1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3103 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Unauthorized expenditures by rent review commission. Mr. Bennett

— 3103

Share ownership in ferry company. Mr. Gibson — 3103

Government responsibility in oil spill cleanups. Mr. Wallace — 3104

Interim supply requirements. Hon. Mr. Barrett answers — 3105

Regulation of retirement homes. Mr. McGeer — 3105

Cost of options on Surrey refinery land. Mr. McClelland — 3105

Issuance of driver's certificates. Mr. Schroeder — 3106

Emergency hearing-aid device. Mrs. Jordan — 3106

Agricultural Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 126). Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction

and first reading — 3106

British Columbia Ombudsman Act (Bill 128). Mr. Gardom. Introduction and first

reading — 3106

Royal Roads Military College Degrees Act (Bill 12). Second reading.

Mr. Gorst

— 3106

B.C. Recycling Corporation Act (Bill 13). Second reading.

Mr. Steves —

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3108

B.C. Coastal Zone Commission Act (Bill 14). Second reading.

Mr. Steves —

Industrial Development Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Mr. Kelly

— 3108

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3108

Affirmative Action Plan Act (Bill 16). Second reading.

Mr. Skelly —

Tenants' Collective Bargaining Rights Act (Bill 17). Second reading.

Mr. Skelly

— 3109

Citizens' Initiative Act (Bill 34). Second reading.

Mr. Bennett —

Public Bodies Information Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 44). Second reading.

Mr.

McClelland — 3111

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3111

Resource Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 37). Second reading.

Mr. Bennett —

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3112

Municipal Consultation Act (Bill 38). Second reading.

Mr. Bennett —

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3112

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 40). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs.

Dailly — 3113

Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill 4 1). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom

— 3113

Restraint on Speculation Act (Bill 47). Second reading.

Mrs. Jordan —

An Act to Repeal the Mineral Royalties Act (Bill 49). Second reading.

Mr. Gibson

— 3115

Mr. Speaker rules out of order — 3119

Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 83). Second reading.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly —

Savings and Trust Corporation of British Columbia Act (Bill 86). Committee

stage.

On the amendment to

section 3.

Mr. Phillips — 3125

Mr. Chairman rules out of order — 3128

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 3128

section 3.

Mr. Phillips — 3129

THURSDAY, JUNE 5, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

I have two friends sitting in the gallery with my wife today, Mrs. Hemphill

from Vancouver and Mrs. Williams from Sidney. It's their first visit to the

House, so I hope you will give them a warm welcome.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, there are three

people in the gallery today from Port Alberni — Mr. Peter

Robertson, his wife Betty and their son Drew. I would like the

Members to give them a warm welcome.

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

Speaker, in the gallery today we have the second group of

students from Moscrop junior high school in Burnaby, along with

their teachers, Miss Pursitch, Mr. Waters and Mr. Axford. I

would ask the assembly to join with me in welcoming them to

Victoria.

Presenting reports.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Mr.

Speaker, I have the honour to present the first annual report

of the British Columbia Development Corp.

Oral questions.

UNAUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES BY

RENT REVIEW COMMISSION

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): To the Premier

as president of the Treasury Board: has the Treasury Board been

advised by the office of the comptroller-general, under

section 31 of the Audit Act, with respect to any unauthorized

expenditures?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental. Has the Premier, as president

of the Treasury Board, initiated any investigation of the

reported statements by an official in the office of the

comptroller-general to the effect that there is no

authority for expenditures incurred by the rent review

commission?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have not seen a statement.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplemental. If I send the statement

over, would the Premier be prepared to...?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, with the name of the staff person as

well. Send it over and I'll look at it.

SHARE OWNERSHIP IN FERRY COMPANY

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): A question

to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. In his

capacity as a director of a private company named B.C.

Steamship Co., 1975, Ltd., with head office c/o Department of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, is he the owner of his

share in this company outright, or is there a declaration of

trust, with respect to some government agency, and, if so,

which agency?

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

Trust, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Supplementary. A declaration of trust with which

agency of the government?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Further supplementary. I wonder if the Minister

could tell us whether B.C. Steamship Co., 1975, Ltd. owns the

Princess Marguerite or, if it does not own the Princess

Marguerite, whether there is an agreement between that company

and the owner of the ship for its operation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'll take that as notice, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): On the same

subject, to the same Minister, I wonder if the Minister would

be able to tell the House if shareholders in British Columbia

Steamship Co., 1975, Ltd. include also the following

individuals: James H. Gorst, Mr. Harry Tyson, John Maynard

Webster and Norman Pearson?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, and all

of these are in trust, pending legislation.

MR. CURTIS: On the same subject, to the same Minister. The

question of insurance must be in the Minister's mind at this

time or, if not in his, at least in his department advisers'.

I'm sorry the Minister finds it humorous. In the event —

and we hope it is not the case — of some claim, with this

ship in limbo at the moment, with shares in trust, and with

nothing

[ Page 3104 ]

before this Legislature establishing a public company, what

provision has been made for protection of the travelling public

and employees of the vessel in question?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I honestly can't help but wonder, Mr.

Speaker, whether this is just mischievousness on the part of

the Member for Saanich or not. In fact, we have a great success

on our hands. It seems the opposition Members find difficulty

accepting that success. The details will be provided to the

House, and I will have to take specifics of that nature on

notice.

MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Speaker, can the Minister assure us

that all insurance matters relating to the movement of this

ship, carrying of passengers and crew and shore side personnel

are well in hand?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We have hired the most qualified people

in British Columbia to do the job, and that's why it's been

done. That's why it was completed in record time. I can only

assume that the man who was in charge of coastal steamships for

the Canadian Pacific for decades, in fact, has carried out

everything in these areas, as well as all the other areas that

I am aware that he has carried out his duties so well

within.

MR. CURTIS: On the same subject, is the Premier and Minister

of Finance unconcerned about the fact that at the moment the

British Columbia Steamship Co., 1975, Ltd. is comprised of

individuals which include Members of this Legislature, with

shares in trust, as the Minister indicated a few minutes ago?

Is the Premier unconcerned that legislation has not been

presented to this Legislature, in view of the fact that as far

as we are able to determine the government has been a least

party to an agreement for purchase since very early April of

this year, some two months ago?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, The House is still in

session. We're doing a great deal of work, and the legislation

will be introduced. Our purpose was to save the downtown

businessmen of Victoria, and we've achieved that purpose.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You're interfering with question

period.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): They're interfering

with question period by not answering the questions!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Disregard for the Legislature!

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

IN OIL SPILL CLEANUPS

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'd like to ask the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, with regard to the oil

slick which has developed on Mill Bay shoreline, about the

statement by Mr. Rodway, the Vancouver Island zone

co-ordinator for the provincial emergency programme, to

the effect that oil washed up on a beach is the responsibility

of the local government. In fact he made the statement, I believe, that

the provincial government.... "We don't have any equipment," he said,

"but we know where the equipment is." In light of these statements, I

wonder if the Minister can say if there is a clear delineation of

responsibility regarding oil spills, and

if Mr. Rodway was accurate in stating that the federal government is

responsible for oil spills of known origin before they hit the beach

but local government is responsible for beach cleanup.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The provincial emergency preparedness

programme — I believe that is the term — is under

the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall),

and I presume that's a staff member of his.

MR. WALLACE: Well, would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, just

quickly to ask the Provincial Secretary to save time and answer

the question now?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I don't have the answers in the

detail that I think you would require, Mr. Member. I'll look into some of that

jurisdictional material for you. I anticipated a question on the Mill Bay oil

spill. We've spoken to Mr. Symington, the administrator of the Cowichan Valley

Regional District. Mr. Rodway, who is our staff person, has handed Mr. Symington

a written guarantee that we will pay the cost of the oil spill, approximately

$6,000, and get on with the work. We've assured everybody, and I have been assured

by my staff, that the action will take place immediately, and Mr. Rodway will

be there to give Mr. Symington any advice. I've informed the Minister's executive

assistants just before I came in the House — I was in a different place earlier

on. We're in control of the situation. The details of jurisdiction I'll answer

later on.

[ Page

3105 ]

MR. WALLACE: Could I just have a quick supplementary asking

if the Minister has any plans for meetings with the federal

authorities? In Oak Bay we've had a real problem that when the

oil gets on the beach the federal government claims it doesn't

know where it came from, and doesn't accept responsibility. The

provincial government hasn't responsibility. And Oak Bay

doesn't have the money to pay for the cleanup. So are there

meetings?

HON. MR. HALL: There are ongoing meetings with the federal

authorities and with American authorities.

INTERIM SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took as notice a

question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

concerning interim supply. I've been advised by the Finance

department officials that the interim supply bill is sufficient

until Monday, June 9. I would ask the House to consider further

supply, based on the direction from the Whips, at that

time.

MR. BENNETT: Just a supplemental. Then there has been no

problem in the government meeting its required programmes

because the debate of the Legislature on estimates wasn't

concluded?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the government's departments

have been granted by this House expenditures based on the

budget commitments for two months as agreed by the House in

interim supply, and interim supply will have to be added to on

Monday, as I said, by an agreement between the Whips.

MR. BENNETT: A further supplemental about some government

departments. By letter a citizen had accused several

departments of offering as an excuse that the estimates weren't

passed. Has the Premier investigated that some government

departments may be giving the wrong reason for programmes being

curtailed?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I haven't seen the letters or

complaints.

REGULATION OF RETIREMENT HOMES

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

of Health. Is he aware that since retirement homes do not come under the Landlord

and Tenant Act, these retirements homes are now refusing to pay interest on

funds held in trust, and that the retirement homes are not only demanding a

month in advance, whether or not the month is served out, but refusing to pay

interest? If he is aware, is he prepared to do anything about it?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it's

obviously outside my jurisdiction. Our Community Care Licensing

Facility Act sets standards. We don't set rates; nor do we on

the other hand have anything to do with the amortization of

retirement....

MR. McGEER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister

advise whose jurisdiction it should come under, and whether

he'd be prepared to state his policy on that to the Minister

involved?

HON. MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that an informed

Member of this House could very well ascertain where to get that information,

and I suspect that he knows perfectly well. If he doesn't, let him read the

statutes.

COST OF OPTIONS ON

SURREY REFINERY LAND

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, a question to

the Attorney-General regarding the land purchases in

Surrey for the refinery project. Could the

Attorney-General tell us what the total cost of the

options which were not picked up will be for the government?

There were 1,400 acres optioned; only 325 acres were picked

up.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I'd have to

take that as notice.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, could I

ask the Minister whether he would assure the House that on the

options that were picked up the government will pay full

municipal taxes, including general and education?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That question is futuristic.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, Mr. Speaker! I'm just asking the

Minister a matter of common interest. The government owns that

property now, and it obviously has tax notices in its hand for

those properties. Will the government pay taxes on that

land?

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member asking what advice the

Minister proposes to give the Crown or has given the Crown?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I was just asking the Minister whether

or not the B.C. Petroleum Corp. will pay full municipal taxes

on property which it has bought this month.

[ Page 3106 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think it states in our rules that to ask what

advice a Minister proposes to give the Crown is not

permitted.

MR. McCLELLAND: They own the property now. Either they're going to

pay taxes, or they won't. One of the two.

ISSUANCE OF DRIVER'S CERTIFICATES

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): My question is the for

Minister of Transport and Communications, as president of the

insurance corporation. Has the corporation sent out any

directives to any of the motor vehicle branches to cease the

issuance of drivers' certificates as of today?

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

Communications) : The corporation has no authority to send any

directives to the motor vehicle branch.

MR. SCHROEDER: Does the Minister have any knowledge, then,

of issuance of instructions from the corporation to motor

vehicle branches that as of today drivers' certificates shall

no longer be issued?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I repeat: the corporation has no

authority to issue any directions to the motor vehicle

branch.

MR. SCHROEDER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the

Minister take every step necessary to ensure that the

difficulties presently being experienced by the driving schools

in the issuance of drivers' licences and drivers' certificates

will no longer be incurred?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I will take every step possible, yes.

EMERGENCY HEARING-AID DEVICE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Hon. Minister of Health. Is the Minister aware of a new device developed in

Ontario which allows people with severe hearing problems, those who are deaf

and deaf mutes, to communicate on the telephone in emergency situations and

other areas? If the answer is yes, will the Minister's department make every

effort to supply this device, which costs in the neighbourhood of $100, to doctors,

hospitals, fire stations, police stations, ambulance areas and various other

agencies serving the deaf people of this province?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the device, but

I will certainly have the department look into it.

Introduction of bills.

AGRICULTURAL STATUTES

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agricultural

Statutes Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 126 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.

BRITISH COLUMBIA OMBUDSMAN ACT

On a motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 128, British Columbia

Ombudsman Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

Orders of the day.

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

public bills in the hands of private Members. Adjourned debate

on second reading of Bill 12.

ROYAL ROADS MILITARY

COLLEGE DEGREES ACT

(continued)

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased

indeed today to be able to move second reading of Bill 12, the

Royal Roads Military College Degree Act. I would just like to

say that Royal Roads Military College, which is located in the

greater Victoria area at Colwood, in my riding, presently

offers instruction in the first two years of university

training. Cadets then normally go from there to complete their

degrees at either the Royal Military College of Canada at

Kingston or at Le College Militaire Royal de St. Jean at

Quebec.

AN HON. MEMBER: Qu'est-ce que c'est que ça?

MR. GORST: Merci. (Laughter.)

The Canadian government intends to extend the programme at

Royal Roads so that a cadet may complete the undergraduate

degree at Royal Roads College. The purpose of this bill is to

make it clear to those prospective cadets that their degrees,

the first of which would be conferred in 1977, will be

recognized and authorized by the Province of British

Columbia.

I would just like to say a few words on how Royal Roads

College came into being and some of the

[ Page

3107 ]

background. Royal Roads is now located on what was formerly

the estate of James Dunsmuir. It was named Hatley Park. As the

Members of this House probably know, James Dunsmuir was elected

to this Legislature in 1898, just one year after this building

opened, and served as Premier here from 1900 to 1902. He

subsequently served a three-year term as

Lieutenant-Governor of British Columbia. The main

building of Royal Roads, which is known as Hatley Castle, was

designed by the famous architect Samuel McClure who designed

many fine homes and buildings in the Victoria and Vancouver

areas.

In November, 1940, the Royal Roads property was purchased by

naval training establishment, later becoming, in 1968, what we

know today as Royal Roads College.

I understand from my communications with the responsible

people of the Department of National Defence that the degree

programme which Royal Roads intends to offer will be of

interest to all people of western Canada as well as British

Columbia. That programme will be science-oriented to

oceanography, meteorology, climatology and marine physics, with

a special study of pollution and its control. The course will

constitute a unique programme in environmental science with a

strong emphasis on physical ocean science, all of which will be

useful to the future sea and air environments. The graduates

will constitute a valuable pool of experts to serve Canada and

the west coast in particular in that discipline.

At the present time there are about 250 students enrolled at

Royal Roads plus 150 civilian employees. With passage of this

bill, the college will expand by a further 250 students plus a

considerable number of additional employees and so begin a $14

million building and expansion programme which will bring

significant economic benefits to the provincial capital

district.

I would like to say that in discussions with the Department

of National Defence spokesmen I am informed that they concur

with the presentation of this bill. I ask the Members of this

House to give it their full support.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for

Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst) for bringing forward this bill and for

the very concise explanation of the purpose of the bill which

he has presented for consideration of the House. I wish to

inform the House that the government is very willing to proceed

with this bill and will be prepared, as government, to work

towards the carrying forward of this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for Esquimalt closes the debate.

MR. GORST: With the words of the Minister, I would let the Minister

close the debate.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) was obviously not listening, because the

Hon. Member (Mr. Gorst) who introduced the bill said that he

stood to move second reading. Consequently there is a motion

before the House for second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 12, Royal Roads Military College Degrees Act, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

B.C. RECYCLING CORPORATION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond adjourned the

debate.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Well, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to

be able to rise in my place again on this fine bill. In the

time since we discussed the bill last I have had an opportunity

to discuss this piece of legislation with a number of Ministers

of the Crown. The Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

has been working out some recycling programmes and carrying on

some experimental work — some in Richmond actually. He is

preparing to carry out recycling in public buildings in

Kamloops and hopes that this will be successful.

Some of the other Ministers I have talked to have suggested

that many of the principles contained in this bill will be

carefully studied and some of them instituted, and hopefully

all of them. Therefore I would like to withdraw this bill, Mr.

Speaker, and keep a close watch on what the cabinet does with

it over the coming year in the hope that we might see a

programme of recycling initiated in the province in the near

future.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Member knows that once a bill

is on the floor, it is the property of the House. There would

have to be the consent of the House to withdraw it. I'll ask

leave of the House that the Member's bill be withdrawn.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a no, so therefore the bill is still

before the House.

[ Page 3108 ]

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would rise on a point

of order that the bill is out of order in the hands of a

private Member.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 13 provides for in the fifth paragraph: "... authority for the corporation that is to be set up to

buy, sell or otherwise deal in waste materials; to build,

purchase, lease or otherwise acquire, operate and dispose of

facilities to do research, develop methods," and so on.

Consequently, no matter how laudable the purposes are, of

course, I think the Hon. Members know that under standing order

67 it shall not be lawful for the House to adopt or pass any

bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue

without having it first recommended to the House by message of

the Lieutenant-Governor. Consequently, the Hon. Member

would be out of order if he insisted on second reading since I

must rule it out of order when it is drawn to my attention.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 14.

B.C. COASTAL ZONE COMMISSION ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: I think it was the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) who adjourned

the debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, Richmond.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member for Richmond adjourned the

debate in closing.

MR. STEVES: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't think this bill would

be out of order. It costs in the neighbourhood of a few

thousand dollars.

The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon.

R.A. Williams) has been carrying on some resource management in

the area of coastal zoning in the province through the resource

management committees in the various resource management areas

in the province. While this is not right along the lines of the

coastal zoning bill, as I have suggested, he has assured me

that in the next couple of years — in fact, in the next

year — they will make some decisions as to whether they

should go the line of expanding the resource management teams

in the coastal area, or going along the lines of a coastal

management authority, as I have suggested in this bill.

I don't know whether I would get this again or not, because probably some of

the opposition Members wouldn't want to see this bill withdrawn, but in light

of the Minister's assurance that this will be studied, I would try again for

withdrawal of the bill so that we can have that study by the Lands, Forests

and Water Resources department over the coming year to determine which route

we should go. I would ask leave of the House to withdraw this bill.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 15.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) adjourned the debate. Is there

any further debate on the bill since he is not in the

House?

The Hon. Member for Omineca closes the debate.

MR. D.T. KELLY (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, I'm also very proud

to have my bill come on the floor once more. I was indeed very

pleased at the support I received from the First Member for

Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). I know that the name of the bill isn't

that impressive, but I can't really be too subdued in terms of

trying to get the support I really need in terms of getting a

bill such as this brought in as legislation at some time in the

future. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave of the House to have

the bill withdrawn.

Leave not granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't know whether a Member has to explain

why he wants a bill withdrawn. He can ask leave and if anyone

refuses to grant leave, then the matter will proceed with the

question. In this case there can't be a question because the

Speaker has the duty to draw to the attention of the House,

before putting a vote to second reading, under standing orders,

whether the bill is in order. In looking at the bill, I find

that it leaves open what amounts to an impost upon the people,

that is, those who may be required "...that lands flooded or

to be flooded shall be logged off by the beneficiary of the

agreement."

It's obvious that that will be an impost on a group of

individuals pointed out in this amendment. Consequently, under

standing order 67 it appears to be out of order, because no

private Member, without the sanction of the Crown, could impose

an obligation that amounts to a very heavy obligation

presumably in some cases to log off land at what may be

tremendous costs to the individual concerned. Therefore I would

have to say that it does appear to violate standing order 67

and therefore would be out

[ Page

3109 ]

of order in the hands of a private Member without further

sanction from the Crown.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 16.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member (Ms. Brown) is not in the

House. I wonder if we could get leave of the House to have it

stood over. It would have to be by leave.

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

Hon. Member for Burrard, I ask that the bill be stood over.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: On the order paper. Well, the Hon. Member isn't

here to move it, and it cannot be moved by someone else under

our rules.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 17.

TENANTS COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING RIGHTS ACT

(continued)

MR. SPEAKER: The same situation?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

MR. SKELLY: On behalf of that Hon. Member, I would ask that

this bill be stood over on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill

CITIZENS' INITIATIVE ACT

(continued)

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

second reading, I'd like to point out that in these days of big government,

big labour and big business, the ordinary citizens often feel a sense of frustration

that they can't participate in the decision-making. We know that many of them,

for obvious reasons, may be denied because they are not a member or on the executive

of a union, or are not a shareholder or on management of a big company. But

we should recognize that they are being denied participation within the framework

of government.

Free government and democracy over the years have tried to

involve the rights of the citizen and the rights of parliament.

Indeed, we have such things as private Member's days and we

have the right to petition the Crown. But these petitions are

non-debatable as they are introduced. As we have

realized, private Member's day is not necessarily called. Most

bills die on the order paper. Indeed, many are never called for

discussion and debate.

The ordinary citizen, who might use a Member of this House

to promote a very real concern, is denied public discussion of

a very real problem or a very real concern that should be

debated by society. Yet the government of the day may feel it

embarrassing to discuss such an initiative and the Legislature

then may be denied the opportunity.

This bill, called the Citizens' Initiative Act, would

guarantee provision for debate in the Legislature when enough

concerned citizens, who are among the registered voters of this

province, will sign a petition. The figure that is mentioned in

this bill is 10 per cent. So if 10 per cent of the registered

voters in this province sign a petition over an issue about

which they feel strongly, an issue that should be debated in

the Legislature and some public position taken by their elected

representative, then I believe we would be serving the

continuing expansion of the democratic process.

That is what this bill asks for: that we will allow, by a

petition of 10 per cent, this very debate to take place. The

debate must be called within 10 days of the introduction of

such a petition. The debate should not exceed three hours, so

it cannot be used as an instrument for either thwarting or

holding up the business of the government. But it will be

guaranteed within an immediate time frame, a time frame that

may be very necessary because of the type of issue that would

come up under such an initiative.

Here we are doing nothing more than guaranteeing the

citizens of this province a chance to give some direction for

debate in the Legislature. As I say, it cannot be used as an

instrument to frustrate the Legislature or to delay

proceedings, because in this bill we have put a time limit of

three hours.

From time to time, as strong public issues arise, the

citizens want to know how their elected representatives feel,

so we have put in the further provision that a vote must be

called at the end of three hours or whenever debate concludes.

In no way could such a vote be construed as a

non-confidence vote in the government — it must be

a free vote. But it would give every citizen who signs it, and

those citizens who are denied direct opportunity to speak in

this Legislature, an opportunity to know how their elected

representatives feel on that particular issue

[ Page 3110 ]

which they feel is so important at this time.

I think it would be a worthy part of the succession of

democratic reforms that have been brought into the Legislature

for citizen participation. It would guarantee them the right to

have public discussion and have the Legislature hold public

discussion over an issue of such importance. When we consider

that to achieve the signatures of 10 per cent of the

electorate would be a monumental task, I do not believe such an

initiative would be created frivolously. It would be an issue

of genuine concern. While it may not arise at every session or

every year, the instrument would always be there, the

initiative principle would always be there at a time when any

government is perhaps unresponsive to the electorate or perhaps

not listening to issues that should be discussed or debated,

and would allow our citizens to create a positive, affirmative

action of discussion in the Legislature. That is why I

introduced this bill, Mr. Speaker, and why I hope this

Legislature will pass this initiative.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member a serious

problem I have in regard to the bill?

MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been since 1699 that parliament has had

supremacy in the conduct of its own affairs within these four

walls. It gets messages from time to time from outside that

come in, royal messages, and these are given consideration. But

the Hon. Member is asking this House to alter its rules to have

the Crown decide what it does with its time.

If you look at the bill, it is asking the Crown to join in

and assent to in a bill what could be done by this House by its

own resolution, by changing its standing orders itself, and in

effect deciding how it will use its time without the

intervention, interference, or assent of any outside power.

What the Hon. Member is doing is asking this House to have

the Lieutenant-Governor assent to a right that has

belonged to this House since 1688. Looking at the bill, it

says: "The Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly...are

hereby amended by the addition of the following Standing Order

73(9) You are asking the Lieutenant-Governor to make our

standing orders for us by assenting to this as a bill and a

statute of the realm.

I suggest that this is a serious departure that this House should receive instructions

or, indeed, assent in the force of law in the hands of the Crown when it has

the powers within its own prerogatives to deal with this business as it chooses.

What could well be done by a motion is here inviting the Crown to interfere

in the regulation of the business of the House, because I point out it states:

"Upon a petition being certified pursuant to the provisions of

section 2, the

Clerk of the House shall" — must mandate — "assign to the petition a registration

number and shall" — mandate again — "forthwith cause it to be recorded in the

orders of the day."

So this bill or statute would not be possible to change.

Once it is put in this House and turned into a law, it could not

be changed without the assent of the Crown. You are therefore

surrendering to the Crown a right that it doesn't presently

have — in other words, the control of this House and its

time, its staff, its Clerks or its orders of the day.

In looking at paragraph 4, "The standing orders of the

Legislative Assembly are hereby amended" — that is the

Crown again. Once this bill is passed it has made standing

orders that this House would not be able to change without the

Crown assenting. You would therefore have given back to the

Crown something it didn't have back in 1688 in any British

Commonwealth country.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I think the Hon. Member, if he had not

been flat on his back for so long, would know that I've

indicated that the orders of the day include the hearing of all

the orders of business that relate to private Members' day.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Are you

feeling well?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm feeling fine. How are you feeling?

When you read the rest of the paragraph, it says: "The

Legislative Assembly shall allocate and undertake a debate of

the specific issues stated thereupon and how long the debate

shall last."

I would like to look at it further, because I point out

these difficulties if you are surrendering to the Crown rights

the Crown does not presently have, and we would never be able

to change them unless the Crown consented thereafter.

Do you want to consider the bill further, or do you want me

to...?

MR. BENNETT: Well, I'll consider it with you in chambers....

MR. SPEAKER: I will be glad to. Will the Hon. Member adjourn

debate, or speak on it?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I move adjournment of second reading of this bill until the

next sitting after today.

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned

[ Page 3111 ]

debate on second reading of Bill 44.

PUBLIC BODIES INFORMATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned

the debate on this bill you had said that you would like to

further consider this bill to see whether it was in order or

not.

I have no further comments on the bill. I would urge,

however, that the government take into account the various

areas in which it is intruding in the private sector

particularly, and the measures it is taking to involve public

money in the private sector and in other areas in which the

government has taken complete control, and assure this

Legislature that it will be accountable to the people who own

that money at all times. It is only through a bill such as

this, Mr. Speaker, that we can be assured that the government

will be fully accountable at all times, and that the government

will make sure that the books are open, the cards are on the table and the sun shines in.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I promised to look at the question

of whether the bill would be in order in its present shape. I

pointed out that it doesn't read coherently, entirely, because

of the changeover you have between certain Acts that are

stated, and then the names of certain companies, like Pacific

Poultry, South Peace Dehy Products, and so on.

Because of that I would have to rule that in its present

form it would offend against standing order 75, which says no

bill may be introduced either in blank or imperfect shape. I

hoped you would take the time perhaps to correct that, but you

haven't, so I will have to rule it out at this time.

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your

ruling, and I have a feeling that I may introduce it again in

the fall.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

RESOURCE REVENUE SHARING ACT

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the Resource Revenue

Sharing Act, it is a subject that has been much under discussion not only in

British Columbia but in Canada, particularly since the tax notices have come

out just recently in this province — tax notices which show that the municipalities,

starved from participating in the gross revenues of this province, have had

to put excessive increases on the property tax, their main source of revenue,

for financing the very important services they are called upon to perform for

our citizens.

As you know, there are many areas and the cost of growth of

municipal government is called upon to pay all the costs of

growth in the areas of accepting new housing, which is in a

crisis in this province, providing the services for that new

housing. They have been charged with the responsibility,

although the province is moving in on it, of rapid transit, and

they have been charged with many other responsibilities, all

reflecting to the high cost of the growth of an economy, and

yet their share of the revenue generated by that economy hasn't

risen at all.

Recently, in the last 10 years, we've seen the federal

government revenues rising between 12 and 15 per cent on an

average annual rate over the 10 years. We've seen this

provincial government's revenues rise by 25 to 30 per cent

annually. Yet the money we have expended to municipalities has

only risen by 6 per cent.

It's obvious to me, it's obvious to the municipalities and

it's certainly obvious to the taxpayers and the homeowners, who

have just received their tax bills, that the municipalities are

not getting an adequate share of the growth revenues of this

province, although they're being called upon to pay, in large

part, the costs of servicing that growth.

This bill guarantees to the municipalities that we will

allocate to them specific shares of the growth revenues —

that would be corporation taxes, income taxes, natural resource

revenues and sales taxes. These are the tax levels that reflect

the growth of the provincial economy, and these are the

revenues in which they should have a specific share as the

economy rises, or if, and I hope it never happens, the economy

falls.

The municipalities' revenue will rise and fall in concert

with that economy, not as they are now: a poor child of a

marriage that was Confederation in which the allocation of

revenues in this country, between federal and provincial, never

anticipated the growth of municipal government. It was never

anticipated that at one time in this country, and particularly

in this province, municipal government would in fact be charged

with providing the expensive services to the people they are

forced to.

We now have to realize that we cannot continue to squeeze

the same taxpayer over and over again, but we must allocate in

advance an adequate share of revenue to the different levels of

government, particularly the level of government that is the

closest to the people. And municipal government is the

government that is closest to the people. It is there; it's

responsive, and the public has direct access to it. I believe

we should recognize this fact and that we should pass this bill

that will guarantee to the municipalities a reflection in the

growth of the economy.

This revenue could be allocated in advance in

[ Page 3112 ]

consultation with the Minister of Finance, and would involve

a companion bill, which I hope to speak to later, that would

involve pre-budgetary conferences which would be

necessary for just such a bill to happen.

It takes the municipalities away from the position of being

in receipt of handouts at the whim of government. It gives them

the opportunity to more adequately plan their services, both on

the short and the long term. It gives them the opportunity, in

consultation with the government and the access to revenues

that they would have, to make decisions on a need basis rather

than the dollars-and-cents basis that they have

today.

Now municipalities reject housing. Why? Because it's a poor

provider of revenue; it's a poor tax base. Yet the very reason

the government is there is to serve the needs of people. But

they're forced, because they don't have the means of adequate

revenue, to make decisions on an improper basis.

It's time that this province and this country recognized the

needs of local government, municipal governments, and that we

can't predicate their financing on iffy financing, supposed

financing, handouts or some money that may come down the road.

They need to know in advance of their fiscal year. They need to

know the amounts of money they will have to spend because all

of them are very aware of the responsibilities they have to

solve, and the very high cost of solving those

responsibilities. Even with the high tax increases they are

passing along to the property owner this year, they are barely

able to meet the need of just existing services. None of them

are able to plan in advance and provide many of the services

that normally would be called essential. These increases are

only allowing the municipalities to stand pat.

So I urge the House to support this bill and this concept. I

urge it because it's most necessary. I urge it because

municipal government, and now the taxpayers themselves in

receipt of their property tax notices, are very aware of the

need for a more adequate and a more responsible means of

sharing revenues between municipal and provincial

governments.

MR. SPEAKER: I take it the Hon. Member moves second

reading.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, yes. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: At this stage I have to find, from the words of the Hon.

Member and from the document itself, that it would presume to take over a great

deal of the allocation of the public moneys of British Columbia in a way that

has not been recommended by message of the Lieutenant-Governor who, after

all, has the prerogative in dealing with those revenues.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You'll give the consent? You don't have the

royal look. (Laughter.)

In the circumstances, under standing order 67, I'd have to

rule it out of order, I'm sorry to say.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 38, Mr.

Speaker.

MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION ACT

(continued)

MR. BENNETT: In moving second reading, this is a companion

bill to the Resource Revenue Sharing Act, a companion bill that

would recognize the principle that not just sharing revenue

with local government should be our concern but, in fact,

sharing power. Powers that were utilized by governments in the

past — the responsibility without the power to enact

— are now the responsibility of the municipalities. This

bill, the Municipal Consultation Act, would guarantee that the

provincial government and the Minister of Finance would have,

by requirement, meetings twice a year, in predicting the growth

of the resource revenues and in allocating to the

municipalities the type of funding they might expect from the

growth revenues I indicated under the other bill so that they

could adequately plan their budgets for a fiscal year in

advance. This means in the fall of, for example, 1974, they

would meet and consult over the possible revenues that would be

available to them in 1975 so that they could adequately plan in

preparation for their budgets which they must bring down in the

fiscal year that starts January 1.

This bill would be necessary if this province and if the

government were prepared to recognize the very worthwhile

principle of revenue sharing, because hand in hand with it must

go the co-operation and the provision of this type of

co-operation through meetings between the Finance

Minister, the Government of British Columbia and the financial

officers of the municipalities. I move second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Any further debate? On this one, I think the

Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) was very alert to

spot the problem which is contained in paragraph 6 —

obviously they're caucused on this one; he knows what

it's about. "The cost of all proceedings pursuant to this Act

shall be funded from the consolidated general revenue." The

Hon. Member for Columbia River would be the first to tell you

that it is out of order under standing order 67. I must so

rule.

[ Page 3113 ]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member is not present. Is there anyone

who would ask that it be put over on the order paper?

HON. MRS. DAILLY : Mr. Speaker, I would so move.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 41.

RESTRICTION OF THE USE

OF SPRING TRAPS ACT

MR. GARDOM: In moving second reading, I would like to make a

few comments. The leg-hold trap was apparently first

invented in mediaeval England, where it was used to catch

poachers. It seemed that the poachers prospered far better than

the animals, because long ago the leg-hold trap was

banned for that first inhumane use.

The fear and pain that is inflicted by the leg-hold

trap is so intense that in many situations animals gnaw their

paws off to escape; others die of hunger, thirst or cold long

before the trapper returns. For so very, very long do so many

have to suffer. I would have to ask the question: do we have

laws requiring a regular inspection of traplines so the cruelty

period could be cut down? There are none that I know of.

I read with great interest a leaflet that is issued by the

Society for Animal Protective Legislation in Washington, D.C.,

and it states that Austria, Chile, Denmark, Norway,

Switzerland, West Germany and the United Kingdom have outlawed

the leg-hold trap, and only traps that kill immediately

or those that hold the animal unharmed are allowed. But, of

course, we find that in this country — and, I gather, at

the present time, in the United States — there is not

that kind of legislation. It is of interest to note that

there's a bill now before the House of Representatives in the

United States which was issued on January 14 of this year. I'd

just like to read the four sections of the bill to the Members

so they can appreciate what is being considered in other

areas.

"It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the United

States to discourage the manufacture, sale and use of

leg-hold or steel-jaw traps on animals in the

United States and abroad.

"No fur or leather, whether raw or in finished form, shall

be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce if such fur or leather comes from

animals trapped in any state of the union or any foreign country which has not

banned the manufacture, sale and use of leg-hold or steel-jaw traps."

Then there's a responsibility upon the Secretary of Commerce

to compile and publish and keep current a list of the states

of the union and foreign countries which have not banned the

manufacture, sale and use of leg-hold or stee-jaw

traps, and a very heavy penalty in the United States is being

proposed:

"Anyone shipping or receiving fur or leather in

contravention of

section 2 of the Act shall for the first

offence be fined not more than $2,000, for the second or

subsequent offence not more than $5,000, and shall be sentenced

to a jail term of one to three years."

This was introduced by Mr. Broomfield, and it has been

referred to the committee on interstate and foreign commerce.

So we can certainly see that the United States is becoming

active in the field, and we're most delighted to hear that.

We've got to follow the precept that right must be done, and

we've been extremely slow in this province. I was given some

clippings from as far back as 1944, wherein more humane

trapping was urged by the B.C. branch of the Association for

the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals, and they did so

again in a 1945 report, 30-odd years ago. In 1946 there

was a good report in the Daily Colonist with a plea for

the abolition of cruel trapping methods.

A very interesting report appeared in 1954 dealing with Mr.

Frank Conibear. This was in the Victoria Daily Colonist ,

dateline October 8, 1954. It says:

"A veteran northland trapper, haunted for years by the

cruelty of his trade, said in Victoria he was certain he had

perfected a sure-kill trap."

This is the statement that is most touching to the

conscience of Mr. Conibear:

"'You can't imagine,' he says, 'how cruel trapping with

steel traps can be. In some of those years we lost as many as

three out of four mink caught. They chewed themselves free and

then died in a hole. I used to be 10 days getting around my

lines,' he recalls. 'An animal caught in one of those traps

might take three or four days to die of pain or cold."'

So the object of my bill, Mr. Speaker, is to try to bring

inhumanity under control. The object of this bill is not to end

the trapping of animals. Many people would advocate that that

is very needful too, but that issue is not under debate in

front of this Legislature today. What is under debate under

this bill is to provide a mechanism, a control and a procedure

to attempt to eliminate a series of so far unrectified but

continuing cruelties. The object of the bill is a call to

conscience much along the lines of the statement of that great

humanitarian, Albert

[ Page 3114 ]

Schweitzer, who said: "We need a boundless ethic which will

include the animals also."

The concept here is to provide a power to the Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford) to first

determine that which could be considered an approved trap. That

calls for research; it calls for expertise; it calls for

technological know-how. All of that can be purchased through

the resources of the government and by the private sector.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill establishes as an offence

punishable in

summary conviction the use or sale of a trap for

the killing or taking of animals that is not an approved trap.

What the bill does is enact this power and provide a guideline

with the obvious and very desired end of doing unto others as

they would do unto us.

I think it would be very welcome that there could be

participation from the government, from officials and those

interested in the fur industry, from the trappers, from the

various anti-trapping associations, interested humane

groups, scientific research organizations, and indeed from the

general public too, Mr. Speaker, in order that all may help to

make an effective solution a reality.

If this bill happens to have imperfections, so be it. I am

trying on behalf of the hundreds, indeed thousands, of people

who wish these measures to be brought into effect to do

something and to get the point across that we have got to come

to grips with a hideously cruel and a continuing procedure.

One individual wrote me and I think he best summed it up

with these words: "The whole sordid scene has dragged on long

enough." I don't think anyone in here is prepared to disagree

with that statement; if they are, it would be interesting if

they would publicly declare themselves.

Certainly let there be trapper education. Let there be

licensing programmes. Let there be, say, apprenticeship or some

type of courses for assistance towards more humane trapping.

Let there be effective research and money put into the thing

that I am talking about. Mr. Speaker, if man can get someone to

the moon, you can't tell me it is too difficult to design a

humane trap. I say let there be a solution and let every one of

us in here ensure that there is going to be an end to

uncalled-for cruelty and misery.

I move second reading.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I know that the government

would like to commend the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Point Grey for bringing

this bill to the attention of the House because it is an important social question

that we do face, not only in this House but as a society generally. The question

of whether it can be done at this time in such a wholesale manner I think is

one that we have to deal with as government. Obviously it is the desired end

to meet what is laid out in this bill and the philosophical meaning of the bill.

At the same time, there are items the government has to consider.

There are a number of people who make their living from

trapping at this point, especially in the northern regions and

in some of the interior regions. The position of government is

that there are a number of people who do make their living from

trapping and it is a way of life, so we just can't say: "That's

it." What we have to try and do is find a way to make sure that

we can phase it out...

MR. GARDOM: Did you read the bill?

HON. MR. LEA: ...so that those people who are making their

living now...

MR. GARDOM: Read the bill!

HON. MR. LEA: ...will continue to have some kind of

livelihood. It may take retraining. It may take government

helping those people to move to a different area so that they

can find employment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: I'm giving the position of government, Mr.

Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh. What about the Member for Omineca (Mr.

Kelly)?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. LEA: I have talked extensively. We have talked

about this with the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. He

is aware of the problem.

Along with other provinces, we are working with a committee

of the provinces along with the federal government to try and

get humane traps.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It is not working.

HON. MR. LEA: It may not be working, but the fact of the

matter is that we have to try. We have to try and find a humane

trap.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA.: There's also something that we should

consider as the people in this House who represent the people

generally: the basic question of trapping. If we as human

beings are going to kill other living creatures so that we can

use those furs for decorative reasons, then I think we have to

question whether we are doing the right thing as a society.

[ Page 3115 ]

think it's one thing as a society for us to kill for meat

and food but I think it's another if we're going to continue to

kill other living things for decorative purposes. I think we

have to look at that question too.

Maybe it's not just a question of banning the leghold trap;

maybe it's a question of looking at how we can phase out

trapping. It's not an easy question, and government has to deal

with all aspects and all phases of it. The Minister of

Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Radford), I think, should

be commended for the kind of job that he has done so far,

working with the committee and working with his own staff who

are helping him to reach some solution. Government at this

point has not reached a solution because of all the economic

aspects that we have to deal with. People make their living at

it. Whatever happens, there is going to be a phase-out.

At the same time, we have to look at the Hon. Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) and say "Hear, hear!"

for bringing it to the floor of the House so that it does

become an item that more people will consider.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: So after putting the government's position

that we are concerned — I'm sure every Member of this

House and every Member of every party is concerned — we

have to examine every aspect of it and do it in a realistic

way. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn debate until the next

sitting of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Motion approved.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

RESTRAINT ON SPECULATION ACT

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave

of the House to have Bill 47, Restraint on Speculation Act,

stand over on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE

MINERAL ROYALTIES ACT

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, this is one

of the most important bills to be brought before the Legislature this session.

(Laughter.) I don't have any illusions as to its fate.

MRS. JORDAN: You can always hope.

MR. GIBSON: I can always hope, as the Hon. Member for North

Okanagan says. So I'm going to give the House the best

exposition I can.

MR. SPEAKER: I hope the Hon. Member will realize that unless

he has a message he should try to make it fairly brief. It is,

I think, out of order. I always like to hear the exposition of

the bill.

MR. GARDOM: He wants to restore mining in the province.

MR. SPEAKER: I'd like to hear the exposition of your

bill.

MR. GIBSON: That's right. As the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey says, I do have a message and I do

want to restore mining in this province.

Mr. Speaker, ever since the passage of Bill 31 in this

House last year, I've been keeping a clipping file. I'll just

read you a few of the headlines as to what's happening. Here's

one — December 4, 1974: "B.C. Mineral Output Declines."

That was in volume terms, Mr. Premier. We dug up less ore, Mr.

Premier. You should be happy; that leaves more in the

ground.

Here's another headline: "Production For Ontario Minerals

Up." I just read those two headlines so that the House will

realize that this is a unique situation to British Columbia in

this world.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: You told us in the House, Mr. Premier, that it

was $1.6 billion.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I'm in favour of your running the finances of

this province a lot better. Mr. Speaker, I'm being harassed

here from the government benches. I'm trying to make a case;

I'm trying to save them from what they're doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the Hon. Member quit harassing the Hon.

Member?

MR. GIBSON: That's right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What else is new?

MR. GIBSON . The mining industry in British Columbia. Another headline

here — February 22,

[ Page 3116 ]

1975: "Lornex Joins Mine Layoffs." One hundred workers laid

off there, Mr. Speaker.

Another clipping here — December 11, 1974: "1,073 Lose

Jobs." This was the estimate of the Mining Association of

British Columbia as to the number of jobs lost in that year.

December 4, 1974 another one: "Despair, Frustration Haunt Mining

Men."

" A group of experienced, highly regarded mining engineers

and geologists, gathered recently for a discussion of the B.C. mining outlook

with a couple of Province reporters, talked of despair, frustration and uncertainty."

Mr. Speaker, that's the way it is all through the mining industry in this province.

The most recent evidence we have is brought to us by the

B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, a respected organization

dedicated to the improvement of the mining industry and jobs in

the mining industry in this province. It's been working for a

generation to improve the situation — working for a

generation, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings).

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: They pay for a lot of your ice-cream

cones, Mr. Member for Little Mountain. You understand, don't

you? I'm not sure if you just woke up or if you've been

listening to the whole speech. I'm not sure if you understand

that mining produces at least $1 out of every $5 in this

province. You probably don't know that.

What's been happening in exploration spending?

MR. A.J. FRASER (Cariboo): They don't care if they know.

MR. GIBSON: Drilling, Mr. Speaker, for hard rock minerals

was down 99 per cent in the first quarter of 1975 as compared

to 1974. There is absolutely no question, Mr. Speaker, but what

that is directly and precisely related to the impact of Bill

31, because exploration spending in the rest of the country is

going up. It went up 15 per cent in the Yukon territory.

"Similar expenditures elsewhere in the Pacific Northwest will

increase 142 per cent," says the B.C. and Yukon Chamber

of Mines' press release. And what's happening in British

Columbia? Exploration spending is way down and drilling, which

is what you do when you're trying to find minerals, is down by

99 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ninety-nine per cent!

MR. GIBSON: Ninety-nine per cent, Mr. Member — in the second industry

in British Columbia. And the government pretends that it has to do with copper

prices. Copper prices indeed! Exploration happens depending on prices in the

years ahead, not in the year today. But just in case they honestly believe it's

copper prices, let me read this little headline: "Bill 31 Strikes Again."

"Bralorne Resources will not be reopening the mine at

Bralorne this year." That is the first sentence. That's not a

copper mine Mr. Speaker; that's a gold mine. Gold is at an

all-time high price, yet because of Bill 31, gold mines

aren't being opened either. Here's a company that spent over a

couple of million dollars refurbishing that mine, and now can't

open it because of Bill 31.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about the Yukon? Is it down 99 per cent

there?

MR. GIBSON: Yukon spending is up, Mr. Member. For the first

time in modern history there are more claims being staked in

the Yukon than in British Columbia. First time in modern

history since the Gold Rush of 1898 — directly

attributable to Bill 31.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I don't know what socialists like. I don't think

socialists like jobs in the mining industry. I am afraid it

comes to that because that is the effect of what they've been

doing.

Mr. Speaker, what Bill 31 did was put a flat-rate

royalty on certain metals, subject to the arbitrary definition

of the cabinet. It then put a 50 per cent super royalty above a

certain basic price, again established at the arbitrary

discretion of the cabinet. What it did was to successfully have

this Legislature — and a disgraceful thing it is to have

to say this — delegate its taxing authority to the Crown,

a taxing authority so hard-won by legislatures over the

years, taken away by the stroke of a pen and the nod of the

Lieutenant-Governor's head when this Act was given royal

assent last year. It was a very bad day for British Columbia.

What has to happen to restore the industry to health in British

Columbia is very simple. Royalties must be cancelled, rooted

out, done away with, totally and forever, to be replaced by

taxes on profits.

AN HON. MEMBER: Take over the whole industry.

MR. GIBSON: That goes for every aspect of the mining

industry, Mr. Member. Replace it with taxes on profits.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Now the Hon. Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson) is chirping up. Mr. Speaker, he

[ Page 3117 ]

knows so little about housing, he has been such a failure in

that field, I am puzzled that he would affect to advise this

House on the subject of mining. If the Hon. Minister knew a

thing about these questions, he would realize that petroleum is

a completely different industry where royalties have been an

historic kind of impost — very different from hardrock

mining. The Minister knows nothing, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. JORDAN: He was a smash as a geography teacher.

MR. GIBSON: Was he? He sure is a smash as a Housing

Minister, I'll tell you that.

So that's the first thing: get rid of royalties forever.

Replace them with taxes on profits, to such an extent as the

government of the day might advise the Legislature. Secondly,

get rid of Ministerial discretion. I am sorry the Minister is

not here today — the Minister who has all the

discretion.

MR. WALLACE: There are not many of them here, as far as that

goes.

MR. GIBSON: No, there are not very many Ministers here, as

you point out, Mr. Member. But in particular the Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) should be here because he has all the

discretion that is conferred under that Act.

MR. WALLACE: He has the best attendance record in the House

of the whole party.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what's wrong with

discretion in the mining industry. If somebody is going to

create jobs in the mining industry of British Columbia, they

have to look down the road a long time. They have to look down

the road from the time the prospector first finds it, to the

time when it's gradually proved up by development drilling, to

the time of the major capital investment, which might take

three or four years to get in place after all the other things

have happened, and then look down the road another 10 or 15 or

perhaps even 20 years for the recovery of the investment and a

chance for some profits to be made. Now if the ground rules

under which all of this is to be done are subject to constant

change and, in fact, are changeable at the whim of a particular

Minister — I don't mind who the Minister of the day is,

Mr. Speaker — if the rules are changeable at the whim of

any particular Minister, then there does not exist the

certainty which is necessary to attract this kind of investment

to British Columbia.

Too many British Columbians believe, often because they've been told that or

led to believe that by the government we have, that British Columbia is sitting

in a situation with respect to minerals and forest products similar to the Arabs'

situation, with respect to oil. Mr. Speaker, that is just not the case. We cannot

dictate to the world what they are going to pay for our resources, because the

kind of resources we have are not like oil. We do not have a monopoly on the

copper, the gold or the silver, the lead or zinc of this world. We don't even

have particularly high-grade deposits. We have high-cost deposits. We have

deposits that take a lot of technology, human ingenuity, human effort and capital

to wrest from the ground in a way that will generate jobs and other good things

for the economy of British Columbia.

The reason we have advanced so far in that area in British

Columbia is because over the last generation there has been put

together in this province the best mine-finding,

mine-developing team anywhere in this world. It took over

a generation to do that.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): You've never been

underground.

MR. GIBSON: Department after Department of Mines....

Listen to that Minister say I've never been underground.

What do you know about it?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Have you been underground?

MR. GIBSON: Sure I've been underground. I'll match you hour

for hour; we'll see who's been underground longest. The

difference is, you're still underground with your ideas about

housing.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're still in the dark, scrambling around in

the dark.

MR. GIBSON: You're building more houses underneath the

ground than over the ground, because you can't see any evidence

above ground, I'll tell you that. Why don't you quit while

you're ahead, Mr. Minister?

So there it is. This superb team of workers, technicians,

scientists and developers, built up over a generation and

longer, is now being disbanded as a result of Bill 31 and its

companion measure, the Mineral Land Tax Act. They are now

moving out to different parts of the world whose higher grade

resources are being developed by British Columbians, in many

cases by British Columbia capital, because of the insane,

counter-productive taxation policies of this

government.

I say to the government, Mr. Speaker, that by the simple

repeal of this legislation they could take a giant step toward

restoring the industry in British Columbia. Then if they want

to bring in other kinds of taxation on profits, if they want to

try and sit

[ Page 3118 ]

down and make a sensible deal with the federal government

for the division of the proceeds from the mining industry, and

if they want to put on the statute books good laws that will

give certainty to the mining industry over the years to come,

that's the next step. But the indispensable first step, the

step without which nothing, is the step that repeals Bill 31 of

last year, the Mineral Royalties Act.

I therefore take great pleasure in commending to the House

Bill 49, intituled

An Act to Repeal the Mineral Royalties Act,

in the confident hope that the government will see the light

and do the right thing for the mining industry and the jobs in

the mining industry in British Columbia.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: I feel compelled to respond to a few of

the remarks made by the city-slicker Member.

MR. GIBSON: Tell us about the houses you've built.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: You know, we've had a few mine shutdowns

in my riding.

MR. GIBSON: You sure have.

MRS. JORDAN: You sure have.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Some of them before we were elected.

We've had a couple of others since we were elected.

MR. GIBSON: How many openings have you had?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Member, I'd like to tell you a little

bit about some of those profits you think we should tax rather

than collecting royalties.

There's an outfit in the United States called Bunker Hill,

and they smelt ores that are shipped out of this country. They

smelt them and they pay to a company which they own, the Reeves

Macdonald mine — they own 60 per cent of the Reeves

Macdonald mine....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's that mean?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: And they weren't paying $1 on $1 for

those ores; they weren't paying 90 cents or 60 cents on $1;

they weren't paying 50 cents on $1, Mr. Member. They were

paying more like 40 cents on $1 for the ore concentrates that

were being shipped out of this country in order to avoid

taxation, in order that the profits could be taken in the

United States, in order that they could high-grade and shift

and switch and pull all kinds of flim-flam, which has

been the Liberal government policy for years and years.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: They shut down the Reeves Macdonald mine

and they said: "We shut down because of the Mineral Royalties

Act."

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: We have some very fine people in the

Department of Mines here, and they went and they said.... It

turned out that there was an adjoining property, the Hecla

mine. It was felt that while it wasn't proven, things were

promising for that adjoining mine. Perhaps these two firms

could get together. They could use the existing mill; they

could explore into the Hecla mine.

They were offered, not as government policy but as a

negotiation point, by departmental representatives, new mine

status and complete write-off and deferral on royalties until

it was proven to be in a profit position. In other words, the

risk of losing the royalties was all with the government. If

they didn't make a profit, if they lost money, they would not

have had to pay the royalties. They could have had their cake

and eat it. But, no, that wasn't true either. Finally, as a

talking point, we suggested: "Well, how about we buy this from

you? We'll operate it." It's a perfect ball mine crusher plant,

a mill, at a high altitude — inaccessible. It's virtually

useless. There are all kinds of them left in the bush that have

been left up in there. There are diesel engines and such left

up in the bush from years and years and years ago, and haven't

been run.

MR. GIBSON: Maybe you could use it for some housing.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: These things are virtually useless where

they sit unless they are working. A proposal was made: $100,000 for that, and we'd pay the mineral royalties to the

company. But they turned that down. No, Mr. Member, there is

more to it than that, and it isn't the Mineral Royalties

Act.

MR. GIBSON: Sure it is. What about the exploration,

Lorne?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, we were willing to go

in there, but these companies want the government to take all

the risk and they'll take all the gain — and that just

isn't the way. Believe me, that is why we continue to have the

support of the United Steel Workers of America, the miners,

those people who do go underground. They know, Mr. Member; they

know.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, it appears that under rule 67, this

would interfere with the revenues of the Crown. I would ask

your opinion of that matter.

[ Page 3119 ]

MR. GIBSON: It's funny you noticed that after you finished

your talk.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, I would certainly draw to

the attention of the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson ) that a bill which

repeals a tax Act will necessarily interfere with revenues.

Therefore it would be out of order unless a message accompanies

the bill under standing order 67 and under the BNA Act and

under various other opinions and statutes.

MR. GIBSON: Could I write you out a message?

MR. SPEAKER: If you could put a proper seal on it.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 83.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order?

MR. GIBSON: ...to obtain leave to leave public bills in the

hands of private Members.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed now to

government bills, second reading.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 83, second reading.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, speaking on this bill in

principle, there are, of course, quite a number of clauses in

this bill. Basically I think we can look at three major areas

first of all. I don't want to go into too much detail; we can

leave that for committee. There are three major changes which

we believe will improve the financial management of the boards

of school trustees and community colleges.

The second major change proposed, we believe, should improve

the salary bargaining for teachers in the public school system.

As we are all aware, those clauses which have been prepared in

this bill follow along very closely with the recommendations

made by the select standing committee appointed by this House

to look into this specific area.

Another third basic change in this bill is in the area which

will allow for the final resolution of the very complex

situation inherited by this government in which certain

vocational schools of the province are attached to but not an

integral part of community colleges in some parts of the

province.

So those, in essence, are some of the major changes in this

bill.

I would like to mention also that in the original form of Bill 83 there were

a number of sections which would have provided for increased flexibility by

school boards in the deployment of their staff, particularly in the area of

the position of principal.

I and my department officials had meetings with the BCTF and

the BCSTA to discuss all aspects of this bill. In this, both

groups asked for changes and made comments on sections of the

bill. Both groups asked if the government would consider

delaying this particular section. They both agreed, however,

that they concurred in the principle behind the bill which

would enable more flexibility in deployment of principals.

Therefore, in listening to them make an excellent case for

areas which were somewhat grey and not defined clearly enough

if this change were brought about, I agreed that it would be

best to delete it. The only way we could do it at this time was

to delete it from the present bill. This does not mean that the

government does not intend to reintroduce this at a further

time, but not at this session. With the help of the Members and

the all-party select standing committee, we can see if we

can clear up those areas. That is why the order paper shows the

deletion of those.

I don't want to go into clause by clause, but very quickly,

a few other areas that are of interest, I'm sure, to all of you

in this bill would include a

section which refers to the right

of districts in the employment of assistant superintendents.

Districts which have the right to employ their own district

superintendents now.... This clause points out, actually

states, that they will have to provide educational

justification for the creation of additional assistant

superintendents. I want to re-emphasize that this does

not mean that the Minister would be making a decision on the

particular name. It's the position; we are not discussing the

person.

Another amendment deals with cleaning up some of the

electoral provision Acts so that representatives are not barred

from running because they were not on the list in the last

election.

The area of secretary-treasurers has been discussed to

a fair degree with the secretary-treasurers of the

province, and it was discussed, I believe, with the former

president of the BCSTA and some of her officials. There is a

section in this Act which points out that the role of the

secretary-treasurer should be more clearly defined. We

thought it was rather fuzzy before and we feel the best way to

do this is to have the regulations help define very

specifically and clearly the role of the

secretary-treasurer. There appears to have been

considerable confusion as to the specific roles of the chief

financial officers of the school boards in relationship to

other positions. Our position on this is that the regulations

have at the present time actually been circulated and there

will be considerable time for input and discussion on those

regulations before they are finally put into effect.

[ Page 3120 ]

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

As I mentioned earlier, one of the most significant features

is the teacher's salary bargaining section, which I'm sure the

Members of the opposition will want to speak on and which we

will consider in more detail during the committee stage.

Another

section of this bill eliminates the charging of fees

to non-resident students by boards of school trustees. I

know the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is probably most

pleased to hear that. I recall him bringing this to our

attention a number of times in past speeches in the House. We

can discuss in detail in committee how this affects the boards.

There's no intention of having any board suffer any major

financial loss because of this.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Yes, it does. It means that if you are not

residing in the area, but move to another district in which

your parents do not reside, the fees cannot be charged as they

were before. However, the board still has the right to refuse

if, for instance, they have a complete enrolment. But I'm sure

we can get into that in committee.

Another major part of this bill updates the sections of the

Public Schools Act which refer to financial reports and audit

procedures. This, again, will be discussed in detail in

committee. I'm advised that the Department of Education and the

Department of Municipal Affairs have worked very closely

together to ensure that the processes now in both departments

parallel as closely as possible.

I'd also like to point out that although there's just one

section here dealing with the community colleges and the

facilitation of the melding process, the government does

intend, in due course, to bring in a completely new college

Act. There will be considerable discussion on that, but at this

time, of course, as you know, we have had a lot of preparation

for that, but there will still be time for the public to react

to suggestions for the new college Act. But we are not prepared

to introduce that at this session.

Other sections of this Act allow honorariums to be paid to

college council members. If you'll note, there has been a

change by amendment which says that they "may" pay these.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Up to $2,000, right.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that that is as far as I

could go at this time in discussing this bill in principle.

Therefore I am pleased to move second reading.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Minister

that a bill with as many varying sections as this bill would likely best be

considered in committee, but there are some basic principles which should be

considered now.

First of all is the basic principle of local autonomy

allowed to reside in the hands of school trustees. It affects

various areas, and although I don't want to refer to them by

section, let's just use an example. One of the examples is the

assignment or appointment of superintendents. The local school

boards have in the past, as the Minister knows, been

responsible for the placement, the hiring or the appointing of

superintendents. However, the position just below

superintendent, that of assistant superintendent, is an area in

which they will now have to have the approval of the department

— not necessarily the Minister, but certainly the

approval of the department.

The reasons that are forthcoming from the department for

this particular kind of an amendment are that there has been a

prolific increase in the positions, not necessarily the people

— and I was glad to hear the Minister differentiate

between — the position and the persons to fill the

position.

But the reason given from the department for this particular

section is that there has been a prolific increase in these

positions and that it is considered necessary by the Minister

and her department to have some kind of control over the number

of assistant superintendents we have in the province. I am

wondering whether or not this shouldn't better be left in the

hands of the school boards. If the Minister feels that the

positions are too numerous, then I think a memo from the

Minister to the school boards on her opinion would be well in

order. But to take out of their hands the right which

rightfully belongs to them, and which does in fact belong to

them at the higher level, is to say to the boards that they

have been irresponsible in this area. I am sure this is not the

impression the Minister intends to leave with them.

Therefore, in closing second reading on this bill, or

perhaps in committee, the Minister can give us the rationale

for differentiating between the two levels of superintendency

— that is, the superintendent and the assistant

superintendent — and say to the House and to the people

out there who are interested why there is this differentiation

between these two different levels.

There is also some concern about the powers and duties of

the secretary-treasurer being taken out of legislation

and being put under regulation. I know that there has been

circulated — as a matter of fact, I have copies —

the first draft of the regulations, which may be being

considered as a job description for secretary-treasurer.

But there is an expression from the secretary-treasurers

themselves and from the various school district boards that

they believe that the position of the secretary-treasurer

as the

[ Page 3121 ]

corporate officer of the school district should be

maintained, that it should be protected. There is some concern

too that the job description might be changed without what is

considered sufficient consultation with the

secretary-treasurers themselves. As the Minister well

knows, they have been around for a while. They do have some

expertise. They perhaps could give the Minister some steerage,

if their duties are to be changed, as to which direction it

would be advantageous for them to be changed.

I note that on the order paper we have a deletion of some of

the sections which were an affront to both the trustees and the

teachers' federation. There were, I think, substantial

concerns. One of them had to do with the regulations for

reassignment; the other one had to do with transfer. I would

like to make a recommendation to the Minister that perhaps when

she is considering the redraft of the concept, the principle

involved in those sections, perhaps the clumsiness could be

ironed out by making two separate sections, each one spelling

out clearly the regulations of the Act involved.

For instance, there should be a separate

section for

reassignment and a separate

section for transfers. Reassignment

means that a teacher can be reassigned to a position at the

same school, to principal, and being assigned to principal,

perhaps, under the previous legislation would mean losing

her/his status as a teacher. That needs to be spelled out

clearly perhaps in a

section by itself. Then the other concern

is transfer — perhaps a transfer which is completely

different from a reassignment, maybe a geographical thing.

Transfer could best be defined in a

section all by itself. That

is just a suggestion that the Minister may wish to consider

while she is rethinking those sections that were deleted.

One of the major portions of the bill deals, of course, with

the negotiations for salary and bonuses. I was a member of the

committee that travelled back and forth across the province and

listened with intent and with interest to the various

presentations being made. It seemed to me that it was about a

sawoff. There was about a tie between the opinions that

supported negotiation on a local basis as opposed to those

supporting negotiation on a provincial basis.

The major concern of our party was that local autonomy

should be preserved even in these negotiations. I must say to

the Minister we are quite pleased with the sections of the bill

relating to negotiations. As a matter of fact, the option is

left for local bargaining; yet there is the suggestion and the

quiet persuasion toward zonal bargaining.

Zonal bargaining already takes place in the province in certain instances.

The Okanagan, I believe, is an example. But it is successfully managed as a

zone in the case of the Okanagan. We believe that it should be left, as the

bill suggests, to the discretion of the two parties as to whether or not zones

shall be followed.

We're a little concerned that these zones, in their design,

are left to the discretion of the Minister. I think that

perhaps the Minister may well listen to both the trustees and

the teachers for suggestions on zoning. Perhaps the whole

concept of the boundaries of the zones may not necessarily be

sponsored in the department. I notice that the option is

allowed. I believe that in principle, though, we would support

that entire

section related to zonal bargaining.

There is another concern, though. There's another major

section of the bill that deals with the appointments of

auditors. Again, Mr. Speaker, a concern was expressed by the

people in the province that the Minister didn't give ample

opportunity for consultation with, for instance,

secretary-treasurers, who have years — some of them

— of experience in dealing with auditors. Perhaps the

Minister could have called again on their expertise in the

drafting of that particular section.

Then there's the area of the compensation which goes to

college council members and the principle that a college

council member, if he is also a trustee, loses a portion of his

honorarium by virtue of holding two positions. The question

that comes up immediately is: how far does this principle go?

For instance, if a municipal councillor also holds a position as

a college councillor, is his honorarium decreased by virtue of

the fact that he holds the two positions? What does this do to

the concept which even the Minister adheres to — the

concept of equal pay for equal work? Has there been ample

consideration given, for instance, to the workload that is

involved?

A little questioning reveals that perhaps school trustees

are called upon to attend as many as 40 meetings in a year. It

seemed an awful lot to me — school trustees called upon to

meet as many as 40 times a year — and yet college council

meetings.... In trying to determine how many meetings they

would be expected to attend...perhaps 12. Perhaps in

determining the workload the Minister would reconsider the

concept of the diminishing honorarium just because there are

two posts involved.

Another question that comes up when we are asking out around

the province about the college councils and college council

members is something that doesn't belong to this bill at all,

but a question that I'd like to squeeze in here with the

permission of the Chair. That is: where is the new colleges

Act? We're looking forward to its introduction.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: It's coming.

MR. SCHROEDER: It's just coming. Okay.

There is the concept in the bill of the melding of the

vocational schools and the community colleges, which melding, I

think, was promoted in — was it the

[ Page 3122 ]

Marsh report? I'm not sure. Was it the Marsh report that...?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: The melding? No.

MR. SCHROEDER: The melding of the colleges and the

vocational schools.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, that was by your own government

— the former government.

MR. SCHROEDER: Okay, I thought it was the Marsh report where

it was promoted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No.

MR. SCHROEDER: Okay, I am incorrect in that regard. But

there is something that needs to be considered very carefully

in the melding, and that is the business of financing of these

colleges. As the Minister knows, colleges now are financed 100

per cent of capital financing by the provincial government, but

40 per cent of the operation is garnered by fees and taxes,

whereas vocational schools are financed 100 per cent by the

province. There needs to be careful consideration in the

melding. The

section of this bill that involves itself with the

melding doesn't address itself to this financing. These are

some of the areas of concern, and perhaps in committee we'll be

able to ask some direct questions.

Suffice it to say that in principle, although there isn't

one principle involved in the bill, I think that we can give

the bill support.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I think the bill....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I'm sorry. I had forgotten

that this was a different party. I would prefer to recognize

the Hon. Member for North Vancouver–Capilano in

accordance with our traditions.

MR. WALLACE: Did you think he was another independent, Mr.

Speaker? My gosh! (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I will be very succinct, Mr. Speaker. This being

an amendment Act, I think the better time to talk about it is

during committee in general. I'll just make four brief

points.

First of all, with respect to the item in the bill that would require school

districts now able to appoint their superintendents to have to get approval

rather than simply consult with the Minister on appointing assistant superintendents,

I think this is wrong. I think it is a step away from local autonomy, which

I had thought was what the Minister was trying to build up in the school system

in this province. I hope the Minister might reconsider this and add this to

the

schedule of deletions which are already standing on the order paper.

The

section relating to the transfer and reassignment of

principals is to be deleted by an amendment standing in the

Minister's name on the order paper. I think this is wise in

view of the fact that the language as currently written is

pretty vague. There are also no appeal provisions specified in

cases where genuine injustices might be done by too rapid an

assignment. I think, when the Minister re-examines this

and brings it back in the fall, that some kind of appeal

provision should be made. Consideration is also going to have

to be given to the question of what happens to the level of the

salary of a principal or a vice-principal who may

suddenly be bumped back to being a teacher. That would be a

considerable wage cut rather rapidly. This may be a question

for each school district to individually discuss and negotiate,

but I think that this House should provide some guidance on

that question of equity.

The next topic I would allude to briefly is the powers and

duties of the secretary-treasurer currently written in

legislation with provision for regulations to be made. Under

this amending bill, the legislative stipulations would be

removed and it would all be a subject of regulation. I have to

deplore that, Mr. Speaker, because I am afraid it's part of the

general trend and an understandable trend of governments to

want to not be bound by legislation but rather prefer to be

bound by regulation which they can change any day as it may

suit their convenience. To take that to ridiculous extremes,

for example, one could have a public schools Act saying the

Minister could make regulations about public schools. That

would be the ultimate in simplicity. But I think that kind of

thing is wrong.

That ultimate in simplicity is what's being done to the

secretary-treasurers here. My understanding is that

under the existing legislation which provides for the making of

regulations in regard to the powers of

secretary-treasurers, that regulatory authority hasn't

been used. It would seem to me that it would have been the

initial step in updating and changing these provisions, rather

than removing all legislative protection and direction for the

secretary-treasurers.

My final point, Mr. Speaker, relates to the question of

collective bargaining. I believe that the bill we have before

us reasonably well and faithfully reflects the view that came

about almost unanimously in the parliamentary committee that

studied this question. Great flexibility is still left to local

boards and local teachers' associations to opt out and not to

be a part of the zonal process. I think this is important. What

we have here is a sort of psychological encouragement to get

into the business of zonal negotiation, but no coercion. I

think that lack of coercion is going to bring about better

[ Page 3123 ]

voluntary assumption of this principle of negotiation than

would the alternate proposal which may have seen this

Legislature mandate zones and say: "You must bargain in that

way."

I think that would be wrong because we have seen around this

province during the hearings of the committee times when zonal

negotiation had been tried and had broken down and hadn't

worked. It's obviously not a panacea. We saw other cases where

individual school districts had a perfectly excellent record of

collective bargaining for a matter of several years. My own

district 44 is an example of that. In cases of that kind, I

think it would be wrong to try and force those districts and

associations into a Procrustean bed and say that you have to

negotiate in this way. The wisdom of this provision is that it

recognizes that there are various ways of negotiating, and

districts will have the ability to use that kind which is best.

But at the same time it recognizes that there has been

throughout this province a pattern of de facto zonal bargaining

of "satelliting" as the phrase is used, and that might as well

be better recognized and provided for in the bargaining

law.

One thing that is not in the bill and to which I will allude

only briefly is the question of any reference in the bargaining

area to learning and working conditions. I think at that stage

that is wise because of the difficulty in deciding just what

learning and working conditions are and how to draw the line

between them. I think that this will be a fruitful subject for

future discussion between trustees and teachers and, hopefully,

the involvement of the legislative committee. But at this

particular stage I think the Minister was wise not to advance

further down that road. With those few brief remarks, we will

make further submissions at the time of committee stage.

MR. WALLACE: I think the bill is best discussed in

committee. I am only going to comment on the salary bargaining

since I'm the one member of the committee who did not feel

happy about the committee report. The other points, I might say

in passing, which have been mentioned by the spokesmen for the

other two parties I generally agree with. I will touch on that,

however, in committee.

The whole problem of bargaining, like the whole problem of

being in politics, is the art of compromise. We went around the

province and we listened to teachers and trustees. After a few

places, it became predictable in each place — the

teachers wanted local bargaining and the trustees wanted

central bargaining. They were poles apart.

I am sorry that the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) has

left because he made a statement that I would certainly have to challenge —

that in this province we have de facto zonal bargaining. That is the exact phrase

he used. If he means that out of the 74 districts, 72 sit back and let two other

districts make certain decisions and reach certain agreements, then try whipsawing,

which the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) talks about.... If he calls that

de facto regional bargaining, I would have to say that I consider that a very

inaccurate statement. In my opinion it certainly did not reflect what we heard

in that committee as we travelled around the province.

The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano also mentioned

that there had been areas of zonal bargaining where the

bargaining broke down. So what? There are all kinds of

individual bargaining that broke down, too. We finished up with

special legislation last year to get over an impasse. So let us

not forget the fact that while there has always been some

final, ultimate resolution of the teachers' bargaining problems

with the trustees, on this most recent occasion it involved

special legislation to get us through an impasse.

The reason that we have this bill before us today is that

while there has always been some kind of ultimate solution, the

system, as we have it today, has not been working well. It has

worked, but with some great difficulty, and certainly with some

great uneasiness by the trustees.

You can go through all the kinds of points that were raised

by them before our committee. One of them in particular related

to expertise in bargaining. Without reflecting on a bill that

is before the House, we felt quite clearly that that was one

large area of the problem the trustees were very unhappy about

— their capacity and their access to research material,

time and various other factors to enable them to feel equal at

the bargaining table in each individual school district. For

this reason I got the clear impression that the trustees felt

they could do a better job on behalf of their own district, and

trustees generally, by having a limited number of

well-trained skilled negotiators negotiating

centrally.

Be that as it may, I think two points in debating these

amendments should not be missed. First, the situation, while in

the ultimate analysis we scramble through one way or another,

was not satisfactory. The reason that we spent the taxpayers'

money going to various centres in the province and holding

hearings was due to the fact that there was a problem.

The second point was that the two sides were very much poles

apart, with very minimal examples of trustees wanting to

continue local bargaining, and very few teacher groups wanting

any kind of centralized bargaining.

With these two points in mind, we have to look at this bill

in principle and try to decide whether it offers a realistic

solution to these two basic points that I raised.

I know that it is an unpopular point of view in society

today, but I feel that this bill is too

[ Page 3124 ]

wishy-washy. I respect the Minister's right to differ

on this, and the committee's right to differ, as they obviously

did — this is why I didn't sign the report — but I

feel the bill does very little to change the existing status

quo. I will predict that just about every school district in

this province will opt out of the zonal situation.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Minister is shaking her head. I'm just

saying....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: No, you're wrong.

MR. WALLACE: I hope I am wrong, too.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't think it helps to make that

statement.

MR. WALLACE: Sometimes you have to say things that you

believe, which people either don't like or they are going to be

mad at you.

I am just saying that if the hearings in front of the

committee reflect the feeling of teachers in this province....

The committee started to laugh at me because I asked the same

question repetitively, but I got the clear information that

there was not a single teachers' group that came before the

committee which was really interested in zonal bargaining, with

the one exception of the people in the Okanagan.

We've got 74 school districts, and we've got all this

evidence that last year out of 74.... Perhaps the Minister can

interject; I can't remember out of 74 how many reached an

agreement before we got to the impasse. Was it six, seven or

eight? Supposing we take eight out of 72. That is about 11 per

cent. In view of what we heard before the committee, I just

feel that this bill leaves the teachers so much scope to opt

out of your very well-intentioned proposal, Madam

Minister. To have, say, 20 zones leaves it so loose and so open

to opting out that that is likely in the face of the evidence

what we out before the committee.

I haven't got the clippings with me, but the teachers don't seem too happy

with this bill judging from the public response I have read in the newspapers.

I think that the great majority will choose to opt out and continue to do what

they were doing last year, and we'll have the same delay right down to the wire,

out of — I don't know how many — four or five or six settlements, and we'll

really not be much further forward than we were. I hope I am wrong, because

I think the zonal bargaining would save a great deal of difficulty, save time

and save money, and I think save a lot of hard feelings which we clearly detected

in our committee hearings between school boards and teachers.

The sad

part is that a sort of countervailing feeling we got in these committee

hearings was that, apart from that one issue of bargaining, teachers and trustees

seem to get along extremely well in a very harmonious and productive and positive

way, and time and time and time again the trustees came up with the clear statement

that they just look upon their responsibility to bargain like somebody would

look upon a dose of flu, I suppose. They just feel that it is something they

would rather not have anything to do with. I'm not defending that point of view.

I'm saying that is a fact of life, and that is the way the trustees feel. They

had a legitimate point of view in feeling that central bargaining might be a

better way to go.

One thing I do commend the Minister for is that she includes

in these amendments the continuing solution which finally we

had to resort to last year, that no person can sit on more than

two arbitration hearings. That obviously solves that part of

the problem if it should arise.

So I feel that it would have not been unreasonable to set

up, even on a pilot project, zonal bargaining for one or two

years on a mandatory basis at least to see how it works,

because we do know, as has been said already in this House

today, and as was said at our committee, that in one area for a

certain period of time it did work. We certainly know that we

have central bargaining examples in many other fields of the

workforce in this province. The latest sort of example we see

is in the forest industry, where the old concept of one union

in wood is closer to becoming reality in that the three unions

concerned are thinking about at least negotiating in close

contact with each other if not in unity.

So it is not as though the concept of cutting down a number

of units involved in bargaining is anything new. It is

happening in other areas and in other sectors of the work

force. As I say, it seemed to me that as legislators on that

committee we were out there trying to find a compromise that

would work.

Without saying much more, Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that

these amendments represent a convincing or efficient enough

compromise that it will work. I would have been much more

prepared to support it at least, as I say, even for one year or

two years, so that we would have a real comparison. But I

really think that one of the unfortunate outcomes of these

amendments, Mr. Speaker, may well be that many of the teachers

in the districts will opt out and then it will be said that

zonal bargaining has failed, or there will be all kinds of

wrong conclusions drawn, because I don't really think this bill

gives the concept of zonal bargaining a fair chance.

I hope I am wrong again, and that it does work. But if it

does not work for the reason that the teachers in individual

school districts decide to opt out and just carry on as we have

been doing for several years, and there continues to be

disharmony

[ Page 3125 ]

or confrontation, I hope it won't be said that zonal

bargaining broke down, because all we have got here is an

option to involve the teachers to compromise somewhat from

their position as they presented it to us and give this zonal

bargaining, as outlined in this bill, a real chance to work. I

hope they do. But if they do, it means that between the time we

listen to all these representatives and the present time there

has been a very substantial swing in position by the

teachers.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister closes the debate.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon.

Members for their comments on this debate on principle. Most

were very constructive. Particularly we're pleased that the

official opposition spokesperson and the Member from the

Liberal Party agree with the major changes in the collective

bargaining section.

I know that the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is

always candid. I just want to repeat again my interjection,

that I certainly hope his dire predictions do not come true. I

think that at the moment both groups are ready to go into this

in a spirit of co-operation, and I think that's the only

basis we can work from. You can't legislate co-operation,

as you know, but I think both groups know that the

all-party committee had a major job to do and a difficult

one, and I think they appreciate that. While I don't think

either side is particularly happy with what came out from the

all-party committee, I think that the all-party

committee did the very best they could at this time with a very

difficult assignment.

So my hope is that both will co-operate and that we

will see a considerable amount of zonal bargaining

arrangements, hopefully, which I think the committee said they

considered desirable but certainly should not be compulsory.

That is why the opting-out provision is in, which I am

pleased to see is endorsed by the other parties, because the

opting out certainly does give the signal to zonal, but at the

same time it does give the opportunity for the retention of the

local autonomy. Also, we will of course be — as pointed

out by the Hon. Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) —

consulting in the drawing up of those zones.

The other points that were mentioned I really believe will

be best answered in the committee stage, because they're

specific questions. With that, I would like to move second

reading.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved.

Bill 83, Public Schools Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 86.

SAVINGS AND TRUST CORPORATION

OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 86; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the amendment in the name of the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

On the amendment.

MR. PHILLIPS: I rise this afternoon to support the amendment

of the Leader of the Opposition. I was very disappointed to

hear the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) state in his

place that he would not accept this amendment, because this

gives the Premier the opportunity to lay it on the line and

tell the credit unions of British Columbia that he does not

plan on going into competition with them.

I noted with interest the fact that the Premier at no time

in the debate has said that he does not plan on going

into competition with the credit unions of British Columbia. As

a matter of fact, his statements, particularly in opening

debate on this bill, lead me to believe that he does intend to

indeed set up institutions throughout the width and breadth of

British Columbia that will be in direct competition with the

credit union movement.

I would like to quote from the Minister of Finance's

statements last Friday when he introduced this bill. He

said:

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the degree

of competition in the province's financial market and thereby narrow the spread

between borrowing and lending notes.

Certainly, if this is his intention, this means that he will

be setting up and opening offices of the British Columbia

Savings and Trust Corp. in competition with the credit unions

in British Columbia.

He goes on to say:

Further, Mr. Speaker, why is it that we never see the front pages

of the newspapers attacking the banking system, but they'll attack some poor

janitor that wants a few dollars, or some poor cleaning lady and her family

trying to survive and struggle, having to go to the bank to make loans to provide

for perhaps

[ Page 3126 ]

the continuing education of the children only to have the bank

making that kind of a profit.

He had referred to that previously. However, this is exactly

what the credit unions in British Columbia are doing today.

They are servicing the very type of people that the Premier is

referring to, so therefore, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative

but to believe that indeed the Savings and Trust Corp.

of British Columbia will be opening offices in various areas in

British Columbia in direct competition to the credit

unions.

The Premier goes on to say:

The other reason we want to establish this institution is to

allow British Columbians to use their deposit funds and to support the future

economic and social development of the province.

Well, it is British Columbians who are presently using their

deposit funds through the medium of the credit unions —

they are doing just this in many, many communities in British

Columbia today. If the Premier is going to have these deposits

siphoned off from the credit union movement, this will strangle

this movement which has thrived and grown and served many

thousands of British Columbians to date in British

Columbia.

The Premier goes on to say that we want most of all to

extend credit to low- and middle-income earners,

farmers, small businessmen, single women, native Canadians and

others who presently have difficulty obtaining financial

services. Well, Mr. Chairman, if these people have difficulty

obtaining these financial services today, it's because they are

not members of the credit unions in British Columbia. If the

Premier is going to allow these people to become members and is

going to supply them with low-interest money, he is going

to be hurting the credit union movement. I believe, Mr.

Chairman, this is the true intent of this bill.

Why is it the true intent of the bill, Mr. Chairman? Well,

I'll tell you why. The Premier, in wanting to set up his own

financial institution in British Columbia, first of all tried

to take over Yorkshire Trust to use that as the medium of

having his own financial institution in British Columbia, of

which he could be the president and chief director. But, Mr.

Chairman, that move to take over Yorkshire Trust failed, and

the Premier was unable to bring about his desire to use that

medium, that established organization in British Columbia to

accomplish his ends.

So then, Mr. Chairman, he tried to get on the good side of

the credit unions by various means and tried to bring them into

his confidence. The purpose of trying to do that was again to

take over the credit unions in British Columbia. But the credit

unions were having no part of our Premier and his takeover

plans. So the Premier is going the other route of setting up

his own savings and trust corporation. Since the credit unions

would not succumb to his

pressure, he will get them another way, and that is by going

into direct competition with them. That is really the purpose

of this bill.

As I say, the Premier hasn't said that this isn't his

intention. He has said there is a great possibility of having

the credit union movement participate. A great possibility. But

there is nothing in the bill that says the credit unions are

going to participate or that they want to participate or that

they will be allowed to participate. So all we have is the

Premier's word that it's a great possibility that the credit

unions will participate.

If they participate, they will participate to what per cent?

They will participate to 10 per cent. And what does the Premier

feel about owning 10 per cent of a financial institution? What

does he feel about participating to the amount of 10 per cent?

He had the opportunity for British Columbians to participate to

the amount of 10 per cent in the Bank of British Columbia. What

did the Premier say? He said you have no power when you only

have 10 per cent participation. So should not the credit unions

feel the same way in British Columbia?

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this bill will be

like an axe hanging over the heads of credit unions in British

Columbia. This will in a roundabout way give the Premier of

this province control over the credit unions. If they don't do

what he wants them to do, he will move in with his institutions

and his own offices and go in direct competition with them.

The Premier says basically: "You've got to trust us. We

don't want to take over the credit unions." But I want to tell

you, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia no

longer trust this Premier; they no longer trust the Premier of

this province. As a matter of fact, they've lost a tremendous

amount of not only trust but a tremendous amount of respect for

this Premier. For the Premier to think that the people of

British Columbia are going to think of the Premier as a

lovable, warm, trustworthy soul — it just isn't so in

British Columbia today. It just isn't so. The people have

learned through bitter experience not to trust this government

or to trust the Premier.

So when the Premier says that he really doesn't want to take

over the credit unions, so far as I'm concerned this amendment

gives the Premier the opportunity to put it down in black and

white. By accepting this amendment he can tell the people of

British Columbia not to trust him, but it will be down in black

and white and in the laws of this province, written in the

statutes. That is why we have brought forth this amendment.

We're sick and tired of the Premier telling us to trust

him.

Now if the Premier and Minister of Finance does not accept

this amendment, it proves to me and it will prove to all the

thousands of people involved in the credit union movement in

British Columbia that the Premier of this province is against

credit unions.

[ Page 3127 ]

He has the opportunity to be truthful today, to prove to

those thousands and thousands of people who are depositors in

the credit union movement that he really means what he is

trying to say. By accepting this amendment he can prove to the

Province of British Columbia and to the great credit union

movement that the Premier is not against credit union

movements.

Mr. Chairman, if he does not accept this amendment, he is

telling us and telling all the people in British Columbia that

he is against the credit union movement and that he will use

Bill 86 against the credit union movement in British

Columbia.

The P