1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 3273 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Motor-vehicle

Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 138). Hon. Mr.

Strachan.

Introduction and first reading — 3273

Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development (British

Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 139). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 3273

Islands Trust Act (Bill 112).

Second reading.

Mr. Morrison — 3273

Mr. Richter — 3274

Mr. McGeer — 3274

Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 3274

Division on second reading — 3275

Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment Act, 1974

(Bill 81).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3275

Mrs. Jordan — 3276

Division on motion to adjourn debate — 3276

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 3276

Mr. McGeer — 3277

Mr. Richter — 3277

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 3277

Mr. Smith — 3278

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 3279

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3280

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 3281

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3281

Division on second reading — 3282

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 129).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3283

Mrs. Jordan — 3283

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 3285

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3285

Mr. McClelland — 3286

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 3287

Mr. Chabot — 3287

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 3288

Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 79).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3290

Mr. Wallace — 3290

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3291

Mr. McClelland — 3291

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3291

Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill

104).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3292

Mr. Wallace — 3292

Ms. Sanford — 3292

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3292

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 3293

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1974

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

MOTOR-VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Administrator: a bill intituled Motor-Vehicle Amendment

Act, 1974 .

Bill 138 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

AGRICULTURAL REHABILITATION

AND DEVELOPMENT (BRITISH COLUMBIA)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

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

Administrator: a bill intituled Agricultural Rehabilitation

and Development (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1974 .

Bill 139 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Adjourned debate

on second reading of Bill 112.

ISLANDS TRUST ACT

(continued)

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I couldn't help

but notice when this Bill 112 was first presented to the House

that the area which was included in this bill was only that

area which had been visited by the travelling committee. I'm

sure if the committee had had a little more time they would

have travelled a little farther, and perhaps a little farther

north — and I see some of the Ministers nodding their heads — and

therefore there would have been more areas included.

Now, it's logical to assume that if we ever wind this House

up the committee may even travel this year. I wonder where they

will travel this year, what areas they'll visit and I wonder

how they'll be received on the islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bang, bang!

MR. MORRISON: And then I wonder, after having covered all the

islands, what other special areas will be considered for future

legislation.

In my opinion there obviously existed sufficient legislation

already on the books capable of exercising planning authority

over any of these areas. The Act I'm referring to is the Local

Services Act , and therefore I wonder why the need for

Bill 112, which apparently really only centralizes control.

I notice also in Bill 112 that those islands with low

populations will have no trustees on the board at all. Only

those islands that have large populations now with active

boards will be represented. But there are a number of small

islands in this trust area which do not, and will not, have

representation on the board.

I speak as one of those property owners who does have a

piece of property in that gem of an area included in this

freeze. For many years my family and I have visited the Gulf

Islands area, and for many years we visited this one particular

island.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Name names.

MR. MORRISON: We've enjoyed its beauty, as the people in the

area have, and ultimately we decided to acquire a piece of that

island when it became available and was advertised for sale,

and we purchased it through a real estate company.

We've only had the privilege in the years in which we've

owned it to be a taxpayer. We've never had a development on

that particular piece of property, never built a home, never

built a summer cottage, done a lot of camping on it, had a lot

of happy evenings around fires on the beach. But we bought the

property with the idea that some day ourselves or our family

would develop it.

We were quite happy to abide by the planning regulations of

the local representatives. We were satisfied that those people

who lived in that area cared about that land as much as we did

and that the local residents were sensitive to the future

development of their homes. Therefore, I'm disappointed that

this Act takes away from those people the authority to

administer their own affairs and that it centralizes once

again, ultimately under the Minister and the appointed

representatives, the final authority to do as they see fit.

I think that this bill is designed to give the government

the power to direct the future growth of this entire area. It

gives them the power to put in roads, bridges and ferry

terminals, if they so desire, wherever and whenever they wish.

It gives them the power not to worry how the local

representatives feel in that area, and it also takes away from

those local representatives the right to sue the Crown for any

development that they might want to do.

I believe this bill will give them the power to put in that

ferry crossing and to take that island that you so glowingly

spoke of this afternoon — Mudge Island. The Member spoke of

development on Mudge Island.

[ Page 3274 ]

As I see Mudge Island from the air, and having been

on the

shore and having walked over that island, if they proceed, as

they apparently intend to, that island will be nothing but two

bridges and a wide freeway. You talk about a development that

was stopped on it. How are you going to do anything about this

development? Nothing but two bridges and a wide freeway.

Frankly, I think this bill is a bad bill. I think it sets a

dangerous precedent. I think it sets a precedent which will be

extended to other areas, and ultimately to other parts of the

province — not just to the Gulf Islands area, not just the

islands north of this particular one, throughout other parts of

the province.

Therefore, for these reasons, I cannot support this bill and

will vote against it.

MR. F.X. RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Mr. Speaker, in this

Bill 112, I can see, as others have expressed their concern,

the setting of a precedent which could apply to all areas of

the province.

The Minister quite clearly laid out that there are six

regional districts involved in the area that is covered with

this bill. Because of that fact alone, by appointing a board of

trustees either you're going to dilute the powers of the

regional board or, as the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford)

illustrated today, the trustees would have no power. If this is

so, I can see in the principle of this bill and its application

that other regional districts will be affected, whether they

want to be or not.

It comes down to a point that either the Minister or the

government don't need Bill 112, or else they don't need

regional boards. It's just that simple. As I see it, it will

dilute the powers of the regional boards who have been working,

and maybe this is what the government wants. As far as a board

of trustees being set up, I can't hardly vision the government

setting up a board of trustees without having some powers to

deal with matters that should truly come under the jurisdiction

of a regional board.

I must oppose this legislation.

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

notice the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) reading very

carefully that publication noted for its factuality, honesty

and forthrightness — MLAs at Work . I see the reportorial

quality hasn't improved any since the old days when the

Liberals had to bring in a motion of censure against the

bulletin for inaccurate reporting. And I gather from the

bulletins about this particular issue it's no different from in

the bad old days.

I think we are still in the bad old days as far as attitudes toward

government are concerned because this particular bill takes away the

most important ingredient of all in democracy — the accountability of

those who make decisions. You cannot afford to take any area of British

Columbia and remove it from the democratic process, because in doing so

you undermine the democratic process itself.

I suppose all the people on the opposition side could do in

the interests of accountability was to promise to the public

the repeal of this iniquitous and dictatorial piece of

legislation the moment that new government took office because

that is the only way you can prevent people who are not elected

and not accountable to the public from making decisions which

may or may not be good decisions, but which nevertheless will

not meet the test of accountability that those of us who sit in

this chamber must ultimately meet.

If it becomes the habit of MLAs at work to misinform their

own supporters in the public of British Columbia as to the true

nature of their activities here and to introduce legislation

that is fundamentally undemocratic in its nature, then of

course the only thing to do is to have the people of British

Columbia set to work and turn those MLAs out. And when they

have done that job, we will restore credibility to this

province by repealing this disgraceful Act against democracy in

British Columbia.

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

Speaker, I only have a few remarks to make. I think the Hon.

Members for Comox (Ms. Sanford) and Vancouver-Burrard (Ms.

Brown) have answered most of the questions that were raised by

the Members who spoke in opposition to the bill.

I might say that the opposition usually have been reading

the bill with their blinders on, but in any event it has been

an interesting debate.

I am sorry the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr.

Curtis) is not in his seat, because even though he has taken

his junket of fear on the islands, still the greatest majority

of letters that I am receiving — and I received quite a number

of letters on this bill — are in favour of the trust. And there

is no question that these are the unedited ones. So I am quite

convinced that not only are the residents themselves satisfied

and happy with the contents of the bill, but also those people

who use the islands on a part-time basis, either to visit, to

camp or who have summer homes, are very happy with the

contents of this bill. I can assure you of that.

They are talking about eroding local control — this bill, of

course, gives the control back to the people on the islands. As

has been mentioned a number of times, the vote weighed against

some of those islands...well, a number of them have no

resident representative at all. Most of the islands have no

resident representative at all. This gives them, those that

have a population on the islands, two representatives on a

question of five at the very

[ Page 3275 ]

minimum, and a possibility of some of the other

appointed

members as well.

There is a mention of the International Joint Commission.

This bill, of course, has nothing to do with the report of the

International Joint Commission. This bill is to preserve the

islands, not to ruin the islands, in my opinion. This is in no

way connected with the report of the International Joint

Commission.

There was some mention of the Nantucket trust and the

Martha's Vineyard trust. Those pieces of legislation, if you

want to read them, have a lot of appointments to their trust,

but if you will read it, they have very little power and can

very well do nothing. Really, it is a paper trust rather than a

trust that can act in any way, unless it is totally agreed by

quite a number of jurisdictions.

The regional plans in a few of the islands, not many, but in

a few of the islands are in place. They will remain in place,

and that will be the key to the development of those particular

islands. Those have been prepared by the local residents, and

they will continue. Other areas will be preparing their own

plans in the same way as the ones that have their plans

prepared. The trust, I hope, will assist this method and will

assist the regional districts.

I can assure you that the regional districts, by and large,

will be very happy because they, generally speaking, find it

very difficult to administer these islands in the way that they

have to be administered. I would look to great cooperation

between the trust, the local groups and the regional

districts.

The Local Services Act , that is true enough — I have

the power now to control those islands as Minister. What I am

trying to do is to give that power to the local people, let the

local people look after their own destinies.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LORIMER: I have the power right now. We don't need

to worry about these sorts of things, but that is what we are

trying to do. and the Local Services Act they bring up — that

is the

way it was brought in, the 10-acre freeze. Now, the

people there don't want any more 10-acre freezes; they want to

get out of it.

On the other islands, before we can remove the 10-acre

freeze, these islands will have to get their plans in position

so they can protect themselves. The trust, I hope, will assist

them in making arrangements for their community plans,

developed by the local people on the islands.

I would just like to mention that there has been quite a lot of

quoting from a certain publication, and it has been somewhat

criticized. I just want to say that I agree the wording was somewhat

unfortunate. The criticism that was levied here was, I think, quite

valid. I know in our experience we didn't encounter too many

large-scale developers on our trip through the islands.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who wrote it?

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would tell you if I knew.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I now move second

reading.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 31

Hall

D'Arcy

Lauk

Dailly

Cummings

Nicolson

Strachan

Dent

Skelly

Nimsick

Levi

Lockstead

Stupich

Lorimer

Kelly

Hartley

Williams, R.A.

Webster

Calder

Cocke

Lewis

Nunweiler

King

Liden

Brown

Young

Rolston

Sanford

Radford

Barnes

Steves

NAYS — 11

Chabot

Fraser

McGeer

Bennett

Richter

Williams, L.A.

Smith

Morrison

Gibson

Jordan

Schroeder

Bill 112, Islands Trust Act , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 81, Mr.

Speaker.

FARM PRODUCTS INDUSTRY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): In the short

time since this bill has been law in the province some

deficiencies in the original wording have been drawn to our

attention — or, at least, deficiencies in the eyes of some

people.

For example, with respect to the legal authority to

guarantee, questions were raised by lawyers for some of the

agencies with whom we were dealing that the provision to

guarantee referred only to principal and not to interest. That

is being clarified in this amendment before us.

While the original legislation did say that we could name a

representative to attend board meetings, it did

[ Page 3276 ]

not say specifically that such a representative

could be

there as a director to vote, to be a director of the

corporation; that, too, is being clarified in the

legislation.

The limit to which we could go in the original legislation

of $100,000, as I intended at the time — referred to a specific

enterprise rather than to the grand total;

whereas it's being

read by others to refer to the total. So that, too, is being

clarified.

The one new feature, I suppose, the last one, does give us

the authority to deal with banks — including credit unions, of

course — and to allow them to interview applicants for

assistance under this — to act, in other words, as agents on

behalf of the government in considering and in negotiating

loans or assistance under this particular legislation.

In other words, it's really just tidying up the legislation

that was passed in the fall session, 1973.

I move second reading.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I wonder if the Minister

would accept an adjournment of this debate in light of the fact

that our critic is not in the House this evening. He's

unavoidably away.

AN HON. MEMBER: As usual. When somebody asks for an

adjournment....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an unfair statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! I think the obvious answer....

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would imagine, in view of the

fact that the Premier's not here and so many Ministers are not

here, and that the government has refused to issue any order of

the day to the opposition to keep to, the Minister would be

quite willing to accept an adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. If the Hon. Member wishes to

speak to the bill....

MRS. JORDAN: No, I wish to move....

MR. SPEAKER: If you wish to move the adjournment of the

debate until the next sitting of the House, please do so.

MRS. JORDAN: I wish to move adjournment of this debate until

the next sitting of the House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 12

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Gibson

NAYS — 32

Hall

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Lockstead

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and

Communications): Well, Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this

bill. It has been before the House now for six weeks. It's a

very short bill with five sections, a bill which really could

be best examined in committee stage. As the Minister has

explained, the purpose of the bill is very clear. It was

introduced on March 19, which is just a little more than two

months ago — a five-section bill, five very short sections.

It's less than a page and a half, and that's why we feel that

we should proceed with it this evening.

The bill makes it clear that the Minister can do certain

things. He can....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He can guarantee the interest...

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...and other costs as well as the

principal of the loan.

MR. McGEER: What is the limit on loans?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: $100,000. Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: $100,000.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, up to $100,000. It makes certain

that a representative of the Crown can be a representative on

the board and....

Interjection.

[ Page 3277 ]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's right, he does. Sure, it's right

in there. It's right there; there's no question.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It allows the Minister to authorize banks

and other lending institutions to process applications on his

behalf, which is a normal procedure adopted by the federal

government on many, many occasions. It simply allows the bank

to make the loans on behalf of the government. I suggest that

the time to ask the questions and thoroughly discuss....

Because each

section does a different thing. After more than

two months, I suggest that we get on with the business and pass

this bill.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I didn't really plan to debate

this particular legislation. I don't know if I qualify as the

agricultural critic. I think that all Members of the Liberal

Party at one time or another have been accused of agricultural

interest. But I really admire the stirring description of the

bill given by the Minister of Transport. He's a great speed

reader. (Laughter.)

Perhaps the things he says about the bill are true. I hope

his record's better than with the ICBC. I would have enjoyed a

more thorough explanation from the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) other than that they made a lot of mistakes

writing the bill the first time, so they've got to bring

another Act in front of us to correct them all.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Do you know how to avoid making mistakes,

Pat?

MR. McGEER: Well, I think one way is to prepare the

legislation thoroughly and not bring in 100 or so badly drafted

bills. Perhaps it's necessary to work on them all year,

introduce your bills at the beginning of the session and refer

every bill to a select standing committee of the House. That's

a pretty standard method of operation in most legislative

assemblies.

It's only under that dreadful old Social Credit government

that established these traditions...that the NDP not only

persists in carrying on, but seems to worsen as time passes.

It's all very well for the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley) to say that the bill has been on here for two months.

He read the date on which it was introduced; I doubt that he

read the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think we are, after all,

straying away from the principle of the bill, which the Hon.

Member could have read in two minutes.

MR. McGEER: Yes, it's quite possible to read the bill in two

or three minutes. It's less easy to understand it. It appears, because

it has come onto our order paper, that it's not nearly so easy to draft

a bill. Obviously, the original legislation was badly drafted. We

suspect that there are still plenty of errors in this Act of the

Legislature that the government is asking us to pass.

I regret that we're rushing into the bill. I think the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) probably had some

excellent comments to make. All Members of the House know that

he's very deliberate in his presentations. He doesn't hurry his

arguments; he thinks carefully about what he's saying. And

we're being deprived of his experience and knowledge...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. McGEER: ...before we come to a vote. I for one would

not feel confident in casting my vote for a bill without having

heard from the Member for South Peace River.

I do think, Mr. Speaker, that with 34 other government bills

on the order paper, if we were to run out of those — or 42

government bills; 34 opposition bills have yet to be presented — there

is hardly the urgency to discuss this particular bill

this evening.

Normal courtesy in a parliament is to grant an adjournment

after the Minister has given what explanation he can for the

bill he has introduced. He gave that explanation. It wasn't

completely satisfactory, to my way of thinking. I would urge

the Members of the opposition to vote against this bill and I

would also urge the Members of the government to vote against

it too, to teach that cabinet Minister a lesson.

MR. RICHTER: Mr. Speaker, it's extremely interesting to hear

the expounding of the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) and also our First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer).

It was the intention of the official opposition to support

this bill, as we will, even in view of the fact that we are

denied the privilege of having our critic here — who is

unavoidably away, as many of the government side of the House

are unavoidably away tonight. However, he would have been here

tomorrow anyway. So we are going to support the bill, whether

the courtesies are extended to the official opposition or not

on their asking for adjournment.

MRS. JORDAN: Quack, quack!

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Yes, the

Member for North Okanagan might well say "quack, quack!" You

know — duck. You'd better duck.

[ Page 3278 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would you kindly address...?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes. On Bill 81, Mr. Speaker, it was very

interesting that under Bill 81 the duck quacked. Here after

nine weeks the official opposition that pretends — and I say

"pretends" — to represent the farmers.... What legislation did

you bring in? What sort of a budget did you have for

agriculture? It was less than half of one per cent for any one

year. And this for agriculture and under farm loans.

One of the reasons the farmer has to borrow money today is

because after 20 years of Social Credit, you've bankrupted him.

This is why we have to bring in this kind of legislation.

Your agricultural critic, where is he tonight? He's not

here. Where is the leader of the official opposition? He was

absent; we had to ring division bells to bring him in. So the

Member for North Okanagan says, "quack, quack!" Duck for

her.

What is this doing? This is enabling the farmers...it's

removing them from the clutches of the financial corporations,

the finance companies, the loan sharks, and so on.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Sure, this strikes right at the heart of

finance company capitalism, which you people represent — the

loan companies, the companies that try to charge the farmers 24

per cent. This little Minister of Agriculture has brought in

more legislation, more help, the greatest budget to help

agriculture in the history of this province. And your leader

and your critic are absent and the Member for North Okanagan

says, "quack, quack!" Good for her.

MRS. JORDAN: I sure got under your skin, didn't I?

Interjections.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, when I come to your riding, I'll talk

mining — up in Gibraltar.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair, and a little less heckling all around?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: If the Members of the opposition wouldn't

try to sidetrack me, they'd be more successful. The interest

rate will be about a quarter of what it used to be under Social

Credit. The interest rate is designed to assist the farmers

throughout this province.

I was very pleased to see the Members of the other little

rump group, the Liberal Party, which represents the flower-box

farmers of the province. Most of the farming is in the flower

boxes in the windows, window-box farming. They represent a

group, too. I think most are able to finance....

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, no, I'm all for them. I have a few of

those too. But for the official opposition to try to set back

this legislation for another minute, let alone another session

or another day, shows that they are absolutely out of touch

with the farmers, the people who produce the basic ingredients

for a good life in this province. The fact that they were out

of touch for so many years is the reason they're sitting over

there now. Unless they can come forward with some good, basic,

constructive criticism with something more positive than what

we have, they're going to be decimated to a lesser group than

what they are now. They'll have folded their tents and faded

away after the next election.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): It's a pleasure to

participate in this debate. I think a few points should be made

abundantly clear at this particular time in this debate. If

there's to be a workable arrangement in this House between the

government and the opposition side, then I think the type of

speech we've just heard from the Hon. Minister of Public Works

does nothing to enhance the position of any of the Members of

this House or allow those of us in the official opposition to

place any credibility in the Minister or the Ministers of the

Crown when they suggest to the official opposition that we will

follow a certain order when we're discussing bills before this

House.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: You're still in love with the finance

companies.

MR. SMITH: The only reason we're not discussing the bills of

the Minister of Finance at this very time is because the

Minister of Finance is not in his place in this House.

MR SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: There was an undertaking this afternoon that we

would discuss his bills first and foremost. Where is he at?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! When I call for

order, I would like the courtesy of being able to explain what

the point of order is. In this case, on both sides of the

House, there has been considerable accusation about other

Members not

[ Page 3279 ]

being present. But it doesn't forward the debate on

the

principle of the bill. I would ask both sides of the House to

please desist from this practice.

MR. SMITH: Speaking to the principle of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, it would have been common courtesy for the House

Leader to accept an adjournment on this debate for one reason

and one reason only: the official critic for the opposition,

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), has missed the

first day in the total session. It was the first time that he

has been absent in all the days we've sat in the House. To deny

him an opportunity to debate this bill, in my opinion, is not

becoming of a House Leader or anyone in that position when they

have an opportunity to call bills in any order they see

fit.

Now, speaking to the bill, it's....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: No, Mr. Minister of Public Works. If you knew

half as much about farming as you seem to indicate, you would

still be in the insurance business. You obviously didn't know

much about that either.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and

Commerce): Will you run through that again?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. SMITH: This bill is to patch up

an Act brought before

the House by the Minister in a previous session.

We don't object to that, except to say that at the time we

first debated the Act we said it was a little hasty and

ill-conceived and that there were certain things within the Act

the Minister had not properly thought out. It's obvious that,

even before the farmers who will take advantage of this bill

have an opportunity to do that, the Minister is already

bringing amendments before the House because he's not sure of

what should have been included in the first Act.

We're pleased that the Minister is moving in an area which

will help the agricultural industry. But let it be said now

that the test of this bill will not be in the statute that was

previously passed or the amendments that are before this House

tonight. The test of this bill will be in how it works to the

benefit of the people who avail themselves of receiving the

industry improvement Act.

If the farmers receive the treatment that the government would like

us to believe they will receive, then the Act will be worthwhile. While

we support the amendment in principle, I think that not only ourselves

but the farming community also will reserve their judgment on exactly

how good the bill is. The test of it will be in the application and the

use of it. If it benefits the farmers, and the interest rates are as

they should be, then it will be beneficial to the farmers. But if it's

just another means of the Province of British Columbia in the right of

the Crown advancing money, loans, grants or guarantees to the farmers

on the understanding that somewhere down the line they have a caveat

against that farm at an interest rate the farmers cannot afford, taking

into consideration the financial problems that all farmers have been

faced with in British Columbia, then in effect it will not have been of

service to the farmers but a disservice.

I say this in all sincerity: we'll reserve our judgment

until we see how this bill works and if it really does do

something that benefits farmers in this province.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): I want to take my place in the

debate on the principle of this bill to speak in favour. If

there has been a group in this province or a

section of our

society in this province that has been ignored for years and

years and years, it has been the farming community.

As far as I'm concerned, this bill allows the Minister on

behalf of the government to step into the normal institutions

and guarantee the farmer's loan for the money he needs to

operate his farm or his ranch, whatever it may be, without

having a stricture laid on him such as it must be paid back in

three years or five years or at a high rate of interest. It is

my hope that the intent of this bill — and I feel quite sure

that this is the intent of the bill — is to give the farming

community, the agricultural community of this province a break

that they have needed for a long time.

There are all kinds of operations in this province that

borrow money, of course, for their operation — whether it's for

a mortgage on a home or a finance for a business, and many

other kinds of industry in the province that have to borrow

money at times to finance themselves to see their operation to

its successful conclusion. They have always had an opportunity

in the market for a fast return on their money in many cases — except

the farmer.

There is no way the farmer can borrow money and repay in

three or four or five years. He has to have a lengthy term for

repayment. He has to have a better rate of interest because his

particular operation is not one that gives a fast return. It is

both a combination of a business enterprise and a family

holding, a family operation, a way of life. The financial

institutions of the province have not been interested in the

past in financing this kind of an operation where you have to

wait a long time for the capital interest and the interest on

the money to come back.

[ Page 3280 ]

As far as I see the principle of this bill, it is a

guarantee to the lending institutions so that the farmer can

have a longer time on the payments and a better rate of

interest on the repayment — something he has needed for years

and years.

If we look at the record of the acreage that has gone out of

production in this province in the years in the past, we can

see that we have a decline in farmers and we have had a backing

away of an agricultural operation because it takes a lifetime

in many areas to build up this kind of an operation. By the

time you have all the debts paid off and the interest paid off,

there is nothing left and there's not much time left in your

life. But on this type of a bill, there is an opportunity for

the government, backed by the people of the province, to step

into the lending institutions and say to them we will guarantee

this loan.

Therefore you can give this farmer a longer term to pay and

you can give him a better rate of interest because you will not

have the credit risks that you have in the normal lending

environment in the province.

I think this is going to be good for the province. I think

we are going to see under a bill like this a better situation

for young people to go into agriculture, with longer-term loans

and a better term of interest. You're going to see people in

the agriculture industry at the present time who will have a

better deal and who will be quicker to get a loan to extend

their operation — their operation, after all, is going to

assist all the people in this province.

So everyone in British Columbia who is now moving to the

cities — who love the farms but don't want to farm themselves — are

saying to the people on the farms: "If you need money we

will, through the government, support your application for a

loan and guarantee that the principal and the interest will be

paid."

The farmer will get a better deal on this because of it. We

in the cities will benefit from it because it won't be

necessary to import as much as we have. There will be an

expansion of the agriculture industry in the province; there

will be a lot more of our young people able to go on the land

and develop the farms; we won't have this continual falling

away of farmers and drop in the population of the agricultural

industry because of this bill. They will be able to get a loan

for a long term at a better interest, as I see it, so that they

will be able to go into agriculture as they want to do and as

this bill makes it possible for them to do. So as far as I can

see, I can't see why any Member in the House would not stand in

support of it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I only wish,

Mr. Speaker, that the hopes and dreams and aspirations which the Hon.

Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) has for this legislation could

come true. When we passed this legislation just a year ago there was

great hope that it would enable people in the farming industry to go

into the products industry division and to make a significant

contribution not only to the industrial development of this province

but also to the supply of the foodstuffs which we so seriously required.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Pardon me, last fall. This legislation

was supported by all sides on the floor at that time.

HON. MR. STUPICH: You supported it but voted against it.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I didn't vote against it. I would

never have voted against it.

The experience we have had since the legislation was passed,

however, Mr. Speaker, leaves one to doubt whether the hopes of

the Member for Kamloops can really come true.

One of the significant farm products industry activities

that has taken place since last fall was the advance of moneys

to the South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., with the guarantee of

the Minister of Agriculture. This was authorized by an

order-in-council under this particular piece of legislation — the Farm

Products Industry Improvement Act — and it is

significant that the authority that was then given to the

Minister of Agriculture to guarantee a loan of $1.5 million was

for a repayment of that borrowing at an interest rate of 1.25

per cent above the prime rate of the Royal Bank of Canada or 12

per cent per annum, whichever was the lesser.

I trust that neither the Member for Kamloops nor anyone else

is going to suggest to this House that 1.25 per cent above the

prime lending rate of the Royal Bank of Canada or 12 per cent

is anything like the low-interest loan required to support an

industrial development in the agricultural community. I would

certainly hope that no Member of the government would suggest

that it is in any way appropriate for any lending institution

to suggest that they are obliged to charge 1.25 per cent above

the prime lending rate of a chartered bank of Canada when they

have the guarantee of a Minister of the Government of British

Columbia. What has happened to the credit rating of the

government of the Province of British Columbia when they

provide their guarantee and have to pay 1.25 per cent above

prime interest rates?

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Nonsense!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: You bet it's nonsense, Mr.

[ Page 3281 ]

Minister — absolute nonsense that the Minister

would have to

place his signature guaranteeing the loan at 1.25 per cent

above prime rates or 12 per cent, whichever is the lesser.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You're talking nonsense.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not talking nonsense at all. It's

right in the order-in-council. It's in the agreement.

MR. LIDEN: Vote against the bill.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I intend to vote against the bill

because, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a complete delusion

so far as the people in the agricultural community are

concerned. They are not getting the kind of assistance and

support from their government that they were led to believe

last fall they would get under this legislation.

There is another aspect of this bill which I find to be

disturbing. We had a limitation as to the amount of any

particular loan which the Minister could make with the

authority of the cabinet. We find that this limitation is now

being removed. The Minister no longer needs the authority of

cabinet; he's entitled to make guarantees up to $100,000 in

respect of any single enterprise. Before there was a

limitation, but that is now disappearing. That concerns me.

You know, it is important that the government lend its

fiscal support to agriculture, but there still must be checks

and balances. We had this debate last fall. This little bill

that is only going to correct some inadequacies corrects them

in such a way as to remove at least one of the checks and

balances that was in the original legislation. I oppose it for

that reason as well.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose of the greatest concern

to me, is the fact that in the last

section of this bill there

is an amendment to the regulatory power of cabinet. The

regulatory power is being extended to include the right to

establish yet another corporation without any reference

whatsoever to this assembly. By regulation we are giving carte

blanche power to the cabinet to create another corporation. If

there is one thing we do not require in this province, and

certainly to assist the agricultural industry, it is the right

to establish another corporation whose powers are not defined,

whose limits are not defined, and whose fiscal responsibilities

are such that it is not obliged to report this assembly.

I thought after the debates of last fall, with all of the arguments

that were presented to the government, that we would, at long last,

have seen the end to this move on the part of the cabinet to take unto

itself the broadest possible powers that could ever be bestowed upon

the executive council. Yet here, in this little bill, sneaked in as a

simple amendment in the last section, is a power by regulation to

establish a corporation.

Perhaps the Minister, in the fullness of time, can explain

to us why this specific power is required. For the life of me I

do not see how he can stand before this assembly and in any way

satisfy us or the people of British Columbia as to why that

authority is required.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I happen to be in an

agricultural riding, and it is the first time I have

spoken.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to support this

bill, as I come from an agricultural riding which is a

microcosm of the entire industry in this province.

This Minister has already used the provisions of the Act,

which we are amending here, to take an equity position in Swan

Valley Foods Ltd., an industry which will create 100 jobs in

the agricultural industry at the processing end, something that

hasn't been done in this province. It will be creating and

giving security and support to this industry, and creating

confidence in the agricultural community of Creston, confidence

that is spreading, not only to create a new vegetable-growing

industry, but a vegetable-processing industry.

This confidence is also spreading to revitalize the

fruit-growing industry in that area. The fruit co-op is

planning for expansion and relocation, and modernizing of its

facilities.

The dairy producers are talking about dairy processing in

the area. The alfalfa producers are continuing their intentions

to enter into pellet or cube production. So it is with this

type of vehicle that this becomes possible.

It is through this Minister and the type of legislation that

he is bringing to this House, particularly through this

particular Act, that this new wave and new revitalization of

the agricultural industry, particularly where it is visible in

my riding in the Creston valley, is spreading a new wave of

optimism and new hope for the agricultural producers of this

province, and I intend to support this fully.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) interpreted my remarks to be

an admission of the fact that it was bad legislation when it

was introduced in the fall session. I suppose we could have

avoided any errors in legislation by, perhaps, doing very

little or doing nothing at all.

The previous administration, so far as my department is

concerned, in seven sessions passed six pieces of legislation

to do with agriculture, and some of them were quite major

pieces of legislation.... It is true they did require some

changes, and perhaps more changes will become apparent as time

goes on. But it is only as we use this legislation...and

[ Page 3282 ]

didn't have an opportunity to use it at all until

we had it — now that we have it, as we use it we find examples of

changes, improvements that can be made in the legislation.

I make no apology for standing before you and admitting that

improvements in legislation can be made, as long as we are

proceeding to introduce legislation. We will be doing that, I

suppose, just as long as this session lasts.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) mentioned one particular deal. I thought perhaps

other Members might have asked about others. However, he did

mention the South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., and questioned why

it was necessary for the government to guarantee a loan at such

a high rate of interest.

Well, of course, as we said when this legislation was

introduced in the fall session, we would deal with groups of

farmers who had some idea of some agricultural enterprise that

they wanted to pull together. The purpose of the legislation

was to assist them through government involvement.

In the case of South Peace Dehy Products Ltd., we were

dealing with a group of farmers who, for reasons best known to

themselves because they were active, presumably, in that

organization, preferred to deal with a local credit union. And

the local credit union, because it was investing money that it

was getting from the members in that area and just didn't have

access to the sort of funds that other lending institutions

might have had access to, was obliged to charge a rate of 12

per cent, or 1.5 per cent above the Royal Bank prime rate.

It is not the best rate that could have been achieved

because it wasn't the rate that was achieved in other instances — 1.25

above the Royal Bank prime — because in other instances

we did sign agreements that provided financing at much lower

rates. But in each case the negotiation was done by the group

of farmers or the cooperative with which we were dealing; we

left that part of it to them as long as it wasn't an outrageous

situation, and as far as this particular party is concerned,

dealing with a credit union is not in our minds an outrageous

situation, so we did back them in that. Had it been something

higher than that, of course, we wouldn't have gone along with

it.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Rip-off!

HON. MR. STUPICH: We tried to get it lower. We are still

trying to get it lower. We are still trying because in that

particular instance negotiations are still going on between the

Lakeview Credit Union and B.C. Central to try to get it at a

lower interest rate, which will be passed on immediately to that

organization.

Beyond that, as the Members know, there is provision in the

legislation for this particular legislation to be used to discount or

to rebate part of the costs of the interest or of the capital, indeed,

if we feel this is in the interests of supporting that particular local

enterprise. We have said we will do that, and we will certainly look

into this one when the fiscal year-end comes.

With regard to your very specific questions asked on

section

5(a) — I prefer to deal with that in the committee stage. The

reason that I have been told is the legal reason, and I really

don't feel quite that comfortable in giving that reason here on

the floor of the House. I will get it and I will deal with

that, I hope, more adequately in the committee stage of the

bill.

With respect to our determination to proceed with this

legislation at this particular time — it has already been

mentioned that it has been on the order paper for something

like nine weeks — in the absence of the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett), unavoidable because he is tied up with

visiting representatives of state; we thought we would proceed

with non-controversial legislation. On our side we couldn't

think of anything more non-controversial than Bill 81.

Now it happens that we picked one where the official

spokesman wasn't here, and there would still be adequate

opportunity for us to deal with it in committee stage when that

Member or anyone else who wants to go into more details of this

very short, very simple and very non-controversial legislation

will have his opportunity to fully participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 81.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 43

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Nicolson

Radford

Lauk

Young

Skelly

Lockstead

Hall

Macdonald

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Chabot

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Steves

Curtis

Wallace

NAYS — 4

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Gibson

Williams, L.A.

[ Page 3283 ]

Bill 81, Farm Products Industry Improvement Amendment

Act, 1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of

the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Bill 129, Mr. Speaker.

AGRICULTURAL CREDIT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, Bill 129 — two very minor

changes: the first one changing the amount of the total

guarantee that may be provided for agricultural credit. This

time we are dealing with the farmer loans — the individual

loans — and I have a feeling that two of the Members who spoke

in the previous debate were really debating this bill rather

than the previous one. But in this case it's a matter of

increasing the total amount that may be guaranteed, also

authorizing the Minister to reimburse as well as discount

agricultural credit loans.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

In this particular case it's even shorter, it's even less

controversial than Bill 81, if you like, but if it happens that the opposition critic is the same one as was for

the previous bill, and if someone in the opposition would like

to move an adjournment on behalf of that Member, the government

will accept it.

AN HON. MEMBER: They'll speak against it, then vote for

it.

MRS. JORDAN: We put our position before in relation to the

opportunity for our critic to be here, and the Minister

wouldn't accept it, and the other bill was perhaps a more

important bill, so we are prepared to debate this now, Mr.

Speaker.

I was just looking at the date when this was introduced — May 9,

1974 — and this is another example of legislation being

introduced 30 days after the time when the government suggested

that they'd like to have the House prorogued and the session

over with. I think it's only fair to acknowledge tonight that

if it wasn't for the opposition and their diligence in....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

confine her remarks to the principle of the bill?

MRS. JORDAN: I am.

If it wasn't for the diligence of the opposition in scrutinizing the

public accounts and spending of this government, and persisting in

endeavours to better the opportunities for the people in British

Columbia, this bill would never have been able to come in and be of

benefit to the farmers of British Columbia.

I'm sure the Minister, in closing, will pay due respect to

the Members in the House for allowing him the opportunity and

the time that he needed to get his legislation organized and to

try and help the government out of the tight squeeze it found

itself in when it's proven to be unable to prepare legislation

such as the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act in

time.

Just to mention in referring to the last debate, as it

refers to this, I can hardly wait to hear the Member for

Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) come in as he speaks to the

benefits this bill will bring to the individual farmers because

this Member had his opportunity to expand benefits to farmers,

to take a strong position of aid to farmers in British

Columbia, and to recommend to this government that this bill we

are debating now not tie itself to a slightly above prime rate

of Canada lending, not tie itself to the term "low-term loans"

or low-interest loans, when in fact we are talking about 8,

10 and 12 per cent.

That Member knows, as the rest of us know and as this

Minister knows, that agriculture in British Columbia cannot

survive if it must face what are called low-interest loans at

10 and 12 per cent. That Member for Kamloops had the

opportunity to make strong recommendations to this Minister so

that this piece of legislation would not only have carried more

money for loans to farmers to put themselves in hock, but, in

fact, would have made a recommendation of cash grants to

facilitate the streamlining and the rehabilitation of a number

of agricultural industries in British Columbia.

So it rings rather hollow, Mr. Speaker, to hear that Member

speak in this House when he fell down so badly on the

agricultural committee as its chairman, and when he didn't

recommend to the government that this bill, rather than

speaking in terms of low-interest loans of 10 and 12 per cent,

didn't recommend that these loans, in fact, should be

low-interest loans averaging around 4 to 5 per cent in order

that the producers in this province who sometimes have to work

up to seven years from the time of their beginning of their

operation to the time that they can expect any income.

Mr. Speaker, I would speak specifically of the fruit

industry in British Columbia, which will hope, I'm sure, to

take

part in this Act and benefit from it. How can they

possibly, when one examines the situation in Washington state,

the competition that is going to be increased against our

British Columbia producers, when one examines the federal

legislation and its trade and policies, not recognize that the

British Columbia fruit industry is facing a situation more

severe than it ever has in its history?

It's incumbent upon this government and this

[ Page 3284 ]

Minister, as should have been recommended by the

agricultural committee, that this Act should either encompass

truly low-interest loans over a very long period of time, and

that it should also have encompassed cash grants of a one-third

nature for capital construction within the industry itself

without any strings attached, Mr. Speaker, other than that the

industry prove efficient, produce quality fruit and try and

maintain itself in a fair and competitive position with a

reasonable return of profits, not just cost of production to

the producers.

I'm sure it would interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that

for a fruit producer who faces the problems of weather and the

uncertainty of the market to look at a long-term loan of 10 and

12 per cent from the time that he plants one portion of his

orchard until the time that he can garner an income, which is

at best seven years, the debt load that he's going to carry is

enough to boggle the mind. To suggest that this is going to be

of major assistance to the producers in this province is a far,

far cry from what the truth is.

I would urge the Minister, when he asks the right to reduce

the amount of principal or interest owing over a period of

time, that rather than doing this on a piecemeal basis and not

advising this House what he has in mind, that he adopts an

overall policy extending loans over a period of years at a

low-interest rate or a sliding-scale rate of, say, no per cent

the first year up to conventional loans of 10 per cent within

the 12th year and allow two years of forgiveness at the

producer's option so that the producer can, at his own leisure

in accord with his own budgeting and his own income, decide

when he might have a period of forgiveness.

If the government adopted this type of plan, the producers

would then be getting low-interest loans averaging 5 per cent

over a 12-year period with two years of forgiveness at the

producer's option, and then the opportunity to move to more

conventional financing or then the opportunity to move to

government-backed loans of a more conventional interest rate.

That, Mr. Speaker, would then be of benefit to the producers in

this province, and it would be an action of the government

proving that it was really coming to grips with some of the

problems of the producers and not moving in a manner which

really is going to leave most producers, instead of being in

debt to the banker, in debt to the government.

I think, if one were to discuss this with the producers,

that I'm safe in suggesting that they would rather be in debt

to the banker than they would be in debt to the government.

The great value of the provincial credit rating is of no value to

the citizens of British Columbia, in specific reference to this Act,

unless in fact that force comes into play to give the producer a

genuine low-interest loan that he can live with so that his return is

not only a bare cost of production return but is comparable to the

return in other average industries and so that he has an opportunity to

not just make a bare wage and a bare minimum return on his investment

but in fact he can free himself from debt and live in a manner that his

energies and his knowledge and his input would return to him if he was

working in other sectors of industry in British Columbia.

We criticize this Act, Mr. Speaker, because had the Minister

listened to the opposition and specifically the critic for the

official opposition and other Members during debate on the

original Agricultural Credit Act , he would have been aware and

he would have accepted our suggestion and I believe amendment

when we advised him that $5 million was not even a drop in the

bucket, if he recognized the number of producers in this

province who would want to avail themselves of financial

assistance. If you want to get more producers in this province,

Mr. Speaker, then you have to have the $15 million that he is

now asking for, but this should have been available in

October.

Mr. Minister, what has happened, through you, Mr. Speaker,

is that the government in its wisdom has set up a situation

where loans were not available to producers and not the

quantity that they needed was available to them, but in fact

everybody knew the legislation was going to be in effect. You

had producers bidding against producers for milk quotas and

inflating the cost of these. You had producers and potential

producers bidding on land and competing against each other, and

then you had other land buyers going in and intervening and

buying land and holding it so that they could resell it to

producers.

It was another example of the government moving too quickly,

Mr. Speaker, without thinking out their programme, without

bringing in their legislation in an operable form so that the

tide didn't have an opportunity to build, so that the producers

could have availed themselves of the money at that time, and

this inbuilt competitive inflation that we now have all over

the province between producers and potential producers wouldn't

have eroded more of their capital and their income.

I'd like to know from the Minister when he closes the

debate, Mr. Speaker, if he would be so kind, how many actual

grants have been made to individual producers now out of the

original $5 million, and how many he has on his desk now ready

for approval. Would the Minister mind listening? I hope he's

going to answer this. How many has he on his desk now ready for

approval when this bill passes?

With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, particularly the moving of

the $5 million capital to $15 million, we will support this

bill. But we would reiterate our plea

[ Page 3285 ]

for the Minister to reassess the thinking that he has made

public in terms of what he considers a low-interest loan so

that this bill can have a maximum benefit and a maximum effect

to the producers and to agricultural production in British

Columbia, as it should do.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: This bill, I think, is one that puts the

farmer on a footing where he has to be if he's going to compete

in the future.

The previous speaker spoke about 4.5 per cent and 5 per cent

loans. This is the kind of talk that has been going on for the

last 50 years in this province and in other provinces in

Canada. The farmer has been considered a second-class citizen

in a second-class business, so he needs special favouritism, he

needs special loans, he needs special grants, and he needs

assistance.

If there is one group of citizens in this province who

should not need special assistance it is the food producing

industry in the province, and the farmers who are engaged in

producing food. For the last 15 or 20 years, or 30 or 40 years — as far as you want to look back, if you want to do the

research — you find that in all kinds of areas of this

province, the taxpayers through the government have stepped in

with special concessions for industry and manufacturing in

every area. And they have never stepped in for the farmer

except in the plea for low-interest loans.

The agricultural community in this province should be in a

good enough situation that it needs no special favours, no

special grants and no special loans. Unfortunately it is in a

position now where it does need special consideration. This

bill does increase the amount that the Minister can guarantee

for individual farmers who are in the farming community. But it

is my hope that as the years go by under this government, that

there will not have to be special grants and low-interest loans

for farming. It is my hope that farming can be put on a good,

sound basis where farmers do not need special consideration and

special grants and special loans.

Why should everyone in this province have to step in and

assist farmers simply because they are farmers operating in a

modern society to survive? They should not need special

consideration. Farming in this province should be just as good

an industry to indulge in as being a machinist or operating a

garage or operating a store, or any other business you want to

think of that operates in the province today.

MRS. JORDAN: Then let them sell their land.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: There's absolutely no reason why a farmer

should have special consideration as long as the people in this

province realize that for years and years and years the percentage of

the average income paid in this province for food has been going down

and down and down. And the one that has been carrying the people of

this province on his back is the farmer. What we have to do in this

province is make the farming situation an industry and a modern

business where someone can go into this business and operate just as

any other business does in the province, with no special favours, no

special considerations, but a good return for the work they do.

We are in the position right now, as opposed to 15 years ago,

where we're paying 4.5 per cent less of the average income for

our food than we did in that time. For at least 40 or 50 years,

we have been saying: "Well, the farmer is producing food, and

the food has to be cheap, and the consumer has to get cheap

food." Now, whether it's for votes or whether it's for

happiness or what, I don't know. But the time is coming when

farming will be exactly the same as any other business or any

other industry. You will buy the acreage that you need to

produce what you want to produce to be sold for a profit

according to your investment, and that is not what's happening

now.

For years and years and years we have been saying to the

farmer — keep your prices down, don't charge too much; the

American products will come in later and they will get good

prices, but you can't when your B.C. products are on the market.

Mr. Speaker, that is no way to operate in industry.

Farming as we knew it 30 or 40 years ago is gone. It is a

business. It should have an investment, a return on the

investment, a return for the hours worked and a decent life for

the people in the agricultural community. That is the only way

we're going to guarantee ourselves food on the table that we

will have to have when the American imports are cut off.

For that reason I'm going to support this bill because this

amount of money is necessary right now, but it's only a stopgap

as far as I'm concerned, and in the years to come we have got

to put the agricultural industry on an industry basis where you

put an investment into it, you get an interest back, a return

on your hours of work, on your money invested, and not this way

of life that they're talking about where you go around with

holes in your shoes and supporting people who are getting cheap

food.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I hope the Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H.

Anderson) takes the opportunity of joining the agricultural

committee that's going around finding out what's happening in

the province, because if that's a statement of the policy of

the NDP, then I think the farming community has been sorely

misled over the past two years.

We now have the Member for Kamloops standing up and telling

us that the farming community is going to stand on its own feet

and get off the backs of the taxpayer. I suppose we can next

expect the Member

[ Page 3286 ]

for Kamloops to announce the end to farm income assurance

and the $12 or $14 million a year that's going to the dairy

industry and the $4 or $5 million a year that we expect will be

going to the fruit industry, and on and on. And this is to be

the new policy of the NDP for the support of agriculture.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You sound like a lawyer.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Absolutely unbelievable.

I suppose the consumers in the province might just as well

recognize, too, that the NDP policy, as enunciated by the Member

for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), is that they're not going to

support any longer the agricultural community. The consumer is

going to pay through the nose for every pint of milk and every

pound of potatoes he eats or drinks in this province.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Why not?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's the policy of the NDP.

The interesting thing about this particular legislation — and I hope

the Minister will deal with it when he closes the

debate — is that we are increasing by 300 per cent the amount

the Minister is entitled to guarantee for agricultural

credit.

I would be pleased if the Minister would indicate the extent

to which applications are being received by his department for

loans or guarantees under this particular legislation as of any

convenient date to him and his department — we could either

have this answer now or perhaps when we come to the committee

stage which might be more appropriate — which would necessitate

the expansion of the Minister's authority by raising the limits

from $5 million to $15 million.

I also wonder if the Minister, either now or when we come to

the committee stage, could deal specifically with the second

part of the amendment, which would appear to give the right to

the Minister to reimburse a person who has obtained a loan

under this legislation in respective amounts which that person

has already paid on account of principal or interest. It would

seem that this is a way of discounting to the borrower amounts

of money received and repaid. I would like to know the extent

to which applications for such discount privileges have been

received and the circumstances under which the Minister

believes that this discounting should be allowed.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Just briefly, I think it's

time the Minister told the farmers exactly where they stood in relation

to this agricultural credit Act. A month or so ago the Minister stood

before the dairymen in Chilliwack, I believe, and told them that this

Act was ready to go and it wouldn't be very long before they could go

to their bank manager and make direct loans under the terms of this

Act. I know dozens and dozens of farmers who have since gone to their

bank managers, and their bank managers have said, "What Act?" They

don't know anything about it. It's time the Minister levelled with the

farmers and told them exactly where they stood.

When we first heard about this Act, somebody spread the

rumour among the farmers that they were getting 4 per cent

loans. Well, I suggest that's not what they're going to get. In

fact, they would be lucky if they get 10 per cent loans,

probably, under the terms of this Act, and maybe 12 per cent

loans. The Minister is apparently in negotiation right now with

the bank managers, attempting to get them to bring the interest

rates down. But when are they going to get the opportunity to

take advantage of this Act? It has been at least since last

October.

The Member for Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson), in his attempt

to be an apologist for the Minister, is saying that we

shouldn't have any special loans. I suppose this is by way of

saying that low-interest loans aren't due our farmers of

British Columbia.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: You shouldn't need it.

MR. McCLELLAND: Nevertheless, the Minister has told them

that's what they are going to get. I don't think we should wait

for the committee stage to find out where this whole Act

stands.

I would suggest that we're stuck now in a position where we

are negotiating with the bank managers in the chartered banks

of British Columbia trying to get the best deal we can. The

Minister is stuck; the Minister can't get a good deal. I think

the farmers are going to be the losers in this whole deal. The

farmers are going to get shafted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Again?

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, again. That's right, Mr. Member. It's

about time the Minister levelled with them and told them that

they're not going to get any 4 per cent loans, they're not

going to get any 6 per cent loans, they're not going to get any

8 per cent loans; they'll be lucky if they get 10 per cent

loans.

It's about time the Minister told the bank managers where

they stand as well and whether or not the government is going

to guarantee those loans and at what interest rate.

But the most important thing, Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, perhaps it's going to be 1.25 per cent

over prime. That's no big deal for the farmers of British

Columbia. Certainly it's time the

[ Page 3287 ]

Minister levelled with the farmers and told them where this

government stands in relation to loans under this particular

Act. They've been waiting 10, 11 or 12 months now and it's time

they found out where they stand. I think the Minister should

stand up now and explain to them and level with them.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I listened with a certain degree

of pleasure to that Member from somewhere in the Fraser Valley.

I was pleased to hear his ringing defence and his attack on the

Minister for a 10 months' delay. After all, what's 10 months

compared to 20 years?

I find increasingly it's getting more and more difficult for

the official opposition to find anything really concrete to

criticize this government on. Because I don't recall in the 12

years I sat in opposition one single bill in any attempt to

help the farmers of this province in terms of funds. There will

be no loans until we pass this bill. If you want to vote

against the bill, vote against the bill. But you have no record

whatsoever as the Social Credit Party to base any argument.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Member, you have a lot of time to

criticize and to call across the floor. If you wish to continue

to be rude enough to interfere while others listen to you, fair

enough.

But I want to point out to the Members that we have tried as

a government and we asked the federal government — and they did

agree to it before the election was called — to allow the

provincial government to go into the banking business, at least

with a percentage. The foundation of Social Credit was to allow

for monetary reform. And do we hear any speeches at all from

Social Credit on that basis? Not at all. Just cheap, political

opposition to a sincere attempt by the Minister to bring about

some loans to the farmers which that opposition never attempted

to do for the 20 years they were in government.

To come into the House and cry about the 10 months' delay,

when they as the official opposition have stalled, stalled,

stalled in this session....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well. Absolutely no leadership,

absolutely no positive ideas, nothing to offer except negative

criticism all session long. When the first bill comes in to help the

farmers of this province, what do they do but get up and criticize,

criticize, criticize. At least the federal Liberals did make the move;

they did make the commitment. I hope whoever wins the next federal

election will keep the pledge of that federal government to allow the

people of this country to get involved in the banking system directly.

The only problem related to Social Credit is that they've

forgotten all about monetary reform.

MRS. JORDAN: Who started a bank?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, who started a bank? Who is it

controlled by? Private interests. It isn't truly a people's

bank. There's no opportunity for the farmers or the workers of

the province to have an expression in that bank. It's very

amusing that there's not one positive alternative suggestion by

Social Credit other than interruptions and negative, negative

criticism. Even this very night, throughout this province, they're

split apart over the federal election. They don't know whether

or not to join the Tories or run their own candidates. At least

the Liberals know where they're going.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Premier

address the Chair?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would hope that the Hansard is

loud enough tonight to record all the negative comments of that

group. They made no effort all the years I was an MLA to help

those farmers in the Fraser Valley. Not once, not once. There

we have the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) getting up in

this House and attacking the Minister who has made the first

move to attempt to get a loan programme going in this province

for the farmers of this province.

I don't mind hearing any of this....

MR. McCLELLAND: He hasn't done a thing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! He hasn't done a thing. After 20 years

of neglect, he's crying about 10 months that they've stalled

before they got this legislation to the floor of this

House.

The money is available from the revenue of this province to

assist the farmers of this province through a loan programme.

If they really mean what they say, let them stand up tonight

and vote against this bill. That's my challenge to those

Members.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Speaker, I remember

very clearly the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture

during his estimates dealing with the Agricultural Credit

Act , in which he suggested at that time that it was only a

matter of a few weeks until the necessary orders-in-council

would be passed to make the Act functional. The Minister did

release, on November 9, a press release indicating that the Act

would be implemented in the very near future. In view of this,

several months after he had made this press release

[ Page 3288 ]

indicating that the Act would be functional and had raised

the hopes of the farmers of this province, they've been let

down and let down badly. In fact, I have in my constituency a

few farmers who are concerned with the tremendous delay in the

implementation of the Agricultural Credit

Act .

One letter which I have received from a small farmer in

my constituency expresses the frustration of these farmers. I

think it's appropriate at this time to read part of this letter

to the committee and ask certain questions of the Minister. The

farmer says:

"We're still anxiously awaiting the further

information

promised in your press release of November 9. Farmers in this

area are becoming frustrated and disgusted with the delay in

implementation of the proposed programme which held out the

only hope of financial assistance that so many of us struggling

to develop profitable and economic farm enterprises in this

depressed area could hope to attain. I'm sure you're aware of

the current manifestation of this dissatisfaction among not

only the farmers but trades people in general in the East

Kootenays.

"For our own part, we have no wish to alienate

ourselves

from B.C. or the current government, but are tired of waiting

for the much-advertised legislation to be implemented. We're

attempting to establish a purebred herd of Swiss Simmental

cattle, using an intensive grass management operation to

support this on a quarter section."

They've been waiting since the legislation was passed last

fall and since the promise the Minister made in his press

release on November 9.

In view of the statements made by the Minister during the

debate on his estimates this spring, I wrote back and suggested

to them...after reading very carefully — not from listening

to the Minister, but reading it again from Hansard — what he had said.

He said that within the current month....

I wrote back in the month of March. On March 18, I wrote back

that the Minister suggested he would pass an order-in-council

to make the legislation functional. He suggested that during

his estimates. He also suggested at that time that there be

adequate advertising in the various newspapers in British

Columbia indicating to the farmers of British Columbia that

this kind of credit would be available to the agricultural

community.

I suggested to these people that I wasn't able to establish the rate

of interest that would be applicable to the Agricultural Credit

Act ,

but I hoped that the information would be made available to them in the

not too distant future. I also repeated the words uttered by the

Minister during his estimates that the forms had not yet been printed —

it was only a matter of time. This was primarily the reason why there

had been this delay, but the application forms and the rate of interest

applicable would be available to them early in the month of April —

using the words of the Minister.

Now we find that instead of the application forms being

available to them, instead of the press releases indicating to

them that the funds were available and the amount of funds that

were available, we find that the Minister has not yet passed

that critical order-in-council that makes these funds available

to the farmers of British Columbia. Instead of that we see the

Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 .

How much more delay will there be? The farmers in British

Columbia, I suppose, are much like the little farmers in my

riding who need financial assistance to get purebred cattle

going and to establish grass management programmes as well. I

think it is time that the Minister levelled and told the people

of British Columbia some specific programme regarding the Agricultural Credit Act — whether credit will be

available, how much will be available, what the rate of

interest will be and when the programmes will be established,

and stop the stalling.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official

opposition I regret that they did not take the opportunity to

move adjournment as we offered — at least it would have given

them time to have read the bill.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), who chose

to take on the job of leading the debate, suggested that had it

not been for the filibuster carried on by the opposition in

this session, it would not have gone on long enough for us to

have made the necessary changes. If she had read the amendment

and read the legislation she would have seen that we could have

operated with the existing legislation, except that this gives

a better indication of the direction in which we intend to

move. But the legislation in itself would have allowed us to

follow the programme. But obviously she didn't take time to

read the bill before us or the bill in connection with the

legislation.

MR. FRASER: Answer the question. No more guff.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, if you want to show guff, as the

Member suggests, you may vote against the legislation.

The Hon. Member for North Okanagan also had all kinds of

suggestions that her years of experience in the House drew to

her attention, I suppose, but none of which apparently came to

her attention during the time that she was a Minister of the

Crown. All those excellent ideas — the interest rates should be

limited to 4 per cent; there should be cash grants that would

reduce this even more; and there should be

[ Page 3289 ]

discounts; the producers themselves should be able to

determine just how long they wanted to defer payment, the

principle of deferring it, all this should be left up to the

fellow borrowing — then went on to say.... But none of these

ideas had occurred to her during all the time that she was a

Minister of the Crown.

She then went on to suggest that in her experience producers

would rather owe money to the bank than owe money to the

government. But never once did she suggest how a producer could

go to a bank and get that kind of terms from a bank without

government assistance.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The question of just how many letters have I had, how many

applications have I had — again, if the Member had taken the

opportunity she had to read the amendments, to read the bill,

she would have found out that this particular amendment has

nothing at all to do with provincial funds for grants; this

provides funds for the guarantees.

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

had time to read the legislation before he presumed to speak

about it, but apparently the spokesman for the official

opposition felt it wasn't necessary to read it before standing

up to speak, and that doesn't surprise me in that particular

instance. There have been no grants paid out of this yet. As

many of the Members know, the programme has not been

operative.

I regret that we have to stand up today and say that we have

not made the programme operative yet. It has not been 10 months — to the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) through you,

Mr. Speaker — it has been six months since this legislation was

passed by the Legislature.

MR. CHABOT: Seven!

HON. MR. STUPICH: And during those six months.... The

session adjourned in November; it is now May. It may be June

soon, but it is May today.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, how many applications? No

applications. It is well known that we have not advertised this

programme as being ready yet. Many people are inquiring about

it, but not one letter is suggesting that people would rather

borrow from a private lending institution than borrow from the

government. All of them are asking for cheap money from the

government — they don't care where they get it; they want it at

a rate they can afford to pay, and I sympathize with that

desire. But that is not what the Hon. Member who chose to lead

the debate from the official opposition said.

Half a year — in half a year we haven't given you the kind of

results that the previous administration didn't even hint at in some 20

years — and they are being impatient. I am impatient too. But your

excuse in 20 years was that you were busy doing nothing for the

farmers; my excuse for six months was that we were very busy doing

something for the farmers.

We introduced other legislation, not just the farm credit

legislation. You recall the Farm Products Industry

Improvement Act , and there have been significant moves with

that legislation. You recall the Farm Income Assurance

Act that the Members opposite voted against. You all know

that the one province in Canada that has not had dairy farmers

marching to the legislative buildings, threatening to go on

strike, threatening to dump milk — the one province that hasn't

had that happen is the Province of British Columbia, because of

the legislation we brought in.

You all know that for 18 months the federal Liberal

government has been promising to assist the provinces in a

programme of farm income stabilization and farm credit

legislation. You all know for 18 months they have done

absolutely nothing about it.

B.C. is the one province that is determined to go its own

route on both farm credit and farm income stabilization, and we

have those programmes.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound asked a couple

of specific questions: how many applications? None, because we

have not yet solicited applications. We have told people, and

we will be telling them for a few more days, that we will be

advertising it widely as soon as applications are ready.

He suggested one of the amendments that are presented to you

now would leave open the possibility of reimbursing people,

even for money they have already paid in. That is true, that is

one of the possibilities it opens up. Not the only one, but it

is one of the possibilities.

The Hon. Member for Langley said the banks don't know

anything about it. Now, what the banks choose to tell their own

branches is their business. Certainly, the head offices of the

banks in British Columbia are well aware of what we are doing

and what we are trying to do, because we have been trying to get

them to come to some agreement among themselves and with us for

some time. We are very close to that agreement now. I know I

have said that in Chilliwack, but we are later now and we are

that much closer.

I had hoped we would be right on before now, I'm still

hoping that within days we will be able to announce the

programme. Certainly at the moment I'm assured of cabinet

support of this programme, and it will be offered to the farmers

in the province of British Columbia. We will be way ahead of

any other federal government participation in this.

Because we're not able to specify the rate of

[ Page 3290 ]

interest, as we indicate in this amendment, we are going the

guarantee route rather than the direct lending route. However,

we will be able to do something for the borrowers. I hope to be

able to announce details soon.

How much more delay, Mr. Speaker? The delay is in the hands

of the opposition. As the previous Premier used to say: "The

government decides when the House convenes; it's up to the

opposition to decide how long we're going to be stuck here

debating things like this." Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Division!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I point out to Hon. Members

that it is within the discretion of the Speaker whether a

motion leads to a division? In this case I think it is

unanimous, and I so declare.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm quite sure I heard a

"no."

M R. SPEAKER: I think it was without contradiction. Would the

Hon. Minister of Agriculture please do something with the bill?

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, are you

saying that there was no one in this House who was opposed to

this bill?

MR. SPEAKER: I couldn't hear any.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then it will be so recorded in the

Journals that no one in the House was against the

bill.

MR. SPEAKER: It will indicate that, in any event, without

the need of a division, because it was without

contradiction.

Bill 129, Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1974 ,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the passing

of that bill be recorded in the Journals . What's the

phrase? — nemine contradicente .

MR. SPEAKER: It will be.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How surprising! Second reading of Bill 79.

Perhaps the opposition would like to avoid the embarrassment of

a debate.

HOSPITAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, Bill 79

is, for the most part, an amending aspect to the Act — housekeeping, it's called in general terms here — except for

section 4 of this amendment which provides that medical staff

committees are protected from liability for damages or other

relief if a member of their profession indicates that they have

been handling them badly.

Mr. Speaker, what this really means is that staff committees

at hospitals, or staff committees reporting to a Minister from

time to time have to come down with some criticisms. That

criticism might not be too well accepted by the person who is

being criticized.

But the medical profession tells me that at the present time

they have to be less than candid occasionally in order to

protect themselves.

We felt that under these circumstances those people on

medical staff committees at hospitals should be protected by

legislation from litigation that could arise from some

criticism of their colleagues. We feel that this opens up, as

opposed to closes up, the committee criticism aspect of the

hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that that is the only aspect of this

bill that really bears debate. The rest of it, as I said, is

housekeeping amendments. Mr. Speaker, with that I move second

reading.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'm very interested

in the comments of the Minister because one of the privileges

of being a physician is that you are very often called upon to

take

part in committee work which involves evaluation of your

fellow physician. That can be a very difficult and a very

serious responsibility.

I respect the Minister's candour and frankness in making it

plain that this in fact is the main thrust of the amendment

under

section 4. Perhaps when he winds up the debate, I would be

interested to know first of all if the organized medical

profession, through the B.C. Medical Association or through the

college, specifically asked the Minister for this

amendment.

I'm asking him what was the kind of experience that has been

quoted in the past to justify asking for this amendment. It is

a very serious amendment. It carries tremendous import.

Doctors, like anybody else, are very human, and this does, in my

view, open the door to the possibility that a doctor on a

committee could take an action or express an opinion very

detrimental to another doctor for which the doctor on the

committee need not be responsible in court.

I'm not trying to muddy the waters or to make life more

difficult for the Minister of Health, but I think we all realize

that some of these decisions taken in

[ Page 3291 ]

committee could have a devastating effect on the

professional future of another physician.

While I feel certain that in the vast majority of cases

these decisions are taken in good faith and are founded on

solid fact and serious consideration by the physicians

concerned, I think it does give a physician on a hospital

committee tremendous protection to be able to recommend to the

hospital board that certain decisions be made in respect to

another physician and that the physician on the committee have

complete protection under law from any litigation.

There may be examples which prove that this is necessary. I

personally am not aware of them. I've participated in a great

deal of committee work in hospital, and I happen to think that

doctors make these decisions in committee based on the facts

and on their own conviction and on the evidence presented to

them.

But this indeed is giving doctors on hospital committees a

very substantial degree of protection in law against litigation

for decisions which might very seriously affect the capacity of

another physician to continue his practice — particularly in

the hospital.

I'm sure that the Minister would not bring in this bill

without a lot of consideration. But I would be very interested

to know, first of all, has he specifically been asked by the

medical profession to bring in this amendment? If so, on what

kind of basis of experience has the profession justified such a

request?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to

hear what the Member for Oak Bay has said with regard to the

need for care in the operation of these communities, but I

think that the other side of the coin is every bit as

important.

Heretofore there have been grounds to suspect that

committees of medical men, by reason of the consequences which

their reports and recommendations may have, have been obliged

to extend to physicians and surgeons privileges beyond that

which they are entitled to have or to expect in the proper

conduct of their profession and in the care of their

patients.

If anything, I would think that the amendment which we have

before us is more directed to improving the standard of medical

practice and the care the patients receive than it is to be

concerned with any consequences which there may be upon a

medical practitioner. In this respect I think we should applaud

this legislation.

I'm certain that a medical committee which is obviously

composed of more than one individual will take very carefully

into consideration the consequences which their recommendation

may have upon any individual practitioner.

Surely a committee composed of a practitioner's peers is his best

protection against abuse. But if that committee, in its wisdom, finds

that a practitioner has exceeded his responsibilities or failed in his

responsibilities, then I think they should be free to speak out without

fear of being involved in some legal liability for the conduct of the

responsibility which is truly outside that of the profession.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just rise to support the bill. I think

it's clear that a medical staff committee is made up of more

than one person, more than one member of the medical staff.

It's the kind of protection that each of the members deserves

should they be asked to evaluate honestly. I think the Minister

should be commended for bringing in the amendment, and the

official opposition supports it.

HON. MR. COCKE: In answer to the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace), yes, the medical profession is quite aware of this

bill. As a matter of fact, I'm not quite sure where it was

initiated, but it certainly has been fully discussed.

I certainly won't stand here and detail areas that we

suspect — where there has been sort of an amelioration or

modification of a decision by virtue of the fact that people

were afraid, but there has always been that decision. Now we

know that there won't be the legal necessity for anybody to not

speak their mind.

As the Member for Langley and the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound outlined, it is a committee; it's not as

if one person is judging another. These committees have been

heretofore somewhat nervous. We felt that we would go along

with this, and if there are any abuses in the future, certainly

it will be very carefully watched. I can't really think that

there would be. I believe that we want to have the best working

committees we can have in the hospital. Doctors argue just like

everybody else, and on that basis I think they should be very

carefully supervised by their peers, and this just gives that

much more latitude in supervision.

Mr. Speaker, with that I move second reading of this

bill.

Motion approved.

Bill 79, Hospital Amendment Act, 1974 , read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 104, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 3292 ]

REGIONAL HOSPITAL DISTRICTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 104 is an amendment to the

Regional Hospital Districts Act . The purpose of this

bill is first to broaden the scope of the capital financing

which can be made available by regional hospital districts and

the government under the present shared basis so that health

facilities other than hospitals can be constructed or acquired.

In other words, we're thinking now in terms of health care as

being just a little bit broader than hospital care. We're

thinking in terms of other means of affording health care in

the community; therefore it might mean that an

intermediate-care facility be contemplated, it could mean a

health or a mental health unit, or it could mean a community

health centre or something along that line.

Secondly, the present requirements of obtaining the assent

of the owner-electors before capital financing can be provided

is being eliminated with this bill, the same as it's being

eliminated in the Department of Education. We feel that we have

to put some safeguards here, that capital borrowing cannot be

undertaken without the prior approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. That, I think, is the safeguard

we're looking for here.

Thirdly, a number of necessary revisions of a housekeeping

nature are being made to improve and clarify the administrative

procedures that must be carried out under the Regional Hospital Districts Act .

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on the

particular provision which will eliminate the need for a vote

by the owner-electors. I personally favour this bill and

support it, but I think it's important that the feelings of

certain citizens in other parts of this province are very

strong. In particular I've heard through letters from Port

Hardy of citizens who feel that the degree to which hospital

facilities are planned and organized in that region is such

that they feel they want to have a continuing opportunity to

approve or disapprove further expenditures of taxpayers' money

for the provision of hospital facilities.

I personally feel that the bill is sound. In my own view of

things and my experience in the Capital Regional District, and

I'll try not to be bitter, but in the experience locally, I

think that is just one more hurdle on top of inadequate

initiative and planning that we have in the capital region.

I am quite happy to approve this bill, which makes it

possible for the planning to go ahead with the raising of funds

or the disbursing of funds without referendum.

In fairness to the people in Port Hardy — and he obviously knows a

great deal more about that area than I do, since he smiles — could the

Minister give us some reassurance, or could he perhaps explain what

safeguard, if any, people in regions of the province might have when

they are not happy about the performance of their regional board? What

alternative methods of expressing their disapproval do they have other

than, I presume, voting against the municipal officials the next time

around?

I just want it to be on record that there's a very

substantial expression of disapproval of this bill by the

people in that region. Perhaps the Minister could

elaborate.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take

the opportunity to explain to the Member for Oak Bay, as well

as to the rest of the House, the problem that exists in Port

Hardy, and the reason that all of the MLAs have received a

letter from Port Hardy on this issue.

The Member for Oak Bay indicates that he thinks the bill is

a sound one, and I would agree that this is a sound bill. I

think the people in Port Hardy would also agree that the bill

is a sound one.

The problem that exists in Port Hardy is that the area has

grown so quickly that they feel they are now underrepresented

on the regional board and they do not have the vote they would

like to have, based on their current population. As you are

aware, the representatives on the regional board are determined

by the last census and are not done on a daily basis. That is

the big objection that the people on the north end of the

island have now. I don't think it is so much towards the fact

that they will not have a referendum as such, but that they are

concerned about their representation on the regional board.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): I'm a little puzzled by the

previous speaker's comments, Mr. Speaker. I have the letter

from Brian Klaver, mayor of the District of Port Hardy. He says

in this letter, dated May 16, 1974:

"From our experience from the Mount Waddington

Regional

Board, we feel that the best interests of the people of this

regional district will not be served by allowing the board to

construct hospital facilities without asking the people."

A very different point than the one made by the hon. lady

Member who just spoke. I can understand, we all understand the

other thing she talked about, but the letter that came was

directly on point, and said: "...we feel that the best

interests of the people of this regional district will not be

served by allowing the board to construct hospital facilities

without asking the people." Now that's what he said, and it

strikes me that he's got a principle there which is fairly

important.

The government is consistent in taking powers

[ Page 3293 ]

away from local authorities. Perhaps in this case they

should, if it can be justified in terms of previous experience.

I don't think the Minister's made the case at the present time,

with due respect to him, and I trust he will be explaining why

it is necessary to take that power away from the board and

what really difficult problems he's out to solve by this

legislation when he speaks closing this debate.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the question of Port

Hardy was brought up and....

Interruption.

MR. SPEAKER: There go the tapes.

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that question was

brought up. The Member for Comox understands full well what's

happening up there. I'm sure the people in Port Hardy, that is

the mayor and his council, are not so much motivated toward...or at least don't look at this bill in a way that they would

like to see it forever forgotten. But at the moment, at this

moment in time, they're very much concerned about their

representation on the regional district and are afraid.

Mr. Speaker, the Member over there says that's not what he

says. We know what they say, because those people have been in

my office on a number of occasions. We've discussed the whole

question with the people in the area.

Let me tell you what the conflict is. At the present time,

the total area will not support more than one relatively major

hospital. The major hospital now — and has been for some time — has

been planned for Port McNeill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: Oh, no, no, no. You've got a different

regional district. The major hospital is being planned for Port McNeill.

Interjection.

HON. MR. COCKE: No, no, maybe it's iffy. The people in Port

Hardy feel it should be there or that they should have a fair

facility in Port Hardy. These questions will be all be resolved

between the regional district and the Minister of Health. I can

assure the people at Port Hardy that they will have their day

in court. The regional district does not have the last word as

to whether or not the facilities will be built or when they are

going to be built.

I think it is clearly a case that we cannot react to one

small area in the province and do away with what is really

required legislation, in our minds. These regional plebiscites

have to be done away with. They are not reflecting the needs of

the communities at all. They are emotional responses to

political efforts. We don't think that's the way to deliver

health care.

All I can say to people of Port Hardy is that we assure them

fair play, as we assure the rest of that regional district of

Mount Waddington fair play.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 104, Regional Hospital Districts Amendment Act,

1974 , read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after

today.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home

Page ]

Copyright

© 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada