access that I think it would be extremely difficult if

not impossible to write a bill which spelled out exactly the

conditions that are to be applied under the bill to any one

specific golf club. I keep mentioning golf clubs because it is

the one I know most about.

Certain parts of the bill certainly are vague, particularly

when one talks about entering into agreements and inclusion of

covenants where again, as I say, at this point in time it is

very difficult to determine exactly how binding the covenants

would be.

The concept, again, as far as golf courses are concerned,

that they must be dedicated in perpetuity, I don't think

presents any problem at all. If it is, as it is in most cases,

owned by the members, and since the general thrust in society

today is to preserve greenbelts, I can't think that society as

a whole would accept, let us say, the subdivision of the golf

courses in the riding of Oak Bay.

Be that as it may, I feel that we will have to approach this

bill and its implementation with a fair degree of objectivity

and realize that although the bill doesn't spell out the detail

that perhaps some recreational facilities would want, a great

deal of experience will be required to determine exactly what

golf courses and other facilities will have to do, or what they

will have to include in the covenants, to qualify for rebate of

taxation.

The last point I would like to make is that the Minister of

Finance will, I hope, enter into some kind of consultation with

representatives of the various recreational facilities that

would be likely to apply for agreements under this Act.

The Premier and Minister of Finance was kind enough to have

one of his staff meet with certain representatives of the B.C.

Golf Association some time ago. It is my impression that both

sides learned a great deal from the issue. I would like to

think that possibly the bill we have before us is in some way

related to that degree of consultation that went on.

But since this bill is breaking new ground and opening up

new possibilities both for government and for people, and

involves certain risks for both — risks by the owners of

recreational land that they might get into some binding

agreement which they would later regret, and risks that this

government might be accused of subsidizing private concerns

with public money — and benefits to both sides, I would just

like to comment that the other Community Recreational

Facilities Fund provides public money for non-profit facilities

which, in large measure, serve a younger age group — the ice

arenas, swimming pools and so on. I think that I see a parallel

in this kind of proposal for subsidy or tax relief which would

tend to help the middle-aged or senior citizen in society to be

subsidized on such recreational pursuits as golf.

On that final note I really hope that the Minister will tell

us to what degree he or his staff are in liaison with Lands and

Forests, or are in liaison with the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), when he winds up debate on

second reading, and that he will, in fact, enter into some

fairly detailed discussion and consultation with the various

people concerned in these different types of facilities. I

think whatever this bill does, it offers flexibility. I hope

the degree to which greater definition is to be put into the

bill by amendment later or by regulation will be closely

related to the Minister really discussing in the widest

possible detail the whole implication of the bill and the

thrust of the bill with the people most concerned.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): I will attempt to

be brief in my remarks. Certainly the bill, in spite of its

deficiencies, is worthy of support. I echo the words of the

leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), in the hope that it will be judiciously

used. If it is found to be lacking in some respects then

changes will be made at following sessions.

I will attempt to hopefully resist the temptation to point

out to the Minister of Finance problems with respect to this

simplistic attitude that everyone who plays golf is wealthy and

if one speaks in favour of golf, one is in the clutches of the

wealthy. Perhaps we can debate that some other time.

The Minister has taken some time on a fishing boat; he is

going to spend some time working on a railway. One of these

days I'd like him to mix with some golfers at other than

Shaughnessy or some of the other golf courses which distress

him so much.

In his opening remarks he spoke — and I assume the words

were prepared by someone in the Ministry of Finance — of the

increasingly heavy tax burden in municipal areas. It is

important, I think, to point out that that is not solely the

problem area. Indeed, in many parts of the province under

provincial control we have seen dramatic and in some cases

almost

[ Page 4088 ]

unbelievable assessment increases.

I am going to take a few moments, Mr. Speaker, with your

permission, to describe one parcel of land which I trust will

be assisted by Bill 15. This is golf course property on Galiano

Island which carries the name of the Galiano Golf and Country

Club. It sounds rather grand, but I assure you it's a very

modest and popular spot. The country club aspect, as such, is

not fully apparent when one visits the property. It is a small

course; it is enjoyed by a number of people who are retired and

of moderate means who live on Galiano Island or live on other

Gulf Islands and also enjoyed by visitors.

The present dues structure — and I would like to think that

the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) is listening to this

description of a typical rural golf course — for a playing

family is $147 a year; for a playing single male, $90; for a

playing single woman, $68; juniors, $27, in each case per year.

There's a social membership of $20 a year.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, green fees for visitors are

very modest and comparable to those found in other small

communities throughout British Columbia. They provide about

one-half of the club's total revenue in the course of the year.

The course is open without restriction to anyone who wishes to

use it at any time, weekday, weekend, summer or winter.

The owner of the land was badly shaken — and that's probably

an understatement — to learn that for 1974 his property

assessment was $67,105. This compares with a 1973 assessment of

$6,459. In one year from $6,459 to $67,105!

The Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr.

Radford) has heard about this; the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) — I'm sorry that none of them are in their

seats at the moment — had it brought to his attention by

individuals with whom he is in contact on Galiano Island. There

was correspondence with the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

The golf course owner does not wish to retain the property

over the next few years. He would be very anxious to sell it,

ideally to the province for continuing recreational use, golf

course and ancillary activities which, as the new owners, the

Crown might wish to introduce. He is particularly worried about

being forced to the point where he would have to sell it to

foreign interests. He does not want to do that. He has not

presented this as a threat in any way, shape or form, but he

knows there is no one on the island, individually or as a

group, who can buy this approximately 25-acre parcel. He sees,

failing the kind of assistance which is proposed in this bill

that he would be required to sell it, in all probability to

someone from the United States or another foreign country.

The community has examined ways and means of acquiring it, and that has proven

absolutely impossible of being accomplished.

The club membership, as I indicated, consists largely of

retired residents. In fact, the current membership includes

only three players under the age of 44. The club is a community

asset. It is important not only to Galiano Island but the

southern Gulf Islands and, indeed, to the southwestern coastal

area. It's most attractive; it has a couple of small buildings

on it — nothing particularly fancy or grand, as I indicated

earlier. It is, Perhaps, the most important recreational

facility on a relatively sparsely-populated gulf island.

If it is likely that this bill will assist an individual

such as Mr. Aston, the owner of this land the owner for quite

some time I might point out to find a way out of the very

difficult position in which he has been placed…. He has been

to the Land Commission; he has been to the Capital Regional

District; he has talked to several Ministers, as I indicated

earlier. In no particular area could he find the mechanism or

the willingness to purchase the land for continuing public

use.

I think that when an individual who is attempting, with very

little personal income accruing from the operation…. I have

somewhere here his revenues over the last number of years. His

"salary" — and he has that in quotes — has ranged from a high

in 1966 of $4,246 to a low in 1971 of $1,930, with an average

of $3,000 for the remaining years. This is one of the wealthy

golf course owners to whom the Minister of Finance has referred

on more than one occasion in the past. He is an individual who

has a delightful piece of property and enjoys seeing other

people use it and enjoy it and would like to see it remain in

that use after he dies.

There is no way an individual such as this, or many others

who find themselves in similar circumstances, can stand the

kind of assessment increase of $6,400 for one year and $67,000

for the next year.

I hope the Minister will attempt to learn more about the

golfing fraternity in British Columbia. I am not one of their

numbers but I do recognize this as an important recreational

resource in the province. I support this first attempt to

assist that kind of resource and others which fall into the

same category.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): One of the tragedies of being in

this House on a beautiful June morning is that we could be out

on the golf Courses. One thing I wanted to do was to propose a

golf game between all the Members. I was eager to do this. I

talked to the four golf courses in my riding when we were

discussing them last fall. All of us should have a golf

match.

There's no better golf course than the Pitt Meadows Golf and

Country Club, which the Minister of Finance knows and lived

only a few miles from for five or six years.

[ Page 4089 ]

This is obviously an excellent piece of legislation. I would

like to think it's really a motherhood thing, it's

permissive.

Mr. Speaker, in the Municipal Act, which has been

referred to,

section 328 — the permissive, exemption from

taxation

section — I'd like to know what has really been done

with that? It's all very well to have that

section and also the

facility in this new bill, Bill 15. But I find that the tragedy

section 328 is…. I'm not aware of a golf course,

certainly not in my riding, that has taken advantage of

something that's been on the books for many years. In other

words, making a legal commitment or contract with that

municipality for, at least, not all — I realize it's not all

the taxes — but certainly half of the general taxes.

In other words, they aren't really that sincere about going

all out and ensuring in perpetuity a recreational facility. I

gather there are legal problems with the word perpetuity, maybe

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

could explain in legal terms just what perpetuity means because

I've heard varieties of

interpretations of that.

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Right. But this is good legislation….

Interjection.

MR. ROLSTON: Well, the lawyers can't agree on what that is;

theologians can, but not lawyers.

This is excellent; it encourages the use of recreational

land. I think the cynics can remember there has been permissive

legislation before. It hasn't been used. It's all very well to

say you want something for recreation in perpetuity, yet you

also want to have the option, it seems, as a club, to subdivide

in the future. I'm aware of some clubs that have been crying to

us. They've been very upset about it, yet at the last minute

they've come in and applied for a land-use contract, and

possibly might subdivide.

I'd like to think these people really are sincere. I believe

the people in my riding, the four…. Actually, there's one

that's private, it's owned by Harrison Hot Springs Hotel, but

the other three — one of which is municipal, one in Maple Ridge — are clubs which have excellent programmes. They do have

access, anybody can pay green fees. They have excellent youth

and senior citizens' programmes. But unfortunately I've got to

confess, neither have signed the document with the

municipalities, which they could have, saying that they want

to, in perpetuity, remain an open recreational facility.

This is good legislation. I know everybody will approve of it. I also hope

that some of us can get out on the golf courses.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I just wanted to remind the

Premier, when he spoke about the increasing taxes for golf

courses under the previous administration, that the taxes on

golf courses have doubled and tripled since your administration

took over, Mr. Speaker.

The other thing is: I want to echo some of the earlier

comments made about the people who use golf courses. The

Premier doesn't have any idea who gets out on the golf course

and uses those courses for recreation.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: He doesn't want to, that's right, because of

some silly little hang-up he has which has been carried over

and expressed in this House on a number of occasions. Now I'd

like the Premier, really, to come out with me on a local golf

course in Langley on a Sunday at about 5 or 6 o'clock and

you'll find that that golf course is literally swarming with

young people of 11, 12, 13 and 14 years of age, juniors who are

not from rich families but who love to get out in the sunshine

and play golf — and in the rain, as a matter of fact.

Golf courses are used more and more by every segment of

society. The working man, who the Premier says he champions,

gets out and plays golf every opportunity he can because it's a

cheap and easy form of recreation that everyone can use. The

Premier must start to recognize that these are the people who

are getting out and playing golf. They're not rich men and rich

women who are on the golf courses. It isn't expensive to be a

golfer. It's one of the most economical recreational pursuits a

person can follow. Once the Premier can get rid of these little

problems of his and recognize that it's the young people and

the elderly who are using those courses now — everybody is a

potential golfer.

I'm pleased to hear the Member for Dewdney talk about the

provision of the present Municipal Act. And I'd like the

Premier to tell us what we're going to do with

section 328 (

a) of the Municipal Act.

About a year ago, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister, when he

brought in his promised legislation for golf courses, whether

he'd repeal that

section of the Municipal Act. He said

no, he wouldn't. I wonder whether he's read it since and what

he is going to do with it. It's there and it provides a vehicle

whereby golf courses now can be designated, and could be

expanded with a simple amendment to include any kind of

recreational activity or recreational property.

The Member for Dewdney wondered why more golf courses hadn't

taken advantage of this provision. I expect it was simply

because there wasn't very much necessity. They didn't see their

taxes doubling

[ Page 4090 ]

and tripling in one year, so they didn't see the need to

come and ask to be included under these provisions of

section

328 (

a) of the Municipal Act.

The Member for Dewdney obviously hasn't read it anyway,

because it doesn't say under that

section that they will rebate

half of the taxes; it doesn't say that they have to dedicate in

perpetuity, but only that they have to dedicate for a minimum

of a I 0-year agreement.

Things change and sometimes the needs in a community change.

There must be some kind of provision that will allow a

municipality to take a look at things after 10 years or 15

years or 20 years and see if there shouldn't be some other use

put to that property. An owner may want to get out of that

property. He should have the opportunity to change his

involvement with the property, and be compensated fully for it

if the government locks him into some kind of a situation.

Section 328 (

a) of the Municipal Act Mr. Speaker,

freezes taxes, upon application, at a fixed level so that the

owner of the property still contributes in part to his

community in the form of taxes. It does set a definite term for

agreement and it creates a formula for sharing with the

municipality or the province, if the province wanted to take

over that responsibility, if the use changes before the end of

the agreement. So the municipality shares in any increased

value that property may realize because of a changed use.

It also provides for the repayment of taxes with interest if

any part of the land under designation is sold. Now, I'd like

to see the municipalities retain the control over these kinds

of arrangements rather than have them vested once again in the

hands of a single Minister who will have total control and

total authority, such as happens in this Act.

I don't believe that the Act had to be kept vague. I think

it should have spelled out terms of agreement; it should have

spelled out terms of conditions that will be entered into. I

think it certainly should have spelled out what constitutes a

breaking of a covenant because that's an incredible guillotine

hanging over the heads of the owners as long as they're entered

into this agreement.

Given the proof of performance of this government in the past, and its disrespect

for contractual agreements, I would expect that that one

section in the new

bill,

section 7, will ensure that no private owner will ever enter into any

kind of an agreement with this government unless it makes it much more clear

that they don't have the opportunity at some future time, after 5 years or 10

years or 15 years, of coming along and laying some kind of a charge on them

that they haven't lived up to their contractual agreements, so they are going

to have to repay all the money the government, and with interest, which is a

definite possibility under the terms of this new bill.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill does take just one

more shot at eroding municipal responsibilities. I really

believe that we'd have been better off to have allowed the

municipalities to deal in their own way — with assurance from

the province that they don't suffer financially for it — with

the people who have recreational facilities in their own

communities.

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

I thought the Hon. Minister of Finance would be very brief in

closing the debate, but I wish he'd been a little longer

because having listened to the debate so far, I must say I'm

completely confused as to what the purpose of this bill is.

There's no charge in

section 328 (

a) of the Municipal

Act. If any municipality wants to enter into this kind of

an agreement, which is provided under the Municipal Act,

they're free to do so. If the municipality wants to enter into

any of the arrangements under

section 328 (1 ), as they apply

to a private organization. they're at liberty to do so. But

they do so in the full knowledge that, their municipality has

to bear the revenue loss.

This legislation, as I read it — and I don't think it

applies to golf courses in particular, it's a wide range of

lands available for recreation — the government is saying that

if the owner, and it must be a private owner or a society or an

organization, either lands held in fee or held under lease, if

that organization wants to come to the government and say,

"We're prepared to enter into a commitment with you with

respect to the continued recreational use of properties," then the government is prepared to respond by saying:

"We will remove from you the management of this particular

recreational facility, the annual burden of tax, that it won't

cost the municipality any money."

Now I don't see what the problem is in this respect. If the

Minister of Finance has to apply conditions in this regard,

then it's up to the owners to decide whether they want to meet

the conditions. It's as simple as that.

It is almost impossible these days to carry on any

well-functioning recreational endeavour unless you have some

management. In many instances the management is composed of a

non-profit club or organization. There are no restrictions to

membership, there is a minor annual fee charged to participate

in order to pay for the stationery and paper clips. It's these

kinds of organizations that will be assisted by this kind of

legislation, because they are facing annually an increasing

burden of property tax.

For the Social Credit to speak in some way objecting to this

legislation, when I consider that they wouldn't do anything to

take this burden off of these organizations…. They left it

entirely up to the

[ Page 4091 ]

municipalities. They would say to the municipalities: "If

you want to give some relief, you go ahead and give it. But

don't come to us and ask for your lost revenue to be made

up."

I think it's a step forward. Now maybe the Minister of

Finance, or some Minister of Finance at a future time, might be

criticized. If the conditions are laid down by the Minister

in determining what is an improved recreational land, if the

Minister starts to draw very fine narrow lines, then the

Minister is properly to be criticized. But when we are taking

this first step in what I think is the right direction to go,

it would be impossible, without wisdom that I don't think any

one of us in this House has, to draw the parameters which would

define and improve recreational facilities.

I can think in my constituency, for example, of at least

half a dozen organizations who will have the opportunity of

taking advantage of this legislation. I am sure there are

others. But to attempt to define how a person would qualify

with the land they own, or with the land that they hold under

lease, for relief under this particular legislation would, at

this stage, be impossible.

I think it will take some experience, and experience will

indicate whether or not the Minister is being too restrictive

in what he will approve, or whether he's being too generous. I

think that after we have had an opportunity to assess the

performance of this legislation, then perhaps we can suggest to

the Minister that he make some appropriate change. I think it's

a good idea.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Finance closes the

debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I know that it's necessary to

make political statements, That's really the essence of the

divisions that exist between us in terms of various groups

seeking power related to differences in philosophy.

I appreciate very much the comments of the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who has pointed out a

bit of the history leading to the introduction of this bill.

It's true that the Municipal Act had an avenue for

achieving almost the same results as what this bill wants to

achieve. The fact was that very few people took advantage of

that because the municipalities did not receive financial

assistance from the senior government.

The senior government didn't have the flexibility under

Social Credit) consider the necessity of assisting the

Municipalities in this very worthwhile endeavour of preserving

green space.

To narrow the discussion of this bill on golf courses, is in my

opinion, a serious error either designed to cover up the past

misgivings of the senior administrational lack, of understanding of the

social purposes of saving open space.

Now I don't know, Mr. Speaker, how one lives with one's

political conscience when there are speeches made by the

official opposition, not based on fact, emotionally criticizing

the bill because it comes from a democratic-socialist

administration. In the same breath they say, however, that they

will vote for the bill, recognizing, if one wants to be fair,

that the real purpose of this bill was totally frustrated by

their own government when a means was available when they were

in power if they would only have financed the municipalities to

do the same thing.

Mr. Member, what that presents to some of you when you

discuss unity is whether or not you can swallow that kind of

thinking. You can't do it. So you're going to have to cut some

of them out, Mr. Member, when you come together in a new party.

What I'm suggesting to you is that today is a cataloguing day,

because there are some people you can't take with you into the

new party. It's obvious that the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) is one and the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) is another.

They evidence a lack of responsible reasoning in terms of

evaluating historical context and the development of

programmes. You need a couple with not so many screws loose

that you can take. But it's impossible to get on television and

sell a criticism of this bill and at the same time vote for it,

and absent yourself in terms of reason for the history leading

to this bill.

To have the Member for Langley and the Member for North

Okanagan, with her gibberish, somehow criticize this bill and

leave the historical fact that the municipal

section was

ignored by the former administration…. At no time do I

recall the former administration saying: "We will pick up the

taxes if the municipalities will use this section."

Now hypocrisy is the only word I can think of that

adequately describes those two speeches by the opposition

today. If unity is to be achieved by the free enterprise party,

electoral success will not come with that kind of hypocrisy

attached to the unity. So catalogue it very well, Mr. Member.

Choose your friends very closely.

AN HON. MEMBER: Very carefully.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Very carefully. Weigh it very heavily. I

want to remind you, too, of your own speeches about the BNA Act

and the right of the province's resource revenue. But that's

another matter.

Far be it from me as a social worker to ever put on anyone

any amount of the guilt of history into carrying oil their work

for the future. But caution is the byword. If you take

hypocrisy with you, then you will be condemned to live with it.

That means

[ Page 4092 ]

that certain people will be cut out from the chosen few.

That has to include the present official Leader of the

Opposition. His philosophy is an extension of what he

inherited. He inherited the particular clause of the municipal

section that would not receive any comfort, succour, or

understanding from the previous administration.

Now to give us a story about golfing and the need for

people's recreational interests, that was never in evidence in

the programme of the former administration. They believed that

the work ethic — which they extended to other people, not so

much themselves — was the epitome of recreation in itself. The

idea that people should have recreation such as skiing and

golfing and swimming only came to their attention as a device

for political activity.

This bill is a pioneering experiment. It has absolutely

nothing to do with socialism, free enterprise or anything else.

It is a recognition of the fact that as our urban societies

develop and land pressures increase on what's available for the

development of those urban societies, some space must be

preserved. That's the reason for the word "perpetuity" and

that's the reason for my difference with the leader of the

Liberal Party.

I do wish, quite frankly, that those people who raise

questions on second reading of a bill, especially the Member

for Langley, with severe hypocrisy and criticism would not

leave the House without waiting for the closing of the debate.

Do they really want answers to their argument, or are they

making political points?

Now, Mr. Speaker, I point out to you that where I disagree

with the leader of the Liberal Party is in the argument that

sometime in the future there will be an alteration. That is

exactly what the bill is designed to prevent. We are dealing

with what we hope will become absolutes — just as now Stanley

Park is an absolute in terms of the landscape of the City of

Vancouver.

Just as now no one, in the frame of reference that we live

in today, could possibly carve up Stanley Park, the agreement

of perpetuity is to set a condition that regardless of what

goes on around this green space, regardless of what goes on

around this recreational area, it is to be dedicated for ever

as space.

Now the use of space can alter, but the space itself must be

left open. That's why the tax relief. Now in terms of the use

of space, if it is to be a golf course, fair enough. My earlier

remarks about my experience at Shaughnessy Golf Course….

MR. CURTIS: You regret them?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't regret them at all because they are part

of the historical context of the development of our society.

There was a time, Mr. Member, much to my regret — 1936 in

this province…. I think it is important to learn from

history. There were speeches made even this session, Mr.

Member, that revealed that people still harbour in parts of

their minds the same kind of cliché thinking. There was

a speech made by the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)

which should be enough of a reminder of what is harboured

still. Mankind is not perfect. This province has not escaped

that kind of history.

At one time, Mr. Member, there were covenants written into

land dealings in West Vancouver against Chinese; and I think it

is important to remember, because there are still people who

harbour these feelings.

In 1936 in this province a provincial election campaign was

run on a paid advertisement slogan saying: "Avoid the yellow

peril. If you vote CCF, they are going to let the Japanese and

Chinese vote." Now that's part and parcel of the history of

this province. I did refer to it in terms of my own experience

on a golf course. I think it is important to remember that

there are still people living and breathing today that think in

those terms.

Mr. Member, I agree with you, and I hope with you, in terms

of the kind of enlightened era we live in, that this is no

longer a fact.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I always say to put it behind me, Mr.

Member. But I think it is stupid to forget, because there are

people who still attempt to gain power or influence based on

irrational emotional argument on race, creed and colour. That

goes on in our great neighbouring country, and it goes on in

this country as well, both subtly and otherwise. There are such

organizations as the Canadian Intelligence Service associated

very closely with the Social Credit Party. It has a history of

racism, and they have never divorced themselves from that

outfit. So I'm glad to hear that, Mr. Member. I'm glad to hear

that.

But as a party, that's part of the historical context. So

don't ever forget what our society in British Columbia

struggled through to get to this point. We are glad we're at

this point. We're happy we're at this point. But just don't

ever forget, because when you forget and when you put your

guard down, then you allow the creeping ignorance to come back

in our society and to really poison corners of our social

structure that should not be poisoned.

I welcome the activity of golf. I welcome the activity of

skiing and everything else that this covers. To each his own.

To those who wish to be golfers, let them be golfers. To those

who wish to be bull-throwers, let them emulate my championship

ability. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed

[ Page 4093 ]

to do two things. Hopefully, in terms of those private

clubs, it leaves flexibility to make arrangements with the

Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford).

There is no way that the government intends to dictate to

those clubs who should get on or how they should be run — just

as long as we know there is access. That's all. I welcome the

comments by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and the Member

for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) in terms of

describing their own community facilities and the kind of

approach there. Flexibility is the key.

What we are interested in is somehow finding a vehicle,

through a widely drawn framework of law, to let people have at

a minimum of cost access to facilities, whether they are

private or public. If it means some bending, some manoeuvering

and some changing in terms of specific agreements, that can be

done — as long as there is a commitment to keep the open

space.

So I say to you that this bill is really a very, very good

social step forward for all of British Columbia, and I know

that every Member will vote for it. But I can't help feeling

some pangs of regret at having to be harangued by the Social

Credit Members in a hypocritical manner in a bill that they

intend to vote for, but when they were in power, did nothing

about.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Recreational Land Green Belt Encouragement

Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 119, Mr.

Speaker.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): This bill provides a

fairly wide range of amendments to the current Workmen's

Compensation Act. There are a variety of areas of import

that are amended by Bill 119. I think perhaps most important of

those is the provision for generally increased widows'

pensions, not only to existing pensions that have failed to

keep pace with the cost of living, with the tremendous

inflationary crush, but the widows' pensions that will develop

from this point onward.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, we have sought to

generally increase the time-loss benefits for workers who will

find themselves disabled temporarily or permanently by

industrial accidents.

The top range of earnings on which compensation is based has been increased

to $11,200, which will provide for a time-loss benefit rate of $700 per month.

and I think brings into closer tune with today's needs the benefits that workers

have to receive if they are not to suffer unduly through industrial accidents.

One of the other important areas that we have sought to deal

with is the whole question of accident prevention. This, of

course, affects the dollars that are paid out in time-loss

benefits, in partial disability pensions, and so on. I think it

is essential that we take a route similar to that enunciated by

my colleague, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) in his

preventive health care programme, I think it's prudent to take a similar approach in

workmens' compensation and seek to control and minimize

the number of industrial accidents and diseases which do in

fact occur in the plants and factories of the province. So we

have sought to provide more effective inspection means.

We have, for the first time, granted plant safety committees

equal right to accompany accident inspectors on their tours of

plants and factories. This means that the workers' committees

as well as management will have the right to accompany the

accident inspector from the Workmen's Compensation Board and to

draw to his attention factors which they feel might place their

safety in peril.

Really, the whole basis of accident prevention hinges on the

local plant committees. So I think that this move, which puts

both management and labour on an equal footing with respect to

access to the inspections, is long overdue and is something

that indicates that we are indeed sincere in our attempt to

minimize industrial accidents, and in our attempts to prevent

noxious gases from emanating in plants and factories to the

point where they could prove injurious to the health of the

local work force.

We have, in addition to the better inspection methods,

provided for tighter penalties for those employers who violate

the standards set out by the Workmen's Compensation Board. We

have had a history, particularly in the areas of excavations,

of inspectors showing up on the job and finding unsafe and

unshored-up excavations, of issuing closure orders only to find

that within a few hours of leaving the operation was underway

again with more of the safety provisions ordered by the board

attended to.

I think it has to be demonstrated to employers that when the

inspector issues an order for the improvement of safety

mechanisms, for safety factors on the job, they must receive

immediate attention, it must be taken very seriously, and that

failure to do so will result in the penalties that are

certainly a deterrent, in my view.

One other important area that we have provided under the

amendments to the Workmen's Compensation Act is the

inclusion of industrial

[ Page 4094 ]

deafness. I think that more and more in today's society

people are becoming aware that high noise levels are not only

an irritable factor in our social life, but are also an extreme

hazard in terms of the impairment of hearing. I come from an

industry, railways, where noise factors are indeed acute and

where the hearing of the work force is impaired to a very high

degree. I think one of the things we have to do is, first of

all, recognize this problem as compensable in order that we can

impose a cost on those who pay no regard to high-level noise

factors, not only in the plants and factories but in our

communities as well.

I think it is possible and desirable that the provinces of

this nation can cooperate in setting fair standards of noise

levels which are applicable throughout the length and breadth

of the nation so that we are getting at the source of how

machinery is constructed, and so that we are controlling, at

the source, the noise levels that will develop from certain

machinery which we import. I think if the provinces can reach

agreement on this important question, we will be taking a long

step to controlling the cost of industrial deafness that will

accrue to industry, at the outset at least.

This is an area in which I have had discussions with my

other colleagues, Ministers of Labour from the four western

provinces, and indeed on the national basis as well. There is a

fair degree of unanimity between those concerned as to this

approach to controlling and reducing the problem of industrial

noise.

There are a number of other amendments which we will be

looking at much closer in third reading and in committee stage

of this bill. I think the cost factor is one that the Members

will be interested in. I might just indicate at this point that

it would appear that the highest cost factor involved in these

changes will be the inclusion of the industrial deafness

factor.

We also have an amendment which allows the board to phase-in

the costs of coverage of the amendments. This means that rather

than face the impact of this cost in the first year, it will be

allowed to be phased over a period of years and be much easier

for the industry to assume.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: No government revenue. This will be raised by

levy on the industry, but it will be phased-in rather than met

in the first year.

The cost of industrial noise, Mr. Speaker, I think will be the largest factor.

We are looking at something, we suspect, like $22 million. Naturally, there

are many people out there in the work force now who have some degree of hearing

loss. Of course, they will become qualified for pension benefits — partial disability

and so on. In some cases, possibly also time loss. So, there will be that large

reserve of people out there who, in the first year, will be a high cost factor.

Phased over a period of years that will decline. It won't be a constant cost,

it will be a high initial cost factor. We are looking, probably, at something

like $2.5 million on an annual, year-to-year basis.

In addition to that, the increased levels of pensions, we

will increase the levies. We also have the factor of inflation

which is an inevitable cost on this kind of a fund. We are

possibly looking at a fairly substantial increase in the levies

over the next two or three years at least. I will be in a

position to deal a little more precisely with that in the

committee stage on the bill.

I think it is a good little bill, Mr. Speaker. I think it is

one which most people on the opposite side of the House have

certainly been pushing for in general terms of improved

benefits to workers and widows. Certainly I have had great

representation from certain Members of the opposition

parties.

In designing the amendments I had close consultation with

the Employers' Council of British Columbia, with the Workmen's

Compensation Committee of the B.C. Federation of Labour, with

the Workmen's Compensation representatives of the Teamsters

Union, and a variety of others. We have had fairly broad

input.

As I say, I think it is a good little bill and I am sure,

Mr. Speaker, that it will be one which the opposition will be

happy to support. It gives me pleasure to move second

reading.

MR. FRASER: I would first of all like to congratulate the

Minister on the explanatory notes, giving a clear review of all

the changes here. I think if all the Ministers did this, we

would have a lot less harangue in this place than we have.

The changes here are all very desirable. We can also say

that the amendments are an improvement to what is already

recognized as the best compensation in North America, if not in

the whole world. This party certainly supports these

amendments.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Like the previous speaker, I would like

to congratulate the Minister on putting forward amendments

which we can read in conjunction with the bill — two pages of

them, a substantial number. It is a sharp and pleasant contrast

to this morning's performance where amendments came in after

second reading, which took place last night or this morning. We

appreciate this because it makes the ability of the opposition

to handle the vast amount of legislation that we have a great

deal better. We certainly appreciate that.

I am particularly interested in the Minister's remarks, and

in the bill, with respect to the noise level question. I had

the medical examination which

[ Page

4095 ]

most of the MLAs are taking. I had confirmed that the

industrial deafness which I suffer from in high frequencies,

which dates back some 15 years, is still present and hasn't

changed at all. Indeed, it is getting slightly worse. This has

always been a problem for me personally. It was developed in

the days when nobody bothered with ear muffs, and people who

operated shipping guns and jack hammers at that time almost

took pride in the fact that they had lost hearing at certain

decibel levels. It was almost a sign of achievement in the

trade. This was quite the wrong thing; there was no protection

whatsoever at the time. I, in my turn, have suffered a pretty

substantial loss in the higher frequencies. So I am very

interested in this particular

section of the legislation.

The Minister is quite right in that this is a major problem.

But I would like to ask one or two questions on it. The first

is: the duty of the employee to take steps to prevent hearing

loss. Ear muffs are available; they range in price from $2 to

$3 right up to $35. They vary in quality and in effect. I would

think there should be some onus on the employee to take

reasonable steps to make sure that he himself protects his own

ears.

Again, quoting from my own experience, I was always a little

distressed — I at that time did not know that I was going to

suffer permanent damage — but I was a little distressed by the

fact those of us who complained were regarded as simply sissies

and the attitude of employees seemed to be that that was one of

the things that you simply had to put up with, and if you

didn't want to put up with it them get out. That was a

distressing thing.

I would like to think that instead of that attitude, the

legislation and the Minister's department would insist upon

some recognition by the employee of the need to prevent

industrial deafness as well as other things.

I don't see this in the legislation. Perhaps I haven't read

the amendments closely enough. But I don't see it and I wonder

if the Minister would possibly consider a further amendment

along that line, so that at least it is recognized in the Act

that the employee himself must make reasonable effort to avoid

creating the problems.

Only if the employee is safety conscious are we going to

have safety. It can't be enforced entirely by working on the

employer. Only if the employee is conscious of possible hearing

loss are we going to minimize what is, indeed, a very severe

industrial health problem.

I wonder if the Minister, in the spirit of good-will, would

like to comment a little more about the employee's

responsibility for dealing with things such as hearing loss, by

taking the necessary measures beforehand to avoid difficulty.

In my case I obviously didn't. I guess you could say it is my

own fault.

I will say that the whole attitude of the people I work with was one which

was not really very conducive to taking reasonable measures to cut down on hearing

loss. This probably influenced my attitude as well.

At the time, of course, the safety equipment was not

available; the ear muffs were not in common use. One simply

suffered, assuming it was temporary.

I am most interested in that. Perhaps the Minister will

comment further.

I would like to comment on the extra cost. The Minister said

there were going to be increased levies and that they would be

fairly substantial. I am quoting his words to him.

Surely there is some information he could give us at this

time on the overall costs. If it is going to be a fairly

substantial increase in the levy, the employers in question are

going to have to pay it. It is going to affect their ability,

for example, to pay wages, and in some minor cases it might

well be a question of affecting their ability to stay in

business. Obviously, if they can't pay for adequate safety

measures there is no reason for them to stay in business. It

would be helpful if the Minister would give as much information

as possible about the increase in cost.

On that point, I wonder whether the Minister would comment a

little bit on the fact that this bill, as now written, allows

people to claim for previous damage. Yet the people who will be

paying are today's employers, not necessarily the same group.

In other words, the present-day employer will not only be

putting up a fund to pay for the type of problem as it exists

at the present time; he will be paying for past mistakes of the

government as well as employers and employees. Perhaps this

particular burden, which is essentially a social cost and not

an industrial compensation cost in the strict sense of the

word, could be met by some assistance by the government to the

workmen's compensation fund.

I would like to think that it should be assisted. He talked

about a transitional period and I must say I didn't quite

understand how the transitional period was going to work, if

indeed there was to be no government assistance. Surely,

whether you delay the claims or whether you have them all in

one year doesn't make a great deal of difference if, over

a period of two or three of four years, they are all going to

have to be met.

I would suggest there is room for some sweetening of the pot

by the government in terms of some grant to the workmen's

compensation fund so that there can be a smooth transition from

the previous legislation to the present legislation without any

onerous increase in cost not related to the present risk and

present industrial problems.

I would ask if the Minister would comment upon it. I have a

number of other questions, most of which are to do with

individual sections and would be more appropriate to deal with

at the committee stage.

[ Page 4096 ]

MR. WALLACE: I am also very pleased with the general thrust

of these amendments. I would like to also express my

appreciation to the Minister for the copy of the document

outlining the amendments which was provided after the

legislation was tabled.

There are one or two points I would like to mention

generally and I certainly have a few questions in committee

stage. What really delights me, if I can read this correctly,

is the Minister's definition of "industrial disease." The

reason it encourages me is that I've spent years trying to get

what I consider to be justice for citizens and workers who work

in asbestos manufacturing and use of lagging of pipes in

confined spaces and so on.

If I have any criticism, I am wondering if the Minister has

opened the door so wide that he will have a tough time. I will

go into it more in committee but I am referring to the fact

that, in addition to the definition of "disease," has

been added the phrase, "disease includes any disablement

resulting from exposure to contamination."

While I am thoroughly in support of that, because I have

argued all along that if there is any benefit of the doubt

which exists as to why a worker is disabled…I can't say how

much I appreciate the Minister's amendment to this definition.

I think it shows the real sense of what workmen's compensation

is all about. You cannot always prove conclusively that a man

has lost 40 per cent of his lung function because he worked

among asbestos. You can argue equally that he smokes cigarettes

or he indulges in some other practice which impairs his lung

function. I think it is a real block on the history of the

compensation board in this province that so many men and women

had the fight they had to try and get what I consider to be

reasonable compensation when it is impossible to prove

conclusively that their disability was caused by their

employment.

I have another case right now which I am fighting about. It

goes back several years. I won't go into all the details in the

House. But there are eminent medical people not serving a

function on the compensation board who believe this man is

suffering from the early phases of asbestosis. The early phases

are almost impossible to prove; you can only have

circumstantial evidence in the early phases.

This man finally has to go to the trouble of his own expense

of going to a European country to come up with some eminent

world authorities who say he has the early phase of asbestosis.

Still we have the Workmen's Compensation Board saying the

evidence isn't conclusive, therefore no compensation.

I have talked about asbestosis every year I have been in this House. I am sure

the Members are probably bored to hear again. The fact is this Minister has

taken some step in the definition on the very second

section of the bill. I

would like him to perhaps either in committee or when he winds up second reading

comment on the consultation he had with various parties. I am a little surprised

— I'll be very frank — that the Minister was allowed to come out with such a

wide definition.

As I read this definition, there should be no more problems

for workers with lung disabilities who have worked in close

contact with contaminants such as asbestos fibres.

Incidentally, the world impact — and I really mean world impact — of the exposure on an ever-increasing basis to asbestos will

be one of the future environmental factors in public health to

a degree which isn't realized generally at the moment. The

degree to which human beings are inhaling asbestos particles

and fibres from a variety of products throughout our society is

on the increase. Some of the recent research on random

populations is very enlightening and rather worrying.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are they coming from?

MR. WALLACE: From drapes and materials and various kinds of

fabrics and insulating materials and even decorative materials — like material for drapes and so on which gives off these very

small particles. It is only in recent years that the degree to

which we are all exposed to it is being realized. World

authorities such as Dr. Selikoff and others have done a

tremendous amount of research. I am getting a little off the

point.

I hope the Minister will comment on this definition of

contamination when he winds up the debate.

I also really appreciate the Minister's venture into the

area of loss of hearing. I strongly support the attempt to

fairly compensate a person who loses hearing. The one area I

would simply ask a question on rather than criticize is the

degree to which loss of hearing these days is quite frequently

related to not only where the person works but to all the noise

involved in recreation — to get back to a subject we were on

earlier on today. The roar of power motors and saws and drills

and recreation of that nature in confined spaces, for example,

in the worker's home in his basement where he is cutting wood

and using drills and so on.

The only question I would ask is whether or not the scope of

this very worthwhile suggestion really falls within the scope

to the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think it can be

reasonably asked: is this not such a general health measure

affecting everybody that we are opening up a tremendous area

here where definition of clear responsibility will be almost

impossible? I certainly wonder whether or not the way in which

this is spelled out in

section 9 of the bill is much too

indefinite and leaves too many loopholes.

[ Page 4097 ]

I would certainly reiterate the point that has been made

earlier: there seems to be no mention of the worker's

responsibility. In other words, if the worker does not use the

mechanisms available in the form of ear defenders on a regular

basis, it's questionable whether employers as a particular

group should be paying for the consequences of the worker's own

irresponsibility. Whether we really buy that argument or not,

the fact of the matter is that the combined effect of social

noise or noise outside the work area, together with noise at

work and the possibility the worker will not use the defences

available to him or her, I think strengthens the argument that

maybe the whole question of hearing loss is more of a general

health problem affecting all citizens and not exclusively

workmen.

Of course, as the Minister knows, the previous compensation

for loss of hearing was dependent upon loss of earnings. I

think it's a step forward to accept the idea that you can

become deaf through your work without ever having a day off

work. I accept that part of the amendment to this bill.

But I think perhaps the Minister, when closing second

reading, should comment on the responsibility of the worker and

the Minister's own

interpretation of the fact that so much

noise outside of the work area can equally contribute to loss

of hearing. Should the employers be the only people paying for

that in terms of financial compensation to the person

concerned?

I don't know if I caught the Minister correctly when he

mentioned $22 million as being just the cost of dealing with

the loss of hearing or whether this was the figure for the

increased cost of pensions.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: It was only to do with hearing. Well, that is a

very substantial figure, as the Minister readily acknowledged.

In relation to the annual cost of compensation to the employer

right now, which I understand is of the order of $80 million a

year, this represents a very substantial increase that is

anticipated on the basis of the provisions of

section 9 to do

with loss of hearing.

I wonder if the Minister, in his consultations with the

various parties he mentioned, discussed cost and to what extent

the representatives of the employers are apprehensive about

this additional cost.

Of course, this same

section on loss of hearing makes it

very plain that there'll be no payment prior to the date of the

Act. Certainly, payments will be made to persons who lost their

hearing prior to the proclamation of this Act. This means

employers of today will be paying for the neglect of many

previous employers who may not even now be in business. I don't

personally feel that is fair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I wonder perhaps if we could

consider those matters that you are discussing mainly in

committee, if it goes to committee. It seems to me that you're

getting in such detail in each

section that you're usurping

your rights in committee.

MR. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to leave

that point, then, by saying that, in principle, the amendments,

talking to the principle of the bill, in their essence are

good. But one can ask the question, in principle, whether or

not it is going beyond the scope of the Workmen's

Compensation Act in terms of a much wider social commitment

than is implied in the basic idea of workmen's

compensation.

I'm not questioning for a moment the wisdom of trying to

help the people who are going to be helped by these amendments.

That isn't what I'm asking. I'm suggesting that, in principle,

this bill may be going beyond the basic expectations or

requirements of this Act. Because of the very substantial

financial impact of this Act to be met only by the employers,

in point of fact some of the people concerned should probably

be met on the widest, general population basis. That this is

the question I'm asking.

I understand a few years ago, when some similar decisions

were made, the government did pay $2.5 million a year for four

years into the funds of the Workmen's Compensation Board. In

the light of the comments I've made, has the Minister

considered whether it would be reasonable to look at it on this

basis? Has he the assurance of the employers that they're

willing to accept the financial consequences of the

recommendations that have been made?

This is the third and final comment in principle I would

like to make. The Canadian Manufacturers Association has made

the point that some of the powers included in the amendments

also interfere with the labour-management concept of

responsibilities, which really should not be the concern of the

Workmen's Compensation Board.

Again, we may better deal with that in committee, but I

wonder if the Minister, in winding up the debate on second

reading, would comment. I'm sure these same representations

have been made to the Minister. Does he feel there is no danger

of intrusion into the area of labour-management relationships

as, for example, the inspector's function where the employer

has only one choice of deciding which employee he can designate

to accompany the inspector?

There is the question of the failure of an employer to meet

certain safety standards. If the plant is closed down, he has

to pay a minimum of three days pay regardless of what the

collective agreement says, and so on.

Again, the Minister might be opening the door with the best

of intentions to areas which really go

[ Page 4098 ]

beyond a reasonable scope of the original intent of the

compensation Act in the first place.

There are a host of other questions I'd like to ask. But

with your guidance, Mr. Speaker, I'll go into them in

committee.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Labour closes the

debate.

I HON. MR. KING: The Hon. Member for Oak Bay didn't leave me too much

time to answer that broad range of questions he posed. I agree that many of

these points would probably be more appropriately discussed in committee stage.

I will attempt to answer the general questions put by the Members, if I can

do SO.

The question of measuring industrial deafness, the whole

question of measuring asbestosis, silicosis, these kinds of

things, is a pretty narrow medical determination, as the Member

for Oak Bay is certainly aware of. It always will, I suspect,

remain a difficult question in terms of workmen's compensation

as to whether or not a condition, a disease or an accident is

attributable to the employment of the individual. It's a

medical science, I believe, which is not so refined and not so

advanced at this point in time that absolutely definitive

conclusions can be reached in all these cases.

What we have sought to do here is to provide the Workmen's

Compensation Board with some greater flexibility in attributing

probable cause, in giving some benefit of doubt where a

definitive conclusion based on medical research cannot be

made.

On that basis I think it should be pointed out that many of

the criticisms over the years and many of the battles that MLAs

have had on behalf of constituents — I certainly myself have

been involved in many — are not really the fault of the

Workmen's Compensation Board, their inspectors and so on. Yet

great abuse has been directed toward the board.

They, after all, are the agency which simply applies and

interprets the laws that this House passes. I think we should

all keep that in perspective when dealing with the Workmen's

Compensation Board. If they are bound by the laws that we write

to take a stringent position in terms of whether or not workers

qualify for benefits, then we can hardly point an accusatory

finger at the board. Rather, we should be considering

amendments in the House which would achieve the kind of

treatment for workers which we feel and which we are

responsible as legislators to provide to them.

The industrial deafness thing. It's my feeling the cost will be high in the

first year. We're recognizing for the first time industrial deafness. Now, naturally,

there are many people out there who over the course of the years have had their

hearing impaired. There will be a high peak in terms of costs to provide compensation

to those people in the first year.

I am suggesting, in order to mitigate the effect of that

high cost, that peak, on the employers, that it be phased in.

The board has reserves. Now, certainly, it has been a precedent

in the past that the government would out of general revenue

subsidize the workmen's compensation fund. I don't think that

will be necessary.

But based on the scrutiny, the total effects of these

programmes, which can only be estimated, we will keep a very

close eye on it. I doubt that that will be necessary.

As far as workers' responsibility to pursue safe work

practices and to take the necessary precautions to secure their

own safety and that of their fellow workers, there is an

obligation in the Act for everyone to comply with board

regulations. Beyond that, of course, most companies do have

rules for the violation of which penalties and discipline is

assessed to the work force. Those two provisions, and the

natural interests of people to work safely and to prevent

injuries and pain and suffering I think are all of the

inducement that is really necessary to ensure that workers do

perform their work safely.

The contamination thing, again, I don't think the Act is too

broad in that sense. It is similar to any other medical

determination. It has to be shown that it is related to the

employment of the individual. If that can't be established

within reason then I don't think there is any danger of going

too broad in terms of the application of the Act.

Interjection.

HON. MR. KING: Yes, I think it does.

Finally, in closing, I just want to say one word. The

explanatory notes that were issued to all Members of the House

have, of course, been changed in the light of recent amendments

that have been introduced. I hope that the Members understand

that the explanatory, notes will be subject to some

modification which we will deal with in committee stage on the

bill.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 119, Workman's Compensation Amendment Act, 1974,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, on behalf

of my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

I have the honour to present a report from the Department of

Agriculture, the 68th Annual Report.

[ Page 4099 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn I would like to advise the

Members that the government whip from Quebec, who was one of

the delegation visiting this House, has suffered a seizure of,

fortunately, only minor proportion. He is now well enough to

return to La Belle Province. I think you will all be pleased to

hear that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada