1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3887 ]

CONTENTS

An Act To Amend the Protection of Children Act (Bill 143). Mr. D.A. Anderson.

Introduction and first reading — 3887

An Act to Amend the Public Schools Act (Bill 144). Mr. D.A. Anderson.

Introduction

and first reading — 3887

Oral Questions

Reasons for housing conference. Mr. Phillips — 3887

Approval of pay increases for order-in-council appointees. Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 3887

Illegal operation of airline carrier service. Mr. Wallace — 3888

Saanich strawberries selling at a loss. Mr. Curtis — 3888

Diking at Roberts Bank. Mr. Chabot — 3888

Results of meeting with Indians. Mr. Fraser — 3889

Cancellation of hospital lease. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3889

Fire services in Victoria. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 3889

Concession at Fort Steele. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 3889

Squamish railcar plant production. Mr. Bennett — 3890

Reinstitution of North Okanagan paving projects. Mrs. Jordan — 3890

Municipal Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 103). Second reading.

Mr. D.A. Anderson

— 3890

Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 110). Second reading.

Mr. Wallace —

Resort Municipality of Whistler Act (Bill 130). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer

— 3891

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural

Gas Producers Act (Bill 129). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Stupich —

Statement

Memorandum of understanding re Indian cut-off lands.

Hon. Mr. Levi

— 3898

British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal Income Tax on Behalf of Natural

Gas Producers Act (Bill 129). Second reading.

Mr. Gardom — 3899

Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 97).

Committee, report and third reading

— 3901

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill

135). Committee stage.

Amendment to

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3901

Report stage — 3901

Public Service Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 136). Committee stage.

section 7.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3901

Report and third reading — 3901

Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 140). Committee

stage.

section 1.

Mr. Phillips — 3902

section 15.

Mr. Phillips — 3902

Report and third reading — 3902

Department of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources Amendment Act, 197 5- (Bill

127). Committee stage.

section 1.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3902

section 2.

Mr. Curtis — 3903

Amendments to

section 2.

Mr. Wallace — 3905

section 2.

Mr. Gardom — 3906

Amendments to

section 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3908

section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 3909

Division on

section 2 — 3918

On the title.

Mr. Phillips — 3918

Report and third reading — 3918

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 142).

Committee stage.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3918

section 2.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3919

section 3.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3919

section 4.

Hon. Mr. Hall — 3919

TUESDAY, JUNE 24, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 143,

An Act to Amend

the Protection of Children Act, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT TO AMEND

THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT

On a motion by Mr. D.A. Anderson, Bill 144,

An Act to Amend

the Public Schools Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

REASON FOR HOUSING CONFERENCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would

like to direct my question to the Minister of Housing with

regard to the upcoming housing conference on June 26 and 27 in

Vancouver. Was this conference instigated by the Department of

Housing or was it requested by the public sector? In other

words, what I'm trying to determine, Mr. Minister, is why we

are having this housing conference at this time.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I'd be

pleased to answer that. I've had several representations made

in my office by such diverse groups as the Vancouver Board of

Trade, the Vancouver District Labour Council, the construction

association, Urban Development Institute, HUDAC and various

municipalities, a lot of them saying many of the same things

and having some differences. I felt it would be helpful if

these people could be brought together to share some of their

points of view and some of their experience. Response has been

very great in this area.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister's

frank reply. But in looking over the list of speakers I wonder if the government

is going to talk to these people and try and give them a message as to how the

government is doing things, or are they going to listen to the private sector

as to what the private sector suggests? Is it a conference where you're going

to be telling the private sector what to do or are you going to be listening

for suggestions?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I think that if one looks at

the list of speakers they will see that it's weighted probably

toward input from the private sector. Even some of the speakers

who might appear by their title to be well versed in the public

sector in fact have experience in both fields, such as the

Deputy Minister from Ontario, who is coming out to speak, and,

of course, Mr. Paulus of Dunhill Development. We are in this

one concentrating really on the private sector, although I

expect that things will range fairly widely.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): On a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a purely

invitational meeting. I would ask the Minister if any provision

has been made to include any Members of this House as

observers.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, there have not been such

provisions.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Hah!

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It is an invitational meeting, Mr.

Speaker. There have been several held in the past to which we

have been invited.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can we come anyway?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: It's going to be very crowded, Mr.

Member. Within the confines of the room there will be some

record kept of the proceedings in a brief sort of form in an

attempt to follow up.

MR. FRASER: Is that your version of open government?

MR. GIBSON: On a continuing supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I

would ask him if the press is going to be excluded as well, and

if he wouldn't give consideration to having MLAs there as well,

because we can't get any sensible answers on housing in this

House and we'd like to hear some experts.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

APPROVAL OF PAY INCREASES FOR

ORDER-IN-COUNCIL APPOINTEES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the

[ Page 3888 ]

Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker. Has the executive council

approved pay increases for Deputy Ministers, Associate Deputy

Ministers and other order-in-council appointments?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): That's a matter of

public record, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, the question I'd like to ask

is that it's no longer a matter of public record in that we can

no longer get information on the pay that these people are

receiving, unlike past practice. I would ask the Provincial

Secretary whether his office would instruct the Public Service

Commission to make such information on the amounts paid to

Deputy Ministers and Associate Deputy Ministers available to

Members of this House.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's not any more.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: As the Minister seems to be in doubt, Mr.

Speaker, I point out that according to order-in-council 147 75

of January 15 and order-in-council 542 75 of February 6, no

longer are the actual amounts being given but only the ranges

within which such people are being paid. We can no longer get

information on their pay scales.

ILLEGAL OPERATION OF

AIRLINE CARRIER SERVICE

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, since the Minister

of Transport and Communications seems to be very alert today, I

wonder if I could ask him a question with regard to the carrier

service which delivers lost airline baggage from Vancouver

airport to the homes of travellers travelling with Air Canada. Is

the Minister aware that in February the contract was awarded to

Perimeter Transportation Ltd. and that this company has no

permit from the motor carriers branch and is therefore

functioning illegally?

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

Communications): I was not aware of that; I'll check into

it.

MR. WALLACE: As a follow-up, Mr. Speaker, there appears to

have been some delay in considering the application. Could he

find out if there is some concern in the department about

granting this permit? If the function is continuing illegally,

will he consider asking the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) to lay charges?

SAANICH STRAWBERRIES

SELLING AT A LOSS

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

the Hon. Minister of Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister

would tell the House if he or his department have had any

representation from Saanich peninsula strawberry growers

regarding the fact that these growers are reportedly being

forced to sell their 1975 crop at a loss as a result of foreign

imports.

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

can't answer for any member of my department. I can only say

that no such representations have reached my desk as yet.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister. In

the event that such a request reaches his desk, or such a

complaint regarding foreign imports, would he consider

sympathetically referring this matter to his federal

counterpart?

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the question is hypothetical. The

Minister heard it anyway.

DIKING AT ROBERTS BANK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. With respect to the

diking at Roberts Bank, which has been labelled incredible

stupidity, would the Minister advise the House whether or not

he plans to halt construction of the diking system until such

time as a full environmental impact study of the area has been

made?

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

It's a matter that is being reviewed now with my staff, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Does this indicate

that an environmental impact study will be carried out? We know

that it's warranted and justified. Does this mean that you're

going to carry out an environmental impact study?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member

knows, those lands are lands to which the Indians hold title,

and the location of the dike is the location that the Indian

people themselves wanted. As I said, the matter is being

reviewed.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary question. Are members of your

department presently meeting with the Indians regarding this

problem?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not aware of any

[ Page 3889 ]

meetings with the Indian people. There have been many other

meetings with the Indian people, however.

MR. WALLACE: On that same subject, could the Minister tell

the House if the contents of the federal environmental study

were known to this government prior to starting on the project

to build the dike?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I myself, Mr. Speaker, was not familiar

with the federal environmental study.

RESULTS OF MEETING WITH INDIANS

MR. FRASER: My question is to the Minister of Human

Resources, in his capacity as acting on Indian affairs. Was

there a meeting this morning, who attended it and have you

anything to report to the House? The B.C. Indian Chiefs.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): There were about

30 members of bands from the various reserves involved in the

cut-off lands question. We had a long discussion. We agreed to

meet again at 2:30 this afternoon. I would hope that if

everything goes well I'll be able to make a statement, with

leave of the House, later on.

CANCELLATION OF HOSPITAL LEASE

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Public

Works, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister's department rescinded the

letter it issued earlier this month, a letter which cancelled

the Victoria General Hospital's lease on the Humboldt Street

property in front of St. Ann's Academy?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Not to my

knowledge.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, could I ask the Minister whether he

will take this matter up with his colleague the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), who is not present here today, and

make sure that what the Minister of Health is willing to give

the Minister of Public Works doesn't take away?

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Yes.

FIRE SERVICES IN VICTORIA

HON. MR. HALL: The Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) asked a question

regarding the serious fire in the City of Victoria. By way of reply, I'd like

to advise him that amendments were made to the Fire Marshal Act last year enabling

the chief of the fire department in any municipality, or any persons authorized

by the chief, not only to exercise all the powers of local assistance; but they

can order an owner, an occupier of a hotel or of a public building to make or

provide alterations to have a better fire-prevention system.

In addition to that, the Attorney-General appointed Dr. Hugh

Keenleyside to undertake a study of firefighting services. The

study was completed and presented Thursday of last week....

I'm sorry, it is available now from the Queen's Printer. I

remember some discussion about that being tabled. An initial

meeting of representatives of the office of the Attorney-General's department and the Provincial Fire

Marshal's office has been held to consider the Keenleyside

report, which contains over 40 recommendations. Future

follow-up meetings have already been slated with dates attached

to them. These recommendations and the financial implications

will be studied and then we shall start to begin a phase-in of

the steps necessary to establish a first-class fire service in

this province. That's by way of general answer.

In particular, I have asked now in writing for those

meetings to be intensified, speeded up, in view of the

information and in view of the allegations and the obvious

concern we must now have that some areas of the province are

apparently not protected to the level that we even

anticipated.

Secondly, the Attorney-General is frequently in front of

Treasury Board. He wins some and he loses some. It would not be

appropriate for me to make those announcements about his degree

of success or failure. In terms of firefighting, at this point

in time....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What's the score — five-love?

HON. MR. HALL: Did you say 15-love? The last thing is that I

and the acting Attorney-General for this week will be meeting

later on this afternoon to go over some of the questions that

have been raised in the last couple of days.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who is he?

HON. MR. HALL: The Gazette informs us all that the acting

Attorney General this week is the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich).

CONCESSION AT FORT STEELE

HON. MR. HALL: The next question taken as notice yesterday

was from the Member for Columbia River, who asked me if I could

advise why the concessionaire or qualified steam engineer who

has operated the railroad concession at Fort Steele for the

last six years has been replaced by a Victoria

[ Page 3890 ]

resident after having been advised last year that this

concession would be put up for tender.

I've made some preliminary checks, Mr. Member, and the

concessionaire who operated the railroad concession in Fort

Steele until 1974 indicated he would not be back for the 1975

season. Consequently, it was advertised by the Parks department

and a new person was selected. The tender for the concession is

not advertised each year if the service is, satisfactory, and

the new concessionaire gave very satisfactory service in

However, your point was that the fellow who retired, or who

said he wouldn't continue, was assured that he would have an

opportunity to bid. That part of my investigation is not yet

complete, and I hope to have further information for the

Member.

SQUAMISH RAILCAR PLANT PRODUCTION

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

the Minister Without Portfolio as a director of the B.C.

Railway: now that the car plant in Squamish has been functional

since March 26, can the Minister advise the House how many cars

have been produced to this date?

HON. A.A. NUNWEILER (Minister Without Portfolio): I'd be

very happy to get that information. I haven't got the full

information, but we do know that it has been a major project,

and it is going to fill a very great need for the British

Columbia Railway and the people of British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: A supplementary. While you are getting the

information, could you advise if the car plant is up to its

four-car-per-day production estimate, and what type of cars,

and the cost of the cars — what they are being produced at in

relation to what they could be purchased at?

REINSTITUTION OF

NORTH OKANAGAN PAVING PROJECTS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): To the Minister of

Highways: would he please advise the House if three major

paving projects in the North Okanagan which were cancelled

after being begun in June — namely Bluejay subdivision, Railboy

City subdivision and the Pearson Road area, the BX — will be

reinstituted and continued?

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I read

that newspaper column too, and I've already commented to the

press on it. To my knowledge there haven't been any

cancellations, but I will check on it and bring you the

information.

MRS. JORDAN: Will the Minister advise why they were

cancelled?

Orders of the day.

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

leave to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, after careful

examination of every clause of this bill, I have come to the

conclusion that the Minister was absolutely right; it can

better be handled in committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

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

move second reading, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Bill 103, Municipal Amendment Act, 1975, read a second time

and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration

at the next sitting after today.

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

reading of Bill 110.

NATURAL GAS REVENUE SHARING ACT

(continued)

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): We've really covered the basic

concept of municipal financing in various bills this session. I

don't want to be repetitive, only to say that we do seem to be

tackling the problem of municipal financing somewhat piecemeal.

Although this is a step in the right direction by helping the

municipalities to get away from being too entirely dependent on

the per capita grant, I think that a more co-coordinated

programme of financing for the municipalities would be very

welcome.

This also is a bill that we could probably consider better in committee, although

I am very interested in particular in what the Minister refers to in the bill

as "a special community disparity grant." That's a

[ Page

3891 ]

delightful, long phrase that doesn't say very much. It says

that all municipalities are not equal and there is some kind of

disparity grant involved in the $20 million from the natural

gas revenue, but perhaps the Minister would prefer to discuss

that in committee.

In one of the other bills I went over the point that the

municipalities deserve to have a more reliable, more

predictable, more consistent form of financing, related by some

formula to the continuing growth of provincial revenues by

whatever source. I still think that, although this bill is a

step in the right direction, the government surely in the near

future should come up with a more permanent and more realistic

formula for the financing of the municipalities. We will

support the bill.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, the

only points I would wish to make at second reading stage are

two. First of all, while additional moneys for municipalities

are very welcome, it is the wrong thing to do to finance them

out of a diminishing natural resource. These kinds of grants

should be made out of general provincial revenues. We have made

that point before and we will continue to make it.

The second point relates to the manner of the distribution

of the funds. The bases for grants, as they are called in

section 3, are reasonably comprehensive. I would commend to the

Minister's attention particular emphasis on one of them, namely

the second which would provide for grants to each municipality,

based upon the annual increase in new housing units in the

municipality.

Our fundamental problem, certainly in the lower mainland

area of British Columbia, is the problem of growth and getting

the municipalities to accept growth within their boundaries

because there is a genuine cost of growth to each area. We've

seen municipalities, such as Surrey, go to impost charges to

try and recompense themselves for the costs of growth, new

people coming in.

To me, the far preferable solution is for the province to

bear those costs of growth because the municipalities are in a

way helpless to say where growth is going. It should be a

general burden spread over the taxpayers of the whole province,

rather than just the taxpayers of the municipality that happens

to be a recipient of the growth. Failing that, we will find

those municipalities seeking to prevent people coming in.

I commend very much to the Minister's attention an increase

in the emphasis on this particular

section of the grant basis

in years to come.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There have been a number of very interesting comments

in this second reading debate. I think the argument that the municipalities

are not receiving enough money, is one we hear regularly. I think this is one

case where there has been a real effort to try and come to grips with that problem.

The Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) suggests that the

grants to municipalities are somewhat piecemeal. I can do

nothing but agree with that. There's no question about it; it

is piecemeal and it gets more piecemeal every year. It's true

that it's a subject that we have to really come to grips with

as time goes by.

The amount involved this year is $20 million. Presumably,

next year, due to the fact that there will be increases for a

full 12 months rather than for only a few months, I would

anticipate that probably the amount would be in the

neighbourhood of double this figure.

As far as the community disparity is concerned, that is a

difficult

section in that no matter what formula you try to

come up with, it's almost impossible to cover every

circumstance. Realizing that there were certain communities

that didn't fit into the formula area, we used community

disparity as a definition of that situation. They will need

assistance like other communities even though they don't fit

into the formula.

MR. WALLACE: There is a lot of discretion in that.

HON. MR. LORIMER: There's a lot of discretion; it's totally

discretionary and that's why it's put in that it's in

consultation with the UBCM just so that I wouldn't be

criticized. (Laughter.) I move second reading.

MR. WALLACE: But who would do that? Who would do a think

like that?

Motion approved.

Bill 110, Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 130, Mr.

Speaker.

RESORT MUNICIPALITY OF WHISTLER ACT

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to come to

grips with situations which occur in the province where we

have, as in this particular case, a recreational area where

there are very few permanent residents but where the population

on any given weekend, or through the winter months may be very,

very large.

Facilities required for such an area are facilities

[ Page 3892 ]

required for a population of a substantial amount greater

than what is actually permanently residing there. Obviously the

costs of servicing this type of community cannot be borne

totally by the permanent residents and by the general

population of that particular area.

There are two or three methods we have looked at, I might

say, in extensive consultation with the regional district with

whom I have met over the past year, I suppose, better than

half-a-dozen times in dealing with this particular subject. Due

to the fact that there has to be a substantial amount of

provincial government money put into the area, and the fact

that the provincial government owns a very high percentage of

the land in question, and the fact that the area is basically

for the benefit of the people of the province as a whole and

not strictly the local residents, it's an isolated case.

There are three methods we did look at. One was a method

whereby we would go the instant town route and appoint five

aldermen to look after the community for a period of five years

to get it set up and established, and then look at the

permanent structure that would be used at that time. The second

proposal was to use a system like they have in the endowment

lands: to have a manager and handle the operation as an

endowment.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then Williams would take it over.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Well, we hadn't got to that point

(laughter) as to whether I would be the czar or not. But I was

prepared.

The third one was the method that we did arrive at wherein

there will be one appointed representative from the province

but the other four will be elected; and the mayor will be

elected by the residents of that community.

We don't know how it's going to work. It's an experiment. We

believe that there may have to be changes as time goes along,

but this has been studied at great length and I believe we have

covered most of the problems that might arise. However, there

may have to be amendments brought in from time to time. But we

will see as time progresses. I might also say that the regional

district — the last time I spoke with them, at least — is in

full agreement with the proposals that we submitted to them at

that time. I don't know what their opinion is today because I

haven't heard from them in these last few days.

So I think that I will try and answer your questions and

move second reading.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Obviously, there are two

or three other Members of this House who are far more familiar with the Whistler

area than I am. I am going therefore to speak very briefly and say that I'm

pleased to hear the Minister indicate that this is an experiment, that considerable

thought has gone into it. However, it's once again a very late-appearing bill,

Mr. Speaker, introduced by the Minister on June 11th and now being — may I use

the term — "pushed" through the Legislature in what may be the dying days of

this part of the session.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Oh, I would accept an adjournment.

MR. CURTIS: But the principle, the precedent contained here...

HON. MR. LORIMER: You could adjourn it for a year.

MR. CURTIS: ...with regard to the appointment of.... I'm

just delighted that the Minister's hanging on every word, Mr.

Speaker. (Laughter.) He's just sitting on the edge of his

chair. As a matter of fact, he's fallen off the edge of his

chair.

There is a dangerous precedent here, Mr. Speaker, I think,

in the appointment by the provincial government of an alderman,

whether it's for five months or five years or longer. For

whatever reasons the Minister may have stated, whatever reasons

the Minister's department and perhaps other departments,

including Lands, Forests and Water Resources may feel, if this

government finds it possible to do in this specific instance,

then this government may find it possible to do the same again,

or some other government may find it possible and plausible, to

introduce the appointing of an alderman to another council at

some time in the future.

This area surely is not the only one in British Columbia

where land is largely Crown-owned and where a relatively small

population expands rapidly at given times — on the weekends or

at a particular season. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister

may care to comment on if it is necessary to have an appointee

in this instance. Perhaps he would like to tell us why it has

not been necessary to have appointed regional district

electoral area directors in some other areas which, as I said

just a moment ago, experience rapid population growth for

recreational purposes. I'm sure the Minister would think of

some islands which would fit into the same general category. So

there's a lack of consistency here. If this government and

previous governments have not found it necessary to appoint to

a council, what is so special about Whistler in this particular

case?

I note also — and we'll have an opportunity at committee

stage — that

section 10 makes the community plan pretty well

the creation of the Minister designated and this government.

I'm not very satisfied with that either.

[ Page 3893 ]

Again, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the outset, I don't

pretend to know a great deal about Whistler. But from the

Municipal Affairs point of view, I think, contained in this

bill is a precedent which could be abused and repeated and

therefore abused again in the future. That does give us

concern.

MR. SPEAKER: The Second Member for Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: I'm the only Member for Oak Bay, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: We can always hope. I live in Oak Bay.

MR. WALLACE: This bill obviously is unique in that this is,

in my view, an exploratory or experimental step forward in

dealing with the municipality quite different from the general

concept of municipalities. I share the concern that the Member

for Saanich and the Islands has just expressed when one

alderman is appointed by the Minister. At this time, as we all

know, the municipalities are very concerned about the erosion

of their local autonomy by some of the actions of this

government.

We don't need to do a replay of this morning's debate about

the Inner Harbour. I notice the Member for Esquimalt (Mr.

Gorst) is listening very carefully to every word I say. So we

don't need to go all over that again. But there is a concern by

the municipalities that the provincial government is eroding

their authority.

On the other hand, I would be fair and say this: this

government, if it is to put $10 million into sewage disposal

facilities in this unique municipality, I think has every right

to be sure that it has at least one voice in the first council.

As one goes through the bill, the principle is to overcome some

of the local problems. The Minister mentioned that the

population of a few hundred swells to 20,000 at different times

and that the few hundred people can't be expected to face the

municipal costs of services for such a large population part of

the year.

In balance, I would say that as long as the Minister can assure us that this

is not getting the foot in the door, as it were, in acquiring greater provincial

interference in municipalities generally by suggesting that maybe this is a

precedent by which he wishes to expand and try to appoint alderman of any kind

of general principle as a certain percentage of all councils, for example, as

might be the thought or the fear of some people.... If we can have that assurance,

I think, in the light of the financing which the provincial government is willing

to put into this municipality, I would be confident in the Minister, particularly

since he has given us such a sparkling performance in recent days with very

honest and open and complete answers, an example which some of his colleagues

might emulate, Mr. Speaker.

I feel that I am not deeply concerned. As the Minister

stated himself, we don't really know where this initial project

or this initial experiment might go. I notice that the Minister

is quoted in the press as saying that the Tofino area, which

has a large influx of visitors at weekends and during the

summer, might also have to be considered appropriate for this

kind of legislation.

Since we have talked about ski developments in the Whistler

area and the $10 million which the Minister has said publicly

will be involved in providing sewers and sewage disposal

facilities and so on, I am a little bit interested to know

where, if anywhere, this bill overlaps with 127. Mr. Speaker, I

have no wish to transgress on another bill still before the

House. But we are talking about the same general area. Since

the financing and the borrowing powers involved in the other

legislation are very contentious to the Members on this side of

the House, and since we have had the Minister make a public

statement that $10 million would probably be the figure

involved in this bill, I wonder if in winding up debate he

could tell us to what degree there is co-operation or

co-ordination of efforts and just how the financing of this $10

million sewage disposal unit relates in any way to the same

area covered by the other Minister's responsibility.

Finally, while it again sounds like a rerun of previous debates, the

power given to the Minister to write regulations is very considerable

at the end of this bill. There is very wide discretion given to the

Minister who, in the usual terminology, "without limiting the

generality of the foregoing, may make regulations," and then proceeds

to outline some pretty loosely and broadly defined discretion which the

Minister would have in writing regulations. Even the last part of that

particular section, respecting any other matter required to carry out

the intent and purposes of the Act," is in

this category. I can't think of anything more widespread and diffuse in

its authority to the Minister than that.

So to conclude, I am saying that I like the idea that this

government realizes that there are some unique problems in

certain parts of the province related to the factors we have

mentioned. I think it shows an initiative on the part of the

government to try and deal with that kind of problem.

I certainly will support this bill, but with these one or

two provisos. I want an assurance that this is not some kind of

precedent or excuse to apply some of these concepts to

municipalities generally, and I would like some information

about the overlap with the other legislation. And I wonder if

the Minister could also give us some reassurance about the very

wide discretion covered under the

section dealing

[ Page 3894 ]

with the writing of regulations.

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

pleased that the Members have taken such a great interest in

this most exciting part of the most exciting constituency in

British Columbia, and are expressing so much concern for this

legislation which this dynamic Minister has again brought

before the House.

I must say that, if anything, I was a little disappointed

with what the Minister had to say. I thought I could understand

his desire to be cautious when embarking upon a new experiment

of this kind, but I thought that he could have been at least

cautiously optimistic about the future of the resort

municipality of Whistler. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that

having had a meeting last Saturday with a number of the people

who reside in that area, they are certainly optimistic about

the opportunity which the Minister is affording to them with

this bill.

I suppose caution is always wise. The Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) mentioned last

week, when opening the debate on Bill 127, that it was a

companion to this legislation. I just want to say to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs that I don't think he should

allow a young child like this to be associating with bad

companions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! Right on!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The success of this legislation will

depend a great deal upon the extent to which the Minister of

Municipal Affairs is able to protect this small child of a

municipality from the influences of the other Minister who has

some fairly aggressive ideas about what should take place in

that area.

I can understand the Members being concerned about whether

this is a new indication of increasing power being taken by the

provincial government over the affairs of municipalities. I

have watched Whistler develop since 1961 — long before there

was a road, long before there was a chairlift, long before

anybody really skied it, except a few very aggressive

mountaineers, back in the days when the Olympics were first

mooted for that area, during the days when GODA was first

formed — I have watched it develop with a highway, then the ski

lift in 1965-66 and an ever-expanding investment in that

community until, I think, the value of construction in that

area is something like $90 million today. There it sits in

unorganized territory, controlled only by its regional

district, and controlled very well by the regional district,

but a constant source of problems for the regional

district.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the regional district of Squamish-Lillooet

has spent about three-quarters of its time concerning itself with the problems

created by the activity generated at this mountain both summer and winter. The

people there need some government organization at the local level, and this

is a step which I have urged upon government in all the nine years that I have

been in this House — to make a move and get things going. I think if the government

had moved some five or six years ago, while we would still be facing problems

at Whistler, they would be problems of a different kind than will confront this

infant municipality.

Mention has been made about the financial contribution which

the government will have to make directly in getting this

municipality off the ground. The Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) talks about the approximately $10 million expenditure

in order to establish the sewage system. That, I suspect, is

only for starters; there will be other expenses incurred in the

creation of this municipality and setting up, this

administrative structure, which this government will have to

bear. For that reason I think there is some good justification

to ensure that there is a member on that council who is able to

communicate directly with the provincial government and with

the Minister in order to satisfy him that the municipality is

moving progressively toward the central objective.

There's another good reason, I think, for the Minister to

perhaps exercise some control over the council, certainly in

the early days — maybe even a greater control than is mentioned

in this bill. The Minister has power to change the composition

of council; it may be that it will be required. While this may

look like a dangerous precedent, I know from other areas in my

constituency that frictions can develop in this kind of a

community which can only be resolved if somehow or other the

composition of local government is changed. It is brought about

largely because of the policy of the present government in

restricting the right to vote to people who have their

principal residence within the community.

As a consequence in the area of Whistler, while you have a

very small population who live there full-time, you have an

awful lot of people who have a very great interest, financial

and otherwise, in the development of that community. It would

be a retrograde step if the residents of that community were,

through their right to vote and elect the mayor and three

aldermen, to exercise a control over the destiny of the

municipality to the detriment of those other people who have a

very great financial or other interest. It may be that the

government will be required to exercise some influence on the

part of those others.

Now I say that only as an indication of the problem, because I am satisfied,

from the people I have talked to in the Whistler area, people who live

[ Page

3895 ]

there full-time, that they are looking forward to ensuring, as well as they

can, that people are elected to the council who do not reside full-time in the

municipality of Whistler. The laws of this province permit this to take place.

I would hope that out of the mayor and three aldermen, we might easily find

a situation where two of them are elected from full-time residents, and we might

have two who are people who don't live there full-time but nevertheless have

a significant interest in the affairs of the community.

This will be an exciting opportunity, I believe. It should

be approached cautiously, but I think it will be an exciting

opportunity to establish this form of local government in

British Columbia which will serve the unique needs of an area

such as Whistler. It has great opportunity for expansion as a

winter and summer recreational area. It is bound to attract

people to come and invest by the construction of recreational

homes, people who would not have their full-time residence

there, and some control must be exercised by the people who

have the dedication and the interest to ensure that the

community develops.

This is a chance. It is, I think, a better chance than is

afforded by the technique of the Islands Trust, I hope that the

people at Whistler, the full-time residents and part-time

residents, will take the opportunity to make this a

success.

I am concerned, too, about the community-plan concept, but I

know that in response the Minister will say that you have to

start with something and that the council of the municipality,

and the department, will be able to contemplate necessary

changes in that community plan as the circumstances dictate. I

think the proof will remain in the eating, and I would only

hope that the Minister is able to continue the open-minded and

the open-handed way in which he has so far dealt with the

regional district and the people at Whistler in designing this

new structure for local government.

I think it is something we will all watch with great

interest, but also hoping that it will have great success.

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

HON. MR. LORIMER: I do want to publicly mention the

co-operation I have received from the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound in regard to this particular piece of

legislation. He seemed to have more interest in the area than

some of the other Members, and I appreciate his assistance.

He's answered many of the questions that were raised by the Hon. Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis). But I would point out that there has been

mention of concern about the appointment of aldermen. There is obviously no

intention on this government's part of appointing aldermen in municipalities,

except in special cases, and this is a special case.

I mentioned earlier, in introducing second reading, that the

other alternative was to go the instant-town route. I don't

like going back in history, but there have been over a dozen

communities set up by the previous administration where all

aldermen were appointed, and the mayor was appointed. It was to

avoid this sort of thing that I took the other route. I suggest

to you that I am as much concerned about the appointment of

aldermen as anyone in the House. I think it is essential in

some cases, and I think this is one case where it is

essential.

The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound said that I

wasn't very enthusiastic about this bill. I want to assure him

that I am very enthusiastic. He may have noted my eyes were

open today. (Laughter.) I'm very keen on this bill. It's a good

piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were on red alert.

HON. MR. LORIMER: That's right. (Laughter.)

I might say that a substantial amount of work was put into

the drafting and consideration of this particular piece of

legislation. I likewise hope it will by successful, and I am

sure it will.

The cost involved, the provincial input of funds, is hard to

estimate at this time. I would agree with the previous speaker

that it will be many millions more than is anticipated at this

time, and it won't be done all in one year. It will be done

gradually.

Voting procedures. I think it is essential that.... We have

this problem in a number of places. People say: "Well, I have

land here. I'm more interested in Whistler than in Vancouver

where I live permanently. I come here on the weekends, and I

would prefer to vote in Whistler."

In these kinds of areas, and the Gulf Islands are another

example, the population of part-time residents and visitors is

much higher than the permanent population, and as such

conceivably could have complete control of the destinies of

those particular locations.

Now I think there have to be changes made in voting

privileges — or voting rights in this sort of area but I'm not

convinced yet what that solution should be. I can see where we

should be a little more lenient on what is the area of

residence, where the permanent residence is, because I think

that the courts have in the past been very tight on what is the

permanent residence, and they have been very, very strict. I

think that with the number of people who did apply to the

courts last year about residence, I think that, in my opinion,

the courts could have been possible a little more lenient in

their judgments.

There is a mention that there would have to be

[ Page 3896 ]

co-operation between the area in the province and that's

absolutely true. When Whistler reaches its full potential there

will have to be complete co-operation between the provincial

government and the aldermen involved, and this one alderman

that is appointed will, as has been mentioned, represent the

interest of those thousands of people who will be using the

facilities of Whistler and have no votes in that particular

area, and will also be a very simple liaison between the

council and the provincial government.

Now the question of the regulations. I think they are

essential in the initial stages. Things can go wrong that have

to be corrected reasonably quickly and there's no intention on

my part of making any regulation that isn't absolutely

necessary for the proper operation of this new community.

Enacting of the community plan I think is also essential

because at the present time the lands there are basically

frozen under the Environment and Land Use Committee's

regulations under which there can be no development at the

present time. So that by incorporation of the plan which has

had public input and public debate in the area, it can be

implemented immediately. The order-in-council of the

Environment and Land Use Committee can be withdrawn immediately

and the municipality can, if they so desire, amend the

community plan as they see fit. I think it's essential that

this be put in place immediately to relieve the community from

the strictures of the Environment and Land Use Committee's

activities.

I think I've answered most of the questions. Oh, there is

one other thing. The utility as such will not be in conflict

with Bill 127 in that utilities will be owned and paid for

totally by the province and will be provincially-owned, rented

to the users, so that there will be no input from the payment

from the residents or the part-time residents of that

particular area.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 130, Resort Municipality of Whistler Act, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Second reading of Bill 129, Mr.

Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA PAYMENT TO CANADA

OF FEDERAL INCOME TAX

ON BEHALF OF

NATURAL GAS PRODUCERS ACT

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, if I may go on with Bill 129. The Members

will recall that amendments were made to the Federal Income Tax Act effective

May 6, 1974 which gave the Department of National Revenue the authority to deem

as income of a producer of natural gas what they considered to be the difference

between the market value of the gas purchased by B.C. Petroleum Corporation

and the price at which that gas was actually purchased by the corporation.

It's important to maintain the actual cash revenue in the

hands of the producers, important in order to encourage them to

continue producing and to encourage looking for new sources of

gas. So this bill before us is intended to maintain the cash

flow that the producers would have had if it had not been for

this particular amendment to the federal Income Tax Act.

As far as the formula itself is concerned, there is

provision in the legislation to allow it to be set by

regulation in anticipation that there will be changes in the

federal income tax from time to time and so that we will be

able to accommodate those changes, it is possible that the

formula may have to be changed from time to time. Hence, it

will be provided for in the regulations themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 129.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I have some concerns about this

bill. It is a tax lawyer's delight. Whoever drafted it must

have had quite a time in drafting it. It is too bad, in a way,

because it seems just a little bit unnecessary to me. It

arises, if I understand rightly the genesis of it, out of the

Premier's ideological hang-up with the thought that somehow

funds left in the hands of companies to be taxed might be what

he called "laundered and shrunk" before being passed on to the

federal government.

I think he underestimates the vigilance of the federal tax

collectors who, after all, do collect our corporate income

taxes for us in British Columbia. To that extent, it seems to

me unnecessary. It provides for the province to get into the

middle of things, into the expense of tax matters and disputes

properly left between the producers and Ottawa.

Perhaps even more importantly, this bill marks out a bit of

a trail which I think we should be very cautious about going

down, inasmuch as it in effect provides for the payment of

taxes from one level of government to another.

By virtue of this bill, the Crown provincial is remitting

tax to the Crown federal. It is remitting tax on funds that

would otherwise remain the property of the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation. To that extent therefore, British Columbia is de

facto admitting the power, if not the right, of the Crown

federal to reach into our coffers and in some manner or means,

tax them.

The whole field of intergovernmental taxation in this

country is very, very complex. I imagine that

[ Page 3897 ]

there are now, as there have been for the last decade,

committees of federal and provincial officials meeting from

time to time on the subject. I think this bill is not a

contribution toward clarifying that subject, but rather toward

obscuring it.

I think it is unfortunate that it has been brought before

the House for reasons which seem to me at best nebulous and

spurious. I think it is a silly bill, Mr. Speaker, which has

taken a lot of time of a lot of people and is going to take a

lot more time down the road. I think it is unfortunate it has

been drafted and brought before us. It is completely

unnecessary.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker, I think that

this legislation had its genesis perhaps somewhat earlier than

was mentioned by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano. I

think it had its genesis when this government, with its

ideological stance, decided to establish the B.C. Petroleum

Corporation and embark upon the exercise which made in

necessary for the national government to bring down its budget

to single out the producers in British Columbia for very

special treatment — special treatment involving, as the Member

has said, the establishment of a price, a value for the

commodity upon which they would be subject to tax, a unique

position carved out for people who carry on their business in

the Province of British Columbia. As we know, that produced the

Minister's triumphant trip to Ottawa and his return like

Napoleon, with his one hand stuck into his jacket.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. It was because his hand was

in shreds. (Laughter.) He had reached out when he thought he

was going to pull something back and he got his hand slapped

pretty badly. As a consequence, we are now embarking with this

legislation — as the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano had

said — on a unique constitutional landmark whereby the province

is paying tax to the national government in respect of a

resource which belongs to the province. It is all because the

Minister of Finance got mixed up right in the very

beginning.

We haven't heard the last of this problem yet, Mr. Speaker.

This legislation is not going to cure it. The Minister of

Finance for Canada brought down a budget yesterday which again

deals with certain tax allowances with regard to people who

engage in the exploration and production of petroleum and

natural gas resources.

The influence which that budget, or a subsequent budget, can have upon the

obligation, a continuing obligation, of the provincial government to pay taxes

to Ottawa is something about which we can only speculate. But what we have done,

what the government has done, by the actions of the Premier in embarking upon

this course, this new constitutional approach to federal-provincial relations,

is to place us in continuing jeopardy every time the national government wishes

to adjust its taxing policies and the policies by which it will encourage, or

discourage, the production of petroleum and natural gas resources in Canada.

We are now clearly trapped by the national government in the

control and the revenue control of what is a provincial

resource. This government, and a subsequent government will

have, I think, the most difficult task in extricating

themselves from the grip of the national government into which

this Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) has delivered

us.

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

too realize that this bill is a result of federal-provincial

lack of consultation, or perhaps confrontation that seems to

have developed.

It seems to be the eternal struggle for taxation powers and

revenue that's gone on for many years that's broken out into

the open, and it's distressing that we have heard in this House

in the past statements that if we set up Crown corporations we

can save paying federal tax money.

As we move into federal tax revenues — and we have with new

Crown corporations, which seems to be the way this government

wishes to go — they have sought reprisals to move into our tax

fields, and particularly our province was singled out when

federal legislation was brought in that would affect British

Columbia resource in regards to taxation.

I, too, express the sentiments that the two previous

speakers have raised, that we're getting into a deeper and

deeper legislative jungle and it can only be solved by

federal-provincial consultation.

Bills, and succeeding bills, both federally and provincially

will only exaggerate the situation. I believe the traditional

provincial taxation rights must be fought for in this province,

and that is taxation for our resources.

I believe this government should fight for them as I hope

they would, and that future governments will protect the

provincial interests. This bill does nothing to protect that

interest. It is an acceptance of the federal position. It's

accommodating to the federal intrusion. It doesn't guarantee

within it enough money to give the gas exploration companies

enough money to continue exploration. It does nothing for

British Columbia.

What we need is some clear indication that we can reach

through consultation some sort of understanding with the

federal government over where its tax sources lie and our tax

sources lie. The confrontation has taken place and it continues

to take place with bills such as this, will not serve our

province well. It's an unusual bill. It doesn't serve any

[ Page 3898 ]

useful purpose at this time.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as was outlined

by the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson), is a

bill which essentially deals with the ideological hang-ups of

the Premier, instead of any real effort to share revenue as it

should be done. But I rise to my feet, Mr. Speaker, because I

would like to at least congratulate the Minister of Finance in

absentia for taking

part in such things as taxation

conferences. For years and years, this province refused to

participate in the committee on intergovernmental taxation.

Interjections.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well the present Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) seems to doubt that this took place. But for

years and years, there was an official committee to go into

such questions as whether or not federal taxation on the fuel

used on B.C. Government Ferries should be subjected to federal

tax or not. Always we got the same reply from the previous

Premier: no way would he take part. It was going to be

confrontation all the way and it was confrontation all the way.

Now we have sweetness and light coming from the Leader of the

Opposition about consultation needed, and it just sticks a

little in my craw, Mr. Speaker, to hear that.

The present government is certainly making a number of

curious decisions in this area. This bill is a result of

hang-ups, but at least at this stage, we do have a certain

amount of consultation taking place and we do have a little bit

of participation between the governments in matters of joint

interest.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): I think that what I have

to say about this bill is a little different from some of the

comments that have been made by the previous speakers. What I

would like to point out to the Minister is this: this bill is a

requirement to circumvent a situation in which all of the

producers of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia

were literally being used as the ham in the sandwich between

the federal and the provincial jurisdictions. While this bill

will accommodate a situation so the producing companies at

least will know that they will not get credit for tax paid

through the provincial government paying tax on their behalf to

the federal government, and there won't be a situation with

respect to the future of producing companies in the Province of

British Columbia. And it does nothing to provide assurance that

they will receive a fair value for the gas that they produce,

both from existing sources and from newly located wells.

I think this is a more serious problem and it's one that we

must consider as well.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Do I have your permission to just break

your remarks for a moment, as the Hon. Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has a statement he wishes to make to

the House?

MR. SMITH: I'll just be....

HON. MRS. DAILLY: If you're just going to be a moment....

All right, fine.

MR. SMITH: I'm not going to prolong the debate, Madam House

Leader. All I want to say to the Minister is that the

provincial government got themselves into a situation because

they did not consult properly with Ottawa. Ottawa knew that

they were going to lose tax revenue and they stepped in and

said that they were not going to allow that to happen. We have

the bill before us that will at least alleviate that situation.

But it will not in any way guarantee a continuation of

exploration in the Province of British Columbia, and that's

unfortunate.

MR. SPEAKER: I will ask leave of the House to suspend the

debate for the moment for an announcement.

Leave granted.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): This is a

memorandum of understanding between the Government of the

Province of British Columbia and the Union of British Columbia

Indian Chiefs cut-off lands committee.

"

(1) It is agreed that as a symbolic gesture of good faith

the Government of British Columbia will return 100 acres of the

cut-off lands that are alienated vacant Crown lands by

September 1, 1975. The decision as to which bands will receive

the land will be made by the Government of British

Columbia.

"

(2) It is agreed that a cut-off lands committee will be

constituted of three people, with one representative selected

by the Government of British Columbia, one representative

selected by the Indian people and with both representatives

selecting the third member. The committee would recommend to

the two parties to this agreement more specific terms of

reference for the cut-off lands committee. Thereafter the

committee will report to the Government of British Columbia its

recommendations on or before December 31, 1976, and the

government will reach resolution of the committee

recommendations on or before June 24, 1977. In its inquiries

the committee will receive submissions from the 23 individual

bands with respect to cut-off lands associated with each

[ Page 3899 ]

band.

"

(3) It is agreed that in the interim, discussions will

proceed in an orderly fashion and that the public and the

operation of government will not be inconvenienced by

demonstrations, blockades or any other such actions.

"

(4) All negotiations on the cut-off lands question are to

be between the Government of British Columbia and the Indian

representatives. The federal government will become involved

through discussions directly with the Government of the

Province of British Columbia."

It was signed by Chief Adam Eneas, George Watts, Harry Dick,

Chief Joe Matthias; and on behalf of the government, myself,

the Hon. Mr. Hartley, the Hon. Graham Lea, the Hon. Bob

Williams and the Hon. Alf Nunweiler.

That is the end of the statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

with a statement. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BENNETT: Well, in responding to the Minister's statement

I want to congratulate him and congratulate the Union of B.C.

Indian Chiefs on coming to resolution to stop the mounting

confrontation. We welcome this and all of British Columbia

welcomes that discussion will take place, hopefully, that there

can be resolve to the question for all parties, hopefully that

the 23 bands will all be successfully dealt with — and there

must be resolution of — all 23 bands' land claims — hopefully

that the type of confrontation that has taken place here and

the type of resolve will help to reach a solution in the

traditional Indian land claims for which hopefully this can be

a forerunner.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, we welcome this

announcement by the Minister and congratulate him and all those

who worked for this agreement, both on the side of the B.C.

chiefs and, also on the side of the government. We trust that

this will be followed up pretty quickly by similar action on

the general question of Indian land claims in the Province of

British Columbia, other than the cut-off lands.

We accept the Minister's statement that the province will in turn be dealing

strictly with the federal government. We think that's a good precedent for the

general question of Indian land claims. It prevents any buck-passing; it makes

the issue very clear from the Indian people's point of view. We look forward,

Mr. Speaker, with considerable interest to the report on December 31, 1976.

We trust the Minister will see fit from time to time to bring in interim reports

about the state of discussions. We further hope that the June 23, 1977, date

can be met and that this injustice which has continued now for over half a century

will finally, indeed, be settled.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): Having been deeply

involved and interested in the affairs of our Indian community

as long as I've been in politics and years behind that, I would

very much like to congratulate all concerned in what appears to

me to be very much a hallmark decision and one that is long

overdue. It indeed shows what can be done by an exercise of

good faith and good intention, harmonious attitude and hard

work by all concerned.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Agriculture closes the debate.

We will return now to Bill 129.

MR. GARDOM: I would like to say a few words.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

on the second reading of Bill 129.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, by virtue of the concepts that have

been expressed in the House this afternoon by various Members of the

opposition, this bill is clearly fraught with anticipated difficulty.

It seems to me that it encompasses matters where the government is

attempting to use very highly technical and, shall I say, confusing

backfill legislation to support the ideological premise that has been

so long enunciated by the socialists here. I very much feel that had

the differences in attitudes between these two levels of government

been taken to the negotiation table effectively, we could have had a

result, not along the lines of this bill but much along the lines of

the statement of the Minister who just spoke a few moments ago

concerning an agreement and a general understanding between the Indian

community and the people in this province.

I don't think this is the type of thing that should be

proceeding by way of legislation. As I say, it's highly

technical, it is confusing, it is backfill, and in my view it

is just a welcome mat to some of the most confusing, difficult

and expensive litigation that this province will ever run

into.

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

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'll agree that the

legislation is unnecessary had the government chosen to go the

route of paying more money to the, producers of natural gas and

have them pay a portion of this to Ottawa in the way of taxes.

We could have

[ Page 3900 ]

done this, but certainly the people of British Columbia

would have been out of pocket that additional amount. It's not

just the difference between the deemed market value, if you

like, and the actual price that was negotiated.

Certainly there's no one, I think, who has a better record,

if I can say better in that context, of laundering money than

the oil and gas producers. They're very good at finding ways of

charging off items against income so that they pay the minimum

amount of income tax. So if we had decided to pay to the

producers the amount that was deemed by the Department of

National Revenue to be the market value of tax, likely the

federal government would have been more out of pocket or less

in pocket and, of course, the provincial government, the

corporation and ultimately the people of British Columbia would

have been substantially less in pocket. So the bill would be

unnecessary. We need not go this route, but by going this route

we are making sure that the federal government gets more than

it likely would have, and are making sure that the people of

British Columbia get substantially more than they would have

without this legislation.

I think it should be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that the price

that the producers are now getting for their natural gas was a

price that was negotiated, a price that they contracted for.

They signed a contract to supply the natural gas for 20 years

to the corporation at the prices that were negotiated. It

should also be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that the prices were

almost three-fold what they were getting before those contracts

were signed. It should also be recalled that in order to

persuade these producers to maintain and expand their

production, adjustments have been made in those contract

prices, even though the corporation by the terms of the

contract was not obliged to actually pay any more than the

contract actually called for. Yet the corporation, in the

interests of increasing natural gas production, did make

adjustments in those contracts.

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

least gave us the credit of trying to talk to Ottawa; indeed we

did. We did try to negotiate just as the Hon. Minister of Human

Resources tried to negotiate, and successfully negotiated, with

the Indians, and the statement was just read to the House. I

think all of the Members were pleased to hear that statement.

Certainly all of the people of British Columbia will be pleased

to hear that some resolution is apparently underway.

We would have liked to have had some resolution with the

government in Ottawa, but you can only negotiate — you can only

be reasonable — when you're dealing with reasonable people.

Unfortunately, we weren't dealing with reasonable people when we were dealing

with people who wanted to do all they could for the natural gas producers and

the oil companies and as little as they could for the people of British Columbia.

They weren't reasonable as far as we were concerned.

Concern has been expressed that the legislation does nothing

to guarantee the producers enough money to convince them that

they should continue producing and should continue looking for

new sources of natural gas. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the

contracts that were designed to encourage that, and the

corporation has already shown that when the need arises, when

the need is shown, the corporation is willing to renegotiate

these contracts. So certainly the corporation has shown by its

action that it is willing to do what is necessary to guarantee

the producers enough to keep them producing. This legislation

is in no way intended to guarantee the producers anything than

that they will not be out of pocket because of some discussion,

some argument, or something that is going on between the two

governments, or because of some decisions that Ottawa makes in

its wisdom, or in its lack of wisdom.

It was not an ideological hang-up that induced this

government, led by the Minister of Finance, to establish the

B.C. natural gas corporation. It's not an ideological hang-up

but a desire to obtain for the people of British Columbia a

fair return for the natural gas that was being produced in the

Province of British Columbia. It's a corporation, not an

ideological hang-up, a corporation which has produced for the

people of British Columbia in the relatively short time it has

been operating, and has turned over to consolidated revenue, to

date, a total of $88 million which before that corporation was

established was not producing anything for the people of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 129, British Columbia Payment to Canada of Federal

Income Tax on Behalf of Natural Gas Producers Act, read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 97, Mr. Speaker.

ISLANDS TRUST AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 97; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, I move the

[ Page 3901 ]

committee rise and report

the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 97, Islands Trust Amendment Act, 1975, read a third

time and passed.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Bill 135, Mr. Speaker.

We'll go back to Bill 127 as soon as the Minister arrives.

PUBLIC SERVICE

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 135; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

Section 1 approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing

under my name on the order paper, on page 19 of orders of the

day, June 24. (See appendix.)

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 5 approved.

Title approved.

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

and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 135, Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act,

1975, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, Bill 136.

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975.

The House in committee; Mr. Dent in the chair.

Sections 1 to 6 approved.

section 7.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I wonder if the Hon. Provincial Secretary

could explain to the committee the reason for the amendment to

section 31. I find this to be a unique situation where the rate

of compensation of a person on appointment to his position is

at a rate prescribed by regulation, but where the employee who

achieves that position is already in the public service, the

rate of compensation upon his appointment shall be at a higher

rate than he was receiving before his appointment.

There is a limitation in

section 7: "but the higher rate

shall not be greater than an amount equivalent to two

increments in the salary range.... " I would wonder if the

Provincial Secretary could indicate, first of all, why someone

already in the public service has to receive a higher rate for

the job than is posted for it, and why the limit of such

increase could be as high as two increments above the salary

range for the other position.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the reason for the amendment is

that the salaries and their application are negotiable matters

now. Under the Public Service Labour Relations Act it is not

appropriate for the Public Service Act to legislate specific

amounts. Therefore this amendment is provided to delete the

reference as to how much the salary shall increase upon

promotion because of the fact that we now have bargaining. The

general

section on promotions is no longer relevant. I think

that answers both the questions of the Member.

Sections 7 through 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and

report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 136, Public Service Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 140, Mr. Speaker.

STRATA TITLES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 140; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

[ Page 3902 ]

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Would the Minister

give me a little more specific definition of the strata

corporation? I think we need a little more explanation there on

just what a strata corporation is supposed to be. There doesn't

seem to be a very good explanation of it.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Member, it is

the corporation which owns a strata-titled building, that is,

the members of the corporation are the title holders to each of

the strata lots within the strata corporation. In other words,

it is not a business; it is a corporation which facilitates

ownership of a defined space or strata lot in a

multiple-dwelling situation which may be commercial or....

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am aware of that. But you are referring

to a specific corporation here, not a group of corporations.

That was my definition. You could have a group of strata

corporations involved in this also.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: No, this doesn't refer to a group. This

is an individual strata corporation.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what I wanted to know.

Section 1 approved.

Sections 2 through 14 inclusive approved.

section 15.

MR. PHILLIPS: I presume that any property acquired by this

section shall be transferred to the strata.... You are giving

a strata corporation the right to acquire additional property.

What is the purpose of this? Would it be if they wanted to

enlarge their parking lot, or a group of the residents in a

particular condominium unit wanted to build a swimming pool and

the rest of them didn't? Just what are you trying to accomplish

in this particular section?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Yes, well this could facilitate many

things, where a special group wants some certain type of

facility. It should be borne in mind that in some strata

corporations these might be part of one corporation but in

separate buildings. Another case that could occur would be

where some of the strata lots are commercial lots and the

remainder are residential. If some of them were commercial lots

they might wish to buy an adjoining piece of property for

parking facilities, and not make it an encumbrance upon the

residential membership. So that it facilitates for whatever

specific interest a special group coming together to buy

property.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman. Was

this amendment requested by the strata title council? Did you

put this in specifically, or was it requested by the

council?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Well, Mr. Member, my memory doesn't serve

me too well on this because actually an amendment of the

earlier

section which repeals the previous section. It has

really put it into slightly clearer language. I believe this

was part of the input from there, but I would think possibly

some of the members of the real property division of the Bar

Association as well suggested some of these ideas, because they

come in contact with this.

MR. PHILLIPS: Were most of these amendments requested by the

strata council?

HON. MR. NICOLSON: These particular amendments? No. Well,

this gets into a rather wide ranging.... For instance, the

municipality thing, that came from the municipalities. They

requested that. There's been some input from strata council,

there has been some from the industry as well, the building

industry, and real property division of the Bar, I believe,

also.

Section 15 approved.

Sections 16 to 32 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 140, Strata Titles Amendment Act, 1975, reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. HALL: Committee on Bill 127.

DEPARTMENT OF LANDS, FORESTS AND WATER

RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

The House in committee on Bill 127; Mr. Dent in the

chair.

section 1.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I repeat the questions to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams): "'corporation' means each

[ Page 3903 ]

corporation incorporated under the authority of this Act." I

wonder if the Minister could advise the committee in what way

he believes this legislation will cure the incorporation of

B.C. Steamships, 1975, Ltd., which was obviously incorporated

before the authority of this Act was even contemplated by this

House.

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

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to say that the revenues of British Columbia

Steamships, 1975, Ltd., are such that it more than meets its cost currently.

I am advised that there is no financing problem. Well, the capital costs, of

course, were met out of the Greenbelt Fund.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The Minister's answer — I hope that he

was not being facetious in his response, because quite clearly

the company that you incorporated back in the first week of

May, under federal charter, was not incorporated under the

authority of this legislation, and therefore if you don't need

legislation to incorporate a company such as B.C. Steamships,

1975, Ltd., why are you asking for this authority at all?

I would pose another question. How many other companies have

you incorporated in a clandestine manner? I was looking at the B.C. Gazette the other day, going through the list of companies

trying to decide.... I saw one called Bob's Starlight Service

Ltd. and I wonder.... (Laughter.) I wondered if you were going

to have midnight booze cruises or something and this was

another company to....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: We're open to all suggestions.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: But I shouldn't treat this in a

light-hearted manner. The fact of the matter is that your

company was incorporated before you even sought this

legislative authority, and if it's not cured by this

legislation, then why have it all? Because quite obviously you

and members of your department can incorporate companies in

Ottawa or British Columbia, there's nothing to stop you, the

same as anybody else in this House can do. Then by some strange

way that we don't know about, you can transfer your shares or

indicate that you're holding them in trust for the provincial

government. If this legislation is to regularize what you have

done, I think we're entitled to an explanation.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well certainly, one of the things that

the legislation will do is see to it that major bills such as

those for Burrard Dry-dock are paid, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if it is your ruling that these questions

would be more appropriate under

section 2, fair enough, but I wouldn't want

to find out that the reverse is the case. A number of figures have been quoted

in the press, but I don't believe the Legislature has heard from the Minister

the total cost of the renovation and the refit for the Marguerite , which was

undertaken by Burrard as he reminded us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think it would be more appropriate under

section 2.

MR. CURTIS: Is the Minister prepared to answer those

questions under the other section?

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. CURTIS: The question therefore with regard to the total

cost, Mr. Chairman.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not had the

figures since the time that I announced outside this House that

the figures we had were $1.1 million, as I recall, with respect

to refit and renovations. I would have to take as notice the

question in terms of confirming any more up-to-date figure.

MR. CURTIS: Could the Minister tell us what he and his

department learned with respect to the life expectancy of this

vessel? It was referred to properly as "an older ship,"

I believe built in 1949. I notice — I believe it's a much larger

vessel — but the P & O liner Oronsay which is younger than

that is on its way to shipbreakers. So what sort of life

expectancy can the people of B.C. anticipate with regard to the

Marguerite ?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Well, all I can count on is my

discussions with people at Burrard Dry-dock and with other

experts in the shipping field. They're all extremely positive,

that is the chief engineering people that I've discussed the

matter with at Burrard indicated a considerable life, well

beyond what I really would have anticipated myself.

I don't have any numbers, but again the former head of the

Chamber of Commerce here in the city who is professionally in

this business in terms of determining the life expectancy of

ships and the quality of ships, indicates that it really is in

excellent condition. So it appears that it's a considerable

life, but how you really nail down numbers, I can't say.

MR. CURTIS: I may have other questions later, but I will

just ask one more if I may, then defer to other Members. Would

the Minister tell the

[ Page 3904 ]

committee, Mr. Chairman, the total number of employees that

are serving in this operation, B.C. Steamships? That is the

crew of the vessel and shore-side personnel. Then are there

employees based in Seattle. Or have ticketing arrangements and

other docking arrangements been put out on a fee-for-service

basis?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The rough figures that I've had, Mr.

Chairman, are approximately 120 with respect to shore staff and

on-ship staff. I'm afraid I can't specifically say. Captain

Tyson has carried out the arrangements in the port of Seattle.

It's a minimum staffing there for those that visited it, the

facility is certainly excellent and has been refurbished, but

I'm not aware of the details in terms of whether it's a

contractual relationship or simply an employee basis in

Seattle, but it's a very small staffing.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in committee this bill's a little

difficult to discuss because just about all the bill is under

section 2, so we will be guided by you from the chair.

But there are a host of questions one would like to ask

stemming from the general principle we have outlined in second

reading, that there is extremely wide discretion given to the

Minister. I wonder if he could clarify some of the questions we

have asked that give us cause for concern.

I am thinking, for example, about the subsection (2)(

c) in

which it says "to engage in any other business necessary or

incidental to the operation of a shipping or ferry service."

Can the Minister give us some kind of guidelines as to what

other kinds of enterprises he has in mind?

Further down, in subsection (2)(e), again we come across the

phrase "to take whatever action or do any thing necessary to

operate a ferry and shipping service." I notice the word

"shipping" comes into the terminology of

section 2 on several

occasions further down in the same subsection.

Could the Minister enlarge on that a little bit? We know

what we mean by the Princess Marguerite ferry sailing between

Victoria and Seattle, but I wonder why such a specific phrase

as "shipping service" is involved. Would this enable the

government to enter into some kind of merchant marine service,

renting out ships or acquiring other ships that will transport

goods rather than just a ferry service for people in cars?

I don't expect that is what is intended, but it certainly

allows for that. The Premier, when he was formerly leader of

the opposition, frequently spoke about British Columbia

needing, or suggesting that it was a good idea if we got into,

the merchant marine, and perhaps built our own merchant

ships.

The next question relates of course to all this question of maps, charts, mapping

services, publications, photographs to other departments of the government,

Crown corporations, or the public. That is subsection (

f) on page 2. I wonder

what exactly that encompasses and why the Minister has that in the section.

Then in subsection (3), we have got reference again to a

shipping service.

Further down in subsection (4), we have got this other

general statement that "certain provisions of the Companies Act

may not apply." Now is that just an escape hatch for the bill

so that somewhere down the road if it is convenient to exclude

certain provisions, so be it? But does the Minister have some

specific provisions presently in mind which shall not apply to

this bill?

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether we should not seek these

answers, because the rest of the bill relates to amendments

that I have in the order paper regarding borrowing and

ministerial responsibility. Maybe you would rather we didn't

have a long harangue by one Member and got the answers to part

of the questions first.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Regarding subsection (c), Mr. Chairman,

"to engage in any other business necessary or incidental to the

operation of a shipping or ferry service," et cetera, et

cetera. This is seen in relation to the matters already in hand

and already underway in terms of both the dining salon on a

ship, the newsstand on a ship, the bars, and those kinds of

related activities.

Regarding subsection (e), shipping service, certainly one

possibility might be freight, for example, which makes it

somewhat broader. It is simply legal advice. There is no major

merchant marine contemplated under that subsection.

Similarly, the statutes with respect to the United States of

America relate simply to their basic requirements and such

incorporations have already taken place.

The question of the Companies Act — again, it is simply the

standard legal advice from legislative counsel in view of the

fact that this is a Crown corporation.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just try quickly to continue, Mr.

Chairman. One of the elements in the bill that we are all

concerned about, I think, is the amount of money involved and

the borrowing that can take place with or without approval,

particularly in subsection 6(b), we find that money can be

borrowed, "not exceeding $250,000, without the approval o f the

Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor," and that "an

aggregate amount, not exceeding $10 million" can be borrowed

"with the approval of the Legislature or the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

[ Page 3905 ]

I just feel that regardless of the sums involved, first of

all, the legislation should clearly state that any borrowing

under a bill such as this where there is so much discretion

left to the Minister should require the authorization of the

Minister. I think it should say that in the legislation. If the

Minister is to have this much power and discretion under the

bill, he should also have the responsibility of clearly

authorizing the borrowing of funds.

It is for that reason that I have got that first amendment

on the order paper after subsection 2(6)(

b) to add subsection

(c), namely: "All borrowings of any corporation under the

authority of this Act must be authorized by the Minister."

The second amendment really follows from the same thought

that if, in fact, the borrowing exceeds the legislated

permissible amount, then the Minister is guilty of an offence.

The present legislation before us states that any director who

votes in favour of a bylaw which authorizes any corporation to

exceed its borrowing powers is guilty of an offence. I just

feel that if we're to have a great deal of discretion in the

hands of the Minister, (1) the Minister must authorize

borrowing, and (2) he's the person responsible if the borrowing

powers in the bill are exceeding. That's my first amendment to

this bill.

Continuing in the same theme, Mr. Chairman, the bill has

been misinterpreted, I think, in the first stages at least by

myself and others to the degree that it was not clear that $10

million was the maximum for the total of the corporations that

might be involved in the bill. The word "aggregate" appears to

make that clear. That plus the $250,000 that can be borrowed

without authority, and the power of the cabinet to purchase

shares to the value of $4 million, adds up to a total financial

purchase or borrowing of $14,250,000. My amendment is to add

after

section 2(16), as 2(17), that: "The total aggregate moneys

authorized under this Act, whether by way of purchase of

shares, loans, grants, lease obligations, purchase agreements

or mortgages, shall not exceed $14,250,000."

Now I suppose the Minister could say that that is already in

the bill if you read the different sections and put them all

together. But, once again, I think that the kind of amendment

I've suggested just places very clearly in one small paragraph

the total financial commitment that this government and this

Minister is entitled to take under the legislation.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in second reading, the question of reporting

to this House — and I'm sure all other Members in the opposition have talked

on other bills in previous sessions about accountability and the need for the

taxpayer to be sure that he gets the full financial picture of government ventures

of every nature, whether it be B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail or this new venture involved

under this legislation. I'm suggesting that the wording in the bill, Mr. Chairman,

under subsection 12, uses the phrase that "each corporation shall report to

the Minister respecting the affairs and business of the corporation and the

financial condition of the corporation."

As I said earlier when we debated the B.C. Railway, there

was a great deal of stress laid by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) on the fact that, in giving accountability

to the province and the people in the province, the reporting

stated that the accounts had been audited according to accepted

practices and under certain terms which gave the public a sense

of reassurance that the figures as presented by the auditing

were in fact to be believed and that the professional integrity

of the auditing person would surely add confidence to the

taxpayer of British Columbia that, in fact, these figures were

valid, they had been inspected and they really meant what they

appeared to mean.

I'm suggesting that here we have the government becoming

more and more involved in other Crown corporations and the

language in the bill does not really hold these corporations to

the degree of accounting and reporting which I think has been

shown to be wise, desirable and necessary if the B.C. Railroad

experience is anything to go by. This is why I've added an

amendment suggesting that after

section 6(12) line 5, after the

word "corporation" to add the following words: "authorized,

acquired or incorporated under this Act in the form of a

certified, audited financial statement in accordance with

normal, accepted business and accounting practices." I so

move.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

he is moving all of these as one amendment or is he seeking to

make three amendments?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to move three

amendments. I think in particular the third amendment is

perhaps the most important

whereas the others to a degree are

debatable. The second amendment really is summing up in one

paragraph what you can assimilate from the bill reading it in

two or three paragraphs. But I think that the third amendment,

section 6(12) line 5, simply ties down in detail the kind of

financial accounting which probably this Minister well means to

give to this House. But once again I have to make the point

that we may not always have this Minister and this cabinet, and

there could be a tendency for a future government or a future

Minister to wriggle around and squirm a little bit in the

rather loose terminology of subsection 12. I think it should be

read into the record.

Subsection 12 reads as follows: "Each corporation shall

report to the Minister on the affairs and business

[ Page 3906 ]

of the corporation at such times and as often as he

considers necessary, and shall report annually to the Minister

respecting (

a) the affairs and business of the corporation and

(

b) the financial condition of the corporation." I feel that

that language is not strong enough or specific enough. In the

light of the long debate we had with the B.C. Railway, I think

that my third amendment would just give added teeth to the bill

and would certainly assure us — the taxpayers and the Members

of this House — that we will indeed have full accountability in

the years ahead when this Minister or future Ministers come

back and report to us the progress or otherwise of these

various corporations and, indeed, their financial

situation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're considering the third part of the

amendment. The Hon. Minister.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I must say that I have

some sympathy with the amendments, because in a broad sense it

seems to me they don't go against the basic principles that we

are endorsing in the bill. However, without full legal counsel

and advice on the specifies, I can't accept them. But I might

go further, though, and suggest that the government would

seriously consider these matters over the adjournment period.

If, on the basis of legal advice, there did not appear to be

any serious problems, then we would contemplate such amendments

at a later stage in this session.

Amendment negatived.

MR. GARDOM: I'd just like to make a couple of observations

here, Mr. Chairman. The Hon. Minister has not come clean with

this House concerning certain aspects of this proposed

legislation. He has heard from three-quarters of the House some

very serious and some very well-supported evidence of the fact

that there's not a need for this bill. It was raised by myself

that under the PGE Act of 1912 there are powers to do that

which is considered under the terms of this bill. It was raised

by the Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis) that under the Railway

Act there are powers, certainly, to take care of the carriage

of the Marguerite and the Victoria harbour. As was raised by

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

this afternoon, under what authority does the Minister still

feel he is able to incorporate the federal company, or is he

using this bill as a curative measure?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the problem with respect

to other statutes is....

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, it's clear.... (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No, no. There are opportunities in the

Whistler basin that I mentioned that are hardly the activities

of the B.C. Railway, for example, which we see as significant

and equally as important as the Marguerite and the Inner

Harbour. Again, the Inner Harbour is quite isolated from the

British Columbia Railway. In addition, the British Columbia

Railway does not have the authority to act as a passenger

carrier with respect to the Port of Seattle, for example. So

this statute, in fact, was necessary for the purposes of the

Marguerite and certainly with respect to these other

opportunities that we see.

MR. GARDOM: I would rather differ with the Minister's

interpretation as far as the Marguerite is concerned, because

it would seem to me that there is abundant authority both

within the PGE and the Railway Act for the operation of the

Marguerite and the maintenance of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Transit Act!

MR. GARDOM: And the Transit Act, as my friend also mentions

here. Also the maintenance and restoration plans that are given

consideration for the Victoria harbour....

But I ask the Minister this question: does he feel that this

bill he is now presenting to us, Bill 127, is to be a curative

procedure for this federal company that he's already caused to

be incorporated?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I certainly think the statute is the

right approach, Mr. Chairman; that's why the government has

endorsed it. I might also say, regarding the B.C. Rail or the

PGE, that again federal incorporation is a factor. The PGE is,

of course, a provincially incorporated railway.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, with every respect, the Minister

did not respond to the question. Is he going to run the

Marguerite under this existing federal company that he's

already incorporated or does he plan to use Bill 127 for that

purpose?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The expectation is that the present

corporation would continue, but I always defer to good legal

advice.

MR. GARDOM: I draw to the attention of the Minister that

perhaps, again, over his dinner hour.... There doesn't seem to

be any retroactive provision — which we're not in favour of —

within this bill to encompass the company that he's already

[ Page 3907 ]

caused to be incorporated.

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

really hasn't answered any of the questions. The only

conclusion we can come to is that the reason he can't use the

other Acts is that he doesn't have the power under those Acts;

they're vested under some other Minister.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: The Railway Act has been mentioned and other

Acts have been mentioned. I'd just like to refer the House to

an Act that we passed, over the objection of the opposition, I

might add, in 1974 — the Transit Services Act — which allows

just about anything to happen.

All the powers that are necessary for anything that the

Minister might want to do — "purchase or otherwise, acquire

motor vehicles, lines of buses, motor coaches and ferries and

operate, maintain, control, and manage such motor vehicles,

buses, motorcoaches, ferries for the purposes of carrying on

the business of a public passenger transportation system."

Those are pretty specific powers.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: It also goes on, Mr. Chairman, to allow the

government to "construct and maintain buildings and other

structures for the purposes of this Act, including without

limiting the generalities of the foregoing buildings and

structures for storage and maintenance" and things, but also

for "passenger depots, waiting-rooms, restaurants, hotels and

other facilities for the comfort and convenience of

passengers."

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all in one?

MR. McCLELLAND: It's all in the Transit Services Act passed

in 1974 by this House, but under another Minister.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right; he doesn't administer this

Act. This is under the Minister of Municipal Affairs. (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer).

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: We dealt with a bill in this House just a few moments

ago, the Whistler resort Act, in which upon the one hand, under another Minister

again, we allow the community to a large degree to predetermine its own destiny

and to plan for its own future. Yet now we are asked to pass a bill which would

seem to give this Minister the power to overrule the very municipality we're

just about to set up. It has the opportunity to plan for its community, but

the Minister can come along under this bill with one of his new corporations

and say: "Sorry folks, I don't like those plans; I'm doing the planning for

this community."

I really think that that's the only reason for this bill: to

give that Minister more power and to allow him to be the super

tsar of everything that happens in British Columbia, even more

than he is now.

The Transit Services Act also provides, Mr. Chairman,

another important feature, and that is that the money

appropriated for the needs of that Act come with the approval

of the Legislative Assembly. I think that's an important

consideration which isn't in this bill, because the Legislative

Assembly is completely cut out of this bill, and that Minister

is allowed to borrow money for any of his corporations without

ever referring it to the people in this Legislative Assembly. I

think that that's a pretty dangerous power to give that

Minister or any other Minister.

The Minister, Mr. Chairman, has really slipped around this

business of aggregate amounts. I think that this is a pretty

tricky bill in that connection. Sure, the bill says that the

Minister may borrow $250,000 without ever going to see anybody

and an aggregate amount not exceeding $10 million for all the

Crown Corporations. But if we look further down the list in

subsection 13, Mr. Chairman, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may on behalf of the Crown purchase

shares up to $4 million in the aggregate, advance money to the

corporation for temporary or long-term purposes, make temporary

loans to the corporation upon such security and upon such terms

and conditions as he may approve.

Now those provisions in (

b) and (

c) at least, Mr. Chairman,

are subject to the limitation of the aggregate amount of $10

million, but in (d), (

e) and (

f) of that subsection the

Minister is allowed to guarantee on behalf of the government

repayment of principal and interest in the performance of any

obligation for the payment of money. And it goes on with other

conditions:

"...make grants to the corporation to carry out programmes and projects relating to land planning,

development, and use, Crown land development and disposition,

or any other purpose" — any other purpose, Mr. Chairman — "for

which the corporation is incorporated under this

section and

pay to the corporation fees for its services rendered to the

government or a department...." No limitation in the

aggregate in any of those sections, Mr. Chairman, and that

government could be paying fees — till they were coming out of

our ears — for anything.

[ Page 3908 ]

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, sure you could. It's a hole big enough

to drive the Marguerite through, that's for darned sure. No

limitation in the aggregate and, Mr. Chairman, I'd suggest that

that gives the opportunity for a boondoggle of the highest

order.

Direct subsidies by this government to any of these Crown

corporations first of all, without any reference to the

Legislative Assembly — and in many instances, Mr. Chairman,

perhaps not even reference to their cabinet. But it's a

horrifying bill in that respect, and it's a blank cheque if

there ever was a blank cheque, Mr. Chairman, and that Minister

can't slide out by referring to the

section which limits the

aggregate, because there is no limit on any of those sections,

and the door's open to the public vault for any of his

corporations that he may wish to bring into operation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, an amendment that I'd like

to propose to the Minister would be in the

section dealing with

borrowing — that's

section 2(6)(b) — where you talk about "the

corporation or corporations may borrow money in an aggregate

amount not exceeding $250,000 without the approval of the

Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, and, in

addition, may borrow money in an aggregate amount not exceeding

$10 million with the approval of the Legislature or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council."

I would like to move that we delete the words "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" wherever they occur, thus having the loan

total the same but merely having the Legislature responsible

rather than the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

A companion amendment to that — and it's a point raised by

the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — on subsection

(13)(

b) of this

section 4A where it states: "advance money to

the corporation for temporary or long-term purposes upon such

"long-term" are the words which worry me, and I think they

worry the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland). The fact

is, if you have your aggregate amount up in

section 6(

b) it

makes no sense at all to put in this loophole down in 13(b).

Therefore I would recommend that we delete the words

"long-term". If there are temporary problems, if there is a

need for short-term loans, temporary loans, fine, let them be

made. But when it comes to long-term borrowing, I think it

should be governed by the provisions of 6(

b) as I propose, and

also, of course, by the Legislature itself.

So I would move those two amendments, one at a time, I

guess, Mr. Chairman. They are companion amendments, but they

would tend to offset some of the wide, sweeping powers that we

find in this bill.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, yes — awesome. That's the word I

forgot.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Of course, the intent is clear in

section (

b) in terms of giving some flexibility in terms of

either the cabinet or the Legislature, and that is not

acceptable, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why it is

not acceptable. We're here, according to the Premier, as

full-time MLAs. The House sits for months and months and

months. Who knows, we may sit yet for months and months and

months. There is absolutely no reason to give this power to the

cabinet when the Legislature could equally well grant the loan

totals.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Minister has given absolutely no

reason except that it is, to him, unacceptable. He has given no

reason apart from that, and that is not a reason at all.

The second amendment with respect to the long-term loan, he

didn't even touch upon. It seems pointless to put in here that

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council allowing long-term loans...which we might well find the base of the provisions of section

(1)(b).

So I wonder whether the Minister could consider this a

little more charitably, a little more sympathetically, a little

more understandingly. After all, a minor amendment of this

nature hardly makes any change at all, except to give Members

of the Legislature some minor control over the borrowing. I'm

sure that this Minister, who in the past has been a great

believer in the need to have the Legislature control the

executive, now that he has got a many-thousand horsepower ship

to run into the dock, I hope he won't allow those heady

feelings of power to overwhelm his previous belief in the

importance of the Legislature retaining control when it comes

to borrowing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I can understand the feelings of the

Hon. Member for Victoria, but the flexibility, I think, is

desirable. Again, the Inner Harbour has considerable potential

and there might well be improvements contemplated that would

justify some long-term arrangement with the Crown in terms of

amenities in the Inner Harbour.

Interjection.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: No? Well, there might well be such good

opportunities and we shouldn't

[ Page 3909 ]

forgo these great opportunities in the Member's own riding.

I would have thought he would endorse such a proposal because

of the opportunity and benefits for his constituents and the

visitors to the capital city.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted, as

the Member for Victoria, to come to this Legislature and

congratulate the Minister when he comes up with some ingenious

scheme to enhance the beauty of the Inner Harbour. He described

the whole process as being elastic. I wonder whether that was

the attitude of Captain Crunch over there from Esquimalt who

hit the dock. He thought the whole thing was a little too

elastic and hit the dock.

Nevertheless, the Minister....

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Would you use that term against the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, he's actually more of a submarine

and torpedo than he is a surface vessel. (Laughter.)

Nevertheless, the Minister could easily come to the Legislature

and could easily hear words of praise from the Member for

Victoria for some great scheme for the beautification of the

Inner Harbour.

Now he wouldn't want to forgo that opportunity because words

of praise are rare for this Minister, and I may never find

myself convinced that he requires any. But there is the

opportunity, if he has to come to the Legislature, to explain

to us these great schemes for beautification. He may yet get a

unanimous vote if he has a good scheme. But for him to use the

cabinet in this way, to do it all secretly in an almost

underhand manner by sneaking it in, why no one would know

whether this was a good scheme or not, and the praise the

Minister might deserve might never come his way.

So I think, if the Minister thinks about this in a more

personal sense, he will realize that making the Legislature

responsible for borrowing is a very good idea, far superior to

having just the cabinet.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, the Member's feelings

about the cabinet and my own are quite different.

First amendment negatived.

Second amendment negatived.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Chairman, when the Minister

was answering a question from the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) as to why this Act was required when the corporation was

already in existence, the Minister gave the answer that it would, among other

things, permit the payment of major bills such as Burrard Drydock.

What I would like to ask the Minister is: what non-major

bills were paid without the authority of this kind of

corporation? What are the approximate amounts and dates that

were paid before any legislative authority existed? I would

hope the Minister is going to answer that because it is a

pretty important thing. I would have thought he would have been

glad to have a chance to respond to the charges that were made

about illegal payments and that kind of thing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: There were some relatively small,

short-term payments made in terms of simply being able to

provide change on the opening days of the operation, for

example. There were problems, for example, with Americans not

accepting $2 bills, and some funding on a minor scale was

provided with respect to that. It is my understanding that the

total amounts in aggregate ranged up to $39,000, and that all

of the wages and current expenses are being met out of

operating revenue.

MR. GIBSON: These $39,000 amounts are exactly what I have

been referring to recently as illegal payments. I just asked

for confirmation from the Minister that these are the amounts

that were reimbursed to the comptroller-general by a cheque — I

think it was on or about June 5 — in that vicinity.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: That amount was repaid out of operating

revenue, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON: Finally we have confirmation of that, Mr.

Chairman.

I have one more question. I wonder if the Minister could

outline to this House the terms of the trust arrangement. There

may be more than one trust, I am not sure, but I would like to

know about any trust arrangement that might exist between the

owners of the federally chartered company, namely the

directors, and the government, and any relationship that might

exist between the owner of the vessel, the good ship Princess

Marguerite — which I believe is the Crown, represented by R.M.

Strachan, prop. — and B.C. Steamships

(1975) Ltd.

MR. CURTIS: I was waiting to see if the Minister was going

to answer the questions from the Hon. Member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It is the custom that the

Minister may answer either all at once or one by one, or

whatever he chooses.

MR. CURTIS: When we step back tomorrow and

[ Page 3910 ]

analyse the transcript of today's discussion, I think we

have had, really, very little new information from the Minister

with regard to the bill and with regard to the Princess

Marguerite . I wonder if the Minister would please indicate to

the committee what other corporations have been

established.

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

Williams) said that he had been looking through the British

Columbia Gazette and thought that he might have hit one, and we

laughed about that. But what else has been established in

anticipation of the passage of Bill 127? Could we please have

the names of the corporations or the companies? Would the

Minister care to answer that one now?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Yes. The incorporations are: British Columbia Steamship

Co.

(1975) Ltd., federally incorporated, which I think most Members are aware

of; and British Columbia Steamship Co. Inc. in Washington State.

MR. CURTIS: Now turning to the Inner Harbour land, Mr.

Chairman, which is certainly part of this

section or is covered

by this section. I would refer you to

section 2(4A)(13)(

b) which specifically permits the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council

to make grants to the corporation to carry out programmes and

projects relating to land planning, development and use, Crown

land development and disposition, or any other purpose for

which the corporation is incorporated under this section.

In discussing the estimates of the Hon. Provincial Secretary

(Mr. Hall) this morning in what I felt was one of the better

discussions of the past many weeks, we learned from that

Minister his concern about the difficulties in co-coordinating

governmental approach to Inner Harbour land, the CIDC, the

Department of Municipal Affairs, the Department of Public Works

and the department for which this Minister is responsible. One

of the criticisms which has been leveled at this Minister with

regard to the Inner Harbour, in reference to the former

Marathon CPR property and the former Reid property, has been

his and his department's lack of communication with the City of

Victoria.

If the Minister can correct me, I will happily accept the

correction, but I am told that the last meeting between this

Minister and the city as such, the city council in Victoria, or

representatives of the city council, was sometime late last

summer.

With passage of this bill, what precisely can we expect from the Minister in

terms of consultation with not only other departments of government, but the

City of Victoria, to work out the frustrations and difficulties which have been

experienced for quite some time? I am also reminded of an advertisement which

the members of the 1974 city council felt compelled to purchase in the two daily

newspapers in Victoria in early June of last year. I don't think they used city

funds to advertise the position with regard to the Reid Centre, but rather they

all contributed.

So we've seen for at least a year, if not more months than

that, some difficulty on the outside in reaching this Minister

and sitting down across the table and discussing with him how

it all fits together, how it will all come together in the

Inner Harbour.

I would very much appreciate, and I think a number of us

here and outside would appreciate, hearing from the Minister

just where he will go from here with respect to these

lands.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, it would of course be

premature to proceed in view of the strong arguments that the

opposition has made. It would be most premature to proceed in

terms of this incorporated company and the City of Victoria.

Good heavens! It would fly in the face of everything you've

been saying for the last several weeks, and that would be quite

wrong. But of course there were meetings with the city council,

with the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet, and

subsequent to that there were staff meetings between provincial

staff people and civic staff people as well in terms of

follow-up work. So those avenues have been established.

As you indicated, the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) indicated some of his activities in that regard. Of

course, the Minister of Public Works and his staff are involved

on a regular on-going basis with the city staff. But we're very

receptive to more meetings and continuing meetings once this

company in underway. There should be intensive meetings with

both the city and various other interest groups from the

Chamber of Commerce — who have been most helpful and useful

with respect to the Marguerite operation itself — the

Marguerite Advisory Committee and the chairman of the

Marguerite Advisory Committee and the Community Planning

Association in the community, who all have, I think, something

to offer with respect to this real opportunity.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to return to a question I

asked earlier. The Marguerite is a public asset now, having

been acquired with the greenbelt fund. I gather it is

registered in the name of the Crown provincial, and is being

operated at present by a private company with five directors

who are two MLAs and three civil servants.

What I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, is what are the

agreements, if any, between the government and this private

company, and the declarations of trust, if any, between the

directors and the government, or whoever, which provid