1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2691 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Point of Order Distribution of Hansard Blues. Mr. Chabot

— 2691

Mr. Speaker — 2691

Routine proceedings Oral questions Legality of surcharge on drivers' insurance.

Mr. Smith — 2693

Present situation on Skagit flooding. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2693

Measures to resolve electricians' strike. Mr. Wallace — 2694

Reimbursement of fees to paramedical students. Mrs. Jordan — 2694

Role of Peter McNelly in Ministers' northern tour. Mr. Chabot —

Ministerial responsibility for Indian matters. Mr. McClelland —

Filing of contract settlement documents in House. Mr. Gardom — 2695

Purchase of Hoodoos by provincial government. Mr. Curtis — 2695

Registry legislation for foreign land rush. Mr. Gibson — 2696

Discussion in Japan of Sukunka coal fields. Mr. Phillips — 2696

Meetings and proposals to B.C. Fruit Growers'

Association.

Mrs. Jordan — 2696

Discussions with B.C. Teachers' Federation.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2696

Prejudgment Interest Act (Bill 66). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2696

Mr. Gardom — 2696

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2697

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2698

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Mr. Gardom — 2698

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Mr. McGeer — 2698

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to

section 3.

Ron. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to

section 4.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to

section 5.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Amendment to

section 6.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2698

Report stage — 2698

Residential Premises Interim Rent Stabilization Act (Bill

75).

Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Gabelmann — 2699

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2699

Mr. Wallace — 2699

Mr. McClelland — 2699

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2700

Mr. Wallace — 2700

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2700

Mr. Gardom — 2702

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2702

Mr. Cummings — 2703

Mrs. Jordan — 2703

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2704

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2704

Mr. Smith — 2704

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2707

Mr. Phillips — 2707

Mr. Wallace — 2708

Mr. Gibson — 2709

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2709

Mr. Gabelmann — 2710

Mr. Gibson — 2710

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2710

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2710

Mr. Morrison — 2711

section 3.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2712

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2712

Mr. Wallace — 2712

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2712

section 5.

Mr. Gabelmann — 2713

section 6.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 2713

Report stage — 2713

Supreme Court Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 1t 5). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 2713

British Columbia Day Act (Bill 6 1). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2713

Mr. Morrison — 2714

Mr. McClelland — 2714

Mr. Phillips — 2714

Hon. Mr. Hartley — 2714

Mrs. Webster — 2714

Hon. Mr. Stupich — 2714

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 2715

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2715

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2715

British Columbia Tartan Act (Bill 62). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2715

Mr. Morrison — 2715

Mr. McGeer — 2715

Mr. Wallace — 2715

Hon. Mr. Lauk — 2716

Mr. Curtis — 2716

Mr. Cummings — 2717

Mr. Chabot — 2717

Hon. Mr. Strachan — 2717

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2717

Metric Conversion Act (Bill 80). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2718

Mr. Morrison — 2718

Mr. McGeer — 2719

Mr. Wallace — 2719

Mrs. Webster — 2720

Mr.L.A.Williams — 2720

Mr. G.H. Anderson — 2720

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 2721

Mr. Cummings — 2721

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2721

Lotteries Act (Bill 83). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2722

Mr. Bennett — 2723

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2724

Mr. McClelland — 2725

Mr. Wallace — 2726

Mr. Rolston — 2727

Mrs. Jordan — 2728

Hon. Mr. Hall — 2729

Division on second reading — 2730

Privilege Distribution of Hansard Blues. Mr. Chabot — 2730

Mr. Speaker — 2730

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 2731

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 2731

APPENDIX — 2732

WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, we have with us today in the gallery Mrs. McLaughlin

and Mrs. Wilson, who are representatives of the provincial

council. They are here to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the

Victoria Council of Women. I would ask the House to welcome

them, please.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Mr. Speaker, seated in

the Speaker's gallery this afternoon is a former Member of the

Legislature, Mr. Ernie LeCours, from Richmond. We'd like you to

welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: May I say that I wanted him to sit on the floor

here, but he wouldn't associate with you all. (Laughter.)

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the gallery

today a group of students from the Princess Margaret Senior

Secondary School in Surrey, accompanied by their teachers, Mrs.

Everett and Ms. Cassidy. I hope the Members here would make

them welcome.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today

from the beautiful riding of Shuswap is the chairman of the

Interior Vegetable Marketing Board, Mr. Rusty Freeze. I'd like

the House to welcome him.

MR. SPEAKER: I have an announcement as a result of a message

from the National Assembly of Quebec, indicating that the

delegation of parliamentarians that was to visit us on May 5 to

9 in Victoria, and who were to meet with Members of this House,

unfortunately are unable to come owing to the uncertainty of

travel arrangements over the impending air controllers' strike.

Consequently, meetings and other events scheduled for those

days are cancelled.

The Quebec Members have been very much looking forward to

meeting with our Members and hope that arrangements can be made

for a visit tentatively around June 9 to 13. Possibly at the

rate we're going that may be possible.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker,

I want to specifically draw to your attention. the inconsistency between the

comments you've made in the letter of April 29 to members of the Vancouver Province

bureau with respect to the use of Hansard and your lack of action with respect

to a government motion which appeared on the order paper on February 22, 1974,

with respect to remarks made by the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)

on February 20, 1974 — just two days later.

It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the motion appearing on the

order paper on February 22 was produced from the

so-called "unofficial" versions of Hansard and

introduced into the House by the House Leader. This resolution

appeared on the orders of the day for days afterwards until it

was reluctantly withdrawn by the government.

Mr. Speaker, at no time did you challenge the government

with respect to the misuse of the Hansard records for

the purpose of what was a very serious motion of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I point out to the Hon. Member that draft transcripts of Hansard ,

as stated clearly on the cover and in accordance with the rules of this House, are issued in advance of the formal printed Hansard

and it says so on the cover.

It says: "Distribution is limited to Members of the Legislature." If a

resolution is before the House — in this case one Member of the House

put a resolution on the order paper — he's entitled to put a

resolution on the order paper and in it quote from any source he wishes

but he must take responsibility for his quotations if they are taken

from this document, as I have many times indicated to Members of this

House.

Also, since it is not authorized by the Speaker at that

point, being an unofficial copy, it is not for publication to

the public, and that is clearly set out in standing order 129.

Any Member of the House who supplies it outside to, say, the

press would be taking

part in what is clearly set out to be a

breach of privilege of the House unanimously adopted under

standing order 129 and punishable by the usual punishments

meted out for a breach of privilege.

If a committee dealt with the allegations contained in the

Hansard transcript that you refer to — the blue

copy — they could ascertain the accuracy or veracity of

what was said in that hearing, or it can be raised in the

debate when the resolution is dealt with in the House. Since

that never happened, the question of the veracity or

otherwise of the statements made or alleged to have been made

in that unofficial copy never came before the House.

I do point out to the Hon. Members that it is my duty to

draw to the attention of Members of the House, or of any

persons who are regarded as strangers as well, where they are

in breach and clear violation of a ruling of this House. This

was a unanimous order of the House which made it a breach of

privilege to reproduce this particular unofficial copy outside

the realms of this building. Therefore I, in what I thought was

a courteous way,

[ Page 2692 ]

drew it to the attention privately of two reporters who were

concerned, and admittedly the publication in which it was

printed had obtained and used this copy obviously from some

source within this House. I thought as a courtesy, that I would

not take the matter up in the House as a breach of privilege,

thinking that these two members would appreciate the

warning.

I found to my astonishment last night that the president of

the press gallery took it upon himself to assume that it was

for him to deal with this question. I point out to the Hon.

Members that the president of the press gallery enjoys the

confidence of the House, and in relationships between this

House and the press gallery I always try to deal with him on an

official basis so that he can take up matters of concern

between this House and the press gallery.

But when the matter has not reached the stage of an official

complaint, I would not want to burden anyone else with that

private confidence between myself and the member of the press

concerned, as a courtesy to him.

I found when I went to the Empress Hotel last night with

some friends that I was accosted by the president of the press

gallery, who said to me....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I was sitting at my table and he came up.

(Laughter.) Knowing him as a friend for many years I was a

little astonished and I was a bit set back when he said: "Wait

until the legislation estimates come up." He later cleared up

that matter that he meant no threat to the Speaker.

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: The big bully!

MR. SPEAKER: So I want to point out to the Hon. Members that

I took it on myself, as an aid to the Members of this House, to

go beyond providing you with the pink copies of your statements

in the House so you might correct any errors that occur.

May I point out as an example an error that occurred when

the Hon. Attorney-General was accused in Hansard

of wanting a pile of pillows? It turned out, of course, that he

was talking about a panatella cigar in the debate on smoking.

This sort of thing can happen.

Therefore, at this stage the blue copy is not for public

use, because much work remains to be done by Hansard . It

is not the same as in Ottawa where they have shorthand

reporters transcribing right in the sight of the House and of

the Members of the House and where you're protected by that

additional safeguard.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: No, I'm not taking up question period, but I'm

explaining to the House a matter which I think is grave. It

affects the use of this blue Hansard which I have made

available on my own volition, without any authority actually of

the House, and at great expense. Since my estimates are now in

question and the expense involved, I must reconsider this sort

of distribution in view of that complaint.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in your correspondence to the

reporters involved, you've seriously castigated them for the

use of the blue copies. You have suggested that they were not

for publication and offer no comfort for accuracy or claim of

privilege until examined by Members and properly corrected and

approved for final printing. The Member who might have

suggested that they were used in reproducing a news story heard

for herself, or himself, the statements made by the Minister of

Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick).

MR. SPEAKER: That has no relevance to the deed itself.

MR. CHABOT: The tape, Mr. Speaker, was examined as well to

ensure double accuracy.

MR. SPEAKER: By what authority? You were aware of all

this?

MR. CHABOT: Well, this is the information that is public

knowledge.

MR. SPEAKER: The point is that there really is no point of

privilege unless you're complaining about the conduct of either

the two members of the press who violated the rule, or you're

complaining about the attack that may be construed from the

statement made by the president of the press gallery. Now if

you have no other point of privilege, there's no point of

privilege involved.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'm not attacking the press; I'll

leave that to you. What I'm attacking really is the double

standard which you're establishing at this time. The double

standard really is this: you suggested that they shouldn't be

allowed to examine the Blues to reconfirm statements that they

have heard in the House and are going to reproduce in the

newspaper.

MR. SPEAKER: There's a way of doing that, Hon. Member, as

you well know.

MR. CHABOT: You suggested it shouldn't be for distribution

or for publication. The orders of the day go out of this

chamber to all comers of this province,

[ Page 2693 ]

and in those orders of the day for several days appeared a

motion condemning — censuring, in fact — the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), based on information

secured from the Blues.

MR. SPEAKER: You're defending the exclusive nature of the

Blues, and you're saying that I should refuse a motion on the

order paper that involves the use of the Blues.

MR. CHABOT: Yes, I am.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you. In the circumstances, the

Blues will no longer be used.

MR. CHABOT: That's a double standard, Mr. Speaker...

MR. SPEAKER: I won't tolerate a double standard.

MR. CHABOT: ...that you allow the government to use the Blues

to censure a Member of this House, and then you castigate the

press. You've got to be consistent, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member did not draw that point to my

attention. But since he has raised the point, I will not have a

discrimination in the House and I would not tolerate that. If

you see that occur, I hope you will draw it to my

attention.

MR. CHABOT: We've tried. We've tried, Mr. Speaker, and all

we want is one standard in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: We'll try to adhere to it.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

LEGALITY OF SURCHARGE

ON DRIVERS' INSURANCE

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the

Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications. Has the Minister

checked with counsel on the legality of surcharging drivers'

licence insurance for former driver infractions on a

retroactive basis?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): That's

never been questioned.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question then, Mr. Speaker, through to the

Minister. The Minister may not be aware of it but in recent days a judgment

was handed down in the Province of Manitoba by Justice John Hart, who in his

judgment ruled that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation cannot surcharge

auto insurance premiums retroactively.

I would ask the Minister if he will have the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia investigate the obvious

implications of that decision with respect to our own auto

insurance plan in the Province of British Columbia and, if

necessary, see that a test case comes before the courts to

prove the legality of what we are doing in this province or

otherwise?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: First of all, I'd point out to the Member

that it is not a retroactive surcharge. It's a surcharge in

exactly the same way as the private insurance companies in this

province surcharged drivers with bad driving records throughout

the years without a single complaint from you or anyone

else.

MR. SMITH: A supplemental question, Mr. Minister. I disagree

with that explanation, because you did set up a retroactive

provision that goes back three years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That sounds like a speech.

MR. SMITH: It's not a speech. I'm asking the Minister if he

will check or have the ICBC check with their legal counsel to

find out if this in fact is allowable under the provisions of

the insurance corporation.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Member, I would not have included it

unless I'd had advice of counsel that it was legal. But I'll

ask them again just to satisfy yourself and everything else.

But let me tell you again: we're proceeding in exactly the same

manner as the private insurance companies operated in this

province for many years.

PRESENT SITUATION ON

SKAGIT FLOODING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Attorney-General

or to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), who's been

away for almost a week: May I ask the Premier or the

Attorney-General whether a reply has been received by the

government to the letter sent on April 3, 1974, by the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources to Professor Maxwell

Cohen, the chairman of the Canadian

section of the

International Joint Commission, concerning B.C.'s request to

reopen the IJC decision on flooding of the Skagit Valley?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'll take this as notice

[ Page 2694 ]

on behalf of the Hon. Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, when we can

expect the Hon. Minister to return...

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think that question would be

proper.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...so that these — well, it's

certainly a proper question of the government House Leader

— questions of this nature can be put directly?

MEASURES TO RESOLVE

ELECTRICIANS' STRIKE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in light of the

serious shutdown in the construction industry due to the strike

of the electricians, would the Minister of Labour give the

House some statement of events to this moment, and what role

his department is playing in trying to bring some resolution to

this very serious provincial problem?

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker,

negotiations are still underway and discussions are taking

place. The Associate Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Kinnaird,

is involved in close consultation with both parties. He is in

the City of Vancouver and I understand that intensive

negotiations are underway. While they are, while these

discussions are taking place, I certainly hesitate to make any

public comment on the progress or the implications of those

discussions. So I think that that's all I'm prepared to

say.

REIMBURSEMENT OF FEES

TO PARAMEDICAL STUDENTS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I believe my

question should be addressed to the Hon. Minister of Education,

but in case of doubt, perhaps the Hon. Minister of Labour would

also listen. I would like to know from the correct Minister

what steps will be taken to reimburse fees to students who have

been involved in the close down of the Paramedical

Interprovincial Training Corporation, in light of the fact that

at the time this company was issued a licence to practise this

training programme in British Columbia it was in fact in

difficulty with the law in Albuquerque, New Mexico, other parts

of the States and possibly in Hawaii.

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

MRS. JORDAN: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister is taking it

as notice, I also would like to present my further question so he might do the

same regarding that. I'd like to know just what investigation took place into

the company at the time the licence was granted — again in view of the fact

that it has never been endorsed by the Medical Society or the Nursing Society

in the United States, as I believe it claims — and what bond did they post?

What criteria did the department use for granting them a licence?

ROLE OF PETER McNELLY

IN MINISTERS' NORTHERN TOUR

MR. CHABOT: A question to the Minister of Finance. I wonder

if the Minister of Finance could tell me what role is being

played by his executive assistant on Finance, Mr. Peter

McNelly, on the northern tour? What role, or what part of the

tour, or what is the function of Peter McNelly on the tour of

the Ministers in the north?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier and Minister of Finance): He's from

my office.

MR. CHABOT: Is he there as a press liaison or is he there....

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's there....

MR. CHABOT: Just one moment, let me finish my question. Or

is he there keeping an eye on the Ministers on your behalf?

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hon. Member wish to convert that into

a facetious question?

MR. CHABOT: No, I want to make that a serious question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And I want to give him a serious answer. I

don't understand what he is talking about.

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

FOR INDIAN MATTERS

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): My question is to the

Premier. In view of the statement by the Member for Atlin (Mr.

Calder) on the weekend that Indian language teaching questions

are now to be handled by the Department of Human Resources, and

his statement that this represents an affront to the Indian

people as they feel the questions should be handled by the

Department of Education, would the Premier, as president of the

council, spell out for the House at this time just exactly what

Ministers of the cabinet are to be contacted by the Indian

people in this province who have, first of all,

educational

[ Page 2695 ]

questions, and, secondly, questions on land claims

settlement?

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the question of Indian education, it

comes under the Department of Education; on the question of

Indian land claims, they come under the Department of the

Attorney-General.

MR. McCLELLAND: Was that statement incorrect, then, that the

education problem is being shifted to Human Resources?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am not familiar with the statement made

by the Member; I'm telling you what government policy is.

Government policy is that matters on Indian education are dealt

with by the Minister of Education. That is functioning policy.

Matters on the land question are being dealt with by the

Attorney-General.

MR. McCLELLAND: I can assume, I guess, that there is not

going to be a change in policy and that that problem won't be

shifting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is the present policy and it won't be

changed.

MR. McCLELLAND: Would the Premier advise the House if he has

assigned a specific Minister to discuss the whole range of

questions affecting the Indian people of this province with the

federal Ministers? Is there a specific Minister who will be

discussing those questions with the federal people?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The policy of the government after meeting

and receiving the BCANSI (British Columbia Association of Non

Status Indians) brief where it was recommended that there not

be a separate Minister dealing with all Indian affairs, is to

relate the Indian matter as closely to the existing department

that exists in the provincial government. That same policy will

also influence which Minister meets with the federal

counterpart in terms of federal Indian matters.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to get on to other questions if we

may, please.

FILING OF CONTRACT

SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS IN HOUSE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): A question to

either the Minister of Education or the Minister of Transport.

When are they going to answer the questions they took as notice

weeks and weeks ago concerning the filing of the Bremer or the

Adams contract settlement documents?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): In due course....

MR. GARDOM: Well, perhaps we can hear from the Minister of

Transport when he proposes to file the Adams contract

settlement documents.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Member has asked the question a number

of times and cannot expect an answer.

MR. GARDOM: Well, he's standing up and taking a crack at

it.

MR. SPEAKER: If the Hon. Member wishes to answer.

MR. GARDOM: He was being vertical for a change.

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm always....

PURCHASE OF HOODOOS

BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT

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

would like to discuss the Hoodoos — and that is not a

reflection on the cabinet. (Laughter.)

Is the Department of Recreation and Conservation examining

the possibility of acquisition of land which, according to

press reports, may be in some danger? The land is adjacent to a

provincial park reserve and is owned by one Mr. Roeck.

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

We looked into that several months ago and gave recommendations

to the Land Commission to look into the area.

MR. CURTIS: May I ask the Minister if he or his department

received a recommendation from the East Kootenay Regional

District; strongly urging the acquisition of this land in the

right of the Crown provincial?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I'm not aware of the department receiving

anything on that. They may have.

MR. CURTIS: Has the owner or owners of the land in question

offered it to the province?

HON. MR. RADFORD: I am not too sure, Mr. Member, whether

they have offered it or not. I think the only offers that they

have made firmly have been through the media.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister

[ Page 2696 ]

check the last two questions? Somewhere in his office there

is a letter from the East Kootenay Regional District, I can

assure you.

REGISTRY LEGISLATION

FOR FOREIGN LAND RUSH

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): I would

ask the Premier if he is aware of a land rush by foreign

real-estate buyers which his recent remarks set off?

Would he undertake, bearing in mind the constitutional

difficulties, to introduce immediately at least registry

legislation for foreign landowners?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no evidence of a land rush.

DISCUSSION IN JAPAN

OF SUKUNKA COAL FIELDS

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to

direct my question to the Premier and the Minister of Finance.

I would like to ask the Premier and the Minister of Finance if

he had any negotiations during his recent trip to Japan

regarding the Sukunka coal fields.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The matter was raised.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Minister advise if the fact that the

matter was raised brings the deadline for making a decision any

closer than July 31?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MEETINGS AND PROPOSALS

TO B.C. FRUIT GROWERS ASSOCIATION

MRS. JORDAN: To the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. In light

of the fact that the B.C. Fruit Growers Association have

announced that they will meet with the government this week

regarding the income assurance programme, could the Minister

tell us (

a) whether this meeting has taken place, and, if it

hasn't, what date it will be; and (

b) whether he, as Minister,

is prepared to bring forth a new and more reasonable proposal

for their consideration?

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

the meeting started in my office about 35 minutes ago. We are

presenting a new proposal. It is reasonable.

DISCUSSIONS WITH

B.C. TEACHERS FEDERATION

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker,

a question that I have asked before but I believe she has new information. What

are the results of her discussions with the BCTF regarding the teachers who

infringed the disciplinary provisions of the BCTF and who thereupon would be

unable to practise teaching in the province despite the fact that the Department

of Education has nothing against these particular individuals?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I informed the House that I was having a

meeting; I had the meeting yesterday. The B.C. Teachers

Federation asked for a delay in the discussion on that

particular topic until they have their provincial executive

meeting this month. So I have nothing to report.

Orders of the day.

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

proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

SPECIAL FUNDS APPROPRIATION ACT

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, the amendment is not printed yet; it

was amended. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Bill 49 was amended as

well. There's also an amendment to come on Bill 33.

PREJUDGMENT INTEREST ACT

The House in committee on Bill 66; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I move the

amendment.(See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman,

apropos of the points that were made yesterday, I would

re-emphasize those. This is also applicable to

section 2

but perhaps may slightly infringe upon

section 1. I shall be very short. There is one concept also that the

Attorney-General did not take into account. I think it

was raised last night in the arguments made in this side of the

House: not necessarily by the delay of the law we can find the

defendant penalized by interest, as I indicated, by

[ Page 2697 ]

virtue of judges not handing down decisions as quickly or as

efficiently as perhaps they can; but secondly, by virtue of the

very congestion of the courts. At the present time it takes

about a year to obtain a trial date in the Province of B.C.

This would mean that the unsuccessful defendant could be

penalized by virtue of a judgment for one whole year's

interest, not as a result of any default on his part with the

plaintiff but by virtue of the mere fact of the congestion of

the courts and the fact that it takes a minimum of 12 to as

many as 18 months, perhaps, to secure an effective trial date.

I do not feel this is a penalty that an unsuccessful defendant

should have to bear.

Secondly, under

section 2, it deals with the precluding of

interest. I feel that interest should be precluded under this

mandatory

section upon court costs. The way I am reading the

statute, unless I am misreading it — which I do not

believe I am — court costs certainly form... Do I have

the ear of the Attorney-General or not? Court costs

certainly do form a part of the judgment. The court will order

costs against the unsuccessful litigant and those costs become

part of the judgment. By virtue of them becoming part of the

judgment, they similarly would face a mandatory order for

interest. I think that again is most unfair. There are two

scales of costs under the rules of the Law Society. First of

all, there is what is known as the party-party costs,

which essentially are the costs that can be recovered in a

court of law by the successful litigant against the

unsuccessful litigant. They were never, ever meant to be a

complete indemnity. The cost philosophy, for example, is never

followed in the United States of America. We don't find costs

following the event in the United States; the successful

litigant in the United States is not awarded essentially the

cost of the lawsuit. But we find that in Canada.

The other scale of costs is a scale known as

solicitor-client, which is the responsibility of the

client to pay to his lawyer.

Notwithstanding the fact that the

litigant-versus-litigant or party-party

costs, which the court can order and can be taxed by district

registrar, do not constitute necessarily complete indemnity to

a successful litigant, they do constitute a fairly heavy

penalty against an unsuccessful litigant. I think the total

concept of the law of costs is sufficient without adding on to

that penalty a 5 per cent onto the court costs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't think it is included.

MR. GARDOM: You say you don't think it is included. I can't

find an exclusion for it so I think the best thing to do, Mr.

Attorney-General, is to....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We should both get a legal opinion on

it.

MR. GARDOM: Well, no, no; you don't think it's included so

obviously you think it should not be included. I agree with

you. But for the sake of clarity I would suggest, Mr.

Attorney-General, that we amend

section 2 to add as (

d) the words "upon costs." I would so move. Then you and I will

both be speaking about the same thing and it will make it

abundantly clear.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: With a view to clarifying the thing, I

don't think the matter is too much in terms of substance but I

think it's important that we are clear as to whether or not

interest can be added to costs. I would agree to accept that

amendment if my friend, with leave of the committee, will write

it out.

MR. GARDOM: It's written out.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps by leave... It's handed

in.

MR. GARDOM: You can accept it, Mr.

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I accept it. It's a very good amendment.

One of the best amendments we have had today. (Laughter.)

MR. GARDOM: The night is short. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It becomes (e), Mr. Chairman, because we

have a (

d) that comes before (e).

MR. CHAIRMAN: 2 (

e) then.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Attorney-General, you put an amendment

in as 2 (

d) so my amendment will read 2 (e). Correct.

Amendment to

section 2 approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): I

wonder if the Attorney-General, in view of his remarks

last night when he refused the amendment which would have given

a judge discretionary powers with interest, would be pleased to

indicate whether or not

section 2 as it is amended now,

providing that interest does not apply if there is an agreement

and providing there can be a waiver by a judgment creditor if

it is the government's view that any agreement entered between

any two individuals in the province may specifically waive the

provisions of the Prejudgment Interest Act whenever

the

[ Page 2698 ]

consequences may arise.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, Mr. Chairman. If the judgment

creditor doesn't press for interest, of course, it is not

included, so the Act is out.

I don't want to renew the argument of last night except to

say, with respect, that I disagree with my friends opposite

here. You have to remember that you keep saying a defendant is

penalized because the process takes a long time. Don't forget

that during that period of time the defendant has the use of

the money and the plaintiff does not, so this Act is bringing

them up-to-date. The defendant has the use of it

whether he's got it and is making interest on it in the bank or

in some other way in the meantime. If he doesn't have it out

for investment, at least he doesn't have to go to a finance

company during that period. He's better off. We're doing the

right thing.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that I'm so

inarticulate as to be unable to convey to the Hon.

Attorney-General my concern in this respect. I appreciate

that a judgment creditor may waive his right to interest. The

amendment very specifically provides that.

What I'm asking the Attorney-General is whether or not

any contract entered into in the Province of British Columbia

may, as a part of that agreement, preclude at any time the

functioning of the Prejudgment Interest Act. I am

specifically concerned that, for instance, contracts of

insurance may henceforth specifically provide that, in the

event of a contest between the insurer and the insured, no

interest shall be awarded. I would like to have the

Attorney-General indicate whether or not it is his view

and the government's view that such a provision in a contract

would be void.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: To take anything out of the Act, the

parties would have to comply with the terms of

section 2,

either sections (

a) to (e). If by contract they agree that they

will apply under 2, I suppose that, in effect, the Act by

contract has become null and void in that particular situation.

But basically the exemption is just if a party brings himself

within

section 2.

MR. GARDOM: On that premise, then, I assume we would receive

from the Attorney-General an undertaking that the

insurance policies issued by the Insurance Corporation of

British Columbia will not have included in it an exclusion of

this particular statute. Yes or no. This is a very, very

important point. A lot happens in the small type in insurance

policies.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it's the intention that ICBC would

be bound by this Act. If somebody has a judgment against ICBC, the interest

should follow the event as well as costs.

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

Attorney-General, will the drivers of British Columbia

ever get an insurance policy from the ICBC?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's nothing to do with this bill, I don't

think.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Hon. Members are receiving legal

advice from me today that is worth exactly what they're paying

for it. (Laughter.)

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 3 as amended approved.

section 4.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, another amendment as to

wording. I so move. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

section 5.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 5 as amended approved.

section 6.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move the amendment. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee

rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

[ Page

2699 ]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 66. Prejudgment Interest

Act , reported complete with amendments to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Committee on Bill 75, Mr.

Speaker.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES INTERIM

RENT STABILIZATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 75; Mr. Liden

in the chair.

section 1.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver-Seymour): Mr.

Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order

paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the

legislation as proposed requires the amendment I have suggested

which would make sure that rent increases, which will be

limited to 8 per cent can't be imposed on tenants by some other

means — through the back door, as it were — parking

lot rates or extra charges for washing machine services, et

cetera. I just want to be very brief and to read one letter I

received among others which I think states the case quite well.

It's from a tenant in my riding who writes:

"I am attaching for your attention a copy of a letter I

received recently from our landlord. A few months ago he

informed us by letter that our rent would go from

$155 a month to $195 per month

on April 1. Since this increase was 19 per cent and illegal

because of new legislation, he took care of the matter thusly.

I have lived at this address for over six years."

The letter to this tenant from the landlord reads as

follows:

"Dear Mary:

"As your rent has been increased by more than the

8 per cent advocated by the government, please

note that previously there was no charge for the carports. The

difference between the 8 per cent increase and

the $185, therefore, is the new charge for the

carport."

Signed by the landlord.

That kind of problem exists. Quite a widespread problem, Mr.

Chairman, and for that reason, I would urge that the House

accept the amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I would like to indicate that the

government accepts the amendment. I think it's a very important

thing that that loophole be closed. I appreciate the Hon.

Member raising the matter and putting his amendment on the

order paper.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Inasmuch as this party strongly

opposed the principle of this bill for the reasons which were

mentioned in the earlier debate, this amendment just proves the

absolute fabric of our argument. Already we find that the

thrust of the legislation is not coping with the problems it's

meant to solve.

We've had this amendment brought in, and I've also had

examples in my mail of other devices to which the landlord can

resort to obtain more income from the tenant by various means

such as the renting of appliances, charges for carports or what

have you. So in one respect, if we have to have rent

legislation or rent limitation, I can see the purpose behind

the Member's amendment: he's trying to close loopholes.

But having lived through World War II in Britain, I know

there is no end to the loopholes when a black market situation

arises because of shortage of a commodity. It doesn't matter

whether the commodity is sugar or butter or nylons or

accommodation. The black market type of situation.

The tragedy is that the legislation is wrong in the first

place. This is just another patchwork, Band-Aid attempt

to improve what is in essence misguided legislation in the

first place. And for that very fundamental reason, I oppose the

amendment.

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

amendment for the same reasons established by the Member for

Oak Bay, and for other reasons as well — the principal

one of which is the sheer stupidity of the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know who's going to prescribe

these services or conveniences. How is the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council going to

decide whether or not a landlord may make a charge for a

carport, for underground parking or for some other service

which is given?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fixing a pipe.

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure, fixing a pipe in the place. Suppose

that the tenant puts a hole in a wall. Who decides whether or

not someone should pay for the repair of that hole in the wall?

Are you going to bring it into cabinet? Is cabinet going to

decide on and list each apartment house in British Columbia and

say, "Well, we can charge this much for that carport, this much

for that garage, this much for that laundry room"? It's a

sheer, stupid amendment which will not work; the same as the

rest of this stupid bill

[ Page 2700 ]

will not work either.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I don't want to redebate the principle

of the bill. I'd be out of order to do so. I just want to say

that I entirely disagree with the two Members who have just

taken their seats. In terms of this amendment, of course, we're

not going to prescribe, as a convenience, this thing. It's just

to avoid wholesale evasion of this rent restraint in a period

of inflation. I just want to say that this little bill, this

interim restraint on rent increases bill, has helped literally

tens of thousands of people in the Province of British Columbia....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, all kinds of them. I think it's a

necessary and worthwhile thing to do in the meantime.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, just in case the

Attorney-General is trying to make it a clean-cut,

partisan political debate....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: It's exactly that. We're alone on this

and we like to be alone on this.

MR. WALLACE: That's the extent of your confidence. Can I

just quote from the newspaper today, today's Province ?

The National Council of Welfare, can I quote from that, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to remind the speaker that we're

dealing with an amendment to

section 1, not the principle of

the bill.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. I'm dealing with how totally

inadequate and useless this kind of amendment is. And the

Attorney-General has the audacity to stand up in a

self-righteous way as though this was just some

left-versus-right partisan political thing when

it's a matter of principle that's involved.

The principle of the amendment is wrong because the bill

itself is not solving the problem that it set out to solve.

The National Council of Welfare warns in a special report

released Tuesday that rent controls could backfire against the

lower income groups. The council says that the controls could

result in fewer low-cost houses and could also lead to

lower quality housing for the poor.

This is the whole point this side of the House, not just this party but all

three parties, have tried to make. When we stand up and repeat that conviction

in terms of this amendment, the Attorney-General, I think, is less than fair

in presenting it as just some kind of left-versus-right argument and that

we're just trying to make partisan party political hay out of this.

We in this party honestly do believe this is an unfortunate

piece of legislation which will make the situation worse, not

better. On that basis, this attempt by this amendment just

leaves me very puzzled as to the way in which...even if the

amendment was well motivated, and I think it's well motivated,

but I'm saying that it is totally impractical. There is not in

my conviction...the feeling in our party is that this kind of

amendment is just not enforceable. If it is to be attempted to

enforce it, the ramifications and the bureaucracy and the

arguments which are to be involved, we see as being something

that just adds to the problem rather than in any way helps

it.

A further point, which I didn't mention when I spoke

earlier, was that if these kinds of what I consider rather

half-baked ideas are to be the basis upon which the

future rentals man has to make his decisions, then indeed we

are getting into one super-duper bureaucracy in the whole

area of the landlord-tenant affairs in this province.

I hope maybe the Minister will comment, when I sit down, as

to whether or not the kind of amendment we have here is to be

the kind of regulatory descriptions which the rentals man and

his staff are going to have to function upon. Again, as I say,

it seems to me it's so all-encompassing, so

ill-defined that I would assume a landlord could charge

somebody for the view across the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Is

the Lieutenant-Governor going to include that in the

regulations that have to be included in the rent?

We just feel that this kind of amendment is impractical. I

really do put it on record that we feel the real problem is not

being tackled. For that reason and the inadequacy of this

amendment, we must oppose it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment pass?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I thought it was "should his speech

pass." (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I took my place, having been recognized,

shocked at the reaction of the Hon. Attorney-General to

the call for the vote on the amendment. Quite obviously the

Attorney-General is completely confused not only about

the subject which is under debate, but also about his party's

position with regard to residential premises.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When somebody is on their feet we have got to

continue the debate on the

[ Page 2701 ]

amendment, and we have done that before.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound on the amendment.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the alacrity which the....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! If the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs.

Jordan) wishes to speak, you can take your turn after the

Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

Interjection

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): If you keep quiet I will.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I want the Member for North

Okanagan to withdraw that kind of a statement.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to speak and

you're taking all my talking time. I would like to raise a point

of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you withdraw your attack on the

Chair? Then you can continue with your point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MRS. JORDAN: An attack on the Chair? How did I attack the

Chair?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: But, Mr. Chairman, you won't let me speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I've asked you to withdraw.

MRS. JORDAN: What do you wish me to withdraw, Mr.

Chairman?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yourself, preferably.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm not here to make love to you! I'm here to

represent the people of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, what you

would like me to withdraw.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nothing!

MR. CHAIRMAN: You wanted to make a point of order and

instead of that you accused me of not allowing you to speak.

Now I want you to recognize that you can't attack the Chair,

and if you have a point of order to make, you should make

it.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is you, as

chairman, the Chair itself, called out for a vote on the

amendment, and the amendment was quite obviously defeated in a

negative manner by that vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MRS. JORDAN: Now, Mr. Chairman is allowing debate to

continue. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect,

according to the rules of this House that, with all due

respect, the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Will the Member take her

seat?

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I'm trying to state my point of order.

You are out of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You have made your point and it is not

an acceptable point of order. There was a Member on his feet at

the time the vote was called and the Member was recognized and

the Member will continue.

I recognize the Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound.

MRS. JORDAN: A point of order. Are we to assume — and

I'm asking this just for clarification — in light of the

Chair's decision this afternoon that in future when an

amendment has been either passed or defeated by a voice vote...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MRS. JORDAN: ...that we will always be allowed to debate

it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm asking the Member to take her

seat.

[ Page 2702 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I'm merely asking you for your decision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you take your seat?

MRS. JORDAN: Will you give me the decision?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When we call for a vote, if there's a Member

on his feet, and some people nevertheless vote on it, the

Member who is on his feet is recognized, and it has been every

time I've been in the Chair.

I ask the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound to

continue. You are on the amendment to

section 1.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

AN HON. MEMBER: This is the last chance for you, Gerry.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I've known the Speaker to

keep a disorderly House, but I didn't know anyone could keep a

disorderly committee.

Mr. Chairman, the alacrity with which the

Attorney-General accepted the amendment from the Member

for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann) is only

further proof that this particular legislation was conceived in

haste and without proper consideration of the consequences

which it will have upon those parties who are directly involved

in the problems of landlord and tenant, namely the landlords

and the tenants.

The fact of the matter is that if this legislation were to

be improved to resolve some of the difficulties, the loopholes

that the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour has

mentioned, the proper amendment would be to amend the

definition of residential premises, rather than to again place

in the hands of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the

cabinet, the right to make regulations as to what may or may

not be a service or a convenience properly to be included in

the determination of rent.

It startles me that the Attorney-General, in haste,

would have accepted this amendment, recognizing, as he must,

that the opportunity that the cabinet will have to review such

matters and to make any worthwhile order, which will have

consequence in the circumstances, is next to nothing.

The Hon. Attorney-General speaks about covering up a

loophole. The problem is that the consequences of this

legislation are going to leave for the poor and those on low

incomes only the possibility of having to live in loopholes.

That's what will exist for them.

To find themselves accommodation they are going to have to

seek out ways of avoiding the consequences of this unfortunate

piece of legislation.

To bring this legislation forward, and to accept this

amendment, when we have before the House other legislation

dealing with the problem, when we have had the

Attorney-General already announce the appointment of a

rentals man, is to ensure that when we embark upon the proper

solution to this problem, we will confront both landlords and

tenants with difficulties which are the direct result of this

government's in competency in bringing forward Bill 75.

MR. GARDOM: There is no question of a doubt that this is

even another excursion of this government into meddling with

the economy. It certainly will again tend to curtail

construction of rental accommodation. Now we find rent to be

defined, be it big or small, or regular or irregular, or

consistent or inconsistent, just as the whim of cabinet shall

decide. Rent no longer, in the Province of British Columbia, is

to be a contract between landlord and tenant but just as this

socialistic cabinet shall determine. Rent no longer in the

Province of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, is to be an

agreement or an understanding between a tenant and a landlord,

between B.C. citizens, but just as the super-duper

biggest brother of all shall determine.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that we are having 1984 ten years early

in B.C. This will not only work against the landlords but

against the tenants as well. Any kind of law to be effective

has to be clear; it has to be concise; it has to be certain.

This fails in every one of those tests.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Chairman, on this

amendment, if I ever had any doubts before why the once proud

Conservative and Liberal parties have shrunk to their present

representation in this House, I am sure of it now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: The last two speakers have indicated an

obvious, total, complete lack of understanding of the need for

this legislation and this amendment.

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't care.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: They cannot seem to realize that there

was quick legislation needed — call it hasty if you want.

The amendment, of course, was required. It is plugging a

loophole that was overlooked. But these parties absolutely and

totally

[ Page 2703 ]

fail to understand that out there was a tremendous amount of

unconscionable rent gouging going on since the first of this

year. There had to be action taken. If we had followed the

route....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! order! I would like to remind the Member

that this is on the amendment.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we have the finest example

given by the Member for North Vancouver-Seymour (Mr.

Gabelmann) in the letter that he read from a tenant in his

constituency, if an example is what's required. But there were

others, and I'm sure that many of us have received letters on

it.

If we had followed the usual route, if we had followed the

type of route that would be taken by the government in Ottawa,

and no doubt by the Liberal Party in this province, we would

have waited six to eight months ohing and ahing over whether it

is a serious problem and something must be done. Then they

would have taken the same course as has been the usual course

for Conservative parties in the past. They would have set up a

royal commission, giving it one year to make a report, taken

another year to take any action, and by that time the suffering

would be to such a extent that they would be forced into doing

something.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Member....

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: This amendment is necessary. It does plug

a loophole. It is quick legislation. Quick action was needed

and we have it here.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): I've

been listening with interest to the two Members who are trained

in the legal profession. You notice how they seized on the word

"law." Law has loopholes.

The first thing an unscrupulous landlord is going to do is

procure himself a lawyer and find a loophole. Lawyers are used

to argue law. They don't seem to concern themselves with

justice, and the justice of the people was crying out to stop

this gouging.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I remind the Member that he should be dealing

with the amendment, not with the bill in principle.

HON. MR. LAUK: And never with lawyers.

MR. WALLACE: You need a female lawyer, Roy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Will you deal with the amendment?

MR. CUMMINGS: This man made a very sexist remark. I would

like the press gallery to notice it. It's on the legal female

lawyers — the Member for Oak Bay.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): You can sure dish

it out but you can't take it!

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're dealing with the amendment to

section

MR. CUMMINGS: Mr. Chairman, I'm being heckled unmercifully

by this Hon. Member for Oak Bay, and I don't think it's fair.

Sex, sex, sex — you should be up and I'm afraid I have to

sit down.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to discuss sex today

— I wish to discuss this amendment. In relation to the

fact that the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Seymour

(Mr. Gabelmann) had his letter and his loophole, and he is

endeavouring to plug the loophole and deal with the cow as I

suggested in the previous debate, I suggest to you, Mr.

Chairman, in accord with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay, that

where there is a loophole or black marketing of services, where

there's a law against a reasonable service, there will be black

marketing.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if you and the

Attorney-General and that Hon. Member are aware that in

going after the fly they are killing the elephant in this

province. Many of us, and I'm sure you yourself, have letter

upon letter of problems that are being created by this

legislation. One relates to this problem of loopholes. What is

happening in the broad sense is that some landlords, for

example, in mobile-home parks where they've been charging

low low rents — and I'll go into one in detail in a later

section — have had their taxes increased, have had their

labour increased in terms of repairs and are running at an

operating loss. They cannot sustain their mobile-home

parks under the 8 per cent increase, and therefore they are

closing them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! We're dealing with the amendment to

section 1.

MRS. JORDAN: I am, Mr. Chairman. Just give me a moment,

please.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what is happening is that tenants are

going to have to literally move their mobile homes in this

particular instance onto the highways, because there's nowhere

else for them to go. In light of the fact that in some of these

instances they agree that the rent is agreeable, and that the

landlord is not gouging them but working in areas of

[ Page 2704 ]

$45 a month, which leads to a silent agreement between the

landlords and the tenants which they're happy with and the

landlord is happy with, they are now led to believe — and

I'd like the Attorney-General to clarify this —

that Mr. Yorke and some of his association, if he so wishes, if

they hear about this, can in fact take this matter to court and

charge both the landlords and the tenants with illegal

action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind you that you're not on the

amendment that's before you right now; you're discussing the

principle of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm asking the Attorney-General if he has

thought of this type of protection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You're supposed to be discussing the

amendment.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, the amendment is covering the loopholes,

Mr. Chairman, and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment deals with something specific

and you should be dealing with that amendment. You're dealing

with the principle of the bill.

MRS. JORDAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to upset

you at all, but my understanding of the wording of the

amendment is that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council can,

within its discretion, prescribe what amounts to, in fact, the

rent. The Member's amendment brings into discussion the subject

of whether a carport is part of the rent or not, and this

leaves tremendous discretion in the hands of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I'm asking the Attorney-General: when there is a

mutually silent agreement between a landlord and his tenants on

a matter, is it the intention of the Attorney-General to

interfere in this nature and prescribe this as an illegal act?

Is the Attorney-General willing to stand by and allow an

association that might live 300 miles away from the incident to

take action on behalf of those tenants, even though those

tenants may not wish to have this action taking place? As I

understand it, Mr. Chairman, this is a very grave danger and it

applies directly to the discretion that is given to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, as mentioned by this Hon.

Member's amendment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps if I'm very briefly out of order in answer,

we are dealing with the amendment. The answer is that the 8 per cent would be

a restraint subject to the exemptions in the Act and it would be illegal for

either party to charge beyond that. The amendment, of course, simply says don't

evade it by upping the garage charges, the TV charge, the garbage collection

charge — just an obvious case of evasion is what's immediately before the House.

On your question, I would expect people would observe the law and the 8 per

cent restraint, and I'm sure that already, even before it's passed, in countless

cases it's being observed right now.

Amendment approved.

Section 1 as amended approved.

section 2.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to

section 2 which is merely for clarification and I so move. (See

appendix.)

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

MR. SMITH:

section 2 deals basically with the matter of

rental increases and the limiting of those increases to 8 per

cent. It reads specifically that:

"no landlord shall, on or after the first day of January,

1974, charge, in respect of a rental period, an amount of rent

for residential premises that is eight per cent greater than

the amount of rent charged, in respect to the last rental

period during 1973, for the same residential premises."

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that that 8 per cent figure is

a very hypothetical figure, that it must have been pulled right

out of the air without anything to substantiate the amount or

the percentage rate and that somebody, in some department,

somewhere, decided that 8 per cent was a reasonable average

between high and low, and that is what they were going to

use.

The figure, if it was to be fair and equitable both to the

tenants and to the landlords, would have taken into

consideration such things as: the inflation factor, which this

year is more than 10 points and will probably continue at that

rate unless the government does something to curb that; the tax

rate which irrespective of any reassessment which will take

place in this province during this year for the last number of

years has been an average of 15 per cent increase; that wages

alone in the last year have increased 14 per cent so that the

costs of all buildings and new projects will certainly increase...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: That doesn't mean the rents have to go

up 8 per cent to pay that.

MR. SMITH: ...and that people who are

[ Page 2705 ]

employed in maintaining rental premises will receive the

benefits of salary increases, the same as other employed people

in the Province of British Columbia.

It seems to disregard the fact that heating costs will

increase and that there is a very good possibility from a

statement made by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) in the north that the rate for

the use of electricity will increase in the province before

very long. Perhaps he was letting a few secrets out, but this

statement was made in the north that there's a good possibility

that the rate for domestic consumption of electricity would

increase in the province. These are the sort of things that the

bill did not even contemplate, let along find a solution

to.

It was suggested that this bill was required as an interim

measure, and yet at the same time that we're debating this bill

on the floor of this House you have another bill, the

Landlord and Tenant Act , which could easily have been

debated in the place of this, I would suggest to you. At least

that spells out in more definitive terms what your actions will

be in the future.

We've heard this afternoon the reports of rental gouging,

but they seem to all hinge on the matter of one letter received

by one MLA who proposed a new amendment to

section 1. The

question that we must ask is: how prevalent is the matter of

rent gouging?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, very prevalent.

MR. SMITH: Well, this is what the Attorney-General

says. I've heard the Attorney-General make similar

remarks in debate many times before, but he's never produced

any proof that there was rent gouging going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I want to draw to the Member's

attention that the bill has already been passed in principle

and you should be dealing with the section.

MR. SMITH: I am trying to stick to the section, Mr.

Chairman, which deals with the rate of increase that will be

allowed under this particular bill, limiting it to 8 per cent.

I'm trying to point out to the Attorney-General some of

the reasons why a figure that obviously was pulled right out of

the air does not take into consideration many of the factors

that people who own rental accommodation will be faced with,

not only this year but in ensuing years.

What you have done with this bill is to make the situation, which is urgent

and severe, even more critical for those people in low-income brackets and

people who must depend upon rental accommodation. You don't solve their problem

in one instance with this bill; as a matter of fact you complicate their problem.

The effect of this bill will be to suppress new accommodations from coming into

the market and being available for those who would like to avail themselves

of new accommodation.

I suggest that you have taken one specific industry in the

province, isolated them — as if they could be isolated

from all the costs and the problems they must face with

inflation, interest rates and all of these things — and

said that they must be controlled, so that they do not increase

their rents more than 8 per cent.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Mr. Member, I'd like to bring to your

attention that you are discussing the principle of the bill. If

you feel that the figure of 8 per cent is wrong, you should be

amending that either upwardly or downwardly, but the principle

of the bill has been accepted.

MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to provide reasons why I

feel that the figure of 8 per cent is not a fair figure. In my

opinion, that is what I have been debating since I rose in my

place in this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've been arguing against the bill, and the

principle of the bill has been dealt with. You should be

developing your argument as to whether or not the percentage is

right and whether it should be upwardly or downwardly

revised.

MR. SMITH: I would say to the Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that a figure, if it were to be fair not only to the

tenant but to the renter as well, should take into

consideration the factors that I have just enumerated, and

allow for the cost-of-living index and some figure

that you or I cannot accurately predict at this moment.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: What's your figure?

MR. SMITH: Certainly it's more than 8 per cent by anybody's

guess now. But perhaps the most important key of all, Mr.

Attorney-General, is that the figure....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You've got a 50 per cent....

MR. SMITH: ...spelled out in this statute is the incorrect

way to approach the problem. What you are doing is facing those

potential providers of accommodation with a fixed position they

cannot live with. As a result you'll not help the people you

say you wish to help most — those who cannot find a

rental accommodation or are paying too much, in their opinion,

for rents.

It's a bad, patchwork type of solution to a problem that we

agree is critical in the Province of

[ Page 2706 ]

British Columbia. I regret that we have this type of a bill

and this

section before the House because I submit that it will

not help with the problem. In the long run it will complicate

it far more than it is right now.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, I don't

want to go over the arguments of my predecessor....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: The previous speaker, Mr. Chairman — I

stand corrected. And I certainly don't wish to go back over the

very valid arguments that I proposed to this Legislature during

the debate on the principle of the bill. The principle of the

bill was accepted by the government side of the House, but not

by this side of the House — let's put it that way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think you would be out of order if you

started discussing the principle of the bill.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I certainly wouldn't... No, Mr. Chairman.

No, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind you once again that you should

be dealing with

section 2 as amended.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's right. I want to speak just briefly,

Mr. Chairman, to two points.

I want to bring up the 8 per cent. I would like the

Attorney-General to explain to us where the 8 per cent

came from, because in 1970-71-72 in the Province of

British Columbia there were practically no — get that,

Mr. Chairman — no rent increases whatsoever, and in 1973

there was a rent increase of approximately 5 per cent. That

means that those people who are in the rental accommodation

field have been lagging far behind in keeping up even with

inflation.

Wage increases throughout the province are anywhere in the

area of from 10 to 15 per cent. Indeed, this province has

known, and probably will know again in the very near future, of

strikes on behalf of the labouring force in this province to

get written into their contracts a tenet which will keep them

up with the increase in inflation and the increase in the cost

of living.

All I'm asking the Attorney-General is whether he

feels that 8 per cent — well, it would be a total of 13

per cent since 1970 in four years — is going to look

after the increased costs incurred by owners of apartment

buildings. Where does this 8 per cent...? Do you really feel

that?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you're a worse businessman than I

thought you were, Mr. Attorney-General — and I

don't mean that as a personal attack.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm not a businessman.

MR. PHILLIPS: The ironic thing about this is not only the 8

per cent which is some figure...I don't know whether the

Member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) who proposed this

piece of legislation to the Attorney-General came up with

the 8 per cent or not.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: It was grabbed out of the air, the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) says.

The other portion that I'd like to just briefly comment upon

is the retroactive portion of this section.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, it's very important, and I'll tell you

why, Mr. Chairman. I don't really know how in the name of

heaven the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is going

to look after the complaints and problems that this

section of

the Act is going to create. There could emanate from this much

legality.

There again, Mr. Chairman, I would like the

Attorney-General to explain to me where he came up with

this date of January 1. Why didn't you come up with January 31, or February 1, or March, or the day that this legislative

measure is proclaimed? Where did you come up with the date?

It would appear to me that in this

section of the Act both

the date on which it comes into effect and the percentage of

increase allowed under this

section were pulled out of the air.

I feel that when the Attorney-General was being forced to draw

up this legislative measure, due to pressures from inside his

caucus he had to come up with something to put some salve on

some of the Members that aren't here today.

This

section of the Act — the 8 per cent and the

retroactive portion — will do more harm to the very

people that he is trying to protect than can be imagined. As I

said during the debate on the principle of the bill, it will

take 20 years to get this housing situation back on stream and

create a surplus of apartment buildings on the market, which is

the only way to control the price in the marketplace.

I'm saddened in my heart, because I'm able to see the

long-range, damaging effects of this section.

Did the Attorney-General sit down and have discussions

with the people involved in the rental

[ Page 2707 ]

industry, or was it just an arbitrary figure that he pulled

out of the air. I'd like the Attorney-General to explain

that 8 per cent to me, and I'd like him to explain to me why

January 1 was chosen.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

HON. MR. MACDONALD: On the 8 per cent and the speech of the

Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) — and your own

remarks, Hon. Member — it must be borne in mind that the

fact that your taxes go up by even 30 per cent does not justify

a rent increase to all of the tenants of 30 per cent. It

depends, obviously, on the percentage of your gross revenue

that those taxes represented. So you can't just take that

cost-of -living factor.

Actually, if anything, we've been generous with the 8 per

cent. I previous years the overall increase in costs was around

4 per cent. It's a little higher this year because our

information is that the fires of inflation were burning a

little brighter. They have been for the past few months and

that's part of the reason for this bill.

The 8 per cent is a reasonable figure to more than take care

of reasonable increases in costs. I think it does that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the Attorney-General would tell me

what percentage of rent goes against principal and what goes

against expenses?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, it varies, of course, depending on

the size of the building and the kind of financing you

have.

MR. PHILLIPS: There must be an average. What's the

average?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The average increase in cost....

MR. PHILLIPS: No. What is the average in costs and repayment

of principal on the apartment block? There's an average.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're talking about mortgage costs

now.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm talking about all the costs.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I just said operating costs had been

running about 4 per cent per year — the inflation factor.

That's all I'm prepared to say there.

MR. PHILLIPS: You're not answering my question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have order, please?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You asked about January 1? Clearly the

people have to be protected during this inflationary period.

The simple thing, to make it simply understood and easily

enforced and carried out both by landlords and tenants, is to

have it for the year. It will be as interim as we can make it

because of the new legislation that has been referred to.

MR. PHILLIPS: The information I have — it varies

again. Approximately 60 per cent of the rent received by the

renter is expenses. It includes interest, taxes, cost of

upkeep, depreciation on the building, et cetera.

I can understand you saying the portion of rent received

doesn't have to keep up with inflation, providing you don't

have to replace the building. But if you have 60 per cent of

the revenue coming in, and if you take all other costs into

consideration, and if you also take into consideration that

there were no rent increases in 1970, 1971, 1972 and only a 5

per cent increase in 1973, and take the 60 per cent factor of

costs and put it into your computer, Mr.

Attorney-General, you come up with 15 per cent that you

would allow. That's what you would allow.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Would you allow that?

M R. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'd allow 15 per cent.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, I wanted it on the record.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's on the record, Mr.

Attorney-General.

Even then, Mr. Attorney-General, you should also allow

for certain adjustments. In some cases, where apartments have

been rented on a long-term basis, there have been no

increases over a past number of years. Also, as you full well

know, any large apartment blocks occupied during the last two

or three years, when you're drlling on a market where there was

a vacancy...Mr. Attorney-General, are you listening to

me? When you're selling on a vacancy, you sometimes rent those

out at lower than your cost to get them filled up — if

you understand the market.

But I'm very serious. I would also like you to explain if

you feel people are going to provide the accommodation needed

after you bring this Act into effect. That is the crux of the

whole situation. Your indiscretion in bringing in retroactive

legislation and your arbitrary figure of 8 per cent is going to

do damage to the very people you want to help. I don't want to

have to stand in this Legislature five years from now and tell

you that I told you so, when all of

[ Page 2708 ]

these people are clamoring for accommodation and there is

none and the price is under the table in the black market. It's

happened in other areas and it will happen here.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I'll be brief because there's a

great tendency to touch on the principle of this bill rather

than the specific data in this section. But this 8 per cent as

quoted in the

section should not be dismissed as easily as the

Attorney-General suggests.

I hesitate to go into this letter-quoting business

because one swallow doesn't make a summer. Each side can make a

point from this letter or that letter. But I think the general

consensus in this House, if we're objective, would be that

there had been people gouging, but there have also been a large

number of owners of rental accommodation who have treated the

renter very fairly. That wasn't from any altruistic point of

view either. Let's be fair. There were tax shelters involved

over recent years where the owner of the property was receiving

a federal tax benefit and was, in effect, subsidizing the

tenant. In those cases I'm quoting, the tenant was actually

getting a lower-than-market rent because the owner

of the property had a federal tax benefit. We're not going to

talk about the morals or the motivations or anything. That was

a fact of life.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier wants it reinstated.

MR. WALLACE: That's right. I was delighted to hear the

Premier say yesterday that he's all in favour of this kind of

incentive — and so are we in this party. But the reason

we have to oppose this

section and the 8 per cent is that, even

if it is a temporary situation, it is not, in our opinion, an

accurate or reasonable figure even on this temporary basis.

Now, why do I say that? I admit, as the

Attorney-General has said, the general consumer index

figures cannot be taken as the general figure to be applied in

a blanket fashion to rental accommodation. I accept that.

Although in passing, the latest figures quoted the other day in

the national consumer price index is 10.4 per cent. That's the

worst it has been in Canada, I think, for the last several

years, according to John Turner.

One other reason in passing that I oppose the 8 per cent as

not being high enough is the fact that the Minister himself has

said this measure was taken to try and give people some

protection against inflation. But what about the owner of the

property? He's being hammered by inflation day in and day out.

The same John Turner stated the other day that the worst of

inflation is still to come. The Economic Council of Canada made

a statement to the effect that, if anything, inflation can only

get worse.

So you're protecting the tenant with an 8 per cent ceiling

in this section, at a time when — as the Minister himself

said — the fires of inflation are burning more brightly.

I think it's like Dante's Inferno, if you want my opinion.

"Burning a little more brightly" is rather a euphemism, I

think. The inflation situation is not even levelling off.

It's all very well, in this

section of this bill, to put in

an 8 per cent ceiling for the benefit of the tenant. But what

about the owner of the property who is trying to cope with this

ever-increasing rate of inflation? The answer is very

simple: there will be the ever-increasing trend to

convert to condominiums; there will be less rental

accommodation built; and, as I said earlier this afternoon, the

situation for the actual person looking for rental

accommodation will be worse, not better.

I just got a clipping from the newspaper I was referring to

yesterday. I'm quoting from the Vancouver Province ,

April 30, just yesterday:

"The, worst of inflation is yet to come, the Finance department warned Monday in its annual economic review.

"A general round of price increases in basic commodities has created the basis for sharp consumer price increases during 1974."

I have to correct a statement I made a minute ago, Mr.

Chairman.

"Finance Minister John Turner tabled it without comment."

It was my impression when I spoke from memory a moment ago

that John Turner had recognized and said that inflation could

only get worse.

The Minister has pointed out that general figures shouldn't

be taken as guidelines as to the cost of operating an

apartment. But what about some of these figures, Mr.

Attorney-General?

The cost of heating oil. How much has the cost of heating

oil gone up? Figures I have are in the region of 26 per cent

for the cost of heating and furnace oil.

The payment for the caretaker of the building, who, quite

rightly, under legislation is to receive the minimum wage, will

go up to $2.50 on July 1. The figure I've been given is

something of the order of a 20 per cent increase in caretaker's

pay in the last 18 months.

We've got the tax on utilized capital, another piece of

legislation introduced recently, which again varies depending

on the size of the suite and the amount of money involved, is

somewhere in the neighbourhood of $15 to $20 a year per

suite.

We have municipal taxes, which on the average even on

residential accommodation are somewhere in the neighbourhood of

10 per cent. We can't measure that accurately, but it is

certainly 8 per cent at the very least and likely more.

Building insurance. No owner can possibly go into

[ Page

2709 ]

the rental system without insuring the building. This has gone up, in some

cases, 60 per cent in the last two years. Maybe with ICBC moving into general

insurance all that interest the government got the other day from the prepayment

of its premiums is going to go help pay for insurance on buildings. I doubt

it.

There are a variety of other things included in the cost of

the building. We've got the cablevision situation which relates

back in part to the amendment from the Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). But cablevision rates

have gone up considerably.

When we have plumbers turning down an increase of $2.90 an

hour, Mr. Chairman, in the present bargaining, I think we can

understand the cost of maintaining service in an apartment,

which is already a very substantial item — paying for

repairs by plumbers, electricians and appliance men.

In mentioning this, Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to intrude

into the labour dispute that exists; I'm just quoting the fact

that the kind of costs which are being negotiated are of the

order of a $2.90 an hour increase. That would mean that a

plumber would be earning in the neighbourhood of $11 an

hour.

I think it's very realistic that apartment owners, reading

the newspapers these days and listening to this kind of

information, must be very distressed to realize that while the

cost of repairs and servicemen to apartment buildings has been

going up in recent years — it's somewhat in keeping with

this headline that we had from the federal finance department

just yesterday — if we think inflation is bad right now,

it's only going to get worse.

This kind of local situation in British Columbia dealing

with the wage increases in the construction industry will have

an enormous impact on the cost of providing this kind of

service to apartment owners and the owners of rental

accommodation. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the 8 per

cent figure, even looking at it as some kind of temporary

measure — which the Minister has repeatedly said this is.... From that I imply that future legislation will be

implemented on the basis of a much more careful and documented

appraised study of all these items I've mentioned and have been

mentioned repeatedly by other Members of the opposition.

But in this particular case it does indeed appear as though

the Minister has sort of stuck a pin in the donkey and come up

with 8 per cent. Although it might be very difficult to find a

really precise figure which would be fair, both to the consumer

— in this case the renter — and to the owner, I

just feel that the 8 per cent figure is too low.

We haven't had adequate justification from the Minister or explanation as to

why he came up with the 8 per cent. Since we feel that the section, in placing

a ceiling of this kind at the present time will — as I said earlier this afternoon

— make the situation worse and not better, for the simple reason that fewer

people will be investing in apartments for the numerous reasons I've stated,

I just feel that we have no option but to oppose this section.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): It seems

to me that the important question here is not so much the

precise figure of 8 per cent or 4 per cent or 12 per cent. As

long as the figure is but an interim one, 8 per cent will be

too high in some cases — but it will be an effective

floor because high rents will go up 8 per cent with this

legislation — and it will be too low in others. But the

Attorney-General's argument I would think, in specifying

any number at all is to rely on the idea that this legislation

is indeed temporary.

I wonder if, as he saw events develop over the last few

weeks, he would give this House some specific idea as to when

he believes the replacement legislation will be in place and

functioning so that this Act will be superseded?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what's

said by the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace). There's one

factor you must remember, too, and that's the inflation of land

values which is of real benefit — in the long run it may

be, or maybe in the short run — to the owner of rental

units, because the value of the building and the land in the

last year has almost doubled in many cases.

I'm talking about around Vancouver and....

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, they are selling it, some of them,

and I don't suppose those land values will ever sink back.

That's a credit to the owner.

In terms of how long it will take, I'm kind of stepping on

thin ice by pushing the thing before the legislation is

approved — Bill 105. I've already got work started on the

thing in terms of setting up the office, simplifying it as much

as we can, talking to businessmen in the construction field

— very fruitful talks at the present time.

I'm not going to go into details about the construction of

new rental units in British Columbia with suitable incentives

for such construction. Things like that are now going ahead

even though Bill 105 hasn't reached the floor of the

Legislature. Maybe I'm in contempt of the Legislature in

assuming it's going to be passed, but I feel I'm doing that

preparation work just as quickly as I can.

So as for my previous feeling that it would be six to eight

months, we may be able to abridge that. I hope so.

[ Page 2710 ]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I think it's clear that all

Members in the House realize the difficulty of fixing a

percentage, whether it be 8 per cent or any other percentage.

There was a very clear indication in my constituency —

and I know this is true in a number of others — that

something had to be done and some figure had to be produced. It

was an emergency situation and I think that the 8 per cent

choice was as good as any. Though, when I examine what that 8

per cent does in many instances, I still think that the

apartment owners are getting too good a deal from the proposed

legislation.

One of the things that is happening that makes it difficult

to determine a percentage in this case is that owners are now

beginning to include increased mortgage charges as part of

their operating costs.

Say, for example, they had a mortgage that was 8 per cent

over the years. Because of the land value increases and the

property value increases, with the increased value they are now

going and re-mortgaging their property — perhaps at a 10

per cent rate, which is a 25 per cent increase in mortgage

charges. There's no doubt of that.

They are then arguing that because the mortgages charges are

up 25 per cent they must pass that mortgage charge along to the

tenant. I object quite strongly to that. I don't believe that

the tenants should have to bear the additional cost of the new

mortgage, because the owner is attempting to use that money he

gets on a new mortgage for other speculative purposes.

It seems to me that what we have there is a direct situation

where the tenant is subsidizing, is paying for, speculation

that the landowner is carrying out. For that reason I don't

believe the landlord should be allowed to include the increase

in mortgage charges as a direct charge to their tenants when

they are re-mortgaging in order to carry out further

speculation.

If they were re-mortgaging to build new apartment

accommodation, then there might be some argument. But they are

not re-mortgaging to gain cash to build new apartment

accommodation; they're investing in other areas. I find that

absolutely wrong, and I don't agree with them that they should

include that in their calculation of their 8 per cent, or

whatever percentage it should be.

So we all agree that other charges, heating and maintenance

and other charges, have increased by more than 8 per cent. But

when you figure the thing out, an accurate figure probably

would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3 per cent to 5 per

cent on the average.

I know a company that argues that 3 to 5 per cent — if the re-mortgaging game

isn't carried out — is sufficient over the long term, even in today's inflationary

market. So I just wanted to say that the figure of 8 per cent is difficult to

choose. The best thing about the figure is that it's interim, that it's not

going to last.

The best thing about it is that we are developing in other

legislation better procedures, because we can't have a figure

that applies right across the board. We can't have a figure

that applies in Vancouver and applies equally in Fort St. John,

because the situations are different. That's why it's important

that we get on with Bill 105.

In the interim I see the 8 per cent as being a very fair

figure to the landlords and one that the tenants can live with

in this day and age.

MR. GIBSON: What the Hon. Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour just said is the exact reason why it's

so difficult for this Legislature to be asked to approve a

specific cost figure — a specific price escalation

figure, rather — without having any specific cost data

placed before it. The only salvation is the fact that it is of

an interim nature. I welcome the Attorney-General's

reassurance that in a matter of from six to eight months other

arrangements should be in place, assuming, of course, passage

by this House.

I have a question about the amendment that he moved —

I believe it's been moved; "This

section does not apply to

residential premises that were not rented as residential

premises after the first day of January, 1973." I'm a little

confused as to the exact

interpretation of that amendment, Mr.

Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: "...that it will not apply where there was

no recent base." Eight per cent on last year is one thing but 8

per cent when the thing hadn't been rented for a long

period of time might be 8 per cent on what was 1968. In

the meantime, it was used for family purposes — something

of that kind.

So in other words such premises could come back on the

rental market in an uncontrolled state. There would be no base;

they would not be controlled.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, very briefly what the

Attorney-General has just said I think supports some of

the arguments that have been presented from this side of the

House.

You should recognize that the rent as of January 1, 1974,

was a rent which was probably established in September, 1972,

because the landlord having determined what his rent should be

in September, 1972, would then be obliged to give notice, and

that rent would have applied for 12 calendar months.

So what we have with this 8 per cent limitation is an

authority on the part of the government to permit an increase

by 8 per cent of a rent predicated upon costs and conditions

applied perhaps in September, 1972. For the

Attorney-General to suggest that the

[ Page 2711 ]

amendment that he put in was to assure that there was no

base upon which the 8 per cent should apply and that then there

should be an exemption, is I think a tacit admission of the

inadequacy of applying 8 per cent to a rent which would have

been determined, in fact, about 15 months before the beginning

of this year.

The other consequence of

section 2, Mr. Chairman, is that if

a landlord been paying attention to his business and if he had

given proper valid increases in any period prior to January 1,

1973, or, indeed, for any 12-month period ending early in

1974 — if you give the increase, you see, prior to

January, 1973, it went for a whole year — this

legislation permits and, indeed, encourages such a landlord to

apply a further 8 per cent increase in this year.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Yes, because if the rent was established

in January, 1973, it would run for the 12-month period

beginning January, 1974, and that landlord is now entitled to

another 8 per cent on top of that, whether he requires it or

not. He's encouraged by this legislation to take advantage of

this 8 per cent limitation.

Those landlords who had concern for their tenants or who may

have acted in response to the government's plea for restraint

over the previous 12-month period, and didn't increase

their rent, have been penalized. It's therefore an

indiscriminate penalty embodied in this legislation which

discriminates against those landlords who have acted

responsibly, and discriminates in favour of those landlords who

have at every possible opportunity taken advantage of

increasing the rents.

The reason that I oppose this legislation was just that. By

establishing an arbitrary percentage increase allowable, you

encourage landlords to take advantage and you do so without

concern to the harm that a limited increase may have for other

people who have acted in a manner that this government would

consider to be appropriate.

What this government should have done was to have moved with

its Landlord and Tenant Act , postponing this

legislation, and to have ensured that the authority given to a

rentals man or some other body to increase rents would have

permitted a review of any rental increases from January 1,

1974, and proper adjustments by way of recompense to tenants

for what would be an unacceptable rental increase. But this

legislation does not make this provision. Unfortunately we have

to debate this legislation knowing that in the wings there is

other legislation which may have a beneficial effect and

provide a lasting solution to this particular problem.

I just want to deal with one other matter with respect to

section 2.

It deals with the comments that I made when we were considering the

amendment to

section 1 presented by the Member for North

Vancouver-Seymour (Mr. Gabelmann). The limitation of 8 per cent applies

to an amount of rent for the same residential premises. To give to the

cabinet the right to determine what is or is not included in rent is of

no consequence under

section 2 if the residential premises change.

Therefore for a tenant who rented an apartment without parking and is

now renting an apartment with parking the residential premises are

different, and that landlord under those circumstances completely

escapes the consequences of

section 2, even with the amendment. The

Member for Victoria points out that if the premises are furnished as

opposed to unfurnished he escapes, merely because the amendment deals

with rent rather than the definition of residential premises.

What you have, therefore, is a further compounding of the

problem because the government is able to determine what is or

is not to be included in rent, but your limiting percentage is

an amount of rent greater than 8 per cent in respect of the

last period for the same residential premises. If the same

residential premises are rented now rather than were rented

before you escape entirely the 8 per cent limitation.

It only creates the possibility of further indiscriminate

penalties; it only opens more loopholes for the landlord who

would wish to act other than in a manner which this government,

and I trust this assembly, would consider to be

responsible.

I would trust that before we pass third reading of this bill

the Attorney-General would concern himself with the

consequences of this legislation and consider whether or not we

shouldn't proceed with consideration of the Landlord and

Tenant Act amendments and never bring this Act into

law.

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

completely with the statements of the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). This amendment

certainly isn't going to encourage anyone to become a landlord.

And it certainly is unfortunate for those landlords who are not

in this as a business, but for one reason or another have

become owners of property which is now rented or who have

acquired apartment buildings as widows, for example.

I think of one in particular who has been a landlord for a

number of years. Completely unaware of the type of legislation

that is being proposed, she has been an exceptionally good

landlord — kept the rent very low, done everything that

she could to encourage the older tenants who had been in that

particular apartment block for years to stay there, was

unwilling to move them out even though her costs were rising,

was unaware of the fact that they were rising because her books

were done by an

[ Page 2712 ]

accountant and at the end of the year that was the first

time she was aware of whether she was making or losing money,

realized early this year the rents should be raised and is now

frozen into a position where she really is losing money and can

do nothing about it.

I agree completely that the Act should be changed and a new

one brought on right away so that someone like that would not

suffer. She does not intend in any way to be a gouge, wants her

tenants to be happy, and yet wants to survive and live

herself.

The statement around many of the coffee shops today by

people who are landlords is that they are not charitable

institutions by choice. It just happened that way.

Section 2 as amended approved.

section 3.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: With respect to subsection (2), could the

Hon. Attorney-General indicate why the regional district

is being exempted from the opportunity of determining whether

or not this shall apply to residential premises situated in

that area?

It seems to me that this subsection gives the municipality

the right to take unto itself certain...to make a

determination as to whether in their particular circumstances

this should apply. Yet for those areas outside of a

municipality but nonetheless within a regional district no such

right is given. This is a further example of where people who

live in unorganized territories are enjoying something like

second-class citizenship in this province. Why doesn't it

apply there as well as in municipalities?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the reason why it is

municipalities and not regional districts is because of the

wide variation in conditions in different parts of the regional

district in many cases, so there might be a particular problem

in one that didn't apply regionally. As for the unorganized

territories, their complaints can be heard under

section 1 of

this section.

MR. WALLACE: On

section 3, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the

Attorney-General could give the House some kind of

guidance Or his reaction as to how on earth the cabinet is

going to cope with

section 3. It seems to me that the statement

is rather obtuse in that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which is the

cabinet, in discretion may order that the

section does not

Lieutenant-Governor may specify. Then subsections (2) and

(3) spell out the way in which the council of a municipality or

the council of a regional district can make an appeal.

Now the Minister has touched already this afternoon, with your forbearance,

Mr. Chairman, on other legislation before the House where he's getting certain

things underway. I just wonder if the Attorney-General really feels that if

there is any kind of sizeable number of applications, does he really believe

that he has the staff and the organization and the concepts to look into these

council applications in any kind of realistic and detailed way and be able to

decide whether the councils concerned really have a legitimate request or not.

If council applies for a variety of properties... Or is the

Minister contemplating that there will be a very small number

of appeals? Will the appeals for exemption be handled by the

Minister himself, or by which segment of which branch of his

department? — and so on.

It just seems to me that this exemption

section provides on

the surface some kind of mechanism of appeal. Yet one wonders

if the bodies — perhaps that's not such a good way to put

it — one wonders if the staff and the machinery really

exist to give this

section of the bill any real validity.

Maybe the Attorney-General could give us some idea of

the guidelines that will be used, not only as to what

conditions will be considered as reasonable in seeking

exemption, and what will actually be the line of authority and

the person or the persons before whom the council might appeal

if it was seeking an exemption.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The appeal would be to this department.

Preferably it should be a class appeal to show, say, that all

the mobile homes in this municipality do not need this kind of

control — as a special problem, as a class. We do not

rule out in this

section an individual appeal. But, quite

frankly, in a very interim period like this, particularly

bearing in mind that under Bill 105 if an increase is applied

for by a person who suffered an injustice here the fact of that

injustice can be taken into account under 105 and some equity

can be done at that time under that bill.

Bearing all that in mind, I would hope that it would be sort

of class exemptions with a strong case made out. That would be

the kind of thing that should be considered.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

MR. GABELMANN: I move the amendment standing in my name on

the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, rather than an amendment to

section 4, there seems to be a new section. Could we deal with

section 4 first? Then you can propose your new

section 5 as

renumbered.

[ Page 2713 ]

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

MR. GABELMANN: I'm not sure now which

section I'm moving,

but I would like to move the new

section 5, which is

numbered 4 in the papers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the proposed amendment, new number

5, pass? Is there any debate on the amendment?

Amendment approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Section 5 has been renumbered. Old

section 5, new

section 6.

section 6.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Act is made retroactive for purposes

stated in the legislation, but how long is the interim period going to be? It

does not make any provision for the day when this legislation will become ineffective.

If it is to be interim I think there should be some clear indication that when

Bill 105 becomes law, if it becomes law — particularly the rentals man provisions

— we could have some assurances that this particular legislation will then cease

to have an effect.

Therefore, I would move, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of

section 6 the words be added: "and shall expire not later than

December 31, 1974."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would have to declare this motion out of

order as it tends to dictate government policy.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Tends to dictate government policy? What

do you suppose this Legislature is? Are we completely governed

by government policy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is, without consent of the Crown, Mr.

Member.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's not within your power —

refusing an amendment, that is, something that is put forward

which is against government policy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Without consent of the Crown I can't accept

the amendment.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

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

the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 75, Residential Premises Interim Rent

Stabilization Act , reported complete with amendment to be

considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I've just got a point

of order. By leave of the House I would like the House to

welcome a distinguished visitor to the House this afternoon who

has been enjoying the debate for this past hour or so. It is

Mr. and Mrs. Gordon Winter from Newfoundland.

Mr. Winter is the Lieutenant-Governor designate for

the Province of Newfoundland. I hope the House will welcome him

on his holiday to British Columbia before he takes up his

duties in that far eastern province in June. He is sitting in

the Members' gallery on my right.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker,

I call second reading of Bill 115.

SUPREME COURT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply

enabling the federal appointments, the ones in question when it

comes to making judges of the Supreme Court of British Columbia... The necessities, as they have been presented to me, are

that the number eligible to be filled should be increased from

23 to 25. That's the principle of the bill. I

move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 11S, Supreme Court Act, 1974 , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 61, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DAY ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, moving second reading of Bill 61, British Columbia Day Act , it gives me special

pleasure, as we are visited here today by people from other

parts of Canada, to point out to them by way of information to

the House that the purpose and the principle of this bill is

evident.

[ Page 2714 ]

August 1, or the closest working day to it, is a statutory

holiday in every other province in Canada. By coincidence, an

Act to provide for the Government of British Columbia, which

changed us from the Colony of British Columbia, was passed by

the parliament in the United Kingdom on August 2, 1858. That

was before Social Credit, I think, but only just.

We feel that British Columbia, like every other province,

could benefit and should have a holiday around August 1. We

feel that the holiday should be dedicated to the pioneers who

built the colony of British Columbia into the great province it

is today. With a great deal of pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I move

second reading of this bill.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, the official opposition agrees

that August would be a good date for another official holiday.

We think they have chosen an exceptionally good means to

recognize the pioneers of this province. I only hope that when

this date rolls around, this Legislature will be allowed to

have that day off also. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't intend to

oppose this bill, but I want to recognize that the drafters of

the bill have correctly included a tribute to James Douglas

who, on the 19th day of November, in Fort Langley, British

Columbia, proclaimed the Act setting up the Government of

British Columbia.

I want again to get in an annual plea that the cabinet

continue its regular cabinet meeting in Fort Langley on the

19th day of December. Perhaps, while it's in a holiday mood, it

might think about extending the celebration of Douglas Day to

the rest of the province instead of isolating it at Fort

Langley, recognize that famous day for what it is as well, and

recognize, of course, that Fort Langley was the first capital

of British Columbia.

MR. PHILLIPS: I certainly support this bill, but it doesn't

go quite far enough. There should be another

section 1n this

bill which, on this day, would give all British Columbians the

freedom they had before the socialists moved in in September of

They should have the right, Mr. Speaker, to buy their car

insurance where they desire to do so. They should have the

right to own land. Industry should have the right to develop

this great province of ours. So, Mr. Speaker, the bill is a

good one, but on this day, this holiday known as British

Columbia Day, all British Columbians should be allowed to have

the freedom they had under a free-enterprise

government.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: This isn't Hallowe'en.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: Get to your point, Bill.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): That's right.

What is the point?

MR. WALLACE: "What is British Columbia Day?"

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes, I think it's very, very appropriate

that the new government brought in a new holiday. It's still

coming up with new ideas — and that's more than they can

say for the Conservatives.

MR. PHILLIPS: New taxes.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: No, my friend for South Peace River, a

royalty is not a tax.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we have a holiday from the irrelevancy,

please?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it's very

appropriate that we have a holiday. I recently made a tour of

my district and I find that this holiday is being very

popularly received. The teachers would rather have had it other

than the first Monday in August, as would the students, but I

think that shows we are trying to do the right thing by all

people. We're trying to give them a holiday when the weather is

the best. I think this is actually the purpose: so we can get

together and celebrate the origin and the history of our

province on a good day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Well, not until the next election.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I, too, am

very much in favour of having a holiday on August 1. I was

brought up in Manitoba, and there we used to have a civic

holiday on August 1. When I went to Ontario, they had a civic

holiday there on August 1. I came to British Columbia and

I felt I was deprived.

I really look towards this as a wonderful experience. I

think we need more special holidays so that people can

celebrate together and enjoy things. I think we get to be a

very serious people and we have to be able to get out and enjoy

our holidays. Also, it gives us an opportunity in this way to

remember the great people who have helped in making this

country what it is. Thank you.

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

just a question. When the Provincial

[ Page 2715 ]

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) is winding up second reading,

perhaps he could tell us whether or not this holiday will apply

to the Members of the Legislative Assembly.

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

I do appreciate this extra leisure time. At least I used to appreciate it before

I came into the Legislature. Now we get very little leisure time and we're always

trying to make more leisure for other people. Maybe the day will come when we'll

be able to enjoy it along with all the rest.

MR. PHILLIPS: You can retire any time.

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Back years ago, one of the objectives was

that we wouldn't be satisfied until we had every day a holiday

and every holiday a pay day.

HON. MR. LAUK: I just have one question of the Hon. the

Provincial Secretary: will the pubs be open on this day?

MR. SPEAKER: I must warn you, the Hon. Provincial Secretary

closes the debate.

HON. MR. HALL: The support is overwhelming in support of a

holiday. I hope some of the other bills I have later on will

achieve the same support — indeed, the resolutions I have

on the order paper.

Answering some of the questions. A matter of celebrating the

holiday in a liquid form should be directed at the

Attorney-General.

Whether or not we'll be on holiday will depend on the Member

for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). (Laughter.) I'm beginning

to wonder whether, indeed, his contributions will enable us to

proclaim B.C. Day this year. We might have to get the

Lieutenant-Governor in for a special trip.

I think it's a pleasure for us all to realize that we're

catching up with our other provinces and that, as Minister in

another portfolio to do with recreation and leisure, I think we

all realize the granting of holidays is just a start. We also

have to provide leisure services in a way that many of you have

written to me about. I think all Members of the House for their

reaction those that have informed me of their reaction to the

Broom Report on recreation and leisure which is part and parcel

of this situation.

I move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 61, British Columbia Day Act , read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 62.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TARTAN ACT

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, in an effort to garner all the

support I can throughout the province by introducing holidays

and also appealing to the Celtic vote, I take pleasure in

moving for second reading of Bill 62.

The purpose and principle of the bill is evident. During the

1966-67 centennial celebrations, which marked the

creation of British Columbia as one colony and marked our

centenary, the provincial centennial committee adopted a tartan

known as the British Columbia centennial tartan. This tartan

was so well received that it is recorded in the appropriate

registers and, indeed, was recorded with the Court of the Lord

Lyon in Edinburgh on January 8, 1969, and also was registered

as a trademark under the auspices of the Trade Marks

Act . That happened on November 9, 1971.

As a Sassenach, Mr. Speaker, I'm having some difficulty in

appreciating the full import and solemnity of this registration

that the Minister of Transport is applauding. However, the

government now proposes this centennial tartan be adopted as

the official British Columbia tartan. I have a sample of it

here, if any Members are interested in observing the patterns.

I've had many inquiries from the textile industry that I've

been associated with for many years to get into massive

production of this tartan. I have the honour to move second

reading of this bill.

MR. MORRISON: We are also happy to see a tartan recognized

officially for the Province of British Columbia. I am a little

disappointed that the Minister did not wear a proper kilt

today, with the tartan. It appears to me that there are far too

many red threads, which is another disappointment. But I

believe this province will wear this tartan with honour for

many years.

MR. McGEER: As one of Irish ancestry, I nevertheless want to

support this bill as well, just to express mild disappointment

that the Provincial Secretary didn't do a Highland fling out on

the lawn complete with bagpipes and flanked by the Minister of

Transport and the Member for Oak Bay. It could have been a

sensational introduction and I still hope the Provincial

Secretary will see fit to wear the very first B.C. tartan kilt

in public so that the people can decide for themselves how

desirable it will be to spread this through the land.

MR. WALLACE: It's always a great pleasure for a Scotsman to

talk about tartans, regardless of the

[ Page 2716 ]

number of black, red, white or green threads. If I have any

criticism of the bill it is the rather inhuman way the tartan

is described. I think we should have some motif or some kind of

warm rich description of the flowing colours or whatever they

happen to be. It looks like a real hotch-potch, looking

section 1. I'm sorry that the Provincial Secretary didn't

have a larger piece of fabric to give us some idea what the

colour composition is.

I was a little concerned that the Provincial Secretary in

introducing the bill said that he had even had it registered in

the books of the court of the Lord Lyon, King of Arms of

Scotland. Not that I'm any expert on this part of Scottish

history, but I know that much — that there's no way that

a tartan's worth any kind of threads in any colour until it's

registered with the Lord Lyon, King of Arms, in Edinburgh.

I'm sure that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)

certainly has the figure for a kilt. I can just imagine the

tremendous sway of the kilt which the Provincial Secretary

could carry out as he swaggers down the halls of this very fine

building.

I think this is just another very delightful form of

identity with many of the people who have come to Canada and to

British Columbia of Scottish heritage. I just hope it doesn't

tend, however, to signify that there aren't many, many other

people from many, many other countries who are very much a part

of the fabric of the life of British Columbia. My only

reservation about this bill is that, if anything it is racist.

It brings into the foreground one particular segment of our

people when, in point of fact, there are many other citizens

and Canadians who come to British Columbia and give a great

deal to the province from countries other than Scotland. With

that very minimal reservation, I look forward to this tartan

becoming well recognized and identified with British

Columbia.

I hope that there will be some official baptism of the

tartan in one way, shape or form with Haig and Haig,

preferably, since that's the....

Interjection.

MR. WALLA