1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4245 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Notre Dame University

degree programme. Mr. Bennett — 4245

Construction of UBC and Shaughnessy chronic-care facilities. Mr. McGeer —

Federally subsidized housing not subject to rent

stabilization Act.

Mr. Wallace — 4245

Controversy over applications for park attendant position. Mr. Phillips —

Return of share capital from fruit growers mutual. Mrs. Jordan —

Government correspondence with Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 4246

Task force to study literacy in public schools. Mr. Wallace — 4246

Bonding of health spas. Mr. Wallace — 4247

Possible legislation to enforce provincial government guidelines for gasoline

pricing. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4247

Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 159).

Committee and report — 4248

Universities Act (Bill 157). Committee stage.

section 20.

Mr. Schroeder — 4249

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4249

Mr. Wallace — 4249

Mr. Morrison — 4250

Division on amendment — 4250

Mr. McGeer — 4250

Mr. Wallace — 4250

section 28.

Mr. Schroeder — 4251

section 37.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4252

section 59

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4252

section 70.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4253

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4253

Mr. Schroeder — 4253

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4254

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4254

Mr. Schroeder — 4254

Report stage — 4255

Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 155).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4255

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4255

Mr. McClelland — 4255

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 4255

Report and third reading — 4255

Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British Columbia Act.

(Bill 158).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. McClelland — 4255

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 4256

section 4.

Mr. McGeer — 4256

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4256

Mr. McGeer — 4258

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4259

Division on

section 4 — 4259

section 6.

Mr. McGeer — 4260

Hon. R.A. Williams — 4260

Mr. McGeer — 4260

Division on

section 6 — 4261

section 8.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4261

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 4261

Report and third reading — 4262

Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 31). Committee stage.

section 3.

Mr. Chabot — 4263

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4263

Mr. Phillips — 4263

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 4263

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4264

Mr. Phillips — 4264

Mr. Chabot — 4264

Division on

section 3 — 4264

section 4.

Mr. Gibson — 4265

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4265

section 6.

Mr. Gibson — 4265

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4266

Mr. Richter — 4266

section 7.

Mr. Gibson — 4266

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4266

section 9.

Mr. Gibson — 4267

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4267

Mr. Richter — 4267

section 10.

Mr. Gibson — 4267

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4267

section 13.

Mr. Gibson — 4267

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4267

section 14.

Mr. Gibson — 4268

Mr. Richter — 4268

Division on

section 14 — 4268

section 16.

Mr. Gibson — 4268

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4268

section 19.

Mr. Gibson — 4269

section 20.

Mr. Gibson — 4269

Division on amendment — 4270

section 21.

Mr. Richter — 4270

section 22.

Mr. Chabot — 4270

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 4271

Division on

section 22 — 4271

Report stage — 4271

Motions Adjourned debate on motion 32.

Mr. McClelland — 4271

Mr. Fraser — 4273

Mr. Dent — 4273

Mr. Chabot (point of order) — 4274

Mr. Speaker — 4274

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4274

Hon. Ms. Young — 4275

Mr. Speaker — 4275

Mr. Chabot — 4275

Mr. Morrison — 4275

Hon. Mr. Hall — 4276

MT. Morrison — 4276

Mr. Smith — 4276

Mr. Chabot — 4277

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 4278

Audit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 163). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 4278

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

Mr. Speaker, I'd like today to introduce 36 students from

Corpus Christi School in Vancouver South. They're accompanied

by their teacher, Sister Rosemary. I'm sure the House would

wish them welcome here today.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, just to briefly

clear up a small item — yesterday, in speaking about the

syndicate to handle our bonds, I mentioned the First National

Bank of Boston. That was a slip. It should have been the First

Boston Corporation, which is the group that led our syndicate

ever since our history began.

NOTRE DAME UNIVERSITY

DEGREE PROGRAMME

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Education: regarding the government's

announcement on the purchase of Notre Dame University, could

the Minister advise the House whether or not the university

will be a four-year institution, and whether or not it will be

programmed around special-category four-year degrees?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Indeed, it's quite

clear in the original press release that the government will be

announcing that decision just before January. No decision is

made on what the format of the university will be until

January. Hopefully before January, but that will be our

deadline.

CONSTRUCTION OF UBC AND

SHAUGHNESSY CHRONIC-CARE FACILITIES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the

Minister of Health. The Minister announced on Monday that there

would be commencement of chronic-care facilities because all

the beds could not be handled at the B.C. Medical Centre. I'd

like to ask the Minister when he plans chronic-care facility

construction to begin, first of all, at the Shaughnessy site

and, secondly, at the University of British Columbia.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, at the

Shaughnessy site I hope the construction will begin April,

1975. If we can manage to put it a little bit forward we

will.

As far as the geriatrics or chronic care to go on the

university site, this is the matter that's really in discussion

now and we haven't come to any real hard and fast plans. But

there is a real breadth of feeling that we should have a

chronic hospital on that site to assist in the teaching

process.

FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING NOT

SUBJECT TO RENT

STABILIZATION ACT

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

Minister of Housing with regard to housing projects subsidized

by federal funds, can the Minister advise the House if rents in

these projects are subject to the provisions of Residential

Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I

believe that an order-in-council was made recently which

exempted limited — dividend housing in the private sector which

is subject to rent control, public housing and other forms of

housing from the provisions of the Act.

MR. WALLACE: Just a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the

Minister could then take this as notice because we have a

situation in Victoria at the Bishop Cridge Centre, a very

excellent housing centre for single mothers and other people on

low income. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Could

perhaps the Minister look into the situation and if there is a

misunderstanding, have it corrected?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to do

that.

CONTROVERSY OVER APPLICATIONS

FOR PARK ATTENDANT POSITION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): My question is to the

Provincial Secretary. On May 16, during the estimates of the

Provincial Secretary, I read a letter from a constituent of

mine regarding his being replaced by the president of the NDP

Association at Toms Lake to look after a park there. The

Provincial Secretary said that he would look into this;

indeed, so did the Premier. All I wanted was justice done. I

wonder if they have checked into this and if the Provincial

Secretary would advise me of his findings.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'm advised by the

Department of Recreation and Conservation that it was as I

pointed out at the time; this was not

[ Page 4246 ]

the Public Service Commission appointment but a temporary

appointment using a temporary vote in that department.

I've got the following information for you: your

constituent, Mr. Andrich, whose brother-in-law made the

complaint, had worked for several summers as a park attendant

at Sudetan Park. Mr. Kuenzle, whom your informant says got the

job because of his New Democratic Party affiliation, has worked

for several summers in the area on development work on parks,

for many, many years in fact. Both men are from the same area,

both apparently applied for the job of park attendant at

Sudetan Park. It was decided locally that this summer Mr.

Kuenzle will have the more stable job as park attendant, and

Mr. Andrich on development work. This judgment was made on the

basis of Mr. Kuenzle having more seniority in parks work than

your informant. He's also a considerably older man than your

informant, Mr. Andrich. Mr. Andrich turned down the alternative

employment, apparently because it involves some travel.

However, I'm advised by the parks people that Mr. Andrich has

being given another offer of employment on development work at

Swan Lake close to his home.

MR. PHILLIPS: Was there any advisement from the department

as to why Mr. Kuenzle was provided with a government vehicle to

look after the park when no government vehicle had been

supplied in previous years to Mr. Andrich?

HON. MR. HALL: No, I just assume we're getting better at the

job than you used to be.

MR. PHILLIPS: A further supplementary. I have further

correspondence from Mr. Andrich stating that on "several days," he has in his letter — I'm not going to read them into

the record right now — Mr. Kuenzle was not on the job. Would

the Provincial Secretary also check into that?

HON. MR. HALL: I don't think so.

RETURN OF SHARE CAPITAL

FROM FRUIT GROWERS MUTUAL

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): My question is to the Minister of

Transportation and Communications. Some time ago I asked the Minister if he

would look into the returning of the share capital to those individuals who

had them at the time that the government or ICBC took over Fruit Growers Mutual.

At that time the Minister said that there would be a refund through ICBC, but

that he had set up a committee to see that the people got back their shares

or their capital. I had a call yesterday to say that this hasn't been received.

Could the Minister advise the House when they will be receiving this returned

money?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transportation and Communications):

Mr. Speaker, the House will recollect that in the committee during my estimates

the same question was asked and I explained at that time that the returning

of the share capital is completely the responsibility of the Fruit Growers Mutual

directors. We have an agreement with them to provide certain funds, but the

returning of the capital is solely within the jurisdiction of the directors

of the Fruit Growers Mutual.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I recall the

answer also that the Minister said he was going to have this

looked into.

The whole situation is that the capital hasn't been

returned. Now these people, who were original shareholders, are

being buffeted between ICBC and the Minister who says the Fruit

Growers Mutual directors are responsible. Nobody is assuming

the responsibility. They don't want to know who is responsible;

they want to know when they are going to get their money

back.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if

there is any problem between what was a publicly licensed and

private insurance company responsible to the superintendent of

insurance, and if there is any complaint against a private

insurance company, the proper procedure is to contact the

superintendent of insurance, which is not my department.

GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE WITH

UNION OF B.C. INDIAN CHIEFS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): May I ask the Premier if he

has replied to the letter dated June 14, 1974, over the

letterhead of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, signed by their

demonstration committee, and specifically whether or not he has

given them an indication of when this government is prepared to

enter into discussions and negotiations with the Indian people

on the general question of Indian land claims in the Province

of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it. as notice, Mr. Speaker.

TASK FORCE TO STUDY

LITERACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister

of Education, with regard to a 20-member task force set up by

the Vancouver school board to study standards of literacy in

the public

[ Page 4247 ]

schools if she is aware that the school board is deeply

concerned that many students leave grade 12 unable to read and

write in an adequate manner?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I certainly congratulate the school board

for their interest in having the survey. My understanding of it

is that it was to find out if these statements that have been

made are accurate. I think it is an excellent idea to have a

board start evaluation.

I would like to say at this time that the Department of

Education will be announcing very shortly an overall provincial

evaluation procedure which will also give us in the department

research and background as to the actual standards of reading

in the province.

MR. WALLACE: Could I ask if any member of the Minister's

department has been either consulted or asked to serve on this

particular Vancouver school board task force?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Not to my knowledge.

MR. WALLACE: Is the Minister aware of any other school

district which has set up a task force to look into the

standards of literacy of students leaving grade 12?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, that is the only one I have heard

of.

RECENT PURCHASE OF B.C. TEL SHARES

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): My question is directed to the

Premier as Minister of Finance. As of March 19, 1974, in your

latest return to the House, you acknowledged the purchase of

104,000 shares of B.C. Telephone Company. Could you advise the

House now if you have purchased any shares since that date in

B.C. Tel?

HON. MR. BARRETT: March 19, Mr. Member? There may have been

further purchases. I'll take it as notice.

MR. MORRISON: Would you give us the evaluation also when you

do?

BONDING OF HEALTH SPAS

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer

Services about the recent problem of health spas that have

closed down leaving customers without service. Were any of

these spas bonded? If so, for how much?

HON P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr. Speaker, at the

present time we are working very closely with the bailiffs involved. I believe

they were not bonded.

However, I would like to make a small statement on the term

"health spas." It has been drawn to our attention and I think

it is a very valid distinction that should be made. There is a

difference between "figure salons" and "health spas." Some very

legitimate health spa firms have objected to being lumped in

with the figure salons. The figure salons make promises as to

weight loss, inches lost, et cetera,

whereas the health spas

merely offer services such as swimming pools and saunas. They

don't make any promises as to weight reduction or anything of

that nature.

We are working very closely in the area. The people involved

are working with us. One health spa has offered to honour all

the contracts that are outstanding by the figure salons that

have been padlocked.

MR. WALLACE: In the light of this continuing problem,

however — and I very much appreciate the Minister's answer — is

the Minister giving any consideration to bringing in compulsory

bonding as an amendment to the Trade Practices Act? There is

some voluntary bonding involved in the legislation we have

passed, but are you giving any consideration to compulsory

bonding?

HON. MS. YOUNG: I believe we would like to work with the

Trade Practices Act as it has now been approved by the House in

the remedies that it offers as far as bonding goes. If those

remedies are not effective, then perhaps at a future time we

would ask the House to give us the right of compulsory bonding

in those situations.

MRS. JORDAN: I just wondered why, in relation to what the

Minister has said, you wouldn't consider compulsory bonding in

light of the fact that these are usually chain organizations

and they are theoretically well financed. It is not a situation

where an individual might start from scratch and work their way

up. Why would you not consider compulsory bonding?

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

very argumentative.

POSSIBLE LEGISLATION TO ENFORCE

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES

FOR GASOLINE PRICING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: When you are dealing with weight loss it

is usually a hypothetical question.

Could I ask the Premier and Minister of Finance whether, in

light of the statement by Gulf Oil of Canada that to follow the

provincial guidelines as

[ Page 4248 ]

opposed to provincial legislation would jeopardize the

payback they get per barrel under the national price equity

programme worked out as a result of the federal-provincial

conference, he has considered bringing into this House

legislation dealing with this matter so that Gulf and other oil

companies can follow the guidelines by way of provincial

legislation and at the same time not be subjected to any

penalty as a result of not following the federal

guidelines?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I think that is quite out of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: I would say it is going beyond the rule.

Hon. Members, before proceeding, I wanted to draw the

attention of the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) who was not in the House the other night to a

statement so that we won't be faced with this problem day after

day. The statement is by the Hon. Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of

the House of Commons.

It says that no Member, whether on one side of the House or

the other, whether he was a Minister or not, frontbencher or

backbencher, should be accused by another Member of dishonesty,

of intentionally misleading the House or of lying to the

House.

The Member had given his explanation, which the Chair

accepted, in this particular case. The citations I am sending

over to him and to any other Member who is interested so that

this sort of thing does not occur again in the House are

citations from the 1973 Hansard of the federal House.

Time after time there have been violations in that House of

the rule which is set out in their orders as it is in ours. It

causes endless trouble and delay in debate in the House because

Members will not appreciate that it is not a point of

privilege. I am going to see that this memorandum is circulated

to all Members.

Orders of the day.

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

Something light to start the day off in harmony. Something old

and something new, something borrowed and they are all blue.

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 159, just to get things

going for the day.

The House in committee on Bill 159; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I would just

observe, Mr. Chairman, that anyone having an interest in this

bill should withdraw from the House. We would all have to meet

on the lawn. (Laughter.)

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I move the amendments

standing in my name on the order paper for

section 2, Mr.

Chairman. (See appendix.)

Amendments approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 10 inclusive approved.

section 11.

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

in my name on the order paper.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

Section 12 approved.

Title approved.

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

report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 159, Constitution Amendment Act, 1974 , reported

complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 157, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITIES ACT

The House in committee on Bill 157; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

[ Page

4249 ]

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

move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

Sections 5 to 19 inclusive approved.

section 20.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

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

Amendment approved.

section 20 as amended.

M R. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

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

In speaking to the amendment, I drew the attention of the

House to the fact that

section 20 is the

section that deals

with the composition of the board and noted that, although we

had an increase from 11 to 15 members on the board, there is no

representation or no transfer from the senate. Therefore, I

propose the amendment, which simply reads: "Delete '15' in the

first line of the

section 20 and substitute therefore '17' "

and further, by adding a subsection (

g) as follows:

"Two persons by and from the senate."

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I would like to speak on the amendment and

give my reasons for not considering it necessary. For one

thing, most of the representations that we had made to us

pointed out that they wanted to keep the board small, and 15

seemed to be the desirable number. That's one reason.

The other is that I think you will find in reading through the powers and the

duties of the senate and the board of governors that there is quite a bit of

flexibility and almost built-in regulations for them to consult together.

Thirdly, there is the possibility of transfer. For instance,

a person could be appointed to the board and to the senate.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Chairman, I realize that the

powers in some of the other sections ask for consultation. But

certainly in the short time that the bill has been on the order

paper many people in the university have said that one of the

biggest weaknesses of this bill is the lack of integration

between the functions of the senate and the board. While

traditionally the board has to do with the administration and

financial aspects of the university and the senate is the

academic overseer, there is such an important overlap between

these two that the feeling is that there should certainly be

some assurance that the two are integrated.

Two members of the senate on the board of governors would be

very valuable, and vice versa; members of the board should be

represented on the senate. The director of academic planning at

UBC has stressed this point very strongly, and I think the

Minister would agree.

It has been stated that service on the senate is very often

a very excellent apprenticeship — if I can use that word — for

future service on the board, and that there should at all times

be this overlap and integration of the two important levels of

authority so that one would not be functioning in isolation of

the other.

The word "isolation" is too strong a word; but either the

board or the senate should do more than just consult with each

other on important issues. There should be representation by

people on both boards so that whatever the subject matter

concerning the other…. Discussing matters, for example,

in senate where a board of governors representation is there

would perhaps save a lot of time and passing back and forth of

memos and briefs and what have you, and in point of fact the

person or persons from the board of governors on the senate

might be very able in short order to explain, for example, some

of the financial aspects of the university which the senate

might be less well informed about.

Of course, members on the senate would benefit by this kind

of input. Meetings of the board of governors could also receive

quite a bit of information from the senate representatives. I

wonder if the Minister wouldn't consider this. After all, in

discussing this section, I think the Minister has responded

very admirably to the request to have two members of the alumni

association on the board of governors from the appointed

members. I just feel that this would be one more step whereby

the integration of these two very important functions, which do

indeed have to work in close harmony,

[ Page 4250 ]

would be enhanced.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I certainly appreciate your concern,

and you make a valid point. You both have in that respect. All

I can say at this time is that there is ability for transfer,

and someone could be on both boards. They could be elected to

the board and also be placed on senate.

Mr. Member, I am quite willing to watch how this proceeds

during the next year. If we find that this is not working out,

that there is a lack of liaison, then we would certainly

consider what you are suggesting.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I rise to

support the amendment, and I am pleased to hear the Minister's

response because I do believe that it is important that there

is close liaison between the two. I appreciate her attitude. It

is very important.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

NAYS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

MR. CHABOT: When reporting to the House would you please

advise the Speaker that a division took place in committee and

ask for a recording?

section 20.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I

think I must rise to express my reservation about the provision

section 20 for two students to sit on the board of

governors.

The reason for my saying this is that I think it's a mistake

to distract students from their primary purpose at a university

by enticing them into administrative duties of one kind or

another.

I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe the last president of the Alma

Mater Society at the University of British Columbia to pass his year was Mr.

Dave Brousson, the former Member for North Vancouver-Capilano, who was president

of the AMS in 1949. I think in the last 25 years there's not been a president

of the AMS who's passed his year.

We've got cases not just at UBC, but at other universities

like Simon Fraser where people who sit on the senate are people

who are not taking full courses of study and could not really

be considered serious students. I think universities some time

ago quite wisely took a rather firm stand with regard to

students whose major interest in university was athletics — who

were there just to play for the football team. Regulations were

set down of a national sort that people who were at

universities should be there primarily as students. Therefore

it was required that they take a full course of study and that

they maintain adequate academic standards. No such comparable

suggestion has ever been placed before students that run for

office on the students' council or sit as senators. We're

getting fairly high up now in the administrative structure of

these institutions. And I presume a precedent is not followed

for the board of governors either.

I personally think that it's a mistake to have any student

running for an office, whether it's his own students' council…. These students' councils, remember, were set up primarily

for student affairs so the students could run their own

autonomous student body. While I think that's a very healthy

thing, I'm not at all satisfied that the enticement of students

into these activities has been good for the students

themselves. Too many of them have taken an extra year of

university simply to become treasurer or president of the AMS,

or the editor of The Ubyssey or a student senator.

Indeed, it wasn't too long ago at UBC that it was discovered

that the treasurer of the AMS wasn't even a student. He'd been

a student the year before and he'd come out there the following

year. His parents thought that he was attending university and

everyone else thought he was attending university, but he

wasn't attending university and he hadn't even bothered to

register.

They had a story, I remember, on the front page of The Ubyssey not too long ago about the president of the AMS — this

was well on into the session — who hasn't attended a lecture

and didn't contemplate attending a lecture for the full

year.

I describe these things, Mr. Chairman, not because they're

exceptions; they tend to be the rule. What I'm afraid of is

that in putting two students on the board of governors we're

likely to have just two more students who aren't students at

all, but are merely attending the university for the purpose of

sitting on the board of governors.

I think there are two cures. First of all, I don't

[ Page 4251 ]

think that students should be encouraged to undertake these

activities and be distracted from the things that they should

be attending university for. Secondly, if they are concerned

about these things as an additional activity to their main

activity, which is pursuing whatever their course of studies

happens to be, then they shouldn't be involved in these

activities unless their academic performance is such as to make

it possible for them to spend the time doing that.

I don't know whether that should be a government regulation

or a university regulation. But it certainly should be in there

somewhere. And if these activities are to be offered to

students, such as the board of governors — again may I say I

think it's a mistake — then I think it should be clearly

understood that the amount of time that they would be required

to spend or invited to spend would not be so extreme that

someone pursuing a course of study such as engineering,

medicine, law or what-have-you would find it impossible to pass

his course of study and still be a member of the senate or the

board of governors.

Some of the people who are on the board of governors are

pretty busy people. They have a lot to do. I think the

university, frankly, will be better served if those who are

members of the board of governors generally have the time to

devote to that activity.

MR. WALLACE: Very briefly, I can't avoid responding to the

Member for Point Grey because I happen to feel that student

input at the board level is a very useful idea. I think we're

living in an age where in the educational field…and I think

a lot of the discussions we've had in this House show that

we're trying to widen the overall input into the educational

system.

I don't for a moment disagree with the Member for Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) when he says that the consequence might well be

that a student on the board might not pass his examinations in

the year of his first attempt to do so. But I think, on the

other hand, if we have any real respect for students in our

universities, first of all that any student who accepts that

kind of office must surely do so in the full knowledge that

he's adding a burden to his activities at the university which

might unfortunately have that result. But if he or she is a

student who can in fact contribute to the functioning of the

board and perhaps bring in information and insights and

opinions and attitudes of mind and thinking which otherwise the

board would not know about, then one has to balance that

advantage against the personal disadvantage of the student who

probably has to repeat a year.

So I feel that since this is certainly a very optional and voluntary function

which the student can turn down if he or she so wishes, I feel that this is

a useful step forward, with some of the reservations from the Member for Point

Grey there because of that disadvantage to individuals concerned.

I feel that they are likely and almost certain to be aware

of the tasks they are taking on and the fact that it might

endanger their graduation and the appropriate number of years.

Nevertheless, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and I

think that the Minister is to be credited for putting this into

the Act.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I appreciate the words from the Member for

Oak Bay. This government always believes that those who work

and learn in an institution should have an opportunity to

participate in the government. Surely they should have their

own ideas on whether they're able to fulfil the job or not.

Just as faculty member perhaps on the University of British

Columbia's staff has to make a decision on whether he or she

has the time to take

part in politics whether at the provincial

or other levels.

Section 20 as amended approved.

section 21.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 and 23 approved.

section 24.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

section 28.

MR. SCHROEDER: In

section 28(k), where it delineates the

powers of the board,

section (

k) really does not suggest any

power at all. The

section as it reads now simply says this: "to

receive from the president and consider the budgets for

operating and capital expenditures for the university."

Now, one of the powers of the board certainly would be to do

more with a budget than to give it just consideration. I would

like the Minister to consider perhaps strengthening the powers

here. This is going to sound strange coming from this side of

the

[ Page 4252 ]

House, but I think that here is an area where the board

needs to be strengthened in the powers that are given to

it.

I would like to suggest that the board's power under

section

(

k) should read: "to receive from the president and analyse and

adopt, with or without modifications the budgets for the

operating and the capital expenditures for the university." I

would like to so move that amendment, and have it here for the

table.

I'll repeat it again so the Minister can consider it. It

should read: "to receive from the president and analyse and

adopt, with or without modifications, the budgets for the

operating and capital expenditures for the university." It

seems to me that without that extra addition,

section (

k) really doesn't say anything.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to accept that

amendment.

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Sections 29 to 34 inclusive approved.

section 35.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 35 as amended approved.

section 36.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 36 as amended approved.

section 37.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): On

section 37(

h) it's been brought to

my attention that in this particular area the power to provide for and grant

degrees, including honourary degrees, diplomas and certificates of proficiency,

except in University Faculty Associations, with

section 70(o). I wonder if the

Minister has looked into this particular problem and whether she would like

to report as to whether or not their criticisms are valid and whether there

should be some change into either one of these two sections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member, I will

look into that and see if that is necessary.

Section 37 approved.

section 38.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I have an amendment I'd like to move on

section 38. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 38 as amended approved.

Sections 39 to 44 inclusive approved.

section 45.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to move the amendment in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 45 as amended approved.

Sections 46 to 48 inclusive approved.

section 49.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'd like to move the amendment to

section

49 appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 49 as amended approved.

Sections 50 to 58 inclusive approved.

section 59.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 59 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I was looking at

section 59, and it

appears that there is a very narrow array of penalties which

the president can impose. All he can do is suspend a student.

Now, it would appear to me that there may be cases where this

is inappropriate, yet some disciplinary action is

necessary.

There are appeal provisions, but of course in the

[ Page 4253 ]

case of appeal, the case cannot be heard again from the

beginning. It's a question of accepting or rejecting the

proposal of the president. If he is restricted to suspending a

student, despite the fact that he may feel it would be more

appropriate to take action of some other nature, I wonder

whether it's really such a good

section after all.

Surely, in line with the Attorney-General's bills to provide

flexibility of penalties — the Attorney-General agrees with me

wholeheartedly here and is going to vote in favour of some

change here — in view of this thrust of the Attorney-General's

arguments, we need to have some variety of penalties to suit

the offence. Surely to restrict the president only to

suspension, and to have a very limited appeal….

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't think there….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 59: "The president has the power

to suspend a student." Under the old Act there was a broader

array of penalties which he could undertake. I have no wish to

suggest that a university president should get after students

for actions they may take outside of the university, that they

should not be in a position of judging the students for things

which are not directly related to the university, but simply to

allow suspension and nothing else is, I think, far too

limited.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, to the Hon. Member, it says:

"… to deal summarily with any matter of student

discipline."

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's the amendment.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I think you missed that amendment. That's

the one we're dealing with right now which covers that.

Section 59 as amended approved.

Sections 60 to 64 approved.

section 65.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 65 as amended approved.

Sections 66 to 68 inclusive approved.

section 69.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 69 as amended approved.

section 70.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment appearing in my name.

(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 70 as amended.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I raise the same point as I

raised before: 70(

o) is that the universities council has the

power to establish evaluation procedures for departments,

faculties, programmes and institutes. Surely there should be

some requirement that faculties, departments, et cetera,

programmes and institutes, all be properly evaluated, that it

not be simply at the wish of the council. Surely there should

be a mandatory obligation to do this. I refer the Minister

again to my comments on

section 37. It appears to me that

section 70(

a) should either require such evaluation or should,

indeed, put that on to the senate as opposed to the

council.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'm inclined to say most of the

universities have these evaluation procedures now and this

seems a fairly powerful

section to me, where it empowers the

university council itself to establish those procedures.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: But it doesn't require them.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Well, I think the message is fairly strong

there. I would not wish to place it in stronger terms at this

time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Do I take from the Minister, then, that

this is powers which the council will use only in rare cases

where they feel that a university itself is failing in the job

of evaluation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, I really don't think so, Mr. Member. I

think the very fact it's stated here that they have the power

to do this is more or less giving the message that this could

be one of their functions. I would assume that the universities

council would carry on and set up evaluation procedures.

MR. SCHROEDER:

Section (

f) gives the power to this body to

receive and to allocate and distribute capital and operating

funds and other money

[ Page 4254 ]

allocated by the Governement of the province of Canada for the

support of universities. The question that I had is: There are

approximately, it varies from year to year, but approximately $15

million worth of grants that are given for special projects. These

grants are not necessarily given by the Province of British Columbia or

and so on and so forth.

They are usually given on the basis of the strength of a certain

faculty member and abilities that he may have in certain fields of

research. Am I to understand that all moneys to be received, even these

special grants, are to fall under this

section and that these special

grants will be allocated and received and distributed by this board as

well?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No.

I think it is primarily referring to the ones given by government. That

then follows distribution for the government ones. The other one you

are referring to — no. I think all that is stated here is that they can

ask information about them.

MR. SCHROEDER: Okay.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Referring to

section 70(o). In

section 71, immediatly following

section 70, it says:

"Notwithstanding

section 70, the universities council shall not

interfere in the exercise of powers conferred on a university, its

board, senate, and other constituent bodies by this Act respecting

"(

a) the formulation and adoption of academic policies and standards."

I see conflict between the board evaluating and the universities

themselves establishing standards. The board obviously, in its

evaluation, has got to put in some kind of standard or some

recommendations vis à vis standards. It seems in direct conflict with

section 71(a).

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Member, thre is really a basic

difference. I don't think it is really a conflict. There is a difference

under (

o) where it says, "to establish evanluation procedures." The

other

section says it must not interfere in the exercise of powers

regarding the establishment of standards for admission and graduation.

To my mind there are two different things involved.

We thought this over very carefully; we had discussions with a

number of faculty people on this. My understanding is that this is

quite satisfactory. The council established the evaluation of standards

to the university.

MR. SCHROEDER: I see a further conflict in 70(

o) and would

support the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). Subsection

(

o) gives the board the power to establish evaluation procedures for

departments, faculties, programmes and institutes. Yet, in a

section

which we have already passed, the bill strictly eliminates the

appointment of employees or students of the university.

I see that perhaps these employees or these students of the

universities might well have great contributions to make on this board

if, indeed, this board is to establish and evaluate procedures for the

various departments. I see a mild conflict there between those two

sections.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Of course the council is empowered, as I recall, to set up advisory committees which can be made up of faculty and students.

MR. SCHROEDER: Okay.

Sections 70 to 74 inclusive approved.

section 75.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment to

section 75 in my name standing on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 75 as amended approved.

Section 76 to 83 inclusive approved.

section 84.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment to

section 84 in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 84 as amended approved.

Sections 85 to 91 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

[ Page 4255 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 157, Universities Act , reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 155, Mr. Speaker.

LANDLORD AND TENANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

The House in committee on Bill 155; Mr. Liden in the chair.

section 1.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am surprised. It deals with the

effective date as June 1, 1974. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that

in view of the fact that the cabinent does have a Member who is closely

involved with this type of practice of bouncing people from apartments

when they fail to buy condominiums, perhaps we should make it

retroactive so that we can take in the Bob Williams' condominium and

deal with the poor person or family evicted or forced out or required

to purchase whatever it was in the case of a celebrated landlord of

British Columbia who, indeed, acted very much against the intent and

spirit of this particular amendment.

I wonder if the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would consider an amendment to take into account that particular case.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General):

I appreciate the Member's compliment to the Hon. Minister who

refurbished and upgraded the quality of a building in the City of

Vancouver and improved the corner of that area. He provided good homes

for good people, all with the consent of everybody who was involved in

the operation. I appreciate the compliment the Member has paid to the

Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I ask the Minister, then, Mr.

Chairman, whether it will be a satisfactory defence for a landlord, if

he refurbishes and upgrades the area and makes improvements, that he

will then be exempt from the provisions of this particular amendment?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, provided he doesn't fall within the terms of the amendment.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

Attorney-General would clarify one thing for me. In the explanatory

notes it says, "The purpose of this bill is to amend the existing Landlord and Tenant Act

to prohibit landlords from evicting tenants who refuse to pay more than

an 8 per cent increase...." Is 8 per cent the increase that is going to

be the effective increase in the Landlord and Tenant Act ?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. This is the old Landlord and Tenant Act

which will expire on its deathbed when the new Act, Bill 105, becomes

law. That, of course, provides its own code for preventing unjust

evictions of tenants. Threfore, we amend the old Act and extend that up

to the same date, namely sometime in the fall when the new Act will be

effective.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committe rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports Bill 155 complete without amendment.

Bill 155, Landlord and Tenant Amendment Act, 1974 , reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Committee on Bill 158, Mr. Speaker.

ECONOMIC POLICY ANALYSIS INSTITUTE OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committe on Bill 158; Mr. Liden in the chair.

section 1.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I just wondered if the Minister

might consider a change of name to the "Mason Gaffney Retirement Fund

Act." Perhaps we could comment that "old planners never die; they just

go into Bob Williams' Economic Policy Analysis Institute."

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with

section 1,

[ Page 4256 ]

not the title.

HON. MR. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Point of order. …Member's named by their name instead of being referred to

properly as the Minister of Land, Forests and Water Resources

or something else. I think we could abide by that fine

parliamentary tradition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well made.

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

…we're getting used to it.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive.

section 4.

MR. McGEER: On

section 4, Mr. Chairman, you were moving

there with lightning speed.

I wanted to ask a question of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). I'm not entirely

clear, of course, as to why it's a bill of the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources when it deals with economic

policy. I would have thought maybe it should be the Premier or

the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce

(Hon. Mr. Lauk).

Here we have a board of directors being appointed, and I

don't understand the relationship between the board of

directors and the academic staff. Is Mason Gaffney academic

staff, or is he board of directors?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That's still to be determined, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps there's a place for

institutes in universities, but there certainly isn't a place

for political influence in academic appointments. Knowledge has

to stand on its own feet. Certainly I'm a little worried about

Dr. Mason Gaffney. He's a maverick economist and his views

happen to coincide with the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources.

But all attempts in the past to try and confer academic

legitimacy to political viewpoints have ended in failure. If

the attempt here by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources is to find economists who happen to agree with his

views, then to appoint a board of directors who agree with his

views to support that man, and then to take money out of

general revenue and circumvent the ordinary process of dividing

money as you have with the Universities Act that we just

passed, to offer as an incentive and sustenance to something

which couldn't stand on its own feet otherwise — a political

invasion of the academic process — then we've done a disservice

both to politics and to academia.

This particular Act, in my view, smacks of all of that. The

Minister's answer really revealed that the intent of the

Minister — I don't know whether the rest of the government

recognizes it and I don't even know if the University of

Victoria knows what they are getting into — but it looks as

though the intent of the Minister is to do precisely what I

have suggested. I would think, at the very least, that those

who are appointed to the board of directors of the institute

should have pretty narrow terms of authority, because if it is

to have any academic standing at all, then the appointment of

the academic staff must lie entirely within the board of

governors of the university, and the financing and the

activities should be subject to the ordinary academic

procedures of the university.

If the Minister wants to set up some entirely independent

board to serve him in some capacity and to finance it, then it

would be possible to have an economic policy institute, or an

economic council here in British Columbia. But that shouldn't

be grafted onto a university with the expectation that it would

enhance either the institute or the university.

I would certainly like to hear from the Minister a strong

statement today that the people appointed as a board under

section 4 would not be academic staff and that the academic

activities would be entirely under the governance of the board

of governors and senate of the university.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is just amazing

to get one of the staff members of one of the major

universities in the province speaking on the floor afraid of

diversity, afraid of a mixture of ideas — of the whole

percolation of the intellectual process to challenge one

another's ideas in our society. That's what this institute

might very well do in terms of some of the steps government may

or may not take. I don't fear that at all. I would encourage

that. We expect independence of thought. We expect high quality

in terms of work and output.

You may talk about mavericks all you like, but I would just

like to say that the history of the schools of economics in the

United States in the early days are tied to the railway trusts

of North America. Anybody who doesn't really know the early

roots of the so-called pure academic world hasn't been around

and hasn't been looking under the stones very long. The good

doctor couldn't figure out the sex of a whale a few years ago,

so I'm not surprised he hasn't dug in this area either.

We intend to see a quality and a standard established at

this institute unequalled in the province and in this part of

the world. It's a unique opportunity for government to work

with top-notch academics, and vice versa, and for both of us to

benefit in the process — and for the civil service itself to

benefit from being involved with top-notch

[ Page 4257 ]

academics in a way they've never had the opportunity to have

before in this province.

The civil service has been held down under the former

administration. Those people with quality, with intellectual

ability never allowed to flower, will now have an opportunity

to work closely with the University of Victoria and help

improve the University of Victoria — strengthen government,

strengthen the university, strengthen the quality of the civil

service, and at the same time challenge one another's ideas.

That's what the intellectual process is supposed to be all

about.

I am sure that the good doctor would prefer the kind of

monolithic structure that he's been used to working within.

That is not what we are after.

The kind of process that will evolve with this institute at

the university will evolve between the two of them working

together. Now that's the kind of system we want to see in many

ways in the province. The man we have now as acting director of

this institute has been with the Resources for the Future

Organization in Washington, D.C. — one of the outstanding

groups of academics in the world — dealing with resource

economic questions, having done so for decades, financed by the

Ford Foundation and other foundations in the United States and

others.

Now we happen to live in one of the resource-rich parts of

the world. We should be bringing to bear the best minds in the

world in this province. That's the intent under this statute.

That's why you birds fear it over there. And yak, yak, yak all

you like about Bill 31, in the steps we are taking in the

forest industry we're simply working to see that the people get

their due rent from the resources of this rich province. We

don't want captive schools that don't see the opportunities

right under our noses.

We intend to have a flowering group of brilliant academics

that can advise government and the civil service and be

independent and carry out their own research as well. It's a

unique opportunity and one that just couldn't have happened a

couple of years ago. It is a chance to make sure that we make

the most of this resource-rich province of ours.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to state that I allowed the Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey and the Minister to discuss the thing

in principle. We should really be discussing

section 4, which

deals with the number of people on the board, the terms of

their tenure. That's about it, not the principle of the bill.

That's been dealt with before.

MR. McGEER: Quite, Mr. Chairman, and I absolutely agree. What we are

dealing with here is the kinds of people that it shall be appropriate to appoint

as a board of governors. While it doesn't explicitly say so, when the university

council was passed in the former bill, it said that employees of the university

were not to be members of the council. It was making a rather, I thought, appropriate

division between people who were directing something financially and people

who supposedly were academics.

The Minister made a wonderful speech about resources a

minute ago. I have to disagree because I think that Bill 31,

which he lauded, is running our resource industries into the

ground. But I'm not going to digress.

I want to say that there is a departure with this

section 4

from what I thought was a fairly well-established routine in

the Legislature — established, I might say, by the former

government — that governments would stay out of academic

affairs. You can imagine the outcry that we would have had, Mr.

Chairman, had the former Social Credit government appointed an

academic research institute at Simon Fraser University with

Major Douglas as the chief economist.

But it is quite conceivable that the former Minister of

Public Works, Mr. Chant, or the former Minister of Health, Mr.

Martin, might have given a stirring defence of the need for

proper economic thought in academia and could have cited the

world renown of Major Douglas. He was a world renowned

economist — not my style….

AN HON. MEMBER: No he wasn't, you're being facetious.

MR. McGEER: Yes he was. I'm not being facetious, he was a

famous man. His theories inspired more than one government here

in British Columbia. The people who would have….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you referring to Social Credit?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's it.

MR. McGEER: No, what I'm saying is that I think the Minister

of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) would have made a

major outcry had Major Douglas been appointed head of an

economic policy analysis institute at one of our universities,

and had the former Minister of Public Works and the Minister of

Health Services been given a job of appointing a board of

directors that might have included Major Douglas. You know — "because we're government, we're the good guys and our

economic thinking is right and the people who we think are

famous people are famous people."

But when you get right down to it, it's gross meddling of a

government in what should be affairs that are completely

independent of a government. Universities should be that way

and people shouldn't be appointing their political friends to a

board of

[ Page 4258 ]

directors. They shouldn't be appointing academics; these

should come from other routes. While I certainly agree about

freedom of thought and the need for competition of ideas, this

is, to my way of thinking, blatant political interference in

the life of academia, and I hope it's not going to become a

habit of government in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the point made in

the

section is very clear — that the board will, singularly or

as a group, represent labour, consumers, producers,

professional and government interests of the province. A fairly

wide range of the people of this province.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yet this kind of exclusive, elitist view

of the world that we constantly get from Point Grey and Second

Victoria — you know, an exclusive view of the world that only

an elite are deigned to manage and govern. That's changed, but

they don't seem to realize that — that there is a need for

these people closer to the ground to be involved in the process

of the universities or related institutions. And this is a

separate institution, separate from the university itself, so

don't muddy it up trying to suggest that this is the

university, because it isn't. Any association will be

negotiated between the separate board and the university board,

which is another separate board.

It's so interesting to watch the Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey talk about the purity of these institutions when we know

who appointed who, when, where, and why in the past. All too

pure for me. I can think of a number of appointments at the

universities of this province, the providing of seed money by a

few — and this is not just this province, this is the picture

in North America — a little bit of seed money to turn the

academic ship in the direction the corporate elite may want. A

little bit of seed money is all it takes.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Sure, the CIA in the United States and

various other groups…just a little bit of seed money to

twist the pattern and movement of most of the research going on

in the universities. Incredible.

Now I say the pattern has mainly been established in the

United States, but it's there for us to, see. But I can

certainly think of examples, and even at the University of

British Columbia, where seed money has been provided, where

money has provided for a chair. You know, it sounds very nice —

we'll establish a chair.

Real estate institutes — the Real Estate Board of Vancouver providing funding

to the school of commerce to make sure that the right kind of approach was taken

in a sector of the commerce department. Just a little bit of money here, a little

bit of money there, and then you get this nice, pure academic response. So let's

not have this kind of purists nonsense again. Anybody who cares to look can

see what's happened in the past.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I was anxious to get an example

from the Minister of Lands and Forests. You know, while it's

true that people do endow chairs at universities, it is done

around the world. They don't make the appointments to those

chairs, and they don't appoint a board of governors to make

sure that the people in those chairs do what they want.

I don't think the people at universities are elitists in any

way. The elitists are over there in the cabinet; they're the

elitists. People in academia don't have powers. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the one who's going to

appoint all the people to this board of directors. The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is the one who's going to make

the money available. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is

going to appoint the director. What we've had is not

necessarily going to be different from people who are appointed

under

section 6 as normal academics.

I want to say this, Mr. Chairman: this is the first major

political invasion of academia in British Columbia. It's

unhealthy. Believe me, it's unhealthy. It would take a

dedicated political idealist, if you can call the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources an idealist in any sense.

In the narrow political sense however, he is a man committed to

a limited political philosophy. He is trying to exercise that

philosophy, not only in the industrial sphere through control

of major industries of this province, but he is attempting to

move into the academic circles as well. I disapprove of that in

both. I think industry should stand on its own feet; academia

should stand on its own feet; and politics should stand

independently of both.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: That would be fine. I think that would be

excellent. May I suggest that the Premier bring in a bill to

that effect and get his hands out of the union's pockets.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're both out of order.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I welcome the Premier's

[ Page

4259 ]

statements, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a very good idea that

we bring in legislation funding political parties.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we get back to the bill,

section 4?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'll get back to the bill. I think it's a

great idea. I welcome that statement, and I trust he'll bring

the bill in soon, perhaps not this session but soon anyway.

Mr. Chairman, the words of the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources took me back a few years to the days when I

was quite a student of the Communist Party of China. There was

a campaign about a decade ago which was called "Let a Hundred

Flowers Blossom, Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend." It

was great fun. It was fascinating for us as western observers

of a totalitarian system to observe how they encourage the idea

of different schools of thought, how they encouraged different

points of view. But just as soon as they got in any difficulty,

all those flowers had their heads chopped off and the people

involved in those contending schools of thought found

themselves without any opportunity whatsoever to continue their

work, academic or otherwise, and they were sent out for

corrective labour.

The Minister may talk all he likes on

section 4 in terms of

bringing in labour, consumer, producer, professional and

government interests, but if the government is the body which

appoints these people, there really is no guarantee whatsoever

that we will have anything but people from those various groups

who represent the government point of view. That's the critical

factor here.

If he really believes in this decentralization of control

over an academic institute, why in

section 4(1) do we have the

government itself, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as the

body responsible for all those appointments? As the Minister of

Education did a short time ago in her bill before the House

this afternoon, why does he not appoint from a number of

individuals proposed or suggested by, for example, labour

unions, unorganized labour, from consumer groups or thing of

that nature?

Why is it that the government reserves the right to itself

to total control over appointments, and does not even have the

restriction of appointing only from a list which is brought

forward by the particular special interest groups which he

named? This would appear to me to be reasonable, if not indeed

they went even further and had the particular groups nominate

people to that board of directors.

It's fine to take about elitism, but elitism which is government elitism is

really no better than academic elitism or any other type. You're choosing your

own people, you're making sure the board of directors is exactly people of your

own persuasion or thinking and of your own appointment. You're giving no opportunity

here within this legislation,

section 4, to have these various groups themselves

propose people.

I really think that the argument which the Minister has put

forward is fallacious in that we have no guarantee whatsoever

that these various groups will be represented by people who

are, indeed, representative of them, as opposed to people from

such groups which represent a government viewpoint.

That's precisely the point we're trying to make in this

area. I think the Minister has either missed it deliberately or

unwittingly when he's gone on to say it's to decentralize and

get away from elitism, because it's going to be government

elitism. I don't think that's better than any other kind.

What I'm waiting for is the second half of the "hundred

flowers" campaign when you decide there is too much criticism

of government policy. That's where you're going to cut this

board of directors up by your right to appoint, where you're

going to insist that the institute acts in your interest and

yours alone.

I suspect this will come, from what you've said so far, and

I think section (4)(1) could well do with either a more

straightforward defence of government appointment rather than

the red herring of elitism, or indeed amendment to ensure that

these groups are guaranteed representation on the board of

directors.

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

.Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.A.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 15

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson., D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

[ Page 4260 ]

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: The Premier seems very mischievous, Mr.

Chairman. He's attempting to divide the first and second

Members for Point Grey, something that's never, ever been done

before…

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Since last night. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Well, not often. Mr. Chairman, I would like to

ask the Minister a question about

section 6.

It says that the board that he appoints "may appoint an

executive director and academic staff." This seems to be in

agreement with

section 3(l)(2) which say the institute shall

operate within the university system in the province.

Mr. Chairman, what happens if Mason Gaffney appoints one of

the Minister's friends…?

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have any.

MR. McGEER: Sure, he does — Granny. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: She's not on the board.

MR. McGEER: Don't be too sure.

AN HON. MEMBER: She likes building. Granny's a builder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're not dealing with the board in

this section.

MR. McGEER: Okay, Mr. Chairman, what happens if the board

appointed by the Minister under

section 4 appoints a professor

under

section 6, and the board of governors of the University

of Victoria says no? Who's boss — the board of governors of the

University of Victoria or the board of directors appointed by

the Minister under

section 4?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: This is a separate, autonomous board and

the University of Victoria is a separate, autonomous board.

Relationships will have to be negotiated between the two

parties.

MR. McGEER: The Minister hasn't answered the question.

Section 3 says: "The institute shall, within the university

system in the province… provide training, teaching and

consulting services." So under

section 3 they are part of the

University of Victoria; they do operate under the university

system.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: It's confusing.

MR. McGEER: They are located at the University of

Victoria.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. McGEER: They are under a board of directors appointed by

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Right.

MR. McGEER: This board, Mr. Chairman, isn't appointing

people to the economic institute; they're appointing academic

staff.

These two bodies operate under legislation that we passed

here in the House. You don't pass legislation in the

Legislature setting up bodies and then have them negotiate with

one another. What kind of legislative action is that?

You've got to set down in black and white what the rules of

the game are going to be. If you are trying to pretend that

this isn't a political invasion of academia, then, of course,

you don't write sections like

section 3 and

section 6. It says,

"academic staff." If it isn't going to be spelled out

explicitly under the legislation, the Minister had darn well

better give an explicit definition in this House to be placed

in Hansard that will be there for people to see and interpret

afterwards as to who's boss in this situation, the board of

governors of the University of Victoria or the board of this

economic institute which the Minister is going to appoint under

section 4.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has been asked an

explicit, definite question which is critical to this

particular bill and its

interpretation. This is one question

that the Minister must answer.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's been answered, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. McGEER: The Minister refused to give an answer. He said

it's going to be negotiation. We don't pass legislation in this

House subject to future negotiation by anybody. You have

appointed two boards of directors, each with power to appoint

academic staff. This is just nonsense.

Mr. Chairman, surely the Minister can do better than

this.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Not today.

MR. McGEER: We'd better have a division, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4261 ]

Section 6 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 32

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

NAYS — 15

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.,

Gardom

Gibson

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will have it recorded.

Section 7 approved.

section 8.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Could I get an indication from the

Minister of Finance of exactly how much this is going to cost?

I've read

section 8 fairly carefully and I really can't

understand how much of the $5 million that we plugged into the

British Columbia Economic Research Fund….

HON. MR. BARRETT: It will be budgeted in limitations.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, but we don't like to interfere with

the universities' budgets. You know that.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON:

Section 8(2) goes into general revenue:

consolidated revenue, revenue surplus appropriations account,

consolidated revenue fund.

Section 8(3) goes completely against

what you were saying yesterday about the need to get the best

return on investment, because it gives preference to certain

types of investments. I wonder whether or not you'd like to

comment on that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we have that under close observation

at all times, Mr. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We have no idea then what the….

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have an idea that the budget will be

limited to the interest returned on that $5 million.

However, in that great liberal tradition, we do not intend

to order them to submit their budget, because we wouldn't want

to upset the Liberals by intervening in the detail of the

budget at the university. Now if that's what your suggestion

is, I'll go and try to get a reaction from the University of

Victoria and the University of British Columbia to the Liberal

leader's suggestion that the detailed budgets of the

universities be subject to close scrutiny by this Legislature.

I know that the colleague next to you who is already planning

on leaving you will leave that much faster.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister of Finance has said some

very fascinating things. He said that this is the university.

His Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources has told us

time after time, earlier this afternoon, that this is not going

to be part of the university; it's going to be something

separate. Now you've got the thing completely back to front

because you are in total conflict with the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources.

Now if we're going to get the interest for $5 million on

this, on what rate of interest are you calculating your cost,

or your expectations? Is it 10 per cent; is it 5 per cent? What

about the preference to be given to the guarantee obligations

of the province and things of that nature? I would just like a

ballpark figure on how much this thing is going to cost, and

why we are repealing legislation which we passed in 1973.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I would just like to say that the

Premier made it abundantly clear what the policy is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: That's true. The policy was abundantly

clear as are all the policy statements of the Premier. It's

unintelligible to anyone who perhaps is not privy to cabinet

secrets. We would like to know, representing the taxpayers of

the province, what the ballpark figure is for the expenditure

on this particular institute.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't take you into cabinet meetings,

and I know how much trouble you're having attending your own

caucus meetings, but I want to make it clear that the budget

will be established within the framework of the return on the

investment of that $5 million. That's fair and clear. I can't

tell you what percentage.

I can't tell you what percentage. It may go up or go down.

We'll be sharp, and we'll be on the ball and if we can get a

better interest rate, we'll get a better interest rate. That's

what we're working towards, and

[ Page 4262 ]

I know that's what you're working towards.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm delighted to hear that this is the

objective of the government. It would seem from everything the

Minister of Finance has said that

section 8(2) is totally

redundant. It talks about authorizing the Minister of Finance

to pay from revenue surplus or consolidated revenue, or partly

from the revenue surplus and partly from consolidated revenue,

in such proportions as he considers requisite or advisable to

fund such amounts in addition to that referred to above in

section 8(l), which of course refers to the $5 million fund.

You are telling us now that we will see no funds coming from

8(2) whatsoever, and we're dealing entirely within the interest

rates of the $5 million fund of what was formerly the British

Columbia Economic Research Fund Act and which is now the

Economic Policy Analysis Institute Fund.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, on occasion I am called upon

to respond as a social worker, and today is one of those

occasions. Now you've just made a Freudian slip. The word you

have used is "redundancy." The only motivation for the use of

that word can't be related to this section. It's an evaluation

of your own role in this House. This

section is not redundant.

It clarifies in great detail exactly what the intention of this

Act is. There's no redundancy. Those lawyers that we pay all

that money to would never be redundant. It is really an attack

on the civil service when you make these kinds of questions

part of your fabric today.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, this is all great fun, but we are

trying to get some indication from the government of the actual

costs of the institute. If you use an interest rate of 5 per

cent, 6 per cent, 7 per cent, you'll get a totally different

amount of money than if you use the interest rate of 10, 11 or

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll take it as notice and find out.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, there's no need to take it as notice.

The Minister who sits behind you, Mr. Minister of Finance,

probably has some idea of the cost of this institute. It's fine

for you to say it's limited to the $5 million fund and the

interest thereon, but the

section you are asking us to vote on

gives you full power to add to that and you've indicated,

according to your policy statement, that this particular

subsection is redundant.

Now, is it, or isn't it? What is the ballpark figure? Yesterday we spent a

long time asking for some indication of how you were going to spend $500 million.

Today it's a little less, but the principle is the same. Can we have some indication

of the amount of money that you're going to spend?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am advised that the interest

rate is in the range of 8 or 8.5 per cent.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What's the full amount?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we may not spend the full amount. We

haven't been spending the full amount up to now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: All you can conclude is that you have no

idea what the expenditure is going to be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we're setting up an institute.

This is enabling legislation and then they'll have to draw up a

budget, but the framework will be within that interest

rate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You must have a ballpark figure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The ballpark figure is limited to the

return interest rate. I don't know why you are not

satisfied.

Section 8 approved.

Sections 9 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee reports that there were two

divisions to be recorded.

Leave granted.

Bill 158, Economic Policy Analysis Institute of British

Columbia Act , reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on committee on Bill 31,

Mr. Speaker.

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 3 1; Mr. Liden in

[ Page 4263 ]

the chair.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We would entertain a motion from the

opposition if they wish to pass the bill. (Laughter.)

section 3 as amended.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River):

Section 3, Mr. Chairman,

deals with the royalties being established by that government

against the mining industry of this province. It is a very

strict and punitive measure being taken by that little Minister

over there, and I was rather shocked when the Premier was

talking about royalties last Friday in that hysterical

demonstration which he gave to the House. He suggested at that

time that the royalties being established by the Minister

weren't sufficient and he thought that the Minister should

charge twice as much.

He said that the Minister in his later years had mellowed to

a substantial degree and that in his younger days, when lie was

more radical, he would have been substantially harsher against

jobs in the mining industry in the province.

I think there is a fair degree of harshness now in the

application of the royalties as outlined in

section 3. I think

they are worthy of closer scrutiny probably than they have

been, and the Member for South Peace River has arrived and

might have a few words to say.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, the

Minister said that he was going to scrutinize those figures and

tell me if the figures in that report to the shareholders from

Consolidated Churchill Copper were wrong or right.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I am very pleased to inform you that I

didn't have a complete audit taken since last night of the

financial statement, but the information that we received in

regard to the amount of copper that was involved was 50 per

cent wrong. The royalties are about half what your financial

statement states. You had $890,593 and we figured it out to

$459,000, which would give you a net profit at the end of

$262,502.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much a share?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I didn't go on to say how much a share,

because that wasn't my job and that wasn't the question I was

asked.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The only question that was asked was

whether the royalties were correct or not.

MR. PHILLIPS: Does the Minister consider that the investment

of $14,500,000 over a period of five years would be too much

profit from that mine?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That isn't for me to consider. My

consideration is the return to the people of British Columbia

of the product they are depleting, which is a one-shot

resource. I don't think that any other industry that was

supplying goods to that company has taken into consideration

whether they could stand the prices they charge for their goods

or not. So I'm sure the Hon. Member will recognize this fact.

He asked me for these figures and I'm giving them now, and of

course the whole question was somewhat estimated. It said at

the top that some of this was an estimated financial statement.

And this is the nearest I could find out this morning.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Minister gets hung up on the return to the

people of British Columbia. I want to tell you the greatest

resource in this province is the people of this province. They

are the people who should receive first consideration.

HON. MR. NIMSICK : Right on.

MR. PHILLIPS: They are the human resources, and when you are

putting people out of jobs and destroying industry you are not

considering the people of British Columbia. Now the mining

industry certainly pays much in the way of taxes to the

province. If this mine is closed down, Mr. Chairman, which it

will be…both of these mines will be closed down, copper

will be left in the ground.

I think you must consider that the copper will be left in

the ground because in seven years they will be mining copper

from the ocean floor, Mr. Chairman. Many of these marginal

copper mines in British Columbia will never be developed. Does

the Minister not consider that? Can you not see that, Mr.

Minister? Would you prefer to have marginal copper mines closed

down forever with absolutely no return to the people of British

Columbia rather than use a little discretion on this and get

hung up on this ideology of yours?

The mining industry returns lots of tax dollars to the

Province of British Columbia.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I just want to make a few

comments on this royalty section. This is the section, of

course, that has led to all of the problems in the province

right now under this particular Act and this particular

section.

On the royalties

section we have been hearing continually

both outside the House and inside the House on debate on this

section of what it is going to cost the companies —

particularly the companies with

[ Page 4264 ]

the copper mines. This is the

section of the Act that led

these companies to say: "Let's counter-attack." They said this

last March. "Let's counter-attack so they will know who runs

this province." We have been hearing from them quite a lot

lately. I understand we are going to on Thursday.

No one has talked at all about what the mining companies are

going to be able to keep. All they have been talking about is

what they are going to pay. At the present price of copper for

a rough ballpark figure, but it is fairly close, it looks as

though the companies are going to receive today, if this

section on royalties is enforced to its fullest extent,

slightly over $1 per pound for copper that these marginal mines

were producing at a profit a year-and-a-half ago for 40-odd

cents. Now they can't seem to operate on copper for $ I per

pound even after these royalties are paid. I can't see any

logic in statements of this sort. There is some very poor

mathematics involved in it.

The Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson)

was in Kamloops speaking on these royalties. We had his

comments made up there publicly that he felt the mining

companies were entitled to huge profits. We have seen this

defence of them in the House today.

But never once has he mentioned the price of copper that the

companies will be able to keep, even with every

section of this

Act put into force as strongly as possible. I would suggest

that it is all smokescreen. There will still be plenty of money

even for marginal mines to operate on when at the present time

they will be able to keep over $1 per pound.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: In reply to the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips), I appreciate his concern for

Consolidated Churchill Copper Corporation. I don't think any

company that is making $262,502 profit in three months will go

out of business with this royalty. When they started up in

January they knew full well that we were going to have

royalties. They had that knowledge, I don't think for a minute

that they will shut down at all. I think they will be very

tickled with the showing that this royalty will be.

I am sure that they are very anxious too to see that people

receive their just due from the depreciation of this

resource.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I just have to comment briefly

on the remarks of the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson)

about the return to the mining company for $1 per pound for

copper. If you could go and take this copper out of the ground

easily, maybe high-grade…which will be done because they

will not use the low-grade ore bodies, they will be left there.

That is why you should be taxing them on profits, not on the

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister

realizes or not that copper in British Columbia runs in various

veins. Some of it is high grade, some is low grade and some is

very difficult to get at. When you are being charged on the

amount you are taking out of the ground the only stuff you are

going to take out of the ground is the stuff that you can do

profitably. That means, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this

province will be losing a resource because it will be left in

the ground. Low-grade ore bodies of copper will be left in the

ground. Is that good for the people of British Columbia? Is

that a return on their resources? No, Mr. Chairman, it is

not.

MR. CHABOT: In discussing royalties, the Minister has used

the comparison between royalties assessed in the forest

industry and mining. I just received a note from the galleries.

A very interesting question has been put. If you are going to

apply royalties to mining and forestry what is eventually going

to happen? Are you going to apply a royalty to fishing, which

is a depletable industry as well, and farming, which is a

renewable resource like the forest industry? Is it the

intention of the government to apply royalties to these two

industries in British Columbia?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Neither of those questions applies to this question

here. We are dealing with the non-replenishable resource. That part doesn't

come under my department. If it did maybe I would find some way to do it but

it doesn't come under my department.

Section 3 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

Hall

Sanford

Lauk

Macdonald

D'Arcy

Nicolson

Barrett

Cummings

Skelly

Dailly

Dent

Gabelmann

Strachan

Williams, R.A.

Gorst

Nimsick

Cocke

Anderson, G.H.

Calder

King

Barnes

Nunweiler

Lea

Kelly

Brown

Young

Webster

Radford

NAYS — 16

Chabot

Phillips

Schroeder

Bennett

Richter

Gardom

Smith

McClelland

Gibson

Jordan

Morrison

Anderson, D.A.

Fraser

Williams, L.A.

[ Page

4265 ]

section 4.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It will just be

short remarks, Mr. Premier, but they're important. I'll make

them at such length as seems necessary.

Section 4(

l) provides that where royalty is paid under this

Act it's credited to certain other Acts. Subsection 2 provides

that where royalty is paid under certain other Acts it's

credited to this. But then subsection 3 has a defect in the

drafting. It reads as follows:

"Any royalty payable under the Coal Act, Mineral Act , or

Placer-mining Act that is not paid on the day this Act comes

into force shall be deemed to be royalty payable under the

provisions of this Act."

The

section does not go on, Mr. Chairman, to make clear that

once it is paid under the provisions of this Act, Bill 31, it

is no longer a charge to that extent under the Acts under which

it was previously payable: namely, the Coal Act, Mineral Act

and Placer-mining Act .

I would therefore move the following amendment of which I've

given the Minister notice, to add the words: "…and such

royalties shall be credited to the royalty payable under the

Coal Act, Mineral Act or Placer-mining Act ."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a copy of that?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I have a copy of that. It would be my

belief that that expresses the intention of the bill. I hope

the Minister might accept it.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: First, I would like to thank the Hon.

Member for North Vancouver-Capilano that he gave me copies of

his amendments ahead of time. I appreciated them very much. But

if you look at subsection 1 of

section 4 you will find that

this is amply covered. It says:

"Where a producer pays royalty under this Act in respect of

a unit of a designated mineral produced by him, the amount of

such payment shall be credited to the amount of royalty payable

by him under the Coal Act, Mineral Act or Placer-mining Act . In

respect of the production of the same unit of the designated

mineral, his liability to pay royalty under those Acts shall be

reduced to the extent of the amount of royalty paid under this

Act."

MR. GIBSON: That's right, Mr. Minister, but, with respect, I would have

said that

section 1 applies only to minerals produced after the coming into

force of this Act,

whereas

section 3 applies to minerals produced before the

coming into force. Therefore, there is a double jeopardy possibility in subsection

HON. MR. NIMSICK : No, I can't see that there is any double jeopardy

in this at all. If there's any royalty payable under the Coal Act, Mineral Act

or Placer-mining Act that is not paid the day that this Act comes into force,

it shall be deemed to be royalty paid under this Act. That's the royalty that

wasn't paid. The other covers the question.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 4 and 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. GIBSON: On

section 6 I would suggest a couple of

problems. First of all, on line 1 it's proposed that every

producer shall file not later than the 15th day of every month

estimates of the gross and net value and so on of the

production. I would question whether the 15th day is a

possible target in terms of the amount of paper work to be

completed. I would suggest that it would be….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before the Hon. Member

proceeds with

section 6, I would go back to

section 5. There

are amendments in the name of the Minister.

section 5.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to

section 5 in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment in my

name on the order paper to

section 6. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 6.

MR. GIBSON: Is it all right now, Mr. Chairman?

I would suggest that the words "the 15th day" should be

replaced with "the last day" at line 1. In

section 6, line 4

once again the intention here, if I understand it correctly, is

that royalties should be paid on units in respect of which the

producer received gross value. But in that same line there

are

[ Page 4266 ]

the words "designated mineral produced or in respect of

which he received gross value during the preceding month."

So as I read that section, a producer would be liable to pay

royalty not only on the units of production on which he

received gross value, but also on the units that he produced

for which he may not yet have received payment — in other

words, royalty payable on the stockpile that he built up.

Therefore, I would move that in

section 6, line 1, the words

"the 15th day" should be deleted and be replaced with "the

last day," and that on line 4 the words "produced or" be

deleted.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, if the present setup here

proves inadequate to handle the situation, I promise you that

we will bring in an amendment at a later date.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GIBSON: I have one more amendment to

section 6, Mr.

Chairman, which I think is a fairly important one. That is to

provide that the administrator must exercise his powers only

after having given notice to the party involved. Under

subsection 3 and subsection 4 the administrator has the power

to unilaterally assess a particular royalty and send out notice

that it shall be paid. Then he has very strong enforcement

powers later on in this bill.

It seems to me only proper that the producer should have the

right of a hearing before such levy be sent out. Therefore, I

move that subsection 6 be added reading as follows:

"Prior to taking action under subsection 3 or 4 the

administrator shall hold a hearing for the producer to provide such

information as the administrator or producer may think relevant."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that

amendment. We want monthly reports. What we've got in here is

similar to what the private companies do with each other. They

like monthly reports and so do we. I don't think you could go

to the trouble of holding a hearing every time they sent in a

report.

MR. GIBSON: This is with respect to a dispute over the

assessment, though, Mr. Minister. It's not with respect to the

filing of a report; it's where an assessment has been made by

the administrator. The producer would have no way at all of

even knowing the information it was based on, let alone of

appealing it, unless he had some chance to talk to the

administrator.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: The assessment will be made on the report the company

gives unless, as I said before, it was thought that the company was not giving

the correct report. We'll be taking the faith of the company in most cases,

except, as I say, if it should happen that the administrator should think that

the company has not given him the correct report.

MR. GIBSON: But in those cases there should be a

hearing.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): This is another

section, Mr. Chairman, in which there is the objectionable

procedure of not having an appeal. Even if an individual or a

company wanted to appeal a ruling of the administrator they

have no appeal, not even to the cabinet let alone the

courts.

I think this is a very objectionable feature to have in a

bill because human errors can be made. When you have no appeal,

this cuts the individual off from his just rights. I think the

Minister would agree that certainly if they could appeal to the

cabinet when they felt there was an injustice it would be much

better. But they should have a day in court.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! We're voting on the

amendment.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Although it may not be written in here, I

don't think they would have any problem of appealing to the

cabinet or myself if they thought they were not fairly

treated.

Amendment negatived.

Section 6 as amended approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment in my

name on the order paper to

section 7. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 7 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Another brief amendment, Mr. Chairman. There are

rather tight filing deadlines here. Therefore, I move that at

line 27 of

section 7, a new subsection (5) be added, reading as

follows:

"The administrator shall extend the time for filing under

this

section when valid cause is shown."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, it says in the first part

that "every producer shall, not later than the 15th day of

February in every year, or before such later date as the

administrator may approve…"

[ Page 4267 ]

He may approve a later date.

MR. GIBSON: Yes, but that's optional, he doesn't have to if

valid cause is shown.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I think that we'll find that he'll be very

flexible.

Amendment to

section 7 as amended negatived.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Section 8 approved.

section 9.

MR. GIBSON: This is a provision which would allow a person

authorized by the administrator to enter into the promises of

any operation and, in effect, close that operation down by

seizing the books and taking them away. This, it seems to me,

is not a particularly good possibility to have in this Act. The

more usual way would be to apply for permission from the courts

to seize these books if necessary, In the meantime, if the Minister or the administrator is

concerned about the security of the books, they would, of

course, have authority, as I understand it under this section,

to maintain a guard over them while such a warrant was being

achieved.

But it is a very, very, serious power indeed to allow the

administrator or his nominee to take away unilaterally with no

appeal and no other authority from any court the means of

continued operation of a firm that might affect the job of

hundreds of men.

Therefore, I would move that line 19,

section 9 be amended

by adding after the word, "committed," the words, "he

may apply to a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia

for an order to," and adding at the end of line 21, "and

the judge shall make such order upon being satisfied that there

are reasonable and probable grounds for believing that an

offence under this Act is being committed."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, by the time we would get to

the judge and make application of the judge and get a ruling,

he may be down in those islands down there in the South Seas

some place and we wouldn't have the books at all. This is a

common practice in Acts of parliament. It happens all the time

in other Acts that this right is given to the department.

Amendment negatived.

MR. RICHTER: Under this section, while the powers are there to seize

the books of a company, there is no provision that requires the government to

return the books in the event that the royalties due are satisfied. There should

be some provision for the government to return the books upon full satisfaction.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That would automatically come. This same

section is as in other Acts. I'm sure the people collecting the

5 per cent have many times picked up books but have returned

them. I don't think there is any question about that. You

wouldn't have to have that written into

an Act.

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

MR. GIBSON: On a question about

section 10, Mr. Chairman, it

provides that royalties shall stand as a lien on the assets of

the company and for the protection of other creditors. I wonder

if there will be any provision made for the registration of

such liens.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I imagine that a lien is always

registered.

"Royalty payable but not paid in accordance with this

Act forms a lien and charge in favour of the Crown in right of the

province on all property owned by the producer who is liable to pay the

royalty…. "

This is customary in other Acts where you have a lien; we

would have first claim. When you place a lien, I'm sure the

lien is registered at all times.

MR. GIBSON: Where would it be registered?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I imagine it would be registered with the

court.

Sections 10 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MR. GIBSON: On

section 13, Mr. Chairman, at line 6, this is

a garnishee section. It provides that a person who may be

indebted to a producer shall under certain circumstances be

required to pay his indebtedness to the Crown in satisfaction

of the royalty. But nowhere does the Act make clear that such a

garnishee shall satisfy to that extent the royalty owing.

I would therefore move that at the end of line 6, there be

added the words, "which shall to that extent discharge the

liability of the producer."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I'd say that too would be an

automatic recognized fact. If the royalty is paid, his debt is

discharged.

[ Page 4268 ]

Amendment negatived.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. GIBSON: This is a

section that I see no way of amending,

it just has to be opposed. It is a wholly arbitrary and

incorrect power for the administrator and the Minister to

possess.

Section 14(

d) allows the Minister to cancel the free

miner's certificate of a producer who has not paid a royalty.

This might be a royalty in the amount of a few dollars or few

hundreds of dollars or a few thousands of dollars.

The cancellation of a free miner's certificate after an

interval of some days causes the lapse and forfeit of every

claim to minerals that that person or firm might have anywhere

in the Province of British Columbia. That to me is a wholly

arbitrary and improper power for the Minister to have. It's straight confiscation.

It's unnecessary because under

section 10 we have given the

Minister the authority to register a lien on the entire assets

of the given producer. Under

section 13 we've given the

Minister the power to garnishee all of the money being received

by that producer. Now we give him the power as well to totally

suspend the rights that this producer might have to minerals

not just on this one operation but anywhere in the

province.

Mr. Chairman, I have to 100 per cent oppose that. I hope the

Minister will withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure the Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano would allow the Member for

Boundary-Similkameen to speak first.

MR. RICHTER: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, you were turning

to ring the division bell when I was on my feet.

Section 14 is a most objectionable section. Not only does it

place a severe penalty on the mining company, but it places a

very severe penalty on the wage earners who will lose their

jobs and pay envelopes while the company is suspended. This is

about the most severe penalty a government could impose. Not

only does it cost the mine or the wage earners money, but there

is the putting back into operation of the mine once it has been

closed down. When it has been closed down there is the

de-watering, there is the timbering — the whole operation is

put to an additional expense by this sort of feature.

If there is a problem here, certainly with the provisions which have been made

previously by way of picking up the companies' books, and the other penalties

which are in there, surely if there is a problem, the mine could be permitted

to continue operating and have some form of appeal.

We must oppose this section.

Section 14 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Williams, R.A.

Kelly

Macdonald

Cocke

Webster

Barrett

King

Lewis

Dailly

Lea

Liden

Strachan

Young

Nimsick

Radford

Hartley

Lauk

Calder

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Brown

Gabelmann

Sanford

Gorst

D'Arcy

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Cummings

NAYS — 14

Chabot

Fraser

Morrison

Bennett

Phillips

Schroeder

Smith

Richter

Gardom

Jordan

McClelland

Gibson

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, when reporting to the House, would

you tell the Speaker that a division took place in committee

and ask leave for recording?

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. GIBSON: In line 5 there is a provision that the overpaid

amount should be applied in satisfaction of the royalties so

payable. That is the next royalty so payable.

There could arise a case where the overpayment amount could,

of course, be a good deal less than the royalty so payable.

Yet, under this wording, it would still be held to satisfy the

entire royalty. The Crown would be doing itself out of a good

deal of funds, it would seem to me.

I would move that this line be amended by adding after the

words "satisfaction of" the words "or in partial satisfaction

of."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I don't see any reason for that at all

because it's all in that section. If there is an overpayment,

it will be paid. If he owes others, it could be deleted from

the amount he owes. I don't see any reason why any amendment

should be there.

Amendment negatived.

Sections 16 to 18 inclusive approved.

[ Page 4269 ]

section 19.

MR. GIBSON:

Section 19 relates to

section 7(3)(

b) and notice

there filed by the administrator. The- administrator can give

such notice as late as March 31 and yet, where there is any

dispute, that has to be filed by not later than April 15. That

gives only 15 days to prepare all the documentation for such

appeal and so on. It seems to me that that is not long enough

time.

Further on in

section 19 subsection (4) provides that "upon

receipt of the notice, the Minister shall duly consider the

matter and affirm or amend the notice, and forthwith" — that's

after he has duly considered it — "notify the appellant of his

decision."

A situation could arise where an overage was assessed in

terms of royalty. The Crown has the money; the Minister could

sit on it for a long time — for a year or two years — and there

would be no requirement that he should give a decision within a

particular length of time.

Accordingly, I would move that

section 19 be amended at line

2 deleting "the 15th day of April in the year the notice is

mailed" and replacing it with "45 days following date of the

said notice" and at line 9 adding after the word "notice" the

words "within 45 days of receipt."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I will accept the latter

part of the 45 days if you like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you move the amendment in two parts?

MR. GIBSON: I'm perfectly happy to move it in two parts, Mr.

Chairman. I have it so written out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 31,

section 19, line 2, deleting "the

15th day of April in the year that the notice was mailed" and

replacing it with "45 days following date of the said notice."

This is the first part of the amendment.

First amendment negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second amendment, the same section, line

9, adding after the word "notice" the words "within 45 days of

receipt."

Second amendment approved.

Section 19 as amended approved.

section 20.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the so-called appeal

section of the bill. It's a very, very restricted appeal

section indeed. It relates only to

section 19 which in turn relates back to 7(3)(b), which relates to not

very much of the bill at all. Furthermore, it provides for

appeal only on any question of law or excess of jurisdiction.

All the other enormous powers contained…

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just draw to the

attention of the Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan)

that a camera is not permitted in the Legislative Chamber

without the permission of the Speaker. I would ask the Hon.

Member for North Vancouver-Capilano to continue.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, all of the enormous powers given

to the Minister or the administrator under this bill are not

subject to any kind of appeal at all. I quote again from a

brief of the taxation

section of the Canadian Bar Association,

referring to

section 20:

"The rights of appeal are severely limited. Not only is

there a severe limit on the areas of decision which are subject

to appeal, but there appears to be a clear attempt to prohibit

any appeal to the courts from the Minister's findings of fact.

This is a quite unacceptable encroachment upon the normal

protection against the arbitrary exercise of government

power.

"The producers' liability for royalty should be based upon

the statute as enacted by the Legislature and as implemented by

regulations covering matters which are not of a nature that

ought to be provided for in the statute. The producers'

liability will be based on questions of fact and question of

law, and there is no reason why the producer should not have

access to the courts for an adjudication of any assessment

based on

interpretations of the facts or the law which the

producer considers to be incorrect. "

I'd like to acknowledge the new member of the press gallery

and hope that he's reporting precisely the happenings.

This is all the more obvious, Mr. Chairman, when you

consider that in the Mining Tax Act there is a provision for

exactly that kind of appeal. I don't know if the Premier's

nodding means that he's prepared to accept the amendment.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Mining Tax Act provides, first of all, for

an appeal to the Minister, for a notice of appeal and for a

decision on the appeal by the Minister and the commissioner.

That's under

section 25. Then it goes on under

section 26 to

say that if the appellant is dissatisfied with the decision of

the Minister, he may appeal there from to a judge of the

supreme court or to a judge of the county court

[ Page 4270 ]

within the territorial limits of which the appellant resides

or carries on business. And on it goes with ways and means and

requirements as to how that appeal shall be heard.

Mr. Chairman, that's in the Mining Tax Act . That's part of

the law of British Columbia. That's part of the mining law of

British Columbia. The Minister has that

section 1n his own

charge. He hasn't seen fit to amend it, so I have to assume he

agrees with it. Yet here in Bill 31 we have a

section which

provides for very, very minimal powers of appeal, nothing like

the powers in the Mining Tax Act , and far greater discretionary

powers. It's at complete odds.

There should be in this Act for the protection of the public

of British Columbia and for the jobs in the mining industry of

British Columbia an appeal

section similar to that in the

Mining Tax Act .

Therefore, I move that

section 20 be deleted and be

replaced with the following: "There shall be an appeal to the

Minister from decisions of the administrator and to a judge of

the Supreme Court of British Columbia to decisions of the

Minister under this Act, substantially as provided in sections

25 and 26 of the Mining Tax Act , with the

administrator standing in place of the commissioner."

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I can't accept this because

this would be throwing the mining industry to the wolves — to

the lawyers — and it costs them a lot of money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: That's what I'm trying to do. As far as

the Mining Tax Act , is concerned that comes under a different

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

it's needed there, but I don't see where it's needed in this

Act.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 13

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

NAYS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

D'Arcy

Cummings

Sanford

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Cocke

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Liden

Lewis

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, leave to record.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Chairman, in this

section the Minister can

collect a royalty whether it is the specific amount that is

required or if it's an additional amount. I think it would only

be fair, in light of the fact that he can charge royalty on

delinquent payments of royalty — he can charge interest on that — in the event of an overpayment in which the Minister is

holding the funds that interest equally be paid. I move after

the word "excess" at the end of

section 21: "together

with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum." I

so move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Before the Hon. Minister

responds, I would, having looked at the amendment, regretfully

have to rule it out of order in that it affects the revenues of

the Crown under standing order 67. Therefore, I rule

the amendment out of order. Without the consent of the Crown I

cannot proceed.

Section 21 approved.

section 22.

MR. CHABOT:

Section 22 has to do with the staffing

requirements to fill the obligations of enforcing the

provisions of the Mineral Royalties Act , Bill 31. It talks

about the matter of appointing an administrator of mineral

royalties and such other employees as are required.

Last night I asked this question to the Minister: what kind

of bureaucracy is he going to establish? Is he going to

establish the type of bureaucracy that we see under the

Landlord and Tenant Act for all these people with the high

salaries, such as the rentalsman and all the other people in

the $17,000 to $30,000 range?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: I'm too tight.

MR. CHABOT: When I asked you last night what kind of

bureaucracy would be established and what number of staff, I

had to ask you a few times before you would answer. You

answered me like this. You said the present staff that you have

in the revenue division at the present time will handle the

whole situation. If that is the situation, then there really is

no need for this

section to be included in the Act.

[ Page 4271 ]

I was wondering if the Minister would like to comment in

view of his statement last night that there wasn't a need for

setting up another commission, board or bureaucracy in his

department. Why is this sectionin the Act?

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This

section is in the Act because this

Act was written some time ago before we had all the board set

up. It is set up now. I see no reason why it shouldn't stay in

the Act because at some future time, when we may not be the

government again, the next government may want to set up a

commission to look after such deals as this.

MR. CHABOT: You've admitted on your own statement that there

is no need for this

section in the Act. You suggested that you

are putting it there for possible use by another government. No

government of the day can commit any future governments as far

as situations like that are concerned. In view of the fact that

you have indicated very clearly to me that there is no need for

additional staff and for an administrator of mineral royalties,

I therefore move to delete

section 22 of Bill 31.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the

Hon. Member doesn't appreciate how careful I am with the

public's money. All you have to do is ask my group here. They

will vote for me on that respect. I'm always careful about

other people's money. I don't think you've got any….

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This motion is out of order.

The proper case would be that if you wish that

section removed

you vote against it.

Section 22 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Locke

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Gorst

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

King

NAYS — 14

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Phillips

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Section 23 approved.

section 24.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment

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

Amendment approved.

Section 24 as amended approved.

Sections 25 to 27 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 31, Mineral Royalties Act , reported complete with

amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House

after today.

The Chairman asked leave that the several divisions in

committee be recorded.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on motion

MR. McCLELLAND: I did adjourn the debate on this motion and

I certainly rise to express my discontent with the methods that

this government is taking to impose closure on this

Legislature. I like this place, Mr. Speaker. I like working in

it. I like serving the people of British Columbia. But it makes

me a little bit sad to watch this government try to tear the

guts out of the procedures of this House; and that is exactly

what they are attempting to do with this motion.

The Premier of the province stands and talks about full-time

MLAs. He talks about salaries for MLAs. He says he's not

ashamed to be the highest paid Premier in the country. He says

that MLAs should be paid well for their work, and I agree. I

agree with that. I think that's absolutely necessary. But paid

for what? Certainly not to be a rubber stamp for a

dictatorial

[ Page 4272 ]

government. That's what this government wants from the

opposition MLAs when they attempt to curtail the debate in the

estimates o