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)

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 4049 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting Routine proceedings Landlord and Tenant Act (Bill 105). Second reading.

Mr. Gibson — 4049

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4051

Community Resources Act (Bill 84). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

section 2 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 4051

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

Mr. Wallace — 4051

section 6.

Mr. Gibson — 4051

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4051

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

section 9 as amended.

Mr. Gibson — 4052

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

section 12.

Mr. Wallace — 4052

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

Amendment to

section 13.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

section 16.

Mr. Gibson — 4052

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4052

section 17.

Mr. Gibson — 4053

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4053

section 20.

Mr. McClelland — 4053

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4053

Mr. Gibson — 4053

Mr. Schroeder — 4054

Amendment to

section 22.

Mr. Gibson — 4054

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4054

section 22.

Mr. Wallace — 4054

section 24.

Mr. Wallace — 4055

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4055

Mr. Schroeder — 4057

Amendment to

section 25.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4057

Mr. Schroeder — 4057

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4058

section 28.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4058

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4058

section 32.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4058

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4058

section 36.

Mr. Schroeder — 4058

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4058

Mr. Wallace — 4059

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4060

Amendment to

section 39.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4060

Mr. Wallace — 4060

section 39 as amended.

Mr. Schroeder — 4060

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4061

Amendment to

section 40.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4061

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4061

Amendment to

section 43.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

section 43 as amended.

Mr. Schroeder — 4062

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

Amendment to

section 44. —

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

section 44 as amended.

Mr. Wallace — 4062

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

Amendment to

section 55.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4062

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4062

Mr. Wallace — 4062

Mr. Schroeder — 4063

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4063

Amendment to

section 56.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4063

Amendment to

section 58.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4063

section 59.

Mr. Rolston — 4064

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4064

section 60.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4064

Amendment to

section 60.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4064

Amendment to title.

Hon. Mr. Levi — 4064

Report stage — 4064

Mineral Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 48). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4065

Mr. Smith — 4065

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4065

Coal Act (Bill 92). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4065

Mr. Smith — 4066

Mr. Gardom — 4066

Mr. Gibson — 4067

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4067

Prospectors Assistance Act (Bill 94). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4067

Mr. Fraser — 4068

Mr. Gibson — 4068

Mr. Kelly — 4069

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4070

Division on second reading — 4071

Petroleum and Natural Gas Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 132).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4071

Mr. Smith — 4071

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 3 1). Amendments.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4074

THURSDAY, JUNE 13, 1974

The House met at 8 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Public bills and orders, Mr.

Speaker. Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 105.

LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

(continued)

MR. G. F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I was glad to

see the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) standing up

there. I hope he says more in closing the debate than he did in

opening it.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I assure you that it

will not be four hours.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe just a few minutes explanation of the

bill, though, instead of the 120 seconds. That would be

helpful.

I just want to say one or two things about the bill on

second reading. I don't have a great deal to say. To me, Mr.

Speaker, the problem with this bill is a problem of supply. The

Attorney-General has been nodding at that all through the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm just tired.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, the government hasn't been doing very much

about supply. I've been asking the Minister of Housing (Hon.

Mr. Nicolson) for several days now at one time or another

whether he was prepared to find something out about the supply

situation on rental housing in this province, because there are

already very clear indications that the policies of the

government so far have not only been increasing supply but

decreasing it.

In the absence of the Minister of Housing or the

Attorney-General doing any survey of available rental

accommodation, the B.C. Rental Housing Council has done one. I

don't know how good the numbers are, Mr. Attorney-General. I'd

love to have official government figures in this regard, but

the Minister of Housing tells us that that's just the last

thing he is going to do. He's too busy to develop figures on

this kind of area. He's not a statistics department, he

says.

We have to at least take a look at these kinds of figures to

see what validity they have.

The B.C. Rental Housing Council circulated a questionnaire and they feel that

their results are pretty good and complete. The respondents have been responsible,

they say, for creating something over 47,000 rental suites in B.C., of which

they manage about 16,000 today.

They have discovered, as far as their respondents are

concerned, that as a result of the new provincial legislation — not only this Bill 105, but the interim rent freeze — that

there has apparently been a cancellation of plans for rental

suites in recent weeks amounting to about 6,400. These are

suites that would have been completed or at least started in

1974. And 6,400 suites would have been pretty helpful in the

apartment crisis in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. At the moment I'm

puzzled as to whether you are relating this somehow to the Act

or to the general need of housing. What is the relationship

between the principle of this bill and what you are talking

about?

MR. GIBSON: What I should have said first, and I thank you

for reminding me, is that the essence of this bill is rent

control, and that one of the inevitable consequences of rent

control is that provision of housing by the private sector is

likely to decline.

So we have on the one hand a programme — of which the

Minister of Housing is so proud — of some 2,000 new units that

are going to be built by him; but that doesn't do much for the

20,000 rental units that should be built in this province this

year.

The relation, Mr. Speaker, in other words, is to the

detrimental effects that rent control has on the provision of

rental housing suites; and Bill 105 is, among other things and

in its essence, a rent control bill.

So those are the figures we have in the absence of

government figures — which, as I say, I do wish that the

government had seen fit to provide. I do wish they had seen fit

to make some kind of survey of that kind.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I appreciate, Mr. Premier, that detail can be

answered in committee. I just want to make these broad comments

about housing supply right at the moment.

Now, these same respondents to this survey were caught by

the legislation with around 1,600 suites already under

construction and about 650 in the planning stages for a total

of 2,250 that are in the works and on stream. A lot of these, I

have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, are being converted to strata

title. But they are at least suites being built.

But out of all these people surveyed, who have within the

last few years built around 48,000 suites and are currently

managing 16,000 suites, the only new suites they are going to

start, according to this survey, in the near future is the

total of 200 referred

[ Page 4050 ]

to by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) the other night.

It is to me a clear reflection of the government policy that

we have this kind of situation where we have the government

building a few rental units and the private sector, because of

its fear of the government and its concern as to what will

happen if they do build any new suites, cutting right back.

This is going to be another case where the government is

going to come in and say that the private sector has failed and

that we're going to have to go ahead and supplement what they

should have been doing; and maybe the 2,000 suites the Minister

of Housing is so proud of will go to 10,000 suites by the end

of this year.

Obviously, something is going to have to be done. But the

point is that that wouldn't have been necessary if they hadn't

chosen to go down this road.

What did the Minister of Housing say earlier on this year?

The Minister of Housing isn't listening. He should be, because

here is what he said: "Vancouver's housing shortage should be

solved by building more housing, not imposing rent control."

The Housing Minister said that.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, could we have some order over

there? Maybe that Minister of Housing would choose to stand up

and respond to that statement he made some months ago that rent

control is not the answer.

Does that Minister support that bill?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: It's a very questionable thing. The government

the other night was laughing at Tory controls, and then they're

bringing in their own controls over rental housing — which is

acting in an exactly opposite way to the kind of thing they

would like.

They are discriminating against rental housing and against

tenants in various ways such as the application of the capital

tax which applies, of course, only to tenant-occupied

apartments, not to owner-occupied homes.

I'm still not sure what the situation is on the fuel rebate,

Mr. Attorney-General. Maybe you could straighten that out.

That's going to be a help to tenants as well as homeowners. I'm

not clear on that as yet. Next session? Well, maybe you're

relying on the fact that there's not much heating fuel used

over the summer. Maybe the next session is going to be in the

fall. Maybe that's a clue.

But the whole business of rent controls, I'm afraid, Mr. Speaker, is in the

long run going to cause more problems than it raises. The Law Reform Commission

was broadly against rent controls. As the Attorney-General knows, they didn't

feel themselves competent to pronounce definitely on this issue of government

policy. But they did find themselves in agreement with the Ontario Law Reform

Commission of 1968 that stated that rent is an important element in the cost

of living, but only one element.

Then it goes on to say about rent controls: "The wisdom of

such control is something that requires a wide economic study

and policy decisions going far beyond the powers of this

commission as a law-reform body."

But they did stick their necks out a little bit, and they

quoted with approval the writings of one Professor Donnison who

said: "Governments should always seek other and more direct

routes to their ends before resorting to rent control."

I'm not convinced that the government has done that, Mr.

Speaker.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're not convincing your own

party.

MR. GIBSON: They had that kind of case, perhaps, on the

interim rent freeze, but they sure don't have it as a long-term

policy.

Another report on this was done by the National Council of

Welfare on "The Low-Income Consumer in the Canadian

Marketplace," which is a fairly pompous title for a

thick report, but it does refer to rent control. It says:

"Another solution to the low-cost housing problem which is frequently cited, though infrequently

applied in normal times, is rent controls. It seems like a

tempting alternative: restrict profits derived from rents and

keep prices within the range of the poor.

"Unfortunately, it is unlikely to work in the Canadian

housing market except in a short-term situation where a large-scale

expansion of the low-income housing stock is underway and the

restraints are to apply only in a transitional period until the new

supply system is in effect and the rental market is adjusted

accordingly."

That is certainly not the situation we have in British

Columbia right now, Mr. Speaker. We don't have any large-scale

expansion of low-income housing stock. As a matter of fact, we

have the most drastic shrinkage of rental housing stock in

many, many years.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Stand up, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

King), and give us your thoughts on this subject. We hear lots

of sniping from the cabinet back benches and not much positive

construction to these debates. Thank you very much.

I agree with their proposal that this bill is well debated

during the committee stage but I think this

[ Page 4051 ]

point on rent controls has to be made at this stage. It is

very likely to work exactly the opposite to the direction the

government wants it to work. A year from now — the vacancy rate

can't be any tighter than it is right now — the housing

situation is going to be worse because the rental units

required in this economy are simply not going to be provided

because of the policies of this government.

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is a difference of opinion, of

course, between the government and the Hon. Member. It is our

opinion that the supply of rental accommodation under

construction had been falling off for some time. At the same

time the population increase, especially in the lower mainland

area, has been phenomenal. In view of that, while not resorting

to rent control, we thought we had to restrain abusive rent

increases.

The kind of surveys you mention will be undertaken, mostly

by the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) but partly under

the auspices of the rentalsman. He has that power under

section

28 of the Act to encourage positively, by prescribing a fair

return, the construction of new rental units. That power will

be, I am sure, exercised because it is a social problem.

We will have to move in this field to protect people, Mr.

Member. Already we have protected people in terms of our

interim rent control stabilization. But if we left things to go

just as they would float in the marketplace, with the

population buildup and the shortage of accommodation which was

there and would be there, then things would be very desperate

indeed for the renting

section of the people of British

Columbia.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 105, Landlord and Tenant Act , read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 84, Mr. Speaker.

COMMUNITY RESOURCES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 84; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): I move the

amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could just ask the

Minister the meaning of the word "principally." Does it mean

over 50 per cent or what?

section 2 it says: "…to benevolent activities

principally supported by public subscription."

HON. MR. LEVI: We are deleting the whole section.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yes, on that point, Mr.

Chairman, could the Minister explain what second thoughts the

government had, causing them to delete this section?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mainly because I understood it created

confusion out there among some of the charitable organizations.

We deleted it in order that there would be no confusion.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 5 inclusive approved.

section 6.

MR. GIBSON: It was moving along rather quickly there.

At the end of

section 6 (e), it suggests that the directors

shall make annually to the Minister a report of the actual

state of social services throughout the province. I am

wondering if it is the intention of the Minister that this

report should be tabled in the Legislature.

HON. MR. LEVI: Part of the annual report that we table is,

in fact, the report of the Deputy Minister, who in this case is

the director. So it is a normal procedure. It is in the annual

report. You notice there is a letter from the Deputy Minister

to me, stating that he attaches herewith a report. The

information relating to community resource boards will be

included in that.

[ Page 4052 ]

MR. GIBSON: Will this particular report referred to in

section 6 (

e) be included in that?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, it will be included in that. We have a

number of divisions in that category.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

section 9.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 9 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: On

section 9, Mr. Chairman, I am just not clear.

The employee referred to in line 2 is appointed under

section 5

and may be assigned to a regional board or community board. Who

in the last analysis controls this employee and has the

executive direction of this employee? Is it the regional

board?

HON. MR. LEVI: The regional board or the community board,

depending on which one.

Section 9 as amended approved.

Sections 10 and 11 approved.

section 12.

MR. WALLACE: I would just like to comment on this

section

because I have already received complaints respecting the

conduct of the election of members to the Vancouver regional

board. I wonder if the Minister at this point has any comment

to make on such part of

section 12 which says the Minister may

investigate complaints respecting the voting of money by a

regional board or community board.

I raised a point in second reading that certain requests

have been made of the Vancouver resource board that members of

the board should be paid the same as an alderman in the City of

Vancouver, which I believe is $600 a month. Is this the

section

under which the Minister might or might not have authority in

this area, or is there another

section of the bill?

It seems to me, relating to my earlier comment, that the

board appears to have been set up way ahead of the legislation.

We seem to be asking questions after the fact. Would the

Minister care to comment?

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, Mr. Member, there are no people

elected to the Vancouver resource board. Those are

appointments. They are the people who are the representatives

of the resource boards, and those appointed.

In respect to pay, there is a

section which we are coming to

under 26. We do not pay anybody except for reasonable expenses.

I do not agree with what they did at the board there, and there

was no commitment in the Act at any time. It is not my

intention to pay anyone, except their reasonable expenses, if

they have to travel, in the usual way. That is all.

As I said at the beginning, the Vancouver resource board is

not an elected board; it is an appointed board.

MR. WALLACE: Just for clarification, has the actual motion

which went before the Vancouver resource board finally reached

the Minister's desk for a specific request for $600 a month?

Was it stopped before it got that far?

HON. MR. LEVI: As a matter of information, they sent it to

me but I told them at a meeting that that was not on. We were

not proposing to pay people.

Section 12 approved.

section 13.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 16 gives the Minister absolute,

arbitrary authority in being able to require from time to time

that the bylaws, rules or regulations of a regional or

community board be revised, and in a manner satisfactory to

him. I would ask him why, in view of his already broad powers

under sections 14 and 15, he thinks it necessary to have this

additional power to reach into virtually any act of any local

board and change it to suit his convictions rather than

theirs.

HON. MR. LEVI: One of the purposes of the board and the

citizen involvement is for the board to be responsive to what

is going on in the community.

In that case, if there may be an obvious conflict in terms

of where there should be changes and there aren't, I think we

would undertake to discuss with people and ask that certain

things be changed. We are trying to be flexible here; these are

not sweeping powers. Really, the function of the board is

the

[ Page 4053 ]

community involvement. Now the boards change every two

years.

For instance, it may be that there's a very specific need

based on a kind of service which might be required. When we

first came in there was and still is the very serious need for

services related to young people.

There are one or two areas in the province that are not very

responsive now to asking for that kind of assistance. I am not

prepared to mention them, but we've had discussion with some

areas about moving in this direction and taking advantage of

the programmes we have — particularly the special services to

children programme. There's some response from the community on

that.

But it's not that sweeping a power; I don't agree, Mr.

Member.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, you went so quickly…. I just

wanted to ask the Minister: what is a region? Could he tell us

what the regions are that he contemplates?

HON. MR. LEVI: The regions have not been defined. They will

be discussed with the various community boards around the

province. This is a process that will not be taking place,

certainly, within the first year of operation of this Act. This

is where we would put a number of local community resource

boards together to go through a process similar to what's going

on in Vancouver. The Vancouver resource board is in fact the

Vancouver regional board, in the sense that there are a number

of resource boards under it.

What it would do is to make the same kind of decision and

deal directly with us for funding. At the moment we will be

dealing directly with each resource board around the

province.

MR. GIBSON: The Minister is saying then, that there will be,

in effect, no regional boards for the first year, other than

the Vancouver board and perhaps the capital area board.

HON. MR. LEVI: Let me be more specific. I would not say that

we would be moving toward regional boards before the end of

this fiscal year.

Sections 17 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): During second reading debate,

Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister if he would tell the House whether or not core

services were still a part of his vocabulary, and whether or

not they would come under the terms of the duties of these

boards, and if, in fact, a municipal council would be bound to

any core services which a regional board or a regional resource

board decided were necessary in the community. And who would

pay for them?

HON. MR. LEVI: Thanks very much for reminding me, Mr.

Member. No, they are not now. Core services are not something

that we are going to be discussing or insisting on. It's part

of the process in which we will assume, in a gradual way, the

responsibility and the cost for programmes.

I might say that one of the difficulties we've had, on

closer examination, are the services that have been started and

assisted by LIP or OFY and municipalities, and then a

municipality decided to opt out. So I think what we want to do

is go in a direction of boards really getting money from one

source, then we don't get this kind of whipsawing process where

they go to LIP or OFY or municipalities, then suddenly funding

dries up and I have to go through what I did last week in terms

of all of those LIP programmes. So, no, there will be no

requirement by municipalities for core services.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Chairman. Will there be

a definitive statement of some kind to the municipalities

telling them what they're expected to pay for, and what you

expect to take over, even on a gradual basis? This is so the

municipalities have some method of budgeting, for one thing,

because they really don't know where they stand now and I think

they'd like to.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, there will be. I'm meeting on June 27

with all of the municipalities in the lower mainland area to

discuss what kind of a timetable we have. We will be contacting

other municipalities about this, and we will have a definitive

statement to make. What I want to do is have the meeting on the

27th and see what kind of a format we will require to make a

general statement.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 20 (g), Mr. Chairman, notes that it's

one of the purposes of a regional board to apportion funds

among such community boards. I just want to make sure I

understand this correctly: it is indeed their duty to apportion

rather than to recommend to the Minister the apportionment he

should make. The regional board has that authority to

apportion, do they?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Member. The government's function is

to set the financial guidelines and the general policy

guidelines. We have

[ Page 4054 ]

a certain number of priorities. But we are not going to get

into — that's one of the things we want to get out of — looking

at individual programming. That authority will remain with the

board.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, do I

understand that right? I thought it was to be by regulation — that the amount of money to be apportioned for various social

services was to be determined by regulation, and that the

apportionment, as outlined in

section (

g) was only the

apportionment of expenditures related to the operation of the

board itself, and not really in the apportionment of social

services. Did I understand that wrong or right?

HON. MR. LEVI: The boards outside of the Vancouver area will

not be responsible at this time or for some time in the future

for the delivery of or the inquiry into the social programmes

delivered by the department. That is, they will not be

responsible to look at the statutory services. We are only

requiring them at the moment to look at the non-statutory

services.

MR. SCHROEDER: All right.

MR. McCLELLAND: A little further Mr. Minister, through you

Mr. Chairman — will the department, through yourself, have any

veto power at all on either expenditure or programmes if it

becomes necessary?

HON. MR. LEVI: The answer is yes.

Sections 20 and 21 approved.

section 22.

MR. GIBSON: The thing that concerns me a little bit here,

Mr. Chairman, is that while the Minister can exercise the power

and authority of a regional board, until it's established, it

says nothing about the responsibilities. I'm thinking in

particular of the responsibilities such as under

section 23,

that at least once a year a public information meeting is

required and so on.

I wonder if the Minister would accept just a minor

amendment after the word, "authority" in the second line of

section 22 — to say, "… the minister shall exercise for

that reason the power and authority and responsibility." Just

add those two words, "and responsibility."

Accordingly, I move that amendment.

HON. MR. LEVI: No, I….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

On the amendment.

HON. MR. LEVI: Take it easy, let me explain it.

One of the things is that if I have the responsibility then

I'm going to be required to go just about to every region and

appear at public meetings and explain certain processes. And

very frankly, I just can't do that. It just isn't

practical.

MR. GIBSON: Who's going to do it then?

HON. MR. LEVI: The intention of this

section is that until

we establish regional boards, I think I explained a little

earlier, we will be dealing directly with the individual

community resource boards about their funding. There will be

this direct communication. Once they've set their priorities

and that, they will come to us.

Later on, when we set up the regional board, then they will

go to them. And as I said, we're not proposing to go into the

regional boards, certainly in this fiscal year, at all — except

what we have in the Vancouver area. We want to be able to look

at the Vancouver area experience a lot longer.

MR. GIBSON: Then that requirement for a public informational

meeting annually disappears, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me

that's wrong.

Amendment negatived.

section 22.

MR. WALLACE: In regard to

section 22, I just can't resist

commenting that one of the fiercest debates we ever had in this

House, presented and initiated and developed by the present

government when they were in the opposition, was as to the

tremendous power, the solitary power given to the Minister of

the day, then one P.A. Gaglardi.

I think it's really interesting that just a moment ago the

Minister stated in response to a question that he has veto over

any decision of the resource boards. Here in

section 22 we have

the Minister taking the authority and power. And we keep coming

back on that word "power" in every debate in this House. He has

the power and authority to function in place of a regional

board.

So I think it should just be in the record, Mr. Chairman,

that while I certainly have great respect for this Minister,

let's not obscure the fact that in terms of this legislation

and in this section, and in other sections we've already

debated, this Minister is having every bit as much power, if

not more power, than the same kind of position which this

government bitterly resisted when it was given to the former

administration.

[ Page 4055 ]

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been kind enough

to correct me as to the manner in which regional boards are

created — the members are appointed. I just want to ask the

Minister for clarification — how some of these appointments are

made.

Now I realize that (a), (b), (

c) and (

d) make it very plain

that they're appointed in various ways. But I had one

particular contact on this issue by telephone and letter. It

refers to one Mel Macdonald, who happens to be on the Vancouver

resource board. I understand that he's the representative of

the Federated Anti-Poverty Group.

I'm certainly very sensitive and willing to recognize that

we should have the voice of the disadvantaged people on these

boards. But I made some inquiries and I discovered — and it

bothers me — later in the bill, and we'll come to the section,

that the community resource boards involve the election of

members who have to meet certain criteria.

The Minister will be bringing in the amendment where the

person, to be elected to the Vancouver resource board, has to

be of the age of majority, a Vancouver charter elector and

qualified under the bylaws of the community board.

Now there seem to be two different standards here, Mr.

Chairman. I'm referring back to

section 24. I understand that

Mr. Mel Macdonald came to Canada as a draft dodger. He came to

Canada, as my information, as a draft dodger under sentence in

the spring of 1969. He has obtained a degree in social work at

UBC, but apparently he's not particularly keen to work. In

fact, he's refused work and apparently is presently himself on

welfare. He apparently is not a citizen; yet he's the chairman

of the elections procedure committee of the Vancouver Regional

Resource Board.

Now this apparent….

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'm stating….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oak Bay has

the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is information which I've tried to check

out, and as far as I'm aware…. I know the responsibility of my position in

making these statements in this House. I've checked them out at more than one

source, and I believe that these facts as I have described them are, in fact,

accurate.

It seems to me that with the regional board having a greater

authority and responsibility than each community board within

the region, it would seem to me that the very least that should

be met within the criteria of

section 24 in regard to

appointing individuals to the regional board should be these

same criteria regarding voting rights as a member of the

municipality, or in this case Vancouver.

As I've mentioned earlier, the Minister's going to make it

mandatory for people seeking election to the community resource

boards to be qualified as electors under the Vancouver Charter.

I just wonder how it is that we have a person in this position

of authority who, as far as one can determine, would not

qualify to run for election on the community resource board;

yet he has been appointed as a member of the regional board — in this case the Vancouver regional board.

I feel that there is enough confusion, generally speaking,

in the minds of the public as to exactly what this piece of

legislation will do, how these boards will function, how

they're composed. I did mention in the debate on second reading

that there had been a great degree of uncertainty and confusion

regarding eligibility of people to become involved. Since then

I've had these several phone calls relating in particular to

this person, Mr. Mel Macdonald.

I gather that he has been discussed on the various radio hotlines in

Vancouver. I wonder if the Minister would, first of all, answer the

questions I've asked about this particular citizen. Secondly, could he

tell us whether he feels that perhaps

section 24 could be tightened up

in various ways to at least make the requirement for membership by

appointment on the regional board as strict, if not stricter, than

eligibility for election to the community resource board?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, just in respect to the man you

were talking about: when we set up the interim board, we agreed

that there should be a number of representatives. We agreed

that two representatives from the Federated Anti-Poverty Group

could be appointed. We didn't appoint them; they selected them.

We then sort of appointed them. The Federated Anti-Poverty

Group, which is an organized group, selected them.

The United Community Services selected a person that they

put on there — as well as the parks board, school board, the

health board and the city council.

I'm aware of some of the contentious nature of what was

going on there. But we were not prepared to interfere. Those

were the appointments made by a duly-constituted group of

people. We weren't prepared to interfere in that.

Now the rest of the operation that took place is entirely in

the hands of the Vancouver resource board. Again we were not

prepared to get involved

[ Page 4056 ]

here. If we're going to talk about involvement and local

people making decisions, I'm not about to go in there and make

those kinds of decisions. We have now put out the eligibility

and the procedures for people to be in to operate within this

system. It seems to me that that kind of situation will not

happen again anyway.

One of the questions, of course, which has come out during

the debate on the eligibility has been the question of the

large number of people who live in communities who are not

citizens, yet do participate. Many people have been here some

years who are not citizens. We have given some thought to this.

But I am not prepared to go beyond what, for instance, the

election Act says or any of the other Acts that cover

eligibility. But that presumably will be the subject of some

future debate at some time in this House about, as we get into

local communities, whether we will be excluding people who are

landed immigrants, who are citizens, who are taxpayers, from

that kind of function.

But we are not prepared at this time to do anything about

accommodating that. I think very much that that's something,

first of all, in the area of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) under the election Act; and then, of course, there's the

school boards Act.

So we've laid the basic requirements, and those requirements

will be followed in terms of appointments. I can give you that

assurance. Those are the requirements. The requirements for

eligibility will be the requirements for appointment.

We now require that people live in the area if they're to be

appointed to a regional board or the Vancouver resource

board.

As is happened, during the interim session one of the

Members did not live in the Vancouver area but was appointed by

a group designated to have an appointee. So I'm trying to

assure the Member and the House that the procedure for the

eligibility to run and vote are the same rules that will be

applied to the appointments that I make in terms of the….

And I can make three appointments.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the Minister for

two further clarifications of what he has just said? I think

perhaps that I either misheard what he said or he just reversed

the words. I think he meant to say that the appointees would

have to meet the criteria of eligibility at the regional level,

such as the criteria that are met at the community level — in

other words, in relation to being qualified as electors, and so

on. I think, with respect, Mr. Minister, that you put it the

other way around.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I'm sorry.

MR. WALLACE: The other point contingent upon that agreement by the Minister,

then: would he not feel that it would be fair under

section 24 to have an amendment

just simply stating that anyone appointed by any one of the four mechanisms

would have to meet such criteria as have to be met by anyone running for election

to a community board?

That would really put in writing the assurance that the

Minister has just given me. With respect, in

section 24(2)(

d) the Minister has made it clear that three are appointed by the

cabinet, and apparently from this recent experience the

Minister does not feel that it is right for him to reject any

person put forward by, let us say, the anti-poverty group.

Now I personally would feel that the tremendous

responsibility that devolves on any Minister of the Crown to

make appointments to public boards is such that it would not be

automatic that if a certain group puts forward a name, the

Minister — whether this Minister of the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Cocke) or the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs.

Dailly) or any other Minister — would automatically appoint the

person named by the particular group — in this case the

Federated Anti-Poverty Group.

Certainly if this tends to be the practice, that the

Minister concerned more or less automatically accepts the name

given to him for appointment, I would think that it would be

even more important that we have such an amendment to

section

If the Minister would consider it, I would certainly move

such an amendment — although I don't have it written and signed — suggesting that the criteria for eligibility to be elected to

a community resource board under

section 40 should also apply

to any person appointed under

section 24.

HON. MR. LEVI: I'd like to draw the Member's attention to

the amendments under

section 25 in respect to the Vancouver

resource board. The other thing is that in respect to other

appointments those are the ones that I make as Minister. Nobody

gives me a name which I accept. I will look at the appointments

in terms of the kind of balance that might be needed in respect

to a board and the kind of extra knowledge that might be

needed.

But to answer your concern you will find under

section 25

and the amendments that we have eliminated some of the problems

that you have referred to.

MR. WALLACE: I'll be very brief. I obviously misunderstood

the Minister.

In other words, Mel Macdonald was not appointed under the

provisions of

section 24(d). Who appointed him then? Was it by

one of the community boards established under (a), or by the

mayor? I'm sorry, I'm just at a loss to know how this man

Macdonald got the position that he has. From your earlier

statement, Mr. Minister, I assumed that you had appointed

him

[ Page 4057 ]

as one of the three that you have authority to appoint, but

obviously not. So it has to be (a), (

b) or (c), and I'd like to

know which one.

HON. MR. LEVI: First of all, we didn't have

an Act. When we

had the representations what we did was to ask for a

representative of each school board, parks board, council and

the health board, two people from the Federated Anti-Poverty

Group and one person from the United Community Services. I

would appoint three people. I did not appoint anyone. I have

not appointed anyone to the board, and I was not intending to

appoint anyone to the board until we proceeded with the

legislation.

So Macdonald was one of the people that the federated

anti-poverty groups asked to be on the Vancouver resource

board. But you'll see that taken care of in the next

section.

MR. SCHROEDER: Actually, Mr. Chairman, there can be no

existence of any of these boards, no appointments to any

position on those boards, until this legislation is passed.

Whether Mr. Macdonald has any understanding of having a board

position or not, the truth of the matter is that he cannot have

any position on any board; and he is just acting in the interim

until this Act passes this legislative body.

There are very few sections in this entire bill that we can

support, but I do see a ray of light here in

section 24, and I

must commend the Minister in this one regard. At least he's got

a little starch. He has been daring enough to have the

appointments to these boards made one by each community board,

and we assume that there will be more than one community board

within each region.

So already we have at least more than two appointees under

(a). We have at least one school board, perhaps two under each

region, under (b). We would have two appointees at least under

that section. We have two by the mayors of the municipality,

which is a minimum of at least six members appointed at large,

as opposed to three members appointed by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in Council. I must commend you on that

phase.

In any other committee, in any other commission, in any

other board that has been established, in any other legislation

that we have seen come through here in all the years I've been

here, Mr. Minister, I have yet to see something like this, and

I commend you for it. There is a little daring here.

Just one caution. I think the Minister is aware that in some

areas we have joint community services being managed by

community service boards already in existence. One of these

areas is Chilliwack. I think that perhaps the model for the

entire province could be taken from this core-services concept

that we have in the Chilliwack and the Abbotsford areas.

I would like to suggest to the Minister that in the appointing, both of the

regional boards and a little later in the community boards, we do not ride roughshod

over the people who, some of them, have given seven, eight, nine, and up to

12 years of voluntary service to these community service boards. I would hope

that at least in the appointees these people would be given due consideration

as recognition for their work.

I would like to thank them publicly here and now for the

services they have already rendered and commend them to this

Minister for consideration for these appointments. Not only

from among the community boards, not only from among the school

boards, not only from among the mayors, but also I would trust

that they would fall under consideration for these three

appointments by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

These people have given good service and I believe they can

render good wisdom to the future community resource boards by

virtue of their experience. I hope they will not be overlooked,

Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Member, they have two points of

access. One is either to run for election on the board or,

bearing in mind your recommendation, one or two could be

appointed. The main thing, I think, is to look at the board to

see if there is some other part of the community that needs to

be represented. That's why I can then do that in terms of

giving balance to the board with the three appointments.

MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Minister, I take hope from the fact that

you say that one or two could be appointed. I would like to

believe that of the number who have served there would be more

than one or two who could be appointed. Not only that, but take

the rich in experience. I would hope that this will not be an

avenue used for the advantage of political appointments, but

that people will be appointed on the basis of their

ability.

Section 24 approved.

section 25.

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

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

On the amendment.

MR. SCHROEDER: On the amendment, I notice that we have

increased the number to be appointed from among the council of

the City of Vancouver. But we have deleted two members to be

appointed — one by the Metropolitan Board of Health of the

City

[ Page 4058 ]

of Vancouver and one by the board of directors of the United

Community Services.

I would like to have an explanation as to what rationale was

used to determine that these two areas should not be

represented and that rather the Vancouver City Council should

have one more representative.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the people on the regional board are

all elected people; and in these two cases they were not

elected.

MR. SCHROEDER: You mean appointed?

HON. MR. LEVI: No. They are elected in the first instance

when they go to the school board, parks board and that kind of

thing. The other two people are not.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Arising out

of the remarks the Minister made on

section 24, I would gather

that once this legislation is assented to, what we have known

as the Vancouver resources board, and what is a nullity today,

disappears. Than there will be these appointments made as

stipulated here, and they may be the same people who have been

serving on an interim basis. Then you will be appointing three,

not having to date exercised that right of appointment.

HON. MR. LEVI: That's quite right.

MR. SCHROEDER: Right, thank you.

MR. WALLACE: Can I take it from the Minister that there is

some screening of names that are put forward to the Minister

before he approves or chooses these appointments — that it is

not simply a matter of the Minister in good faith having names

suggested to him? Can we be assured that there is some

screening mechanism by the Minister before he makes the

appointment?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, I can give that assurance. For instance,

we've had very strong representations from Indian groups that

one of the appointees might be someone from the Indian groups.

We're giving very real consideration to that.

Then, of course, we presumably may get representations from

other groups as well, but certainly there will be careful

screening.

Amendment approved.

Section 25 as amended approved.

Sections 26 and 27 approved.

section 28.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Perhaps the Minister could indicate if

this was an oversight. This

section makes provision for filling

a vacancy in a regional board, but there doesn't appear to be

any corresponding provision for filling a vacancy to the

Vancouver resource board.

Now I appreciate that the Minister has the power to appoint

in such an instance, but I wonder if that is an oversight.

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, it would apply to the Vancouver board,

Mr. Member, because it is a regional board, except that it's

got a different name.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

Section 28 approved.

Sections 29 to 31 inclusive approved.

section 32.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: To the Minister, on

section 32 (1) (b):

"To make, on behalf of a regional board any description of

contract…." Could the Minister indicate why those words

are used? Do they have full power of contracting on behalf of

the board? I assume that that's what you indicate.

More importantly, in subsection (

c) in the third line would

you indicate what the security to be given by members of the

board might be, and for what purpose? Are they to be

bonded?

HON. MR. LEVI: You're in (

b) now are you? Well, (

b) relates

to the ability of the board to enter into contract with respect

to agencies, that kind of thing. What was it on (c)? Yes,

that's the bonding.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: So there will be a bonding provision.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes.

Sections 32 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

MR. SCHROEDER: On

section 36 an automatic question is: under

what authority was the south Vancouver community board

established since no legislation has yet passed this floor?

HON. MR. LEVI: I didn't think we needed any, if you like,

authority for that. I still have, under the powers of the Act

that I am administering the department under, authority to make

various grants

[ Page 4059 ]

to groups. I can do that. It was set up…. I don't

think there was anything illegal about it because there was no

legislation related to it.

What we wanted to be able to do was to put into operation a

pilot project to see how things would go. This

section here

will tend to legitimize this process.

MR. SCHROEDER: With all respect, Mr. Chairman, I'm not

talking about the grants. I know that the Minister can, under

other legislation and regulation, make grants. That's not the

point. The point is the establishing of boards. It seems a

little odd to me — in fact it appears as though the Minister

may have jumped the gun in the establishing of these boards

without the legislation to give him the authority to establish

these boards. The money is not what is involved; it is the

establishing of the board itself.

HON. MR. LEVI: When you are dealing with social experiments,

you can either come in here with

an Act that lays everything

down and you start from there. Then you've got to learn as you

go along. There is nothing wrong with what we have done in

order to find out some of the procedures that are going to help

us in the election process, in the meeting process, in the

kinds of people who are on the boards. We've learned a great

deal from that pilot project in the Vancouver-South area. It

has added very much to our knowledge about how these operations

will go.

It may not be, if you like, orthodox because usually

everything starts from the House. But there is nothing illegal

about it. I think it is in good keeping with what we are trying

to do in the community. That's the important thing. We did have

3,500 people who acceded to this kind of process. That's not an

insignificant number of people.

MR. WALLACE: I just feel that the comment from the Member

for Chilliwack is very well taken. Again, we are not just

talking about a grant of money; we are talking about an

election. The whole principle of an election — voting for

people to do certain things — is a pretty important pillar of

our democratic way of life. Once you elect people to handle

taxpayers' money, I think you're into an area where, while I

don't for a moment dispute the Minister's good intentions and

motivation, I do think this is stretching the credibility of

the public a little far.

I don't know what kind of reaction the Minister has been getting, but I can

tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this is one public issue that I have had a great

deal of reaction to, based on the question "What on earth is going on?" We've

got elections going on: we don't know the boundaries; we don't know who is eligible

to vote; we don't really know what the responsibilities are once they are elected.

I agree that we can stumble and get tied up in our own

orthodoxy, but on the other hand, as MLAs we have to be

sensitive to the spending of taxpayers' money.

This south Vancouver election was a real mess. There were a

whole lot of confusing questions — the whole question of even

enumeration and who qualified and who didn't, who was eligible

and who was not eligible.

I just think that it hasn't done the Minister any good and

might even have done him some harm because it has damaged his

credibility in bringing in a new approach which might be, and I

think in fact is, a well worthwhile endeavour to bring the

social services close to the local people who need the service,

and involving the local people. But the very patchwork,

apparently hasty and ill-organized way in which the Minister

has done it, I think, has run the risk of giving the whole

system and the whole intent of the system a bad name to start

with.

I hope that this debate and probably a press release by the

Minister saying just what he said a minute ago…. You might

even send the page from Hansard , Mr. Minister. Seriously, I'm

being a little facetious, but I think this would serve the

public interest.

HON. MR. LEVI: I appreciate the Member's comments. Just one

thing on The Vancouver South thing: first of all, I think you

got all of your information from the press. I didn't. I went

over there and participated in two public meetings and spoke to

a lot of people. The elections were run….

MR. WALLACE: I went to one meeting, remember?

HON. MR. LEVI: Well, the elections were run. We had the

assistance of Mr. Ken Morton's office — the provincial

returning officer. There were no problems. Certainly, there has

been a lot of discussion about this idea because it is very

new. We expected — and got — a lot of flak and some

compliments. Since then there have been three other task forces

organizing. I might point out that the one in Dunbar–Point Grey

is a very interesting way of going about the thing. There are

200 to 300 people attending public meetings. The same in

Kitsilano and the same in Hastings-Sunrise.

Unfortunately, the people who wrote about the earlier

efforts that were going on in Vancouver South really didn't

bother to take an in-depth look at what was going on. I did. I

was very concerned about it. That's why I went down and looked

at it. There was nothing untoward happening. The thing is that

some people in various situations were quite threatened by the

fact that we were actually going to do the community

involvement in terms of the delivery of

[ Page 4060 ]

service.

Just one other thing in respect to the Vancouver South

resource board. They have had no access to public money; they

have been there in an advisory capacity. No money has been made

available to them other than the grant which set up the board.

They have not been administering grants or any kind of

programmes whatsoever.

MR. WALLACE: They will be after we've passed this.

HON. MR. LEVI: That process has been taking place directly

from Victoria, not by the Vancouver South resource board. They

have had an advisory capacity in this. They have been learning

things, but they have not been involved in handling any public

money whatsoever.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I direct the Minister's attention to part

(2) of

section 36 and ask him whether or not he or his staff

have drawn up a constitution and bylaws for a community board

which will become part of the order creating a community board

in the local area. I am thinking particularly of model

bylaws.

The reason I ask the question, Mr. Minister, is that it

pertains to your amendment to

section 40, because that will

include qualifications of voters and directors.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, we do have recommended model bylaws. In

fact, two different groups worked on this. We will be making

those available — the model bylaws which will spell out the

requirements. We do have those and we will be releasing them

once we've got the Act through.

In fact, what we intend to do is to make available to the

communities that are interested a kit which outlines a number

of procedures and the requirements which we have now put

together. There is a fair amount of information that is

printed, and some of it will be printed. The model bylaws will

be included in there, as will the Act, once it has passed. So

they will have it right from the beginning. There will

certainly be some kind of uniformity in respect to the bill.

That's why we have developed the model Act in respect to

it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: On that point, Mr. Chairman, is the

Minister able to tell us this evening — because it will bear

upon the consideration of his amendment to

section 40 — what

the model bylaws will provide in respect to qualifications for

membership on the board of directors of the community board,

and voting?

HON. MR. LEVI: Could we deal with that under 40?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: All right. Fine.

Sections 36 to 38 inclusive approved.

section 39.

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

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

On the amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is, of course, another

definition of power which the Minister has which might well

conflict with the wishes of the people in the board, but what

about the community resource board involvement in this kind of

decision? Is the amendment put in to meet the kind of criticism

that I am simply making — that it should not be just the

Minister's decision to define the boundaries or change of

boundaries?

HON. MR. LEVI: It is to bring in the regional board and the

community. I think that one of the emphases in relation to the

board is that it deals with communities. One can look at a

community and see where the people are. I think the Member,

because he is from the Capital Regional District, will know

that when we integrated the service over here last year we

removed the municipal boundaries. We saw where the offices

were: in fact, we only had to add one other office in order to

have a very equitable distribution of the services. That's what

we did.

The other thing is, we do have to be concerned about how

people set their boundaries. We don't want people swallowing up

other communities without some discussion and agreement on

this. That's why we brought in these boards.

Amendment approved.

section 39 as amended.

MR. SCHROEDER: I had some questions on this when we were

speaking of it in second reading. I think that perhaps some of

the answers the Minister has given to date have been rather

urban concepts. When you get into the provincial concept, I

think the ideal is to have these community resource boards

blanket the entire province. Once we start thinking of them in

terms of a broader scope than just in the City of Vancouver, I

think it becomes very important that we assist these community

resource boards in determining their boundaries, because if we

don't, we will see little islands that are being serviced with

these community services, and we will see areas

[ Page 4061 ]

which are perhaps undesirable and perhaps thought not to

belong to community resource boards.

For instance, what about Indian reserves? These are areas

that perhaps might be left out of the service coverage. I think

we need to be very very certain that in the establishing of

these boundaries that their boundaries be common, that they be

adjacent, so that in the overall plan for the province we don't

have areas that are omitted for this service coverage. Can the

Minister give us any assurance that this will take place?

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, the main thing is that nobody will be

omitted from service. Because even if they are not within a

community resource board, of course, the province will continue

to administer the services, or if it is a municipality, that is

also responsible for the area which you feel might have been

omitted.

The other thing is, outside of the Vancouver area there are

a number of communities, Kamloops, Campbell River, Nelson, that

are already into developing community resource boards, where

they have defined their boundaries in terms of the city because

it is sort of appropriate. But I think this is the kind of

thing which, as we get the legislation, we will be discussing

very clearly about this with the people.

At the moment we are looking at communities, and where

communities are. The communities…. for instance, Campbell

River is a defined one. It takes in all of 12,000 people. There

are also people in Courtenay-Comox who are looking at the same

kind of idea.

The boundary thing has always been a difficulty, not just

for community resource boards, but also for the kind of

boundaries that we have in respect the sort of service we

deliver, Health delivers, Education delivers. All departments

are giving quite a bit of attention to this. It would be ideal

if we would have contiguous boundaries.

MR. SCHROEDER: Even electoral areas.

HON. MR. LEVI: Even electoral areas, I guess.

Section 39 as amended approved.

section 40.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. L. A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the amendment provides that a person

to be elected as a member of the board, and to vote, must be 19 years of age,

must be qualified as an elector under the Municipal Act , and must be qualified

under the bylaws of the community board. Can the Minister please indicate what

those qualifications would be under his standard bylaws?

HON. MR. LEVI: This

section really deals with the problem

that we were looking at in terms of elections. For instance, in

the Vancouver area we would hope that elections could take

place at the same time that there would be municipal elections.

But I don't think that kind of process would work in the

Vancouver area, partly because they may have 12 people running

for mayor. I think last time they had 120-odd people running

for 27 positions. If we were to add the resource board to that

voters' list I think it would lose interest.

What we are looking at in that respect is seeing whether we

can have, in the Vancouver area, as we have been discussing

with them, off-year elections, so that we don't have those

kinds of large lists. I think it will relate, primarily, to

what is going on in the Vancouver area, that particular

section

of that, when we can have the elections.

Does that answer the Member's question?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I don't believe it does, Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister. We are talking about qualifications

of a person to hold the office of a director. We have got one

which is age; we have the second one which is residence. Then

there is the third qualifying category — under the bylaws of

the community board.

Now, under the previous section, 36, when you, by order,

create a local area you will provide the model constitution and

bylaws. It is those bylaws which will determine who may be

elected as the first directors, and who may vote for the

election of the first directors. I want to know whether those

bylaws contain any other qualifications besides age and place

of residence. Do you have to be…. I don't know what the

qualifications might be; that is why I am asking. If we could

see these model bylaws it might help to answer that

question.

HON. MR. LEVI: Unfortunately, they are still in draft form.

The only other requirement, and this is something that we want

to discuss with some of the boards, is the length of residence.

Six months, I think, we have in most elections, but it

varies.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Municipal Act already covers that.

And the amendment, subsection (

b) provides for residence,

subsection (

a) provides for age. What other qualifications

could there be?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, we are not looking for any

[ Page 4062 ]

other qualifications.

Amendment approved.

Section 40 as amended approved.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

section 43.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. (See appendix)

Amendment approved.

section 43 as amended.

MR. SCHROEDER:

Section 43 says: "Every community board shall

hold at least once every year a public information meeting…." If you look at

section 23 it says: every "regional board

shall hold at least once a year a public information meeting…." Is this one and the selfsame meeting? Are these two separate

meetings? Is this redundant?

HON. MR. LEVI: They are separate meetings, Mr. Member.

Section 43 as amended approved.

section 44.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. (See appendix).

Amendment approved.

section 44 as amended.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman,

section 44 (3) — "The term of

office of the directors shall not exceed two years." There is

no subsection that I can find regarding eligibility for

re-election, or any time factor, or anything to say they can

run for re-election a dozen times or two times or any other

number of times. I just wondered if that means that each term

of office is two years, but beyond the two years the same

person can seek re-election.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, the same as MLAs, Mr. Member. They can

run as often as they want.

Section 44 as amended approved.

Sections 45 to 54 inclusive approved.

section 55.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment standing under my name

on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I would like to thank the

Minister for this amendment which wipes out the words "public

education and community recreation." I mentioned this in second

reading, and he clearly took my words and presumably those of

others to heart. I am glad because I think that the school

boards could suffer tremendously had the words been left in,

and at least this particular aspect has been made clear. I

thank him genuinely for this amendment.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is certainly an area of

concern because of the delegation of power in the field of

public education. Even so, I am still just a little puzzled as

to some of the services left in under the jurisdiction of other

Ministers, where this Act will give the Minister power to

delegate, such as correctional services, mental health

services, mental retardation services. Correctional services

are very much the responsibility of the Attorney-General (Hon.

Mr. Macdonald) and, of course, these other ones that I have

quoted, public health, mental retardation and mental health,

are very much the direct responsibility of the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). I just wonder why these have still

been left in

section 55. For example, we have got "respecting

social services" — I can understand that, but these other areas

are clearly the direct responsibility of two other Ministers. I

wonder if this Minister could give some explanation as to why

he cut out education and community recreation, but left in

these others.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the first reason for cutting it

out was that there was some confusion out there. Some groups

were feeling quite upset that somehow there were some massive

powers in here, which there are not. Now let me be specific

about the ones that are left in.

We are cooperating on a daily basis, on an hourly basis,

with the correctional service. We are providing facilities,

staff, for programmes in the probation area. In respect to

mental health we participate with the Minister of Health in

providing boarding home situations. The same with the retarded,

we are funding the agencies. Really, it is the vehicle for

doing much more integrated service work then we've been able to

do previously.

If we are dealing, for instance, with children and young

people in the rehabilitation area — we're involved very

intimately in these programmes — nothing takes place without

consultation and agreement. We work very closely with all of

the

[ Page 4063 ]

Ministers in respect to programmes.

We have an agreement with the Attorney-General's

correctional department. If they are aware of a need for either

a child or a group of young people who need service, they get

in touch with our people, we meet with them and we make

provision for that service. That's the way it has been going on

since we've been the government. We are not operating in

parallel lines. There's a tremendous amount of co-operation and

co-operation in terms of funding.

So there really isn't anything overawesome about this

thing. It's not massive powers; it's a vehicle for us to really

co-operate.

I think I did point out to the House during second reading

that there are certain programmes we can provide for various

departments which come within the jurisdiction of the Canada

Assistance Plan . We are able to provide such services and, I

think, if we can make them legitimately available to other

departments, providing they fit the criteria, we have done and

we shall continue to do that. That's the only reason.

There was a first reason I did have. The president of the

school trustees came along and I listened to her and I listened

to the other members. In order for this not to be confusing in

the public's mind, we did make the amendments we have made. We

don't want people to be confused about what the function is. We

want to get on with the job. Rather than have a continuing

puzzlement by some people, we're taking it out, the same way we

took out

section 2.

MR. WALLACE: At this point I would like to record my

appreciation of this Minister providing a very clear outline of

the amendments which we're now debating. He provided this to

the parties this afternoon so I want an appreciation of that

recorded.

A last comment on

section 55. Am I correct in understanding

that it does give the authority to this Minister to delegate

authority or responsibility in one area which, strictly

speaking, is the responsibility of another Minister? Somewhere

along the line, one or other of the Ministers has to make the

decision and this

section gives this Minister the greater

authority over, let us say, the Attorney-General or the

Minister of Health — if the good intention of this Minister is

that certain areas of correctional services should be used in a

certain way as he sees fit — by order to delegate authority or

responsibility. Is this

interpretation correct?

HON. MR. LEVI: No, it isn't, Mr. Member. The

section

says:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, on the

recommendation of the Member of the executive council charged with the

administration of the respective matters referred to in this section…."

Nothing can be done unless there is a recommendation from

the Minister of that department.

MR. SCHROEDER: The Minister states that in order to avert

public confusion we have eliminated public education and

community recreation from this section. Would the Minister not

agree that there is also public confusion on the inclusion of,

say, public health services?

For instance, if I may refer back just for a few moments to

section 54. It talks about the community human resources and

health centres, which was a recommendation of the Foulkes

report. The Minister of Health had suggested during one of his

dissertations that these things were not going to happen under

this administration; the health centres were not to be linked

with the community resources.

Not only is there confusion on the public level but the

confusion seems to be right in the cabinet itself. How were

these resolved? Does this amendment — not eliminating public

health services — meet with the approval of the Minister of

Health?

HON. MR. LEVI: There really isn't any confusion, Mr. Member.

We have at the moment an agreement with the Minister of Health — which took place almost a year ago — for the development of

four pilot projects for community health and human resources.

This was done almost a year ago.

There is a development group that has been into Grand Forks,

Queen Charlotte Islands, James Bay, and Houston-Carlisle. That

was an agreement we had many, many months before the Foulkes

report came down, to see whether we could operate these kinds

of models. That's really why that's in there.

Amendment approved.

Section 55 as amended approved.

section 56.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 56 as amended approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 57. I think that's a misprint in the

bill.

HON. MR. LEVI: I think we should just go back, Mr. Chairman,

to 56.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Yes, there is an amendment, I'm

sorry.

[ Page 4064 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: …we're amending 56. There's not a problem

with the numbering order.

MR. SCHROEDER:

Section 58 should be in italics.

HON. MR. LEVI: Yes, it's unfortunate; it's in

Section 57 approved.

section 58.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 58 as amended approved.

section 59.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Mr. Chairman, I see there

obviously hasn't been a need for amendments in

section 59.

There has been anxiety by the professional social workers and

other people whom we, according to the section, ensure

employment under the Public Service Act .

Could he say something just to make a little clearer for me

and to be on the record that this is not threatening to

professional people already employed under the Public Service

Act, people whom we hope will see the democratizing aspect of

this legislation? Maybe just the Minister might add something

to that.

HON. MR. LEVI: I thank the Member for raising this. There

has been, as I understand it, some anxiety by some staff people

in the public service. As we have said, there is no reason for

this kind of anxiety.

First of all, we will be consulting with everyone on this as

we did in the Vancouver area when we were consulting with all

the staff. I have answered some letters now from a number of

public service employees. I thank the Member for raising it.

Certainly there should be no anxiety in respect to this in

terms of the employment or their future in terms of public

service, none whatsoever.

Section 59 approved.

section 60.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't really wish to speak on

section

60, Mr. Chairman. On the sheet I have giving the proposed

amendments, there are two lines at the very end giving the

renumbering of sections. Where does that belong?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe it was 56. Because one

section was struck out

some time back, it would require the renumbering.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Is this renumbering

section moved as a

new section? It has to be someplace, Mr. Chairman? It just

doesn't hang in the air.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the Hon. Member drawing this to

the Chair's attention. I would ask the Hon. Minister to move

the final amendment on the order paper.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 60 as amended approved.

On the title.

HON. MR. LEVI: I move the amendment to the title, Mr.

Chairman. Right at the beginning of the amendment it says "In

the title, by asserting after the word 'Resources' the word

'Board.' "

Amendment approved.

Title as amended approved.

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports the bill

complete with amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When shall the bill be

considered as reported?

HON. MR. LEVI: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Will leave be granted?

Interjections.

HON. MR. SPEAKER: I think the question is that leave be

granted that the bill be reported now. Shall leave be granted

for that?

Leave not granted.

Bill 84, Community Resources Act , reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the

[ Page 4065 ]

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill 48.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the Hon. Member would use that new

device called a microphone.

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

second reading of Bill 48, intituled the Mineral Amendment Act, 1974 , I want

to first apologize for being back a little late. I have been working very diligently

on some amendments to Bill 31 from the information I got from the other side

of the House. I hope to be able to give you more information later on.

The amendments to the Mineral Act are very simple. They

change the method of staking claims throughout the

province.

At the present time, when claims are staked, they are staked

north, south, east, west, southwest, northwest, any way at all.

It is just like a jigsaw puzzle. Under the new modified grid

system of staking a prospector will only have to locate one

post, put all his information on that, and then he goes from

there. The staking is directly north, south, east or west. He

can stake it in units, which are 1,320 feet square. He can

stake one claim of up to 40 units. That would give him 800

acres in one claim. Or he can stake a smaller claim as he

likes.

At the present time, the units which we are classing here

are a claim. If he stakes more than one unit and he puts his

location post as he goes along, they don't necessarily have to

be directly north and south and east and west in staking it.

But when it goes on the map, the actual staking will be north,

south, east and west.

Just to give you an indication of what that means, the

previous method had been something like that. When he staked

out his claim, he would go a little bit northwest or northeast

and would have a crooked line. Then there would be a fraction

of a claim in between. From now on, under the modified system,

there will be no more fractions between the claims he is

setting out.

I think it is going to be a streamlined method. It has been

discussed with the industry and with the prospectors. I find

that everybody is in agreement with it. They think it is a real

progressive step.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, the ones which are out of line now can't be adjusted.

You might overlap on the others. Any new claims will be north, south…. Anyone

who has claims can restake them in this fashion.

I move second reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): There are a number of

sections to this amendment to the Mineral Act . As in a number

of other bills we have had before the House, I believe they

could better be discussed in committee than in principle

because they deal with certain different technicalities which

we would like to discuss

section by section. We'll debate it in

committee.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The bill can be discussed best in

committee. I think it is appropriate to say, subject to the

amendment the Minister may bring forward, that the bill will

really be unnecessary because there won't be any more claims

staked in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Unless you are going to correct the old

errors, it is really fruitless.

MR. GIBSON: I agree with the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). Certainly committee

is the proper stage for most of this bill.

I just want to make a comment at this point. I am concerned

somewhat about the reporting requirements as they are set out

in this bill: the time of only 90 days after the forfeiture of

a claim to submit such reports, and the possible very high cost

this could mean to the holder of a free miner's certificate if

he had to go through and have a special engineering report done

on each lapsed claim. As I say, this is a matter of some

concern, but I will bring that up more specifically with the

Minister under that section.

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

ready for the question?

Motion approved.

Bill 48, Mineral 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. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 92.

COAL ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is another Act which needed a little

streamlining from the time that it had seen any amendments

previously.

[ Page 4066 ]

Under the new Coal Act , you will have to have a free miner's

certificate in order to locate a coal licence. You will have to

have a licence for exploration and development. You will have

to have a production lease to go into production.

At the present time, under the old Coal Act , the licence was

renewable each year; it was only good for one year at a time.

I'm rather surprised at the industry accepting a one-year

licence. In the future this will be changed to some extent. If

they fulfil the requirements, they will be renewed.

The work requirements will be going up. They will be $3 to

$5 per acre or, in lieu of work requirements, it will be cash.

Now there is no formal work requirement if they pay 50 cents

per acre.

When I took this office there were 1,800 licences out which

covered about 1,500 square miles, or a million acres. Since

taking office I have not issued any new licences in regard to

coal mining. The way they were issued previously was very

haphazardly around the province. In many cases there were

licences issued where we actually wouldn't want to mine any

coal.

In the Peace River there are two companies of 100,000 acres

and seven companies of 50,000 acres. In 1972 we collected less

than $185,000.

Rentals in the new Act will be $1 per acre for a licence and

$2 per acre for a lease.

There will be a minimum royalty of $1 per ton on

metallurgical coal.

I move second reading of this bill.

MR. SMITH: Once again, this is a bill which perhaps we can

discuss in more relevant terms in committee. There are certain

things we certainly do not like in this bill, and certain

sections we will oppose.

The bill is really symbolic of the type of legislation we

have seen before this House in many other bills. Once again,

the matter of royalty and the amount is left to the discretion

of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — that is, the cabinet.

While the Minister has indicated to us tonight what it will be,

it certainly doesn't mean that it will remain at that. He will

at his discretion and at the sole discretion of the cabinet

determine from time to time what will happen.

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: I feel much more uneasy at the moment than I did

before.

It's the type of bill, though, that does illustrate the lack

of definitive policy of the NDP. They want to keep everything

loose and flexible and up in the air so that industry will

never really know until the hammer falls what they are faced

with from one day to the next.

All I can do is reiterate the statements I have made before.

If it is the intention of the NDP to drive the mineral and the

mining industry out of the province, bills like this are the

exact way to proceed. Somewhere along the line, as a

responsible Minister of the Crown, be it for minerals, coal,

petroleum, or whatever, you have a responsibility to spell out

in definitive terms the impact that royalties, charges or

taxes, or whatever, will have on that industry.

In almost every Act that you've put before this House you

leave it to the discretion of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, so that nobody knows what is in

store for them six months or a year down the road. It's at the

discretion of the Minister. That is not a proper way to

progress in this province or move if you expect an increase in

the mining industry, in the petroleum industry and in the coal

industry in the Province of British Columbia.

These industries are responsible to the money markets for

the capital that they need to expand their operations. It's not

a matter of requiring small amounts of capital. It's a matter

in many instances of requiring many millions of dollars spread

over a long period of time for repayment. And they must file

with the financial institution a prospectus and an indication

of how they expect to be able to make the mine a viable

producer and at the same time pay all the expenses involved of

operation and the impost by the Crown and still pay off the

money that they borrow.

With legislation like this, Mr. Minister, you're making it

almost impossible — I would say impossible — for the resource

industries in the Province of British Columbia to really

indicate accurately what their future is in the province. That

is why I say that there are sections of this bill that we will

certainly oppose. We will be speaking against them in

committee, and at that time I will have more to say about

it.

This is the one point that I think that we are miles apart

on as opposition and the NDP as government. That is that you

deliberately introduce legislation into this House which gives

you, you think, a free hand so that if prices fluctuate a

little bit you can jump in and grab a quick profit so there

will be no "rip-off artists" in the Province of British

Columbia.

Really what you are going to do, if you continue along the

path you have decided to travel, is wreck the resource

industries in this province, including the coal industry.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Once again, Mr. Speaker, we

have to quarrel with the method of presentation of this kind of legislation.

And once again it's obviously the kind of a bill that's been presented by this

Minister which should have been draped in crepe, because it's another RIP for

the mining industry in the Province of British Columbia,

[ Page

4067 ]

and once again with a ghastly potential of cabinet

excess.

Mr. Minister, once again you've brought in a bill with the

powers and the levies to be determined according to cabinet

whim and according to cabinet fancy, all behind the red door of

the socialistic cabinet in this province.

I suppose people are going to have to determine in the

Province of British Columbia that the levy that you can set

under a statute such as this is going to be as long or as short

as the Minister's foot. They used to talk about that during the

days of the chancellor, going back into the 15th century, Mr.

Minister. Equity was at one point determined to be as long as

the chancellor's foot. But now we find after 400 or 500 years

that we don't test equity that way, we test the taxation

process that way. And it's a mighty funny and a mighty unsound

way to do it. I would say if we're going to have levies in the

Province of British Columbia to be determined as long or as

short as the Minister's foot — and I with all respect don't

wish to sound like the lady Member for Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) — that indeed is a poor yardstick to determine taxation policies

in the Province of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll just be very brief and say

that much of what was said this afternoon about the impact of

royalty on mineral exploitation applies as well to this bill

and I have no intention of repeating it further than that.

It doesn't apply quite as much to coal because coal is of a

more uniform grade and the edges of the deposit are often

better demarked. But it still does apply to some extent, and to

the extent it applies at all, royalty is the wrong way of

levying taxes.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, I think that the previous

speakers don't know very much about the previous Coal Act , and

I don't think they've read the new one and compared the two.

Under the previous Coal Act many, many years ago there was a

minimum of 25 cents a ton. The cabinet had the right to

increase that any time they wanted to. There was a minimum. And

that's what they've been paying. Now, if 70 years ago they

could have 25 cents a ton, surely $1 a ton minimum at this

stage is not out of line.

The power of the Minister was far greater under the previous

Act than it is under this one. This shows you how much I agree

with you that the Minister shouldn't have too much power, but

he should have enough room to maneuver so that the industry

doesn't get hemmed in so tightly that you couldn't move off of

it. This is what happened in the case of the Coal Act . I think

it's a far better Act than it was previously and I'm sure the

industry will agree.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has got a hang-up

on royalties. We've had royalties on coal for umpteen years on the Crown-owned

coals. So this is no change from previously, except that we are trying to bring

it in line with present-day thinking.

I move second reading of Bill 92.

Motion approved.

Bill 92, Coal Act , read a second time and referred to

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting after today.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Second reading of Bill 94, Mr.

Speaker.

PROSPECTORS ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important Act — not a very big one, though. It's the end of the old grubstake

Act where we handed out people money to eke out a living while

they were out prospecting. Previously they could get a grant of

up to $800, but it had to be in the form of a grubstake. Many

of the storekeepers and many of the towns had given prospectors

grubstakes and received a percentage of anything they found if

they gave them a grubstake. This is the way the government

carried on for years. They didn't give them any money to

develop their claim, or to find out what they had. The

prospector, in order to find out whether he had a good deal or

not, had to go to the larger companies and they would, after

negotiating a deal with the prospector, develop or explore the

claim and find out what they really had. And many times the

prospector was left on the short end of the stick.

Under this Act the prospector can receive at the behest of

the Minister up to $4,000 per year, and a greater amount if he

can justify that it is necessary in order to explore and

develop his claims.

Under this scheme, of course, the Crown has the right to

consider the claim or the mine if he should find one, and

either negotiate a deal with the prospector in regard to the

claim or help the prospector negotiate with the larger

companies and give the prospector expertise and advice in those

negotiations. I think this is a big advance for the prospector

because since I've been in the department the Yukon-B.C.

Chamber of Mines have informed me that the title prospector is

the most considered person there is throughout the province,

and that it is the little prospector who finds all the

mines.

The big mining companies don't find them, but come in at a

later date. But you could probably count on the fingers of your

two hands how many prospectors have made any great killings

from what they have found. In many cases it is the companies

that come out on the big end of the stick. I've got one letter

here that tells me those very things.

[ Page 4068 ]

I think I've said enough to introduce this bill. I move

second reading of Bill 94.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say

a few things on this bill because the riding of Cariboo is

historic. I think I said the other day on Bill 31 that most of

us wouldn't be here if it weren't for gold found in Barkerville

in the 1860s. I have a few comments on this Bill 94.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, it makes it clear to me that the

NDP government has in mind the complete domination of the

mining industry. I refer just briefly to Bill 31 and now

leading into this. They want to dominate this and they give as

the ruse for it more revenue for the people's services.

The bill will eliminate the former Prospectors' Grub-Stake

Act and replace it with a conditional grubstake Act. In effect,

it will make the prospectors civil servants of the Province of

British Columbia.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): You don't really believe that,

Alec.

MR. FRASER: I not only believe it, I know it to be a fact.

This bill proposes that the prospectors be given $4,000 a year

for the purpose of prospecting. What the Minister didn't tell

you, Mr. Speaker, and Members, is the fact that if the

prospector finds a find the government has first right of

refusal on that find.

I would like to ask here: rather than that, why doesn't this

bill give the prospector the right to pay back the loan if he

has made a find rather than let the government have first right

of refusal just because they have got a lien on him through the

loan they have made to him in the amount up to $4,000 which

this bill says?

I would like to mention another thing, too. This socialist

government confuses the facts all the time. The Minister

remarked in his remarks here that all the prospectors before

never got anything out of it and were not recognized. Well, I

happen to have lived in the Cariboo all my life and I would

like to refer this House to a well known gentleman who is a

prospector by the name of Fred Wells. He founded the Cariboo

Gold Quartz Mining Company and created the town of Wells. He

was amply paid for his find, Mr. Minister. On top of that he

established a mining community of 5,000 people. He retired and

when he passed on in this world he was a very wealthy man. So

don't misinform this House as you did. Fred Wells prospected

for 30 years in the Barkerville country until he made his

famous find on Cow Mountain near Barkerville and revived

Barkerville from the doldrums of the 1860s.

I would also like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, and the House about Billy Barker.

Don't always say that they didn't get repaid. They certainly did. A lot of the

citizens of this country….

MR. LEWIS: How many years ago was that?

MR. FRASER: Fred Wells found the discovery of Cow Mountain

in 1933. That's not that long ago. This chicken farmer from

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) — where they don't know the difference

between gold and silver — I can imagine his remarks. I would

like to fill him in a little about the history of mining in

this province which originated in the Cariboo. I don't for one

minute want to sit back and hear the guff. As I understand this

bill, Mr. Speaker, the prospector, if he has a find, has no

option at all open to him but to give the first right of

refusal to the Crown. I say that the prospector should have the

right, if he has made a find, to pay back the loan and then go

and make his deal — the best deal he can make. But I can read

through this that through the NDP the complete takeover of the

mining industry in the province started with Bill 31. It's in

here in this small Bill 94. It goes on to another bill that I

will have something to say about in a little while. It really

is, in effect, a complete takeover of the mineral and the

mining industry. For that reason I certainly oppose Bill

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I think it is nice that the

Minister wants to do something for the prospectors.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: He didn't do it the right way in this bill. The

great problem is with

section 6, which establishes the

principle that the prospector is basically a servant of the

state and that he must give the first right to negotiate on

whatever he may find to the government.

This to me is another indication, no matter what the

Minister or the government might say, that they are interested

in getting into the mining business. They don't just want these

claims to deal with them. They want them for the people's

property, as the Attorney-General said earlier in an aside in

this debate. Then they want to work them and do something with

them, or they want to be partners in them. They want to be in a

position basically for the state to be involved in the mining

business in an equity way. If that is the intent, why don't you

just come right out and say it? Then it is a lot easier to deal

with.

I do not believe this provision right here has been very

well received by prospectors. We will have the proof of the

pudding a year from now when the Minister's estimates come up

and when we look at how much of the money which was

appropriated is appropriated by this Act, formerly for the

Prospectors' Grub-Stake Act , when we see how much

[ Page 4069 ]

of that has actually been used — how many free prospectors

were actually willing to submit themselves to this kind of a

condition. I don't think the Minister should have asked them to

submit to that kind of a condition. He knows that pickings are

going to be kind of slim around this province for the next year

for people engaged in the exploration business because of some

of his other legislation like Bill 31. Maybe some of them are

going to be forced into this because they've got nowhere else

to go but it is not fair, Mr. Minister, to put them in that

position. You should make the provision, as the Hon. Member for

Cariboo said, for a prospector to pay back that loan and then

have the free right to deal with what he finds.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Private companies don't do that.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Attorney-General, through you, Mr. Speaker,

the Ministers on that side keep comparing themselves to

companies. You're not a company, you're a government — will you

get that through your head? You've got certain responsibilities

to the public that companies don't have. I wish you would

understand and live up to that. It's just ridiculous.

The Minister spoke about the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines

as being the spokesman for the prospector. Indeed they are.

What did the manager of that chamber say? He said the value of

the Prospectors' Grub-Stake Act , or what is now the Prospectors

Assistance Act , is destroyed by the clause that demands first

refusal by the government of any find made by a prospector.

This is strong language, but once again don't question his

sincerity as you did yesterday, Mr. Minister, because Mr.

Elliot means what he says. He said:

"This is slave-state legislation. It is designed to employ

prospectors for a minimum reward. It is a step toward employing

prospectors. That's what they do in Russia. If a prospector

finds something good they pin a medal on him and give him a

vacation by the Black Sea."

You talk about prospectors being able to make a good deal.

Mr. Elliot says:

"In the past a prospector could negotiate any deal. He had

90 major companies and 300 smaller stock companies to choose from. Any prospector

accepting this new grubstake would be trapped in the bureaucracy and domination

of the government. It is fundamentally wrong."

And it is, Mr. Minister. You're

not saying that the government would be more onerous in its deals with the prospectors

than all of those companies bidding for the prospectors finding wood. You can't

really say that. What you want to do through this Act is to get a hold on a

lot of the claims being staked around this province. Again, I'll have more to

say on this in committee.

I'm sure the good wishes of the Minister in drafting this

Act are completely subverted and ruined by that

section 6 and

that first refusal clause. It is very, very wrong.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Chairman, I don't really mean

to get up and give a lengthy speech because I don't really

think we have to on this particular Act.

This is going to be a boon to the prospector in British

Columbia. You see, Mr. Speaker, I have been associated with

many prospectors and I know of many who were shafted by the

mining companies.

Interjections.

MR. KELLY: I wonder if anybody here knew the man who

discovered the Endako Mine.

MR. LEWIS: Was that Billy Barker?

MR. KELLY: No, it wasn't Billy Barker. His name was Foote.

Today there is a memorial hall there in his name, but that's

all he ever received for the reward of discovering the Endako

Mine.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know?

MR. KELLY: I happen to know about this. That man discovered

Endako Mine and held it for 30 years. Nobody but nobody would

give him one cent or contribute one cent towards that prospect.

So when it dropped into the family — finally one of the family

got it — even then there was no value in that mine. Let's not

say that all these prospectors did gain a lot when they found a

rich discovery because, in this particular instance, the son

even dropped the holdings.

Eventually, along came the Endako group and they took up the

option on the holding and got the property. In sheer

embarrassment they finally gave Mr. Foote's son 10,000 shares

of Endako stock, which of course at that time was around $3 or

$4 a share. It could have been $5. So not all prospectors

benefited from discovering rich properties.

In fact, there is another small mine in the area near Fraser

Lake. These small prospector-type miners are attempting to

build this mine up. But when they go to the stock market, guess

what happens? Legally, the stock market is entitled to 140,000

shares of their stock. But you know what? The stock company

wants another 100,000 shares under the table before they will

promote that mine. That's a fact.

Interjection.

[ Page 4070 ]

MR. KELLY: I would say that these particular prospectors are

honest people because they won't allow that to happen. And you

know what? They've held back the production of their mine or to

do further work on their mine just because a stockbroker would

attempt to extort them for another 100,000 shares.

Interjections.

MR. KELLY: But it has something to do with what this bill is

trying to do. It is to support these prospectors into doing

work on their claims.

MR. FRASER: We had a good bill.

Interjections.

MR. KELLY: In 1957, a very good friend of mine made the

largest discovery in the Yukon. He was working for Canex. When

he went to work for them, he would receive 5 per cent of the

discovery, whatever discovery he made. If he made a discovery,

that's what he would receive.

He made the largest discovery that year. At least it was the

richest discovery. But when it was proven out, there were only

12 million tons of ore. In this particular case it was too far

from communications or from the local centres for that ore to

be mined profitably at that time.

So my friend, of course, worked all summer for wages. To

this day he has received nothing. That's about 16 years ago. He

has received nothing from Canex for that particular discovery,

other than his wages.

So, Mr. Speaker, when I see what this Minister is doing for

the prospectors in British Columbia today, I certainly endorse

this kind of legislation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm rather amazed at the opposition in

dealing with this bill when they talk about the bill making the

prospector a servant to the state or a servant to the people.

Well, I'm sure any prospector would sooner deal with a friendly

government than deal with private enterprise.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'd like to ask anyone to show me one

person, or one company which will put up money to a prospector

without his pound of flesh.

MR. FRASER: That's what you're asking here: a pound of

flesh.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, but I'm asking you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, they want their pound of flesh if they

put up any grub-staking for a prospector. That's on the private

sector. In all cases.

I've said before that you could count on

the fingers of your two hands the number of prospectors who

have done well in the Province of British Columbia. You managed

to get one.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That was Mr. Wells. I could give you one.

Spud Eustus didn't do too bad.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: No, Pat Reynolds is not a prospector. And

then you go back….

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: You go back to the priest who discovered

the Moyie Mine, and the Indians. They got practically nothing

out of the Moyie Mine when they turned it over to the

company.

The men who discovered the Sullivan Mine. I remember the

last living member of that group who discovered the Sullivan

Mine. He was put on a pension by the company that took over the

mine.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This morality you are talking about is

only moral for the private sector to deal with the prospectors

but it isn't moral for the government, on behalf of the people,

to deal with the prospector.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I would like to read you a paragraph here

from a letter I got from a prospector:

"Dear Sir:

"I would like to apologize for the prospectors of B.C. who

have been duped by the big companies and the B.C. and Yukon

Chamber of Mines to attend these meetings called by them to

attack the New Democratic Party policies.

"As a professional prospector I have seen more prospectors

wheedled, cheated and chiselled out of more properties than the

public could ever dream."

Interjections.

[ Page 4071 ]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: When a prospector tries to go to the stock

market and he's going to put a prospect on the market, the

underwriters get their big share. Up until this bill,

prospectors had been at the mercy of big companies.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This is what is worrying the big companies

and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. They're a little

worried that the prospector is going to be a little more

independent from now on than he was previously.

I move second reading of Bill 94.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Skelly

Barrett

Cummings

Lockstead

Dailly

Dent

Gorst

Strachan

Williams, R.A.

Rolston

Nimsick

Cocke

Barnes

Stupich

King

Steves

Hartley

Lea

Kelly

Calder

Lauk

Webster

Brown

Nicolson

Lewis

Sanford

Liden

NAYS — 13

Smith

McClelland

Gardom

Jordan

Schroeder

Gibson

Fraser

McGeer

Wallace

Phillips

Anderson, D.A.

Curtis

Williams, L.A.

AN HON. MEMBER: Record it.

Bill 94, Prospectors Assistance Act , 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 132, a

minor housekeeping bill.

PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Premier says, this is a housekeeping

bill. It's going to give a faster turnover in landholdings, increase fees, rentals

and work requirements pertaining to land tenure. At present you've got huge

acreages being held by major operators, and these operators are farming out

parts of these areas to the small, independent operators. These tenures last

up to a total of 22 years. We feel that this major operator should be required

to carry out development drilling.

The ceiling is taken off the royalties, and will be set by

order-in-council, the same as in Alberta. There will be no

royalty charged to those companies dealing in natural gas with

the Petroleum Corporation of British Columbia. New crude oil

royalties will be set up to capture the major portion of the

$2.70 increase in the field price of the crude oil that took

place last month.

One very important amendment, and one I'm sure the Hon.

Member for North Peace (Mr. Smith) and the Hon. Member for

South Peace (Mr. Phillips) will give complete support to, is

the amendment dealing with mediation and arbitration boards and

the right of entry.

In future, when somebody wants to enter their farm, they can

take it first before we settle it. If they're having any

argument, we go to mediation and then to arbitration. This has

been well received, from what I can understand, by the farmers

in the Peace River area.

Many of those agreements made years ago for right of entry

have never been changed. Regardless of how the dollar has

changed, they have not been changed. Now they can be reopened.

It will make it possible to renegotiate agreements made many

years ago with the farmers.

I think that is one point that will override all other

points in the bill and make at least the Members for the Peace

River area vote with this bill. I move second reading of Bill

AN HON. MEMBER: Give it to him, Ed. Sock it to him.

MR. SMITH: Okay, if you insist. Mr. Speaker, it's been a

night for the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. We've

discussed a number of his bills, and like most of the bills,

this has some good points, I agree, and it has a few that are

pretty lousy, Mr. Minister, as far as the industry and

everybody associated with it are concerned.

But maybe that's to be expected when we deal with a bill

which the Minister himself, in opening second reading,

obviously is not really that much in tune with. I think perhaps

he listened to a few of the new-found experts in the department

instead of those people who really know what's going on in the

petroleum industry, and came up with these amendments.

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) not

like myself, but I know something about the petroleum industry,

yes. I also know that the

[ Page 4072 ]

department has a lot of professional people in it who know a

tremendous amount about the petroleum industry. They're good

people; they're professional people. They've been there for a

long enough period of time that they know what the industry is

all about.

That's why I think the Minister should listen perhaps a

little closer to these people than he does on the odd occasion.

As I say, there are good points in this bill, I agree, but

there are certain things that I think will reflect badly on the

industry in the Province of British Columbia and be a

detriment.

The Minister has suggested that in this bill and in these

amendments he has come up with a scheme which would increase

the exploration activity in the Province of British Columbia.

Now I suppose that he bases that assumption on the fact that he

may now, under the provisions of this Act, require anyone who

has leasehold property in the Province of British Columbia, or

petroleum leases, to explore the area by a certain date or

forfeit those leases.

He seems to think that that is going to increase the

exploration activity in the Province of British Columbia. I

suggest to the Minister that that is not the case. It won't

increase the exploration activity in the Province of British

Columbia. As a matter of fact, it may work; and I think it will

work in reverse.

It is true that a number of the major companies in the

Province of British Columbia hold leases and the right to

explore for petroleum products in substantially large areas of

this province. How did they get those leases, Mr. Minister? You

know how they acquired those leases. They bid for them on a

competitive basis, and the Department of Mines and Petroleum

Resources issued the lease to the company with the highest

bid.

It is no secret that the coffers of the Province of British

Columbia have been enriched to the tune of between $30 million

and $40 million a year for just that one privilege; the right

to go out and explore for petroleum resources.

You didn't lift your little finger. You didn't spend a

five-cent piece as government. All you did was advertise that a

certain area would be open for bids for the right to explore

for petroleum products.

As a result of those competitive bids the government has

been very successful. Now you didn't invent that scheme. It was

certainly in force long before you became Minister of Mines and

Petroleum Resources. But it has enhanced the coffers of this

province by a substantial amount.

It is found money, Mr. Minister. It is found money because

of the fact that you didn't have to invest anything to get it.

Now if you compare that to the logging industry, for instance,

in the Province of British Columbia, the forest industry, there

is a tremendous investment by the department in many areas in

order to receive what they do in revenue to the Crown.

But in this particular situation you invested nothing, and

you have been the recipient of a substantial amount of revenue.

Now the fact that those companies bid competitively for the

right to explore probably means that they were large enough to

attract a substantial amount of investment capital.

The part of it that the Minister does not seem to understand

is the fact that they job out most of the work that is done in

the exploration field. They don't do it themselves. You can

take a big company like Texaco, Ameco Petroleum, Imperial Oil,

all of these people who have paid substantial money to the

government for the right to explore in the Province of British

Columbia. And in most cases their work on their leases is done

by those small corporations, those small petroleum companies

that are mainly financed with British Columbia finance and

capital raised in the Province of British Columbia or Alberta — because we are very close to the Province of Alberta in terms

of oil exploration and discovery.

But it is Canadian capital, Mr. Minister, by small

companies, who employ a tremendous number of individuals in the

field of exploration in the Province of British Columbia. They

do it on the basis of a contract between themselves and the

company who owns the lease or who has the lease. This is how

they survive and provide employment for a tremendous number of

people in the Province of British Columbia.

Now it is a good system, and I am the first one to say that

the increase in the rental, if you like to call it that, per

acre is not significant. It is not going to detract from

exploration in the Province of British Columbia. But what will

be a detriment will be the provision that the Minister at his

discretion can go to any company that has a lease or a permit

in this province and say that because of the shortage of

petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia we deem

that you must drill next year or your lease will be

cancelled.

This is the power that you are granting yourself under this

Act. I don't really think you know what you are doing. I would

like to tell you why. Many of the comparatively lucrative areas

for potential oil and natural gas production have already been

discovered and drilled out, almost to a maximum. So now we are

in the position, so far as exploration is concerned, of

step-outs into country where it costs anywhere from $5 million

to $10 million, Mr. Minister, to drill one exploratory

well.

The Pointed Mountain area is a very good example of an area

which is inaccessible almost, where the strata and the

formation are tremendously difficult to cope with and where

they have to spud in a drilling rig on top of a mountain and

drill down 10,000 to 15,000 feet in the hope of finding some

natural gas.

Interjection.

[ Page 4073 ]

MR. SMITH: Why don't you just get lost, Mr. Minister. You

don't have a clue as to what is going on in this House. You

might as well be out in the boondocks as here.

You know, it is unfortunate that the Minister of Highways

(Hon. Mr. Lea) has no conception of what goes on in the

petroleum industry in this province. To him it seems to be a

laughing matter that the people who have worked hard to develop

an industry and have spent over $1 billion in the Province of

British Columbia — not out of the taxpayers' pockets, my

friend; they raised that capital outside of the taxpayers and

reinvested it in this province — should be faced with an

attitude like that.

It is not much wonder that the people who are in the

industry shake their heads and wonder if they have any future

at all in the Province of British Columbia. They are convinced

that neither the Minister nor the Members of his cabinet know

anything about the industry. What is more, they are convinced

that you care less, and that the whole attitude of the NDP is

to force the industry into a position where you can take them

over.

That is unfortunate because, I tell you, if we go by the

record of the government, and the lack of knowledge that they

exhibit in this particular field, the taxpayers of the Province

of British Columbia are going to spend hundreds of millions of

dollars and there will be no return on it; because it is a very

risky business.

I would like to get back to what I was saying before about

drilling and drilling permits. Much of the area now under

permit, Mr. Minister, is marginal in terms of the potential

discovery in those areas.

It's not only marginal, but the costs of drilling are

excessive when you compare ourselves to the Province of Alberta

or other areas in western Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: The royalties are just about the same.

MR. SMITH: Yes, but what I've suggested, Mr. Minister, if

you were listening, is the fact that the industry does not

object to the

schedule of fees or the rental that they have to

pay to the Crown. They do not object to the system where they

go out and competitively bid against other companies for the

right to drill. What they are very apprehensive about is the

fact that now the Minister can step in and suggest to them that

they must drill today, tomorrow or three months from now or

lose the rights to that particular area.

The Minister, if he wishes to put them in a position of

great expenditure with the possibility of very small return,

will make sure they have to step out and drill into some of the

areas where the likelihood of petroleum recovery or gas

recovery is very, very minimal.

So we do have a problem in the industry today, Mr. Minister,

and I hope you realize it. The problem is that the discovery

rate has been high in relation to many areas up until the

present time; but we cannot expect that particular picture to

project into the future. The well-known geological formations

have been explored and they are now producing gas or oil as the

case may be. The step-outs that the companies are taking today

go into areas….

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: What's the matter with you?

Interjection.

MR. SMITH: Why don't you go take your own seat?

The step-outs that they are involved in today go into areas

where the cost of exploration and drilling is very, very

costly. So all that the companies really would ask of the

Minister is that they be given a fair amount of time — when

they have invested money, substantial money — on a competitive

basis to get the right to drill in the Province of British

Columbia, to coordinate a programme and lay it on in the areas

where they have at least some hope of return to themselves and

to the Crown. The Minister well knows that the rental he

charges to hold the permit is insignificant in relation to the

amount of revenue the Crown receives from the competitive-bid

process which allows them the right to go into those areas.

If there is in the minds of the exploration companies a

feeling that they have spent many millions of dollars for the

right to explore and that then they may have that right

cancelled by the Minister at his whim and at his discretion, I

guarantee you one thing, Mr. Minister: the revenue from the

sale of the right to explore for petroleum in the Province of

British Columbia will go down, not up. It is unfortunate,

because it's going to happen at a time when every company

should be drilling and going ahead full blast in this province

to find hydrocarbon energy.

After all, the potential for the sale of natural gas is

great; the price is escalating. Even with the amount of revenue

that the Crown takes off the top there is still an increase to

those people who go in and drill and discover new hydrocarbon

deposits. So it should