1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

393 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral questions

Prince Rupert port development. Mr. Chabot

— 393

Potential amalgamation of Capital Region municipalities. Mr. Wallace — 394

Road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson. Mr. Smith — 394

Better service in liquor stores. Mr. Gardom — 394

Boxcar shortage. Mr. Phillips — 395

Statements re budget. Mr. Williams — 395

Labour Code of British Columbia Act. (Bill 11).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 396

Mr. Chabot — 400

An Act to Amend the Corporation Capital Tax Act. (Bill 21).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 402

Mr. Morrison — 402

An Act to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern Settlement

Act. (Bill 22).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 402

Mr. McGeer — 403

Mr. Morrison — 404

Mr. Wallace — 404

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 405

Mr. Phillips — 406

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 407

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. (Bill 23).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 410

Mr. Morrison — 410

An Act to Amend the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act. (Bill

25).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 410

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 410

Mr. Morrison — 410

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 411

Sessional Reports Suspension Act. (Bill 20).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 411

Mr. Morrison — 411

Mr. Gardom — 411

Hon. Mr. Hall — 411

An Act to Amend the Department of Health Services and

Hospital Insurance Act. (Bill 39). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 412

Beef Grading Act. (Bill 6).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 412

Veterinary Laboratories Act. (Bill 31).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 413

Mr. Richter — 413

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 413

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act. (Bill 2).

Committee, report and third reading — 414

An Act to Amend

an Act Respecting Medical Services. (Bill

10).

Committee, report and third reading — 414

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act. (Bill 3).

Committee, report and third reading — 414

An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land Development Act. (Bill

5).

Committee stage.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 414

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 414

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 415

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 415

Report and third reading — 416

An Act to Amend the Milk Industry Act. (Bill 7).

Committee stage.

Mr. Williams — 416

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 416

Mr. Phillips — 416

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 416

Mr. Phillips — 416

An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act. (Bill 8).

Committee, report and third reading — 417

Farm Income Assurance Act. (Bill 9). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Phillips — 417

Mr. Smith — 418

Mr. Richter — 418

Mr. Schroeder — 418

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 418

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 419

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 420

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 420

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 420

Mr. Phillips — 420

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 421

Mr. Phillips — 421

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 422

Mr. Phillips — 423

Mr. Wallace — 423

Mr. Richter — 423

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 424

Division on Amendment — 424

Mr. McGeer — 424

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 425

Mr. Williams — 425

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 426

Mr. Wallace — 427

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 428

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 428

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act. (Bill 43).

Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 429

Motions

Substitute motion 6. Hon. Mr. Cocke — 429

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

to introduce someone in the gallery. I'd like to introduce to

the House Mr. Dan Radford, a coal miner from Nanaimo, later of

the Canadian Labour Congress and the B.C. Federation of Labour.

He is also the father of the First Member for Vancouver South

(Hon. Mr. Radford).

Oral questions.

PRINCE RUPERT PORT DEVELOPMENT

CONFLICTING WITH SKEENA FISHERIES

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): This question is directed

to the Premier. There was a critical report this morning in the

Vancouver Province relative to the port development in the

Prince Rupert area, I was wondering if the Premier could give

an explanation to the House, in the light of his receiving a

report prepared at a cost of $5,000 saying that there would be

a serious conflict between the port development in Prince

Rupert and the Skeena fisheries, I'm wondering whether he could

give us an explanation as to why he would enter into a capital

sharing arrangement with the national government on July 23,

after having received this report, a report on June 13, stating

that there's a very serious danger of damage to the fisheries

of the Skeena estuary.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to point out that we have no capital commitment with

the federal government as to the location of a coal port. I'm

sure you don't want to confuse your question by

misinformation.

Now the Member has asked a question as to why the report was

not released. I understand you would like to know as well when

it was received in my office.

The report was asked for by the provincial government

because….

MR. CHABOT: I didn't ask that…

HON. MR. BARRETT: You didn't ask that? Oh, well I think it

would be good. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: …yet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd like you to know everything.

AN HON. MEMBER: Open government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Open government, that's right. And if

you'd come to me before the session I would have helped you

frame the question.

Mr. Speaker, because of a difference of opinion over the

location of a coal port between myself and the Hon. Jack Davis,

the Hon. federal Minister of the Environment of the Liberal

Party, the federal government had commissioned some inquiry,

into the possibility of locating a port, a coal bulk-loading

port, in the Prince Rupert area, specifically in the estuary at

Ridley Island.

The Government of British Columbia asked Howard Paish and

Associates to prepare a report for the Government of British

Columbia. That report was completed and sent to my office at

the end of June this year. On July 16 copies of the report were

sent to Mr. Davis, to Mr. Marchand and to the mayor of the City

of Prince Rupert, asking for their comments before the report

was released to the public, as is standard procedure.

I received a reply from Mayor Lester with his comments on

August 8, and I received further comments on August 13. Mayor

Lester showed his copy to a Mr. Scott, chairman of the Prince

Rupert Port Committee, and Mr. Scott sent his comments.

The copy went to Mr. Davis on July 16; we received a reply

from Mr. Davis on September 17. I have no hesitation now in

making the report public. However, I cannot at this time make

the letters from Mr. Davis or Mayor Lester or Mr. Scott public

until we have permission from them to do so.

I am at a loss to explain why the Vancouver office of Mr.

Davis' department has not seen the report, since it's been in

that Minister's hands since July 16. However, that's perhaps an

administrative problem of the federal government.

But since we have had Mr. Davis' comments of September 17

I've had the chance to read his comments and now have no

hesitation in making the report available to this House. I've

asked my administrative assistant to bring along copies for the

leaders of the opposition parties as well, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Yes, the agreement in

principle talks about the port development programme, and it

says that the governments agree in principle — that the

governments of British Columbia and Canada will share the

development costs associated with all facets of port

development at the national harbour at Prince Rupert. Is that

it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right, with the proviso that

environmental clearance is given to the location of those

facilities. That was always understood. And perhaps the Hon.

Member, through you Mr. Speaker, hasn't been familiar with the

exchanges of opinion between myself and the

[ Page 394 ]

Minister on this issue that have occurred since almost from

the first month I came to office and that still stand.

POTENTIAL AMALGAMATION OF

CAPITAL REGION MUNICIPALITIES

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, could I ask the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), in the light

of the considerable unrest that he's created by a public

statement about potential amalgamation of various

municipalities in this whole region, if he would care to give

some definitive statement — at least as to when we can expect a

clear statement of government policy on this issue?

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

Speaker, I never create unrest. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: You sure did in Oak Bay. Come and see us in Oak

Bay.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I don't think I've discussed amalgamation

as such. I've stated the fact that there are a number of areas

in the greater Victoria area that will have to come within an

umbrella of some type of incorporation, and that we have to

look at the whole area of the southern end from Sidney, or

North Saanich, right out to Colwood and Langford to determine

what the right procedure should be.

All I'm stating is that we should have full discussion on

this sort of an area to see what local government should

represent these areas, rather than having it done piecemeal.

That's the only thing I've said. There is certainly nothing

imminent in any amalgamation or anything else of that sort.

MR. WALLACE: Can I take it from the Minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, that therefore, in contradistinction to the

Kamloops-Kelowna situation, full consultation and respect for

the decision of the municipalities themselves will be

respected? Or could we have amalgamation imposed by

government?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, you could have anything, I suppose.

But I might say that I have written letters to each of the

mayors in the separate municipalities and the regional

representatives in the Colwood-Langford. areas to meet with me.

I think, next week to have some sessions together to see what

the feelings of the mayors in the communities are. Certainly

there is no….

MR. WALLACE: In Oak Bay?

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh yes, Oak Bay — we class that as a community. (Laughter.)

But certainly there'll be no action taken this next week. (Laughter.)

ROAD FROM FORT NELSON

TO FORT SIMPSON

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

is for the Hon. Minister of Highways. It is a matter of record

in recent weeks and in the press that a gas pipeline will

probably be built from the Mackenzie delta down through the

southern part of Canada. In view of this anticipated programme,

which will require tremendous amounts of material and labour,

does the Minister contemplate an accelerated programme with

respect to the road from Fort Nelson to Fort Simpson so that we

can capitalize on movement of the freight that will be required

to service that particular project?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Well, there would be

very little point in building a road to the border if the

federal government isn't going to meet that road at the border

with a road coming south from the North West Territories. A

letter was sent from the Hon. Jean Chretien, who is in charge

of that area, to the regional district in your area, in which

he said he understood that the provincial government is willing

to meet them at any time, in construction terms, at the border.

And we are willing to build our part; we are willing to go now.

We are waiting for word from the federal government. I have

asked for a meeting with the Hon. Jean Chretien. We were going

to meet on the 12th — now I understand it has been cancelled at

his request. We are going to have to look forward to another

meeting.

MR. SMITH: One supplemental question for the Minister. There

does seem to be a lack of communication or direction between

the provincial government and the federal because of the

statements that have been made; so I would suggest to the

Minister, the meeting is of importance and we would certainly

like the advice of the Minister when it can be arranged.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, that is not a question.

BETTER SERVICE

IN LIQUOR STORES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, a

question to the Attorney General. We see from the press reports

that bottled beer is going up to $3 a dozen and canned beer to

$3.15 a dozen; the cost of imported beer and wines is now

almost out of reach to the public in the province of B.C. I

would

[ Page 395 ]

like to ask the Hon. Attorney General that of all these

increases and prices which will produce well over $100 million

in liquor profits to the government, what plans does he have in

store for the consideration of the consumer and better service?

For example: refrigerated beer, openers for the bottles,

increased rewards to those people who return containers, and I

am talking about all sorts of containers — wine bottles, beer

bottles and spirit bottles.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I fought manfully against the increase

in the price of a case of beer. The companies wanted 22 cents;

they received 12 cents, which brings the price up to $3,

similar to the prairie provinces, except one of them is $3.05.

No particular increase, except for tax adjustments, for 20

years…increased costs of cereals, wages and other

factors.

In reply to the portion of the Member's speech which

referred to suggestions of future policy….

MR. GARDOM: No, no, present policy. What are you going to do

for the consumer?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: All of these increases have been put

upon the board; they are not board increases as such. They have

been put upon the board by increases in the cost of say,

imported wines. They are not increases originating in the

board, but they have to be looked at closely and your

suggestions will be considered.

MR. GARDOM: Just as a supplemental to the Hon. Attorney

General. He's not suggesting that the revenues of the province

are going down by virtue of the fact the price of liquor is

going up…by 5 per cent….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please….

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There is no change in board

mark-ups.

BOXCAR SHORTAGE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Maybe the Member

could take his problem up privately with the Attorney

General.

I would like to address a question to the Hon. Premier. The

matter of the shortage of boxcars in British Columbia was

discussed during question period on Monday, last. The Premier

stated that he would be making a statement to the House

yesterday.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Then, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Premier if he has any statement to make to the House today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am still pursuing the matter, Mr.

Member. As soon as I can get the information that I am seeking,

I will give you all the details. There is a desperate shortage

of boxcars. We are working on it every day. I'm trying to nail

down whether or not there is substantial evidence to prove that

both federal railways are withholding cars. I said that I have

suspicions, and I am still waiting for further reports on that.

We are on the situation hourly.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Hon. Members realize you can't keep

asking the same questions day after day.

MR. PHILLIPS: I understood he was going to make a

statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps he will make a statement at the

appropriate time and save questions each day.

STATEMENTS RE BUDGET

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

Minister of Finance: Would the Minister indicate whether the

statements from the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade

and Commerce (HON. Mr. Lauk) on budgetary matters appearing in

last night's newspapers are statements of government policy?

And if, in fact, the budget next spring will be $2 billion, and

there will be no changes in corporate tax in this province?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I haven't read the newspaper reports of

the Member's statement.

MR. WILLIAMS: Supplemental to that, Mr. Speaker….

HON. MR. BARRETT: All he's doing is expressing an

opinion.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he's entitled to express his

opinion. This is a new government.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, specifically, I asked: was the

Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce giving

budgetary policy for this government?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. He's expressing his opinion.

MR. WILLIAMS: So, it was not the policy of this

government?

[ Page 396 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: He is expressing his opinions. I haven't

even read the newspaper account. They may coincide, I don't

know.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I move we proceed to

public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 11, Mr.

Speaker.

LABOUR CODE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am

pleased to comment on the introduction of Bill 11 to second

reading before this assembly.

I note that there has been a good deal of public comment on

this particular bill, both in electronic media and the

newspapers. I imagine that the opposition parties have been

paying very close attention to the comments that have come from

various sectors of the community.

It would seem to me that there is emerging a certain

attitude towards the new legislation, and I would like to offer

some comments today on some of the central philosophy contained

in the bill, the general intent of it — precisely what the

legislation seeks to do.

I think that central to the whole new concept of this new

legislation is the role that the new La our Relations Board

will play as the agency which will be responsible for

administration of industrial relations in the province.

The new board is certainly a key feature of the new

legislation. The structure and function and philosophy of the

board are outlined in the bill. It is a structure which I

submit, Mr. Speaker, will give much greater flexibility to the

board in dealing with the problems that come before it.

Before outlining the reforms made to the board in its

physical composition, I think it is important to emphasize that

both labour and management have in the past called for a

complete overhaul of the structure and procedures of the Labour

Relations Board.

This was one of the areas where there was indeed complete

unanimity — at least a good degree of consensus in all sectors

on the need for a changed Labour Relations Board. So, in

response to those appeals by labour and management, the main

practitioners of industrial relations, we have set out to

develop a board with a new look.

Under the new code, the board is independent; I think that's

the first point that has to be made. It is completely

independent, not only in fact but in appearance. Under

section

26 of the new code, the chairman is granted legislative tenure

for five years and he can only be removed by address of the

Legislative Assembly. So this secures the position of the

chairman of the new board as independent and not susceptible to

any political pressures that might otherwise be the case.

The structure of the board, I submit further, is an

impartial one. It grants and provides that people with

legislative tenure will govern the affairs of the board. The

executive officers of the board give a balanced view, I think,

to the independence and the structure of the board.

It is a flexible tribunal and I think flexibility is

absolutely essential in the area of industrial relations. No

two labour disputes are the same, and this element of

flexibility in the new board, which will allow the board to sit

in separate panels to hear disputes or representations that are

made to them, will ensure that not only does the board have

flexibility, but it also has the ability to act quickly in

response to applications that come before it.

It will be capable of providing clearer decisions by

assuming a variety of structures, in other words. Pursuant to

section 13, for example, panels with the vice-chairman and

representatives from management and labour may be established

to hear matters coming before the board. And three panels of

the board can be struck simultaneously, which would allow for

the board to deal simultaneously with disputes in various

sections of the province.

The varied capability of the board will speed up the

processing of certifications and unfair labour practices. This

has been one of the criticisms in the past, that the previous

board could not act quickly enough on sensitive matters.

The new structure will ensure that labour problems are dealt

with by those who understand the facts. Representative members

bring to the panel people who are intimately familiar with both

sides of labour problems. They provide the special expertise

necessary for the administration of labour relations.

There is a provision in the new legislation for appeals from

board decisions, and the structure of the board is designed to

give a meaningful appeal to the parties affected by board

decisions.

Because of the hierarchy of panels,

section 36 means that

decisions made by a panel may be reviewed before the full board

tribunal, so that if anyone objects to a three-man panel

bringing down a decision which adversely affects them, or in

their minds adversely affects them, then they can come before

the entire Labour Relations Board for an appeal against that

decision. The appeal provided by

section 36 is not therefore

merely a rehearing by the

[ Page 397 ]

same people, which was the case under the old statute, under

section 65(3). This new appeal, I think, is a good, meaningful

arrangement that will guarantee a rehearing by a more

representative body.

Allowing for a special appeal to an administrative agency,

as provided in the labour code, is an important innovation in

Canadian law, really. It is a recognition of the unsuitability

of review in the courts of administrative decisions by

prerogative writs, such as a certiorari et cetera, where the

issue of jurisdiction and not the substance of a decision is

considered.

The dynamics of labour relations defy the strictures of the

ancient prerogative writs of the courts, writs originated to

meet very different problems from those which are faced today

in labour relations. An administrative appeal like

section 36

allows the justice and merit of the decision to be considered,

as well as strictly the legal correctness.

On the subject of appeals from board decisions, it is

important to understand that the new role of the board is

bolstered by an ombudsman who will be able to examine and

consider decisions of the board. He will not have the power to

alter those decisions, but he certainly will have the power to

zero in on the decisions that are handed down by the board and

consider the complaints of those people affected by such

decisions. He will have the right to hear evidence and make

recommendations for change to the procedures or the legislative

strictures of the board.

He will have the power, further, to publicize his findings

so that the focus of public attention can be directed to any

alleged improprieties of use of powers, or indeed

unjust decisions that the board will hand down. And he can

recommend that decisions of the board may be varied or even

cancelled, so that he will be a fairly potent advocate for

parties who may feel that they are injuriously affected by

decisions of the board.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Can he cancel?

HON. MR. KING: No, he cannot cancel; he can recommend

variations.

So the ombudsman, I submit, provides another check and

balance against any abuse of powers that could otherwise be

undertaken by the Labour Relations Board.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Wailing Wall.

HON. MR. KING: The focus of public attention will always be zeroed in

on decisions that are objected to by the board, Another point that I think is

not only because of the ability to form into more than one panel and hear problems

and submissions in various parts of the province, but also because of the location

of the new board. The headquarters of the board will be in Vancouver, as provided

section 22 of the Act, the centre where really the hub of industrial relations

exists in the province. So access to the board will be readily available to

the main practitioners of industrial relations in the province.

Access to the services of the board will be further improved

by the fact that the majority of the members of the board will

be permanent appointees. In other words the members, the people

who comprise the board, will be full-time people who are not

distracted from their duties by having to attend to other

obligations. It will be full-time, it will be available to the

parties to industrial relations in a way that perhaps the

previous board was not able to make itself available.

It is not required that the board or a panel must give

reasons for its decisions in each case but it is anticipated,

as a result of the new structure, and as a result of the

selection of personnel of this new board, that it will in fact,

wherever possible, give reasons for the decisions that it hands

down. This also, I might add, was one of the criticisms of the

previous board's structure, the fact that very few reasons were

given for the adjudications which they handed down.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. KING: Under the new system it is anticipated that

reasons will be given, certainly wherever possible.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Nothing in the bill says

that.

HON. MR. KING: The result, I think, will be an improvement

in the public acceptance under those circumstances of decisions

of the board.

MR. CHABOT: Same thing.

HON. MR. KING: This is one of the reasons, I would suggest,

Mr. Speaker, that it is advisable to have on the board people

who have legal training and who can give the basis of reasons

for the decision without jeopardizing the decision to court

actions which could emasculate the board's effectiveness to

come to grips with labour problems. That certainly was the

problem in the past.

I think a further aid for those seeking to understand the

procedure — I am thinking of the Labour Relations Board — is

found in

section 27, which allows the board to establish

policies of the rules, of its own rules, for the guidance of

the public.

In

summary, the structure of the Labour Relations Board is

independent and impartial. It is flexible with special labour

relations expertise contained on the

[ Page 398 ]

panel. It provides for an internal appeal which is broader

in nature than that contained under the previous arrangement.

It increases public access and improves public acceptance of

that type of tribunal.

The primary function of the new labour code is to secure

industrial peace in the province. To accomplish this purpose,

the board is given comprehensive jurisdiction over all aspects

of labour relations, and it will be involved in the total

picture and recognize, in other words, the inter-relation of

problems, beginning with the formation of unions, unfair labour

practices, certifications, bargaining in good faith, picketing,

strikes and lockouts on first collective agreements right

through to technological changes and so on.

So the new board will be dealing with the whole scope and

sphere of the issues which create problems in industrial

relations.

The board will have the great advantage of being able to

deal with the root causes of labour problems; it will not

merely be a court by another name, The board's jurisdiction

will extend beyond the legalities of a dispute and allow for

consideration of the motivations of the people involved. In

other words, it won't be dealing in a strictly legalistic sense

as the courts have done in the past. It will be looking at the

issues with a view to curative approaches rather than punitive

approaches.

An example of the board's remedial power is contained in

section 97, which allows the board to take action where a

dispute arises because of a delay in arbitration proceedings.

The

section states that:

"Where a difference arises during the term of a collective agreement, and delay, in the opinion of the

board, has occurred in settling the difference, the board may,

on the application of either party to the difference, or on its

own motion, inquire into the difference, and make

recommendations for settlement and, where the difference is

arbitrable, order that it be immediately submitted to a

specific stage or step in the grievance procedure provided

under the collective agreement; or, whether the difference is

arbitrable or not, request the Minister to appoint a special

officer."

Now in the past, anyone who is knowledgeable and has had any

experience in labour problems in this province will recognize

that one of the greatest and most sensitive problem areas has

been disputes arising during the course of collective

agreements. It's manifested through job actions, work-to-rule

programmes, work stoppages, wildcat strikes, and so on. There

have been inequities and there have been reasons why the

working people of this province have been moved to employ those

tactics to solve their problems.

One of those reasons I've just outlined was an ineffective arbitration procedure

contained in collective agreements. Another device was the deliberate attempt

by one party or the other to delay arbitration proceedings so that the problem

festered on and created animosity and hostility until inevitably it erupted

into a work stoppage. At that point the government was called upon to come in

and try to pick up the pieces.

This allows the board to become involved at an earlier stage

and to offer aids that will pre-empt the necessity for taking

this kind of guerilla action and inflaming the whole industrial

climate of the province.

Section 97 provides the board with power to recommend

solutions to a labour dispute or to refer the problem to

arbitration or to a special officer.

MR. CHABOT: Received your copy yet?

HON. MR. KING: It should be in your bill book, Mr.

Member.

MR. CHABOT: I just wanted another copy.

HON. MR. KING: I'm sure if you go through the bills on your

desk, you'll probably find that bill there. It's under No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, 11. Seven come eleven?

HON. MR. KING: I note that the Member seems to be as

familiar with this statute as he was with the preceding

statute.

MR. CHABOT: King of the unions.

HON. MR. KING: This

section provides the use of a special

officer which is a new device. This is a new concept and I

think it's one that holds great promise. It's not going to

solve all problems but it's an attempt to find a new approach

to the problems of disputes that arise during the currency of a

collective agreement.

The board's power under this

section could be very helpful

and I think the board can exercise its jurisdiction over the

law of strikes, lockouts and picketing in a far more effective,

realistic way than the courts were ever empowered to do.

A careful examination of the legislation I think will reveal

the Labour Relations Board has no punitive powers as such, so

any suggestion that the board has all-empowering,

all-encompassing powers, undue powers, or has in any way

usurped the functions of the courts is not valid. This is an

administrative tribunal; it has no powers as such to inflict or

enforce penalties. That exercise is retained for the courts.

But it does allow the board to deal with the issue and the

cause before the dispute ever arises in the courts, should that

be necessary.

The board's powers are conciliatory and remedial. The intent

of the law is for the board to prevent

[ Page

399 ]

disputes, not punish the disputers. Therefore, I think, Mr.

Speaker, the suggestion that the board has too much power is

completely unfounded and I think the powers that it does have

will be exercised in a responsible way and reveal themselves as

very helpful devices in the time to come.

The concern expressed that the board's powers are too

awesome fails to recognize the nature of the board's functions.

The most humble magistrate has far greater power to affect

individuals than the board does. As I pointed out before, Mr.

Speaker, nowhere in the Act is the board empowered to

administer sanctions as such; they simply have a number of

devices that they can make in an administrative way. The

responsibility for applying any sanctions still rests with the

courts.

The board must seek the resolutions of labour problems

through means other than coercion. Even a cease and desist

order issued by the board is not self-enforcing but is

enforceable only by the ordinary courts. This is very

significant, I think, and it underscores the fact that the

board is not a court. The board is an administrative agency

without court-like powers, and that's important to recognize

and it's important to emphasize.

The removal of injunctions from the courts is provided in

section 31 and did not place the injunction power in the hands

of the board. Rather, the new law intends that economic

conflict between labour and management will be treated in a

different manner all together.

To better appreciate the change in philosophy of the new

code, reference could be made to labour law in the United

Kingdom prior to 1972. In that country, the law did not attempt

to regulate strikes and lockouts. In the United Kingdom, the

collective agreement does not have the legislative sanctity

that it has in Canadian law; a collective agreement was not

even an enforceable contract under the British law.

So therefore, the approach' of the new code we have, while

not opting for a complete abdication of the law as it respects

labour disputes, does recognize the need for a less strictly

legal approach to the problem, and this is exactly what we are

trying to accomplish.

In effect, the code strikes a compromise between the United

Kingdom position and the former position of excessive legal

intervention into the industrial relations scene in this

province. It must be understood that while the Labour Relations

Board is very important, it is not the heart of the new labour

code. Rather, the essence of the code is only ancillary and

incidental to this fundamental process. The board only

functions to provide the administrative machinery for

successful collective bargaining.

The new Act accomplishes a number of things and the board administers them

by protecting the right of employees to join a union through enforcement of

unfair labour practices, contained in

section 3 and

section 8. Upon evidence

of the majority will, the board has power to certify the trade union as bargaining

agent on behalf of all employees in an appropriate unit.

The effect of certification is that the bargaining agent, in

the person of a trade union, has exclusive authority to bargain

collectively and bind all employees to a collective agreement.

Certification, then, is only one of the functions of the board.

It's only the beginning, really, of the collective bargaining

process and the board is involved in that.

Certification is really the threshold step of the collective

bargaining process; it opens the door to collective bargaining.

The obligation to bargain set out in

section 63 in

Part IV is

the very keystone of the Act. The law contemplates that if

collective bargaining is characterized by good faith and

reason, the parties will succeed in negotiating and executing a

collective agreement.

The right to strike, lockout and picket, as outlined in

Part

V are the measures provided to ultimately resolve collective

bargaining — which are conflicts.

The paradoxical situation then is that collective bargaining

is the ability to resolve, conflict by conflict. This is the

purpose of the economic weapons which the parties hold: the

right to lock out and the right to strike.

Because the board plays such a useful role during the

certification attempts of bargaining units at the inception of

the collective bargaining process, it is logical that the board

should continue to have some role to play in the collective

bargaining per se, and in the administration of the laws of

strikes and lockouts.

The board will have the ability and the knowledge to relate

problems arising during the course of bargaining to the

pre-certification experience that it has had with the parties

involved. In other words, because strikes, lockouts and

picketing are, like certification, only a part of the

collective bargaining process, it is therefore appropriate that

the same administrative agency regulates all of these

matters.

The controlling force, or organizing idea then, is the

principle of collective bargaining. I would remind this House,

Mr. Speaker, that this is a principle that I think all

political parties pay lip service to. Certainly the trade union

movements and the business world tell us that it is the best,

most fair way of resolving their problems. So what we're doing

is directing our attention to trying to make that process work

more effectively in a less disruptive manner to the economy and

the public at large.

The controlling force, or organizing idea then, is the

principle of collective bargaining. The Labour Relations Board

is the agency vested with the major responsibility for the

collective bargaining process. The board has the structure and

the personnel to understand the dynamics of industrial

relations.

[ Page 400 ]

Therefore, it is essential that the board be given

comprehensive jurisdiction over the whole process.

The courts of law can only really catch a glimpse of the

overall labour picture. Their interference in the past has been

sporadic and fortuitous. The judges lack the intimate knowledge

of the very dynamic process of industrial relations and

collective bargaining. For these reasons,

Part II of the new

labour code has removed the courts' jurisdiction over labour

disputes. This does not substitute the board, but rather

proposes a new approach. The new law seeks an administrative

rather than a judicial solution to labour disputes.

In

summary then, the primary function of the Labour

Relations Board is to make the collective bargaining process

work more successfully. The purpose is accompanied by allowing

the board to become involved in the total process from the

point of applications for certification right through to

strikes. It is a comprehensive approach to a comprehensive

problem.

The new labour code has streamlined and improved the

structure and machinery of the Labour Relations Board. The new

board will, I predict, be better equipped to assist those

engaged in collective bargaining to achieve harmonious

relations and will, ultimately, benefit all the citizens of

this province.

I've given an outline, Mr. Speaker, of the central agency

that will hold responsibility for making this new labour code

work. I think it's necessary at the same time to say that

attitudes towards this new legislation are going to be

all-important in the degree of success which is realized from

our new approach.

As I mentioned in the throne speech debate, I would like to

reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that I certainly welcome close scrutiny

of this bill. I welcome criticism, if it's constructive. But I

want to suggest to you that this problem is so sensitive and

has been so profound over the past number of years that I think

it is extremely essential, it's incumbent upon everyone to

approach it with a temperate, rational, constructive

approach.

Now I have said publicly in the past and I have said on many

occasions, to labour and to management, that this bill is not

offered as a blueprint to which you're going to be tied for

time immemorial. It is simply our attempt to translate into

legislative language many of the recommendations which you

people have brought to us and maintain a fair balance of

economic power between the parties, because this is essential

to fair and effective collective bargaining, too.

But at the same time, we are quite prepared to maintain continuing consultation

with both labour and management. We are quite prepared to keep a very close

eye on all aspects of this legislation over the next period of months and years.

And if anyone can come to this government and demonstrate that any

section of

that legislation is having an iniquitous effect and an injurious effect on them,

which is unjust and unnecessary, then certainly I remain receptive, and I'm

sure the government remains receptive, to amending the legislation accordingly.

But having said that, I think that the parties involved have

an obligation to approach this legislation in a spirit of

cooperation, and to give their best efforts and demonstrate

their responsibility in a first-class effort to make this

legislation work. That can only be done with the good faith of

the parties involved. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister, just a few moments ago, stated

that the cornerstone of the legislation is the words

"bargaining in good faith." Now it's really important, if this

is that important, this bargaining in good faith, that it's not

instituted in the

interpretation of the Act, because I'm sure

that the Minister will agree with me that there is a great

variety of

definitions of the meaning of "bargaining in good

faith." I would venture to say, if each and every member of the

10-man board were asked to issue his opinion of what bargaining

in good faith might mean, that you would find a sharp contrast

in their attitudes as to what the words might mean.

The legislation we are presently discussing, the Labour Code

Act of British Columbia is wide-ranging. It is legislation

which has 153 sections. It's legislation, I'm sure the Minister

will agree, that enhances the growth of the labour movement in

British Columbia.

I want to say, and I firmly believe, that it is a genuine

attempt on the part of the government to resolve some of the

problems that we're faced with in the employee-employer

relationship in this province.

There has been established a 10-man board, four men have

been appointed now and six will be appointed later. The

Minister suggested that it was flexible, and I must agree that

their terms of reference or their ability to determine or

regulate a problem is certainly flexible. They have some mighty

powers in their ability to use that flexibility dealing with

the question of industrial relations in the province.

There is also the question of a special officer, who will be

appointed to deal with grievances and matters that create

illegal disruptions in the province. And he is given some

awesome powers. I don't know just how you'll find a man

sufficiently capable to adjudicate the problems and make the

recommendations, binding as they are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Binding only for 30 days.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's binding for 30 days, and it can be

in conflict with the terms of the collective agreement for a

30-day period. Now these are broad powers.

[ Page 401 ]

Someone suggested not too long ago, in fact yesterday, that

the Minister has someone posted down at Swartz Bay waiting to

appoint the first guy who's walked across water. I almost

believe that he must not only walk across from Tsawwassen to

Swartz Bay, he should be able to go back too, to be able to

fulfill the role of special officer under this legislation.

We in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, live in a buoyant,

resource-oriented economy. We don't have a dual economy in this

province. Therefore, when an economy is as dependent upon

primary resources as ours is, we find that the matter of

conflict between labour and management does create wide

economic ramifications.

We had a prime example of that just last year when we had

the work stoppages in the forest industry and in the

construction industry. We found that almost 10 per cent of our

labour force was out on strike in 1972, so it has extreme

ramifications in a province such as British Columbia, which is

so dependent upon its primary industries and does not have a

dual economy, i.e., the mixture of primary and secondary

industries.

What we really need in British Columbia is legislation that

will reduce the incidence of conflict. I wonder whether this

legislation will resolve the conflicts that we have been

accustomed to.

I must say that the success or failure of this legislation

depends upon its acceptance or rejection by labour and

management. Labour legislation really must, in effect, reflect

a balance of power between the two groups: labour and

management.

This legislation at the outset — I haven't had too much time

to examine it — appears to be weighted in favour of the unions.

But it does establish the legal framework, I hope, that will

bring about peaceful relations between labour and

management.

I think that the administration by the 10-man board and the

powers that are conferred upon them will have quite an impact

on whether the legislation will function or fail, and whether

the future holds less conflict between labour and management in

our province.

I firmly believe that industrial tension must be reduced in

British Columbia. I must say that industrial tension can not

only be reduced by legislation; there must be consideration

and a genuine attempt on the part of labour and management to

make legislation work. Also, legislation must preserve and

reflect the dignity of the two parties for it to function

properly.

What we are discussing is complex and far-reaching

legislation. One Minister, and I am not going to say which

Minister, said that the legislation was hastily prepared in

order to be brought into the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Name names.

MR. CHABOT: The bill has been here for about 40 to 42 hours;

it appears there is anxiety for the legislation to be rushed

through.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourn it.

MR. CHABOT: I think that….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourn the debate. You're free to adjourn

the debate. Do you wish to adjourn the debate?

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I do. I will, but just a moment.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: But I want to….

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can't have it both ways. If you want

to adjourn it, adjourn it.

MR. CHABOT: I've started some comments about this

legislation. I want to say that I think it's only fair that the

public have an opportunity to express their views towards this

legislation. I think that there has been a tremendous amount of

input on the part of labour and management that brought about

what we see in Bill 11 at this moment. However, I would say

that both sides, labour and management, were not aware what the

legislation would be. I think that they should now be given the

opportunity to examine the legislation, and again too, express

their views, their anxieties. I think that the legislation

should be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Labour…

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: …so that there can be this additional

consideration of the anxieties…

AN HON. MEMBER: Who told you to say that?

MR.CHABOT: …on the part of labour, and the anxieties on

the part of management. If the government really believes….

Interjections.

MR. CHABOT: The Minister can laugh all he wants, be as

cynical as he likes, Mr. Speaker. But I think that in all

fairness, if he really genuinely wants this legislation to

work, he should give these people an opportunity, now that the

legislation has been drafted, to express their opinions on the

matter.

I will be moving to that effect, that the bill be referred

to the Select Standing Committee on

[ Page 402 ]

Labour. Because it is a far-reaching bill with some wide

ramifications, If you really believe in open government, and if

you really want to see this bill work, then you will refer it

to the Select Standing…. Mr. Speaker, will you tell that

Minister over there to stop interrupting when he is out of his

seat?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ah!

MR. SPEAKER: Will the Hon. Member please interrupt from his

seat? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: It's better than being out of your….

MR. SPEAKER: Order! (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker is being his usual political

self.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: You suggested, Mr. Speaker, that I be

interrupted by a Member from his seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

MR. CHABOT: Now if that's not political, I don't know what

political is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I just protected you from him, and this

is my thanks. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: You suggested he go back to his seat.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That will teach you to interfere.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, from now on perhaps I shouldn't interrupt.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: There are a lot of matters to be further

discussed with this bill. The Premier has agreed himself that it was

hastily present ed to the House,

that the Members should have an opportunity to further study

the ramifications of the bill. He suggests that we move

adjournment of the debate.

Therefore I do move adjournment of the debate until the next

sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 21, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Corporation Capital Tax Act , passed at

the spring session, imposed a tax on capital being utilized in

the province by corporations. It has now come to our attention

that there are a few corporations to which the tax does not

apply, which were not intended to be exempt at the time the Act

was passed, because they do not have any capital shares. To

correct this, the definition of "corporation" is amended to

specifically include insurance companies or Crown corporations,

with or without share capital.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we took the

position last year that this is an unnecessary discrimination

against business and we still hold that view. However, neither

do we support discrimination in reverse, and in the matter of

fair play we support this tax…(laughter)…levying as it

does a tax against Crown corporations, on the simple premise

that Crown corporations should have no special advantages. On

that point alone, we would support this bill on second

reading.

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

debate.

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

21,

An Act to Amend the Corporation Tax Act .

Bill 21 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN SETTLEMENT ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the operations of the British

Columbia Railway Company have expanded greatly over the past

few years. In line with this growth this bill proposes an

increase in the number of board directors from the present five

to a maximum of nine.

It is felt that the expanded railway operation needs

additional direction and scrutiny from the board of directors.

This can best be provided by the appointment of more directors

from various fields related to the business of the railway.

Mr. Speaker, I announced at a speech in the City of

Vancouver that it was not the intention of this government to

replace private capitalism with state capitalism. I think both

in their absolute sense are

[ Page 403 ]

totally dehumanizing and not the objective of any democratic

society.

The experiment with democratizing the boards of Crown

agencies will begin with this particular bill. It is the

intention of the government to ask the people who work on the

railroad, in a form that is not yet decided, to have

representation on the board of directors. Also it is the

intention of the government to include representatives of the

largest customer, that is the forest industry, on the board as

well.

The railway belongs to all the people of the Province of

British Columbia. The government of the day is elected to

govern on behalf of the people. Beyond that, in operating Crown

corporations, we feel that it is essential to development for

the mature growth of any jurisdiction to have people directly

involved in their Crown corporation. We argued this in the past

while in opposition and we are now going ahead with this policy

while in government.

I am hopeful that this new direction, as it develops, will

give an increased sense of responsibility and participation,

not only to the total community, but . specifically to industry

and the trade union movement. We either all work together or

we'll perish together. This bill is a demonstration of the

government's intent to incorporate people who are directly

involved in a government agency in the decision-making process

related to that government agency. I ask the House to support

this bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): We want to assure

the Premier and the government that we are going to heartily

support this bill. We think that it holds promise of achieving

even more than the Premier has suggested. I don't disagree one

bit with anything he said in favour of the bill — the

desirability of democratizing our Crown corporations to bring

to the board of directors those groups whose interests are

vitally affected by the way in which the railroad is run.

But, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier didn't adequately

emphasize, in my view, is that there is a traditional role of a

board of directors in any corporation, a role which has

manifestly not been satisfied by the British Columbia Railway.

The confidential documents which the Premier was good enough to

release to the House completely vindicated the stand that I

have been taking over a number of years regarding the necessity

for accountability of corporations, whether they be private

corporations or Crown corporations.

There is a mechanism by which private corporations are accountable. This is

the annual meeting of the shareholders. I am still hopeful that one of the things

this new board of directors will do when they are appointed is to regularize

this principle of the annual public meeting. And while the Premier is the only

shareholder and will himself be on the board of directors, there is no reason

why he couldn't have an annual meeting for himself.

I was curious and I went back and read the PGE Act and tried

to find out when its annual meeting was. Of course, the

government and their fiscal agent are the only single

shareholder. I asked the Premier last session when the annual

meeting had been held and whether he had attended it and he

wasn't quite sure whether he had been at the annual meeting or

not.

But the point about it is that that system of accountability

has been totally absent for all these years in the British

Columbia Railway. Because of that and because of the inadequacy

of the members of the board of directors, who were there for

reasons of politics…and not railroad experience or the

experience of the people who were vitally affected by that

railroad's decisions. Those were the people who were on the

board of directors and, quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, they did a

lousy job.

The method of letting contracts, the accounting procedures,

the way decisions were reached for development, would have been

a disgrace to a private corporation, much less a Crown agency.

During all this time, when speeches were being made by the

former president of the B.C. Railway in this House about what

a magnificent railway it was, all the jobs it had been doing

for British Columbia, how well it was run and how handsome the

profit picture was and so on and so on, all those statements

were accepted without question by the press, who played along

with the former Premier in letting the public know a story

which was not true with regard to that railroad, and which has

only been brought out by the new Premier.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is still important that we find a

process of accountability in this province for those

corporations which are run by the government as well as the

public. I say this with the deepest of sincerity because the

government is moving more and more into the field of business

of all kinds — planer mill, pulp mill, newsprint plant,

railroad, electric company, buses, natural gas — going into

that in a big way — hospitals, hotels…

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Legislation.

MR. McGEER: …insurance, ferries. Somebody suggested they

should take over the waxworks; move the whole Liberal party in

there. (Laughter.)

But, Mr. Speaker, all of those Crown corporations, if there

is no method of accountability, will be subject to the same

kinds of abuses that were tolerated for so many years with the

B.C. Railway, where the only word which was given was that of

the Premier — a political word, which was faithfully

[ Page 404 ]

communicated to the general public, to their disadvantage,

by the media. And the media will always report what the Premier

says.

Therefore, unless these firm methods of accountability are

institutionalized, then the public has no protection at all

from the media. And so there have to be systems.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): What we need is

protection from you.

MR. McGEER: Well, there are many ways for protecting against

the Liberals. But there are so few of us, I think we should be

a protected species. (Laughter.) Like the buffalo.

I think that Member is taking a very cruel position. Pretty

soon it will be Social Credit that will be fewer than the

Liberals. You are going down fast.

Regardless of political party, what is required here is a

method by which the public can have their interests protected

as far as the Crown agencies are concerned. You know, if you

had to depend on the opposition, that is a very thin reed, Mr.

Speaker — a very thin reed. I think that the example of the

British Columbia Railway should give sober thoughts both to the

government and to the public, and that we give appropriate

consideration to establishing a strong board of directors — in

the business sense as well as the democratic sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. McGEER: Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker, the

present directorship of the B.C. Hydro is weak. It badly needs

strengthening. Ever since the appointment of a new chairman and

his favourite Minister, we have had a little closed group in

the B.C. Hydro which is very, very reminiscent of the old days

of the B.C. Railway. The grip of that little socialist clique

needs to be broken so that the B.C. Hydro, as well as the B.C.

Railway, has adequate people representing the public and

business interests on its board of directors.

So, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this legislation. We throw in

this one additional requirement of accountability and we hope

the Premier in his appointments will give due consideration to

this. But not just for the B.C. Railway and the B.C. Hydro, but

the many, many corporations which the government is now

founding, that we will have a system that will be a model for

private enterprise as well as the general public.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, we've heard the Hon. Member ask for an increase

in the board, and suggesting that there might be considerable changes if we

changed the board from five to nine. But it seems to me that this government

wants to make the rules, wants to play in the games, and they also want to

be the referee. Frankly, we can't see any justification for adding four more

people to the board in any way, shape or form as giving accountability as you

asked for. It is simply just placing four more jobs for the party faithful,

and frankly we will oppose it.

MR. WALLACE: This party will support the bill. And I always

enjoy the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I

say this with the greatest respect when I say that I've heard

that speech several times during each session of the House….

MR. McGEER: I'm not getting anywhere.

MR. WALLACE: No, I disagree with the Member. I think he is

getting somewhere. He interjects that even though he makes the

speech every session, he's not getting anywhere. I have the

feeling that he is. We've already had evidence of the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) seeking to inquire into the

methods of accounting and bookkeeping of Crown corporations and

these reports were made available to us and to the public.

I couldn't agree more with the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey that the image of Crown corporations such

as the British Columbia Railway, or the PGE as it was known in

the Socred days, need to be brightened by not only the

appearance of realistic public representation but by some

evidence of good faith by the government of this province that

indeed when it talks about open government it means open

government. And this, in turn, means making all the affairs of

Crown corporations, particularly their financial arrangements,

readily open to public scrutiny.

The Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has

also made the same point on almost as many occasions as his

colleague, I would think. The only reservation I would make in

supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that all it doesis to

increase the number from five to nine. Although the Premier has

stated that he will be seeking representation on the board from

the public and from the main user of the service, namely the

forest industry, again I wonder why, when we are debating

bills, we should not have the specific details of the bill in

the bill, and why we should need press releases or statements,

or some information or data which could readily be incorporated

in the bill, the principle at least.

I am not suggesting to the Premier that we have to know

specifically the numbers or the particular

section of the

forest industry, or the particular kind of public

representation there would be. But surely in general terms — and I might say as an aside that the

[ Page 405 ]

government has already demonstrated just how general their

terms can be in certain other bills in this House. I would just

feel much happier if the principle of public representation and

consumer involvement in the board had been included in this

bill.

I strongly support the concept which has been amplified by

the Premier in introducing the bill. I hope, if only for

self-protection, that he will accept the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey's recommendations. I just feel the time

must come when we mustn't have that speech even once more, and

I don't know why the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey is

complaining about his small numbers. He's got no problem at all

at two-and-a-half times our strength.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's only in quantity.

MR. WALLACE: Anyway we've got…. I don't know about the

7-3-1 plan, but this 10-5-2 plan doesn't appeal to me very much

either, But, Mr. Speaker, although we have lots of time this session

because we haven't got too many bills to debate, I don't

propose to waste any time. I just want to say that the

principle is sound. I would have enjoyed a little more detail

in the bill, but this party certainly strongly supports it.

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

of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and

point out that we do feel that in very many areas there is a

need for more openness. Certainly we've been arguing along

those lines now for one special session and two regular

sessions of the House.

I'm glad the Hon. Member for Oak Bay mentioned that famous

7-3-1 plan. Now all three other parties in the House have

talked about it, the Premier, the opposition…the Premier

talked about it two days in a row. It is clearly causing a

great deal of concern and we are very pleased and flattered by

this.

The point that wasn't mentioned — I see the Premier quickly

reaches for his microphone when it is mentioned, great. The

point that wasn't taken up by the Premier, or I should say by

the President of B.C. Rail, in his introduction of this bill

was the timetable for his own departure from that exalted

office. He has mentioned on a number of occasions that he would

be stepping down at a certain time. Originally it was linked to

a takeover by the Minister of Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) who, I understand, was to replace him as president of

B.C. Rail and, of course, on the board. This wasn't mentioned

today and I feel it was an oversight that perhaps the president

of B.C. Rail would like to cover when he rises to speak to

close the debate.

First it was to be the Minister of Communications. Then we had the ferry strike

handled by the Minister of Communications — not exactly a resounding success.

Immediately after that we had the statement that the Premier would hold onto

the portfolio for certainly substantially longer than I had expected in the

light of his previous statements. I'd like to know, and perhaps he might indicate

when he rises to speak, how long he expects this to be and what other reforms,

which he was talking about a couple of weeks ago, he has in mind he feels that

only he himself can put through prior to handing over to another person as president

of B.C. Rail.

I don't want to belabour the point, but we have often

mentioned that the Premier is not only overweight but

overworked and we feel that he should not have the four

essential jobs of House Leader, Premier, President of B.C. Rail

and Minister of Finance. They are a substantial….

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps if he had more time, Mr. Member

for Oak Bay, the Hon. doctor from Oak Bay, he'd be able to take

more exercise and both problems would be solved. He'd be able

to play rugby perhaps in Japan or elsewhere even, But what I am suggesting is that there should be a full-time

head of B.C. Rail. It is a big organization, not a small one.

The Premier has indicated there are many points of view that

are going to have to be put on the board of directors. In fact

by this very bill I think he indicates the fact that the job is

getting greater and greater for the president as well as for

the board of directors.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly it is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's good. Yes. I'm glad the Premier

agrees, and it makes sense that this is the case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Didn't you read the Minty report?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I've been reading all sorts of reports on

B.C. Rail.

So we would expect some indication from him of when he

intends to step down; what are the changes he wants prior to

stepping down; and why it is indeed that only he in the chair

as president can manage to handle those changes.

I'd like at this stage, Mr. Speaker, to say that I

appreciated that repeat speech by the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). Over the years he's been

really the only watchdog of B.C. Rail and the other Crown

corporations — the most effective one, in any event. I trust,

as was said earlier, that he won't have to constantly repeat

it.

The point was made that in amendments such as

[ Page 406 ]

this, if we do intend to bring in some changes to the

composition of the board, it is quite possible to write such

things into legislation, and our arguments yesterday to the

effect that legislation should be specific would, of course,

apply today as well.

It is a disappointment, for example, that we don't have in

here a subsection to the effect that of these four new members

of the board, one shall be a representative of the employees of

the railroad concerned, and another shall be a representative

of the forest industry who are users of the railroad

facilities.

It would be perfectly possible to write in, but perhaps in

the light of yesterday's experience this seems simply another

small indication of the fact that our legislation is extremely

vague in the province and there is no attempt really being made

to make it more specific and more precise so that we can, in

turn, discuss the legislation rather than an intention of a

Minister to carry out certain plans under the legislation

which, of course, he has no commitment, no real commitment to

do or not to do in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we trust that this bill will be followed by

others. We trust as well that we will have in legislation of

this nature, a great deal more that is specific.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I have no intention

really of entering into the debate on this particular bill;

we've stated our position. But I really am forced on my feet by

the remarks of the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) when he talks about letting in the light of day and his

attitude towards past management of one of the greatest

railroads in the free world.

If you have not heard that first Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey make this renowned speech several times before in this

House, why, you might be like some of the newer Members in the

House that buy this. I don't buy it. I think the British

Columbia Railway has done a fantastic job and I think the past

directors, the board and management of the British Columbia

Railway have done a fantastic job.

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House that

the bureaucracy that has been built up around the

publicly-owned Canadian National Railway has not really let in

very much light on the operation of that people's railway. So

it really gets to me when I hear the Member for Point Grey, who

was so disappointed when the report came down and he couldn't

come into this House and say: "I told you so! There's been

mismanagement of the British Columbia Railway."

I honestly think that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey was gravely

disappointed, because he made a big to-do in the House last spring about the

mismanagement of the contracts and so forth on the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.

I tell you, I'd like to see some checking into the running of the Canadian National

Railway. The bureaucracy there is so big and and so heavy that you couldn't

get through it with a Sherman tank. I certainly wouldn't want to see the same

thing happen to our great railway here in British Columbia. I think it's been

an open railway, and you can have all the checking into the operation of it

that you want.

The Member said it hasn't had a good image. It maybe hasn't

had a good image, Mr. Speaker, in the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey's mind, but if you go out into the area

that that railway is serving, out into northern British

Columbia, you will find that the British Columbia Railway has a

very good image.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They don't know where northern British

Columbia is.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe because it doesn't run through Point

Grey, the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey thinks that the

railway has a poor image. Now everybody wants to jump on the

bandwagon. The British Columbia Railway, when it was taken over

by the previous administration, was on the way downhill. It was

built up, you know, Mr. Speaker, into one of the greatest

railways in the free world. Now everybody wants to jump onto

the bandwagon. It has more miles of road under construction

this year than any railroad in the free world.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if these new directors that this

government is going to put on this railway are going to help in

dealing with Ottawa to get some of the money that is owed by

Ottawa for the construction of 300 miles of British Columbia

Railway in the Peace River area, into Dease Lake. I think that

before we add any more directors on this railway we should be

told by the Premier how these directors are going to help the

financial status of the British Columbia Railway.

You can wind your arms around all you want! You provoked

this! (Laughter.) I didn't intend to say anything about it.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That'll teach you!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I withdraw the bill. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A.

Anderson) stands up and says he hopes there will be more

openings in the operation of the British Columbia Railway. I

want to stand on the floor of this Legislature — and I'm proud

to do so — and say that I am glad that the past directors of the

British Columbia Railway had the vision that they had to build

that railway north into the Peace River country and to build

the railway north into that land

[ Page 407 ]

behind the Alaska panhandle, which has more known resources

and minerals than anywhere in the world.

I'm glad that those men had that vision. I'm glad that those

past directors, Mr. Speaker, had the courage of their

convictions to go ahead and build the extension of that

railway. I'm glad, Mr. Speaker, that those men had the business

sense to carry it out, and I certainly can't see that adding

four more directors is really going to help the operation of

the British Columbia Railway that much.

Maybe if the Premier, in closing the debate, can tell me

that some of these directors are going to spend some more time

down in Ottawa trying to get from Ottawa what is justly due to

the people of British Columbia, then I'll rethink about how I'm

going to vote on the bill.

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

debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, first of all let me say I'm glad

you're glad. I must confess that I have two speeches to give

instead of one in winding up this bill. The first one is very

political and the second one may have political overtones.

I have always believed in the philosophy that you must

always forgive but you never forget. If you don't remember what

went on in terms of your own experience and your sum total of

experiences, then you're condemned to relive mistakes of

others.

For the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison), with no

previous experience in this House — not even in the gallery — to come into this House and suggest that party hacks are going

on the board after I've already said as the Premier of this

province that there would be someone from forestry and from

labour is downright, plain stupid!

You know, Mr. Speaker, there was a former member of that

board who was the biggest political hack ever spawned in this

province and his name was Einar Gunderson, a self-confessed

bagman for the Social Credit Party with all the aura of

political ooze and grease and grime and filth that goes around

that kind of bagman role. He was their freedom fighter at the

ballot box and at the cash register. He was a self-confessed

bagman who hacked, who cut, who thrust his way through every

business structure in this province for dollars for that rotten

political machine that used to run this province! That Member

has the nerve, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that that board was free

from politics in the past — claptrap!

AN HON. MEMBER: What! what!

AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of trap?

HON. MR. BARRETT: There are businessmen, as that Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) pointed out so rightly in election campaigns, who were cowed

into giving funds to the Social Credit party by that same Mr. Gunderson who

sat on the board of the railroad.

So, Mr. Member, don't come in here and start giving those

sanctimonious comments when you haven't had any experience,

which is the only saving grace you've got for being in that

party, because I'm sure there is a spark or some semblance of

honest perception within you that if you had had the experience

sitting in this House with the former administration, you might

have left them. Mercifully you're spared from that experience,

but it would do you well to read some history of what went on

in this very chamber before you arrived, before you make

comments like that.

As for the Member for Peace River — did you ever go to a

board meeting? You were lucky to even speak to the cabinet.

They never knew your name when you were in this House. You used

to be part of the seven safe Socred seats from the north. And

then you come in here and try and tell us "Whoa! Bleagh!

Whaaugh!" or whatever it is you do. (Laughter.) It's

incredible, absolutely incredible!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you…! You didn't build it!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: See what I mean, Mr. Speaker?

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I would point out that in perusing

various decisions of Speakers the use of the word "stupid"

towards another Member is certainly unparliamentary, and I ask

the Hon. Premier to withdraw it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will withdraw

the remark.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is it that really cuts, Mr. Speaker?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will withdraw the

remark.

MR. PHILLIPS: You belong to the art of a clown!

MR. SPEAKER: That also is unparliamentary.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill has

been spelled out. We are managing a multi-million dollar

railway which, according to the report filed by the

comptroller, was run in a pioneer fashion, which I thought was

a very charitable

[ Page 408 ]

adjective to describe that particular method of operation.

That railroad needs the best possible advice it can get. No

person, no matter what his personal experience is in business

or in the world, can possibly have all of the ideas or all of

the notions that will serve an enterprise best.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to go directly to

the heart of the area of those who are being served and to

those who are asked to do service on the railroad.

The railroad has had many serious problems that relate to

the fact that it was operated in a pioneer fashion. And with

all due respect, Ottawa did not cooperate to a great extent

with the BCR.

MR. PHILLIPS: Did you make a profit last year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: When you examine the books — as I hope

public accounts will in the next session, along with the task

of the public accounts in terms of tender — you can make the

books appear as if the railroad's making a great profit when in

fact it isn't.

MR. PHILLIPS: Are you suggesting that the auditors are

crooked?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, I'm not suggesting that

the auditors are crooked. But there are things you can write

down as capital expenditures and write off by issuing more

shares, which your former government used to do by ramming

those kinds of bills through the House. They're a method of

expanding capital. We came in this House and we….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we didn't because we wanted the

railroad to expand. But I think you must be absolutely honest

and understand that this railway has been taking up great sums

of public funds for a good purpose: opening the interior and

opening the north. But, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that we

intend to go along with that continuing practice of coming in

and issuing more shares and then buying them up ourselves so

that the railroad says that we are making all this kind of

money. That kind of sham must be stopped so that ordinary

people in this province will begin to understand that there is

some semblance of decency….

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the railroad going to lose money this

year?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The railroad has lost money from its inception, Mr.

Member, right from its very beginning. Anybody knows that. You must view the

railroad as a service enterprise. Highways lose money the same way as railways

do. But without the highways, without the railways, we would not have access

to the resources that make us money. It's just as simple as that.

If we didn't have the railway, we wouldn't make the revenue

we do in general revenue. But as an operation itself, the

railway doesn't make money. Neither do highways, but they are

part of a total economic structure. They are an essential part

of that economic structure and it's a good thing that that

railway was built.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you know whether they make money or

not?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm suggesting to you that we will tell

the people exactly how much it costs to run the railroad.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, certainly he misses the point

entirely. He just doesn't understand that this is the people's

money, not a private corporation's money. This money belongs to

all the people of British Columbia, not Social Credit, but all

the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you're going to go ahead and lose

money?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It has always lost money and I expect it

always will lose money. Now do you get that? It lost money

under Social Credit; it'll lose money under the NDP; and God

help us if the Liberals ever came in, it'll lose money under

them too. And if it happens to the Tories they'll lose money

too.

MR. PHILLIPS: By that time it will be all air cargo.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, if air cargo is propelled

through the force of wind from a small motor, you are certainly

going to be the pioneer in that field. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't do so bad yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Speaker, the question was raised

about spelling out in the bill itself who would go on the

board. I have said that we have yet to determine the method we

would use to get the people we wish on the board. We want the

forest industry represented on the board and we want a

representative of the unions as well.

I expect that I will come off the board over a

[ Page 409 ]

period of time, but as president I was the one who initiated

the inquiry and the report. I feel that it is my

responsibility, after initiating those inquiries, to carry out

the recommendation and then leave the board. It would be unfair

in my opinion to half-finish the job and drop it on someone

else. It is very time-consuming, but I am very interested. Once

having launched the matter, then I feel it is my responsibility

to carry out the recommendations.

If the recommendations and the actions from them fail, I

would not want to allow another colleague of mine to accept

that blame. If they work, and I think they will, then all the

people of British Columbia will benefit.

I want to ask the Members to consider, after we get this in

operation, the whole question of bidding on all government

projects. I have asked the comptroller, the memo is on the way,

for a report from him on all methods of government bidding of

contracts. When he has a report, I hope to put that in the

hands of the Public Accounts Committee early next spring.

Because this is the public's business and the Public

Accounts Committee can best handle this kind of business., I

see absolutely no political danger in allowing legislators to

have access to this material and provide recommendations

through the government to enable the business of government to

be run better.

The business of government is separate from politics. That's

a theory that was not practised in this province before, but it

is going to be practised now. And to suggest that party people

are going to be put on riles me very much. The pay for board

members I think is $3,600 per year.

MR. McGEER: Gunderson got $20,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He got $20,000, on the board?

MR. McGEER: As an executive member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As an executive member he got $20,000 on

the board?

AN HON. MEMBER: And he got some more from the B.C. Hydro, I

think.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What a fantastic rip-off! We pay Ted

Rowland, the local man on the regional district, $3,600; then

Mr. Swanson, who was a civil servant faithfully for years,

probably one of the most knowledgeable railroad people in the

province, on the board. We've got the Minister of Labour, (Hon.

Mr. King) probably the first time in the history of the railroad

they had a fellow who actually ran a train sitting on the board.

His contribution to the board is fantastic. He's very

knowledgeable about….

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, not at all. The only job I ever had on a

railroad was washing dishes, That certainly doesn't give me the

qualifications as the Member for Revelstoke (Hon. Mr. King).

Once in a while I cooked, too…

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: …but I was far more successful at

washing dishes.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about the bar?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Salad bar. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House to pass this

bill. We will, within a year, be appointing someone from the

forest industry and someone from the people who work on the

railroad to the board. We'll have to work out some system to

rotate them.

When we finish implementing the recommendations of the

various reports we have, then I will step down as president. My

career as president of a railroad will have been finished and I

wish the new president, who will be the Minister of Transport

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) all the goodwill and success that he could

possibly have on that railroad.

Perhaps what I can say in conclusion is that, with the

passage of this Act, we'll stop being railroaded.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Proceed.

MR. MORRISON: I thought that this House was above personal

attacks on Members. I take objection to the fact that the

Premier is very touchy about a word which I did not use. Thank

you.

MR. SPEAKER: Do you wish the record corrected, Hon. Member,

on the word?

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, the Premier used the word "hacks"

which I did not use. I used the word "faithful," not

"hacks." (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Member.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move second reading of Bill 22,

An Act

to Amend the Pacific Great Eastern e Settlement Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 22 read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting

[ Page 410 ]

after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 23, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

INCOME TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, at the spring session the

rate of corporation income tax payable by a corporation was

raised from 10 per cent to 12 per cent. Complementary to this

change, the amendments proposed in this bill allow deductions

for companies at the increased rate for foreign tax or logging

tax payed.

At the same time, the amendments clear any possible

ambiguity as to the tax payable by corporations having part of

their fiscal period in 1972. To give full benefit to the

additional credit, the Act is retroactive to January 1, 1973,

the date the tax rate was changed. Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, since I raised the point in the

spring session, we're obviously going to vote for this at this

point, but there are one or two items that we'd like to discuss

in the committee stage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be read a

second time now.

Motion approved.

Bill 23 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 25, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE COLOURED GASOLINE TAX ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Hon. Members will recall at the spring

session that to encourage the use of less pollutant fuels, the

definition of gasoline was amended so that propane or natural

gas used to propel a motor vehicle was given a lower rate of

tax. This change in the Coloured Gasoline Tax Act made natural

gas used in the pumping stations of pipelines subject to

tax.

However, the argument has been made by the companies that the intent of the

Act was not clear in this regard. The amendments before you

now therefore spell

out this intention back to the date of the original amendments, April 1, 1973.

In addition, the usual audit and appeal sections, similar to those in other

taxation statutes, are provided to effect collection.

I now move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: On this bill, I would like to suggest

perhaps that in the definition section, where we are dealing

with the question of liquefied petroleum gas and also natural

gas, we are entering into the principle of putting in

definitions sections which are entirely in the hands of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and will be done entirely by

regulation. It is a principle to which, although we will be

supporting this Act, we would like to question the Minister in

order to have some information from him.

The whole purpose of a definition

section is to define

terms. To leave this entirely in the hands of regulation we

feel to be very questionable, and we trust the Minister will be

discussing that at the time that he closes the debate.

For example, I would think that it would be quite possible

and desirable to have this defined in terms of calorific value.

I think that you can certainly compare gasoline, diesel,

natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, on the basis of calorific

value. There is no need for this type of definition by

order-in-council which, I feel to be a very undesirable

principle. Perhaps there is some explanation for this of which

I am unaware. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) might

well comment on this.

A general question, Mr. Speaker: I wonder why it is

necessary for there to be a tax of 3 cents a gallon on these

two gases, which are equivalent to gasoline. It would seem

desirable, in light of what the Premier has said and in the

light of surpluses which he has talked about in the past, for

this tax to be abolished in that area — and particularly, as he

says, as we are dealing with a fuel which is a great deal less

polluting than gasoline in terms of motor vehicles. Perhaps,

again, when he is discussing this, he will indicate what the

reason for the tax is and why it has been felt necessary to

keep it on.

I would have thought it would be more desirable to take it

off entirely in view of the fact that you are dealing with a

less-polluting fuel. Of course, internal-combustion engines

contribute about 70 per cent of our air pollution in the

province. As it is at the present time, we are paying a tax

higher, when it is used for motor fuel, than that on gasoline — which is another Act — and it is an anomaly in another Act. But

I wonder whether, again, the Minister would indicate the

approach that has been taken here; because, to me, it's

unclear. It's a desire, I am sure, to cut the taxes on this

coloured gasoline, but I fail to see why it has not been

possible to define it clearly and why it has been necessary at

all to have the tax on. I still don't understand.

MR. MORRISON: We will be in favour of this and will have further discussion

in the committee stage.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As to the principle of the tax, I will

certainly comment now and perhaps, along with the Members for

Victoria, the specifics can be dealt with in committee.

There is no tax now on this fuel that is being used by the

pipeline. The tax that we are proposing is far below what

exists for other fuels. We did reduce the tax on propane fuels

used by automobiles in the last budget.

Now this is a minor, 3-cent-a-gallon tax so that this

industry shares its fair tax burden. It has been escaping its

tax burden up to this point. The 3-cent-a-gallon burden is not

prohibitive, certainly not unfair, but it is quite just. We are

closing here an advantage, an unfair advantage, on the

competitive basis that this particular lack of tax

permitted.

I think it would be best in committee stage to go through

section by

section on the

definitions as they are, Mr. Member.

At that point I would move that the question be put.

Motion approved.

Bill 25 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 20, Mr.

Speaker.

SESSIONAL REPORTS SUSPENSION ACT

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

second reading of this simple housekeeping Act, which may be

with us for some time and reintroduced, I think, on fairly

regular occasions. The purpose of the bill is to enact a

Sessional Reports Suspension Act to suspend the tabling of

reports during this particular session of the Legislature.

The difficulty we are in is that sprinkled throughout our

statutes are the requirements to present reports from

departments usually, and I think almost invariably, on an

annual basis. This is normally done in the spring session. The

bureaucracy, if I may use that term of endearment, is geared to

doing it at the spring session. And at the spring session, as

the Members well know, the tabling of reports comes in like a

flood. It therefore means that in order to be in law and to

obey the statues, we have to do something about the second

session of the House, because you don't want another annual

report.

Therefore, we will pass, I think, on fairly frequent

occasions this little bill, this little Act, that gets us out

of that particular embarrassing situation. The House will

remember that it passed this principle in

[ Page 411 ]

the form of one of the sections of the reduction of

allowances Act passed approximately a year ago. I think that we

will ask under probably a more ongoing statute, perhaps even

the Statutes Act itself, that perhaps a more permanent way of

solving this problem could come out of that particular

discussion. Or, indeed, as some of the Members mentioned about

rationalizing the current situation we are in, it could happen

in that way as well. But at this particular point of time we

need this so that we can all be in order. I move second

reading.

MR. MORRISON: We are obviously in favour of this Act, but we

would like to suggest that perhaps some interim reports of

items which could be handled at this second sitting be included

so that we have some interim reports that were not

complete.

MR. GARDOM: I would just like to make an observation here.

Over the years I have suggested on many occasions to the House

that it is a poor thing that certain of our statutes establish

the confidentiality of reports. One that comes to mind and one

that I have introduced amendments to is the Trust Companies

Act , wherein the Inspector of Trust Companies has to report

only to the Minister of Finance and to the Attorney

General.

In my view, if we are going to have open government in the

Province of British Columbia, I do feel that all reports of

that nature should by law be presented and tabled within the

House, as opposed to falling within exception sections.

The point dealing with that specific statute, as I said, is

one that has been raised by myself. My memory is somewhat hazy

on the point, but I do believe that the last time I did

introduce the amendment I received some assurance — it might

well have been from the Minister who is speaking to this bill — that a considerable amount of thought be given to the point

that was raised and that these reports would be made available

for the Legislative Assembly.

The point in question is an extremely dramatic one from the

historic point of view — and that dealt, of course, with the

Commonwealth Trust situation. Had the Inspector of Trust

Companies' report been tabled in the House, had it been open to

the public, had the public known of the situation of that trust

company, literally millions of dollars would have been saved

for hundreds and thousands of people in this province. I would

very much appreciate having the comments of the Hon. Provincial

Secretary when he closes the debate upon the points I have

raised.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. MR. HALL: In addressing myself to the debate, there

were two points basically made and one

[ Page 412 ]

is of interim reports. We have an oral question period and

we have questions on the order paper.

I sympathize with the Members' thirst for information, but I

think I can honestly say that never has so much information

crossed the floor of this chamber than there does at this

current moment. I think it is fair to say that if the Member

wants any specific information from the Ministers, it is

invariably available. I am not too sure that we want to get

into the formalized requirement in a statutory way of providing

interim reports, but certainly that has to go on its

merits.

The second point is the question of sunshine, public

scrutiny, Bill 16, that the Member adjourned himself. No, I

adjourned it in the debate about a week ago.

I agree with the Member that he has made a compelling

argument from time to time, particularly the one about

Commonwealth Trust. May I advise him, by way of reply, that I

have already had a number of meetings as Provincial Secretary

with the new Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Vickers, who has yet

to be, I think, introduced perhaps formally on the floor of the

House. I hope that happens before too much time goes by.

We are looking at the whole question of the statutes

themselves, to the requirements for this kind of reporting, and

that kind of openness that the Member has addressed himself to

on many occasions. I remember fondly sitting next to him over

on that back wall there, as long ago as 1966.

Mr. Speaker, I move the question be now put.

Motion approved.

Bill 20 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 39, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

AND HOSPITAL INSURANCE ACT

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Well, Mr. Speaker, this is truly housekeeping of the best sort in that we are

limiting the name of the department to the "Department of Health." In the past

it's been called the "Department of Health Services and Hospital Insurance."

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are the first to sympathize with my feeling. Each

time you have had to introduce me, you've had some difficulty with that long,

devastating kind of title. But it could even be worse. If they were to have

named the department properly in the first place it should have been called

the "Department of Health Services, Hospital Insurance, Mental Health and Medicare."

So it could be much worse.

MR. SPEAKER: Sounds like a speech. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. COCKE: In any event, Mr. Speaker, we feel this more

truly represents the department. We will naturally be changing

in due course, subject to the House's wish today, our

letterheads and so on. We are not going to be wasting what we

have, but in due course, as we run out of stationery and

letterheads, we will be making those kind of changes.

I would therefore, if there is any debate on this issue, be

only too glad to answer any questions after I've heard from the

opposition.

Hearing none, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of the

bill.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 39 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

BEEF GRADING ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

the purpose of this bill is to re-enact the Beef Grading Act to

facilitate the adoption of beef carcass grading regulations

made under the Canada Agricultural Products Standard Act . New

federal regulations which went into effect in September of 1972

are still waiting adoption under our provincial Act.

The bill before us will also allow for establishment of

procedures to be followed by packing plants in weighing and

paying for beef carcasses where these are purchased on the

basis of a carcass grade.

I move second reading of Bill 6.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 6 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 31,

[ Page 413 ]

Mr. Speaker.

VETERINARY LABORATORIES ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, this is a new bill to provide

for some regulation of veterinary laboratories. There has been

some concern expressed in the minds of people in my department,

and in the minds of some people operating veterinary

laboratories themselves, that there should be some regulation

of these laboratories. Of course, to have regulations there has

to be licensing so that one knows where these laboratories

exist, something about the people who are operating them, and

the conditions under which they operate.

Really, the purpose of this licensing and regulation in the

first place is so that someone somewhere will know exactly what

is happening with respect to livestock disease protection in

the province and so that we will be aware what diseases we are

faced with if there is any danger at all in some areas.

There is certainly no evidence that this happened so far,

nothing to which we would point any finger, but there is always

the possibility that someone may wish to suppress information

about a disease, at least until they know more about it or are

more aware of the danger of its spreading and the extent to

which it has spread. Again, I am not suggesting that this has

happened, but they may even want to move livestock out of their

area before knowledge of the existence of this particular

disease in those animals is known.

So we feel that there should be a licensing of these

veterinary laboratories wherever they exist. The department, as

a result of this licensing, would have the authority to ask

that records and specimens be kept for some time so that there

is opportunity for examining these should the need for this

arise. It's with that in mind that we have introduced this

legislation that provides for licensing. The licensing, in

turn, will provide for regulation and, in the same way that an

auditor works, to make sure that nothing is happening in the

province with respect to the control, or lack of control, of

livestock disease, and to make sure that nothing is happening

that shouldn't be happening.

In the belief that this legislation will do something to

reassure people engaged in the livestock industry in the

province, I move second reading of Bill 31.

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

legislation will hamper the movement of some forms of livestock, it's certainly

a step in the right direction because of what we have seen where cholera, anthrax

and other diseases of this nature have been suppressed as far as information

is concerned. Certainly, while it may seem cumbersome to some agricultural enterprises,

for their own protection it's needed. I think it's time that we do have this

sort of a check on matters of this nature.

We have an excellent veterinary laboratory in which these

diseases can be verified if there is some question in the mind

of the local veterinary, if there is a local veterinary.

Certainly, this will be of great assistance to stopping the

spreading of diseases indiscriminately throughout the

province.

In this day and age we have a much greater movement of

livestock, poultry and so on throughout the province. In a

matter of hours livestock can be moved from the lower mainland

to the Kootenays, to the Peace River country, and the disease

can travel just that fast too. It could be very devastating to

the livestock and poultry industry of this province. We know

all about Newcastle disease and things of this nature. I am

very happy to support this legislation, along with the rest of

the official opposition.

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

debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, I could just add a few

words to the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen. I am pleased

to hear him say that he knows from his own experience that we

do have an excellent lab right now. We are in the process of

expanding the laboratory facilities there.

There has been some concern expressed by cattlemen in the

province and in some instances they have to send some material

outside the province altogether. In one instance, I was told by

a cattleman that he had to send it as far away as Quebec to get

results quickly. As the Hon. Member for Boundary-Similkameen

well knows, speed is certainly very important in some

circumstances.

It will, as he suggests, possibly interfere with the

movement of livestock in and out of certain areas. But quite

apart from controlling the disease itself, which is one feature

of it, we will be able to reassure people that we are doing

everything possible to make sure that, in moving cattle and

livestock generally, we are minimizing as much as possible the

risk of moving any disease along with the animals.

I now move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Bill 31 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

[ Page 414 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 2.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MEDICAL GRANT ACT

The House in committee on Bill 2- Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2. approved.

Title approved.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31,

An Act to Amend the Medical Grant Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 10, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

AN ACT RESPECTING MEDICAL SERVICES

The House in committee on Bill 10; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 10,

An Act to Amend

an Act Respecting Medical Services ,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE VETERINARY MEDICAL ACT

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, there was a question raised

in the second reading by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) about

section 4 and I have checked this.

The changes are requested by the members of the veterinary

association themselves. If any abuses occur out of this, it is

something they will have to take up with their own council, But

certainly, this is in line with what they feel they need to do

a better job of policing their own organization.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3,

An Act to Amend the Veterinary Medical Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 5.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

AGRICULTURAL LAND DEVELOPMENT ACT

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): , I put a question to the

Minister in second reading. He indicated he had a great burden

of correspondence and he needed someone to take over some of

that from him. He did indicate he would inform me just exactly

what the burden was.

In addition, this is for the second

section but I will ask

this question at the same time so he can perhaps answer both

together. I would like to know the cost to the province of this

adjustment in indebtedness and in the position that the

province might be in with respect to other creditors. Perhaps

he might answer those two questions.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the question

section 1 as to the volume of this, I did make a count and

then forgot to comment. On the average, in the last six weeks,

it has been ten documents a day. This may not seem very much

but

[ Page 415 ]

some days there are 30 or 40 of them and this does

interfere, especially when the House is in session.

The real concern here is not so much that one doesn't have

time to sign the documents going across one's desk like that,

but it becomes just a routine thing and you sign things that

are put in front of you without really examining them. By

asking that someone else in the department give more

consideration to some of these documents when they are signed,

then asking that there be a

summary report as to just what is

being accomplished with these documents, I feel that I will be

supervising the work of my department more effectively than I

am under the present circumstances.

Shall we leave

section 2 until we come to it?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I certainly accept the Minister's statement in this

regard and we would hate to think the Minister is signing documents routinely,

not reading what he is signing, appearances to the contrary, when documents

are in front of him. But we would like to repeat our objection to this being

carried too far.

The fact is, we often discuss legislation and it is

indicated that the Minister is responsible. We then get the

impression that, somehow or other, in the Legislature we will

have the opportunity of having a fairly close watch on what

goes on. Later on, amendments of this nature come up which put

things into regulations and we lose sight of the opportunity

for correction and the opportunity to oversee, simply because

it passes into the hands of other people other than the

Minister. Instead of having legislation, it goes to regulation

and we just don't have, at the present time, adequate ways of

checking on regulations put out by the executive council. This

has been pointed out on a number of occasions, not only by

Members of the opposition.

So we would just like to register that, while we are willing

to agree with the Minister in this case, we trust that in

legislation of this nature each case will be considered

individually and that great care will be taken before Ministers

slough off their responsibility onto other people.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I think I indicated during second reading

that in some cases a large portion of these documents are

discharges of charges against property once they have been

fully paid off, charges that were registered some fifteen years

prior to this date. So there are documents like that that could

very well be signed by others. Even contracts for new work.

It would seem to me these people working in the department have to accept the

responsibility for examining these more closely and for reporting to me as Minister

as to what is happening in the province generally, particularly with respect

to the agricultural land areas, as will be designated once the work of the Land

Commission proceeds a little further along the road. It is in relation to those

areas that I am most anxious that we watch what is happening with respect to

this particular legislation.

The opportunity to question the work of the department and

my stewardship over the department will still be there in

estimates when the money is voted annually. That is not

entirely satisfactory; it happens once a year. But there is

always that opportunity to question the programme, apart from

the principle report to the Legislature on the total work of

the department.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. STUPICH: The question as to how much this would

cost was raised by the Hon. Member in second reading. I believe

I answered it when he was momentarily out of the House.

The fact that the provincial government is prepared to move

into a second position in itself will not cost anything. The

only occasion in which cost might arise would be if it were

necessary to foreclose and there was then some loss to the

second, or third, or fourth, as I suggested. It needn't be a

second position by this change, if there is any loss. I said

that the experience of the Farm Credit Corporation is

excellent. I don't recall that they have ever had to foreclose

in the Province of British Columbia. It may have happened.

I recall the throne speech debate, discussing the Hudson

report, when he reported that in the last 10 years there hadn't

been a single foreclosure in the Okanagan area, the area

generally recognized as the most depressed area in agriculture,

fruit farming, and yet in the last 10 years there hasn't been a

single foreclosure by farm credit.

So as I say, I can't really put a cost figure on this. I

expect that there will not be any foreclosures. One of the

reasons I feel fairly confident about that is that we did

introduce, and the House approved in second reading the Farm

Income Assurance Plan. And there will be further legislation

coming before the House that will make it just that much more

certain it will not be necessary to foreclose, which is the

only way we could lose under this section.

Section 2 approved.

[ Page 416 ]

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5,

An Act to Amend the Agricultural Land Development

Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third time and

passed.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Committee on Bill

7, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MILK INDUSTRY ACT

The House in committee on Bill 7; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

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

I refer to the second subsection of the new

section 16. Would

the Minister please indicate the basis for the requirement that

the name of the vendor has to be painted on a vehicle rather

than displayed, because it would seem that the permanence of

such display would dictate the ownership of the vehicle had to

be that of the vendor. It seems to me that interferes with the

ease of transport of dairy products and would seem to be unduly

restrictive.

It's quite obvious, I'm sure, that in the transportation of

dairy products the occasion may arise when vehicles other than

those of the vendor would be involved. Indeed there might be

some cooperative arrangements made among several of the

vendors and this

section would seem to be unduly restrictive.

Perhaps the Minister would indicate what circumstance has

occurred in the dairy industry which makes this essential.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a lot of unemployed painters.

MR. WILLIAMS: A lot of unemployed trucks as well.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, one has to look at the word "painted"

and see how literally that would be interpreted. If it were just a sign that

was sort of hanging loose it could be easily removed, and then there would be

no control.

The real concern is that milk be moved only by people who

have indicated that they treat milk as a highly-perishable

product, one that has to be properly cared for, properly

handled and properly stored, if it is to be moved. We insist

that this be done in vehicles that are equipped for that

purpose, and that they be prepared to identify themselves. But,

as to whether one would insist that it be actually painted or

simply affixed, perhaps affixing a plate on the truck would be

adequate.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Minister

enlarge on his comments? Does this mean that no packaged milk

can be moved by a common carrier? Because if you look at the

wording of

section 3(2), you would preclude the movement of any

packaged milk, ice cream, butter, any dairy product whatsoever

by a common carrier. If you want to run it to the fullest

extent, you could say that a farmer could not put a cream can

on the back of his truck and move it to the dairy in town if

you follow it to the letter of the law. Maybe the Minister

would comment further.

HON. MR. STUPICH: I suppose one could read it that way. All

I can — say is that it's not the

interpretation I would place on

it that one would interpret it quite that literally. What we

are talking about here are the people who are in the business

of moving milk. As you say, you could even apply it against the

farmer the way it reads. Now I can't imagine under any

circumstances that anyone charged with policing this Act would

try to use it under those circumstances. So one might perhaps

have to look beyond the letter of the law and try to imagine

circumstances where anyone would raise the question as to

whether a certain person was breaking the intent of this

legislation in moving milk.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, maybe I'd ask, now that it

has been brought up to his attention, if he could take a look

at it with a view of bringing in an amendment sometime. Because

I don't think we should have legislation that is open to

interpretation; It should be as explicit as possible. So I

would like to ask the Minister if he would give consideration

to re-checking that out and possibly bring in an amendment at a

later session.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well the suggestion has been raised on the

basis that the bill be withdrawn. I don't think that this is a

really serious suggestion in view of the other provisions in

this….

Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report

[ Page 417 ]

progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

and asks leave to sit again.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 8, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE OLEOMARGARINE ACT

House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8,

An Act to Amend the Oleomargarine Act , reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

House in committee on Bill 9, Mr. Dent in the chair.

section 1.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave of the

House to introduce an amendment to

section 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is not required in committee.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to move an amendment. The

amendment reads as follows, Mr. Chairman. It's to amend Bill 9,

the Farm Income Assurance Act ,

section 1, line 6, by adding

after the word "designate" the following words:

"Notwithstanding the provisions contained in

section 1 and

section 2 of this Act, no farm income plan described in this Act shall have

have been referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture for detailed

study and approval."

Now, in speaking to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, during

debate on the second reading of this bill our main criticism

was that the bill was very vague and that it took away from the

Legislature the right to have any input into how the farm

income plans would be drawn up. It took out of the Legislature

any input with regard to the costs of these plans and how they

would work. We also stated that this legislation, although we

agreed to it in principle, could have been done by the Minister

bringing in a motion which could have been debated in the House

and would have given him the same authority to go ahead and

deal with the principle of the Act.

Now, I feel that the government, by accepting this

amendment, will be living up to their promise of open

government; they will be living up to