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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 1157 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Shares purchased by government.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1157

Government manipulation of stock market. Mr. Morrison — 1157

Tickertape for Premier's office. Mr. Phillips — 1158

Two-price system for government pulp and paper enterprises. Mr. Wallace — 1159

Position of BCIT and WCB employees as public servants. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 1159

Sales tax on books. Mr. Wallace — 1159

Energy crisis in B.C. Mr. Phillips — 1159

Threatened strike at Gorge Road Hospital. Mr. Wallace — 1159

Contracts for building ferries. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1159

Seat on Toronto Stock Exchange. Mr. Phillips — 1160

An Act to Amend the Hospital Act (Bill 105). Hon. Mr.

Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1160

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill 96). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1160

Mr. Fraser — 1161

Mr. Curtis — 1161

Ms. Brown — 1163

Mr. Gardom — 1164

Mr. Dent — 1165

Mr. Wallace — 1165

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1166

Mrs. Jordan — 1167

Mr. Nunweiler — 1168

Point of privilege

Correction of earlier statement re pension plan shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1169

Mr. Morrison — 1169

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Municipal Act (Bill 96). Second

reading.

Mr. McGeer — 1169

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 1170

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966 (Bill 106).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1171

Mr. Gardom — 1172

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1172

An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act (Bill

102). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1172

Mr. McClelland — 1172

Mr. Gardom — 1173

Mrs. Webster — 1173

Mr. Wallace — 1173

Ms. Brown — 1173

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1173

An Act to Amend the Municipal Superannuation Act (Bill 103).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1174

An Act to Amend the Teachers' Pensions Act (Bill 104).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 1174

Petroleum Corporation Act (Bill 70). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 5.

Mr. Wallace — 1174

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1176

Division on amendment to

section 5 — 1177

section 5.

Mr. Smith — 1177

Mr. Nunweiler — 1179

Mr. Richter — 1179

Amendment to

section 9.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1180

section 10.

Mr. Smith — 1180

Amendment to

section 17.

Mr. Gardom — 1180

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1180

Mr. Gardom — 1180

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 1181

Report stage — 1181

The Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Committee

stage.

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1181

Amendment to

section 6.

Mr. Chabot — 1181

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1182

Mr. McClelland — 1182

Mr. Chabot — 1182

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1182

Mr. McGeer — 1182

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1182

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Bennett — 1182

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1183

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 1183

section 7.

Mr. McGeer — 1183

Amendment to

section 7.

Mr. Smith — 1184

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1184

Mr. Williams — 1184

Mr. McGeer — 1184

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1185

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 1185

Mr. Smith — 1186

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 1187

Mr. Wallace — 1187

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 1188

Mr. McGeer — 1188

Mr. Phillips — 1189

An Act to Amend the Registered Nurses Act (Bill 109). Hon.

Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 1191

Medical Centre of British Columbia Act (Bill 81). Hon. Mr.

Hall.

Amendments — 1191

Indian Reserves Mineral Resources Act Repeal Act (Bill 111). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 1191

The Abandoned Refrigerator Act (Bill 112). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 1191

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral questions.

SHARES PURCHASED

BY GOVERNMENT

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took as

notice two questions related to the purchase by the government

of shares. One of the questions relates to a question on the

order paper, Mr. Speaker, but because of the nature of the

question I think it's appropriate that I answer it as well as

the first question asked yesterday and relate it all to

question 118.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Before you proceed I would ask

leave of the House for him to answer a question that's already

on the order paper. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The first question asked yesterday: were

shares purchased in Afton Mines, Westcoast Transmission or

Kaiser Resources? I was quite sure yesterday at that time that

the answer was no, but because of question 118 on the order

paper I waited until today. The answer is definitely no. Nor

are there any in existence from the previous

administration.

Question 2: Have any shares been purchased in the B.C.

Telephone company? The answer is yes. We now, through our

pension plan, hold 36,675 shares in the B.C. Telephone Company

and the value is $1,915,971.91. These have been purchased on

the open market.

In relating this to question 118, Mr. Speaker — because these

matters do affect the stock market — it is important the House

know that in coming into office, a perusal indicated that

outside of municipal bonds, Hydro bonds, and other Crown

corporation bonds, the people of British Columbia were in

possession of 42,100 Bank of B.C. common shares — the total is

the current total; there have been some additions since come

into office.

We also have 1,200 CPR shares — not enough for controlling

interest (Laughter); Imperial Oil, 3,000; International Nickel,

450; United Accumulated, 36.

Our first acquisition of B.C. Telephone shares came this

summer when we took over the Children's Aid Society of

Victoria. At that time we were in receipt of part of their

assets — some 300 shares. That, Mr. Speaker, is the absolute

information.

I think it's most appropriate that the Member asked the

question, and I'm sorry I didn't have the detail yesterday. But

it was necessary to answer it in detail, and this is exactly

where we stand now. I will table as a return all of the

detailed information requested under question 118, with

leave.

Leave granted.

GOVERNMENT MANIPULATION

OF STOCK MARKET

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

address my question to the Minister of Finance.

Because the Revenue Act permits the government to buy shares

in the open market, what precautions is the Minister of Finance

using to prevent insiders from profiting from government

manipulation of the marketplace?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to avoid any inference of

government manipulation of the market, the purchases we've made

are made in the same practice that the preceding government

made.

We went through existing houses, and at no time with those

houses did we attempt to hide the fact that it was the

Government of British Columbia making the purchases. It was

information readily available. The existing houses were acting

as our agent and they were not under instruction to keep the

information a secret. As a matter of fact, it was on-the-street

knowledge among the dealers up to this time.

MR. MORRISON: But at that point, Mr. Speaker, the government

did not have the right, as Bill 74 allows them, to let the

Minister of Finance buy and sell as he sees fit. May I add that

the experience of trying to find that it was on the street and

was common knowledge was extremely difficult. This certainly

was not the case this last two or three days.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under the bill that was passed during the

last session we had the authority. The first purchases were

made in August of this year. We have no way of knowing how the

houses share information on what other institutions buy — such

as mutual funds and other investment groups. We have taken the

standard open approach through the existing houses. Those

houses acted as arm's-length agents for the government through

the Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question

on the same particular matter, Mr. Speaker.

In today's issue of the Vancouver Province there's

[ Page 1158 ]

an

article which indicates the government has halted the

sale of a forest firm. There's a direct quote from the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) which

says: "While this company dominates the forest economy of the

east Kootenay,"— and he's talking about Crestbrook — "this transfer would have given them the dominant role over the

whole Kootenay Lake basin in the west Kootenay as well."

The government was of the opinion that so dominant an equity

position in an important region of the province should be in

Canadian hands. I ask the Minister of Finance: are the

"Canadian hands" that are referred to by the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) the hands of

the Government of the Province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Citizens in the Province of British

Columbia are Canadians, but "Canadian hands" includes anyone

who is a Canadian citizen.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental then, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact

today that the shares of Crestbrook have been depressed by $1

per share trading on the market today as compared to trading on

the market yesterday. Does the Minister of Finance think that

the announcement by his Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources had in any way any effect on the trading of shares of

Crestbrook?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under standing orders, or rather

under the rules with regard to questions, you must not ask a

question for the purpose of setting forward for argument

matters that are argumentative — or in this case it would be

theoretical or speculative.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Speaker, that's not theoretical.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would

disagree with your ruling. On the contrary, it is absolutely

important for the government to answer the question raised by

the Member so that incorrect speculation does not go abroad in

the community.

MR. SPEAKER: Well the speculation part of it has already

taken place in the form of the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR. SPEAKER: If the House wants an answer it is entirely in

the hands of the House. Is it agreed that the government

answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: So ordered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, but in an instance

like this with a delicate speculative question, I think it is

absolutely essential that the House answer; otherwise I'd be

forced to answer in the corridor.

In my opinion the blocking of that sale has not affected

Crestwood adversely because they were the purchasers….

AN HON. MEMBER: Crestbrook?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Crestbrook. They were not the sellers,

they were the buyers. It has not affected them in any way. This

is not an unusual….

AN HON. MEMBER: It's buy and sell.

HON. MR. BARRETT: People can interpret anything in any way

they want. But in this instance it was a routine matter of

government procedure, just as the previous administration was

faced with decisions.

The Minister announced his decision, which was only proper,

as he has a legal responsibility so to do. He announced his

decision; what people do after that decision is not a matter of

government policy.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask, Mr. Speaker,

whether the government is at present engaged in negotiating the

purchase or considering the purchase of Kootenay Forest

Products?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The answer is no.

TICKERTAPE FOR

PREMIER'S OFFICE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, now that

the Minister of Finance is playing the stock market with the

taxpayers' money, does he plan to have a tickertape installed

in his office?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a good question. It's….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Order. Of course, that should

not be dignified with an answer because it is ironical and

ironical questions are not permitted, as the Member knows.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's a perfectly legitimate question.

Interjections.

[ Page 1159 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR

GOVERNMENT PULP AND PAPER ENTERPRISES

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

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources whether the

provincial government, through the pulp and paper enterprises

that it is involved in, has developed any two-price system or

differential in prices for the domestic market as compared to

export markets?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

POSITION OF BCIT AND WCB EMPLOYEES

AS PUBLIC SERVANTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A question to the Provincial Secretary,

Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister received representations from

BCIT and the Workmen's Compensation Board employees asking for

clarification of their position as public servants?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Yes, I've received

letters from both groups and individuals working for those

government areas of endeavour.

MR. D.A, ANDERSON: May I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, as

to whether or not he will meet with representatives of these

groups who are concerned about their position prior to the

introduction of Bill 75 for further reading?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I don't intend to be meeting with them,

but my staff are.

SALES TAX ON BOOKS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask in a lighter

vein the Minister of Finance that

whereas there is a sales tax

on Plato but not on Playboy , is he considering removing the tax

on books?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since I am familiar only with

Plato I am not in a position to give a qualified answer at this

time. (Laughter.)

ENERGY CRISIS IN B.C.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to direct a question to the

Minister of Finance. In view of the energy crisis in British

Columbia, does the Minister of Finance plan to invest in the

Quasar corporation, who have the hottest gas field in British

Columbia in the Monkman Pass area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can't accept touting in the

House, nor can I answer that as it is speculative.

AN HON. MEMBER: Insider.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. That's touting in the

House.

THREATENED STRIKE

AT GORGE ROAD HOSPITAL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), I wonder if I could ask the acting

Minister of Health if there are contingency plans available to

deal with the very real threat of a strike of hospital workers

at the Gorge Road Hospital.

HON. MR. HALL: I will take that as notice for the Minister

whom I expect to be in touch with me by phone at about 6

o'clock this evening.

CONTRACTS FOR BUILDING FERRIES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Transport and

Communications, Mr. Speaker, if I can get his attention.

I wonder whether he could reply at this time whether or not

he will be tabling in this House documents dealing with the

contracts for the ferries and the specifications given to the

Canadian as well as the United States firms prior to the rising

of the House some time next week.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I think

you asked that question yesterday.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I asked that question and the answer I

received was that you were still considering the matter. My

question now is whether or not you will consider the matter and

come to some conclusion some time in the future prior to the

House rising.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You asked if I would consider the matter

and the answer is yes.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, the second question.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm considering them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I take this as a commitment that you

will make a decision on tabling those documents prior…?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll consider it.

[ Page 1160 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I remind the Hon. Member of

page 147, Beauchesne , item (c). The Hon. Member knows the

section quite well; he's been in the House of Commons.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, absolutely by heart, Mr. Speaker. The

question I'm asking, however, is whether or not we are going to

get a reply to this question that is under consideration.

MR. SPEAKER: And that is item (c), page 147 where it says

that you can't expect one.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I realize that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I said, yes, the matter is under

consideration.

SEAT ON TORONTO

STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to address my question to the

Minister of Finance. Now the Minister of Finance is playing the

stock market with the taxpayers' money, does he plan to buy a

seat on the Toronto Stock Exchange?

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the Vancouver?

AN HON. MEMBER: How much are they?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that Member wants information

that I'm not even prepared to give him in the corridor.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Open government. (Laughter.)

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE HOSPITAL ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

An Act to Amend the

Hospital Act.

Bill 105 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 96, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE MUNICIPAL ACT

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

second reading of the bill, I would like to mention a few of

the major changes. Possibly we could deal more specifically

with the bill when we get into committee stage.

I think the first item is the question of who can vote at

municipal elections and on referendums and such. The change has

been that now the vote is given to the resident in the area the

property qualifications are no longer valid, and only those who

are residents can vote. The purpose of this is of course

basically to give the residents the vote, not only in municipal

elections but also in regard to the money bylaws and so on.

It is hoped that in agreement with and cooperation with my

colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall), eventually

there will be a common voters' list for both provincial and

municipal elections.

You will note that there are a number of sections in the

bill which deal with changing the mechanics and the

requirements of the voting procedures — and these changes are

picked directly and quoted directly from the Provincial

Elections Act — to bring these more closely into line.

There is a change on the question of amalgamations. At the

present time there are three or four sections dealing with

amalgamations, and the bill turns those into one

section which

gives a vote on an overall basis, quite similar to one of the

sections already there. The other sections dealing with

amalgamations no longer will be in force. The votes on

amalgamation will be over 50 per cent for passage. Likewise,

the votes on other matters in the municipalities will be

changed from 60 per cent to 50 per cent on money bylaws and

other referendums.

The question of who may run for office: anyone may run for

office in any municipality whether that person resides in the

municipality or not. This is not correct in areas where there

is already provision in letters patent, as in Kamloops and

Kelowna. The letters patent in those areas dictate that the

person running for office must be a resident of a certain

locality or certain ward. So it doesn't apply in those

particular cases that have their procedures outlined in letters

patent. In other ones that do not, anyone from any

municipality, whether he is resident or not, may run in another

municipality for elective office.

It allows the municipalities to tax on a regional hospital

district basis within the municipality. At the present time,

this is not provided. This will increase the tax assessments

for regional districts and for

[ Page 1161 ]

municipalities within the municipality.

I have already mentioned the change of the votes from 60 per

cent to over 50 per cent. There are some provisions for further

investments in credit unions.

There is a question which has caused some concern: the

notice of rezonings to residents. Changes were made last year

in the spring session. It will be changed so that only notices

need go directly to the occupants or residents of the areas,

whether they are the owners or not. In other words, the owners

will not necessarily get direct notice. They will receive

notice through the advertisements in the papers. The

municipalities will only be required to notify the residents in

the areas involved.

I think those are the major changes. There are a number of

other housekeeping provisions which I think might well be

better dealt with in committee, Mr. Speaker.

I might say that I have spent much more time on that side of

the House than on this side of the House, and I realize the

problems faced by the opposition in getting a great number of

bills toward the end of the session. I wanted to assist them in

being able to review the Municipal Act . If you take your pencil

and paper out, I will give you a quick method of looking at

it.

If you deal with sections 1 to 32, I think you might class

that as iron-heeled legislation. From 33 to 64 you class that

as blank-cheque legislation, and from 65 to 96 it's awesome

power. (Laughter.)

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I enjoyed the remarks of the Hon.

Minister in closing. As far as the opposition is concerned, we

haven't too much to say about this. We are in favour of these

amendments, the great majority of them. We agree with the

Minister that we can talk about them in the committee stage,

the ones that we don't like. The majority of them are pretty

good.

Referring to the voting and the structure of who can vote

now, that's a good approach and probably should have come in

long before now. The fact of reducing the percentage from 60 to

50 per cent is also good; it means that a simple majority is

now all that is required. I might say that the cost of

preparation of the voters list is going to be an increased load

on the municipalities. I would hope that the government would

consider this when they are looking in the budget for the next

fiscal year because it will probably cost the municipalities

of the province about $1 million to prepare the voters list

that is required to be done by June, 1974. I don't think that

they should carry this load, Mr. Speaker.

As the Minister well knows, there are a lot of things in here, but there isn't

any extra money that the municipalities have been asking the Minister for. I

would just like to comment here that I am not so sure that the municipalities

of this province are going about getting more funds in the proper way by forever

asking for sharing of revenues of the provincial government — such as the gas

tax and other forms of revenue. I think they should be taking the approach,

perhaps, of reducing the liabilities that the provincial government has on them,

which are a great cost to them. I refer to the cost of policing and to the cost

of welfare.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that the present Minister of

Municipal Affairs has done enough on this to convince his

colleagues, the Attorney General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) and the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), of what a

financial load these two things are. In my opinion, they should

be totally the responsibility of the province. It is costing

them millions of dollars to assume these functions. I don't

think they should be financially responsible for either one of

them. Rather than try to get increased revenue, I think they

should be working on an approach toward getting reduced the

costs that are hung on them by the province. Of course, in that

way they will be better off financially.

There is a comment or two I would like to make, back on the

amendments that regional government is going to be strengthened

at the cost of the organized municipalities. I hope that this

is not the case because that wasn't really the concept of

regional government when it was first brought in in this

Legislature. I wasn't here, but I believe it was brought in in

1965. I've heard it discussed out on the hustings. It was

brought in by a unanimous vote of this Legislature. There was

no opposition at all to the regionalization at that time. As I

say, I hope that these amendments don't get the regional

districts in the position that they are dictating to the real

base municipalities in their area.

The boundary extensions and amalgamations are always a

vexing problem to municipalities. This now really gives an

overall vote, as I understand it, in the municipality as well

as the annexed area. I hope it resolves the problems that have

always been raised in these vexing matters. I don't think in

here, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be any sign of any more of

the Kamloops- or Kelowna-type forced amalgamations. I am sure

that the Minister realizes the problems that were created. I

don't think we will see any more of them.

We will certainly go along with this at second reading and

have more to say at the third reading in the committee stage on

the individual amendments.

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

think that committee stage of reading Bill 96 will perhaps be

more productive in terms of exchanging points of view between

various Members of the opposition and the Minister responsible

for Municipal Affairs.

[ Page 1162 ]

I looked through the bill when it was introduced and reacted

pretty positively to it as far as I could on the basis of first

reading. I was really shaken, however, when the mayor of

Victoria also endorsed it. I hurried back and read it again to

make sure that there was not something there which I had missed

on the first run through.

I think that the question of one person, one vote is rather

overdue in British Columbia. I know that there are a number of

business people in the province who will express concern about

this. Some have expressed that concern already. I am sure the

Minister has received some correspondence since the bill was

introduced.

There is a feeling of being disenfranchised on the part of

business individuals who have taken the franchise very

seriously and have exercised it on a regular basis. I think it

would be wrong to make sweeping generalizations, but I have the

feeling that in many communities the business person has not

taken full advantage of the franchise which has been available

to him or her for many, many years in this province. Now that

it is being removed, they will obviously make some pretty

strong statements with respect to the removal.

It seems to me that if there's one person, one vote at the

federal level, one person, one vote provincially, then the same

should apply in municipal or regional district voting.

I am a little concerned about the business tenant. I really

don't have any suggestions, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister at

this point. Again, this may come out when we get into

committee; other speakers may have some ideas. The small

business man who is a tenant in a municipality in which he does

not reside perhaps is losing some rights here. Indeed, the same

could be said of the concerned small business person, as an

example, who lives in Oak Bay or Esquimalt or Saanich but

operates some sort of premises in downtown Victoria. I'm not

entirely comfortable about that, but there may be some way to

assist those people in subsequent amendments.

The question of cost with respect to the enumeration which is instructed by

the bill is something which I trust the Minister and the government will direct

himself and itself to very, very seriously. In a radio broadcast in which we

participated just a short while ago, the Minister said — in a light-hearted way,

he indicated later — that municipalities are wealthy. Well, he served on a municipal

council, he's the Minister responsible for local government in British Columbia,

and he knows that that is not the case. He knows that in the crunch every spring

at budget time it's the sidewalk or the road or the drainage improvement or

the essential items which have to be cut to hold the mill rate down. I hope

he won't give us the usual pat answer with respect to reserves — the operating

capital for municipalities put aside a little bit at a time every year.

Mr. Speaker, I think the government should realize that in

the sections of this Act calling for door-to-door enumeration

or almost every member visitation, as some might call it,

there's going to be a fair expense involved.

I've asked for a couple of examples and was given one in

this general area. We're looking at perhaps $15,000 to carry

out the enumeration which is specified in the bill. That's only

in the field; that's just getting the people out to make sure

they have canvassed every resident in every

section of the

municipality. It would take, in this example, 30 enumerators

about six weeks to do the job, providing they're really well

trained and well prepared before they move out into the field.

They could be paid on a variety of bases: salary plus

incentive, so many cents for a new name, so many cents (a

little lower figure) for confirmation. But the $15,000 does not

include the associated clerical expense once that information

is brought back to the municipal hall.

I think it's a very serious lack in this fairly

comprehensive change to the Municipal Act that there is not

some means whereby the provincial government, which we are told

is doing very well financially thank you, would share in that

cost, with the municipalities carrying out the direction of the

Minister and the provincial government.

For quite some time I have felt very strongly about the move

towards a computerized voters list, ideally for all three

levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. I'm

pleased to hear the Minister's comments with respect to a

common voters list between the provincial and municipal voter.

Perhaps when the opportunity presents itself, he could

investigate the possibility of discussing this at the federal

level as well.

Surely in these days of extremely sophisticated EDP systems

we could have an effective and efficient data-processed voters

list. You could break out for a municipal election those names,

for a provincial election you could break out those names, and

the same, of course, at the federal level — this

notwithstanding the variations in boundaries between a

provincial electoral area and a municipality or a regional

district electoral area. It can be done and I would hope the

Minister and the Provincial Secretary would address themselves

to that possibility at the earliest opportunity.

I also wonder, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, with the change

in the status of voters from owner-electors to electors, what

is going to happen with respect to voting dealing with school

referenda matters. This, I assume, would involve a change in

the Public Schools Act . Is there to be companion legislation?

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) nods. There is to

be companion legislation? Might we expect that

[ Page 1163 ]

at this session, Mr. Speaker? I wasn't sure if that's a nod.

It is a nod. Very well, it's indicated then that there will be

companion legislation with respect to voting which deals with

schools or the operation of schools.

Under the

section noted "awesome powers" by the Minister, or

was it "blank cheque" — I'm not sure which — I would just like

to make one final observation with respect to amalgamations. It

was interesting to note the decision handed down by the

electorate in Vancouver city just a few days ago.

I feel very strongly that there is a population unit in

local government beyond which the individual citizen can very

easily lose touch with his municipally-elected representatives,

or regional district representatives in the case of regional

district government. I'm not sure what the exact figure is.

Many people more qualified than I am to comment on this have

written papers and presented material over the years throughout

Canada and the United States dealing with the ideal local

government size.

I subscribe and identify my subscription to the view that

bigger is not necessarily better. Whatever it is — 50,000

persons, 75,000, 100,000, 125,000 — it is essential for the

people in this province to be able to reach their mayor or

their alderman fairly easily on a matter which might be as

simple as a drainage ditch or a dangerous intersection or a

sidewalk which is in need of repair as well as the larger and

more important issues.

I think it would be extremely unfortunate if someone in the

Department of Municipal Affairs, or the Minister himself, moved

towards establishing local government units which were in the

order of 150,000, 200,000, 250,000 persons. It simply changes

the style of local government and we would lose a great deal, a

great deal indeed, if an individual citizen with an individual

problem could not pick up the phone and have reasonable

assurance of getting in touch with a member of council and

getting the call returned or having the letter answered, or

whatever it might be, within a couple of days.

I know examples have been cited in rebuttal to this

argument, that Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto don't seem to have

the problem. But you don't reach the mayor in those cities if

you are Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Average Citizen. You don't get near

the mayor. You are lucky, in fact, to get near the alderman.

You will hear from an assistant or a senior secretary, or you

will be referred from one department to another.

While I can appreciate the need for the extension of

boundaries in certain areas, the amalgamation of certain other

areas, I would most strenuously urge the Minister to avoid this

North American trend to bigness in local government.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, very briefly I'd like

to speak in support of this bill, specifically to say that the only fly in the

ointment as far as I'm concerned is that so many of the benefits accruing to

the municipalities under this bill will not affect Vancouver because we operate

under the Vancouver Charter. I am supporting this bill in the real hope that

when the Minister gets around to looking at the Vancouver Charter, he will incorporate

in the charter some of the very good things that he's doing in this bill.

I'm particularly pleased with the acceptance of the concept

of one person, one vote. I realize that it's going to be almost

impossible to ensure that everyone gets on the voters list.

Coming from a riding which has so many tenants living in it,

where so many of the members are tenants, so many of the

population do not own their homes but are renters, I would like

to suggest that probably one way of ensuring that they don't

fall in between enumerations and find themselves off the voters

list when an election is due is to consider making it automatic

for the landlord or the apartment owner, whoever it is, to

register their tenant on the list as soon as the tenant moves

into a home. This way, even with the door-to-door enumeration

which takes place and often misses so many people because

they're not at home, or they're out of the city or whatever,

they still would be covered.

I'm particularly pleased with the decision to have a joint

voters list, provincial and municipal, and would like to

suggest that at the same time we look at the business of

polling stations. One of the problems we have in the city, Mr.

Speaker, is that if you have three different elections you tend

to vote in three different places. It really can be quite

confusing, especially for those people who don't take very good

care to save their polling cards.

Really, I'm not quite sure why it's not possible to have the

same polling station for provincial elections as you have for

civic elections, especially in those instances where the

polling stations are in government buildings or churches or

community centres, or places like that. I realize that in some

instances the polling stations are in basement suites and in

private homes, and this may not be possible. But I certainly

would like to urge the Minister very strongly to look at the

whole business of making the polling station boundaries and the

polling stations pretty much the same for all elections.

I'm also pleased with the decision to eliminate the

corporate vote and the absentee vote. This is one

recommendation that I would specifically like to speak for on

behalf of the Vancouver Charter when the Minister gets around

to changing it.

Also sections 206 and 207 — the ones dealing with funding.

The municipal assessment base, I think, would be much more

beneficial to us in Vancouver than the one which we presently

enjoy.

[ Page 1164 ]

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the decision to make money bylaws and

referenda decided on a 50 per cent vote is one which has my

complete support, also something which I would like to see

incorporated in the Vancouver Charter. Thank you.

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

greatest single problem municipalities are facing today is

something that's unfortunately not covered in this bill, and

that's shortage of money.

We note that in 1970 the B.C. government estimate of budget

was $1,165 million and this spring the Premier came in with an

estimate of revenue of $1,722 million. If I recall correctly,

the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer), in his

once again more correct Liberal budget, came in with estimated

revenues of $1,850 million. I would say as we said before, that

he's far closer to the truth than the Premier was in his

estimates.

But we noticed that in the spring the government raised the

per capita grant to the municipalities $2 — from $30 to $32 — and it's always been my suggestion that the fairest thing to do

with the municipalities is put them on a similar basis of

increase-decrease as is facing the provincial coffers.

Utilizing those figures we would see the municipalities having

a 48 per cent increase as opposed to a 6.65 per cent increase

in per capita grants and which would have given them for the

year 1973 a per capita grant of $48 as opposed to a per capita

grant of $32.

The former administration, unfortunately, seemed to treat

the municipalities as foundlings of the provincial government.

And it is indeed regretful to me that the current

administration has seen fit to follow the same course.

We've never yet had a single word from the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), whose silence has indeed

been deafening, as to why this government is not tying

municipal per capita revenues into provincial revenues and

permitting the municipalities to have the necessary funds to do

that which they have to do.

I think the statistics that the Minister's department could

afford him…and it would be delightful if he would afford

them to the House so all of the Members of the House could have

them at their fingertips as well as the people in the province.

I think the figures that his department would afford him would

be that the costs of running a municipality have greatly

increased, as opposed to the costs of running the provincial

government. Yet the return to the municipalities has been

miserly to say the least; they've always had to come

cap-in-hand; they're still in the position of having to come

cap-in-hand to this government for assistance.

I'd also wish that we had found within the legislation something that would

have been indicating a new direction, a new idea — something that the government

would say they're prepared to break some ground with — and that was that income

tax relief could be provided for individual purchases of municipal bonds to

the extent that the interest income they would receive would come into their

hands tax free. This, of course, we all appreciate would have to be worked in

conjunction with the federal government, but there's no reason why B.C. couldn't

take the initiative and indeed say itself that it would be prepared to waive

its proportion of income tax on that particular kind of interest income. This

is the procedure that's been followed to a great extent in the United States

of America, and obviously with a great deal of success.

There is an item in the bill that does give me a

considerable amount of concern: that is the deletion of the

corporate vote. I indeed agree with the rather obvious facts

that have been before all of us over the past five or six

years, that in some instances the corporate vote was abused.

I'm not tolerating that for one second. But we've got to

remember that corporations are just a group of people in common

concert and it's their intention to carry on a business or

vocation for their mutual gain and benefit. As long as they're

lawful in their non-polluting and taxpaying vocation, they

certainly should be entitled to have representation.

I gather this to be my

interpretation of the Act and if I'm

wrong I hope the Minister would correct me, but if I am

correct, I do think it's disgraceful that we can find a

situation of a corporation within a municipality carrying on

business within a municipality, owning land, paying all of the

necessary municipal taxes, and it not being entitled to have a

single solitary vote. That of course is quite possible wherein

the employees or the management of the corporation are the

owners of the corporation. It could be a corporation of two or

three shareholders — or even one, under the Attorney General's

new Companies Act , and you have a sole corporation. So the

Attorney General could be incorporated, his corporation be

within the City of Vancouver, be a taxpayer; he would live

outside of the city and he would not be entitled to have any

kind of a vote in city administration. Perhaps I'm not really

being too wise in using the city as an example, because I

appreciate, as do the other Members, that it is affected by the

city charter, but perhaps substitute for Vancouver the words

"New Westminster."

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): I'm a poor example

too, I've just got one vote.

MR. GARDOM: You're the richest example I know, Mr. Attorney

General. (Laughter.) I'm not suggesting a duplicity of vote at

all, and it's too bad the Attorney General construed it that

way. I hope that

[ Page 1165 ]

I'm making myself clear, at least to the Minister. If I'm

not, I apologize for that fact.

I'm not suggesting a double vote; I'm suggesting that if

there is a corporation within a municipality, it is taxpaying,

it's carrying on its vocation, it should be entitled to have

representation because otherwise we're right back to the

general situation over which wars have been fought for

centuries and centuries — taxation without representation. I'd

like to hear the Minister's comments on these remarks when he

stands up to close the debate in his usual capable manner.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I stand in support of this bill. I

think it's long overdue. Our only regret is that it wasn't

introduced in time for the municipal elections this fall.

One point I would make, though, and that is I would agree

partially with the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) and the

Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) in

regard to an improved financial formula for aiding

municipalities.

I draw the attention of the House particularly to the plight

of Terrace. Terrace finds itself a bedroom community providing

living accommodation for many of the people who work in

Kitimat, which has a very good assessment base and is able to

afford its services much more than Terrace can. Yet Terrace is

obliged to provide services for many of the people that work at

Alcan without that same tax base. This is grossly unfair to the

district of Terrace, and I would hope that in the not too far

distant future there will be some measures to rectify that kind

of situation.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague

from Saanich (Mr. Curtis) makes plain, we will support this

bill. Many of the suggestions are overdue, such as allowing

tenants to vote on money bylaws, and so on.

But my colleague from Saanich said that he was uncomfortable

about a certain aspect of the bill. I'm a great deal more

concerned than being just uncomfortable. I plainly oppose

it.

I'm talking about the small businessman who has his business

in Victoria, let us say, and lives in Oak Bay. That

businessman, Mr. Speaker, should have some say in who

represents him in terms of spending taxpayers' money which he

as a taxpayer operating a business, let us say, pays in the

city. He should have some say in how he is represented in the

taxing of his business.

This idea that a corporation is some godless, faceless, amorphous mass that

does not involve people and money has really been overplayed, I would suggest,

in this bill. The fact is that this rather simplistic, one man, one vote statement

is certainly true at the federal and provincial level. But at the municipal

level, Mr. Speaker, we're talking about property which a person owns and on

which he or she pays taxes, and that these taxes are decided by the deliberation

of elected individuals.

I think that while one vote, one person at the federal and

provincial level makes no sense at all to disenfranchise a

person — particularly the smaller business person who has a

small enough and a narrow enough base of influence already — when, in fact, he or she is paying taxes on that business which

is operated within a municipality other than the one where they

live.

If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, there's the very obvious

inconsistency which the Minister has already admitted — I

believe publicly — that when it comes to the matter of local

improvement bylaws, the corporation or the small businessman

living outside the municipality will have a vote. Maybe the

Minister would like to comment on that.

We have an example in Victoria right now where there are

proposals to develop a mall on Government Street. Technically

and literally, if we follow the provisions of these amendments,

there are no residents in that area of any number at all; but

there are a whole group of businessmen whose livelihood and

income and welfare, in the business sense, are at stake by

whatever changes might be made in creating that mall.

Surely you're not going to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the

only people who would vote on that would be the residents and

not the businessmen — who probably outnumber the residents, but

who happen to live in another municipality. I suggest that if

the conclusion of government is that the businesses or the

business owners in these cases of local improvement bylaws are

to have a vote there, then I think that is quite inconsistent

with them not being able to vote on other municipal matters

which affect the taxes they will be contributing to the

municipality.

As I said earlier, I like the bill generally. Most of the

points we'll cover in committee are progressive steps. We'll

certainly support it. But I think the impression of the

light-hearted way in which the Minister has just suddenly taken

away the right of businessmen to vote in the municipality where

their business is located and where, in fact, they are paying

very substantial taxes, I think, is totally unfair. I can't

understand the reasoning behind this.

The Second Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) alluded to

abuses which had been perpetrated by corporations in the past.

I have to confess that I'm not aware of what these abuses were

or how frequent they were. But I do know, from talking to

businessmen in this community and listening to their attitudes

and looking at the comments of the aldermen in the City of

Victoria — I don't think my colleague from Saanich (Mr. Curtis)

should be too concerned to find that every now and again he

can

[ Page 1166 ]

agree with Mayor Pollen — that the kind of comments that are

forthcoming about a vendetta against the businessmen who pay

their business tax in Victoria and live in one of the other

municipalities are a disruptive thing. Surely the Minister

should be trying to strengthen relationships between his

department and the elected municipal officials.

One of the comments that I don't completely agree with

mentions that this is "smacking of the development of class

warfare." I don't know whether this amendment that the

Minister's bringing in in this Act does represent some kind of

attack on a certain class of people who happen to own

property.

As I said earlier, the one vote, one man theory is all very

correct and reasonable on provincial and federal levels, but

where the sole question of the municipal vote is concerned, it

involves a person paying taxes for services to property which

he owns in a certain place in the province.

I just can't understand, Mr. Speaker, why this attitude

should be taken. If there is some reason that has not been

discussed in this House or if the Minister has some information

or examples of abuses which we should know about, I would like

to know what the abuses are, and I would like to know, more

particularly, if he would reconsider this amendment because to

me it seems quite unjust. It contradicts a basic concept — at

least I think it's a basic concept in our society — that if

you're contributing taxation which is raised and distributed by

elected officials, surely to goodness the people putting up the

tax money should have some say in choosing these elected

officials. It's just that simple.

While I like the rest of the bill and have few reservations

about the other clauses, I'm sorry that I have to hammer away

at this with a great deal of feeling because I think it is just

unfair and unjust that people who happen to pay taxes in one

municipality and live in another, should have no say whatever

in electing the people who will have a great deal to do with

the raising and distribution of that tax money. I do hope the

Minister will reconsider.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, this bill that

we have today is good in principle in that we have an attempt

to get tenants to vote and avoid the situation which has

occurred in the past whereby tenants, unless they take

particularly careful steps, are not on any voters list and, of

course, are barred from money bylaws.

However, in trying to achieve that laudable objective, we are at the same time

— as has been mentioned by the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) in discussions

of the businessmen in Victoria — going a long way to denying the right of people

to have their voices heard prior to being taxed, a right that goes right back

to well before the American Revolution. The rebellion of the 13 colonies, as

perhaps we should call it, was based on this principle; it was a major factor

— the right of representation when they were taxed.

Now I'm not suggesting that the businessmen of Victoria will

rise up in righteous anger over this; there aren't that many

people concerned. There are only, I believe, about 250. But the

concept is there. I trust that the Minister will be bringing

forth amendments to take care of this when the bill is before

us at the committee stage.

Certainly it's a laudable objective to have the tenants

voting. I'm a tenant myself in the City of Victoria, I own no

property in this community, and I appreciate that this right

will not just be the right of my landlord on all the money

bylaws and things of that nature. But the fact is that we

should not wipe out one class of citizens who are voters in our

efforts to get another class in.

The real problem is not a question of who's on the list, but

how few of them vote. In Vancouver less than 25 per cent of the

people who are eligible to vote voted. That's the problem, not

whether 250 people perhaps should be knocked off the list.

The difficulty that I see here is that we've set up a

system, a bill here, with a system incorporated into it which

is very cumbersome. In the case of hard-fought decisions by a

city council — and I'm thinking again specifically of my own

community of Victoria — there can be a large number of people

who want to overturn a decision, making use of the changes

we're bringing in today with respect to notice and notification

of every elector, every tenant, and, thus, somehow or another

thwarting the wishes of their duly elected council.

If there's any real problem in my mind it's the fact that we

have very few people voting. With this legislation we're going

to make it easier for people to overturn, or at least attack,

civic bylaws on the grounds that not every tenant was

notified.

We know that, on the average, the normal North American

moves every three years. In this area with three surrounding

municipalities and a number of districts as well, it's quite

likely they'll move in or out of the Victoria city area. The

difficulty of keeping the lists as are envisaged by this

legislation is going to be very, very great.

The fact is that the Municipal Officers' Association — the

people who are actually the nuts-and-bolts operators at the

level of keeping these lists and making sure that the correct

notification is sent out — have objected somewhat strongly to

this type of legislation because they know the practical

difficulties. While this is not necessarily the principle of

the bill, I think it's pretty much a major part of it.

When you change things so radically perhaps you are setting

up a system which will become — and in the opinion of many of

these municipal officers will certainly become — unworkable.

[ Page 1167 ]

While we in this party can accept the principle of putting

tenants on the electoral rolls, and having them as electors

instead of just the owner-electors, I trust that the Minister

will be sympathetic when we bring forward amendments. In fact,

perhaps he would like to bring forward some amendments himself

to take care of the difficulties that this type of legislation,

which is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water,

is engendering. We will be bringing these forward in second

reading.

We appreciate the concept he is bringing forward, but we

would urge the Minister to go back and before we get to the

committee stage start considering amendments — in particular

amendments along the line of the Municipal Officers'

Association criticisms — so that this legislation can at least

be made workable. This, as I mentioned earlier, is of

particular importance in the capital city which, at the present

time, has great fears that this legislation will make it

virtually impossible for them to notify people in accordance

with the Act, and therefore make it virtually impossible for

them to be sure that their bylaws will not be challenged on the

grounds that there has been a lack of notification to some or

other tenant.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I don't want to repeat,

really, what the other Members have said, but there are two or

three points that I do want to touch on because I think in

representing a non-metropolitan riding I can reflect some of

their views that haven't yet been stated.

The first one, of course, is the problem in extending the

franchise to one group of voters — the tenants — and then in

turn disenfranchising another group of voters. I must agree in

principle and philosophy that I think this is wrong. I

recognize that the Minister claims that he is trying to

overcome some abuses. I must join with the Member for Oak Bay

(Mr. Wallace) in suggesting that we would like to have evidence

of these abuses.

There is some risk in every avenue. There is the risk in

terms of extending the vote to all tenants that you are

extending to some, and I am sure very few, irresponsible

tenants a franchise that they might well abuse. It might well

be, conversely, that the odd company vote was abused.

When one looks at the system, and I believe I have it correctly, a company,

no matter how big, only had one vote, just as one person, no matter how small,

has one vote. In a small community — and I would like to liken the major community

in the area that I have the honour to represent, Vernon — there are many people

who live in Lumby but have their business in Vernon. In fact, one of them serves

on the Vernon council. This person will be eligible to run for council but not

eligible to vote on a money bylaw, yet he is eligible to pay his taxes and contribute

to the community. This seems most inconsistent.

It can happen the other way around. In Vernon at this time

we have a mayor who has a business in the community, who

remarried and now lives out of the community. So he will be,

under this legislation, in the most interesting position of

being mayor of the community, living outside of the community,

having a business in the community, being able to run the

community but not able to vote in the community, as I

understand it.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: It's a good thing. You might have lost, Mr.

Attorney General. In trying to cure a minor problem, you are

creating an anomaly. I wonder, when the Minister considers

this, if he wouldn't think in terms of perhaps, as there is

now, one vote for one company, with the voting person for that

company also owning a home in that town and having that vote,

but limiting the representation to your home property and one

company. I wonder if this, in fact, might help the

situation.

In speaking to this, as I say, I must reiterate that the

principle of disenfranchising a legitimate taxpayer, and

hundreds and thousands of average taxpayers in British Columbia

on the terms so far given, cannot be accepted in itself.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) mentioned

her great joy at the enfranchising of renters, and I share

this. I think this is a good thing, but I would ask the

Minister: in relation to this what precautions have you built

in or do you intend to build in to keep this from being a very

different type of effect in the rural areas?

I was thinking in terms of a very small municipality or

community which is adjacent to a sudden building programme of

either one or two industries where there is a tremendous influx

of people into mobile home parks that are suddenly created.

They are part of that community, they may live there for one or

two or three years, but essentially they are renters and they

are transient renters. Their motives may be very, very good in

terms of wanting to have recreational facilities and street

lighting and this sort of thing for the community. But what

happens when they move on and this community reverts back to

its regular level of economic activity?

There have been cases, certainly, in British Columbia where

as many as 300 families have moved into very small communities.

Spillimacheen and Armstrong are examples. When Crown Zellerbach

built in there two or three years ago, there was a tremendous

influx of transient families who were there for a period of one

or two years. Had they been voting, there was the possibility

that the whole financial basis of the community could have

been

[ Page 1168 ]

stretched beyond its ability to endure.

I wonder if the Minister would comment on this as to what

kind of built-in protections he has in mind to see that this

doesn't happen.

The allowing of municipalities to go into off-street

parking, I think, created some interesting questions. The Hon.

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) stated that in

allowing such extensions as he has in the Act there has been

nothing done to meet the financial needs of municipalities

under the increasingly great strains that they are facing. If

they are to go into the business of off-street parking in terms

of allowing a public vote, who is going to pay for that?

I agree that off-street parking has to be considered very

strongly right now by municipalities but there has to be a

change in attitude, really, to even think in terms of how much

traffic there should be in the downtown area. The communities

should be thinking in terms of some form of transportation for

their downtown areas and they shouldn't be building a lot of

parking areas, in my view, to encourage people to bring their

cars downtown.

The government should be offering assistance in terms of

transportation for smaller communities so that they can plan

these core areas much more on a pedestrian basis. We all abhor

the car, and yet all around British Columbia…. In our own

community of Vernon, they are talking about millions to put the

parking down underneath the community. As much as I like the

upper section, I think that this whole trend of thinking is

wrong. A community like Vernon, Kelowna, Nelson or Revelstoke,

I believe, with encouragement and financial assistance from the

government, should be thinking in terms of community

transportation, and making it just as uncomfortable as possible

to park downtown. This will help all of us I think in terms of

communal travelling together or community transportation.

As the bill stands, the municipalities are going into the

parking business. The reason that there aren't off street

parkades in small communities is because they are financially

unsound investments; they are not economic. Who is to pay for

this off-street parking? Is it going to be a vote by transient

people, by renters in the community that will influence it?

Will you, by disenfranchising the business people in the

community, who must in the minds of most councils really pay

for that off-street parking, in fact force upon them a cost

which their business may not well be able to withstand in a

small community?

In speaking to this, I think you have to relate it in terms

of disenfranchisement of a group of people who must bear the

cost of another programme, as it appears in this bill, which

will be forced upon them.

The second thing is that I am disappointed that there is nothing in this Act

that would encourage a change of thinking on the part of municipalities to think

in terms of municipal transportation, either private or municipally owned, in

terms of convenient transportation within the community downtown core itself,

such as they have at Expo. Everybody loves to go back to the old Expo grounds

and get on one of the little open trains to ride around the grounds. Why can't

we encourage this type of fun and very practical transportation within our small

communities?

The main problem in parking in smaller communities is habit,

and by nature we are becoming a lazy society. The other is the

very real problem of people carrying their groceries and

packages to their own form of transportation. If we had this

mini-type of fun transportation, within small communities

encouraged by the government, I think we would really then be

on the right track to solving some of the planning problems in

communities and the parking problem in British Columbia, as

well as our pollution problem.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I would just like to say a

word or two about this legislation. I would like to contribute

my support towards it.

One interesting feature in here is the expansion of the

municipal responsibility for zoning where a municipal council

can prevent any developer from stripping trees off their

building sites. I can recall in many instances where a

developer will go in and clean off the whole area, whether it's

200 or 300 lots, and not care about the trees after people get

established. This

section of this Act will certainly give the

municipalities an opportunity to preserve some of the natural

beauty of an area and will give a more homey atmosphere to

future residents in any residential community.

I would also like to give my support to the concept of one

man, one vote. I've heard so many people talk about this in the

past over the years, but it is the first time we are really

witnessing some action on it. I think it is high time we did

something about it, and here is the opportunity. We are all

agreeable that trees don't vote, cars don't vote, buildings

don't vote, so we have to remember once and for all that it is

people who vote. When I see one person walking into a polling

booth who gets one ballot and the person behind him gets 14

ballots because he has interests in 14 different corporations,

it makes you wonder why we can't get to the concept of one man,

one vote.

There is another discriminatory feature that is going to be

resolved here by giving municipalities and the Municipal

Finance Authority the opportunity to do their banking with

credit unions as well as with banks. It's only fair that they

have the same opportunity to participate in a community. Credit

unions have very deep roots in their community and they are

community-oriented, so I think it is a credit to the Minister

that he is giving the credit unions the

[ Page 1169 ]

opportunity to participate in a community by municipal

banking as well.

The industrial tax base is something that is lacking in some

municipalities even though there is lots of industry. You see,

for example, a large pulp mill or two beside a municipality and

not inside it. Employees from the pulp mill who are working

have their jobs in the industry, but the municipality is

serving as bedrooms for that industry. I think it is only fair

that the industry pay its full municipal tax share for that

community. The boundary expansion features in this bill will

contribute towards that.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to give my support to this

bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of privilege, I ask leave to

correct a statement I made earlier in the House.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the House, in

replying to a question of the Hon. First Member for Victoria

(Mr. Morrison), I announced that the shares the government had

in the pension plans included: Bank of B.C. shares, 42,100;

CPR, 1,200; Imperial Oil, 3,000; International Nickel, 450;

and United Accumulative, 36.

I left the impression that CPR, Imperial Oil, and the

International Nickel shares were, in fact, held by the previous

administration. That was incorrect. I corrected it with the

press and I tried to reach all the Members individually until

this opportunity to speak.

In fact, the first 300 shares of B.C. Tel we received were

under the ownership of the Family and Children's Service who

also held the CPR, Imperial Oil, and the International Nickel

shares. The only shares we inherited from the previous

administration were the Bank of B.C. shares.

I am sorry for the

interpretation that has been

unfortunately taken from this, but it was my error, Mr.

Speaker, and I'm rising to tell the House of that error.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Well, Mr. Speaker, may I say

that I am pleased the Premier has corrected this error, which

was very unfortunate, particularly because in replying to my

question he answered someone else's question. He actually

answered Mr. McGeer's question which was a completely different

matter. I am happy this is being clarified and I am still

concerned as to what is happening on the market. I am a great

deal happier that this is settled at this moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Hon. Members. The Hon. First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey on the debate on Bill 96.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): We are discussing

that rather than the government investment portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer), in introducing this bill for second reading, said

that the first 32 sections were "iron-heel" legislation…

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.

MR. McGEER: …and the next 32 were "blank-cheque"

legislation and the last 32 were "awesome-power"

legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Swooping powers.

MR. McGEER: Sweeping, swooping powers. I think that really

better describes your debate, Mr. Attorney General, than the

contents of the bill.

I can't believe, Mr. Speaker, that this administration, any

more than the previous administration, would give such a thing

as blank-cheque power to cities and municipalities. They were

quite prepared to give it to themselves; there was never any

problem along that line in the legislation they introduced. But

when it came to allowing the cities and municipalities of this

province to graduate from knee britches, the previous

administration and this administration have always been very

hesitant.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has presumably laboured

hard and diligently with all the scribes in his department to

produce this very thick compendium of rather trivial

amendments.

I don't discount the justice of the one man, one vote

principle, and I was so pleased to hear the Member for Fort

George (Mr. Nunweiler) emphasize that. I think it is a lesson

that the government should take to heart and a principle,

perhaps, even to apply to themselves.

In this Legislative Assembly there are Members elected by

one-tenth to one-twentieth the votes of other Members. It is

very clear that trees and acres are represented in the

Legislative Assembly. That ringing phrase brought down by the

Supreme Court of the United States was meant to apply to just

such backward jurisdictions as British Columbia. While I am

pleased to hear one Member from the government side speak in

favour of this great principle, I would like to see it followed

through.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Excellent. I can hardly wait, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: There goes the footwork.

[ Page 1170 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we had a rather strange occurrence

at the time when candidates for office in municipalities in

British Columbia were put forward. The day nominations closed

there were an astounding number of the vacancies created by

outgoing councils filled by acclamation. More serious than

that, there was one small community in British Columbia where

there wasn't one single citizen of the town who would file for

aldermanic vacancies. The clerk of the town went out to try and

persuade people to run, and they refused to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I think this is the ultimate testimony to

despair over municipal legislation that we have in this

province. People find the powers and the opportunities given to

them at the local level so dissatisfying that they will not

agree to serve on a city council in order to help their own

community. In other words, Mr. Speaker, they don't believe

there's anything they can do.

And so, Mr. Speaker, the Minister really becomes the

Minister of "Municipal Despair." I don't think that despair is

lifted by this rather unimaginative set of amendments he has

brought forward. Certainly not to the extent that people in

cities and towns and villages in British Columbia would feel

motivated to give of their time and work in the service of

their communities.

The basic reason, I submit, is that the financial

restrictions that have carried on for so many years have been

such as to leave cities and municipalities unable to do the

kind of job that their citizens expect of them.

In the decade that I've been in this Legislative Assembly,

provincial revenues have gone up approximately tenfold. This

coming year there will be over $2 billion provided to the

provincial Treasury, some $300 million more than was forecast

in the Minister of Finance's budget.

Despite that, the increases to the cities and municipalities

was a paltry 6 per cent. So you can see, while inflation eats

into their sources of revenue, their ability to undertake and

complete projects in their communities is completely undercut

by the parsimonious policies of this new government.

We have in the City of Vancouver a TEAM, Mr. Speaker, that

is failing into disfavour, wiped out in their policy to

introduce a partial ward system — not as badly as the NDP was

wiped out in their policy to institute a full ward system, but

it's very clear that the citizens of Vancouver don't want 15

useless men when they've got 10. Because it just costs money…

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: …and these men are in that position, unless

they have the fiscal resources to do the job. With your

financial policies, Mr. Minister, you emasculate mayors and

aldermen…

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't do that. I'd castrate them.

MR. McGEER: …from our largest city to the smallest

community, and this business of giving votes to tenants isn't

going to cure that problem.

Mr. Speaker, while we don't oppose this compendium of

mediocrity, we do say this of the Minister: he's been in office

over a year; he's had plenty of opportunity to bring in some

policies that will really mean something. He's a terribly nice

man but he takes a long time to reach decisions and the people

in the cities and municipalities are waiting for action.

Heaven knows, the requirements are there and the fiscal

resources are available to government. What we would like to

hear from the Minister, Mr. Speaker, when he closes this

debate, is when he's really going to do something in that

department.

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

HON. MR. LORIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I'd like to express my pleasure at the positive

response from the Members in the opposition, generally

speaking. I was interested in the talk by the last speaker. It

was rather interesting when he said that no one was interested

in municipal office any more. I just happen to have a paper

here, the Vancouver Province of October 30, 1973. The heading

is: "Municipal Nominations Hit Record." I don't think I'll say

any more about the Hon. Member's talk. It's obvious that he was

wrong from the start and he's wrong at the end.

Now dealing with some of the important matters that were

brought up, I'd like to point out that in regard to the

question of voting for votes for corporations doing business in

a community, I mentioned when I introduced the debate that

there were two basic principles involved in this area: one is

one person, one vote; and the second thing is that we're hoping

to have a joint voters list with the provincial voters list

and, as someone mentioned, later to gradually tie it in also

with the federal voters list.

Now obviously the businessman and the corporation have no

vote provincially or federally. On the question of taxation,

you're taxing these people, which is true. And they may or they

may not live in the community. That's also true. But you know,

most of the corporation taxes come from corporations, and they

don't have votes. The federal government doesn't give the

corporations a vote, nor the provincial government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You let that one get by. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1171 ]

HON. MR. LORIMER: I thought you'd take it up a little faster

than you did.

In any event I think that there would be quite a stir if it

were suggested that the federal government give the vote to

corporations because of their corporation taxes and income

taxes.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're all wrong.

HON. MR. LORIMER: So I think the whole premise that was

suggested by the Hon. Members for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) and

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) is completely out.

I have a few scattered notes here. There was a question

about corporations or businesses in the downtown

section

wanting to create improvements in their area. There is

provision for that in the Municipal Act now and there have been

no changes in that. If they want to have a joint canopy down

the street, or underground parking or Christmas lighting or

whatever it might be, they can still carry on under the old

provisions of the Act. Those sections haven't been changed.

Notification on bylaws. The provision for notification of

bylaws has been changed in the area which I have already

mentioned. Notification now needs only to go to the householder

or whatever it is in the area. It doesn't have to be addressed

to the owners or occupants or anything else; it's whoever is

resident in that particular area in which the bylaw says notice

must be given. It completely simplifies the matter; they can

send it out on a postal walk if they want to.

On the question of how this vote will affect small

communities, I can tell you that in communities such as Tahsis,

where there are only two or three landowners in the whole

community, it will give the vote to the residents and the

residents will finally have some say in what's going on in the

city. That's what it will do for these small communities.

Certainly the residents will have a real say now in what goes

on.

On the question of those corporations that use their

corporate vote, as has been mentioned it's a very, very small

number of people who do this. I'm suggesting to you that

although we have to deal with this problem, because rather a

few do use their corporate vote, it is a very small number and

certainly….

AN HON. MEMBER: And abuse them.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well I'm not saying anything about them

abusing their votes. That was brought up by another Member and

I am not suggesting anything along that line.

Local improvement bylaws can be carried on in the same way. The provisions

under the Municipal Act have not been changed regarding those sections on….

AN HON. MEMBER: The corporations will have a vote?

Interjection.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's correct.

Where the local improvements involve areas in which there

are corporations mixed with residences, for instances in

outlying areas, there are two ways in which that vote can be

carried on. I think we can discuss that when we deal with the

sections.

There was one other question about the finances of the

municipalities. I think that that is a problem. We accept the

fact that the municipalities are not the wealthiest people in

the world; but yet again there is a number of ways of curing

this.

One way is to increase the per capita grant. Other ways are

of reducing the responsibilities which they carry out on behalf

of the municipalities. Another way is the additional

expenditures used for transit purposes, and additional grants

given for recreational facilities. These things all go into the

same pot so there's a number of ways of looking at whether the

municipalities are improving or going backwards or

whatever.

I now move second reading of Bill 96,

An Act to Amend the

Municipal Act .

Motion approved.

Bill 96 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 106, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

REVISED STATUTES ACT, 1966

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this is a very modest

little bill of only one page. We've had difficulties in getting

the next revision of the statutes completed in accordance with

that earlier legislation.

We will be appointing under this bill a commissioner instead

of one of the legislative counsel who are heavily overworked at

the present time — very heavily overworked, and I hope that the

Provincial Secretary who is in charge of the civil service

bargaining is listening to what I'm saying.

We're updating the date for the revision of the statutes to

1976. The statutes are in rather bad shape, because of this

problem I've mentioned in terms of getting out the revision and

keeping up with things, and we need additional input into that

field. I move second reading of this bill.

[ Page 1172 ]

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

certainly will support this bill. There's just a matter that we

would like to know before the Minister closes second reading on

the bill. He's appointing a commissioner and staff — I presume

the commissioner will have the power to hire staff, or appoint

staff, or have a staff assigned to him. Does he have any idea

of the numbers of people that will be required by the

commission and the commissioner to accomplish the work of

revision of the statutes of the Province of British Columbia so

that they might be in a more modern form and in a better and

more perfected form by the target date, which it seems would be

1976?

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, often the revision of statutes have

hand-in-hand with it law reform. But in B.C. we do have a Law

Reform Commission at the present time and, mirabile dictu, we

now have such things as bound loose-leaf statutes, which as far

as I know are kept up to date every year.

It is true that under the former system, when statutes came

out in a big book and then you had to have 10 little books for 10 years, there was a great need for revision every 10 years to

get the stuff back into four or five big books. But I somewhat

question the necessity or the wisdom for this revision unless

it's something to do with law reform at the present time,

because technology solved the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The staff will be small…

MR. GARDOM: What are they going to do?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: …but as large as necessary. If the

Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey will read the Revised

Statutes of British Columbia Act, 1966 , he will find that the

job of this commission is not simply to compile the statutes

and put them into one set of books, but it is to make blank

modifications in language where necessary to express the true

sense of the Legislature, to rearrange the numbering of

sections and to iron out some inconsistencies. Then the process

goes to a select committee of this Legislature, then is

reported to the government, so there are protections that there

can't be substantive changes.

MR. GARDOM: Don't you think there's a bit of overlap with

the Law Reform Commission?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No, no. This is the statutory enactments in terms

of their language and intent, but not of their substance. I move the question

— second reading of Bill 106,

An Act to Amend the Revised Statutes Act, 1966.

Motion approved.

Bill 106 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is the House ready for three superannuation bills — 102, 103, 104? Second reading of Bill

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): As forecast in the

throne speech debate and in the throne speech itself, it gives

me some pleasure to introduce again for your consideration some

progressive amendments to the three pension bills that are in

our care. There is a common thread between the three of them,

Mr. Speaker, and that is that we feel as a government that

widows of superannuates should be entitled to receive that

which they paid into in the form of work support of the family

unit. And even though they may remarry, they should continue to

get the pension that the family unit spent many, many years in

building up. That particular principle you'll find in bills

102, 103 and 104.

In the actual instance of 102, the public service superannuation Act, it's been drawn to our attention that a

description of some of the investment of the funds and

securities is inaccurate, and we've attempted to correct that

deficiency.

We've also reintroduced an optional form of payment that was

introduced by a previous administration in 1966 and repealed in

1971 because it hadn't been used. But we find now more and more

widows, who at one time used to get the old age pension at 70

and now of course get it at 65, can operate an option. We think

that that option should now be theirs so we are reintroducing

that particular section.

The debate could possibly be better handled in committee,

but I did want to point out that the reason why all three bills

are being opened is on the principle of widows continuing to

receive that which is rightfully theirs even though they may

remarry.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 102,

An Act to

Amend the Public Service Superannuation Act.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I rise to state

that the opposition supports these bills. It seems to end a

form of discrimination against widows which will be welcome in

the province.

[ Page 1173 ]

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I support the three bills of the

Hon. Provincial Secretary. But just in passing, it would be

very interesting if he could give his attention at some point

to see if we have similar equity to widows under workmen's

compensation, because under workmen's compensation the concept

was that the widow would not be placed literally on the dole or

on the public purse, or Mincome, or call it what you will, but

by virtue of inflation the return to widows in many instances

is under Mincome. I think that is certainly not the concept of

workmen's compensation wherein it was originally conceived that

these people would receive as fair as possible and as largely

as possible a measure of support according to their husband's

income.

Well, then we run into the situation, of course, where a

husband may have died 15 years ago and the return to his widow

today under WCB would be less than Mincome. I understand it's

possible to have the allowance rise up to the Mincome level but

no more, but the concept was that it should be over that. I do

wish the government would give serious thought to rectifying

what has become an injustice in that field.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I'm very

happy to see this bill being brought in for second reading. I

have always felt that it was a terrible injustice to widows

when they remarried that their pension suddenly became negated.

After all, the work of the wife should be considered part of

the development of the family income and she should also be

considered where it comes to pension or superannuation

payment.

Secondly, I don't see any reason why when the husband dies

that in some cases the widow's share of the pension becomes

less — she still has to live the same way as she did

before.

However, that is not part of this particular bill, but I

hope that will come into effect at some time at a later date. I

don't think there should be any discrimination. If a man

remarries and he is widowed, his pension is not taken away from

him, so why should it be taken away from a woman if she

remarries?

Similarly, I hope that the reverse will also be; if the

woman has been the breadwinner of the home — which does occur in

a great number of cases — and the man is left widowed, then he

will also be given the same consideration when he

remarries.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to record the support

of the Conservative Party for the principle of this bill and to

echo the comments of the lady who just spoke.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't allow this opportunity to pass without

saying how very, very pleased I am that once again this government is taking

seriously the concept of equality before the law of women in the marriage situation.

I think with this amendment we've gone further, much

further, than the federal government. I hope it will serve as a

good example for them to follow when they open their pension

plans and decide to amend them.

I hope that this, the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr.

Hall'

s) amendment, is just a first step and that what we will

start to do is look at so many of the injustices presently

occurring under private pension plans and private superannuation plans. I fully support this bill and once again

ask this government to let us get on with the business of

looking at those private pension plans.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Provincial Secretary closes the

debate.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Members for

their support and encouragement in this work which is really

exciting in many ways, although I must confess a year ago I

didn't think the pensions held that much excitement in them,

but then that's been a pleasant surprise, I suppose.

May I address my comments to the Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Mr. Gardom) about workmen's compensation. There is a

slight difference qualitatively in so far as the Act we are

dealing with is a contributory fund. The Workmen's Compensation

Board is not.

While I can see an argument about it being part of a fringe

benefit in one way or another, they're not entirely comparable.

But I do want to say that it's been my observation that, with

the new chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board who, I

hope, one of these days will be introduced on the floor of this

Legislative Assembly…. Mr. T.G. Ison has been the author of

a number of papers and learned works on a security programme

that really should be much more talked about than they have to

date.

It is my understanding, from conversations with my

colleague, the Member for Revelstoke-Slocan, the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King), and with his new Deputy, Mr. Matkin,

that indeed the Workmen's Compensation Act will be thoroughly

overhauled by that new department and by — and this is the most

exciting part of it if I may be qualitative about it — the new

chairman, Mr. Ison, who is, as I say, something more than

expert and, indeed, very revolutionary in some of his aspects

about compensation and a full security programme.

So I don't think that many, many days will elapse before we

see the kind of debate that you want to see about some of the

other things that the government have in terms of benefits to

widows and removing discrimination.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading of Bill

[ Page 1174 ]

102,

An Act to Amend the Public Service Superannuation

Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 102 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 103, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this is

an Act to amend the

Municipal Superannuation Act and there are three points in the

Act.

The first point is that the provisions of this amendment

ensure continuing coverage for employees moving from one place

to another, and they provide adequate portability protection

when the employee wants to continue to accumulate the benefits

that are his to accumulate. However, the Act does not provide

protection where employees request a refund of their

contributions made with the first employer.

The bill makes the refund provisions consistent with the

benefit portability provisions by ensuring that, for both

refund and benefit purposes, employees moving from the service

of one employer to that of another under the Act will be

treated as if they had not ceased the membership.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, we're ensuring that there's

portability in the pension plans of this province. This was

needed to clean up some of the language in the Municipal

Superannuation Act.

The second aspect deals with the extension of permissible

investments for this particular Act. You may remember that I

gave a commitment last spring that once I had ascertained from

my commissioner of pensions and from the Deputy Minister of

Finance that the municipal finance authority had indeed now

established a healthy and secure and good market, then we felt

we could open up these funds for that particular endeavour.

I paid at that time some tribute to the previous administration for not wanting

to "hothouse," to escalate, in any quick way that market — which they've got

to develop on their own terms. I think that the day has now arrived and our

investigations indicate that the market has been established by the municipal

finance authority and we're now opening up this Act so that the Municipal Superannuation

Act pension moneys can be invested in the municipal finance authorities. That

was requested by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, of course, it is supported

by the Superannuation committee upon which employers and employees are represented.

The third aspect is again that to do with widows, Mr.

Speaker. I move second reading of Bill 103,

An Act to Amend the

Municipal Superannuation Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 103 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 104, Mr.

Speaker.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

TEACHERS' PENSIONS ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Bill 104, Mr. Speaker, is

An Act to Amend the

Teachers' Pensions Act , and here we have the singular provision

that will enable widows to continue to get that which is

rightfully theirs. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 104 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee of the Whole House, Mr. Speaker,

on Bill 70.

PETROLEUM CORPORATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 70; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): As I stated during second

reading, we in this party realize the aim that the government

has of receiving fair market value for resources, particularly

petroleum and natural gas. I would repeat that we have no

argument with the goal of trying to achieve that end. But

section 5 is headed "Specific powers," and I'm sure that

it'll be no surprise to the government benches to learn that

we're just a little concerned about the specific powers

outlined in

section 5.

We stated in second reading that our first approach would

have been to seek a greater measure of cooperation and action

through the federal government in trying to bring about an

increase in the price of petroleum and natural gas. But we have

some recognition and respect for the difficulties that appear

to have been encountered at the federal level.

[ Page 1175 ]

If this is not attainable, then we feel that what is

required is simply a marketing agency without all the powers

that will be invested in this corporation under

section 5.

Mr. Chairman, the comment is always made that this bill,

like many other bills — and I'm waiting for the Attorney

General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) to make his comments — one, "it's

a housekeeping measure" and, two, "it doesn't have the power to

expropriate."

I'll try, Mr. Chairman, to avoid all these clichés,

but the bill should also…. It's very difficult to avoid

being repetitious. I may be repetitious, but I'll try not to be

tedious.

The principle we follow is that the goal of achieving a fair

price for our natural resource could be attained in a much

simpler way without all the powers of

section 5. We feel that a

marketing agency could be set up which would control the price

at the wellhead, but we see no reason to provide the kind of

authority which allows: "to explore for, develop and produce

petroleum and natural gas" in subsection (

c) of

section 5 — to

describe in great detail the various ways the products can be

acquired.

This belies, in our opinion, the description which the

Attorney General gave this bill when he introduced second

reading: that it was a simple housekeeping bill to market

natural gas. We just simply say, Mr. Chairman, that if that's

all it was, we cannot understand why he has to put in the bill

the power "to build, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire,

operate and dispose of pipelines, gathering systems and storage

facilities; to explore for, develop and produce petroleum and

natural gas."

We are concerned about these powers. As has been stated in

many debates earlier, when the government, a very unique power

in society, enters the business sector of this province or of

the nation, it immediately brings in a whole new set of

circumstances. In particular, in relation to the exploration

for natural resources, petroleum and natural gas, the

government is aware of a great deal of information from

previous geological studies and from a great variety of data

which it has accumulated over the years. It then becomes a very

unfair competitor in the marketplace with other companies

involved in the exploration business.

It seems to us, Mr. Chairman, that it is unlikely private

companies will show any continuing interest in exploration when

they realize they are very likely to be in competition with a

government which has all this established information and

control over the leases. It is as though the government is

playing one side and also being the referee with the power to

move the goalposts anytime it likes by legislation.

I don't seem to get this message through to the government: when it becomes

a competitor or a partner in the private sector of any business, they have a

unique, unfair, all-powerful position which leaves the existing private competitors

in some state of real fear and reluctant to expand their business interests

in such ways as exploring for further resources.

The Minister, in introducing second reading, Mr. Chairman,

mentioned that of course this wasn't a power the government

would likely use. Again, we have to ask the same old question.

If it's a power the government doesn't really want, namely the

power to explore for resources, why put it in the bill? If the

only aim is to control the price at the wellhead, why not

introduce legislation to achieve that goal? If, at a later

date, the government feels that it requires power to go into

the exploration business, let's have an appropriate amendment

to the bill.

The Energy Commission report stated quite clearly that it

did not recommend the government going into the exploration

business. There was a proviso to that recommendation, I admit;

I am sure the Attorney General is very much aware of it.

I quote from the report, Mr. Chairman: "The commission does

not recommend that the province itself conduct exploration

activities so long as industry activity is maintained at such a

level as will result in adequate annual additions to the

natural gas reserves." I have quoted word for word.

By putting the power to explore in this bill it will

automatically have a disincentive effect on the private

companies. They really don't know what the score is or is

likely to be in the near future because of the government's

announced policy to be a partner in the exploration of our

natural resources, whether it is timber or oil or gas or what

have you.

As the private sector in the natural gas industry for this

reason shows less and less interest in exploration, then I

suppose this will justify the government getting into the

exploration business. In other words, either way you look at

it, the private sector is going to lose its position. Because

its exploration activities are on the decrease, the government

will say this leaves them no choice but to go into the

exploration business.

How can you expect the companies to enhance their

exploration activities when they see

section 5 which very

clearly gives the government this power? I have talked to

people in the industry, not just in this province but from

Alberta. The simple answer they give is that since government

has control of the leases, since the government has the power

to either post or not to post leases, since they have all the

information as to the most likely profitable sites for

exploration, how much confidence can a private company have in

seeking to obtain leases which are posted when the government

is likely only to make those ones available that have less

chance of success?

Does it not seem reasonable, Mr. Chairman, that the

government will tend to explore on its own those leases which

hold most hope of successful finds? If you are on the other

side as a member of a private

[ Page 1176 ]

corporation, would you be very confident in seeking to

obtain leases which the government is posting when, in fact,

the government itself is in the exploration business? Would it

not seem likely that the government will explore the most

attractive areas and leave the private companies to run up the

considerable capital cost of exploring the less attractive

ones? Should one not at least ask that question? Perhaps the

Attorney General, in winding up, may comment on this

section of

the bill.

Section 5 goes far beyond the stated aim of the government

at the time the Attorney General introduced the bill.

Subsection (

a) is the only part of

section 5 which relates to

the stated aim of the Attorney General when he introduced the

bill.

If we are simply trying to control the marketing price of

gas, why do we need to have power to operate and acquire

pipelines, gathering systems and storage facilities? Why do we

have to have, in subsection (d), the power to explore for,

develop and produce petroleum and natural gas?

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, we feel the effect of

section 5 will be to depress and slow down exploration by

private companies at a time when we are all agreed that there

must be extensive exploration to try and determine what our

natural reserves are. This is another worthwhile part of the

Energy Commission report. Before we decide what we can export,

it said, it only makes sense to know what we have in the ground

as far as possible. The recommendation that we should try and

determine what our reserves are is certainly very valid.

I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that the specific powers are

such that private companies will not find any incentive to

explore for the reasons I mentioned when they find that they

are in competition with a government which has the unique power

to change the whole ballgame overnight by either

order-in-council or further legislation. This seems to us

unfair towards the private companies, many of whom have already

put out large sums of capital. I understand they would be

interested in acquiring other leases in the neighbourhood of

the ones they are already exploring, but, the whole impact of

this bill and particularly

section 5 fills them with some

degree of concern.

At this time, when we need all the natural gas we can find

and when we need to know the amount of reserves, the worst

thing that could happen to this province and the industry, as

far as that goes, is to create some braking effect on

exploration activity. If there is one, clear, unmistakable

effect which

section 5 will have, particularly because of

subsection (c), this is it; there will be a further decrease in

exploration activity.

It's with that thought in mind that I move the motion we

have on the order paper that

section 5 be amended by deleting

subsections (

c) and (d).

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): The government

doesn't accept the amendment to delete these sections which

would deprive the petroleum corporation of powers, which are

ancillary to its main object, to be sure, but which are the

kinds of powers just about every other company has in this

field: the power to acquire pipeline facilities. Westcoast

Transmission has that power; Pacific Petroleums has that

power.

It may be that we'll have to put in an inter-tie sometime;

it might be an inter-tie even with the Province of Alberta. If

it can be conveniently done by one of the utilities in the

field, fine.

But I don't see why this company, with the public

responsibility it is charged with of protecting the people of

this province in terms of conservation, development, and the

flow of their gas, should have fewer corporate powers than any

other corporation that's in the field.

MR. WALLACE: The government has all power.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It has exactly the powers created

here.

Now the question the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) raised

about the tempo of exploration is an important one, but that

depends upon the drilling company having a fair wellhead price

and a contract to explore, to drill, and to deliver the gas if

they find the gas. Our wellhead prices in the north are

probably much too low at the present time.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm explaining that to show that if we

adjust wellhead prices and we have an exploration company

that's prepared to go out based upon the new wellhead prices — why should we do it? Why not let the existing companies — the

producers — produce, provided the wellhead price is fair and

provided they see an incentive to go out, explore, find and

sell the gas to this corporation? Why should we involve

ourselves in that? There would be no need to. But if the

producer companies did not protect the public interest in terms

of sufficient exploration, even with the incentive of a decent

wellhead price, then just as Panarctic, the federal company

will do, they'd explore themselves. So these are necessary

powers to safeguard the province.

It is unlikely that we will have to go into the producing

and the exploration business in this province because we can

contract out for that service. We can contract for it, based

upon a fair wellhead price. But the power should be there to be

used if necessary.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 1177 ]

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Richter

Jordan

Smith

Fraser

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Wallace

Curtis

NAYS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Lea

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly Webster

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. WALLACE: I ask that the Chairman report to the Speaker

that the division took place and ask leave to have the vote

recorded.

section 5.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I think the official

opposition, when this bill first came before the House, made

their position quite clear, that is that we do not like the

bill or any part of it, and that we will certainly not be

voting for this section, any other

section or any part of the

bill as it is presented and as we see it before us.

Section 5 is probably the one

section which we object to

most strenuously, because in

section 5 we feel that the

specific powers granted to the Lieutenant-Governor and to the

executive council of the province…. Make no mistake about

it, Mr. Chairman, that it has been the avowed policy of the NDP

for as many years as I have been a Member of this House to

advocate the entry into the petroleum business in the Province

of British Columbia. They have not only advocated petroleum in

this bill, but they have decided they want to get into the

natural gas business, too.

Now if the entry of government or an agency of government

would in any way help alleviate the energy shortage in the

Province of British Columbia, would in any way guarantee an

additional supply of natural gas to the customers of this

province, or would in any way guarantee petroleum products,

mainly gasoline and diesel, at a lesser price than we see it

selling at today, there might be some justification for the

position of the NDP.

But this bill and the specific powers granted to the government in

section

5 will do absolutely nothing to relieve the shortages of natural gas or to decrease

the price of petroleum products in the Province of British Columbia. As a matter

of fact, this bill, and particularly

section 5, will have exactly the opposite

effect. Because what is included here is the power for the Government of British

Columbia, through a Crown corporation, to go into not only the field of distribution

of natural gas and petroleum products but into the field of exploration and

drilling as well.

It says so in subsections (

c) and (d), for instance: "to

explore for, develop and produce petroleum and natural gas; and

to acquire by purchase, lease, licence, permit, reservation,

discovery, location or otherwise and hold lands containing or

thought or appearing to contain petroleum or natural gas,

drilling reservations, exploration permits, geophysical

licences, natural gas licences, petroleum leases, natural gas

leases and petroleum and natural gas leases, and petroleum and

natural gas rights of every description and to work, develop,

operate, turn to account, sell or otherwise dispose

thereof."

So the government, through this bill, has taken unto

themselves a position that we in the official opposition do not

believe is either necessary or desirable in the matter of the

exploration and production of hydrocarbon energy in British

Columbia.

All of those companies who were actively engaged in

exploration in British Columbia now must realize that their

days are limited in this province, that the very people who

control their existence through the issuing of drilling permits

and drilling reservations and the right to explore are now in

the position of being their competitor for the same drilling

leases and the same drilling rights.

It wouldn't take any genius to sit down and analyse where

they stand in relation to the all-powerful Crown when it comes

to competing on a fair and equitable basis. They know the Crown

will have first call; they know the Crown can either accept or

reject their applications for drilling licences and

permits.

One thing should be made abundantly clear to this House, and

that is that the future of the natural gas industry in this

province lies in continuous exploration — the proving of

reserves that have not as yet been found.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. SMITH: It's a known fact that at the present time we

have untapped proven reserves in excess of 2 trillion cubic

feet. If it were possible to tie those reserves quickly into

the distribution system, there would presently be no shortage

of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia.

One of the main reasons that those reserves, while they are

known, are not part of our distribution

[ Page 1178 ]

system is the fact that the wellhead price for natural gas

in northeastern British Columbia, in the Fort Nelson area, has

been just a little over 11 cents and, in the Fort St. John

area, just a little over 14 cents per thousand cubic feet.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. That's partly why we need these

powers.

MR. SMITH: The Minister says, "That's partly why we need

these powers."

HON. MR. MACDONALD: There's a real problem up there.

MR. SMITH: There's nothing in this bill, Mr. Minister, that

will help to increase the wellhead price of natural gas.

There's nothing in this bill that will do that.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The corporation could.

MR. SMITH: You know as well as I do that the price of

natural gas in the Province of British Columbia and to the

export market is controlled by the National Energy Board. The

domestic price is tied very closely to the export price. Until

such time as you can get the National Energy Board to either

amend that contract or amend that condition or in some way

provide relief to the producing companies and to the people who

will wholesale the natural gas, be it Westcoast Transmission

or a Crown corporation, you will not be successful in obtaining

a better return to the people who want to explore for natural

gas in the Province of British Columbia.

The greatest amount of revenue received by the Crown in the

last 20 years — and that takes us back to the early years of

the petroleum industry in this province — has not been from

statutory fees or from royalties. The greatest amount of

revenue came from the right to explore in bonus bids. That was

found money, Mr. Chairman; money paid into the Treasury that

didn't cost the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia

one red cent. It was cream; it was frosting on the cake. All

that did was give a particular company the right to go into a

specified area and look for hydrocarbon energy. That's all it

did.

They paid millions of dollars in bonus bids to this province — the statutory

fees they had to pay in the right of the Crown. Everyone involved in this whole

matter of exploration was required to pay those fees, regardless of whether

they drilled or not. But the thing that made the business a success and returned

to the province millions of dollars of revenue was the fact that every company

could competitively place a bid for the right to explore. Those bids in many

of the sales brought in as high as $8, 10, 12, 15 million dollars at a time

and more, to the extent that for the last number of years we have never received

less than $30 million a year in bonuses alone.

The increase in royalty to the Crown will never offset the

amount of money we've lost in the last year through the fact

that people have not bid competitively for the right to explore

in British Columbia. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, the

amount of royalty regardless of whether it is doubled or

tripled from what it is now, would only have a detrimental

effect on the business. Royalty is an impost after the fact;

royalty only becomes involved in production when the production

is actually tied in to a distribution system. Regardless of how

much gas may be there or how much has been discovered, until

that is sited in there is no royalty paid.

In my opinion the Crown, through this Act and specifically

through

section 5, has taken unto itself extreme powers that

were never necessary, that will not in any way solve the energy

crisis in the Province of British Columbia.

The Hon. Minister in his opening remarks referred to

equity position in Panarctic, but the Minister did not indicate

to the House that a number of other large companies, including

Imperial Oil and some of the biggest in the business, also have

an equity position in Panarctic.

Collectively, they went into an area of very extreme cost to

see if they could find hydrocarbon energy. Fortunately, they

have found quantities in excess of our requirements right now

of both gas and petroleum products in the arctic.

The one distributor of natural gas in the Province of

British Columbia now is Westcoast Transmission. For the

government to indicate that this bill was required for them to

become a wholesaler is questionable. First of all, you must ask

the government the questions. (1) where will you get the supply

of natural gas from? (2) are you going to force by coercion or

force the people who presently sell their natural gas by

contract to Westcoast Transmission to renegotiate those

contracts? Is that how you're going to get additional natural

gas so that you as a Crown corporation can become a distributor

of gas in the Province of British Columbia?

If you're not going to do that, then obviously as a Crown

corporation you must be going to depend upon a further supply

of hydrocarbon energies from some source, probably from some of

the reserves that we already know exist. In that respect I

presume you will bid competitively against Westcoast

Transmission for the natural gas that companies have

discovered.

But let me tell you this, Mr. Chairman: the capacity of the

existing pumping facilities and pipelines is limited; even with

the looping process that is going on now, you can put only so

many million cubic feet of gas through a pipeline in a

given

[ Page 1179 ]

24-hour period. If the requirement of the Province of

British Columbia, together with the requirements for the export

market, exceeds the capacity of our plant and distribution

lines at any given 24-hour period, we're still going to have a

shortfall in the amount of natural gas we can get from the

fields into the lines and into the distribution system for the

consumption of the domestic consumers.

I frankly cannot see that even the position of the

government with respect to the wholesaler position that they

want to take is going to solve any problem.

In short, the only conclusion that the official opposition

can come to is the fact that an energy crisis in the Province

of British Columbia was used by the NDP government to set up a

petroleum corporation Act which is meant to do only one thing,

and that is to take over the petroleum industry in the Province

of British Columbia and to replace the existing companies with

a Crown corporation which will be responsible for the

production and the distribution of all natural gas and all

petroleum products in this province as soon as they can get

this bill through the House.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): I'd like to comment on

section 5. It seems to me that the name of the game is to

assure supply of petroleum and natural gas to the people of

British Columbia. If we're going to distribute, there's no way

we can guarantee supply or assure supply if we don't have ways

and means to explore and acquire and not be in a position where

we have to rely on some other source, hoping that others will

supply the petroleum or natural gas to make this corporation

function. I think that exploration and development go hand in

hand with distribution.

In northern British Columbia, in my area alone, there are

six pulp mills. There are many other heavy industries

throughout the entire region, and natural gas is the lifeblood

of the economy. If we're going to protect that, we're going to

have to assure supply. Municipalities have responsibilities to

distribute water to the residents of the community, and they

certainly aren't going to run a water system if they aren't

going to find ways and means to supply that water system.

That's why they have to drill and explore for water in order to

feed municipal water systems.

So if we are going to assure fuel supply, natural gas

supply, to the people in the province, we're going to have to

do the same thing. I can't see where there needs to be any

doubt as to whether this is a good

section or a bad

section.

We have other Crown corporations. Panarctic was mentioned. Maybe it's not a

Crown corporation but it's the next thing to it. There's other operations like

Air Canada, for example, which is a Crown corporation. There's Canadian National

Railways, there's B.C. Hydro, B.C. Railway and many other things.

We would be negligent in our duty if we didn't go ahead and

make sure that we have ways and means to assure supply. It's

our duty; it's our responsibility; it's a very wide

responsibility that has to be exercised by the Minister. This

is the only way we can take precautions to supply fuel for the

future of this province.

I'd just like to mention that I'm very happy to support this

bill and hence protect the economy of British Columbia.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I

can't let

section 5 go by without making a few comments.

Section 5 of Bill 70 is a vehicle which will carry the free

enterprise exploration companies for hydrocarbon products out

of this province.

As far as the government having further control over the

resource, they have full control today under the Department of

Mines and Petroleum Resources Act. Anyone who wants to acquire

rights must comply with the regulations and the legislation set

down therein. This additional legislation is now the vehicle by

which the provincial government will go into competition

through the use of taxpayers' money in a very high-risk

industry.

We had a black day as far as the Department of Mines and

Petroleum Resources