1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd 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 )

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9297 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Technical training courses. Mr. Lauk –– 9297

Student loans. Mr. Lauk –– 9297

Cuts in school programs. Mr. Lauk –– 9297

Oakalla women inmates. Mrs. Dailly –– 9298

Release of dangerous offenders. Mr. Levi –– 9298

Resolution 34. (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9299

Mr. Cocke –– 9300

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 9300

Mr. King –– 9302

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 9303

Mr. Barber –– 9304

Mr. Davis –– 9305

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 9306

Mr. Lauk –– 9308

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 9308

Homeowner Interest Assistance Act (Bill 79). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Brummet)

section 2 (continued) –– 9309

Mr. Barber

Mrs. Jordan

section 5 as amended –– 9311

Hon. Mr. Williams

section 6 9312

Mr. Gabelmann

Division on third reading –– 9312

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No –– 2) –– 1982 (Bill 76). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

section 2 –– 9312

Ms. Brown

section 14 –– 9312

Mr. King

Hon. Mr. Waterland

section 18 –– 9313

Mr. Hanson

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Hon. Mr. Williams

Hon. Mr. Phillips

Mr. Nicolson

Hon. Mr. Rogers

Third reading

Ministry Of Energy, Mines And Petroleum Resources Amendment Act. 1982 (Bill 77).

Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Smith)

Third reading –– 9316

Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 75). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 9316

Rate Increase Restraint Act (Bill 81). Second reading. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 9317

Appendix –– 9319

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

There are two gentlemen in the gallery I would like the House to

recognize. The first is an old friend who is a regular visitor to the

gallery, Cyril Shelford, a former member of the House. The gentleman

with Cyril is Mr. Jack Butterworth, president of the B.C. Hotels

Association who is in Victoria today to meet with a number of cabinet

ministers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Visiting Victoria today, all the way from Castricurn in Holland, is Mr. Hein Groot. I would ask the House to welcome him.

MR. STRACHAN:

Visiting in the galleries today is Dr. Jan Cioe, who is a psychology

instructor at the College of New Caledonia in Prince George, and

president for this year of the College-Institute Educators Association

of B.C. I would ask all hon. members to give Dr. Cioe a nice warm

welcome.

Oral Questions

TECHNICAL TRAINING COURSES

MR. LAUK:

My question is to the Minister of Education. On August 7 of this year

the then Minister of Education stated: "We have been unable to train

and educate enough skilled people to satisfy our needs. We must begin

to educate and train our own people to an extent hitherto unrealized in

this province." Can the new minister advise the House of the number of

students turned away from technical training courses at our colleges as

a result of course closures at a time of record enrolment?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Last Saturday I had the pleasure of opening one of the greatest

facilities in the province, a beautiful college in the city of

Cranbrook. The people.of Cranbrook are extremely proud that we've been

able to make this almost ten million dollar facility available to them.

The enrolment is super-good, as it is in all colleges throughout the

whole province. I must commend all of the college boards and faculties

for doing such an excellent job in answering our request for restraint

in such a positive manner. I cannot give the exact number; I will take

that portion of the question on notice. But I can assure the hon.

member that we as British Columbians should be real proud of the

opportunity provided our young people.

MR. LAUK: By

golly, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure all members of the House are pleased to

hear that the Minister of Education is opening up colleges and shutting

down courses. The logic of that escapes me.

In view of the fact that in British Columbia there is a 22 percent to 23 percent

unemployment rate among our young people, forcing them to scramble for training

programs which are not there, has the minister decided that it is cheaper to

import skilled labour from outside the province than to train our own?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

In response to an offhand remark made when the question was put, I want

to reiterate that we do not shut down courses. We have continually

requested that school boards negotiate with teachers to ensure that not

only that would this not happen, but that we would avoid layoffs at

every opportunity. We have every trust and confidence that those school

boards which have not been able to respond positively as yet, which

have taken an approach much like the one expressed by the opposition —

a rather negative one — will come around and meet the challenge they

face, which other districts have met. We in British Columbia, and

certainly the Ministry of Education, will do all we can, and we will

continue to move very positively to ensure that job opportunities, or

the training for such, are available.

STUDENT LOANS

MR. LAUK: I take it, by that answer, that he has indicated it is cheaper to import skilled labour than to train our own.

More

than one week after classes had begun, thousands of college and

university students who qualified for student loans and grants have yet

to be advised whether they will receive this provincial aid, which they

were guaranteed in legislation and regulations. Why has the government

refused to release these funds?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

I'm sorry if I didn't answer the first question completely. There may

be times when there is an advantage to an import — as he refers to it —

resident, than possibly someone locally. An example is when we're

asking someone for advice on banking. I would not turn to the hon.

member for that sort of advice; I would sooner refer to an import.

The

grant program has been announced. The hon. member, who is supposedly

the critic for education and who should, one would trust, do his

homework, obviously isn't aware of how the grant program is

administered. I will gladly give him a written response so that he will

remember for next time.

CUTS IN SCHOOL PROGRAMS

MR. LAUK:

Thousands of students are waiting for the loans and grants that they

qualified for. Last year, well ahead of this time, they had received

them. I don't know whether the memo that the minister is talking about

should come to me or to himself.

A last question to the

minister. A recent survey of school trustees shows that school

programs, especially those for disabled children, are being chopped

this year. Has the minister any suggestions for these disabled children

— and for their parents — who will not be receiving an education this

year?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if there's a

district in the-province discontinuing classes for the disabled or the

slow learners when other options are available to them — they seem to

be supporting a political effort motivated by the NDP — I will

certainly make available our investigators to review all of the

material to ensure that this doesn't happen. There's no need for a

school district to discontinue classes or programs for the handicapped

or the slow learner. There's no need at all, unless they want to play

politics.

[ Page 9298 ]

MR. LAUK:

On a supplementary, the minister has stated that he wants school

districts to cut back their budgets. He doesn't want them to cut off

special-needs courses. He doesn't want them to cut off other kinds of

courses, nor the core curriculum. What is there left that the minister

is suggesting they cut off? They have to cut off some of these courses,

and I'm asking the minister: as a result of his imposed arbitrary,

across-the-board cutbacks — and some school districts have more

disabled students than others — what does he suggest these disabled

students and parents do? These kids are not going to get an education

this year. What do you suggest?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, in the case of my own constituency, Surrey, the school

board has sent out 90 layoff notices. I understand, though I haven't

got all the details yet, that they're also proposing to cut into

several programs. The alternative is a 2 percent rollback by the

teachers of their 17 1/2 percent increase, or the giving up of two

professional days. I believe that by far the majority of teachers in

this province are very reasonable people who would much prefer that

option to layoffs and the cutting of programs. I am pleased to say that

the school board in Surrey is reviewing their decision, and I would

hope that the NDP will keep their politics out of it.

OAKALLA WOMEN INMATES

MRS. DAILLY:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that

plans are being made to decentralize Oakalla, and also, I understand,

to place the present women inmates, and some from the federal prison in

Kingston, into Burnaby North, and also to send the other male inmates

into the other municipality of Surrey, the area of Coquitlam-Moody and

the downtown area of Vancouver.... I wonder if the Attorney-General

could confirm whether the information I have is correct.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, the decision has not been made to decentralize Oakalla.

The decision has been made to phase out Oakalla completely and to

replace it with modern facilities. That 70- or 80-year-old facility

does not meet any standards, certainly not those of the United Nations

with respect to facilities for the incarceration of prisoners.

With

regard to where the facilities will be located, one unit is in downtown

Vancouver, and that unit will be opened in January 1983; one unit is

planned for the city of Port Coquitlam; one unit is planned for the

municipality of Maple Ridge. The location of the new facilities for

women prisoners has not yet been settled and awaits the completion of

engineering studies. We have one preferred site, which I believe is in

North Burnaby, but we are not certain whether that site is suitable to

receive the facilities. The last site is also not yet decided. We are

looking at a number of prospective sites in the lower mainland.

RELEASE OF DANGEROUS OFFENDERS

MR. LEVI:

During the Attorney-General's estimates, Mr. Speaker, I asked him

whether his officials were advised by the penitentiary people of the

impending release of dangerous offenders. I am not now discussing the

Claude St. Louis case which was publicized last week. Is the minister

prepared to give the House an undertaking that he will petition the

Solicitor-General, Mr. Kaplan, that provincial governments be advised

of the impending release of dangerous offenders, so that we do not have

a repeat of the Olson and the Kocurek cases and other horrors that we

have had in this province?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, the release of prisoners under mandatory supervision is, as

the member knows, a matter of statutory responsibility, and an attempt

on the part of the federal corrections service to intercede in that

regard is currently a challenge before the courts. I therefore do not

wish to comment upon that matter, because it is clearly sub judice.

With

respect specifically to the matter of pre-advance notice of the release

of so-called dangerous offenders, that requires a judgment on the part

of the persons who make the release. Indeed, quite obviously the hon.

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has himself made a judgment, and I

am not certain that his judgment is one which would stand any

appropriate test. In the Criminal Code of Canada we do have a

definition of "dangerous offender." I'm not certain that that

definition would necessarily apply to the persons the member has named.

With

respect to mandatory supervision, a considerable time ago the Ministry

of the Attorney-General raised with the Solicitor-General the need for

a reconsideration of the legislation that provides for mandatory

supervision and the basis upon which the National Parole Board makes

its decisions.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, that's the most unadulterated matter of cock I've ever heard from anybody who is the Attorney-General.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI:

I am not suggesting that he interfere with any legislation. There was a

practice in this province, not 15 years ago, that the

Attorney-General's department was advised of the impending release of

dangerous criminals. All I'm saying to you is: go speak with your

colleague in Ottawa and say we cannot have a situation where people who

are dangerous offenders suddenly appear on the street and then slip

through the net. That's all I'm asking you to do. Nobody's talking

about interfering with mandatory parole. Go talk to him and be advised;

know who's coming on the street. That's why I'm asking for the

undertaking — that's all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Give us that undertaking, and the people out there will feel a lot better protected than they feel now, I can assure you.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

We have had occasion to protect the people of this province against

certain people, and we will continue to discharge that responsibility

under the Ministry of the Attorney-General. Implicit in the member's

argumentative statement, I assume, is a question. He should recognize

that there is very little value in giving an undertaking that I will

ask the Solicitor-General to inform us about actions that he proposes

to take. It is much more positive and therefore more of an assurance to

the citizens of this province that we take action to make sure that the

Solicitor-General

[ Page 9299 ]

changes the laws of this country so people are not released on mandatory supervision.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members are familiar with the rules of this chamber. The Leader of

the Opposition and the Attorney-General will come to order. Question

period is concluded. Any further outbreaks of this type will result in

immediate ejection from this chamber.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. STRACHAN: I ask leave to move Motion 29 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Leave not granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move resolution 34 standing under my name on the order paper. First of all, I would like to read this resolution:

"Be

it resolved that, as the Constitution Act, 1982, provides that an

amendment to the constitution of Canada may be initiated by the

Legislative Assembly of a province, we the members of the Legislative

Assembly of the Province of British Columbia hereby authorize the

Governor-General to issue a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada

to amend

section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms so

that it reads as follows: '7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty,

security of the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to

be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of

fundamental justice,' and urge that the Legislative Assemblies of all

other provinces and the Senate and the House of Commons pass similar

resolutions."

In speaking to this resolution I would make a

plea to all members on both sides of the House to put aside their

partisan differences and unite in a common cause: to additionally

secure a basic principle of democracy in Canada.

Throughout

history democracy has been based upon and has thrived upon four basic

rights: the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to security

of the person and the right to property. These rights are the four

equal cornerstones on which true freedom is built. Remove one of those

cornerstones and one impairs the freedom of the individual.

Canada

is still in the process of constitutional evolution. In that process

surely all Canadians have to be committed to further secure, in these

troubled times, those four cornerstones against the very turbulent

winds of change that all the nations of the western world are now

facing daily. It is true that we inherited from Britain these basic

principles heralded from the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, more

than seven centuries ago.

Mr. Speaker, blessed indeed is the fact that our heritage, our democratic system,

our rules of law, which flowed from that historic event, and also our principles

of freedom are based upon these same cornerstones: the four inalienable rights

of life, liberty, security of the person and of property, all of which have

granted us the opportunity to build and become one of the most respected, fair-minded

and envied nations in the world.

I said, Canada is in the process of fundamental change, and a major

part of this change was the further securing of our freedoms in a

written constitution guaranteeing for every Canadian the continuation

of his and her heritage of freedom: the ground rules, which together

with the vigilance of our citizens, the accountability of government,

the independence of our judiciary, the freedom of the press and the

rule of law will govern all of our present laws and all of our future

laws.

The germane point is this: our constitution today

guarantees three of our basic rights — to life, liberty and security of

the person — but still lacks the fourth, a guarantee to the right of

property. That all Canadians have such a right is undeniable. It flows

from our heritage — our heritage through emigration, and also through

British common law.

Our heritage through emigration falls

into two distinct patterns. There are those who came to the new world

from democratic countries where the right to property was an integral

part of freedom, and they had every belief that this right would

continue in Canada. Then there are those who came to our country

because it offered a freedom, including the right to property, which in

many cases they were denied in their native lands. They too had every

belief that this right would be found and continue to be found — and I

emphasize those words "continue to be found" — in Canada.

Our

heritage through the law is equally undeniable. Everybody has heard the

expression, a man's house is his castle. I understand the earliest

attribution for this phrase was the Latin poet Persius, shortly after

the time of Christ, A.D. 34 to 62. Later on we have the words of Sir

law in 1605, who said: "The house of everyone is to him his castle." In

1760, in the House of Commons, there was the elegant statement of

William Pitt: "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all

the forces of the Crown. It may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind

may blow through, the storms may enter, the rain may enter, but the

King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the

threshold." Then we have the sentiments of one of the original justices

of the United States Supreme Court and signatory to the United States

Declaration of Independence, James Wilson, when he stated: "The right

of private property is founded in the nature of men and things. What

belongs to no one is wasted by everyone. What belongs to one man in

particular is the object of his economy and care. Exclusive property

prevents disorder and promotes peace."

We also find United

States President Madison, saying at the beginning of the 19th century,

"The personal right to acquire property, which is a natural right,

gives to the property, when acquired, a right to protection as a social

right." Pope Leo XIII expressed it thusly in 1891: "Every man has by

nature the right to possess property as his own."

As you can

see, Mr. Speaker, the significance of this right has been constantly

reaffirmed throughout history in the courts and in the common and

statute law of the United Kingdom, from whom we inherited our laws, and

subsequently in Canada. It was reaffirmed in our country in 1960 in the

Canadian Bill of Rights, where the words are found; "the right of the

individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of

property." I'd say, Mr. Speaker, that now is the time for that right to

be finally confirmed and entrenched as a cornerstone of our democracy

and inserted into the constitution of Canada, along with its present

rights to life, liberty and security of person.

[ Page 9300 ]

Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing novel, unique or new concerning this

proposal. Similar measures are found in the constitutions of some two

dozen nations throughout the world, as well as in the United Nations

Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948. It's found further in

the constitutional amendment which was introduced as Bill C-60 by the

federal government in 1978. It was further proposed for inclusion

during the joint Senate and House of Commons committee within its

deliberations in January, 1981, but that committee reversed its

position and set the measure aside. Surely now it can proceed. The

right to property — one of the four cornerstones of democratic freedom

— has to be constitutionally guaranteed to all Canadians. That is fair,

correct and most necessary. It indeed reflects the way of life of

Canadians and it reflects the Canadian aspirations. It must be put in

place without delay.

Under our new constitution, Mr.

Speaker, a province can take an initiative for constitutional

amendment. This is the first such Canadian initiative since Her Majesty

proclaimed our constitution in Ottawa last April 17. I would urge all

members of the House today to unite in this common front and common

cause to give unanimous support to this very highly important and

historically significant resolution.

In moving the

resolution, Mr. Speaker, I will close with a quotation from the words

of a renowned United States ambassador, Joseph H. Choate, who said

this: "The preservation of the rights of private property was the very

keystone of the arch upon which all civilized governments rest." I say,

Mr. Speaker, honour those words, respect those sentiments, and support

this resolution. I so move.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I

am delighted to rise in this debate following our sunshine minister.

For a number of years before becoming a part of the coalition, that

minister was a member of the opposition who kept talking about letting

the sunshine in. He had a lot to say about our expropriation laws in

this province, as did his seatmate, the now Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), both of whom have been Attorneys-General for some time. I

haven't seen any relief with respect to our expropriation laws. I think

they are absolutely horrendous.

HON. MR. GARDOM: They're coming.

MR. COCKE:

They've been coming for years. Yes, we can support this resolution —

it's motherhood — but the fact of the matter is: what has that crowd

over there been doing? The ombudsman, Mr. Speaker.... Mr. Speaker, am I

offending your hearing?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're not exactly into a totally wide-ranging debate. We are on....

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, we're talking about property rights. I'm talking about

property rights, and I think from that standpoint — it's wide ranging —

to at least include the discussion of expropriation.... Because, Mr.

Speaker, that's part and parcel of the whole question.

listened to that speaker, that Minister of Intergovernmental Relations,

who was the Attorney-General and who had all the opportunity in the

world whilst he was the Attorney-General — as has his great friend

sitting beside him, the now Attorney- General; they have done

absolutely nothing to provide relief in this province for those people

confronted with our horrendous expropriation laws. Hydro is a law unto

itself Hydro still has the right to grab property whether they need it

or not. Here we are, Mr. Speaker, debating an issue that says:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and

enjoyment of property, and the right not be deprived thereof except in

accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." I say that the

principles of fundamental justice have been offended by that

government, and offended particularly by the Highways Ministry, because

they've got the broadest, most sweeping expropriation laws that one

could ever find. Most jurisdictions in Canada are far better than we

are with respect to providing people with compensation, fair play and

arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, our expropriation acts in this

province are not fair. The minister says that they're going to be

changed, but my good heavens, how long does it take to have them

changed?

I had the audacity to put forward a resolution in

this House, and they didn't want to discuss it, because it was with

respect to the Cuthbert case, a case that hung for 13 years — people

who had been deprived of property and justice. It was very

straightforward; the ombudsman came down with a report and said that

that was the case. I therefore put forward a resolution asking that the

House adopt the ombudsman's report. The government got a little nervous

at that point, because they didn't want to debate my motion. The

Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

had a deathbed repentance and, arbitrarily and on his own — and I was

glad — accepted the ombudsman's report and restored their property

rights to them.

Mr. Speaker, that government has been in power in this province for all but

three years and four months of the last 32 years. At long last I see

relief at the end of the tunnel. They're going down the tube just as sure

as faith, and I'll tell you why.

All

of a sudden we see deathbed repentance. We see relief for this, cash

for that suddenly coming in. The people in this province have good

reason not to believe them, and the people are saying: "We have before

us just another bit of deathbed repentance."

Of course we'll support it, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the member for New

Westminster in response to this very important motion. He called it

motherhood. Perhaps it's because that member and the other 25 over

there, who have not been attending to public affairs on the policy side

or the issues of this country or this province for the last three and a

half years, have been sleeping, and once again he has been caught short

and is now going to embarrass himself, his caucus and their provincial

and national parties.

This motion represents the words

contained in a motion for inclusion in the new constitution proposed by

the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Joe Clark, and agreed to by the

federal government on a Friday. They were taken out on the Monday at

the insistence of the leader of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa, who

said he would withdraw his support for the unilateral action of the

Trudeau government if it contained the amendment that would guarantee

property rights to the people of this country. This is the very

amendment which was so important to Mr. Broadbent that he threatened to

withdraw his support for Prime Minister Trudeau's unilateral action. It

became a national story. Yet that little group over there has

[ Page 9301 ]

been so oblivious of the debate in this country that once again, in their complete ignorance....

The

member for New Westminster has embarrassed himself. He calls it

motherhood. He says they'll support it. Talk about a deathbed

repentance! That member, fearful that the public will find out what he

truly thinks and what his party stands for, what they've been saying

nationally, what they had withdrawn from the proposals on the

constitution — a matter of public record....

MR. LEA:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a withdrawal

from the Premier. I can understand why he's upset. But what he said

about the member for New Westminster is unparliamentary. He said that

the member for New Westminster said something in this House, but that

it wasn't his real motivation. I believe that is unparliamentary.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, to interrupt another member's speech on a point of order

that is not a point of order is in itself unparliamentary. If the

member addressed has taken offence to a remark.... Certainly the Chair

did not find that so. If the member himself takes offence to a remark,

I'm sure he can so inform the Chair. But the Chair finds that that in

no way would qualify as an unparliamentary remark.

MR. LEA:

Then just how would you call to order someone who has imputed an

improper motive? That's what the Premier was doing. It's pure and

simple; it's under our standing orders. I think, Mr. Speaker, it would

be incumbent upon you to ask the Premier to withdraw that remark, or

ask him whether, indeed, he did mean it.

MR. SPEAKER:

To the Premier, an hon. member has claimed that a motive other than

that expressed has been imputed. If so, was any improper motive imputed?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

What I would consider an improper motive — from my philosophical

viewpoint — might not be considered improper by them. If they are

offended by my strong defence of property rights, then I certainly

withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: The Premier has no

special rights in this House. He is equal to us as members of this

Legislature, and what Mr. Speaker asks him to do is the same as asking

any other member. I asked for a withdrawal. You asked to have it

clarified and he has done that.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Did the Premier make the necessary withdrawal?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I certainly did.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now if I could go on, property rights are fundamental

to the beliefs of most Canadians. Certainly most Canadians would be frightened

if they felt those property rights were attacked. I remember the debate very

well on the constitution. I remember the shock that many of us felt when the

agreement by the Trudeau government to accept the Conservative motion of a Friday

night was withdrawn on the Monday because the New Democratic Party in parliament

had told the Trudeau government that they would lose their alliance. They could

no longer support the unilateral action of the Trudeau government, which at

that time was pressing forward on the constitutional front in a number of ways

unacceptable to this government and to many Canadians. Thankfully, they were

stopped.

the Trudeau government, once again bowing to the New Democratic Party

in the federal parliament, withdrew these fundamental property rights,

worded today in this motion as they were proposed by the Leader of the

Opposition and the Leader of the Conservative Party, Mr. Clark. Now

that the constitution has taken on a more structured form, now that we

are listing rights and are observing not the common law, which we had

for our constitution, but have gone to a written constitution listing

those rights.... I think many Canadians felt that, while property was

not questioned before, they had the right to property. The very fact

that the New Democratic Party made this a major point in that debate,

and had these very words withdrawn, made them frightened. Our

government has contacted all other governments. We will proceed to put

this on the constitutional agenda. It must be there.

The

constitutional debate was one in which I heard the same giggles, the

same nervous laughter from the New Democratic Party opposition as I am

hearing today. When it gets to a matter of principle, they stand up and

make these inane speeches. Let me tell you that putting rights in the

constitution is important, and putting property rights in the

constitution, now that it has taken that form, is important to me, our

party, our government and our people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Phony!

HON. MR. BENNETT:

If that member for New Westminster (Mr Cocke) or.... I can't really

tell which of the members just yelled: "Phony." I'll tell you who is

phony. I have witnessed debates in this House before. I have some great

quotes on property rights. I have one from Hansard for

September 24, 1973, attributed to a member, Colin Gabelmann. He said:

"It is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth

that is natural should be privately owned." That's what he said then.

In Hansard for February 1, 1973, Ms. Karen Sanford said: "I

personally feel that land and land use are far too important to be left

to the whims of the marketplace." In Homemaker's Magazine

for May 12, 1974, page 12, Ms. Rosemary Brown said: "I don't believe in

private ownership of land. It's a myth that we can own anything."

Given

those statements from the leading members of the New Democratic Party

caucus in this Legislature — not those who are only used to vote but

the leading members of thought and opinion in that party — and given

the action of the leader of the federal New Democrats, Ed Broadbent, in

forcing the Trudeau government, with a majority in the House of

Commons, but needing their alliance if they were to have any chance of

unilaterally forcing through constitutional changes that were

unacceptable.... They made the House Leader withdraw at that time the

section that had been proposed by Mr. Clark.

Interjections.

[ Page 9302 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for New Westminster says: "Why are you upset?" I think every

Canadian is upset by that member and by their attitude towards

important things in this country.

I support this motion. I'm

surprised that somebody would treat an item as important as the

constitution as "motherhood," as suggested by the member for New

Westminster. I believe it should be in the constitution. I see no

reason why it became a major tactic for support to have that withdrawn.

Only members who support the party federally and the leader who made

that move and had it withdrawn can answer that question. I don't know

why he did it. Only you can answer that. But I can tell you why we want

to have this constitutional amendment. We think it belongs with the

other rights for our Canadian citizens. I think it's fundamental that

while constitutional talks are upcoming we should put on the record as

British Columbia always has, seriously viewing our constitution and the

debate that surrounded it — those items that we think are important to

the Canadian nation and the Canadian people. Our government has urged

our colleagues in other governments across this country to support the

motion. Now we're asking the New Democratic Party members in this

Legislature to reverse the position of their federal party, and I await

the vote. I support the motion.

MR. LEA: So do we.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It's amazing how they say they've changed their position before we've

voted. It does seem funny to me that on every major initiative this

government is now introducing we now have the me-too gang. They voted

with the government on every single bill we've introduced or passed

this sitting. Now they want to say "me too" again. I wonder if you

perceive, Mr. Speaker, as I do, that somehow they don't want to get

into any controversy on issues. But this most important issue, which —

when the members stop giggling and laughing — will be treated in a

serious manner.... I would like to hear them individually state why

they support it and at the same time send a message to their federal

leader. Not one of them spoke up on the tactic of Ed Broadbent and the

federal NDP when they had this withdrawn from the constitution.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

It's because you didn't even know what was happening in this country.

That's what's wrong with you. You're so busy playing silly party

politics you're afraid to stand up on national or provincial issues.

You were afraid — when it counted. You think it may be to your

political advantage today — oh, you're willing to stand up now — but

where were you when it counted?

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion.

MR. KING:

I have some heard some convoluted arguments in my life, but I think

that one had to take the cake. Never in my experience in the House, Mr.

Speaker, have I seen such an adverse and bitter reaction from a

government introducing a motion upon the advice that the opposition

will indeed support that motion. The Premier seemed to be very

disappointed, and I can understand why. I think the Premier likes to go

around the province telling tales about the position of the New

Democratic Party, and when he's impaled on the horns of his own petard

by having that issue put to a vote in the House, he cannot abide the

truth.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

It's

interesting that he should blame the federal New Democratic Party. I

don't propose to deal with that for long, except to say that the

Premier of the province of British Columbia was the chief provincial

spokesman for all the Premiers of Canada relating to the negotiation of

the contents of Canada's new constitution. If it was indeed an

important matter of principle to him that property rights should be

enshrined in the constitution, why did he collapse and abdicate against

what he claims was a minority group that held the rest to ransom? That

argument does not hold water, Mr. Speaker. If in fact he was so

concerned about having this kind of provision in the federal

constitution, he should have insisted, as the chairman of the Premiers

of Canada, that it be retained in the constitution. I think the Premier

is trying to politicize an issue on which he sought to gain partisan

advantage rather than accepting in good conscience that this House is

apparently united in the motion before it.

My colleague the

member for New Westminster raised the question of whether the

government's conduct and the laws on the statute books administered by

this government conform and are consistent with the concept of property

rights, and I think that's a valid thing to do. I can tell you that I

come from an area of the province that has been disrupted in a major

fashion, like no other area, as a result of expropriation flowing from

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority's arbitrary conduct

respecting the Arrow reservoir, the Mica Dam and now the Revelstoke

Dam. We have lost hundreds of thousands of acres of private land.

I have to tell this House again the horror stories of British Columbia

Hydro officials, under the statutes presided over by this government,

under the mandate of this government, entering upon property and

burning buildings before any expropriation was completed, over the

protests of the little citizens of this province? Do I have to remind

the House of the property seized — not expropriated but seized — under

the auspices of British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, far in

excess of the needs for the reservoir? And then ultimately, when it was

found to be surplus to Hydro's needs, it was not returned to that

citizen; nay, it was placed on the real estate market so that Hydro

could speculate with that private land which had been seized from its

owners, all under the laws presided over by Social Credit. There are

cases where B.C. Hydro profiteered on land they had seized from private

citizens and sold at an increase of 1,000 percent. And the government

comes forward altruistically today and says: "Oh, aren't we wonderful.

We're putting a motion on the order paper to state that we believe in

private property rights."

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we support the

sentiment. But I personally would be far more impressed if they brought

forward an equitable expropriation law that guaranteed natural justice

to all the people in respect of their land holdings and the other

commodities under their control. I have spoken on innumerable occasions

in this Legislature about the basic ingredients of a fair expropriation

act to guarantee natural justice to the citizens of the province;

basically, that is to ensure that Hydro or any other agency of the

Crown, any other bureaucratic monstrosity which is the creature of this

government, should first of all have to justify the public need for the

land they are

[ Page 9303 ]

seeking

to expropriate. They should have to guarantee that persons defending a

fair price for that property — once it is established that it is needed

for public convenience — should not have imposed upon them a heavy cost

to defend that which is theirs and which they seek to retain, rather

than having to face a battery of legal experts retained by Hydro, and a

battery of soil analysts, hydrologists and other technical people who

are there to demonstrate that Hydro is indeed offering a fair price

when it's in fact bargain basement. There is absolutely no way that the

private citizen can afford to argue with Hydro when an array of talent

of that kind is lined up against him.

The final insult and

indignity is that the individual who is suffering at the hands of this

bureaucratic monstrosity is in fact providing the public funds that buy

all of the technical expertise being used against him. If you believed

in property rights, in fair play and natural justice for the citizens

of the province of British Columbia, you wouldn't bring forward a

self-serving motion. You would change the law to protect that citizen

in a statutory fashion. That's why I think it's a bit hypocritical of

the government to get up in this self-serving way with this motion of

intention, rather than any statutory change.

Other things

are necessary in a fair expropriation act. Failing agreement, as I

indicated, Hydro — or whatever the expropriation agency, whether the

Highways ministry, B.C. Hydro or any other agency of government —

should provide equitable representation to that landowner to protect

what is his, at no cost. Failing agreement, there should be a fair

system of arbitration at no cost to the landowner to defend what is

rightfully his in the first instance. Many people on this side of the

House have advocated that for years. I have seen the greatest abuse of

citizens in this province at the hands of B.C. Hydro that one could

imagine. One would not believe that that kind of heavy-handed

trammelling of individual rights could take place in the province of

British Columbia. I do not exaggerate when I say that representatives

of that agency have entered onto private property, bulldozed down

buildings and put them to the torch because the owner of that land

would not come to an agreement with them, and they didn't bother to

wait for the nicety of expropriation to gain the legal authority. Talk

about abuse! Talk about contempt for individual rights, much less

property rights! That is the epitome, Mr. Speaker.

While we

certainly support this motion, which is a statement of intent, I would

be far more impressed if the government would bring the statutory

provisions of the Highways ministry, the B.C. Hydro and Power

Authority, and the many other expropriation rights that exist under

provincial statute, into one consolidated form, guaranteeing the

elementary provisions of natural justice to the citizens of the

province of British Columbia. That would be far more meaningful than

this statement of good intentions on the eve of whatever this

government is planning within the next month, Mr. Speaker.

think it's a bit of a charade for the Premier to get in high dudgeon

and take such offence at the fact that we support this motion of pale

intent by this government.

HON. MR CHABOT: Mr.

Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, which I thing is an

important one to put on the constitutional agenda for resolution in

this country. I think the enjoyment of property is a very important

principle for people in this country, which has been recognized. But it

has not been put into the constitution, and it needs to be there.

The

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) talks about fair expropriation

laws in this province. I know he's made several speeches about it. He

made speeches about it before he became a cabinet minister. He was

always making speeches about fair expropriation laws, but he fails to

tell the people of this province that they were government. I know it

was a long time ago, and it was for a short period of time, but you had

three and a third years to bring in what you considered to be necessary

as far as fair expropriation laws are concerned, and you failed

miserably. You'd rather make speeches than do anything about it. That's

typical of a socialist.

I think everybody knows where the

federal NDP stands, where Broadbent stands, as far as property rights

are concerned, I don't think it's a secret to any Canadian in this

country as to where the NDP stands on property rights. We know very

well where they stand. The Premier touched very briefly this afternoon

on a speech made by the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann). I

think it's important for the record, especially under this resolution,

that the full contents of his speech be put on the record during this

very important debate on this resolution. I think this is the most

appropriate place to put this on the record that I've ever seen. Here

is that member for North Island speaking in the Legislature in

September 1973 when they were government. He said:

is foreign to my philosophy that land or anything on this earth that is

natural should be privately owned. I believe it is going to take us

decades and decades to reverse that mentality and that attitude in this

society — and I have it too — that we all think we have to own a chunk

of land, and until we own that chunk of land, until we own a house,

we've actually not made it. We've got to reverse that philosophy, Mr.

Speaker. I'm not suggesting that this government will have the time to

be able to do that.

He was talking about a socialist

government. He was a backbencher in the socialist government,

attempting to influence them to remove property rights from people in

this province.

I think it's a thing that has to happen

throughout North America over a great many years. I think that it's

important that people begin to talk about the fact that there is no

real difference between land and air, and we would think it absurd and

insane if air were owned privately. I think it's the same situation for

land. He was saying that in 1973, and I've never seen him deny it or

reverse his position against the private ownership of land. I guess I

shouldn't be amazed by the NDP this afternoon and the position they're

taking on this. When it comes to political expediency they desert their

principles very quickly, Mr. Speaker, and that's what they're doing

today. They're flip-flopping, they're deserting their political

principles against the private ownership of land because they're

fearful of the electorate of this province. They're frightened for

their political hides. That's why, time and again, on other pieces of

legislation that have been put before this House in the last couple of

days, the NDP have supported the government: they're fearful of their

political hides. I'll tell you, they're certainly deserting their

principles. They're deserting the many statements they've made against

the private ownership of land in the past if they support this

resolution. I'll tell you, the NDP have come full circle with this

flip-flop in their support of what I consider to be a first-class

resolution that should be strongly supported in this Legislature, but I

never thought that I'd see the NDP flip-flop like they have in recent

months, recent weeks and recent days.

[ Page 9304 ]

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Speaker, one can imagine the discussion they had in the Socred

caucus. "Let's put forward something," they said, "that would embarrass

the New Democrats, something that they couldn't possibly vote for, and

something that was connected with an issue of motherhood." I can

imagine the member for the tiny riding of Columbia River (Hon. Mr.

Chabot) was one of those who said: "We'll catch them out on this one.

We'll force them, we'll embarrass them, we'll cause a fight, and we'll

make it impossible for them. They'll have to vote against it." As usual

the MA for the tiny riding of Columbia River once again has misjudged

politics and principle both. Once again he's demonstrated that the

curiously psychotic nature of the coalition is one which holds up

arguments that they believe are worthwhile but which they couldn't for

a moment tolerate having the New Democrats support. You see, they think

that if it's good, we therefore, as New Democrats, must be opposed to

it. They believe, in that curiously psycho way of theirs, that if it's

worthwhile, democratic socialists have to be against it. They're wrong

about that, just as they're wrong about us. The member for Columbia

River is wrong virtually all of the time. He is often wrong, but never

in doubt; it's one of the tragedies of his personal political

reputation that that is the case. Often wrong, but never in doubt is

the member for Columbia River.

The Socred argument today has

attempted once again to paint a false face on the New Democrat view of

private property, the ownership and enjoyment of same. The member for

the tiny riding of Columbia River has never bothered quoting any of my

speeches during the last seven years in municipal affairs, when I have

argued vigorously and repeatedly in favour of private property rights,

private ownership of one's home, and the ability of citizen taxpayers

to govern land use in their municipalities without the heavy hand of

Social Credit — the centralist and statist hand, especially that of a

notorious Minister of Municipal Affairs — interfering in their right to

do that.

The Socreds, speaking generally and referring to no

one by name, have told lies about us before. Let me illustrate briefly.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, because you were there in 1974.

MR. SPEAKER:

It's a standing principle that a comment made about a group of people

can sometimes be deemed not unparliamentary. But I will caution the

member that in any debate in the House, one should temper one's

language and use moderate language. I'm sure the hon. first member for

Victoria has the skill and capability to use parliamentary language at

all times.

MR. BARBER: I use the word "lies" precisely, specifically and without reference to any individual.

You,

Mr. Speaker, were in Prince George in 1974 when the then president of

Social Credit said that the New Democratic Party government had created

a secret police force with guns, bullets, warehouses and uniforms —

although that was a particular bit of madness. What would a secret

police force be doing wearing uniforms? However, that was her madness.

And went on to say that New Democrats, having created the secret police

force, proposed to take over the government of British Columbia by

force if necessary. That was precisely, and without naming the

individual, a lie. There never was a secret police force. There is not

now. We would never create such a monstrosity, and we would never claim

that our adversaries would either. It is utterly beyond them, as it was

beyond us. But New Democrats have had lies told about them before, and

that was one of the lies.

Lie number two, just as easily

refuted, is that New Democrats apparently want to steal all the land,

put it in a sack, take it over to Victoria and dump it behind the

Parliament buildings somewhere. That kind of rubbish was also spread

around; that lie was told. The word precisely is "lie." A lie is a

statement upon which cannot be ascertained any basis of fact beneath

it. There was none then; there is none now to the claim that New

Democrats — in regard in that instance to the ALR, today in regard to

this motion — are opposed to the ownership of land or property, and the

benefits that derive therefrom.

The reason the Premier was

so ill-tempered in his remarks is because he thought, in his

wonderfully juvenile main-street Kelowna way, that he could somehow

snooker us into voting against a not-so-cunningly-worded motion

regarding property rights, but he failed to deal with two issues. First

of all, he failed to recognize the utter hypocrisy of his own

government's position. They've been in office 27 years out of the last

30, and what have they done to deal with the issue of property rights,

the problems of expropriation and the related guarantees that must be

found in statute law, and currently are not, in regard to the Hydro

Act, Water Act, Highway Act, and on and on. At least 11 separate

statutes touch on the question of expropriation. We were in office

three years; they've been in office 27 years.

The first

issue that the Premier failed to deal with, recognize and anticipate is

the demonstrable hypocrisy of Social Credit members standing up and

pretending now to care about property, when their own government has

abused it more severely than any other in the history of this province.

The Premier's second problem, and the second explanation for his ill

temper today, is the fact that he failed to deal with the truth that

our party has for years and years defended the notion that individuals

must be protected from the abuses of the state. It was our party, not

certain Socred blackshirts in Alberta, that defended the right of

Canadians of Japanese origin to continue to own property during World

War II. It was our party that defended the rights of Canadians native

to this country — Indians — to vote in elections and not be subject to

the abuses of the state. It was our party that defended the rights of

those same Indian Canadians to own property in the first place. From

its roots in the great labour, socialist, Christian and intellectual

movements of the late nineteenth century.... Those four powerhouses of

social democratic philosophy — the Christians, the intellectuals, the

labourers and all the reformers, agrarian and otherwise, who came

together in common bond on fundamentally Christian principles,

fundamental Christian beliefs — have for years and years always stood

to protect the individual against the abuses of the state.

vote for this motion because we can find no wrong in it. It states a

simple principle, one to which we've adhered for decades. The only

thing we find wrong about it is the conduct of the debate. In British

Columbia we are the victims of a Premier who degrades virtually every

debate he enters. This Premier, degrading virtually every debate in

which he participates, continues once again to demonstrate the utter

shallowness, the absolute triviality, the incredible superficiality of

what he tells us is his philosophy. Today, suddenly, just a few days

before a general election, he is a defender of property rights. He

doesn't mention that Social Credit, in power for 27 years, has

undermined those rights more viciously than any

[ Page 9305 ]

other

administration ever could or would. The Premier stands up and poses as

a bit of a philosopher and tells us that it is somehow contrary to his

philosophy to accept arguments he claims were made in Ottawa some time

ago.

The Premier and his government will be recorded in

history as being the most mean-spirited and petty-minded administration

we have ever suffered. It's certainly true that they are cunning

politicians. We freely grant to them that they are cunning political

adversaries. But there is something so mean-spirited, so

little-spirited, so small, about their so-called philosophy that we do

resent just a little, just a few days before an election is to be

called, a motion like this. It's not that the content is objectionable,

but that the presentation of it is so phony, so entirely crass and

political.

This motion is an admission of seven years of

failure of the government headed by the current Premier. This motion is

a clear agreement that for seven years they have failed utterly to

deliver on a promise they made in 1975. I remember an advertisement

that came out in my own riding. It was half a page, and it promised,

among other things, a uniform expropriation law in British Columbia, to

be enacted — if I recall correctly — within the first session. I don't

have it here now, but I'll go and get it. I kept all those promises

that the Socreds made. I've kept a really careful record of how many

they've kept and how many they've broken.

The Premier, who

in his small-minded and mean-spirited way degrades virtually every

debate he enters, has done it again today. In 1975 he signed an ad:

"Your friend, Bill." He said he would do something about expropriation;

he would do it well and he would do it quickly. Seven years later he's

done nothing but this motion. He is in fact so ungracious about the

fact that we're going to support it that he throws his little tantrum

here on the floor and gets whisked out of the House by his handlers.

will support the motion, because we support the principle. Our party,

when it was the CCF, and our party today, has fought for years to

guarantee that the individual shall not be abused or diminished by the

state. Our record on human rights is the finest in the country. We are

and have been prouder of that than almost any other thing. We don't

take a back seat to anyone in our commitment to protecting individuals,

be it in their human rights or their property rights, or be it in the

exercise of any complex or combination of the two. We have everything

to be proud of, nothing to be ashamed of, and of course we support the

motion. We will do so unanimously. The completely ungracious way in

which the Premier greeted that news reveals more about his small

mindedness and political agenda than it substantiates about his

so-called philosophy.

Barbara Ward, now deceased, an author,

scholar, journalist, a woman with whom I once had the honour of

spending a day — I got to know her well, to the extent that you can get

to know anyone well in a day, as intensely and excitingly as she

presented ideas in that day — once said that in her view the ownership

of one's own home is a safeguard of liberty. The sense of commitment to

family, to neighbourhood, to the extended neighbourhood of a city and

the planet, the sense of commitment, obligation, tradition and of being

bound to something that works for you, like owning your own home, is,

the late Barbara Ward argued, a safeguard of liberty, because it is

hard to take it away. If you try to do it, they're going to fight back.

That's a good thing. It is a fine thing, a principle we can and do

support. It is a principle we have long supported and will happily

support today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind all members

that this can be a heated debate, but personal allusions directed at

another hon. member of the House are quite unparliamentary. I'm sure

all members are aware of that.

MR. DAVIS: This

resolution, in my view, is important; it's historic, really. It can

have important consequences. This resolution isn't phony, as one member

said; it's not crass. Even the timing is right. The fundamental reason

is this: we now have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We've only had

it for a few months. We obtained it this spring when it was proclaimed

by Queen Elizabeth in Ottawa. From that moment onward we've had a

Charter of Rights and Freedoms; not before, at any time in our history.

We have not only a charter but a formula; we have a process whereby the

charter can be improved or changed. Here today we have an opportunity

to pass a resolution which will start that process. That process itself

has to be tested, but I hope in this case it will work. If this

resolution passes all legislatures and the Parliament of Canada, it

will change the charter.

New charter, new ball game. Until

this spring the ball game was quite different. The powers of the

provinces were listed; the powers of the federal government were

listed. The first and greatest power of the provinces was property and

civil rights. The provinces, quite rightly, down through the years have

opposed the inclusion of property in some legislation which would be

federal in nature. Now we have a charter. A charter is legislation

approved not by a single legislature or singly by the Parliament of

Canada but by them collectively; and in order to change it we have to

have a collective resolution. Seven or eight provinces and the

Parliament of Canada will have to agree to the resolution, and if it is

approved by those legislatures and by Parliament it will become part of

our national — and indeed provincial, plural — Charter of Rights and

Freedoms.

So we're departing on a new course. For a

province, of its own volition, to say that the individual's right to

own property should be enshrined in this charter, which is a unique

law, above all other law, is an important concession by a province.

British Columbia, I hope this afternoon, unanimously will agree that

this right should be enshrined in the law above all other laws. And

British Columbia, within limits at least, will have given up — as a

province, as a single legislature, as a single government — the right

to control the individual's property. I think that is very important;

it's precedent-setting, certainly in this country. A resolution to that

effect is a resolution which should cause our other provinces, and

certainly the federal government, to sit up and take notice.

I think it's important. It's a move that I heartily endorse. I believe

members on both sides of the House have agreed that now that we have a

charter it should include life, liberty, and among other things, very

importantly, the individual's right to own property.

Now

remember that this takes from the province its exclusive control over

property. The old British North America Act gave that exclusively to

the provinces, and not to the national government. That power now, in

some measure at least, will be surrendered if this resolution is

adopted by seven or eight other legislatures and by the federal

government. What does it do? It limits the power of future governments,

be they Social Credit or New Democratic or some other designation, to

have exclusive control over property. It

[ Page 9306 ]

limits their power to deal roughly, crassly or unfairly with people in areas such as expropriation.

certainly would agree that our expropriation law is a long way out of

date; we have far too many statutes dealing with expropriation. We need

a single law dealing with expropriation, a law somewhat similar to the

federal law passed roughly ten years ago dealing with federal

expropriation. Nevertheless, by passing this resolution today, and with

similar passages across the country and in Ottawa, we limit the power

of governments, provincial and federal, to expropriate.

will be interesting to see what the inclusion of property rights in

Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms does to certain other matters

like zoning. Zoning can be a form of expropriation. Indeed, it can be

expropriation under another name, in another guise. What does it do in

areas like rent control? What does it do in other areas: property

taxes, death duties, capital gains tax? I assume our law in those areas

won't be changed much. But there could well be challenges under the

heading of property if the individual's right to property is included

as an inalienable right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom.

This

is an important step; it certainly is an important resolution. The

sequence of steps is laid out for all to see. This legislature passes a

resolution to this effect. Seven or eight other legislatures pass ft.

The House of Commons is faced then with the requisite number of

provincial approvals. Will it or will it not pass it? I understand the

Conservative Party is certainly in favour of including it in the

Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Initially the Trudeau government had it

included. I would think a majority of MPs would approve it, and it's in

the charter. We will have amended our charter; we'll have done the

impossible — at least it's very difficult in other countries like the

United States to change their Bill of Rights. We will have changed our

bill of rights; we'll have corrected it; we'll have made it certainly

much more authoritatively a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that deals

with all the rights and freedoms of the individual.

Certainly

a charter which doesn't deal with property doesn't deal with all the

rights and freedoms of the individual. It can't. Property is difficult

to define. Property is more than real estate, more than acreage, more

than buildings. As one hon. member opposite said, it can be your home,

your residence, your clothing, your right arm, or knowledge that you

have obtained. That is your property for you to exploit or do otherwise

with as you wish. At some point it's property; at some point in that

long list of properties it's intimate, it's individualistic, it relates

to the individual.

Our other laws will have to be tested as

to their reasonableness relative to the individual's right of property.

Now obviously one individual's right to property can impinge on another

individual's right of property. They may be squabbling over the same

piece of property. So this doesn't say that one individual has

unlimited right to property. There's common property, there's public

property, and there are rivers and oceans. There's obviously property

in the physical sense, which extends beyond the reach of the individual

in any reasonable democratic society. Reasonableness will emerge in the

testing of the legislation.

I personally am very much for

the inclusion of the individual's right to property in our Canadian

charter. I know that this government is also, now that we have a

charter. I'm told — I listen and I hear — that the opposition is, and

that's fine. It'll be interesting to see what happens, Mr. Speaker,

when this resolution is passed, when it proceeds to the other

legislatures and to Ottawa to see what they do about it.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief, but I wanted to respond to some of the

comments that have been made so far regarding this resolution, which I

strongly support and which British Columbia has strongly supported

since the first days of the constitutional debate in Canada, through

the government, at least, but perhaps not on the opposite side of the

House. I think it's extremely important that the people of British

Columbia understand why the New Democratic Party is willing to vote in

this Legislature in favour of this resolution. In fact, what they're

trying to do is to crawl out of a very deep hole which they've dug for

themselves over the years by their public statements, particularly

outside of this Legislature.

I'd like to comment on the

first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) who gave such a stirring defence

of the NDP's protection of property rights. He talks about people

telling lies and about the positions that the NDP has taken in the

past. I guess the question I'd like to ask, Mr. Speaker, is: is it true

that the member for North Island (Mr. Gablemann) did not say that land

can no longer by owned privately? Maybe we should look at it

differently. Did he not say that?

MR. GABELMANN: I said a lot of dumb things ten years ago.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I hope that gets on the record in Hansard .

Let it be recorded that the member for North Island said: "I said a lot

of dumb things ten years ago." But he admits that he said it, and he

still believes in it. Is it not true...?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. To the Minister of Labour, I'll just ask you to

discontinue for a second. The hon. member for North Island can

participate if he wishes. I would appreciate it if people don't heckle.

Also, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is heckling,

and he's not even in his place, which is most unparliamentary.

The

Speaker's list indicates that there are still a lot of speakers who are

left. Members who have not yet spoken in debate will be allowed their

chance if they wish.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr.

Speaker, the point I was going to make is that despite what the first

member for Victoria might say, the members opposite — a number of them

— have made very clear statements in this province that they do not

believe in the private ownership of land. They don't deny that, but to

come back here and vote in favour of a resolution supporting the

private ownership of land is hypocrisy at its very worst. But if they

can live with their conscience, going against their own philosophy in

that way, I guess that's okay, and it's not really our business.

do get disturbed by the kinds of attitudes, particularly of the first

member for Victoria, who mocks, who makes fun of, for instance, the

riding of Columbia River, sneering down his nose at everybody who

doesn't live in Victoria. He talks about the tiny little riding of

Columbia River — which is, incidentally, 11,000 square miles, compared

to Victoria, which is probably 11 square miles. Every time he sneers

[ Page 9307 ]

about members from North Peace River, about members from Kelowna, and about members from Langley....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order! That's not on the bill.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Yes, it's in direct response to the things that the first member for

Victoria mentioned about land ownership around this province and the

enjoyment of property rights through the Canadian constitution. Mr.

Speaker, that member continually looks down his nose at anybody who

doesn't play a flute in the Victoria Symphony Orchestra. He demeans all

British Columbians who live outside of the big city — every one of them

— with his attitude.

Mr. Speaker, we talk about making

political promises through ads in the newspapers, as the first member

for Victoria talked about. He said he kept all his ads. I kept all of

yours, and I remember the famous ad that you put in the paper about $25

car insurance as your major election promise in 1972 or 1975 — which

election was that? Where did it ever come from?

Mr. Speaker,

everybody in British Columbia believes in the enjoyment of property

rights. Everybody dreams of owning his own home, regardless of his age

or where he lives in British Columbia. One of the good things that we

have going for us in British Columbia is that we do enjoy a very high

level of home ownership. I think over 60 percent of the citizens of

British Columbia own their own homes. I would believe that to be much

higher than many other areas of the world. It is fundamental to our

freedoms. Maybe we get apprehensive a little too often about whether or

not those freedoms are in jeopardy, but nevertheless the citizens in

British Columbia are apprehensive about those principles and they want

those rights protected in Canada's new charter.

If everybody

believes that, and I believe that most people in British Columbia do,

then why don't we have them in our charter? That's a curious matter. We

all believe in those fundamental opportunities for dreams and hopes and

the opportunity to own our own home. Why aren't they there? Well, they

are not there because of a very infamous coalition, an infamous

partnership which the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister of

Canada formed during the debate on the constitution. We saw, Mr.

Speaker, that the New Democratic Party was willing to give our

citizens' rights away with regard to property ownership, and we fought

against that. We lost the fight in the first instance, but we want to

win it in the long run. That's the reason this proposal is before this

Legislature today. It's not to give just British Columbians the

enjoyment of property rights, but every Canadian, because every

Canadian deserves it. The NDP fought against that when they coalesced

with the Liberal government, the Trudeau government, and made sure it

was taken out of the original charter. At the same time they were going

to give Quebec and Ontario the right of veto over the rest of Canada.

We fought against that one; we won that one; and we re going to win

this one as well.

MR. SKELLY: We're with you.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the member says: "We're with you." Well, why weren't you

with us when we needed you? Why weren't you with us when we had the

chance to have it in the charter? Who backed taking out the

constitutional amendment that dealt with property rights?

was Lorne Nystrom who fought a passionate battle to have it taken out

of the charter — Lorne Nystrom, the NDP member. He was on the

committee, the final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the federal

New Democratic Party convention not long ago, who backed the national

leader, Ed Broadbent, in his version of the constitution? Well,

according to reports from the convention, it was nobody but Allan

Blakeney and Dave Barrett, the leader of the British Columbia New

Democratic Party, aligning themselves with the Trudeau Liberals to take

property rights out of the charter, and they won. And they've won that

in the past as well, because I remember that coalition and that uneasy

alliance; that unholy partnership has gone back a long time. I remember

reading in Hansard of 1974 — and I just happen to have a copy

of it — where the hon. Mr. Barrett, who was then Premier of the

province, said: "The NDP has been the balance of power and kept the

Liberals in office, extracting a number of commitments that they

thought were worthwhile." They've been doing it since 1974 and they'll

continue to do it for their own crass and personal political motives.

The NDP joined with the Trudeau Liberals to get the charter of property

rights out of the constitution. Why didn't you help us then, instead of

hypocritically standing up in this House and voting for it today

because you don't have the nerve to vote any other way — here, at least.

You

believe in it today because you have to stand up in this House and

vote, and you don't have the nerve to vote with your principles and

your conscience. You don't have the nerve. Sure, there wouldn't be any

expropriation in this province if that party was in power again,

because they don't want the private ownership of land, so there would

be nothing to expropriate.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke

(Mr. King) talks about the stirring speeches he made over the years

about a new expropriation law. He was a minister of the Crown for over

three years. Where was that shining new expropriation law that he was

telling cabinet about? Mr. Member for Vancouver Centre, you were a

member of cabinet. Why didn't you support him when he asked for an

expropriation law? You should have supported him, and you should be

ashamed of yourself because you didn't — or at least you didn't carry

enough clout with the rest of your colleagues who don't believe in the

ownership of land. Maybe that's it, Mr. Speaker. They didn't have

enough clout with their colleagues.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. One moment, please. I'll just advise the hon. Minister

of Labour, as I have advised other members of the House, that personal

allusions in debate are quite unparliamentary. I'm sure we have the

richness of vocabulary to state our point well without making personal

allusions. Further, I'll ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Lauk) and the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) not to interrupt.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

I wouldn't make personal allusions. I'm talking about the history of

this province. It's well written for everybody to read. It's known that

the NDP was the government in this province for more than three years.

They had the opportunity to pass an expropriation law. They talked a

lot but they never did it. On a number of occasions a number of their

members said they did not believe in the private ownership of land —

including the one who is pointing his finger at me.

[ Page 9308 ]

The

only message I would give in regard to this vote is to ask the citizens

of British Columbia to be very careful and not to listen to the way

they speak or vote in here, but listen to them at their conventions and

in their public speeches, and then remember that if it looks like a

duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, there's a

pretty darned good chance it's a duck.

MR. LAUK: I'll

spend even less time than the Minister of Labour, but hopefully with a

bit more content. The Minister of Labour has risen in his place on this

resolution and made some pretty wild allegations. He's desperately

angry. He was hoping for a simple black-and-white situation for an

election. That's why the government has proposed this rather cynical

election gimmick of a resolution.

We're talking about the

original charter of rights. It was the Premier of this province who

gleefully agreed to the property rights

section being taken out. He

signed it and smiled all the way home. He gave up and walked away. He

gave up because he didn't even have the resolve to argue for property

rights. Any pathetic attempt by the Minister of Labour to rewrite

history will be regarded by the people of this province in a very

skeptical way to say the very most for his speech.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

One moment, please, hon. members. The hon. member for Alberni has been

interrupting quite a bit. I will ask the hon. member to please not

interrupt any more. It's quite unparliamentary, and I'm sure the hon.

member is aware of that.

MR. LAUK: It was this very

Premier who wholeheartedly agreed to do Trudeau's bidding with respect

to the so-called restraint program, and he introduced his own version

of it. But it was strictly Trudeau's suggestion to the Premier of this

province. It was Trudeau's suggestions all the way along, and Trudeau's

acceptance of some of the Premier's suggestions, that have got us into

this Social Credit-created depression in the first place.

1978 the Premier of this province went back to Ottawa and gave a speech

to the ministerial conference there, saying that the only way to deal

with inflation is to raise interest rates. In 1979 he was warned in

this House. He was warned in 1980. He was warned in 1981 about the

recession coming, and he threw up his hands and said: "I'm not doing

anything about it." This is the person who on the constitutional debate

went back and tried to create this great big splash of the Premier of

British Columbia taking a hard stand with the federal government. As

soon as he saw Trudeau he melted before this charismatic figure. He

just fell to his knees in front of this great champion, Trudeau, and he

became enslaved to Trudeau. He is Trudeau's slave today. He is the one

who has assisted Trudeau step by step in the disaster that created the

recession, which is affecting British Columbia worse than almost any

other province in the country — the Socred-fed recession.

Contrast

that with the argument of the Minister of Labour, who argues that it

was the NDP in coalition that got the property rights out. It was the

Premier of this province of British Columbia who folded his tent, who

made a sleazy backroom deal to get rid of the property rights

section

and crawled back to the capital, Victoria, and sheepishly told us: "Oh,

well, we wouldn't have got a constitution otherwise."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK:

That's what he said. "We wouldn't have got a constitution otherwise."

What nonsense! Any attempt to rewrite history will not convince the

people of this province. They read the papers. They know what happened.

You can't rewrite it now simply because you're going on the hustings.

You can't have a deathbed repentance two days before an election writ,

and say: "Oh, my goodness, we've reformed." Nonsense! Talk about

hypocrisy! I remember 1975, talking about property rights. Do you

remember that? "Work with Bill, and own your own home." That was 1975.

MR. LEA: How do you like the program so far?

MR. LAUK: "Work with Bill" — how do you like it so far? I

wonder how those 300,000 unemployed in the province of British Columbia like

it so far. "Own your own home"! Tens of thousands of people have had

to sell at a loss, or have had their homes foreclosed under the Social Credit-established

depression in this province, and they're talking about property rights.

This hypocrisy of standing up and saying: "Look, we're going to give

you, enshrined in the federal constitution Mr. Speaker, to heighten the hypocrisy

of this resolution.... Everybody knows their constitutional law — with

the exception of the Hon. Barney Rubble — and constitutional law in this country

is that the sovereign Province of British Columbia is the government in charge

and in control and with total jurisdiction over property rights. So why this

resolution? Why not a bill of rights for property owners in the province of

British Columbia? Why? Because they are being hypocritical about it; they don't

want rights for property owners in this province.

They've

caused an economic situation that has created foreclosures and has

people selling at great loss homes that they owned for many years. They

bring in this phony resolution, saying, "Oh, we're going to go across

the country, perhaps after the election" — wink and a nudge — "and

we're going to get back part of the Charter of Rights." They can bring

in a bill tomorrow supporting property rights in this province and have

the unanimous support of this House because they have the sovereign

jurisdiction over property rights. It's ultimate hypocrisy, it's an

election gimmick, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for being

so sleazy as to bring in that kind of resolution at this time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'd like to make a few comments. I'm not going to dwell at length upon

the statements of the last speaker; most of his sentiments really are

undeserving of a reply. I would like to mention to him, and to all hon.

members, that this proposal is not for a federal government, it's not

for the provincial government, it's not for regional government, it's

not for municipal government, but it's for every Canadian. That's the

object of this proposal: to amend the constitution to provide the right

to the enjoyment of property for every Canadian right across the land.

They

are hectoring us, Mr. Speaker, for advancing it. I haven't seen any of

their motions or recommendations to proceed with this whatsoever.

[ Page 9309 ]

MR. LAUK: A provincial bill of rights.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I'm getting a little chattering across the floor now on the point that

was made by the last speaker about a provincial bill of rights. I think

he was the only person foolish enough to come up with that statement

today. I'll tell you why. What we wish to have here, sir, is something

for all of Canada; we don't wish to have a checkerboard rights

situation — a different right in Alberta, a different right in

Manitoba, a different right in Saskatchewan and in B.C. The object of

this exercise is to see that we will have a provision that will apply

from sea to sea in our country. I think it's most apparent, Mr.

Speaker, that the opposition has missed the point in the debate. This

is the beginning of an amendment to change our constitution, to bring

into being that which is understood to be existing today in our

country, but which is not entrenched. That's exactly what it is.

They're

hectoring us for the process. They're talking a bit about

expropriation. Expropriation is something that I'd like to make a few

remarks about too before I sit down. I have to say this: the official

opposition sat on the Clyne commission and on the Law Reform

Commission. The official opposition did not see fit to bring any sort

of amendments whatsoever to expropriation laws, which badly need change

in our province. I'm the first person to admit that, and I'm the first

person to advocate that we have to see that that change is brought

about.

I would mention, when I'm talking about fair

compensation and fair expropriation laws, that in this session this

administration did take one step forward, and that was with the

provisions that were brought in concerning the Urban Transit Authority.

I'm not saying that they were a perfect solution. I'm saying one thing:

it is a step forward, and it was brought forth not only with the

intention of just assisting that Authority with its endeavours, but

also of having a sample of some of the proposals that exist across the

country become present in B.C.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Fair expropriation laws are

needed in the province of British Columbia. The point was made, and

well made indeed, by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr.

Davis). We agree with that. I would say that those provisions are being

worked upon at the present time. There's no way that we're abdicating

our responsibility for dealing with that, but we are accepting it. I

will say, yes, you will be very shortly seeing proposals for new and

better expropriation and fair compensation laws.

I wish to

make one final point before sitting down. The effect of this resolution

also would be to ensure that expropriation laws would be fair

throughout the whole of Canada if a similar resolution were to be

passed by the requisite number of other provinces — seven in number, 50

percent of the population — the Senate and the House of Commons. All

expropriation laws, federal or provincial, would be subject to the

higher law of the constitution. I'm not going to reiterate the remarks

that I made in opening this debate, but I would say that I am glad to

see that the opposition is supporting what we are proposing today in

British Columbia, because the strength of a unanimous resolution will

have a greater impact upon Canadians throughout the whole of our

country, and indeed upon the administrations in other provinces and the

federal administration. I so move, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Since the 34th motion has passed, I ask leave to withdraw motions 31 and 32.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 79, Mr. Speaker.

HOMEOWNER INTEREST ASSISTANCE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 79; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

section 2.

MR. BARBER:

I believe it's more appropriate under this

section than any other to

ask now the question of the minister: do you contemplate, or have you

decided, that the owners of 99-year leaseholds will be entitled to

apply for benefits? They've been asking me, and it's a contentious

issue. We had some success previously in amending the Home Owner Grant

Act to make sure that they were entitled, because the government did

then finally accept that it is in fact home ownership, like any other

form. What I wonder is whether or not home ownership, in this form,

will entitle persons owning 99-year leases to apply for the loans under

the program.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The answer to that

question is yes — and condominiums and mobile homes. We're trying to

make the program eligible to all forms of home ownership. That is one

of the reasons that — if I could take this opportunity to also respond

to some other comments that were made earlier —

section 2(

f) has been

in there. We want to have the flexibility, without having to come back

to the Legislature with a particular situation that may not have been

covered in those terms, or just by lack of definition. That is one of

the main reasons we discussed these sections at considerable length and

tried to provide the greatest flexibility to make certain that we could

cover any and all forms of home ownership.

Another matter

raised by other members is that the bill is vague. I think that we can

safely say that the intent of the bill is very clear in the

announcements that have been made so far and the particulars that are

being prepared. Those details are being spelled out. One of the

objectives we had in preparing this bill, after considerable

discussion, was to keep it as simple and clear as possible, so that we

could deal with situations that came up. For instance, there are

definitions which may take on slight variations. What is a principal

residence? The member for Victoria raised a question about the 99-year

lease. There might be slight variations on mobile homes, because we

have terms such as "manufactured homes" and "relocatable homes" —

whether they are on pads or in mobile parks. We wanted the flexibility

to deal with those. Condominiums, agreements for sale — we wanted the

ability to deal with anything that, in effect, definitely constitutes a

principal residence and home ownership. We want this program to apply

to all homeowners who

[ Page 9310 ]

are

properly eligible. Had we gone the definition route, as I think other

members pointed out, it would have been quite an onerous task to try to

work in

definitions that would cover any and every possible situation.

So rather than take a chance on missing some of these opportunities to

assist people in home ownership, we preferred to take the possible flak

of not have everything defined and spelled out in the bill.

I'd

also like to respond to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King)

that I have been in contact with the mortgage company in Kamloops since

we last met this morning and there are some extenuating circumstances,

as they say; but they have assured me they will send me a full report

on the situation, and we will do whatever we can to help.

There

were some questions raised asking if people will be better off at the

end of this program than they are now. I think it's safe to say that

anyone will be better off then than they are now, if they are in a

difficult situation now. If you take the worst-case scenario which some

of the members of the opposition seem to prefer to take, then these

people are in the worst case now. At the worst, they will be no worse

off three or four years down the road. In the meantime, they would have

had some money to help them through these times and would have had that

money interest-free to assist them in going through these difficult

times. Naturally we don't accept that premise that things are going to

be worse in 1985. We fully believe that it's going to be a much better

situation. The economy will have recovered because of world conditions

and because of government.

MS. SANFORD: A new government.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

I would like to remind that member that yesterday the argument from the

NDP was that they are going to be government and that things will be

worse in 1985. I think I pointed out that I would like to stick with

the argument that we are going to be government next and that things

are going to be much better in 1985. I would repeat: if you want to

stick with your argument, please do. I'm quite prepared to stick with

my argument. I'm glad that member has invited me to stick with my

argument, because my argument is that we are going to remain in

government and things are going to get much better.

MR. BARBER: They couldn't get much worse.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Well, they could if there was an NDP government in this province,

because they certainly got worse in a very short time the last time

they were in power.

I think that fairly well answers all

those who have expressed their concerns on this, except for one. One

member has said that people may qualify for our assistance program by

taking out a mortgage. I guess my only answer there is that unless they

actually hold a mortgage they are not eligible for this program. If

people choose to invest or put up their home for security in order to

take out a loan at current rates and spend that money, we feel that's

their prerogative — we like freedom of choice — and that it will

stimulate the economy.

I would think that fairly well answers all the concerns that were expressed.

MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't have much opportunity to discuss this

section in

detail when we were in second reading, and there are a few points I

would like to put on the record.

The minister has stated

that he brought in the legislation, in the broadest context possible,

in order to keep the whole program as simple as possible and, I would

add, in order to make any unforeseen complications and their correction

as simple as possible. So often well-designed legislation develops

complications which are contrary to the spirit of the bill and the

intent of the various sections, such as that here in

section 2. These

complications can't be corrected until such time as the Legislature is

recalled or called and we have to go through the lengthy procedures of

rewriting or amending the legislation. In the designing of the

regulations as outlined in

section 2, we do away with that

complication. In a bill such as this, which is a limited program having

a very specific objective, it would seem most reasonable and

responsible to provide for the regulations and the carrying out of the

program in such a way that any complications can be amended very

quickly. I'm sure most members would applaud that.

The

section also makes reference to the multiplicity of opportunities for

home ownership. We notice that

section 2(

b) says you may fix "the

maximum amount of assistance that a homeowner may receive under the

program, " and that does allow flexibility. If interest rates go down

during the program's existence, then the minister with his staff will,

through regulations and approval of cabinet, have an opportunity to

adjust those interest assistance programs in keeping with the interest

rates of the time. That's an important section.

I think

section 2 (c), which prescribes "the application of the program to each

class or type of security instrument," is well placed, in that during

the introduction of the program there are bound to be areas where

securities not now thought of might well and properly come into play.

It brings up the whole question of land and the right to own land. That

is covered philosophically very much in

section 2. Of course, the

government has made it very clear that it believes in the right for the

opportunity, wherever possible, for citizens to own their own homes.

Contrary to the opposition, we feel that should be basically on their

own land. This bill and this

section assist a broad spectrum of people

in that ability.

Through these sections, the program will be

of assistance to young people and first-home buyers, along with

existing programs, and will add to their opportunity at this difficult

time to take advantage of their prudence. No one can enter into home

ownership without having been prudent and saved a certain amount of

capital to assist with that purchase, but it has been made much more

difficult at this time. Therefore the flexibility in this

section will

aid young people. It will aid people who already own their own homes

and who might be struggling under existing mortgages at a high interest

rate which was predicated on an expected wage increase, which is not

now forthcoming because the marketplace has been drastically affected

by economic circumstances in Canada, in our province and in the world,

as well as perhaps those in the professional civil service — of whom we

think so much — who might have been anticipating a larger wage increase

than is now possible. This will be of great assistance to them if they

now find themselves in the position of being over committed to their

mortgages. The flexibility in

section 2 will be of great assistance to

the senior citizens who may have owned their own home at one time but

who have not been eligible in many provinces for new-home assistance

programs. Through this bill they will have the opportunity to re-enter

the area of individual land ownership and home ownership. Along with

[ Page 9311 ]

all the other members of this House, Mr. Chairman, I know that this also pleases you and your constituents.

The

flexibility of the regulations will provide the opportunity for

individuals to increase the capital payment on their mortgages, by

having a breather from the interest on their loans.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, the member's remarks are completely out of order.

She is attempting in committee stage to give a speech that she failed

to give in second reading. It is an abuse of the rules and our ears to

have to listen to this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of

order is well taken. The Chair will remind all hon. members of standing

order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration." I will commend

that to members of the committee.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank

you very much, Mr. Chairman. I certainly will be most mindful of your

words. I listened with great interest to the complaint of the first

member for Victoria. I realize that what I have to say in the

Legislature on behalf of the citizens of the North Okanagan is perhaps

not of interest to him. I would advise him that after 16 years of

support from those people, I think it certainly has been of interest to

them.

Back to the bill.

Section 2(

d) says: "...fixing the

repaid." I believe that must outline very fully the opportunity for

condominiums. Of course, this bill does include the right to own land

with a condominium — not own a condominium, as happens so often in

socialist countries, where people are allowed to own their own home,

but that does not include the right to own land.

This

section brings to mind the words of Pope Pius XII in a radio broadcast

in 1944, which, I think, outlined the philosophy of many people —

certainly the citizens of British Columbia. He was addressing himself

to land ownership and home ownership, and he said: "Private property is

a natural fruit of labour, a product of intense activity of man,

acquired through his energetic determination to ensure and develop with

his own strength his own existence and that of his family" — that is

home ownership — "and to create for himself and his own an existence of

just freedom, not only economic but also political, cultural and

religious."

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, the

member has been giving in committee stage a speech she failed to give

in second reading. The remarks she's making have been very well made by

the minister, in any case, and we already believe him. The member for

Okanagan North is currently reflecting on a vote we just took. That

vote on the motion dealing with private property rights passed

unanimously. It is not permissible to reflect on a vote just taken. Her

debate is completely out of order. I ask if you would once again try to

have the debate restricted in duration and content to that which is

before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again, the point of order is well taken. The hon. member for Okanagan North must be relevant.

MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, I had no intention of reflecting on a previous vote, nor

would I presume to do so in this House. Just because that member does

not really like to see the freedoms and privileges of this House

exercised, because it doesn't appeal to him particularly, is no reason

for me to discontinue my debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, we are not allowed to enter into debate on points of order. The

hon. first member for Victoria has made his point of order, and for the

second time I will cite standing order 61(2), which commends to us that

speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to

the item or clause under consideration. I'm sure the hon. member for

North Okanagan can continue being strictly relevant to the

section

before us.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I do feel that

when we are looking at the flexibilities and the simplistic approach

that can be brought into existence to relieve our own citizens of red

tape and confusion, and what is sometimes called the runaround, trying

to introduce this assistance at this time is important, does reflect

the philosophy of this government and does emphasize this government's

efforts to assist all citizens in the opportunity to own their own

homes and not to lose their homes in this time of economic restraint

when we are seeing some extremely harsh results of the marketplace.

think it's important, when we look at the intent of these sections, to

recognize that this intent and this philosophy falls into place with

the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, under

Article 17(l), says everyone has the right to own property — I m sure

they mean property in its broadest term, which is a home — alone as

well as in association with others. They go on to say, and this is most

significant to this section: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of

money advanced under this program is to be repaid, " falls in very

clearly with that. So we hope through this

section and this bill, Mr.

Chairman, that people in British Columbia, citizens who have worked

hard to own their own homes and who are being affected so severely,

with the economic situation and the high interest rates that have beset

this country, will not be arbitrarily deprived of their property.

That's the purpose of the bill and the purpose of this section. I'm

sure all members will enthusiastically support it.

Sections 2 to 4 approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper, [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

section 5 as amended.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In current mortgage transactions it is not unusual these days to have

six-month mortgages, open and closed — mortgages of a very short term.

Can the minister indicate whether or not, in the circumstances that a

person has one of those very short-term mortgages, they're still

eligible under the provisions of this

section for the program?

[ Page 9312 ]

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Yes, people will be eligible even if they have short-term mortgages,

but because the payment

schedule may be considerably higher than on the

basis on which we calculated, there is a $300 per month cap on what is

available in the form of assistance. I don't know if that fully answers

the minister's question. In renewal of mortgages, interest rates will

be calculated at least every year. If there are six-month mortgages of

variable rates in effect, that will be averaged out over the year and

will be dealt with in that form.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

MR. GABELMANN: A brief question on

section 6, Mr. Chairman. How much?

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

Well, Mr. Chairman, the amount will, of course, vary according to how

many people apply, what the mortgage interest rates are, and what

assistance is handed out in this first year, until March 31, 1983.

We're

estimating that in the first year we're probably looking at getting

about $200 million to $300 million out. The money will progressively

increase as a number of mortgages come in. I would think that by about

March 1983 we'll be looking at perhaps a maximum of about $150 million

that will be out.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 79, Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, reported complete with amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker

Leave granted.

Bill 79, Homeowner Interest Assistance Act, read a third time and passed unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 76, Mr. Speaker.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT

ACT (NO. 2), 1982

The House in committee on Bill 76: Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise you and the members of the

committee that standing in my name on the order paper are amendments to

sections 2, 8 and 9 of this bill — namely, that they be deleted. I did

that in order that it would be properly drawn to the attention of the

men at the table. However, I am aware that the appropriate procedure in

this House is that in the deletion of an entire section, the

appropriate action is to negative the section. Therefore in calling the

section I wish it to be clear that we will be voting no on

section 2.

By way of explanation, with respect to these three sections, since

earlier this year we amended the Court Rules Act, these three sections

are no longer required.

MS. BROWN: I'm disappointed

that the minister is withdrawing them, because I thought they were

pretty good sections myself. However, can I gather from his explanation

that the act already has entrenched in it that the chief judge of the

provincial court must be consulted?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In order that there be no misunderstanding, may I say that amending

legislation that we brought in earlier requires that the rules be

prepared after the consultation that is mentioned here, so that is

already covered in another statute.

MS. BROWN: Fair enough.

Section 2 negatived.

Sections 3 to 7 inclusive approved.

Sections 8 and 9 negatived.

Sections 10 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

MR. KING:

I presume that this is kind of a housekeeping amendment, but I would

appreciate it if the Minister of Forests would explain precisely what

the intent of this amendment is. In terms of establishing a research

council, I presume the amendment is to accommodate participation by one

or more logging contractors. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the member is right. The present legislation requires

that the minister shall establish a Forest Research Council. To that

we're adding that the minister shall also establish "one or more

contractor clause advisory committees." The present legislation is

permissive where it says "may." It has been found to be a success, so

we are making it an obligatory thing on the part of the government.

[ Page 9313 ]

Sections 14 to 17 inclusive approved..

section 18.

MR. HANSON:

This particular amendment to the Trespass Act is a victory for this

side of the House. It is a victory for the recreationists, the

fishermen and the hunters of this province who waged a concerted

campaign against the heavy-handed Social Credit government that was

going to deny public access to our own Crown lands in this province.

That minister stood in this House on a number of occasions and said

that access to the public had not changed, that the public was

guaranteed access and so on. This amendment is a testament to the fact

that he misled the House — not deliberately misled, but he did mislead

the House. This amendment has had to be made to secure access for

recreationists, fishermen and hunters in this province to around

650,000 acres of Crown land in this province.

The fishermen,

hunters and other recreationists throughout the province were

universally outraged that the past practices were to be changed in the

new Crown grazing lease that was brought in by the previous minister.

That minister wrote letters to the newspaper trying to discredit the

legitimate claims that we were making that the past practice was being

changed and that ranchers now felt that the provisions of the Wildlife

Act that had allowed for access were no longer relevant, and that the

Trespass Act and the Land Act took precedence over the Wildlife Act,

and that the public was going to be denied the recreational attributes

of their own land. I am pleased to see that an amendment has come

forward which will now ensure that hunters, fishermen and other

recreationists will be allowed legitimate access onto Crown land,

providing that cattle are not present foraging on that particular land,

which was the past practice. That previous minister stood in his place

and said: "It is only 2 1/2 percent of the grazing land of this

province. What's 650,000 acres of Crown land?" Well, we say that we

fought for public access to this land, and it is a victory of the

hunters and fishermen around this province that refused to be bullied

by that big, heavy-handed minister over there.

I think that

the people of this province should pay tribute to the Outdoor

Recreational Council members, the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and all of

those recreation, hooking and angling clubs that fought and persisted

in trying to secure and maintain the tradition in this province of

multiple use, of integrated use of our valuable Crown lands.

HON. MR. BRUMMET:

I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this section. I think it

should be made clear that it was never intended to exclude hunters and

fishermen from Crown lands. Unfortunately, because of possible legal

technicalities and interrelationships between one act and another, the

second member for Victoria chose — for political purposes — to make all

the possible hay he could out of that before the matter could be

corrected. I believe that that member certainly distorted the picture.

In checking into existing legislation and past practices on grazing

leases, we found that the legal right of hunters and fishermen of

access to grazing leases was not that well assured; it was just never

challenged.

With the change in the legislation under the

Grazing Act, we did build in — this was, of course, before I took over

this portfolio — the absolute legal right of people to designate trails

across that land; in other words, access across the land had been

assured all along under these grazing leases. We even had a provision

in the grazing lease that the Crown had the right, retroactively, to

establish any access across those lands in cases where a trail had been

missed in the original submission. We also had the fact that the

Forests ministry would require a management plan for any of the leases

that were granted or were renewed. I should make that clear. There have

been no new grazing leases granted. So, in effect, the outdoors people

had better assured access, more definite access, across the lands. This

amendment is to clear up any misconception that they would not be

allowed access onto the land. I know I'm not that well versed in the

legal technicalities, but we feel that this will remove that fear,

which was foisted on the people of this province by the second member

for Victoria, even though it was never intended.

With this

amendment, we now have the grazing leases in place, so that the

ranchers, who have to do some long-term planning, will have those

rights for collateral. I certainly think they are entitled to that,

because we cannot have a viable ranching industry in this province if

we do not have some sort of guarantee that they can do some long-term

planning. Because of the recent acts and policies of the government, we

have better access through the land and we have the retroactive power

in case we've missed anything. Now we have this assured access. So we

have been able to fully satisfy both factions in our society.

might point out, too, that the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing,

through my staff, is reaching an agreement with the cattlemen and the

B.C. Wildlife Federation to get together to try to outline codes of

conduct so that we can assure the ranchers they're not going to

willy-nilly have vandalism and cattle destroyed. We're going to try to

do that in the only way it really can be done: by agreeing to a code of

conduct and by self-enforcement by the hunting fraternity and the

outdoorsmen. There is no law that can be passed in this province to

stop some idiot from cutting a fence and shooting a cow. Only

enforcement can do that. For instance, we know now that these people

should not do that. So we're hoping to do that by a cooperative effort.

We've taken steps to move in that direction and get a code of conduct

to get these people working together for a common purpose for the

benefit of all in this province.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd

like to question the minister on the wording of this particular

amendment. He says it gives access to those who wish to hunt and fish.

In the recreation community are many people, many families, who go

camping and wish to get onto Crown land. They are bona fide

recreationists. They're not in possession of a fishing licence; they

may not be in possession of a hunting licence and a gun. Why should

they be denied the right as laid down in statute? The statute says you

can only cross it if you're hunting or fishing. There are many horse

clubs that go on trail rides. They are organized, properly supervised,

and they do cross grazing lands and go onto Crown land. These are bona

fide recreationists. To lay into statute that they can only go in to

hunt or to fish is I think wrong. As a policeman — and as the

Attorney-General will say — you can only go with the wording that is in

the law, and the act lays out that you have to either hunt or fish.

There should be some thought into the legislation that where it is a

bona fide type of recreation, where the person is going there.... He's

not trespassing willy-nilly if they are going somewhere and if they are

part of the recreational community.

[ Page 9314 ]

believe the wording should be corrected. I think being specific like

they are is going to ham-string people. If someone wants to be

harassed.... All they have to say is, "Where's your hunting licence?"

or "Where's your fishing licence?" If they're not in possession of

that, families can be kicked off and recreational groups such as trail

riders can be denied access. I believe the minister intends to open it

up and have some control, which I understand, but you can't do that

without the proper wording. I don't want to see a play on words in the

legal end of it. I really would ask the government to look at the

wording and rewrite it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Again, I

think the opposition members are unfortunately looking at worst

possible scenarios: that everybody is intent on keeping everybody off

the land, and so on. The trail riders, the rock collectors and so on

have not been a problem to the cattlemen's associations. Again, if we

included in this

section a complete list, there's always the danger of

leaving someone out. And the list could be endless, because there are

endless types of outdoor recreational use. With permission of the

owner, there is no need for a law to allow them on the land. The

cattlemen's associations assure us they're not trying to keep these

people off the land. The other groups we are talking about, some of

which we have contacted, say they have absolutely no reservations about

instructing their people, or asking their people, to ask permission. So

there really is not a problem, unless you choose to make it one by

lengthening the wording of the legislation. There really is not a

problem there.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just a couple of words on this amendment to the Trespass Act.

want to refer to some of the remarks made by the second member for

Victoria in connection with this amendment. He is correct that only 2.5

percent of all the grazing rights held in this province are held under

grazing lease; that 97.5 percent of all the grazing in British Columbia

is held under other forms of tenure, primarily licences and grazing

permits. He attempted to convey, during the period that I was Minister

of Lands, Parks and Housing, the impression that we were issuing new

grazing leases, and that this new grazing lease conferred additional

benefits on the lessee. What is essentially being done with this small

percentage of grazing lands held under leases is to renew the existing

leases. There was never any question of new leases being issued. I was

assured by legal advisers to my ministry that the new lease, even

though the wording had been changed, continued to provide the kind of

access that was available under the old lease. On numerous occasions I

attempted to clarify the false information being conveyed by the second

member for Victoria about the question of access to grazing leases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the Provincial Secretary if he's imputing any dishonourable motive to another member.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

No, I'm not. He attempted to fuzz up the issue of access. He attempted

to confuse the people of this province about their legitimate rights of

access. This amendment to the Trespass Act before us now is essentially

to clarify the confusion created in the minds of some people by the

second member for Victoria. This clarifies it once and for all:

essentially there is no difference between the former grazing lease and

the new one; access will continue to be available as in the past. If

there's a misunderstanding about

interpretation of the new grazing

lease, this amendment clarifies that. It removes the doubt in the minds

of people about access; it removes the confusion created by the second

member for Victoria. It's a positive step, and one which I strongly

support.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, having listened to

both the minister and the critic and the former minister, I have to

smile when the former minister gets up and says that you have to bring

in legislation to clarify something, when a ministerial statement would

have done so. What are we doing here? The fact is that the member for

Victoria has done a first-class job for the people of this province,

and that minister knows it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: He's a twister.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order! I'll ask the hon. Provincial Secretary to withdraw the term he

just used. Did the hon. member impute any dishonourable motive to

another member.?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, did you want me to say a couple of words?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

No, just withdraw or state that you did not impute any.... The minister

agrees that no dishonourable motive was imputed to another member, is

that correct?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Pardon? What was the point?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That there was no dishonourable motive imputed to another....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, I just said he was a twister; he twists facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, just withdraw the term.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, you're going too far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have asked the hon. Provincial Secretary....

HON. MR. CHABOT:

That has been an acceptable term in this parliament for years and

years, and now you've reached the point where we can no longer say

anything in this House. You allowed members across the way to say that

I was misleading the House. It was acceptable that I "mislead the

House" unless they had said I was doing it deliberately. I don't think

there's anything offensive about what I've said.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair has simply asked the hon. Provincial Secretary if he imputed

any dishonourable motive. The Provincial Secretary said no, he had not.

The Chair was satisfied with that. However, a further comment did

offend the Chair and parliamentary practice, and I would simply ask the

minister to withdraw the term. A simple statement, "I withdraw," will

suffice and we can carry