1973 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1973

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 651 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of Bruce Robertson to the House — 651

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Tendering procedures on claim centres construction.

Mr. Phillips — 651

Policy of government on Victoria area hospitals. Mr. Wallace — 652

Posthumous stock sales. Mr. Gardom — 652

Glenshiel Hotel. Mr. Chabot — 653

Beechcraft aircraft. Mr. McGeer — 654

Weed Control Act (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 655

Farm Products Industry Improvement Act (Bill 68). Hon. Mr.

Stupich.

Introduction and first reading — 655

Department of Housing Act (Bill 49). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. King — 655

Hon. Mr. Nicolson — 656

Division on second reading — 663

Personal Information Reporting Act (Bill 63). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 663

Mr. Smith — 664

Mr. Gardom — 664

Mr. McGeer — 665

Hon. Mr. Cocke — 665

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 665

An Act to Amend the Distress Area Assistance Act (Bill 67).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 666

Mr. Williams — 666

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 666

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

Mr. Williams — 667

Mr. Wallace — 667

Mr. Phillips — 668

Mr. McGeer — 669

Mr. Gardom — 671

Mr. Smith — 672

Mr. Phillips — 672

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 673

Mr. McGeer — 675

Point of privilege

Use of microphone cut-off switch. Mr. Gardom — 676

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 677

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 679

Mr. Chabot — 680

Mr. McGeer — 680

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 684

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1973

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

Belgrade, Yugoslavia, September 8, 1973, was a place and a time

of great prominence for Canadians, for it was the first time

since 1912, some 61 years ago, when at Stockholm…Canada won

a gold medal then in international swimming competition. The 61-year-old drought was broken by an exceptional and dedicated

athlete from B.C. We're very delighted to have with us today on

the floor of the House Mr. Bruce Robertson and, in the gallery,

his mother and father Mr. and Mrs. Sandy Robertson.

I would like to inform a few of the Hon. Members of some of

the accomplishments of Bruce Robertson: he's 20; he's a student

in his third year of commerce at UBC and he probably started

his swimming career in much the same way as the Premier did, by

making it once across the tub by himself. Then he received

instruction as a summer swimmer at Crescent Beach Swimming

Club; he received lessons there, first of all from his father

and then under coach Bob Gair.

When he was only 16 he accepted an invitation from Mr. Don

Dunfee, who is the assistant swimming coach of what now has

become the world-renowned Dolphin Swimming Club, under Derek

Snelling in Vancouver, to take up swimming seriously. In just

four years he became Canada's world champion.

He has joined the ranks of people such as Percy Williams,

Nancy Greene and Karen Magnussen. In his very first off-shore

swimming competition, Mr. Speaker, in 1971, he became the

British champion. His first international team experience was

with the Canadian team in Sydney, Australia, in 1972 when he

won a silver medal in his specialty, which is the very, very

strenuous and exacting butterfly stroke.

As a member of Canada's Olympic team at Munich in Germany

last year, Bruce won his silver medal in the 100-metre

butterfly, and he was second only to the world-renowned

seven-medallist Mark Spitz. In these Olympics he also won an

Olympic bronze medal on Canada's record-setting 400-metre team

relay. He was the only person, Mr. Speaker, in the entire

Canadian Olympic team to take home two medals.

His accomplishments continued throughout this year: he

became the Brazilian champion down in Rio; in April he took the

American championship in the 100-yard butterfly at the AAU

swimming championships in Cincinnati, and he was the first male

swimmer, Mr. Speaker, from Canada to be tops in America since

As I said, at Belgrade in September of this year, we find Bruce Robertson winning

the first world championship and becoming Canada's first world champion gold

medallist.

I would like to bid him and his mother and father a great

welcome to the Legislature. And I would like, on behalf of all

British Columbians, to thank him very much and congratulate him

for his outstanding accomplishments. We all, indeed, wish him

every continuing success.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of

the Members of the Legislature and the people of British

Columbia, I have the real honour of presenting this small token

of our appreciation and a memento to Bruce Robertson for his

significant and magnificent win.

I must say that I'm surprised to see Bruce at the age he is,

because I was a fan of his father at one time when his father

played basketball — and then also professional baseball with

the old Vancouver Capilanos. I always thought that his father

was a very young man and that I was comparatively younger, but

I guess we're all growing older. Bruce is a fine young man and

a credit to both of his parents.

I think that it is more than interesting to find that it's a

succession within the family. Sandy brought great recognition

to British Columbia for his athletic ability — and now Bruce in

his stead.

I give you this, Bruce, with the pledge I want to extract

from you that Sandy's grandchildren come back here for the same

type of award.

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

students in the gallery today watching the proceedings are from

Claremont Senior Secondary School in Saanich, and I would ask

the House to welcome them.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a man who contributed many years to this

Legislature from the City of New Westminster and, from the electoral district

of New Westminster — Ray Eddy. I'd like the House to welcome him.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I ask the House

to join me in welcoming the chief elected councilor of the

Sechelt band, Mr. Clarence Joe, and his family.

Oral questions.

TENDERING PROCEDURES ON

CLAIM CENTRES CONSTRUCTION

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I'd like to direct a

question to the attention of the Hon. Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). Mr. Minister, after the

general contractors award for services in the amount of

$531,453 had

[ Page 652 ]

been awarded to Commonwealth Construction for supervising

the building of 12 claim centres in the lower mainland, what

tender procedure is being taken for the actual construction and

bidding to build by independent contractors of these 12 claim

centres?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'd have

to check the exact details of that contract. But they were bidding on, I think,

11 claim centres. That's the basic price of each of the 11.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister, the contract that was given to

Commonwealth Construction is a guidance fee for supervising the

construction of these, not for the actual construction of them.

Now what tender procedure are you going to have for the actual

construction of these claim centres?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll check the details, but I'm quite

sure that it is the normal tender procedure.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Minister, I understand that some of the

basic foundations from these structures are being built

immediately, even before the tenders go out. Now were these bid

on?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll have to check on it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, would you do something about it?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As soon as I get the information.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and inform

the House tomorrow?

POLICY OF GOVERNMENT ON

VICTORIA AREA HOSPITALS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like

to ask the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) a rather serious

question, for the people of this area at least. Dr. Foulkes

yesterday made a statement that one option in this area was to

scrap the Jubilee and Victoria General Hospitals and start from

scratch. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House if this

kind of completely irresponsible statement in any way

represents the policy of his department?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, Dr. Foulkes is making a

statement — I haven't even seen it, nor read it — but he's

making a statement that's obviously his own. It's certainly not

our department policy to scrap the Jubilee or the hospital that

is now known as the Victoria General.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am

very gratified to have the Minister's reassurance but would the

Minister, in light of previous experience, consider issuing a

cease and desist order for Dr. Foulkes making public statements

when it is not policy?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, no. I have no intention of

issuing a cease and desist order. He's not going to be gagged,

as some have been in the past that we have known of.

We're very interested in the report that's coming out of

that very large committee and I don't think: that the relevance

of this kind of statement…. Don't forget that everything

that he says, whether serious or in jest, is accepted with a

great deal of seriousness.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. I would

hate the Minister to take the privilege of leaving this House

with the impression that that was made in jest. I have checked

with witnesses who sat and listened to Dr. Foulkes and that is

exactly what he said, in all seriousness.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final

question. The Minister says that we will all await the report

and we will not gag Dr. Foulkes. Does the Minister not consider

that these kinds of irresponsible statements will seriously

damage the credibility of the said report?

HON. MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Speaker, we get a question out of

context. I don't know under what circumstances he made that

kind of suggestion. I would doubt very much if it had anything

to do with tearing down buildings and erecting new ones, or

anything of that nature.

I suggest that he has found, as the Member across the way

has found, that there have been problems with some of these

major institutions within cities such as Victoria, such as

Vancouver, where there has been a clash of personalities, which

has reduced the health-care benefits to people. So probably he

is trying to say, in a picturesque way, that somehow we have to

do something about that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

POSTHUMOUS STOCK SALES

MR. GARDOM: Three weeks ago now I asked the Attorney General

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) questions about the Vancouver Stock

Exchange dealing with posthumous stock sales and

investigations. I inquired about public protection and the

Attorney General indicated that he was unaware of the problem

and that he would take it as notice.

I would ask the Attorney General if it was true

[ Page

653 ]

that he signed the current investigation order and, if so, how is he unaware

of it? I would also ask the Attorney General whether or not, since he indicated

in this House that stocks would be de-listed, but the stock exchange does not

agree with his position, is he planning to instruct the stock exchange to de-list

the particular stocks and specifically prevent short-selling?

HON. A. B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): In answer to those

five-and-a-half questions, I would say — and I have to be a

little careful what I say because I don't want to affect the

market value of penny stocks — that I did sign the order for

the investigation, right, the investigation of which presumably

that search warrant my hon. friend has received a copy of a

confidential document possibly?

MR. GARDOM: No.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Or the reports. It is fairly well known

in the investment community.

MR. GARDOM: It's all over the press, too.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It names some companies but the

companies are not under investigation. It is brokers and

salesmen.

Quite frankly, if I can speak generally — and I don't want

to speak just of this investigation — there is a bit of a

failure on the part of the members of the exchange, even, to

control their employees, their salesmen, as firmly as they

might do.

Now in terms of suspension of any company from trading, the

particular investigation we are speaking about refers to events

of some two years ago and, as I say, primarily covers the

activities of salesmen and brokers, but not the companies

concerned.

The de-listing procedure is whether the Vancouver Stock

Exchange de-lists. If they don't in a proper case, the

Securities Commission and my department can suspend

trading.

MR. GARDOM: At any time.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and it's not initially my

decision, But I don't think, in reviewing these circumstances, that

suspension of companies trading would be warranted for the

events that may have transpired with respect to their

employees, perhaps two years ago, to the detriment of present

shareholders.

I'm not ruling out that cease-trading orders may take place

as well. I am just saying that that will initially be a

decision for the stock exchange; failing them, the Securities

Commission. I know in respect to the second that they are

watching the situation 65.3 very carefully.

MR. GARDOM: Can you give assurance to the members of the

general public that the insiders won't be getting out by

short-selling? That's the crunch of the whole problem, because

there is nothing to prevent short-selling going on today. If a

person is aware that a company is in a serious situation, the

fact of short-selling could indeed become a very contemporary

eventuality.

What are you planning to do to protect these people? Because we had that problem

before with Commonwealth Trust. If its doors had been closed, we wouldn't have

had the general public suffering losses. The doors were kept open and they,

suffered but the insiders didn't. They got out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, as I say, the events with

respect to which the investigation is taking place are at least

a year old. The company's shares are selling at a normal price

on the market, which is a low price, but we will watch. Don't

forget, we are investigating the salesmen, the brokers, in.

terms of an alleged ring — and I am saying alleged only. On

that basis you would be very careful about de-listing a company

and injuring, perhaps, people who have since bought into

it.

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): I was asked a

question yesterday in the question period about a report to the

effect that the Land Commission is seriously behind in dealing

with its correspondence. I checked with the chairman of the

commission and I am told that the turn-around time of the

correspondence is about two to three days. While there are a

few items on their plates which are taking a fair amount of

research, the normal turn-around time is two to three days.

GLENSHIEL HOTEL

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

to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the government's

philosophy of open government, I wonder if the Minister is

prepared to table the papers as well as the correspondence on

the Glenshiel Hotel deal?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): What do you

mean table? We asked the ex-Minister of Labour if he would

table his papers and he failed to do that. But our papers were

tabled last session, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The

Minister has failed to indicate…

Interjections.

[ Page 654 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order. No speeches, please.

MR.CHABOT: …what the government has paid, what the

taxpayers have paid for this hotel? I don't know what he has to

hide.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. CHABOT: Does the Minister intend, as previously stated,

to phase out the Glenshiel Hotel from its present function?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to

respond. If that's the best that Member can do….

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Originally, when the Glenshiel was drawn

to our attention, a firm that through the years had done

business with the Department of Public Works had it appraised

at…

MR. CHABOT: That's not what I am talking about, I'm talking

about….

HON. MR. HARTLEY: …had it appraised at $640,000. I was

new on the job and I could see that this was a dicey situation.

So I called for an independent appraisal. This appraisal was

brought to me and, because of this appraisal, we were able to

acquire this property for $50,000 less than we would have done

had we not had….

MR. CHABOT: Rubbish.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: This is not rubbish. These are the facts

of the case. We gave it to you in the spring session. You are

asking for it again, so you are getting it again.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, a very brief question. I asked the

Minister if he intends phasing out the Glenshiel Hotel from its

present function.

MR. SPEAKER: There have already been statements made and

answers on that point.

MR. CHABOT: You call that a reply? If I was out of order you

would bring me to attention very quickly.

MR. SPEAKER: You are always out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Under p. 323 of May….

MR. CHABOT: I wish you would refrain from saying I am always

out of order when you are absolutely wrong.

MR. SPEAKER: Every time you have asked a question in this

House….

MR. CHABOT: I'm always out of order. I'm always wrong and

I'm always out of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Every time this Member has asked a question he

has prefaced it with a speech. Every time. And I have taken it

time after time and asked the Member to desist. I ask him now

to desist from making speeches in question time.

MR. CHABOT: You are out of order.

BEECHCRAFT AIRCRAFT

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): May I ask a

question, please?

MR. SPEAKER: Please ask the question.

MR. McGEER: This is to the Minister of Transport and

Communications with respect to the two American Beechcraft

Superking air model 200 turboprop aircraft. Before these were

ordered, were specifications asked for…

AN HON. MEMBER: Speech, speech.

MR. McGEER: …by the Department of Transport?

AN HON. MEMBER: We want you to win, Jim.

MR. SPEAKER: When you ask for equity, you must do equity.

The Member who is complaining has not done equity.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be fair.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: As I recollect the situation, no

specifications were asked for by the Department of Transport

and Communications. They were asked for by the Purchasing

Commission. The Purchasing Commission handled the whole

procedure. There were specifications asked for and submitted,

prices, the whole thing, and a decision was made on that

basis.

[ Page 655 ]

MR. McGEER: Could I ask a supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker? I would like to ask the Minister why it was that

Canadian aircraft available at half the price, with greater

range, higher payload, a greater ceiling, better take-off and

landing characteristics, namely the Twin Otter, were turned

down by the provincial government in favour of these American

aircraft at twice the cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, you are making a statement. In other words,

you are making a technical judgment. I don't know whether you are an expert

on aircraft, too. I don't profess to be an expert on aircraft. I leave that

to the people, the technicians, the engineers, the Purchasing Commission, who

have the knowledge and the background to make that kind of judgment. And I accept

their recommendations.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question.

Will the Minister of Transport table with this House the exact

specifications that were asked for by the Purchasing

Commission?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have no objection to tabling that at

all. Not at all.

Introduction of bills.

WEED CONTROL ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Weed Control Act.

Bill 71 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.

FARM PRODUCTS

INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Farm Products Industry

Improvement Act.

Bill 68 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Adjourned debate on Bill 49, Mr.

Speaker.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING ACT

(continued)

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Before continuing with

the few brief remarks which I wanted to offer in this debate on

the establishment of a housing department and a policy of

housing for the province, I would just like on behalf of the

House and, I think, all the people in the gallery, to thank the

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) for the entertaining

performance he put on this afternoon. I am sure everyone

enjoyed that.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) intimated, I think, that the policy the new

Minister of housing is attempting to develop to give accent and

focus to the housing needs in this province is less than

sincere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. KING: I just wanted to take this occasion, Mr.

Speaker, to remind the people on that side of the House

particularly….

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't say that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister be

seated, please?

HON. MR. KING: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: You have a point of order?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): The Minister of Labour is

saying the Member for Langley is less than sincere. Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure, for the sake of fair play, you would like to

have that statement withdrawn.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Minister should not say that

the Member is less than sincere.

HON. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the Member

for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) listen a little more intently.

What I did say was that the Member for Langley inferred that

the policy being put forward to the House by our now Minister

of housing was less than sincere. I did not accuse the Member

for Langley of being less than sincere, although perhaps I can

understand the sensitivity on that side. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Then obviously there is no point of order.

HON. MR. KING: The point I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, is

that, for the first time in the Province

[ Page 656 ]

of British Columbia, a housing policy is being developed

which recognizes the acute shortage that the people of this

province are faced with. I just wanted to remind the Member for

Langley particularly, since he is a new Member, of the track

record of that previous administration. Not only did they fail,

in their 20-year tenure in this House, to establish a

meaningful housing policy or any programme for meaningful

housing construction…

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): That's longer than

you'll ever be in here.

HON. MR. KING: …but indeed, Mr. Speaker, they worked, I

would suggest, to minimize the housing that was available in

this province when, in the Arrow Lakes area and in the Columbia

River valley, they contracted with our American friends to the

south to flood vast tracts of this province, along with the

housing facilities that were involved in those areas.

The villages of Deer Park in the Arrow Lakes, Renata,

Edgewood, Needles, East Arrow Park, Beaton, and Arrowhead were

completely inundated and there was no programme whatsoever, Mr.

Speaker, to develop alternate facilities for the people who

were dislocated and flooded out of the very homes and roofing

that was over their heads.

I think it is a bit thick for that Member to come into this

House now and question the motives of this government, when we

are in fact recognizing the acute problem which faces the

people of this province in terms of shelter needs, and suggest

that our sincerity is not what it should be. Certainly we are

faced with a crisis in housing, largely as a result of the

inaction and the inactivity of that previous

administration.

I would agree with the Member's observation to one extent,

that it is not possible for the government, through public

housing, to solve this entire problem. There is a need, I

suggest, for a total programme involving the private sector in

cooperation with the government's activities to relieve the

acute shortage which exists now.

But getting back to the area where I come from, I would

point out that the flooding which took place in that area, and

the inundation of many of these rural communities, created a

move to the larger urban areas of that constituency and placed

additional pressure on the availability of housing in those

areas.

It is about time, I think, that the government recognized

the need to participate. This should have been recognized at

the time the flooding took place. The government should, at

that time, have come forward with a realistic programme for

resettlement of those people who had been disrupted by the

policies of the previous administration.

Not only was that type of programme absent in the situation, but indeed the

settlements offered by the previous government were such that it deprived the

dislocated people of an opportunity to re-establish any reasonable alternate

housing facilities for their occupancy. There was no attention paid to the real

value of the homes which they were disrupted from.

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that here we have a positive

programme that not only recognizes the need that develops

through the natural increase in population, it is a programme

that can be taken advantage of by those rural communities which

were affected adversely by the policies of the Social Credit

government. I think it does not behoove Members of that

official opposition to question the motivation and the

effectiveness of the policy that is being developed.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister Without Portfolio): It has been

an interesting debate. It has been a lengthy debate, Many of

the Members have spoken and many good ideas have been

expressed, some of which are new and worthy of consideration,

others of which reinforce some of my own impressions, and some

to which I might take exception during my remarks.

The Hon. Member for South Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) brought up

a couple of points. He suggested that any funds that might

accrue from development of the university endowment lands go to

the university. Really, this is a way of fiddling around with

little things here and there. This government will make sure

that the universities are properly funded; they don't need to

wait for action or lack of action on the university endowment

lands that they have — the carrot always held out in front of

them.

He also suggested removal of the 5 per cent sales tax and

the 11 per cent federal tax. From one point of view, this

could, in some measure, go towards helping the housing problem.

We have to look at the total picture, however. The 5 per cent

sales tax was created for a reason: to finance hospitals and

the hospital programme. I don't think it's a matter of taking

things out of one pocket and putting them into another.

Certainly the 11 per cent federal tax is prohibitive in its

size. It was criticized from the very outset and the negative

effect it would have on housing was pointed out, I think it's

proven that effect and I feel it should be removed as well.

The Second Member for Vancouver South (Mrs. Webster)

stressed the importance of quality in housing. She mentioned

that there are 5,000 senior citizens' units needed in greater

Vancouver. With the

[ Page 657 ]

limited legislation we have at our disposal, this is one

area in which I said we could move and in which we intended to

move. We sent out a circular urging governments to move now on

senior citizens' housing so we could get that started while we

were anticipating a Department of Housing Act and the other

powers which we need to tackle the housing problem. We did have

a response to that. We have 58 replies from municipalities for

various kinds of housing, probably the majority or at least

half of those come for senior citizens' housing.

It was with some dismay that I noted the attitudes in some

areas towards senior citizens' housing. Very soon after

receiving my appointment, I consulted with the Greater

Vancouver Regional District and we discussed a choice of

architects for a senior citizens' housing project in the Point

Grey area at Fourth Avenue and Wallace. This project would

create 200 very badly needed units. As the Hon. Member has

stated, there is a waiting list of at least 5,000; it might be

in excess of that because many senior citizens just don't hold

out any hope of getting housing at a reasonable price, haven't

applied and don't appear on the list.

The architects were chosen for their sensitive approach and

their ability to have some social input. They chose a design

which was only 35 feet high, lower in some respects than some

three-storey buildings, but it did have on one level a fourth

storey. In the Vancouver Sun a few weeks ago, there's an

article that said, "Redesign housing project, GVRD orders

architects,"

"About a dozen residents taking

part in a meeting organized by the Dunbar West Point Grey area

council, under chairman Bob Munn, told the Greater Vancouver

Regional District's housing director, Bill Casson, they

objected to even part of the project being four storeys

high."

Now, I don't know if these people know the day-to-day

anxiety that some of these senior citizens are facing. How do

you feel when you're living on perhaps $209 a month, your rent

is $140 and you're told that it's going up to $170? I'm sure

these people are not getting a full night's sleep and I could

state my feelings about this very strongly. But I think there's

a great urgency today and it's necessary to move ahead with all

possible speed.

This will not only provide housing for senior citizens, but

it will also perhaps open up other units which the working

younger people could better afford than the senior citizens.

This will also open up under-utilized houses which are a great

burden upon some senior citizens in terms of day-to-day

maintenance.

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

asked for a few things. What have I done? Well, I urged the

Greater Vancouver Regional District to go ahead at all possible speed with

this. It has run into this kind of opposition. I feel that

there are more than a dozen senior citizens out there — there

are 5,000 of them on waiting lists — and their voices should be

heard.

We have a proposal in his riding of West Vancouver for 61

units. It's a high-rise structure and there were some comments

about whether or not senior citizens should live in high-rises.

I am not partial myself to bringing up my family in a

high-rise, but I don't pretend to tell other people what they

should live in. I think we do have to look at what they are

living in presently.

Much to my surprise, in touring some of the high-rise units

for senior citizens in New Westminster and Vancouver, I found a

very high degree of acceptance, just as high as I found in

garden apartments in Burnaby for senior citizens. In fact,

senior citizens are like anyone else: some of them like to live

in high-rises; some of them like to live in garden apartments;

some of them like to live in maybe two and three-storey

walk-ups, some of them like to live in their own home. I

appreciate some of the Members suggesting that we help senior

citizens to remain in their own homes. There are a lot of

senior citizens in their 80s and even in their 90s who are

quite capable of looking after things and keeping up their

homes, and probably keeping up their gardens much better than I

seem to manage to do. So we should not come up with one

solution for senior citizens.

I do think that in terms of senior citizens' housing, one of

the most important things is to have them where the action is.

They must be close to shopping; they must be close to

transportation; they should be close to community recreation

facilities. I think that as general truisms these are

reinforced time and time again.

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

suggested, among other things, a system whereby we could

encourage people with savings to place these savings into a

mortgage and to allow the lender to try to negotiate, I

suppose, with the federal government so they pay no tax on what

they earn by way of interest. I do feel that we have to do

something about first mortgages as well as providing second

mortgages. I do agree with the concept of providing an

opportunity perhaps by way of a mortgage bank in the Province

of British Columbia and I've suggested that it's perhaps one of

the three ways in which we might do something about providing a

first-mortgage programme. I think that the people of British

Columbia have demonstrated through the parity bonds that

they're willing to accept a fair return, that it doesn't have

to be an excessive return, that they're not trying to escape

taxation.

A buck is a buck. If you make money one way or another, I

think that most people in North America

[ Page 658 ]

today accept that we tax income and not the way in which

it's made. If one person is making this by virtue of having

$10,000 invested and someone else is making it by the sweat of

his brow, income is income. I think the Carter Royal Commission

dealt with that and it's too bad that we haven't followed a few

more of its recommendations.

The Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) did

bring up a point — she made mention of the matter of high-rises — made many points and, I think, did refer to Maplecrest which

is at Seventh and Maple in Vancouver — a fairly high-rise

structure, certainly not a walk-up structure, being sponsored

by the Royal Canadian Legion, Shalom Branch.

I have made some inquiries and have been informed that the

bachelor suites are 370 square feet in area; the one-bedroom

apartments for couples are about 500 square feet in area. I

have some appreciation for that size as I have brought up a

family of four of us on a main floor area which is 756 square

feet.

I do think that there has been some opposition to this

project, but again we have to remember that this is 101 units.

We do have to consider the need for senior citizens' housing

and give it not just some intellectual consideration but we

have to consider it emotionally; think of that person who has

been given some sort of an impossible rent increase to deal

with; the person who is perhaps a widow living in a large home

and running into maintenance problems.

The Member did point out the need for creating satellite

cities and for some decentralization. I must say I concur

wholeheartedly with the remarks, The vacancy rate, which for

the last couple of years in Vancouver has been below one per

cent, is a symptom of a great problem. Part of the problem is

due, I suppose, to implementation of the Carter Royal

Commission to which I referred earlier.

The suggestion of a builders' co-op somewhat similar to that

which is experienced in Jamaica: this has also been used in

Nova Scotia, and I understand quite successfully. One might

integrate this with a recent innovation in housing and that is

a computer-assisted framing device which will take an ordinary

keg of nails and take dimension lumber and automatically place

and create framing of a conventional type. So perhaps some

savings could be made in terms of framing. There could be shell

housing. People could be finishing this off. This would have to

take place in areas which were not necessarily to be developed

in a dense, highly integrated sort of way. But this could have

a great deal of potential, especially outside of the central

metropolitan area.

The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) talked of the lack of incentives, the

deducting of mortgage interest from tax and talked of the cost of money. The

high cost of money is something on which I have made statements before; I also

made them during my speech. I feel that any programme of housing will have to

include a programme for mortgages, first mortgages as well as second mortgages.

I might like to correct the statement too, that the Minister

was quoted as "not intending to create a Crown corporation."

Well, I said that I would not create the British Columbia

Housing Corporation via this Act, that it would be created by a

special Act of the Legislature, that the vehicle for creating

Crown corporations was visualized more for meeting specific

tasks and specific needs.

The Hon. Member for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) has demonstrated

great interest in the housing field and has been in touch with

me on many occasions regarding housing — particularly concerned

about development of the Vancouver metropolitan area and the

potential his own riding has for meeting some of this need, in

fact a great deal of the need.

He mentioned the Blair range. We have had a meeting with the

Hon. Ron Basford, myself and members of our staff. We met with

the mayor and councillors of the District of North Vancouver.

We discussed the Blair range and it was agreed that a rational

approach for development would be to develop the bottom end of

the range — it's some 600-odd acres I believe. But

approximately the bottom 150 acres would be most suitable to

immediate development as there are services down there or close

by.

A rational plan for developing those areas would be also to

develop the two adjoining sides which are owned by the District

of North Vancouver so that a three-party agreement would be

desirable. A committee was struck but as there was a study

being done of the east end of the district at that time, the

committee met without prejudice to the results of that study.

But we are hopeful that some development can take place there.

We are looking forward to the cooperation and we feel that we

could do a great deal in that area. We propose to pay for the

costs of servicing, and this is the policy of both the

provincial government and Central Mortgage and Housing.

The Member for Dewdney also mentioned a subject very dear to

my heart — the complaint of construction companies that intend

to go broke.

I had an experience with one of my constituents before I was

elected. They had an experience with Design Craft Homes Ltd.

which left many people in my riding, and I suppose all over

British Columbia, with empty promises. These were not naive

people; they checked out references of Design Craft Homes with

their bank manager, with a lawyer — I don't know about the

advisability of that — but they did. Due in no small measure to

the efforts of the opposition caucus at that time which came up

to Nelson to hear local problems, they were able, due to

[ Page 659 ]

the fact that this company had, in writing, promised them a

mortgage, to recover full costs. But others did not have that

promise. Others were not so fortunate. It's just amazing how a

company can fold up, close out, leave the country and leave

people high and dry with down payments of $5,000 and $2,500,

and such, strewn all over the province for pre-fabricated homes

which never got off the ground — usually one was built as a

design model home somewhere. I think we will have to really do

something about that. I think…well, some measures were

taken in the last session.

It was mentioned that a $50 renter's grant should go to the

handicapped disabled persons. I agree with this wholeheartedly

because there is a real comparison that can be made especially

with people who are on Mincome, on pension, and people who are

on Mincome as handicapped persons. We are considering

amendments which will bring this in line. I'd like to thank the

Member for bringing that up.

The Hon. Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) talked of a

rational development of the James Bay area. I know of his

interest in the capital region and his concern and his ideas

are very worthy of consideration.

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

Williams): I was looking forward to his comments, and I can't

say that they disappointed me. At least I can't say that I

didn't enjoy them; I felt kind of like I had arrived to hear

the Member castigating me. But I was disappointed that, in

addition to his disparaging remarks, he was not his usual

constructive self and didn't make too many of the constructive

comments that we've come to expect from him on most

occasions.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I wasn't

being disparaging; I was being very kind to you.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: All right. Now as far as plans are

concerned, Hon. Member, we have acquired lands with capability

of providing about 3,000 housing units, largely in the Greater

Vancouver and Victoria Capital Regional District areas,

although we have also acquired other lands.

If we look at the history of the previous government, there

are about 5,000 public housing units provided, about half of

which were for families and the other half of which were for

senior citizens. In addition to that, of course, there were

about 11,000 housing units created under the Elderly Citizens'

Housing Aid Act. So if we look at the number of units for

families, there have been about 2,500 provided since about 1953.

With one of these property acquisitions, there is a potential for 1,200 units

of housing — and that's just one. So I think that in terms of what we're looking

at, we are considering different approaches for developing this. We're looking

to make an announcement fairly soon on which way we'll be going. This property

is in Burnaby, below the loop of Gaglardi Way. This was not taken from Simon

Fraser; this was purchased land. And I don't think any of the other land has

been taken from Simon Fraser either. I thought he died a long time ago.

So if you want to make comparisons and ask what has been

done, you know, you do have to realize that it takes more than

five months to crank up a development company, if you like. But

we will be making an announcement fairly shortly.

In addition to this there has been quite a proliferation of

cooperative housing and interest in cooperative housing.

We've signed a lease agreement with Burquitlam Housing Co-op,

about 60 units; I've already mentioned the Victoria Pioneer

Co-op. There are about six other co-ops in the works at the

moment and, with perhaps a little bit of seed money, the United

Housing Foundation will be able to expand its operations in

that area. So this will go a long way towards providing public

housing.

We have, as I say, some 50-some-odd requests for various

kinds of housing. We've also moved up in some places like Port

McNeill. Where the municipality really wants housing, they have

delivered.

The first trip I made upon becoming Minister Without

Portfolio was a trip to the north Island. We heard the council

from Port McNeill and their need for land outside of their

boundaries — the need to expand. We've already responded to

that. We're very close to responding to the needs of Port

Hardy. We've announced some — I don't know how many — acres of

land up in Prince Rupert in conjunction with Central Mortgage

and Housing — Prince George, Williams Lake, and so on.

In addition to that there are many areas in Vancouver and

Burnaby in which we're ready to move. We have acquired a

partly-finished apartment block because, with the need today,

we felt that we just couldn't leave something partly finished.

It did have, as you can imagine that a partly-finished

apartment block might have, a few little legal

entanglements.

We had to very carefully go into that; we had to make very

careful assessments of the value of the project and how much it

would cost to complete. But I made a decision to go in there

because we just can't afford to leave anything undone in the

situation as we found it upon taking office.

The Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden) has a great experience

in municipal matters. He pointed out that the municipality of

Delta had absorbed 21 per cent of the growth from 1966 to 1971,

but I think we can look at this in many ways. I know there is a

resistance to further vast growth in Delta, and yet I believe

that this is one of the areas which is going to

[ Page 660 ]

have to create the large lion's share of the housing if we

are going to solve the problem, because Delta does have lands

outside of the agricultural reserve that are well-suited to

housing. I'm looking forward to meeting with the municipality

in Delta and I haven't had that pleasure yet.

That's sort of looking at things on a macro-scale. If you

look on a micro-scale, you could look to the south-eastern

corner of Vancouver and look at the rate at which development

has gone on there in Champlain Heights. I suppose it has maybe

caused some growth problems out there as well. It's very ironic

that Vancouver is responding — although it has very little land

left — quite well to the demands for creating housing when you

consider the crowding that exists there today.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) did mention troubles in

Prince George and, of course, I know he's also been interested

in Williams Lake. We have responded to the need in Williams

Lake and we've given the go-ahead for creating more service

lots in that area. He did ask a question about the policy. The

policy in Prince George and the policy in Williams Lake will be

the same: it will be 60-year lease.

We're looking to recover the cost of servicing. In other

words we say that the land…although it costs money, the

cost of land should not be a factor; we're looking to recover

the cost of servicing and not to make a profit. We've been able

to keep down the land cost in Prince George over the years and

we intend to continue doing so, but we will be leasing lands in

those areas. There are private lands we hope to influence — the

price of private lands — to keep down the price of fee simple

lands by a land-lease policy.

The Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

mentioned a trip which we gave. He always very modestly gives

credit to Alderman Edith Gunning for the fine work which has

been done in the municipality of Saanich in the provision of

public housing, nice small projects of public housing which are

an asset to the community.

A rather interesting side-light is that public housing was

created in some parts of Saanich, and then fairly expensive,

rather nice housing came in after the public housing and

surrounded it. I think it's a tribute to Saanich and, perhaps,

one of the brighter spots that I have seen in terms of public

housing in this province — and all respect to the council and

the mayor and Alderman Edith Gunning of Saanich.

The Member also stressed the need for long-term land banking

and I would say that most of the property acquisitions which

have been made to date have been of a short-term nature.

The need is so great we must find lands on which we can develop where the need

is. But I am certainly keeping my eye on long-term acquisitions. We are in some

discussions in some areas concerning areas which are out beyond the development

fringe and which will be needed, perhaps, five or 10 years from now. I think

that is something we can never lose sight of.

He also stressed this strange hang-up we have for the

sanctity of a front yard, and I couldn't agree with him more on

that point. If one travels to other countries, I haven't had

the fortune of travelling too widely, but in Mexico I know there

are many areas where the entrance is right on the sidewalk, but

you go into the back yard and it is a completely different

world and it's beautiful. I think this is something we should

consider here in this part of North America. Also back in

Quebec one finds this type of housing.

He and other Members referred to sweeping powers. I was a

little taken aback, and still am, by the remarks of the second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson). I felt he was quoting

out of context and I still do. He quoted more or less something

to the effect that for any purpose relating to housing the

Minister may, subject to the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor, sign agreements with something or any

person, and so on and so forth. What was said in that

section 1

is: "the Minister may," with "the approval of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" or in lieu of any other action,

any person or agency on behalf of such government or

municipality."

In other words, it is in front of people that you sign

agreements and affix signatures. And somebody who has been

designated or given authority to sign agreements, perhaps in

lieu of the mayor, can do so. Okay.

The Hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Steves) talked of the

reassembly of certain VLA lands. I know that in some cases here

on Vancouver Island VLA lands were originally subdivided with

the intention or the possibility of a further subdivision being

kept in mind so that these small acreages would have services

and would have the houses and such located on them so that they

could be further subdivided at some later date. In other areas

there has been no consideration given to this and the problem

of reassembly and redesigning VLA properties is a great

problem. So I would say that the Member has made a very good

suggestion in that case.

He talked of the need for transit corridors and for working

and living in the same neighbourhood. He suggested taxing

absentee owners on speculative land. The Member might be quite

surprised to know that some of these development people who he

often mentions in his speeches have made the same

suggestion.

I think some of these development people…. There is a

difference; there are developers, and, there are developers.

Some of them are interested in speculative land holdings;

others are interested in

[ Page 661 ]

building and creating housing. They are more builders than

they are speculators. Some of them have to keep a land bank to

provide continuity in their operations. These people who are

interested in building have recommended the taxing of land that

is being held speculatively. Perhaps this is not in my

department, but I take the advice with great interest, as I did

when it came to me from a land developer.

He has mentioned the activity of Block Brothers in the

District of North Vancouver. I have discussed the whole problem

of North Vancouver — and I shouldn't leave the impression that

I am singling out the District of North Vancouver. There are

other areas — I see where the City of New Westminster was

auctioning off land. I suppose that under present practices

they certainly would be due for criticism if they were to give

the land away at less than market values. But as I suggested,

if we could work out some system of controls and incentives to

people to lease land, with some controls on speculative profits

and windfalls, we might be able to form another alternative and

meet the huge sector of the housing market which is being

unfulfilled today.

The First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said

that the government has not placed one lot up for sale or

lease. I don't think that this is true because the government

has been selling and leasing lots through municipalities. It

did it under the previous administration and it is still doing

it under this administration.

We've opened up a federal-provincial public housing project

which was started under the previous administration. We've had

ground-breaking ceremonies recently for other projects. To say

where one thing leaves off and another begins — I suppose there

will come the day when I will take

part in both a

ground-breaking ceremony and a ribbon cutting, perhaps, on the

same site. But there has been some continuity and we will be

looking to a real acceleration of activity so that within one

year we will be providing more housing than the previous

government did in 20 years.

The Member did suggest we should go out and purchase land in

Burnaby and Delta. Okay, I agree. He said sell the land

outright. I disagree.

I think the most modern thoughts, the economists and such

that are coming together…. There has been a real

proliferation of discussions on the rationale for land banking.

There has been much call for government land banking, which the

Member suggests. There is also call for government retaining

the ownership of land, going against the notion of land as

property, because it is almost like a drug.

We can go on and on accelerating the cost of land and putting it out of the

reach of not just the low-income people but the average person. And where it

will end is very hard to say. But should a person in one part of the province

have a greater right to make speculative gains than a member in another part

of the province? Should a person who lives in Trail, where there has only been

two housing starts and no real shortage of housing — there are empty suites

and such in Trail — be denied this form of income that the Member suggests is

so much a part of our North American values?

I feel that what we should do is get the cost of housing

down so that people can invest their money in other more

enterprising forms of creating profit, if that is what they

wish to do, Or else they can use that extra revenue for better

enjoyment of life, Really, the whole concept of land as

property is becoming quite in disrepute. It is taking time for

the idea to sink down.

The real rationale, though, is this: if government really

wants to do something to lower the price of housing, government

has to put this property out at a low value which people can

afford. It wouldn't do to put it out at a low value which

people could afford only to have them turn around and realize a

windfall profit. The logical alternative to that is simply to

put it on leasehold.

The Member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) talked of some of

the difficulties in the unorganized areas, and the problem of

company land contiguous to settlements being held and not

allowing the proper orderly expansion of those settlements,

villages and towns. I have run into this difficulty in some

areas. We have had cooperation with certain companies. We've

cleared up misunderstandings with other companies. I trust that

companies will realize that this is in their best interests.

One of the greatest causes of job turnover in these areas where

we have small company towns is the lack of adequate

housing.

They spent a lot of money providing housing in some of these

towns. I think they should be only too willing and eager to let

the provincial government and the municipality and the federal

government take over this responsibility, and let the people,

let the council, let the municipal officials, the village

council, town council or the city council make the decisions

about how the area should be developed.

The Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) has

talked about the effect on the investment field. Well, I have

been meeting with people in the investment field. I've had

offers of substantial amounts of mortgage money, offers of

cooperation. I've met with various organizations, real estate

boards and some of the major developers, as well as meeting

with HUDAC. They share our concern; they're eager to

cooperate; they're eager to help. I don't see them being

frightened out of the field. Their concern is for serviced

property, for streamlining the system of getting approvals

through municipalities. Just one phase of getting approval for

a land-use contract can take about 90 days, and that's just one

little step in the development process.

[ Page 662 ]

I hope to put a great deal of effort and consultation with

municipalities and developers, bring them together and see what

can be done to rectify the various time delays. Not all the

time delays are with the municipalities; some of them are with

the developers. The municipality gives the go-ahead and then

the developer waits for an engineering report or something.

There has to be something done to get some really critical

path-flow to the solving of these problems and getting them

through.

I think the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

rebutted any comments that were made concerning whatever

effects Bill 42 might have had. I can only add that in the

Province of Ontario they have a need for 300,000 to 400,000

housing units. They have the same inflated costs for property

and they don't have Bill 42. I don't think we can cause and

effect. If one studies the discipline of any sort of formal

logic, it's rather difficult to demonstrate between any two

events.

The Member for Omineca (Mr. Kelly) has brought up the fact

that building in the north has a very short season. I would

hope that in cooperation with the Minister of Industrial

Development, Trade and Commerce (Hon. Mr. Lauk), we can work on

bringing in sectional homes, pre-fabricated homes and such. I

know that the Minister is also studying several different forms

of innovative housing. He's had the B.C. Research Council

assigned to some of these tasks and we're looking very closely,

both of us, at some of these, one of which I mentioned'earlier.

I must say that the First Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr.

Barnes) brought up a very good point, especially about the

condition of what he called "flop houses." I did mention in

opening debate that I had been present at a ceremony marking

the beginning of the renovation of hotels like the Central

Hotel. The Hon. Member was present at that and spent a great

deal of time going through the various old hotels which were

being renovated by the United Housing Foundation.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney General): He also did a pub

crawl.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Hear, hear.

Interjections.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: The Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) said

we should encourage people to own their own homes, I do feel that part of our

leasing programme does. While there's no panacea for the housing programme,

certainly we visualize people having an ownership of the home on that leased

land and not being subject to the annual haggles with a landlord, the decisions

of whether to paint or not to paint, who's going to pay for it or who should

repair a cracked toilet, whether or not they're housekeeping properly and should

be evicted or shouldn't be evicted. We are looking for encouragement of people

being able to make their own decisions about the home in which they live. The

lease of the land would not in any way affect that type of security which people

could have. We're looking to bring a mortgage in that type of situation down

to a level where people of almost all incomes in this province could enjoy this

kind of security.

The problem of what happens at the end of a lease was

brought up by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland); The

problem is one of which I am well aware. There has been an

experience in England and other places where these long-term

leases are drawing to a close. There has to be some

consideration given to values and measures taken to ensure the

upkeep of those areas at that time.

I think the Hon. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King)

brought up a very good point in terms of the policies of the

past government when he referred to the Arrow Lakes. It's an

area to which I am quite close and I've met many of these

dispossessed people who were forced out of their homes. It must

be a tremendous culture shock to go and find that your

community no longer exists, that it's under water.

I might also say that the action taken towards

rehabilitating Natal-Michel would not be taken by this

government. If the Premier of that day wished to have a more

attractive entrance to the Province of British Columbia on the

southern trans-provincial highway, I think he should have moved

the highway and not the town.

Mr. Speaker, this government is looking forward to the

tremendous challenge which has been posed by many different

factors. We find that there is the need for creating a

department of housing. I'm personally looking forward to this

challenge; there's much interest in it.

There are many young and experienced people coming to us,

expressing their willingness to even come at a cut in pay to

take

part in the creation of a provincial government

intervention into the field of housing. I think on the federal

scene we have the example of Bill Terron, who was a developer;

one might say he was a rip-off artist. Bill Terron has seized

the challenge in public housing, or in social housing. There

are many, many people like him who are willing to give up the

old ways of the free enterpriser to accept this challenge, to

break new ground in housing which has to be broken if we're

going to make the kind of progress that has to be made to solve

this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I'm drawing to the end of my remarks, you might

be relieved to hear, and I move second reading of the bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

[ Page 663 ]

YEAS — 47

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Nunweiler

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

Wallace

Curtis

Chabot

Richter

Smith

Fraser

Phillips

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

Bennett

NAYS — 4

McGeer

Anderson, D.A. .

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Bill 49 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Second reading of Bill 63, Mr.

Speaker.

PERSONAL INFORMATION

REPORTING ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of

this bill, may I say that we've passed the days of a rural

society when everyone knew everyone else, their background,

their character and their credit predictability, and we've

entered an electronic age of surveillance and banking and

retrieval of information of all kinds about individuals.

Now it is important that business be able to predict with

some accuracy the likelihood of obligations being met, and in

no way does this bill block the flow of essential and

legitimate credit information. But it is, nevertheless, a

little blow struck for human dignity and privacy, because the

abuses that unquestionably prevail today in terms of credit

agencies and investigative agencies, both of which are covered

by this Act, are something that ought to be curbed.

Who steals my purse steals gold. Who damages my reputation steals my passport

to a job, to insurance, to a credit card or even to rental accommodation. Therefore,

in this bill, respecting as we can the needs of commerce and the rights of privacy,

we propose that there shall be a registrar of both the credit bureaus and the

investigative agencies, and that only those people who are fit and prepared

to meet proper legal and ethical standards be registered; that there be power

to suspend the registration of those who do not meet those standards; that there

be an appeal — and I say this in deference to the Liberal Party — to the B.C.

Securities Commission and even to the B.C. Court of Appeal against refusal of

a registration or suspension of a registration.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Do you want an appeal in the labour bill

too to bring the courts into that process?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. The bill provides that the files of

individuals must be stored in Canada and that there should be

access to those files available during regular business hours

to the individual on whom a report has been compiled. The Act

provides a bundle of rights so far as the individual is

concerned.

To begin with, it says that a reporting agency can only make

a report to a person who has a legitimate business need for

that report. The trafficking in reports and the trafficking in

health reports that have gone into insurance companies is

something that would be forbidden under this bill, because

there will be one source and one source only for such

information; that will be a duly registered agency under this

bill.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

The bill restricts in another

section the kinds of

information that may not be obtained and recorded with respect

to individuals.

section 12 of the bill ensures to the

individual that he either has notice that a report is to be

prepared upon him when he, say, applies for credit, or he

consents to the preparation of such a report. It's not a

difficult matter administratively because in applying for

credit the notice can be spelled out in big block letters on

the application for credit — "a credit report is being ordered

upon you in support of your application from such and such

agency."

There is provision that if a benefit is denied to an

individual as a result of a report, credit or investigative,

that individual must be advised that he has been rejected by

reason of the contents of that report. There is provision that

the individual will be able to examine his file — in other

words, the right to know. There is provision that the

individual will be able to insert corrections on his file up to

a limit of 100 words per item, something that will prove

exceedingly difficult for Members of this Legislature

[ Page 664 ]

to accomplish in so few words as that.

So there's the right to know, the right to correct and the

right that if a correction is entered upon a person's file,

that correction should go out to whatever agency has requested

the report if it relates to an event within the past 12

months.

Finally, there are the enforcement provisions of the Act and

they are three-pronged. There is the right to cancel

registrations, there is the right to obtain a supreme court

injunction and there are fines and penalties built into the

Act. And in conclusion, may I say that we are keeping up with

the country of Sweden, one of the heartlands of democracy — social, that is. (Laughter.)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): There's only one kind.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It is in this year introducing similar

legislation as I see by this note which said, "Sweden regulates

those snooping data banks." Mr. Speaker, I move second

reading.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I'll be very brief in my

remarks concerning this bill. We have read the bill and we have

checked with reporting services in the Province of British

Columbia. They agree that this is the type of legislation they

would like to see on the books and they also point out that in

many cases the bill is placing in a legislative form a service

that they have, themselves, initiated in many cases.

Those that have initiated it feel that it is worthwhile, and

they would like to see everyone that is involved in the same

line of business required to report and have their books open

on the same basis.

We think that it is a type of legislation that will be

well-accepted generally by the public and by those people who

operate the reporting services. Therefore, we will support the

bill.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): What is being

suggested this afternoon by the Attorney General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), Mr. Speaker, is just as very little ray of light

into the darkness in the field of individual rights in this

province. Yet we heard from the New Democratic Party, and

particularly from the Attorney General when he was in

opposition, these marvelous speeches over the years about great

beams of sunshine that were going to come into the laws of

British Columbia and, specifically, which were going to be

found in the field of government business. Now the only thing

he can do is sit in the chamber and point to the illumination

overhead, because he certainly hasn't done anything over and

apart from that.

In the throne speech, the very first throne speech of this government, they

enunciated that their No. 1 priority was to have a human rights Act in the Province

of British Columbia. Since that enunciation we have run into complete silence.

I would ask: where are the laws, Mr. Speaker, establishing the right of the

citizen to go to the courts of this land for redress against his government?

Absolutely none.

Where is the right of a citizen to the services of an

independent ombudsman for governmental abuses? Absolutely none.

Where are the laws of fair compensation? Absolutely none,

notwithstanding that we had a very thorough examination by the

Law Reform Commission and also by a committee of this House

over a session ago. Where is the universal legal aid or

"judicare" in the Province of British Columbia?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

to speak to the principle of the bill rather than discussing

the shortcomings of the government.

MR. GARDOM: In speaking to the principle of the bill, we can

only run into the many unprincipled shortcomings of the

government, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not wish to transgress

the rules of debate, but I cannot help these things tumbling

forth, as I'm sure every Member in the House would definitely

agree with.

I would also ask where, Mr. Speaker, by analogy, do we find

the right of a citizen to see that the government — the

business of this government — is done in public, is heard in

public and is published in public?

The Attorney General makes a great point of this particular

bill in saying what great protections he's provided for the

individual. He has provided protection for the individual in

the private sector only. Then he goes ahead and makes a great

deal of the fact that we are keeping up with Sweden. Well, I'd

say we're falling back to the year 1066 in England insofar as

individual rights are concerned in this province. We are

bringing in legislation that is continuing to only nibble at

the pillars of protections against abuses as opposed to coming

ahead and facing the matter full square.

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Attorney General is making light of

the point but, if he would remember a little bit of his history

of law, 1066 started it. It was followed by Henry II and it

came into the law of British Columbia at that time to accept

the common law of England. And in accepting the common law of

England, it accepted one thing very, very clearly: it accepted

the protection of individual rights.

Individual rights in this province today are not being protected; they are

being eroded every day by the legislation that you are bringing in.

[ Page

665 ]

We agree with the principle of this thing. It's fine and

dandy, but I find it very difficult to sit here and have rather

sanctimonious talk coming from that side of the House about

what a great thing this is for individual rights. It is just a

piffle insofar as individual rights are concerned, It is about

high time the government brought a little bit of action, did a

few things and, if nothing else, if nothing else, kept up with

their campaign promises and their platform promises which are

still on the books of their party. They are being criticized

within their own party for not complying with those things.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, we

welcome this Act and we realize the embarrassment it must bring

to the Attorney General to impose a double standard on the

people of British Columbia — one standard for the people whom

he controls and another standard for himself and his friends.

But, still and all, the general public, who have been

mistreated by credit information agencies over many years, will

welcome this particular Act.

I think it ought to be called the "Barrie Clark Act" because

it was the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour who introduced

this legislation year after year after year. A fine Member he

was, Mr. Speaker, a fine Member he was.

Long before the Attorney General was thinking of this kind

of protection, the Member for North Vancouver–Seymour was

drafting appropriate legislation and introducing it into the

House. It's been my responsibility, if you like, to carry on

the tradition and keep advancing a bill along these particular

lines. I am so happy that I will be able to ask leave of the

House to withdraw the bill that I was going to introduce on

this particular subject.

There have been other bills parallel to this one which

require the provincial government itself to do the same kinds

of things that the Attorney General in this bill requires the

credit-reporting agencies to do. So what we have is an

open-file system for the credit-reporting agencies and a

closed-file system for the government.

I remember the former First Member for Vancouver-Burrard

speaking as a Member when he was a backbencher and again when

he was, briefly, Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. Berger); his

proudest achievement, had he been heading a government, and in

putting forward his programme to the people, was that of an

open file where a citizen could see the information held

against him, whether it was by a credit-reporting agency or

whether it was by the government itself.

The citizen isn't to have that privilege. Oh, if it is a credit-reporting agency,

he can go before that judge now and get redress in the private sector. But the

files of the government remain closed. The double standard exists in British

Columbia: one for the private sector — the non-socialist sector — and the other

for the government sector — the socialist sector. That is the closed-file sector,

that one.

That is where the information is held secret. This is where

the individual doesn't have rights. Those things controlled by

the socialists: that's where he doesn't have rights. For the

other part, those rights are beginning to appear and we welcome

that part. We only hope that the day will not be too long

delayed when the citizens of this province will have the full

range of human rights.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health Services and Hospital Insurance):

Mr. Speaker, I sat with interest. I was particularly interested in finding that

the retail credit companies and companies of that order are interested in this

kind of legislation in that they will all come into the fold and so therefore

won't have to worry about the competition, I would like to suggest, however,

that there's not very much competition in that field. I'd like to also suggest

that many of them are not, as they sound, companies out to gain credit information;

they're out to gain information as to one's character, as to one's suspected

character, and that type of thing.

I had a great deal of experience with these organizations

over a great number of years, so all I can suggest, Mr.

Speaker, despite that kind of discussion we had from the

Liberal Party, is that we welcome this legislation. It's much

needed, long overdue, and isn't in any way comparable to the

government situation and they know it, And if they know it, and

if they know it to this extent, then open up those Liberal

files, you bunch of name-callers. What are you talking about

over there?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

HON. MR. COCKE: Absolutely. All that discussion was totally

and completely irrelevant. I'm embarrassed for them making

those kinds of assertions in this House, Mr. Speaker, terrible

assertions, talking about the socialist files and so on. What

ridiculousness! How about the Conservative files and how about

the Liberal files over the years that have never been opened,

and, as long as those parties are in power, never will be

opened? Such an abysmal display of foolishness. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In closing the debate, may I say there

are no double standards in this bill, which is what the

Legislature is discussing, although it would seem to be

otherwise. If there is a Crown corporation, for example, doing

business in the Province of British Columbia, and there is and

there

[ Page 666 ]

will be, it will have to abide by the terms of this Act if

it orders a credit report in the course of its business. So

there is no double standard.

In relation to the other things that are suggested that

should be done in this province by the Hon. Liberal Members,

may I say this is only October and we don't want to rifle the

Hon. Member's legislative programme too quickly. What would he

run on? What would be his next legislative programme? There

should be patience as one by one in this province we enact the

full NDP programme. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 63 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Second reading of

Bill 67.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

DISTRESS AREA ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker,

this legislation was amended in the spring session to make

provision for the provincial government to enter into agreement

with the federal government to share equally in loans that were

made under the federal Farm Improvement Loans Act . When it

referred to banks, we also provided for the inclusion of credit

unions.

The amendments we're bringing in now are to clarify the

legislation. It has been rather loosely interpreted in the past

for purposes other than re-seeding, although in reading the

legislation literally, one would get the impression that it is

only in cases of re-seeding that the legislation may be used.

The amendments before us now would clarify the allowance for

discounts on principal and interest so that they may be used

for purposes other than re-seeding.

In addition to that, within designated areas, providing for

distressed area assistance, advisory boards may be named to

assist the Minister in determining when the provisions of this

legislation should be made available to individuals to relieve

apparent hardship cases. Of course, before that happens, it

would have to be declared as a distressed area by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. With that, it would then be

possible to name an advisory board in that locality who would

give advice as to the application of the Act. I move second

reading.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this amendment. I only

have one question to pose to the Minister in discussing the

principle of this legislation.

Why, when we're providing for subsidization of losses, do we

restrict them to abnormal drought, flood or frost conditions?

I'm not sure what an abnormal flood is. Maybe the Minister has

a definition. It would seem to me that any drought, flood or

frost conditions in an area causing any loss to the

agricultural community should be subject for assistance.

I'd like the Minister also, Mr. Speaker, to indicate why the

word "fire" hasn't been included in drought, flood and frost

conditions. An area in this province today is one to which some

distress is being caused to the farming community as a result

of fire. I don't raise any question as to how that fire

occurred, but in the Province of British Columbia it should now

be realized that the possibility of fire can create very

serious distress to the farming community. I think that the

inclusion of that might be considered.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay, with his great perception, has

also pointed out that "tempest" is a problem that we sometimes

face. So why don't we cover all of the natural conditions:

fire, flood and wind. Let us provide distressed-area assistance

for any of those reasons.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Agriculture closes the

debate.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, very briefly, when is a

drought a drought? In the Kamloops area, the normal rainfall is

12 inches. Certainly if we had 12 inches of rain in this area,

that would be a drought for this area, but in Kamloops it's

normal. When they get something like 6 inches, then it's

abnormal for Kamloops and we would then call it a distress

area, as we have this year for fodder production. It's the

lowest in 20 years, I'm told, which is an example of something

that is abnormal, You will recall from what I said and from what you know of

this legislation, it does call for federal participation. When

we're dealing with abnormal situations like the lowest in 20

years, then we can hope for federal participation. When we're

dealing with normal drought situations — and I say 12 inches in

Kamloops would be a drought here but it's a normal situation up

there — we couldn't expect federal participation under the

Distress Area Assistance Act. We are hoping for federal

participation under the Farm Income Assurance Act, and I'm

confident we will receive the support of all Members when we

come to that.

In case of fire, again, this is something that is covered.

The specific situations you're alluding to are to be covered

under the Provincial Major Disaster Fund; payments come out of

that. But again, they are not applicable to the purpose of the

Distress Area Assistance Act. I now move second reading, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 667 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 67 read a second time and referred to Committee of the

Whole House at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 9, Mr. Speaker.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE ACT

(continued)

House in committee on Bill 9; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman,

section 4 is the appropriation

section and places the power in

the hands of the cabinet to provide for the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett), in turn to provide for the purposes of this

Act, amounts of money without limit. It is in part because of

this overwhelming power that I have expressed opposition to

this bill.

We have in previous legislation, in previous sessions,

maintained the position that the spending responsibility, while

vesting with the cabinet, should not be used o destroy the

authorization responsibility, which is that of this Legislature

as representatives of the people of this province.

It is traditional with British parliaments that the raising

of money by taxation and the allocation of money to the

executive council are the specific responsibility of the

Legislature. Yet here again we find, in this bill, important as

the object of the bill may be, further indication on the part

of this government that it proposes to nullify, in fact

destroy, the fundamental purpose for the legislators of this

province to be here.

I have said before, and I think it must be repeated again,

that the whole reason for our being in this chamber

traditionally is to approve legislation for the benefit of the

people of British Columbia; and having received those rights

from the Crown, then in exchange to give the Crown the right to

raise moneys by taxation and to spend those moneys. And here we

are doing just the opposite.

Mr. Chairman, I move an amendment to

section 4, by deleting

the

section in its entirety and substituting the following:

"All moneys required to be expended for the purpose of establishing,

carrying out and administering a farm income plan shall be paid out of the Consolidated

Revenue Fund with moneys authorized by

an Act of the Legislature and, for the

fiscal year 1973-74, shall be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the

Revenue Surplus Appropriation Account of that fund in such amount as the Lieutenant

Governor-in-Council may, in that fiscal year, authorize."

HON. MR. HALL (Provincial Secretary): On a point of order. I

wonder if I can ask for your ruling as to the propriety of that

amendment in the hands of a private Member? It is the first

occasion we have had during this current session of the

Legislature to get a ruling. I think it is about time we did

get this ruling nailed down once and for all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would rule this amendment out of order under

standing order…

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, how could

it be out of order in committee for us to move a change which

returns to this Legislature the decision as to how much money

is to be given to the Minister of Finance? If that is the case

then we can't even debate the supply bill. Now I ask you, Mr.

Chairman, if you will reconsider that decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the case of the Committee of Supply, this

is a different matter and as provided for, this is the normal

place to debate such expenditures. However, as an amendment to

a bill, such amendment must be brought in by a Member of the

Crown and is out of order in the hands of a private Member.

Section 66.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, if the amendment is

out of order, I'd like to speak on

section 4 in committee to

say that we in this party are completely in accord with the

point of view just expressed by the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams).

The whole question of finances and the method by which

governments raise and spend money has to be, if not the most

important responsibility, certainly one of the most important

responsibilities to be assumed by any legislator in this House.

The free and easy way in which this bill allows cabinet to

spend money, which in effect the legislators have not had an

accurate description of, makes a mockery of our responsibility

to the people who elected us.

This

section 4 typifies much of the legislation since this

government came to power where all it ever expresses is an

intention to help a farmer, or someone finding a house, or

someone to have a better standard in a particular business.

It has been stated by more than one previous speaker, but

particularly eloquently by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound, that it is not

[ Page 668 ]

reasonable of the government in our opinion to put this

general description of the way money will be expended, with no

definite limitations or descriptions in the bill, and expect us

simply to approve this very general, vague, limitless

expenditure of taxpayers' money.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I'm delighted with today's

bill. It's obvious that the Minister of Agriculture is getting

better all the time, because some of the content — and I'll

pass over it-very lightly — of the legislation introduced

today, shows that we are at least getting a little in the way

of some kind of limitation or specific definition of figures.

But in

section 4 of this bill, there are absolutely no

guidelines whatever as to the sums of money which could be

involved in what might turn out to be some disastrous programme

where guarantees or moneys are made available to the farming

community. And until this House sits again, the legislators

would be powerless in any way to influence what we might

consider irresponsible or inefficient spending.

Or it may be inadequate. I'm emphasizing too much the

opportunity that they have to spend too much money. It may well

be that we might criticize because they're not providing enough

money. But the fact is that there should be some guidelines,

some specific figures which we, the opposition, have an

opportunity to debate intelligently and to say whether or not,

within the need of the farming community, the figures provided

section 4 would or would not be adequate.

In the light of that point, which I don't think the Members

of all opposition parties can recite too often, there's an air

of optimism in our party today that the bill does seem to show

that the Minister recognizes our criticism and has introduced

some ballpark figures into today's bill. But as far as

section

4 is concerned, we strenuously oppose

section 4.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): We certainly are

going to oppose this section. The reason we are going to oppose

it is, as I said when I brought in the amendment to

section 1

in second reading, that we are doing away with the authority

vested in this Legislature to vote on the people's money.

I don't know why the Minister of Agriculture seems to be so

het up about having legislation passed which gives him a

complete blank cheque. This is just more of the completely

high-handed, dictatorial attitude of this government that has

far too large a majority in this House for its own good. It

should be cut down to size. I'm sure that the people of this

province will, at the first opportunity, cut it down to

size.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

confine his remarks to

section 4?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about

section 4, Mr. Chairman. I'm

talking about spending money, the people's money, the

taxpayers' money.

Section 4 is a blank cheque. Why call the Legislature? If

you passed

section 4 and all the bills in this House, you

wouldn't even have to call the Legislature together; you

wouldn't need a budget and you wouldn't need the legislators.

That's what

section 4 is all about — the dictatorial,

high-handed attitude of this overpowering government.

The reason there are no figures, not even ballpark figures

in this section, Mr. Chairman….

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): You're

after the leadership.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm maybe not after the leadership, Mr.

Minister of Transport, but I'm after protecting the ratepayers

of this province. You don't seem to care. Your high-handed,

dictatorial, overpowering, crushing attitude towards

legislation you're bringing in in this section….

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. PHILLIPS: One of the reasons there are no figures in

this particular

section is that the Minister of Agriculture has

no idea how much this Act is going to cost the taxpayers of

B.C. No idea whatsoever.

And the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is

supposed to look after the finances of this province, allows

him to bring in this legislation. The Minister of Finance

doesn't have any idea of how much money this is going to cost,

but the Minister of Finance says, and I've heard him say it

before: "We'll take another dip in the well. There's lots of

money in British Columbia. So what if it costs another four,

five or $10 million? The Socreds left us a well that's filled,

and we don't have to be financial experts in this province. All

we have to do is dig, and until it gets close to the bottom we

don't have to worry."

That's how you run this government, Mr. Minister of

Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and you know it. You don't have

to worry about finances. If you had to run a business like a

business should be run, you wouldn't be able to do it. But as

long as you've got unlimited resources, you just keep on

passing legislation. "We'll just take another slice off the

cake, another cup out of the well. It's never going to be

missed because there's so much there. And the taxpayers won't

really care, they won't know. Their taxes aren't going to go

up."

I'll tell you in a few years, Mr. Chairman, they'll know.

When their taxes start going up they'll know, This government

is running by the seat of its pants.

Interjections.

[ Page 669 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member keep his

remarks strictly relevant to

section 4? And I would ask the

other Hon. Members not to interrupt him, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman,

section 4 is in this bill

because the Minister of Agriculture is panicking. He has put

agriculture in such a state in this province by Bill 42 that he

has to bring in blank-cheque legislation to try to get himself

out of the position he's in. Agriculture in British Columbia,

Mr. Chairman, is on the decline. Figures for investment in farm

equipment in all the other provinces in Canada for the first

seven months this year are up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, we are in committee. I

would ask the Hon. Member to observe standing order 61(2),

speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly

relevant to the item or clause under consideration. Would the

Hon. Member not discuss the bill in principle, but rather

confine his remarks to

section 4?

MR. PHILLIPS: Might I remind you, Mr. Chairman, that when a

cabinet Minister brings in such broad, sweeping generalities of

legislation, we should certainly be allowed a little leeway in

our debate on such a blank cheque. The Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) asks us in the Legislature to give him a

signed, blank cheque to spend on this bill any amount of money

that he wants, and you were trying to tell us that we can't

debate around it. It's so broad and all-encompassing, this

section of the Act, that we should be able to debate any

section of agriculture. Blank-cheque legislation, brought in by

a government that doesn't know how to run their affairs,

doesn't know how much the legislation is going to cost the

people of British Columbia, doesn't know where they are going.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has no idea how much

it's going to cost and asks the Legislature just to sign a

blank cheque. Mr. Chairman, do you think that's fair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point that you're making,

Hon. Member, is one which properly belongs in debate on second

reading. It involves the principle of the bill. I would

therefore ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to

section

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle of this section, Mr. Chairman, the principle

section 4 of the Farm Income Assurance Act, the principle involved is that

the government doesn't know how to run the affairs of this province. That's

the principle involved in

section 4. The principle involved in

section 4 is

that the government wants us to continually give them a blank cheque to do anything

they want to do. That's what's involved in

section 4. That's the principle involved

section 4, Mr. Chairman. You know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't propose to instruct the Hon. Member on

the proper method of debate, but I would point out that in

committee we debate the specifics of

section 4 rather than the

principle which is embodied in it.

MR. PHILLIPS: The principle, Mr. Chairman — and I'm not going

to belabour the point (laughter) — the principle involved in

section 4 is blank-cheque legislation from a government which

is too powerful, which disregards the Legislature, which wants

us just to give them the power to go ahead and do anything.

We're certainly going to vote against this section.

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

found the remarks of the previous Member very interesting — tedious but interesting, He takes a point and he traipses it

back and forth across the floor, tramples it to death and rolls

it in the dust. But he does make the point. (Laughter.)

I want to associate myself, too, with the remarks of the

Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) because, like the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. Williams), he makes a very valid

argument against blank-cheque legislation. He points out the

dangers of

section 4.

I'm not going to take the time of the House to read the

section because I think you, Mr. Chairman, and the other

Members of the House understand what this

section says. But I

will give the government credit for consistency. They always

thought this sort of thing was okay, even when they were in

opposition. And, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Oak Bay and the

Member for South Peace River found it very convenient to

support the former government when they invented the concept of

blank-cheque legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member, if

he has a new point to raise in this particular section, that he

bring it up. The Hon. Member is straying from the subject.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure it is very wearisome for

some of these Members to be reminded of their past when they

twist around and find it convenient to follow one policy one

year and another policy the next.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member confine

his remarks to

section 4?

MR. McGEER: I'm trying to get to this point, Mr. Chairman,

as rapidly as I can. I think that if you give me just a few

seconds you'll see what I'm leading up to.

[ Page 670 ]

I realize that you weren't here at the time this whole

concept of giving to the Minister of Finance, or other

Ministers of the Crown, blank cheques to prey upon consolidated

revenue was introduced. But what's happened, and why it's

necessary for the responsible Members of the opposition now to

begin to dig in their heels at every single

section of this

kind that begins to appear in the legislation and to vote

against the legislation itself whenever it appears, is that it

has become a widespread disease. There are now so many blank

cheques loose in the hands of Crown agencies and various

Ministers of the Crown that we are laying against ourselves a

very heavy debt for the future.

This year, Mr. Chairman, it's fine, because we are going to

have over $2 billion in revenue. That's what the people of

British Columbia are going to divvy up to this government and

there will be the surpluses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member did tell us

that he would raise a new point under this

section and so far

he has not done so. I would ask the Hon. Member if he has some

new point to raise relevant to this section….

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): He can raise anything he

likes. He doesn't have to raise a new one.

MR. McGEER: It's the drip, drip, drip of water on the hard,

hard stone. We've got to make this point about blank-cheque

legislation or one day, as the Member for South Peace River

said, that well is going to be dry. It's all very well in this

year when there's a bountiful harvest of money coming in

because of all the taxes the good citizens of British Columbia

are paying to this socialist government. But if we have Crown

agency after Crown agency with these kinds of sections in them,

what we have given out is a basketful of blank cheques. Mr.

Chairman, do you see the danger of that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I appreciate the Hon. Member's concern,

but we are in committee. I would ask him if he has no new point to raise under

section 4 that he take his seat; otherwise that he raise a new point

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's ridiculous!

MR. McGEER: Do you think it's wise to pass a

section like

this when there are so many others of a similar kind? How many

blank cheques do you think it's appropriate to give in one

year?

AN HON. MEMBER: In one session? In one week?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, the Members of this House have got

to sit and consider things like this.

Because if there are blank cheques….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have asked the Hon. Member to

raise a new point or else take his seat.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: There's no requirement in this House that we

pass onto a new point until we've made the previous one. Unless

I can see some glimmer of understanding in the eyes of those

cabinet Members over there as to what the path is in this

province, if we continue to have no restraints at all over the

spending of government revenues, if this Legislature is to

debate a budget which is a mockery, to pass legislation after

legislation giving any amount of money to any farm income plan

or to the Minister of Finance to buy any corporation….

Mr. Chairman, these Ministers are on a shopping spree with

the taxpayers' money. As the Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips) pointed out, the Minister of Agriculture wants to buy

his way out of trouble. The Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. Mr. Williams) wishes to buy any number of

businesses. He got a taste of it when he was managing

condominiums.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would draw the attention of the Hon. Member

section 43, the

section on debate, which states that the

Member is out of order if he persists in irrelevance or in

tedious repetition, either of his own argument or of tedious

arguments used by other Members in the debate. Now the point

I've made is that the Hon. Member is….

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: …on what's tedious and what's brilliant

because….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's important that we make the

vital points in this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member be seated, please?

MR. McGEER: Now just a minute, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Chairman is making a ruling. You have to

sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member be seated, please?

There are two points I'd like to make. The first is that the

debate is to be strictly relevant to this

[ Page 671 ]

particular

section and is not to debate again the principle

of the bill. This point was debated during the consideration of

the second reading.

The second point is that he should not repeat repetitiously

the arguments that have already been presented. On both grounds

I am ruling that he is out of order and I would ask the Hon.

Member to raise a new point.

Point of order?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The

problem is this, that we cannot pass over a certain point and

then you rule all other discussion of it out of order and at

the same time fulfill our responsibilities to our constituents.

Now, as you know, you're a minister of the church, Mr.

Chairman, not yet a Minister of the Crown. And the way you're

going, you may not make it. But you're a minister of the

church. I'd like to refer you to St. Luke, 15, and if you like

I'll read it to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will you state your point of

order, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Yes, it's this, that even the good Lord

himself had to repeat three times the story of the lost coin,

the lost….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now, what are we to do? We have an

excellent precedent and it's Luke, 15. Would you like me to

quote it to you?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Even the good Lord rejects the

Liberal Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Hon. Member has made his

point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, no, no, Mr. Chairman. There's the

lost son. You know the story of the lost son?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria be

seated, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What I'm suggesting to you is this, that

sometimes, when you're dealing with dense people, it is

necessary to repeat a story a number of times in different

guises so that they finally come around.

AN HON. MEMBER: We keep on telling the Liberals.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We here are quite willing to spend our

time….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Second Member for Victoria be

seated? Now the point I have made again is that an Hon. Member,

during debate, may not repeat repetitiously the arguments of

others, and also that the discussion must be strict.; relevant

to the point under debate. I ruled that the Hon. First Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was out of order on both

counts. I will allow the Hon. Member to proceed if he can raise

a new point.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, you know, during committee we're

entitled to speak on a particular

section as often as we desire

to speak and the

section does not pass.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that the Hon. Member is

correct, providing that you are not repetitious.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I haven't had nearly enough

opportunity to make this point 67 times and I've not used

tedious and repetitious language. What I've tried to do is to

develop different illustrations centering around the general

theme.

Now Mr. Chairman, the problem is that there is only one

point in

section 4, that point being that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has free reign on the Treasury.

And in order to make that point you have to use these vivid

illustrations of the various things that he can do. You see,

Mr. Chairman, it's like asking for the keys to the Treasury and

being handed a shovel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In that case I would ask the Hon. Member to

take his seat.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I think that I'm beginning to make

my point now. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member to take his

seat.

MR. McGEER: I'm not going to try the Chair, but I would ask

that we vote against this particular section. (Laughter.)

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Under this very

precise section, Mr. Chairman, the government is really, inch

by inch and hour by hour, emasculating the due concepts of the

parliamentary process. And what the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. Williams) valiantly attempted to do

with his amendment was return to

[ Page 672 ]

British Columbia the proper function of this Legislature.

Under this section, Mr. Chairman, what the government is doing

essentially is designating — which is their favorite word — the

duties and the functions and the responsibilities of the

elected representatives unto cabinet. We may as well, if this

process is going to continue in other sections, such as under

this one, just have one holus bolus, omnipotent and omnibus

bill giving all power unto the government's cabinet to raise

money, to spend money for what, when, how, if, as and when

cabinet and only cabinet considers necessary. You don't find

under this section….

HON. MR. BARRETT: Will you put that in writing?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, the Premier thinks that he'd like to have

that, He'd like to have an omnibus bill and we'd have one day a

year of session. This is the type of regulated economy that the

socialists wish to bring in to the Province of British

Columbia. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is nodding

his head. He's definitely in accord. So that we've certainly

got two; we've got one Waffle and one pancake agreeing with my

premise. Apart from that the others are sort of riding a little

bit of the rail over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I do not wish to be unkind to

the Hon. Member, but I would also have to rule him out of order

on the same grounds as the previous speaker.

MR. GARDOM: Under this section, Mr. Chairman, I defy you to

inform me where there's any degree of government

accountability. Surely to goodness it's in order to draw that

fact to the attention of the people of this province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If I have made the point that

this point has been well made by previous members, then it

should not be tediously and repetitiously repeated.

MR. GARDOM: Well, if its been well made, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to

see that. Because at long last we're perhaps getting the message across to at

least one Member of the government side that the point has been well made. But

it doesn't seem to have been well made by the remainder of the government Members.

If we're going to continue on with sections such as

section 4, we may as well

just close this place up, forget about accountability, have one session a year

and go to the public only at the time of election and say, "Okay. Now you've

got your opportunity to approve of what government has done. If you like us

vote us back in; and if you do not like us, vote us back out." Because what

we have here is the destruction of the parliamentary process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the Hon. Member will vote against

the section.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): So far, I hope I'm in

order. (Laughter.)

I do think in listening to the debate that you have been a

little over-zealous in exercising your duty in your capacity as

Chairman of committee, because it is hard to debate

section 4

without referring to the preoccupation of the government with

supplying blank cheques for different departments. Now the purpose of this particular

section of the bill is to

provide the appropriation to the Minister of Agriculture to

administer a farm income plan. It spells out nothing in detail

except that revenue will be appropriated. It gives no ballpark

figures or any sum of money. I think it's right in this

particular

section for us to question, not only the amount of

funds that the Minister will require, but it's also right for

us to question what we really are talking about when we say a

farm income plan.

A farm income plan, according to the

interpretation of the

Act says, "a plan howsoever described and provided in any way

for paying of money." Now if that isn't the broadest of terms,

I don't know what is. I don't think it is possible, Mr.

Chairman, for anyone to describe in any broader terms than

that, the power that is included in this Act. Unfortunately,

it's not the only Act by far that we have experienced coming

before this Legislature.

That is why we're concerned about this kind of legislation.

That is why, while the plan of income assurance is good, we

will not support

section 4. It is blank-cheque legislation to a

Minister who obviously is trying to bail himself out of a hole

that he placed himself in with Bill 42.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, in this

section 1 want to point

out in all sincerity to the government that you could be

dealing with a vast amount of money. Nobody knows how much

money. The world of finance is very foreign to the socialist

hordes over there. They're not aware that there must be checks

and balances in the spending of public funds. There must be

checks and balances in politics.

What they are doing here, they're asking for the blank

cheque, but they're taking out all the checks against how much

money is going to be written in where it says to pay that

amount of money to the order of, So there is no balance. They

are asking for a blank cheque. The check should be here in

the

[ Page 673 ]

Legislature on how much that cheque is going to be for so

that we can check the balance. But the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett), who is foreign to his new job — I think

he's alienated from it….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I've listened very patiently to

you. So far, you have not yet raised a new point under this

section. If there is not a new point to raise, I'd ask you to….

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Minister of Finance is getting my

point, Mr. Chairman. He knows that under this particular

section we could in essence have the cheapest apples in the

world, because the Minister of Finance is given a complete

blank cheque to go out and finance apple growers by the

taxpayers of British Columbia.

He doesn't ask us how much he's going to subsidize the apple

growers, how much the apples are going to sell for. It could be

the same with beef; it could be the same with any product that

is grown here or produced in British Columbia that has to do

with agriculture. And this Legislature is going to have no say

whatsoever. So we might end up with the cheapest food in

British Columbia. Then people would come here from all over

Canada to buy our food. Because this is exactly what this

section allows the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

to do. There is no check or balance in this section, Mr.

Chairman. You know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is debating the

principle of the bill. The point you're making could be….

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not debating the principle of the bill.

I'm debating….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point that you're making

should properly be considered under debate on second reading on

the principle of the bill. Now if you have no new comments to

make under

section 4, as properly provided for in committee, I

would ask the Hon. Member to be seated.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just allow me to say that I'm

hurt that you would cut off my microphone.

MR. McGEER: I noticed that button, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, that's very cruel!

MR. PHILLIPS: My microphone is turned off when I'm trying to save the

taxpayers of British Columbia their money, I'm trying to keep this Legislature

going, I'm trying to keep the checks and balances in this Legislature and my

microphone is turned off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Praise the mike.

MR. PHILLIPS: How can I do my duty to the people of this

great province when they cut off my microphone?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: How are they going to hear me with my

microphone cut off?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Members be seated please, on both sides of the House? Order, please! Would the Hon. Members be seated?

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn him on.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm distressed that you

would not accept my references to Luke, 15, also found in Mark

and Matthew as well about the lost coin, lost son and of course

the lost sheep. I think you could, Mr. Chairman, as a minister

of the Anglican Church, perhaps go home this evening and study

the Bible a little closer.

Now, Mr. Chairman, having quoted the Bible, I will quote Mr.

Chief Justice McRuer of Ontario who noted that "excessive

and/or unnecessary power conferred on public authorities

corrupts and destroys democratic institutions and gives life to

all forms of tyranny, some petty and some extreme." And that's

the type of excessive power that we're talking about today.

Now I'd like to quote something not quoted before from a

report by 28 of the 31 full-time members of the UBC law faculty

of last year. They were referring to another piece of

legislation, but their quote is appropriate to us today. What

they said was:

"Our system of public administration has evolved along lines

which recognize the need for administrative decision-making to

take place in an environment of articulated principles and

standards. Administrative decisions are subject to review if

the decision-makers disregard those principles or standards or

if the decision-maker allows factors to affect his judgment

which are irrelevant to the principles and standards that he is

directed to apply."

Now, it continues:

"Legislation which fails to include standards or principles

but confers an absolute discretion on the decision-maker,

constitutes a frontal attack on the system of public

administration and represents a major threat to the rule of law

and

[ Page 674 ]

to any idea of decency in public affairs."

That was the statement of 28 of 31 full-time faculty members

of the UBC Law School.

It was quoted to this Legislature on March 21, 1972. It was

quoted to this Legislature in reference to another piece of

legislation which was granting essentially the same type of

dictatorial powers to Ministers of the Crown, namely

An Act to

Amend the Social Assistance Act of that session. And the person

who quoted it to this Legislature was none other than the Hon.

Premier, whose views in the last 18 months have done a complete

about-face on the issue of administrative powers being granted

Ministers of the Crown.

I would just like to refresh your mind, Mr. Chairman; both

you and I were not Members of the assembly at that time. I'd

like to say a few words about the bill at that time as far as

it applies to the present bill that we're discussing,

specifically of course to

section 4. And I'm delighted to find

that you have finally not cut off a Member of the opposition from

speaking, Mr. Chairman. It makes me feel that the one lost sheep is

perhaps straying back to the

fold.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I was anticipating that the

Hon. Member is going to introduce a new point, so we were

waiting with great interest. However, I would draw to his

attention the fact that as of 1967 I am not gazetted as an

Anglican minister. I was ordained as an Anglican minister but

I'm not presently one. I just want to set the record straight

on that matter.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's no point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm not too sure, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps

you'll clarify: have you been defrocked or not? (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ask the Bishop of Cariboo.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was in jest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll ask the Hon. Member to return to his new

point.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we'll leave that interesting

possibility to another time. (Laughter.)

We were talking at that time in this Legislature about

welfare recipients and, how they became entirely dependent

upon one man, namely the former Minister involved, Phil

Gaglardi. Member after Member of the NDP got up. I have here in

front of me all the quotes. They're all underlined and I'll

read them all into the record for you.

HON. MR. HALL: You're out of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not out of order, Mr. Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall). It's not out of order. We're

discussing the same points now as we were discussing them. You,

by your facetious comments….

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

the Chair? And would the other Hon. Members not interrupt the

speaker, please?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the Hon. Provincial

Secretary has shown by his facetious remark exactly the

difference that's come over the government in the last 18

months — 18 months ago, defenders of the principle of having

legislation spell out duties of Ministers; 18 months ago, no

blank-cheque legislation. But, boy! These people have learned

one thing, Mr. Chairman. They've learned a tremendous amount

from the previous government. Indeed, the pupil has far

exceeded the master in this respect.

The pupil has now become the absolute expert on the question

of putting forward legislation granting wide powers, unlimited

powers in the financial field, unlimited control over the

agricultural community, which in effect makes them much more

subservient to a Minister than in the previous legislation

where the welfare recipient was subservient to that Minister.

Under this legislation they're far worse off. They literally

have to come on bended knee for what they can get from the

Minister for their income. Here we have this report on the

assembly of last year, which the previous government was kind

enough to institute, the Hansard . We have this report of what

was said, and we have the statements by the Hon. Premier.

Let me just look for a moment, Mr. Chairman, for the Hon.

Provincial Secretary. He had some things to say, I believe, and

if you give me a moment, I'll find them.

Perhaps the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke) should go

first. He's saying how terrible it was that they're not

entitled now to even consideration unless the Minister feels

they're in line in his judgment. No standards, he says, and yet

what are we passing today? What's in

section 4? This same type

of no-standard legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member is

continuing an argument which has already been canvassed

thoroughly in this House. I wou